[News] Al Gore Votes for GNU/Linux
Roy Schestowitz
Hash: SHA1
What would Al Gore use?
,----[ Quote ]
| But the movie was 3 years ago, what does
| Al Gore use now? According to
| netcraft.com, algore.com uses Linux.
| Surely if Microsoft Windows was really
| “the new efficiency”he would have
| switched. Sorry Mr. Ballmer, the Linux
| grass is greener.
`----
http://whatwillweuse.com/2009/12/13/what-would-al-gore-use/
Linux and windows stereotypes.
,----[ Quote ]
| In our lives we tend to apply stereotypes.
| Everyone has a stereotype for their work,
| ethnic persuasion or geographical
| location. Particularly in the computing
| industry there exists, often spiteful,
| stereotypes between windows and Linux
| advocates. They not only have stereotypes
| for the 'other side' so to speak but also
| for themselves.
|
| Stereotypes are a brand that everyone does
| not like to be compared to, however, like
| myths, there is often a germ of truth.
| Cops like doughnuts, postmen are scared of
| dogs, Europeans are wimps and Americans
| are crass. Well I like doughnuts but I am
| not a policeman. A lot of my friends are
| scared of dogs. Anyone who watches sports
| will know that Europeans are definitely
| not wimps and I know a lot of very nice
| and cultured Americans.
|
| [...]
|
| Linux stereotypes for themselves.
|
| * Linux is the best thing since sliced
| bread.
| * It is so easy to use that Grandma
| can use it.
| * It is Enterprise ready and can
| handle all business needs.
| * They believe that software should be
| free for everyone to use and modify.
| * Linux is more secure than windows
| and doesn't suffer from virus's and
| malware.
| * They contribute to Linux because
| they want to.
|
| Linux stereotypes for windows.
|
| * Windows users are dumb and
| uneducated.
| * They throw away money for a second
| rate operating system.
| * Windows crashes every second day and
| has to be reloaded all of the time.
| * Windows is not secure and full of
| viruses and malware.
| * Windows users are obnoxious and
| spread FUD all the time.
| * Microsoft only cares about making a
| profit.
`----
http://it.toolbox.com/blogs/locutus/linux-and-windows-stereotypes-35856
Related:
Al Gore's Convenient Presentation
,----[ Quote ]
| Not one of Gore's slides contains a title and bullet points, the
| standard template found in Microsoft's (MSFT) PowerPoint software.
| One reason, of course, is because Gore is using the powerful Apple
| presentation software, Keynote. But most of the world uses
| PowerPoint, so keep in mind that it, too, is a tool that can
| be used effectively. Unfortunately, most slides are boring
| instead of dynamic. Engaging slides have few or no bullets.
`----
http://yahoo.businessweek.com/smallbiz/content/dec2006/sb20061220_144107.htm
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAksmzvYACgkQU4xAY3RXLo7yowCfQuY7V4excIXLzaAeGiqKIBoF
CIQAni0gunNn+1ADeDNnE3+5e8Qv3VhK
=vOEi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Eyeball
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> What would Al Gore use?
Answer: Whatever makes him the most money.
It figures that you would support another dishonest opportunist liar like
Al Gore, Roy Schestowitz. Why? Because you are one yourself Schestowitz.
Brother Al has made millions off the fake global warming scare.
The recently leaked memos show what a farce that is.
Al is a much better con artist than you are though Spamowitz.
Tim Smith
Eyeball <culleys...@socket.org> wrote:
> It figures that you would support another dishonest opportunist liar like
> Al Gore, Roy Schestowitz. Why? Because you are one yourself Schestowitz.
> Brother Al has made millions off the fake global warming scare.
> The recently leaked memos show what a farce that is.
> Al is a much better con artist than you are though Spamowitz.
You are a complete idiot. The leaked memos show poor judgement on the
part of some scientists, but cast no doubt whatsoever on the underlying
science, which in peer reviewed journals remains nearly unanimous in
finding that global warming is occurring and that man's activities are a
significant factor.
--
--Tim Smith
chrisv
So there IS an issue on which I can agree with Timmy 100%.
One can almost imagine the ignorant, selfish right-wing assholes
shitting themselves with joy when this story leaked out.
amicus_curious
"Tim Smith" <reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> wrote in message
news:reply_in_group-78A...@news.supernews.com...
proponents to spin the science in order to get it accepted by the common
herd. They were taking some shortcuts to the end, i.e. they are taking it
upon themselves to FUD the people. There is a wide variety of opinion on
this subject, even among those who are convinced that warming is occurring.
What to do about it is a real question in that some say it is too late to do
anything and some say that just a little might be enough. There are those
who say it is a sham, too, but they are most likely wrong.
There is no doubt, though, that it is being used as a bugbear to make the
population accept various programs that are proposed to correct the problem.
These programs take from one group and give to another, in general, and so
they are favored by those receiving largess and opposed by those who have
the most to lose.
Decades ago we had the USSR to fear in regard to nuclear annihilation.
Curiously, the USSR citizens were told to fear the USA in regard to nuclear
annihilation. Then the walls came down and the USSR was turned back into
Russia and discovered the internet phishing scams. Along comes Al Qaida to
save the day in terms of providing a focus for spending a lot of money and
then comes the fat cat bankers as a thing to be feared. If you are not
afraid, then think of HIN1. If all else fails think of the deficit that
Obama is creating for our children.
Who do you think is going to be making the decisions here?
bbgruff
Not often that I agree 100% with what you write Tim, but just for the
record, this is one such time - including your observation on the likely
I.Q. of "Eyeball" :-)
Gregory Shearman
Imagine them all supporting the actions of the criminals who broke in
and stole this data.
There's big money behind the flat-earthers... sorry global warming
denialists. The energy lobby are going to lose their power over the
population and they aren't going to let it happen.
We really need a more decentralised model of energy generation in these
modern times. It's safer, more economical and better for the
environment.
Fossil fools will wish us to keep digging up the earth until we are left
in the cold and dark with no plan for the future.
--
Regards,
Gregory.
Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power
RonB
Of course the "consensus" is only amongst those who already believe.
And, if you once believed but no longer do, you're not part of the
"consensus." If you don't believe in the global warming nonsense, then
you're a "denier" and a "fringe dweller." I love the way satellites now
have a "temperature bias" as well as ocean thermometers now have a
"temperature bias." And, where we once had tens of thousands of official
temperature stations we now only have about a thousand carefully chosen
ones. Manipulation of data to "fit." No wonder more and more people are
becoming "deniers."
But since the "consensus" is that humans have caused "global warming" --
which is strange since we haven't warmed since 1998 -- can someone
provide some actual, you know, evidence for this man-caused global warming?
What do you want to bet the "evidence" is that there is a "scientific
consensus" that men have caused global warming. Argument by authority --
a logical fallacy. Also circular reasoning.
--
RonB
"There's a story there...somewhere"
RonB
> Imagine them all supporting the actions of the criminals who broke in
> and stole this data.
This was government data, it was not the property of the scientists, it
was supposed to be released. (Well not the emails, but the papers.) And
I seriously doubt it was a break-in -- it was more than likely an inside
job. Unless you want to believe the Russians did it.
Did you hear Gore claim the Arctic ice will have melted in four or five
years? Even the "consensus" scientists wish he would just shut the hell up.
Gregory Shearman
> Gregory Shearman wrote:
>
>> Imagine them all supporting the actions of the criminals who broke in
>> and stole this data.
>
> This was government data, it was not the property of the scientists, it
> was supposed to be released. (Well not the emails, but the papers.) And
> I seriously doubt it was a break-in -- it was more than likely an inside
> job. Unless you want to believe the Russians did it.
Private emails compromised? This isn't a breakin and it isn't theft?
What an odd concept.
> Did you hear Gore claim the Arctic ice will have melted in four or five
> years? Even the "consensus" scientists wish he would just shut the hell up.
Who is Al Gore but a politician jumping late on a bandwagon. We've been
trying to get the government to do something on this for TWENTY YEARS AT
LEAST. The energy lobby has killed it every time.
Gregory Shearman
> which is strange since we haven't warmed since 1998 -- can someone
> provide some actual, you know, evidence for this man-caused global warming?
>
> What do you want to bet the "evidence" is that there is a "scientific
> consensus" that men have caused global warming. Argument by authority --
> a logical fallacy. Also circular reasoning.
Oh dear! Another flat-earther uncovered.
Tim Smith
RonB <ronb02...@gmail.com> wrote:
> But since the "consensus" is that humans have caused "global warming" --
> which is strange since we haven't warmed since 1998 -- can someone
> provide some actual, you know, evidence for this man-caused global warming?
Nice cherry picking. There are swings up and down from year to year.
1998 had a very strong El Nino, making it unusually warm. If you make it
your baseline, then yes, it will be a while before we get above it.
Of course, we could pick 1997 as our baseline--and then we'd have every
year since then warmer than the baseline. That's just as valid (i.e.,
it's not valid) as your cherry picking 1998.
> What do you want to bet the "evidence" is that there is a "scientific
> consensus" that men have caused global warming. Argument by authority --
> a logical fallacy. Also circular reasoning.
The people who say it's not happening can't see to muster enough
evidence to get their papers published in peer reviewed scientific
journals.
Good article on the problems with the skeptic claims here:
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8376286.stm>
--
--Tim Smith
GreyCloud
Well, the supporters of AGW say the science is settled. So if it is
settled, why are they continuing to do research? A puzzler there.
But then way back in time the science was also settled that the earth
was flat. Then there was the myth that the sun revolves around the
earth or that the earth was the center of the universe. Looks to me
more like political science.
GreyCloud
> Gregory Shearman wrote:
>
>> Imagine them all supporting the actions of the criminals who broke in
>> and stole this data.
>
> This was government data, it was not the property of the scientists, it
> was supposed to be released. (Well not the emails, but the papers.) And
> I seriously doubt it was a break-in -- it was more than likely an inside
> job. Unless you want to believe the Russians did it.
Well, the info was found on a russian server after the break-in. And
then someone on the inside had a twinge of conscience... perhaps.
>
> Did you hear Gore claim the Arctic ice will have melted in four or five
> years? Even the "consensus" scientists wish he would just shut the hell up.
>
I've heard him being called 'Fat Albert' now.
The FOIA requests directed at NASA for the data never did yield anything
from them. So what are they really hiding? Maybe something far worse
than Global Warming. I sure don't know.
GreyCloud
The only thing that bothers me a bit is the claim that Polar bears can't
swim and will drown. At least that is what I've heard Al gore claim in
some of his presentations.
Another item is the EPA claiming that CO2 is a dangerous pollutant. I
understand that the average person emits about 5 pounds of CO2 per day.
Also, my understanding, is that CO2 is life essential... otherwise no
food to eat. What gives?
Chris Ahlstrom
As much as I like RonB, the anthropogenic affect on global temperatures is
indisputable, and he's silly when he asks for some actual evidence of it --
does he want us to dump a metric tonne of journals on his head?
