OT: More global warming ....

[Giftzwerg]

Since it's quiet in the PC wargaming world, I present this offering:

"The simple summary is that, with few exceptions, climate models not
only fail to do better than random numbers, in some cases they are
actually worse."

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2012/06/13/junk-science-week-climate-
models-fail-reality-test/

Comedy. In my world, I'm required to do significantly better than
random numbers.

Else I get shitcanned.


--
Giftzwerg
***
"The real class warfare in this country isn't rich vs. poor, it's
government employees vs. we, the taxpayers, who pay their salaries."
- Ann Coulter

[dougb]

I'd have a little bit more confidence in the article if it hadn't been penned by an economist. Now there's a profession that really shouldn't be going around casting aspersions on the use of models.

Doug

[Mike Kreuzer]

"We believe Earth and its ecosystems — created by God's intelligent
design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence — are
robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably
suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate
system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural
cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history."

http://www.cornwallalliance.org/articles/read/an-evangelical-declaration-on-global-warming/

According to wikipedia he's an endorser of their gibberish - tells
me all I need to know about what he thinks about science.

Regards,
Mike Kreuzer
www.mikekreuzer.com | www.wargamedispatches.com

[mite...@hotmail.com]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-06-23/climate-expert-says-arctic-warming-twice-as-fast/4088268

[CaligulasHorse]

On Sunday, June 24, 2012 8:27:32 AM UTC+9:30, Mike Kreuzer wrote:
>
> "We believe Earth and its ecosystems — created by God's intelligent
> design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence — are
> robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably
> suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate
> system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural
> cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history."
>
> http://www.cornwallalliance.org/articles/read/an-evangelical-declaration-on-global-warming/
>
> According to wikipedia he's an endorser of their gibberish - tells
> me all I need to know about what he thinks about science.

On the other hand, most of the prominent scientists working on the "other side" are faith-based as well: in effect, a green-activist dogma.

You have to try to strip away the non-scientific motivations on both sides & focus on the quality of the science on its own terms.

Having looked at this stuff for a while now without any huge conscious pre-conceptions (apart from a general skepticsm about the skillfulness of models for complex systems), fwiw I think the quality of climate science is mediocre. Certainly none of the Michael Mann's etc have greater