I don't understand why people resist this idea. Even if it were false,
getting rid of pollutants, including excess carbon dioxide, is a good thing.
It's not like these guys are pushing astrology or some-such:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
--
Artistic ventures highlighted. Rob a museum.
Hadron
> Gregory Shearman pulled this Usenet boner:
>
>> On 2009-12-15, RonB <ronb02...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> But since the "consensus" is that humans have caused "global warming" --
>>> which is strange since we haven't warmed since 1998 -- can someone
>>> provide some actual, you know, evidence for this man-caused global warming?
>>>
>>> What do you want to bet the "evidence" is that there is a "scientific
>>> consensus" that men have caused global warming. Argument by authority --
>>> a logical fallacy. Also circular reasoning.
>>
>> Oh dear! Another flat-earther uncovered.
>
> As much as I like RonB, the anthropogenic affect on global temperatures is
> indisputable, and he's silly when he asks for some actual evidence of it --
> does he want us to dump a metric tonne of journals on his head?
Actually it is very, very disputable. There were much larger shifts in
temperatures, deforestation, and wind patterns long before the discovery
of the spray can and baked beans!
>
> I don't understand why people resist this idea. Even if it were false,
> getting rid of pollutants, including excess carbon dioxide, is a good
> thing.
Because IF its false it's a lie. And telling lies to achieve an aim is
something some people *cough* need to learn. No matter how sure you are
correct.
>
> It's not like these guys are pushing astrology or some-such:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
Certain COLA "advocates" told us wikipedia is flawed .... I like it
personally.
What do I think? I think we need to consume/use less man made disposable
garbage etc regardless. I for one only buy fresh produce (the exception in frozen
north atlantic fish) and reuse a rucksack for vegetable etc shopping
rather than carrier bags.
Even making the relatively small concessions I do make it still amazes
me how quickly a garbage bag can fill up.
I think people should pay for garbage disposal by KG even in the
home. That would soon stop a LOT of waste.
Chris Ahlstrom
> The only thing that bothers me a bit is the claim that Polar bears can't
> swim and will drown.
Polar bears can swim. It may be unknown how many days they can swim!
> At least that is what I've heard Al gore claim in
> some of his presentations.
> Another item is the EPA claiming that CO2 is a dangerous pollutant. I
> understand that the average person emits about 5 pounds of CO2 per day.
> Also, my understanding, is that CO2 is life essential... otherwise no
> food to eat. What gives?
Try this experiment: Sitting in an empty swimming pool, open up a canister
of CO2 and see how long you will last.
--
You will be Told about it Tomorrow. Go Home and Prepare Thyself.
RonB
> On 2009-12-15, RonB <ronb02...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Gregory Shearman wrote:
>>
>>> Imagine them all supporting the actions of the criminals who broke in
>>> and stole this data.
>> This was government data, it was not the property of the scientists, it
>> was supposed to be released. (Well not the emails, but the papers.) And
>> I seriously doubt it was a break-in -- it was more than likely an inside
>> job. Unless you want to believe the Russians did it.
>
> Private emails compromised? This isn't a breakin and it isn't theft?
> What an odd concept.
I guess you missed the "(Well not the emails, but the papers.)" part of
my message, eh?
>> Did you hear Gore claim the Arctic ice will have melted in four or five
>> years? Even the "consensus" scientists wish he would just shut the hell up.
>
> Who is Al Gore but a politician jumping late on a bandwagon. We've been
> trying to get the government to do something on this for TWENTY YEARS AT
> LEAST. The energy lobby has killed it every time.
Well, yeah, Al Gore and company have just figured out how to make money
on "global warming" or "climate change" or whatever they're calling it
today -- now they're all "true believers."
RonB
Gee how predictable. Facts are inconvenient, so let's just paint those
who oppose us as "fringe dwellers."
RonB
Yeah, it basically is. The sun is what the causes the earth to heat or
cool. No sun spot activity -- cooler earth. Lots of sunspot activity --
warmer earth. We have had almost no sunspot activity for a decade now --
record cold weather everywhere -- ski resorts opening earlier than ever,
crops being plowed under because the growing season was too short,
glaciers growing all over world, the antarctic ice shelf growing, all of
this despite the lying bullshit from the global alarmists. This is why
they've taken to calling it "climate change" instead of "global
warming." This is also why so many temperature stations are no longer
reporting and why the weather satellites and the ocean thermometers have
developed "temperature bias."
But let's assume (hypothetically for the sake of argument) that the
earth is warming and has been for the last decade (despite the facts).
Where is the *evidence* that this warming is caused by man, or farting
cows or burping worms or whatever? Tell me how all the CO2 we pump into
the air (which amounts to about .44% all the CO2 from natural causes)
somehow overrides all the other 99.5%. It doesn't, that's why this
"global warming" BS is more akin to astrology than to science.
Now, just because I know the "global warming" science is pure bullshit
-- and you see in the "liberated" emails that "global warming"
scientists are wishing the weather *would* get warmer so they could "rub
the skeptic's noses in it" -- doesn't mean I don't want to turn my back
on non-oil alternatives to power. I would love that. But the way Gore
and the rest of the SOB's who are pushing this crap have it figured out,
the same corporations are going to get richer by extracting even more
money from the already strapped citizens of the world for "carbon taxing."
Wake up and smell the bullshit.
Snit
PM:
Do you think man made it to the moon? Just curious.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
RonB
If the science really was "settled" then the "global warming" scientists
wouldn't have to screech every time someone mentions "problems" with
their "consensus." Does any scientist take "flat earthers" seriously? Do
they think they have to ridicule them, or try to assassinate their
characters? Nope. The fact that "global alarmists" are as screechy as
they are about the "deniers" is proof positive that they are desperately
pushing superstition, not science. They expect belief on "faith," not on
facts -- hence their argument about a "consensus" that doesn't really
exist and means nothing if it really did exist. At one time scientific
consensus told us that the sun rotated around the earth. The consensus
meant nothing, it was wrong.
RonB
> RonB wrote:
>> Did you hear Gore claim the Arctic ice will have melted in four or
>> five years? Even the "consensus" scientists wish he would just shut
>> the hell up.
>
> I've heard him being called 'Fat Albert' now.
>
> The FOIA requests directed at NASA for the data never did yield anything
> from them. So what are they really hiding? Maybe something far worse
> than Global Warming. I sure don't know.
I imagine it's just more of this covering up the fact that global
temperatures are getting colder. What these emails really show is how
small-minded scientists can be -- and how subjective their beliefs
really are.
Snit
PM:
> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>> Gregory Shearman pulled this Usenet boner:
>>
>>> On 2009-12-15, RonB <ronb02...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> But since the "consensus" is that humans have caused "global warming" --
>>>> which is strange since we haven't warmed since 1998 -- can someone
>>>> provide some actual, you know, evidence for this man-caused global warming?
>>>>
>>>> What do you want to bet the "evidence" is that there is a "scientific
>>>> consensus" that men have caused global warming. Argument by authority --
>>>> a logical fallacy. Also circular reasoning.
>>> Oh dear! Another flat-earther uncovered.
>>
>> As much as I like RonB, the anthropogenic affect on global temperatures is
>> indisputable, and he's silly when he asks for some actual evidence of it --
>> does he want us to dump a metric tonne of journals on his head?
>>
>> I don't understand why people resist this idea. Even if it were false,
>> getting rid of pollutants, including excess carbon dioxide, is a good thing.
>>
>> It's not like these guys are pushing astrology or some-such:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
>
> Yeah, it basically is. The sun is what the causes the earth to heat or
> cool. No sun spot activity -- cooler earth. Lots of sunspot activity --
> warmer earth.
Can you point to *any* reputable model which shows sun activity accounting
for the temperature changes observed?
> We have had almost no sunspot activity for a decade now -- record cold weather
> everywhere -- ski resorts opening earlier than ever, crops being plowed under
> because the growing season was too short, glaciers growing all over world, the
> antarctic ice shelf growing, all of this despite the lying bullshit from the
> global alarmists.
Well, except the last decade was the hottest on record.
<http://climateprogress.org/2008/12/07/very-warm-2008-makes-this-hottest-dec
ade-in-recorded-history-by-far/>
> This is why they've taken to calling it "climate change" instead of "global
> warming." This is also why so many temperature stations are no longer
> reporting and why the weather satellites and the ocean thermometers have
> developed "temperature bias.
Curious if you even know what the term means. Do you?
> But let's assume (hypothetically for the sake of argument) that the
> earth is warming and has been for the last decade (despite the facts).
Do you have any evidence contrary to what I show, above... and many, many
more examples?
> Where is the *evidence* that this warming is caused by man, or farting
> cows or burping worms or whatever? Tell me how all the CO2 we pump into
> the air (which amounts to about .44% all the CO2 from natural causes)
> somehow overrides all the other 99.5%. It doesn't, that's why this
> "global warming" BS is more akin to astrology than to science.
Who says it overrides it? Really, I would love to know!
> Now, just because I know the "global warming" science is pure bullshit
You "know" this. How? Please do share!
> -- and you see in the "liberated" emails that "global warming" scientists are
> wishing the weather *would* get warmer so they could "rub the skeptic's noses
> in it" -- doesn't mean I don't want to turn my back on non-oil alternatives to
> power. I would love that. But the way Gore and the rest of the SOB's who are
> pushing this crap have it figured out, the same corporations are going to get
> richer by extracting even more money from the already strapped citizens of the
> world for "carbon taxing."
>
> Wake up and smell the bullshit.
You just posted plenty of it.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
PM:
> GreyCloud wrote:
>> Tim Smith wrote:
>>> In article <ijtu4wv40ek9.16...@40tude.net>,
>>> Eyeball <culleys...@socket.org> wrote:
>>>> It figures that you would support another dishonest opportunist liar
>>>> like
>>>> Al Gore, Roy Schestowitz. Why? Because you are one yourself Schestowitz.
>>>> Brother Al has made millions off the fake global warming scare.
>>>> The recently leaked memos show what a farce that is.
>>>> Al is a much better con artist than you are though Spamowitz.
>>>
>>> You are a complete idiot. The leaked memos show poor judgement on the
>>> part of some scientists, but cast no doubt whatsoever on the
>>> underlying science, which in peer reviewed journals remains nearly
>>> unanimous in finding that global warming is occurring and that man's
>>> activities are a significant factor.
>>>
>>
>> Well, the supporters of AGW say the science is settled. So if it is
>> settled, why are they continuing to do research? A puzzler there.
>> But then way back in time the science was also settled that the earth
>> was flat. Then there was the myth that the sun revolves around the
>> earth or that the earth was the center of the universe. Looks to me
>> more like political science.
>
> If the science really was "settled" then the "global warming" scientists
> wouldn't have to screech every time someone mentions "problems" with
> their "consensus."
Armstrong did not take kindly to being told he never went to the moon. Do
you think that shows there is not a consensus that he did?
> Does any scientist take "flat earthers" seriously? Do they think they have to
> ridicule them, or try to assassinate their characters? Nope. The fact that
> "global alarmists" are as screechy as they are about the "deniers" is proof
> positive that they are desperately pushing superstition, not science. They
> expect belief on "faith," not on facts -- hence their argument about a
> "consensus" that doesn't really exist and means nothing if it really did
> exist. At one time scientific consensus told us that the sun rotated around
> the earth. The consensus meant nothing, it was wrong.
There is a consensus... and the consensus is based on massive amounts of
data. If you want to argue the consensus is wrong I would love to see your
data... though your claim that the warmest decade in history actually is an
example of cooling is not a good sign of your data!
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
RonB
> GreyCloud pulled this Usenet boner:
>
>> The only thing that bothers me a bit is the claim that Polar bears can't
>> swim and will drown.
>
> Polar bears can swim. It may be unknown how many days they can swim!
All the dire predictions about polar bears don't hide the facts...
"In the 1950s the polar bear population up north was estimated at 5,000.
Today it's 20- to 25,000, a number that has either held steady over the
last 20 years or has risen slightly. In Canada, the manager of wildlife
resources for the Nunavut territory of Canada has found that the
population there has increased by 25 percent."
http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/ask-the-experts/population/
But, gee, in the summer ice melts and polar bears move from one ice flow
to another. "Dwindling polar bear populations" is more "global warming"
bullshit.
>> At least that is what I've heard Al gore claim in
>> some of his presentations.
>> Another item is the EPA claiming that CO2 is a dangerous pollutant. I
>> understand that the average person emits about 5 pounds of CO2 per day.
>> Also, my understanding, is that CO2 is life essential... otherwise no
>> food to eat. What gives?
>
> Try this experiment: Sitting in an empty swimming pool, open up a canister
> of CO2 and see how long you will last.
You're talking about carbon dioxide here, right? The stuff every
sentient creature exhales, worldwide -- and even rotting plant life
gives up? Without CO2 life ceases to exist on earth.
But that .44% that comes from man, that's what's causing all the
imaginary problem.
Hadron
Hadron
And where their next grants are coming from btw.
The BBC nature pages are full of the bearded wonders working
hard. Headlines such as `A team of 16 scientists living on a yacht in
the Bahamas, following a 3 year study paid for by the taxpayer, believe
that Dolphin mothers communicate with their young. Further research is
required to see if the "squeaks" mean anything ....´
Err right.
Hadron
> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>> GreyCloud pulled this Usenet boner:
>>
>>> The only thing that bothers me a bit is the claim that Polar bears can't
>>> swim and will drown.
>>
>> Polar bears can swim. It may be unknown how many days they can swim!
>
> All the dire predictions about polar bears don't hide the facts...
>
> "In the 1950s the polar bear population up north was estimated at 5,000.
> Today it's 20- to 25,000, a number that has either held steady over the
> last 20 years or has risen slightly. In Canada, the manager of wildlife
> resources for the Nunavut territory of Canada has found that the
> population there has increased by 25 percent."
>
> http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/ask-the-experts/population/
>
> But, gee, in the summer ice melts and polar bears move from one ice flow
> to another. "Dwindling polar bear populations" is more "global warming"
> bullshit.
You are of course correct. And Ahlstrom, of course, will not read the
link. Peter Koehlmann, in his attempt to warm the earth yet more with
hot air, will then shreek that you never posted any links to back up
your point of view.
>
>>> At least that is what I've heard Al gore claim in
>>> some of his presentations.
>>> Another item is the EPA claiming that CO2 is a dangerous pollutant. I
>>> understand that the average person emits about 5 pounds of CO2 per day.
>>> Also, my understanding, is that CO2 is life essential... otherwise no
>>> food to eat. What gives?
>>
>> Try this experiment: Sitting in an empty swimming pool, open up a canister
>> of CO2 and see how long you will last.
>
> You're talking about carbon dioxide here, right? The stuff every
> sentient creature exhales, worldwide -- and even rotting plant life
> gives up? Without CO2 life ceases to exist on earth.
The same CO2 that feeds trees at night? ...
>
> But that .44% that comes from man, that's what's causing all the
> imaginary problem.
Well, it could be the feather that triggers the balance shift....
I blame Windows.
Chris Ahlstrom
> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>> GreyCloud pulled this Usenet boner:
>>
>>> The only thing that bothers me a bit is the claim that Polar bears can't
>>> swim and will drown.
>>
>> Polar bears can swim. It may be unknown how many days they can swim!
>
> All the dire predictions about polar bears don't hide the facts...
>
> "In the 1950s the polar bear population up north was estimated at 5,000.
> Today it's 20- to 25,000, a number that has either held steady over the
> last 20 years or has risen slightly. In Canada, the manager of wildlife
> resources for the Nunavut territory of Canada has found that the
> population there has increased by 25 percent."
>
> http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/ask-the-experts/population/
>
> But, gee, in the summer ice melts and polar bears move from one ice flow
> to another. "Dwindling polar bear populations" is more "global warming"
> bullshit.
Ron, from the same article, just a paragraph or two later:
If this is true, then why are scientists worried about population
declines?
First, it's important to note that scientists lack historical data on
polar bear numbers\u2014they only have rough estimates. What we do know,
though, is that in the 1960s, polar bear populations dropped
precipitously due to over-hunting. When restrictions on polar bear
harvests were put in place in the early 1970s, populations rebounded.
That situation was a conservation success story ... but the current
threat to polar bears is entirely different, and more dire.
Then it goes on to talk about loss of sea-ice habitat and population drops.
>> Try this experiment: Sitting in an empty swimming pool, open up a canister
>> of CO2 and see how long you will last.
>
> You're talking about carbon dioxide here, right? The stuff every
> sentient creature exhales, worldwide -- and even rotting plant life
> gives up? Without CO2 life ceases to exist on earth.
>
> But that .44% that comes from man, that's what's causing all the
> imaginary problem.
I don't know if that number is on target or not, but a small amount of CO2
rise is very significant.
http://www.radix.net/~bobg/faqs/scq.CO2rise.html
(I feel like I did when talking to Kelsey about vi.)
--
Think twice before speaking, but don't say "think think click click".
Chris Ahlstrom
> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
Whew. Somebody jammed some serious CO2 up your ass! :-D
http://www.oar.noaa.gov/spotlite/spot_gcc.html
--
Q: What is the difference between a duck?
A: One leg is both the same.
RonB
I saw that. The thing is, the actual facts show that the polar bear
population is four or five times higher than it was in the 60s (when
hunting was regulated and the population shot up) but *MORE*
importantly, it shows that the population has remained stable for the
last twenty years, despite the supposed "global warming." The "dire
predictions" sound a lot like the "dire predictions" global alarmists
were making over ten years ago about what would happen "if something
isn't done immediately." I'm old enough to remember when the big scare
was the new ice age -- and how we had to do something about that
*immediately!* without thinking.
>>> Try this experiment: Sitting in an empty swimming pool, open up a canister
>>> of CO2 and see how long you will last.
>> You're talking about carbon dioxide here, right? The stuff every
>> sentient creature exhales, worldwide -- and even rotting plant life
>> gives up? Without CO2 life ceases to exist on earth.
>>
>> But that .44% that comes from man, that's what's causing all the
>> imaginary problem.
>
> I don't know if that number is on target or not, but a small amount of CO2
> rise is very significant.
>
> http://www.radix.net/~bobg/faqs/scq.CO2rise.html
>
> (I feel like I did when talking to Kelsey about vi.)
Or so they say. What they can't produce is the heat pocket that is
supposed to be in the atmosphere -- just more BS. Sorry, but the
temperatures on the ground don't support the "global warming"
"consensus." All the bogus (controlled) computer "models" support it,
but not the actual data.
Just the facts.
RonB
> Whew. Somebody jammed some serious CO2 up your ass! :-D
>
> http://www.oar.noaa.gov/spotlite/spot_gcc.html
Here's how the linked report starts...
"Last April, a NOAA/NSF/USGS-sponsored workshop at the USGS Center for
Coastal Studies in St. Petersburg, Florida revealed potential future
problems for marine ecosystems from ocean acidification..."
Note the words "potential" and "future." Everything for "global warming"
alarmists is merely "potential" and could happen in the "future" *if* we
don't do whatever it is they think we should do. Of course, they were
saying the same kind of things fifteen years ago -- and yet the world is
actually getting cooler without their "necessary" intervention. (Just as
the world got warmer in the 70's without the "necessary" interventions
to stop the new "man-caused" ice age.)
It's pure bullshit -- just the newest round of it.
GreyCloud
From what I can gather, there are only 60 scientists running the show.
Don't know where the rest of them are or what they really think.
I do know that the peer review process has been totally corrupted.
GreyCloud
Seems like those that are in research spend the vast majority of their
time writing up grant papers. If they don't submit they don't eat.
Chris Ahlstrom
> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> Just the facts.
Let's just agree that we're not going to go anywhere with this topic.
--
In the Spring, I have counted 136 different kinds of weather inside of
24 hours.
-- Mark Twain, on New England weather
GreyCloud
Hard to say: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6947532.stm
An online tool that claims to reveal the identity of organisations that
edit Wikipedia pages has revealed that the CIA was involved in editing
entries.
I think that there are many other factors that can attribute to GW.
I don't know if we can really blame just CO2 for this.
To me it looks like a political agenda... at least it smells like one.
Chris Ahlstrom
> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
Tell that to the Antarctica folks who work near me.
--
You will be run over by a bus.
Chris Ahlstrom
> RonB wrote:
>> GreyCloud wrote:
>>> RonB wrote:
>>>> Did you hear Gore claim the Arctic ice will have melted in four or
>>>> five years? Even the "consensus" scientists wish he would just shut
>>>> the hell up.
>>>
>>> I've heard him being called 'Fat Albert' now.
>>>
>>> The FOIA requests directed at NASA for the data never did yield
>>> anything from them. So what are they really hiding? Maybe something
>>> far worse than Global Warming. I sure don't know.
>>
>> I imagine it's just more of this covering up the fact that global
>> temperatures are getting colder. What these emails really show is how
>> small-minded scientists can be -- and how subjective their beliefs
>> really are.
>
> From what I can gather, there are only 60 scientists running the show.
How do you gather that?
> Don't know where the rest of them are or what they really think.
> I do know that the peer review process has been totally corrupted.
How so?
--
Q: How do you stop an elephant from charging?
A: Take away his credit cards.
Chris Ahlstrom
> Hadron wrote:
>
>> The BBC nature pages are full of the bearded wonders working
>> hard.
<rest of jealous mischaracterization of men with academic credentials
that "Hadron" apparently lacks snipped>
> Seems like those that are in research spend the vast majority of their
> time writing up grant papers. If they don't submit they don't eat.
Actually, though grant applications take significant time and energy,
and can be a harrowing experience in times of budget cuts and rampant
superstition, all of the scientists I know spend much more time reading the
extant literature, planning experiments, executing them, analyzing the data,
presenting the data to their peers for counter-arguments and challenges,
mentoring students, and reviewing the papers and presentations of others.
--
"... all the modern inconveniences ..."
-- Mark Twain
Chris Ahlstrom
> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>
>> I don't understand why people resist this idea. Even if it were false,
>> getting rid of pollutants, including excess carbon dioxide, is a good thing.
>>
>> It's not like these guys are pushing astrology or some-such:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
>
> Hard to say: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6947532.stm
>
> An online tool that claims to reveal the identity of organisations that
> edit Wikipedia pages has revealed that the CIA was involved in editing
> entries.
Naw. They're too busy editing Intellipedia pages. :-)
> I think that there are many other factors that can attribute to GW.
> I don't know if we can really blame just CO2 for this.
Of course there are plenty of other factors, including other chemicals we
spew into the air.
> To me it looks like a political agenda... at least it smells like one.
Well, it looks to me like the agendas are strong on both sides.
However, science has numbers (a lot of observation) on its side.
It is difficult to communicate hard science to the masses. Just imagine
trying to explain to the average user why Linux/Solaris/OSX are better than
Windows.
--
Your reasoning powers are good, and you are a fairly good planner.
GreyCloud
file:
Cloudcorrspc.pro:
; program to construct cloud correlation coefficients (with sunshine %)
; method approximately follows New et al 2000
; this program is required because Mark New has lost both
; the correlation data file, and construction files
; written by Tim Mitchell 10.01.03
pro CloudCorrSPC
MissVal=-999.0 & Ratio=1.0
NYear=20
MonthNum = strarr(12)
MonthNum = ['01','02','03','04','05','06','07','08','09','10','11','12']
CLD = fltarr (NYear,12,72,36) & SPC = fltarr (NYear,12,72,36)
Aye = fltarr (12,72,36) & Bee = fltarr (12,72,36)
Aye(*,*,*) = MissVal & Bee(*,*,*) = MissVal
It seems the programming comments speak volumes.
file: rs_gts_anom.pro
...
; read in frs normal
rdbin,frsnor,'/cru/tyn1/f014/_keep/glo25.frs.6190',gridsize=2.5,/quiet
nland=where(frsnor gt -9999)
nsea=where(frsnor eq -9999)
frsnor(nland)=frsnor(nland)/10.0
frssyn=float(frsnor)*0.0
frsgrd=float(frsnor)*0.0
tmn =float(frsnor)*0.0
; calculate 1961-1990 synthetic normal from adjusted tmn
print,'Calculating synthetic frs normal'
for iy=nor1,nor2 do begin
tmpfl=strip(string(tmp_prefix,iy))
dtrfl=strip(string(dtr_prefix,iy))
rdbin,tmpgrd,tmpfl,gridsize=2.5,/quiet
rdbin,dtrgrd,dtrfl,gridsize=2.5,/quiet
...
I take note of the 1961-1990 synthetic nornmal from adjusted tmn. ???
Anyway, it does look suspicious. The .pro files are associated with the
programming language known as Euphoria. A language that far as I can
tell has no standards other than the math libs being ieee based.
Doesn't sound very scientific to use a programming language that doesn't
meet any ANSI or ISO standards. A few of the programs tho are f77 and f90.
GreyCloud
> GreyCloud pulled this Usenet boner:
>
>> swim and will drown.
>
> Polar bears can swim. It may be unknown how many days they can swim!
>
>> some of his presentations.
>> Another item is the EPA claiming that CO2 is a dangerous pollutant. I
>> understand that the average person emits about 5 pounds of CO2 per day.
>> Also, my understanding, is that CO2 is life essential... otherwise no
>> food to eat. What gives?
>
> of CO2 and see how long you will last.
>
Remove all CO2 off the planet and see if we have any food to eat.
It can't be done. What I see is a very well crafted scare tactic to tax
the world. The Carbon credit scam doesn't do anything for the GW. And
Key Lay helped Al Gore cobble this mess together.
GreyCloud
Hmmm... ya know... I think this whole GW controversy is designed to
split people up down the middle. It as if someone is trying to get
people to look over 'there' instead of looking at a more real problem.
In this case, the global economy in danger of going down the drain. A
lot of people are going to die, IMO, if the system collapses. I'm
thinking of all of those nursing homes filled with the very old that get
federal assistance to pay for their stay. If the system collapses they
will mostly get kicked out, let alone get any care. Then there are
those hoping to retire and see all of it go for nought.
Another major problem is food production, which I understand is starting
to drop. And I'd hate to see food prices skyrocketing.
And these are scary thoughts for those that are still employed. For a
few million people, they have lost their homes to foreclosures, lost
their jobs, lost their medical coverage and living pretty miserable.
And nobody is doing anything about it.
GreyCloud
I think it was Galileo that caught a lot of hell for his observations.
In my opinion, I'm still looking at both sides of the argument. And I'm
finding that some of their facts just don't add up. The drudge report
about the copenhagen summit talks more about suppression of what they
are doing behind locked doors than talking about GW. A leaked UN
document caused 135 out of the 192 countries to walk out on the GW
summit. It seems it was more about a one world government and how to
supplant the US dollar next year, along with a lot of squabbling.
Personally, I can't see CO2 as being the sole criminal here, seeing that
it is part of the natural carbon cycle on this planet. I don't think
we should be trying to tinker with what mother nature has provided. Man
isn't smart enough yet to be playing in that sand box.
Besides, this year is an el nino year and it means more snow and colder
weather in my neck of the woods. Got down to -14 F a few days ago.
GreyCloud
The data is still being with held tho. A FOIA to NASA has still not
been honored for that data. Besides, when it is -14 F one can hardly
call that warming. I wish it were warmer, but it isn't. Actually, if
the whole world warmed up another 12 degrees, we'd have more food
elsewhere. They didn't call GreenLand that name for nothing.
Gregory Shearman
Yeah... temperatures are getting colder... You flat-earthers are a riot:
"For the second year in a row, the fabled Northwest Passage has opened in
the Arctic—thanks to a sea-ice melt that has already shrunk the polar
cap to the second smallest extent ever recorded. And with a few more
weeks to go in the summer thaw season, 2008 could surpass 2007 as the
smallest amount of sea ice on record, according to the National Snow and
Ice Data Center (NSIDC)."
--
Regards,
Gregory.
Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power
Snit
12/15/09 8:30 PM:
Are you saying you think man should be happy to increase the temperature of
the planet?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Terry Porter
I'm with RonB on this one. There is even some conjecture that the Solar
Sunspot cycle may cease for a while as it has done before, when the Suns
magnetic field is so low.
Last time this happened there was a 'cold snap' in Europe, killing
thousands.
I believe that a 'carbon tax', such as the one Australia is trying to put
thru, is just another way to raise taxes.
Lets not just throw money at global warming, rather let the matter be
studied properly, and the correct remedies applied, *if* Man is the
cause, and *if* Man can fix it.
I think we overestimate ourselves, we are just Men ...
--
This machine running Gnu/Linux Ubuntu 9.10 and posting via Pan.
Get your Free copy NOW! http://www.ubuntu.com/
Tim Smith
RonB <ronb02...@gmail.com> wrote:
> cows or burping worms or whatever? Tell me how all the CO2 we pump into
> the air (which amounts to about .44% all the CO2 from natural causes)
> somehow overrides all the other 99.5%. It doesn't, that's why this
If I were to increase my daily caloric intake by 0.44%, without
increasing my calorie expenditure, I take it you would theorize that I
would gain no weight?
--
--Tim Smith
Tim Smith
Chris Ahlstrom <ahls...@launchmodem.com> wrote:
> GreyCloud pulled this Usenet boner:
>
> > The only thing that bothers me a bit is the claim that Polar bears can't
> > swim and will drown.
>
> Polar bears can swim. It may be unknown how many days they can swim!
More importantly, they don't hunt well in water. Their primary source of
food is seals, which they mainly catch when the seals come to ice holes
to breath. The bear finds an ice hole, and waits for a seal. When the
seal comes to breath, the bear smells its breath and grabs the seal.
Note that this strategy depends on finding a place to wait where a seal
is likely to appear. If there is a lot more open water and a lot less
ice, the seals are going to be less likely to need to find ice holes to
breath. Bad news for the bears.
The bears can also hunt seals on the ice surface. That involves creeping
up to near the seal, and then running it down. That's also going to be
hard to do if their habitat is reduced to small ice islands, as the seal
will spot them as they swim to the ice island.
--
--Tim Smith
Tim Smith
RonB <ronb02...@gmail.com> wrote:
> All the dire predictions about polar bears don't hide the facts...
>
> "In the 1950s the polar bear population up north was estimated at 5,000.
> Today it's 20- to 25,000, a number that has either held steady over the
> last 20 years or has risen slightly. In Canada, the manager of wildlife
> resources for the Nunavut territory of Canada has found that the
> population there has increased by 25 percent."
>
> http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/ask-the-experts/population/
You are being quite dishonest here. First, you cite Polar Bears
International for that quote, but it is not from them. It's from Fox
News. Second, you ignore the rest of the page, which is pointing out the
problems with that quote, such as the increase being due to restrictions
on over hunting, the Western Hudson Bay population crash, the signs of
other populations showing the same stress the WHB population showed
before crashing.
--
--Tim Smith
RonB
Are you talking about the "fabled" Northwest Passage that was navigated
in 1903-1906 by Roald Amundsen? Must have been serious global warming in
1903 then also, eh? Note, *before* Roald Amundsen navigated it, it was
already called the Northwest Passage -- which would tend to make you
believe that it had already been navigated earlier.
Information on ice packs for both poles for the last 32 years can be
found at: http://tinyurl.com/yam2vgx
Records didn't start until 1978 (when we were coming out of a "new ice
age"). Currently (November) the Arctic ice extent is 10.3 million square
km. Last year it was 10.6 million square km in November. In 2007 it was
10.1. In 2006 it was at 9.8. Hardly a continual trend.
Antarctica is currently (November) at 16.3 million square km. Guess what
it was in 1978 (our first year of records)? Yeah, 16.4 million square
kilometers. In 1979 it had dropped to 15.9 million square km. The lowest
it's been in the 32 years of records is 15.5 (in 1986). The highest is
16.8 when the Arctic was at one of it's lowest points, 15.8.
"Global warming" is bullshit.
RonB
.44% of the CO2 emissions can easily be swamped by natural variations.
Less than a half a percent is not going to knock the whole system out of
whack. And it hasn't.
RonB
Somehow the polar bears survived when Greenland was green and it was
much warmer than it is now. So far their numbers have stayed steady (or
increased slightly) for 20 years. This includes 2006, when the ice
extent was a half a million square kilometers less than it is this year.
Do you have any evidence that polar bear populations are actually
stressed at this time? (I mean hard evidence, not speculation.)
RonB
Inuit hunters say the number of polar encounters are rising -- and in
some areas, the polar bear has risen to the point where polar bears are
eating polar bears.
As everyone says, it's hard to measure their numbers accurately -- but
the weather has been warmer, the sea ice has been less, yet the overall
population is remaining stable.
http://newsbusters.org/node/12694
RonB
> As everyone says, it's hard to measure their numbers accurately -- but
> the weather has been warmer, the sea ice has been less, yet the overall
> population is remaining stable.
Meant to say that the sea ice extent has been less in the past and it
has been warmer in the Arctic, yet the population is in no danger.
Just more overblown alarmist BS that is turning more people into
skeptics about "global warming."
Snit
> Tim Smith wrote:
>> In article <hg95r5$2og$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>> Chris Ahlstrom <ahls...@launchmodem.com> wrote:
>>
>>> GreyCloud pulled this Usenet boner:
>>>
>>>> The only thing that bothers me a bit is the claim that Polar bears can't
>>>> swim and will drown.
>>> Polar bears can swim. It may be unknown how many days they can swim!
>>
>> More importantly, they don't hunt well in water. Their primary source of
>> food is seals, which they mainly catch when the seals come to ice holes
>> to breath. The bear finds an ice hole, and waits for a seal. When the
>> seal comes to breath, the bear smells its breath and grabs the seal.
>>
>> Note that this strategy depends on finding a place to wait where a seal
>> is likely to appear. If there is a lot more open water and a lot less
>> ice, the seals are going to be less likely to need to find ice holes to
>> breath. Bad news for the bears.
>>
>> The bears can also hunt seals on the ice surface. That involves creeping
>> up to near the seal, and then running it down. That's also going to be
>> hard to do if their habitat is reduced to small ice islands, as the seal
>> will spot them as they swim to the ice island.
>
> Somehow the polar bears survived when Greenland was green and it was
> much warmer than it is now. So far their numbers have stayed steady (or
> increased slightly) for 20 years.
Please show evidence of this.
> This includes 2006, when the ice
> extent was a half a million square kilometers less than it is this year.
> Do you have any evidence that polar bear populations are actually
> stressed at this time? (I mean hard evidence, not speculation.)
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Chris Ahlstrom
> Personally, I can't see CO2 as being the sole criminal here, seeing that
> it is part of the natural carbon cycle on this planet. I don't think
> we should be trying to tinker with what mother nature has provided.
Errr, that's the idea climate scientists are pushing.
> Man isn't smart enough yet to be playing in that sand box.
> Besides, this year is an el nino year and it means more snow and colder
> weather in my neck of the woods. Got down to -14 F a few days ago.
--
Gregory Shearman
> Gregory Shearman pulled this Usenet boner:
>
>> On 2009-12-15, RonB <ronb02...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> But since the "consensus" is that humans have caused "global warming" --
>>> which is strange since we haven't warmed since 1998 -- can someone
>>> provide some actual, you know, evidence for this man-caused global warming?
>>>
>>> What do you want to bet the "evidence" is that there is a "scientific
>>> consensus" that men have caused global warming. Argument by authority --
>>> a logical fallacy. Also circular reasoning.
>>
>> Oh dear! Another flat-earther uncovered.
>
> As much as I like RonB, the anthropogenic affect on global temperatures is
> indisputable, and he's silly when he asks for some actual evidence of it --
> does he want us to dump a metric tonne of journals on his head?
>
> I don't understand why people resist this idea. Even if it were false,
> getting rid of pollutants, including excess carbon dioxide, is a good thing.
If we're wrong (and we're not) and we follow the renewable energy path
then the world will be moving towards a sustainable energy model. If
we're right and yet we keep the status quo, we're fucked. Even if
they're right and we keep the status quo, there's only so much fossil
fuel to burn and then we'll be freezing in the fucking dark. If we're
right and we follow the renewable energy path we may *just* avoid being
thrown back into the stone age or worse.
Chris Ahlstrom
> Gregory Shearman wrote:
>
>> Yeah... temperatures are getting colder... You flat-earthers are a riot:
>>
>> http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/60-second-science/post.cfm?id=fabled-northwest-passage-open-for-b-2008-08-27
>>
>> "For the second year in a row, the fabled Northwest Passage has opened in
>> the Arctic???thanks to a sea-ice melt that has already shrunk the polar
>> cap to the second smallest extent ever recorded.
>
> Are you talking about the "fabled" Northwest Passage that was navigated
> in 1903-1906 by Roald Amundsen? Must have been serious global warming in
> 1903 then also, eh? Note, *before* Roald Amundsen navigated it, it was
> already called the Northwest Passage -- which would tend to make you
> believe that it had already been navigated earlier.
Are you saying Greg's quoted article is incorrect?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Passage
Sought by explorers for centuries as a possible trade route, it was first
navigated by Roald Amundsen in 1903-1906. Until 2009, the Arctic pack
ice prevented regular marine shipping throughout most of the year, but
climate change has reduced the pack ice, and this Arctic shrinkage made
the waterways more navigable.
> Information on ice packs for both poles for the last 32 years can be
> found at: http://tinyurl.com/yam2vgx
>
> Records didn't start until 1978 (when we were coming out of a "new ice
> age"). Currently (November) the Arctic ice extent is 10.3 million square
> km. Last year it was 10.6 million square km in November. In 2007 it was
> 10.1. In 2006 it was at 9.8. Hardly a continual trend.
>
> Antarctica is currently (November) at 16.3 million square km. Guess what
> it was in 1978 (our first year of records)? Yeah, 16.4 million square
> kilometers. In 1979 it had dropped to 15.9 million square km. The lowest
> it's been in the 32 years of records is 15.5 (in 1986). The highest is
> 16.8 when the Arctic was at one of it's lowest points, 15.8.
>
> "Global warming" is bullshit.
No. What is bullshit is cherry-picking pieces of evidence (based on "local"
data) and ignoring the rest of the evidence.
For example, at the site you look at, check out the trends:
http://nsidc.org/cgi-bin/bist/bist.pl?config=seaice_extent_trends&submit=Go!
Clearly downward over a 30-year span, despite yearly variations.
But hey, this is a newsgroup. No one has the patience to wade through a
morass of data the size of a melted tundra.
Nor the skill to encapsulate it in a pithy post that proves all.
--
You are a fluke of the universe; you have no right to be here.
Gregory Shearman
>
>> Whew. Somebody jammed some serious CO2 up your ass! :-D
>>
>> http://www.oar.noaa.gov/spotlite/spot_gcc.html
>
> Here's how the linked report starts...
>
> "Last April, a NOAA/NSF/USGS-sponsored workshop at the USGS Center for
> Coastal Studies in St. Petersburg, Florida revealed potential future
> problems for marine ecosystems from ocean acidification..."
>
> Note the words "potential" and "future." Everything for "global warming"
> alarmists is merely "potential" and could happen in the "future" *if* we
> don't do whatever it is they think we should do. Of course, they were
> saying the same kind of things fifteen years ago -- and yet the world is
> actually getting cooler without their "necessary" intervention. (Just as
> the world got warmer in the 70's without the "necessary" interventions
> to stop the new "man-caused" ice age.)
Where *do* you get these wacky ideas? We have one flat earther called
Ian Plimer who is an AGW denier. He even wrote a book on the subject.
He's a geologist and often cited in debates by the deniers. What they
*don't* mention is his connection to the mining industry. He is a
director of three mining companies.
Gregory Shearman
>>>
>>>> Imagine them all supporting the actions of the criminals who broke in
>>>> and stole this data.
>>> This was government data, it was not the property of the scientists, it
>>> was supposed to be released. (Well not the emails, but the papers.) And
>>> I seriously doubt it was a break-in -- it was more than likely an inside
>>> job. Unless you want to believe the Russians did it.
>>
>> Private emails compromised? This isn't a breakin and it isn't theft?
>> What an odd concept.
>
> I guess you missed the "(Well not the emails, but the papers.)" part of
> my message, eh?
It may be government data but that doesn't mean it should be public.
Get back to us when you have something earth shattering.. no, just don't
get back to us.
>>> Did you hear Gore claim the Arctic ice will have melted in four or five
>>> years? Even the "consensus" scientists wish he would just shut the hell up.
>>
>> Who is Al Gore but a politician jumping late on a bandwagon. We've been
>> trying to get the government to do something on this for TWENTY YEARS AT
>> LEAST. The energy lobby has killed it every time.
>
> Well, yeah, Al Gore and company have just figured out how to make money
> on "global warming" or "climate change" or whatever they're calling it
> today -- now they're all "true believers."
Well, why *not* make money on it? Or will you join the energy lobby
doomsayers who continue with their dinosaur industry, mining dinosaur
energy, all crying "Woe is me" while spending up big, in order to stymie
any attempts to save the planet at the Copenhagen Summit.
BTW there's BUCKETS of money to be made. Use your noggin and get moving!
Gregory Shearman
> Gregory Shearman wrote:
>> On 2009-12-15, RonB <ronb02...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> which is strange since we haven't warmed since 1998 -- can someone
>>> provide some actual, you know, evidence for this man-caused global warming?
>>>
>>> What do you want to bet the "evidence" is that there is a "scientific
>>> consensus" that men have caused global warming. Argument by authority --
>>> a logical fallacy. Also circular reasoning.
>>
>> Oh dear! Another flat-earther uncovered.
>
> who oppose us as "fringe dwellers."
Not "fringe dwellers" merely irrationally perverse. The energy lobby
would probably call you "useful idiots", but I wouldn't be so unkind.
Gregory Shearman
> Somehow the polar bears survived when Greenland was green and it was
> much warmer than it is now. So far their numbers have stayed steady (or
> increased slightly) for 20 years. This includes 2006, when the ice
> extent was a half a million square kilometers less than it is this year.
> Do you have any evidence that polar bear populations are actually
> stressed at this time? (I mean hard evidence, not speculation.)
Greenland was *never* green. That's a furphy.
Where *do* you get these fantasies? They *are* amusing, I'll grant you.
Hadron
Yet again you are wrong.
Not ALL of Greenland is green I grant you. But vast swathes of it are.
From Wikipedia:
,----
| The southern portion of Greenland (not covered by glacier) is indeed
| very green in the summer and was probably even greener in Erik's time
| during the Medieval Warm Period.
`----
RonB
Do the "global warming" scientists mention that their funding comes from
government grants that would dry up if their models are proved to be
bunk? If, for example, they admitted the obvious, that the sun is
driving force in global warming or global cooling. No self-interest
there, is there?
At any rate, who cares where one particular scientist gets his funding
-- debate the facts, don't assassinate the character of all your
opponents. This should be easy if the "global warming" "consensus" was
as obvious as is pretended.
Snit
AM:
Can you show that the sun accounts for the changes you deny exist. Wait...
on one hand you deny they exist... on the other you say the sun explains
them.
Odd.
> At any rate, who cares where one particular scientist gets his funding
> -- debate the facts, don't assassinate the character of all your
> opponents. This should be easy if the "global warming" "consensus" was
> as obvious as is pretended.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
RonB
> It may be government data but that doesn't mean it should be public.
Yeah, it actually does. If the public pays for something they should
have the right to use it. And since when do scientists want to hide
their papers? And why?
> Well, why *not* make money on it? Or will you join the energy lobby
> doomsayers who continue with their dinosaur industry, mining dinosaur
> energy, all crying "Woe is me" while spending up big, in order to stymie
> any attempts to save the planet at the Copenhagen Summit.
Not part of the "global warming" bullshit *OR* the oil lobby. Just
because one is wrong doesn't make the other right. In this case we have
two lying entities, both full of bullshit.
Again, as I've mentioned before, I've got nothing against "green"
energy. I actually like the idea very much. What I don't like, is the
"sky is falling" bullshit lies they're trying to shove down our throats
and the fact that they are setting up "carbon credits" up to tax the
people even more and to make corporations tons more money at the
people's expense. It's not about "green" energy -- it's about more
political control over the people.
RonB
Or so you claim. It's actually the reverse. While a minority of
"scientists" (many who are really political animals) believe and push
this "sky is falling" "global warming" bullshit, the majority of people
and scientists worldwide realize that weather comes in cycles and that
none of the predictions from the fringe dwelling "global warming"
lunatics is actually playing out. It didn't play out in the 70s when the
world was supposedly going into a new ice age because of man's actions
and it isn't playing out now, as the temperature has been decreasing for
the last decade despite the dire predictions from fifteen years ago. The
sky *isn't* falling.
RonB
> On 2009-12-16, RonB <ronb02...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Somehow the polar bears survived when Greenland was green and it was
>> much warmer than it is now. So far their numbers have stayed steady (or
>> increased slightly) for 20 years. This includes 2006, when the ice
>> extent was a half a million square kilometers less than it is this year.
>> Do you have any evidence that polar bear populations are actually
>> stressed at this time? (I mean hard evidence, not speculation.)
>
> Greenland was *never* green. That's a furphy.
Right. And there were never Viking settlements or farms on Greenland
either. And, of course, the Medieval Warming Period never existed, nor
did the Little Ice Age. "Global warming" revisionism is such fun!
> Where *do* you get these fantasies? They *are* amusing, I'll grant you.
From actual data, instead of burying my head in "global warming"
bullshit models. But feel free to keep sticking your head up your ass if
you want.
GreyCloud
> GreyCloud pulled this Usenet boner:
>
>>
>>> The BBC nature pages are full of the bearded wonders working
>>> hard.
>
> <rest of jealous mischaracterization of men with academic credentials
> that "Hadron" apparently lacks snipped>
>
>> Seems like those that are in research spend the vast majority of their
>> time writing up grant papers. If they don't submit they don't eat.
>
> Actually, though grant applications take significant time and energy,
> and can be a harrowing experience in times of budget cuts and rampant
> superstition, all of the scientists I know spend much more time reading the
> extant literature, planning experiments, executing them, analyzing the data,
> presenting the data to their peers for counter-arguments and challenges,
> mentoring students, and reviewing the papers and presentations of others.
>
And that is the way it has been working. Peer review process under
normal circumstances takes in both the pros and the cons. In this case
a lot of the peer review papers on the con side in regards to GW have
been either tossed out or black balled. This isn't right.
All it does is make the pubic distrust scientists even more and damages
the scientific communitys credibility. And a lot of scientists are now
realizing that and are stepping forward, media permitting of course.
GreyCloud
> GreyCloud pulled this Usenet boner:
>
>>> GreyCloud wrote:
>>>> RonB wrote:
>>>>> five years? Even the "consensus" scientists wish he would just shut
>>>>> the hell up.
>>>>
>>>> The FOIA requests directed at NASA for the data never did yield
>>>> anything from them. So what are they really hiding? Maybe something
>>>> far worse than Global Warming. I sure don't know.
>>> I imagine it's just more of this covering up the fact that global
>>> temperatures are getting colder. What these emails really show is how
>>> small-minded scientists can be -- and how subjective their beliefs
>>> really are.
>
> How do you gather that?
>
From a UK news report. Can't remember where as there are so many of
them about the topic.
>> Don't know where the rest of them are or what they really think.
>> I do know that the peer review process has been totally corrupted.
>
> How so?
>
The public, as they are starting to wake up to the real truth about the
matter, are beginning to not trust what a scientist tells them. Plus
there are many scientists that have submitted articles for review, only
to have them tossed out. The corruption of this process is done by
bribery or threats. A norwegian retired scientist that does sea level
research had a few of the cru crew come down to one of his research data
gathering sites in the indian ocean area that sabotaged his station.
There were many witnesses to this.
GreyCloud
> RonB pulled this Usenet boner:
>
>>
>>> Whew. Somebody jammed some serious CO2 up your ass! :-D
>>>
>>> http://www.oar.noaa.gov/spotlite/spot_gcc.html
>> Here's how the linked report starts...
>>
>> "Last April, a NOAA/NSF/USGS-sponsored workshop at the USGS Center for
>> Coastal Studies in St. Petersburg, Florida revealed potential future
>> problems for marine ecosystems from ocean acidification..."
>>
>> Note the words "potential" and "future." Everything for "global warming"
>> alarmists is merely "potential" and could happen in the "future" *if* we
>> don't do whatever it is they think we should do. Of course, they were
>> saying the same kind of things fifteen years ago -- and yet the world is
>> actually getting cooler without their "necessary" intervention. (Just as
>> the world got warmer in the 70's without the "necessary" interventions
>> to stop the new "man-caused" ice age.)
>>
>
> Tell that to the Antarctica folks who work near me.
>
Are they down there now? If they are, it is summer down there, so the
ice is obviously melting.
GreyCloud
> In article <ijtu4wv40ek9.16...@40tude.net>,
> Eyeball <culleys...@socket.org> wrote:
>> It figures that you would support another dishonest opportunist liar like
>> Al Gore, Roy Schestowitz. Why? Because you are one yourself Schestowitz.
>> Brother Al has made millions off the fake global warming scare.
>> The recently leaked memos show what a farce that is.
>> Al is a much better con artist than you are though Spamowitz.
>
> You are a complete idiot. The leaked memos show poor judgement on the
> part of some scientists, but cast no doubt whatsoever on the underlying
> science, which in peer reviewed journals remains nearly unanimous in
> finding that global warming is occurring and that man's activities are a
> significant factor.
>
Poor judgement? If it is poor judgement, then how can we believe their
research? Poor judement there too?
GreyCloud
> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 18:27:37 -0600, RonB wrote:
>
>> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>> Gregory Shearman pulled this Usenet boner:
>>>
>>>>> But since the "consensus" is that humans have caused "global warming"
>>>>> -- which is strange since we haven't warmed since 1998 -- can someone
>>>>> provide some actual, you know, evidence for this man-caused global
>>>>> warming?
>>>>>
>>>>> What do you want to bet the "evidence" is that there is a "scientific
>>>>> consensus" that men have caused global warming. Argument by authority
>>>>> -- a logical fallacy. Also circular reasoning.
>>>> Oh dear! Another flat-earther uncovered.
>>> is indisputable, and he's silly when he asks for some actual evidence
>>> of it -- does he want us to dump a metric tonne of journals on his
>>> head?
>>>
>>> I don't understand why people resist this idea. Even if it were false,
>>> getting rid of pollutants, including excess carbon dioxide, is a good
>>> thing.
>>>
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
>> Yeah, it basically is. The sun is what the causes the earth to heat or
>> cool. No sun spot activity -- cooler earth. Lots of sunspot activity --
>> warmer earth. We have had almost no sunspot activity for a decade now --
>> record cold weather everywhere -- ski resorts opening earlier than ever,
>> crops being plowed under because the growing season was too short,
>> glaciers growing all over world, the antarctic ice shelf growing, all of
>> this despite the lying bullshit from the global alarmists. This is why
>> they've taken to calling it "climate change" instead of "global
>> warming." This is also why so many temperature stations are no longer
>> reporting and why the weather satellites and the ocean thermometers have
>> developed "temperature bias."
>>
>> But let's assume (hypothetically for the sake of argument) that the
>> earth is warming and has been for the last decade (despite the facts).
>> Where is the *evidence* that this warming is caused by man, or farting
>> cows or burping worms or whatever? Tell me how all the CO2 we pump into
>> the air (which amounts to about .44% all the CO2 from natural causes)
>> somehow overrides all the other 99.5%. It doesn't, that's why this
>>
>> Now, just because I know the "global warming" science is pure bullshit
>> -- and you see in the "liberated" emails that "global warming"
>> scientists are wishing the weather *would* get warmer so they could "rub
>> the skeptic's noses in it" -- doesn't mean I don't want to turn my back
>> on non-oil alternatives to power. I would love that. But the way Gore
>> and the rest of the SOB's who are pushing this crap have it figured out,
>> the same corporations are going to get richer by extracting even more
>> money from the already strapped citizens of the world for "carbon
>> taxing."
>>
>> Wake up and smell the bullshit.
>
> I'm with RonB on this one. There is even some conjecture that the Solar
> Sunspot cycle may cease for a while as it has done before, when the Suns
> magnetic field is so low.
>
> Last time this happened there was a 'cold snap' in Europe, killing
> thousands.
>
> I believe that a 'carbon tax', such as the one Australia is trying to put
> thru, is just another way to raise taxes.
>
> Lets not just throw money at global warming, rather let the matter be
> studied properly, and the correct remedies applied, *if* Man is the
> cause, and *if* Man can fix it.
>
> I think we overestimate ourselves, we are just Men ...
>
>
Last I heard was that Australia had dumped this carbon credit scheme.
I'm beginning to see how the politicians have taken a proposed theory
and distorted it to their advantage to make an awful lot of money.
So my question to all is this: if we have to pay a global carbon tax,
who gets the money? And when they do have the funds, how are they going
to fight this global warming?
In my opinion, we don't have the technology yet to do anything about it.
Some believe that the sun is a constant. Well, it isn't constant as
nothing in the universe is.
GreyCloud
> In article <hg99hr$7p5$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> RonB <ronb02...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> the air (which amounts to about .44% all the CO2 from natural causes)
>> somehow overrides all the other 99.5%. It doesn't, that's why this
>
> increasing my calorie expenditure, I take it you would theorize that I
> would gain no weight?
>
Faulty thinking there. What does your weight gain have any relevance to
a small minute change in CO2 levels? Besides, you are forgetting the
carbon cycle on this planet. It all levels out and having a small
increase in CO2 may well produce more food.
Tim Smith
RonB <ronb02...@gmail.com> wrote:
From your second link:
But global warming is not killing the polar bears of Canada's
eastern Arctic, according to one ongoing study. Scheduled for
release next year, it says the number of polar bears in the Davis
Strait area of Canada's eastern Arctic – one of 19 polar bear
populations worldwide – has grown to 2,100, up from 850 in the
mid-1980s.
"One of 19 polar bear populations worldwide". How are the other 18 doing?
From your first link:
At the most recent meeting of the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group
(Copenhagen, 2009), scientists reported that of the 19
subpopulations of polar bears, eight are declining, three are
stable, one is increasing, and seven have insufficient data on which
to base a decision. (The number of declining populations has
increased from five at the group's 2005 meeting.)
You sure like to cherry-pick your data. First you pick the warmest year
on record, and say that since it's been cooler since then, we aren't
warming. I don't know if you were being deliberately misleading there,
or just don't understand that global warming doesn't mean every year
should set a new record high. It's more like the tides. Go stand on a
beach near low tide, when the tide is just starting to come in, and mark
the high water mark for each incoming wave. You'll notice that after
each new record, you get many waves before one breaks that record. If
you used the same "reasoning" you are using on climate, you would
conclude that this "incoming tide" thing people are telling you about is
a myth.
And now you pick the one polar bar population that's know to be doing
well, and ignore the 8 that are declining, and conclude the polar bears
are fine.
It's almost as if you think "climate" means "the local conditions at one
spot". Global warming doesn't mean every place gets hotter. It means the
worldwide average goes up. That would actually cause some places to get
colder, not warmer, as it would lead to changes in ocean currents that
drive weather patterns.
--
--Tim Smith
Tim Smith
RonB <ronb02...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Do you have any evidence that polar bear populations are actually
> stressed at this time? (I mean hard evidence, not speculation.)
Yes--the decline in polar bear population in half of the 18 polar bear
groups that aren't the single increasing group you focus entirely on.
--
--Tim Smith
Tim Smith
RonB <ronb02...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Tim Smith wrote:
> > In article <hg99hr$7p5$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > RonB <ronb02...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> cows or burping worms or whatever? Tell me how all the CO2 we pump into
> >> the air (which amounts to about .44% all the CO2 from natural causes)
> >> somehow overrides all the other 99.5%. It doesn't, that's why this
> >
> > If I were to increase my daily caloric intake by 0.44%, without
> > increasing my calorie expenditure, I take it you would theorize that I
> > would gain no weight?
>
> .44% of the CO2 emissions can easily be swamped by natural variations.
An extra 0.44% calories can be easily swamped by natural variations
(foods I eat such as backed potatoes, meats, and anything else that
doesn't come prepackaged can vary quit a bit in size).
Do you theorize that I can eat more calories without gaining weight?
--
--Tim Smith
GreyCloud
> GreyCloud pulled this Usenet boner:
>
>> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>> I don't understand why people resist this idea. Even if it were false,
>>> getting rid of pollutants, including excess carbon dioxide, is a good thing.
>>>
>>> It's not like these guys are pushing astrology or some-such:
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
>>
>> An online tool that claims to reveal the identity of organisations that
>> edit Wikipedia pages has revealed that the CIA was involved in editing
>> entries.
>
> Naw. They're too busy editing Intellipedia pages. :-)
>
>> I think that there are many other factors that can attribute to GW.
>> I don't know if we can really blame just CO2 for this.
>
> Of course there are plenty of other factors, including other chemicals we
> spew into the air.
That of course is a different kind of problem. And hopefully will be
addressed. Remember the melamine in pet food from China? There are all
kinds of food problems that impact health and it looks to me like the
usual corporate bottom line of profit first, your health is last.
>
>> To me it looks like a political agenda... at least it smells like one.
>
> Well, it looks to me like the agendas are strong on both sides.
> However, science has numbers (a lot of observation) on its side.
>
Not according to the father of climatology. (Univeristy of Washington)
He claims that these new kids on the block are too busy in their office
doing computer simulations and not getting out into the field to make
actual observations and measurements. And he doesn't believe that the
GW scare is real but designed for a political agenda. It is pretty much
like "scare the public" first... then after the scare settles in they
wait for the "what are we doing about it?" response from the public...
then they propose their preplanned agenda to make a fix.
I don't trust the whole thing when a politician sticks his nose into it.
> It is difficult to communicate hard science to the masses. Just imagine
> trying to explain to the average user why Linux/Solaris/OSX are better than
> Windows.
>
That is what the politicians are counting on. Step back and look at
what has happenened so far... last year we've had a major financial coup
take place, in where the House and Congress were threatened with martial
law if they didn't pass the bail out package. There are a few Youtube
videos on this one taken straight from CSPAN. The lead politicians
said that if the bail out wasn't passed that all kinds of woe would
befall the public. Then later, when the Feds were asked where the
money went, they told the Congressional finance committee that they
won't tell them. Plenty of YouTube videos on this as well. So far it
is has been bait and switch tactics.
And on Youtube also there are videos and on google plenty of other
countries harping for a one world currency to supplant the US dollar.
To me it looks like a massive power play... and we are its victims.
GreyCloud
I wish that we really could get a new safe energy source. From the past
there have been a lot of garage inventors that have claimed to come up
with a new way of powering cars or creating electricity, only to have
they guy baraged with comments like "another nut case", "a loonie", or
"not living in reality"... hmmm... sounds like the usual COLA attacks
doesn't it.
But I do beleive that Tesla had the right of it. He did make an
electric car that didn't use batteries and been shut up by his backer,
DuPont. Dupont wanted to meter and charge for electricity and he
definitely said he didn't want it to be free.
So I really can't see how we are going to be receiving any new energy
sources when the big corporations know that thier status quo is going to
be stopped.
GreyCloud
> RonB pulled this Usenet boner:
>
>> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> Just the facts.
>
> Let's just agree that we're not going to go anywhere with this topic.
>
That's a good idea. After all, it was eyeball (?) that started this in
the first place... and nowhere to be seen. I think that if I wanted to
start a disruption, then this is the way to do it and then stay around
and watch.
GreyCloud
> In article <hg95r5$2og$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,>>> The only thing that bothers me a bit is the claim that Polar bears can't
>>> swim and will drown.
>> Polar bears can swim. It may be unknown how many days they can swim!
>
> More importantly, they don't hunt well in water. Their primary source of
> food is seals, which they mainly catch when the seals come to ice holes
> to breath. The bear finds an ice hole, and waits for a seal. When the
> seal comes to breath, the bear smells its breath and grabs the seal.
>
> Note that this strategy depends on finding a place to wait where a seal
> is likely to appear. If there is a lot more open water and a lot less
> ice, the seals are going to be less likely to need to find ice holes to
> breath. Bad news for the bears.
>
> The bears can also hunt seals on the ice surface. That involves creeping
> up to near the seal, and then running it down. That's also going to be
> hard to do if their habitat is reduced to small ice islands, as the seal
> will spot them as they swim to the ice island.
>
>
Yet the coast guard has seen polar bears as far out as 250 miles out at
sea hunting. Hows that again?
GreyCloud
> RonB stated in post f9%Vm.75287$We2....@newsfe09.iad on 12/15/09 11:31 PM:
>> much warmer than it is now. So far their numbers have stayed steady (or
>> increased slightly) for 20 years.
>
>
Erm, in its name itself. If this land mass were just discovered about
100 years ago, it certainly wouldn't be called Greenland.
Iceland would've been a better name, but then that has been taken already.
RonB
I'm not sure what the issue is -- unless they don't believe the The
National Snow and Ice Data Center is a valid website. It is,
incidentally, supported by NASA and the NSF and it shows the extent of
ice in Antarctica at 16.3 million square kilometers in November of this
year. The highest it's been in 32 years is 16.8, the lowest it's been is
15.5 in 1986. If they can see some long range trend here, they must have
tea leaves.
Here's the site again...
Of course, this outfit deals in factual data, not manipulated
"scientific" computer models.
RonB
> So my question to all is this: if we have to pay a global carbon tax,
> who gets the money? And when they do have the funds, how are they going
> to fight this global warming?
My question is, how does does paying a carbon tax, while still emitting
CO2, somehow "magically" fix the supposed problem?
RonB
The more CO2 in the air, the healthier the plants, the greener the earth.
And when it comes down to it, how do we assume what the "optimum"
temperature on earth should be? I'm sure in Siberia and Canada, they
would love to see warmer weather.
GreyCloud
> Gregory Shearman <ZekeG...@netscape.net> writes:
>
>> On 2009-12-16, RonB <ronb02...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Somehow the polar bears survived when Greenland was green and it was
>>> much warmer than it is now. So far their numbers have stayed steady (or
>>> increased slightly) for 20 years. This includes 2006, when the ice
>>> extent was a half a million square kilometers less than it is this year.
>>> Do you have any evidence that polar bear populations are actually
>>> stressed at this time? (I mean hard evidence, not speculation.)
>> Greenland was *never* green. That's a furphy.
>>
>> Where *do* you get these fantasies? They *are* amusing, I'll grant
>> you.
>
> Yet again you are wrong.
>
> Not ALL of Greenland is green I grant you. But vast swathes of it are.
>
Amazing how peoples perceptions they have acquired since birth have
tainted their knowledge.
>
> From Wikipedia:
>
> ,----
> | The southern portion of Greenland (not covered by glacier) is indeed
> | very green in the summer and was probably even greener in Erik's time
> | during the Medieval Warm Period.
> `----
>
I'd say that the ancient maps of the world show Greenland with a few
scarce notes scrawled on them that there weren't any ice back then.
Plus we have the same for the Antarctic region before satellites were
around that shows Antarctica without any ice.
http://www.viewzone.com/pirireis.html
Other Unusual Findings:
Scrutiny of the map shows that the makers knew the acurate circumference
of the Earth to within 50 miles.
The "center" of the source map projected from coordinates in what is now
Alexandria - the center of culture and home of the world's oldest and
largest library until its destruction by Christian invaders.
The coastline and island that are shown in Antarctica must have been
navigated at some period prior to 4,000 B.C. when these areas were free
of ice from the last Ice Age.
Rather interesting.
GreyCloud
> GreyCloud stated in post Bf-dncndM7vfybXW...@bresnan.com on
> 12/15/09 8:30 PM:
>
>> Snit wrote:
>>> RonB stated in post hg9a04$b8j$1...@news.eternal-september.org on 12/15/09 5:35
>>> PM:
>>>
>>>> GreyCloud wrote:
>>>>> Tim Smith wrote:
>>>>>> Eyeball <culleys...@socket.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> It figures that you would support another dishonest opportunist liar
>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>> Al Gore, Roy Schestowitz. Why? Because you are one yourself Schestowitz.
>>>>>>> Brother Al has made millions off the fake global warming scare.
>>>>>>> The recently leaked memos show what a farce that is.
>>>>>>> Al is a much better con artist than you are though Spamowitz.
>>>>>> You are a complete idiot. The leaked memos show poor judgement on the
>>>>>> part of some scientists, but cast no doubt whatsoever on the
>>>>>> underlying science, which in peer reviewed journals remains nearly
>>>>>> unanimous in finding that global warming is occurring and that man's
>>>>>> activities are a significant factor.
>>>>>>
>>>>> settled, why are they continuing to do research? A puzzler there.
>>>>> But then way back in time the science was also settled that the earth
>>>>> was flat. Then there was the myth that the sun revolves around the
>>>>> earth or that the earth was the center of the universe. Looks to me
>>>>> more like political science.
>>>> If the science really was "settled" then the "global warming" scientists
>>>> wouldn't have to screech every time someone mentions "problems" with
>>>> their "consensus."
>>> Armstrong did not take kindly to being told he never went to the moon. Do
>>> you think that shows there is not a consensus that he did?
>>>
>>>> Does any scientist take "flat earthers" seriously? Do they think they have
>>>> to
>>>> ridicule them, or try to assassinate their characters? Nope. The fact that
>>>> "global alarmists" are as screechy as they are about the "deniers" is proof
>>>> positive that they are desperately pushing superstition, not science. They
>>>> expect belief on "faith," not on facts -- hence their argument about a
>>>> "consensus" that doesn't really exist and means nothing if it really did
>>>> exist. At one time scientific consensus told us that the sun rotated around
>>>> the earth. The consensus meant nothing, it was wrong.
>>> There is a consensus... and the consensus is based on massive amounts of
>>> data. If you want to argue the consensus is wrong I would love to see your
>>> data... though your claim that the warmest decade in history actually is an
>>> example of cooling is not a good sign of your data!
>>>
>> The data is still being with held tho. A FOIA to NASA has still not
>> been honored for that data. Besides, when it is -14 F one can hardly
>> call that warming. I wish it were warmer, but it isn't. Actually, if
>> the whole world warmed up another 12 degrees, we'd have more food
>> elsewhere. They didn't call GreenLand that name for nothing.
>
> Are you saying you think man should be happy to increase the temperature of
> the planet?
>
>
Man can't and does not yet have the technology to increase or decrease
the temperature of the planet. The sun is not a constant like some
believe it to be. CO2 is not poisonous. Other corporate industrial
pollution is a problem tho. The question now is: if we have a global
carbon tax, who receives the money and what will the money be used for?
That is the real problem. To me it smells like a big con job.
GreyCloud
> GreyCloud pulled this Usenet boner:
>
>> it is part of the natural carbon cycle on this planet. I don't think
>> we should be trying to tinker with what mother nature has provided.
>
> Errr, that's the idea climate scientists are pushing.
>
That is a very dangerous thing for them to start trying. It may very
well end in a disaster and should be studied very well and deeply.
Tampering with the weather is bad news.
But I think that all heating effects both internal and external be
studied first. I can see how the scientists that are being paid to
research GW wouldn't like the idea of having the money train stopped.
What should happen is a redirecting of their research goals to really
find out what is happening first before any decisions are made.
Hadron
Actually no. It was called Greenland to attract peopl despite its
remoteness. The fact a good portion of it was green is immaterial to the
naming.
Snit
12/16/09 12:37 PM:
...
>>> The data is still being with held tho. A FOIA to NASA has still not
>>> been honored for that data. Besides, when it is -14 F one can hardly
>>> call that warming. I wish it were warmer, but it isn't. Actually, if
>>> the whole world warmed up another 12 degrees, we'd have more food
>>> elsewhere. They didn't call GreenLand that name for nothing.
>>
>> Are you saying you think man should be happy to increase the temperature of
>> the planet?
>>
> Man can't and does not yet have the technology to increase or decrease
> the temperature of the planet.
I would like to see support of this claim.
> The sun is not a constant like some believe it to be.
Who does?
> CO2 is not poisonous.
Well, in high enough concentrations it is.
> Other corporate industrial pollution is a problem tho. The question now is:
> if we have a global carbon tax, who receives the money and what will the money
> be used for?
>
> That is the real problem. To me it smells like a big con job.
It makes sense to see where and how the money is used... but to just deny
the temperature changes that have been shown by so many different groups and
through so many different methods seems odd to me.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Gregory Shearman
>>>
>>>> Whew. Somebody jammed some serious CO2 up your ass! :-D
>>>>
>>>> http://www.oar.noaa.gov/spotlite/spot_gcc.html
>>> Here's how the linked report starts...
>>>
>>> "Last April, a NOAA/NSF/USGS-sponsored workshop at the USGS Center for
>>> Coastal Studies in St. Petersburg, Florida revealed potential future
>>> problems for marine ecosystems from ocean acidification..."
>>>
>>> Note the words "potential" and "future." Everything for "global warming"
>>> alarmists is merely "potential" and could happen in the "future" *if* we
>>> don't do whatever it is they think we should do. Of course, they were
>>> saying the same kind of things fifteen years ago -- and yet the world is
>>> actually getting cooler without their "necessary" intervention. (Just as
>>> the world got warmer in the 70's without the "necessary" interventions
>>> to stop the new "man-caused" ice age.)
>>
>> Ian Plimer who is an AGW denier. He even wrote a book on the subject.
>> He's a geologist and often cited in debates by the deniers. What they
>> *don't* mention is his connection to the mining industry. He is a
>> director of three mining companies.
>
> Do the "global warming" scientists mention that their funding comes from
> government grants that would dry up if their models are proved to be
> bunk? If, for example, they admitted the obvious, that the sun is
> driving force in global warming or global cooling. No self-interest
> there, is there?
Why would their grants dry up? BTW, you are telling the story... have
you proof of such a "drying up" of grants?
> At any rate, who cares where one particular scientist gets his funding
> -- debate the facts, don't assassinate the character of all your
> opponents. This should be easy if the "global warming" "consensus" was
> as obvious as is pretended.
1) Ian Plimer is a geologist, not a climatologist.
2) Ian Plimer is on the board of THREE mining companies.
If this is character assassination (rather than a "skeptic" with a
severe conflict of interest) then so be it.
--
Regards,
Gregory.
Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power
Gregory Shearman
>
> Yeah, it actually does. If the public pays for something they should
> have the right to use it. And since when do scientists want to hide
> their papers? And why?
Many reasons. Ask THEM, not me.
You really are on shaky ground here.
>> Well, why *not* make money on it? Or will you join the energy lobby
>> doomsayers who continue with their dinosaur industry, mining dinosaur
>> energy, all crying "Woe is me" while spending up big, in order to stymie
>> any attempts to save the planet at the Copenhagen Summit.
>
> Not part of the "global warming" bullshit *OR* the oil lobby. Just
> because one is wrong doesn't make the other right. In this case we have
> two lying entities, both full of bullshit.
You are accusing most of the climate scientists in the world liars?
That's a BIG call.
> Again, as I've mentioned before, I've got nothing against "green"
> energy. I actually like the idea very much. What I don't like, is the
> "sky is falling" bullshit lies they're trying to shove down our throats
> and the fact that they are setting up "carbon credits" up to tax the
> people even more and to make corporations tons more money at the
> people's expense. It's not about "green" energy -- it's about more
> political control over the people.
It's ALWAYS about political control over the people. That doesn't mean
that the scientists are very nearly ALL in agreement that AGW is
happening and that YOU and your deniers are on your own with the mining
and energy lobby, trying to prevent us all going under.
Gregory Shearman
> Gregory Shearman wrote:
>> On 2009-12-16, RonB <ronb02...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Somehow the polar bears survived when Greenland was green and it was
>>> much warmer than it is now. So far their numbers have stayed steady (or
>>> increased slightly) for 20 years. This includes 2006, when the ice
>>> extent was a half a million square kilometers less than it is this year.
>>> Do you have any evidence that polar bear populations are actually
>>> stressed at this time? (I mean hard evidence, not speculation.)
>>
>> Greenland was *never* green. That's a furphy.
>
> Right. And there were never Viking settlements or farms on Greenland
> either. And, of course, the Medieval Warming Period never existed, nor
> did the Little Ice Age. "Global warming" revisionism is such fun!
There WERE Viking settlements on Greenland... as always they relied on
sealing and whaling for their livelihood.
You've actually NO EVIDENCE AT ALL that there were farming communities
on Greenland. It's a furphy.
>> Where *do* you get these fantasies? They *are* amusing, I'll grant you.
>
> From actual data, instead of burying my head in "global warming"
> bullshit models. But feel free to keep sticking your head up your ass if
> you want.
The actual data... provided by the flat-earthers no doubt...
The flat earth society is very good at denying the fact that the earth
is round. They are very good at demanding anyone who disagrees with them
to actually produce the EVIDENCE that the earth is round... and that
THEIR evidence really shows that it is all a big conspiracy to keep the
population in the dark about the nature of our earth.
Gregory Shearman
> National Snow and Ice Data Center is a valid website. It is,
> incidentally, supported by NASA and the NSF and it shows the extent of
> ice in Antarctica at 16.3 million square kilometers in November of this
> year. The highest it's been in 32 years is 16.8, the lowest it's been is
> 15.5 in 1986. If they can see some long range trend here, they must have
> tea leaves.
>
> Here's the site again...
>
> http://tinyurl.com/yjqac95
>
> Of course, this outfit deals in factual data, not manipulated
> "scientific" computer models.
Keep on pickin' them cherries... it IS Christmas... ho ho ho...
Hottest and driest November on RECORD!
Woohoo!
Gregory Shearman
>
> Last I heard was that Australia had dumped this carbon credit scheme.
Not quite. There's a final vote in January. Unfortunately the energy
lobby (led by King Coal, BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto) are throwing money
about like a drunken sailor and our politicians LOVE money for their
election campaigns.
The energy lobby have won HUGE concessions. The coal industry receive
BILLIONS in fedgov subsidies.. They walk all over us here and are
digging up and destroying our once beautiful valley. When they've
finished raping our land for the dinosaur energy, we'll be left with
land that will be good for nothing... destroyed aquifers... filth,
poison... heavy metals...
The money is all on the side of the energy producers and they've paid
for a LOT of political opposition to action on climate change..
> I'm beginning to see how the politicians have taken a proposed theory
> and distorted it to their advantage to make an awful lot of money.
You are correct, but that doesn't change the science unfortunately.
> So my question to all is this: if we have to pay a global carbon tax,
> who gets the money? And when they do have the funds, how are they going
> to fight this global warming?
Unfortunately, taxpayers will pay. We already ARE. We aren't going to
fight global warming and unless we DO something we will be driven back
into barbarism. If you think things are bad now.... the energy lobby
will leave us freezing and hungry and living in the dark.
> In my opinion, we don't have the technology yet to do anything about it.
As always.. opinions are like arseholes. Everyone has one.. and everyone
thinks the sun shines out of theirs...
> Some believe that the sun is a constant. Well, it isn't constant as
> nothing in the universe is.
The sun runs to an 11 year cycle of activity... that has nothing to do
with AGW.
Gregory Shearman
>
>> So my question to all is this: if we have to pay a global carbon tax,
>> who gets the money? And when they do have the funds, how are they going
>> to fight this global warming?
>
> My question is, how does does paying a carbon tax, while still emitting
> CO2, somehow "magically" fix the supposed problem?
It doesn't.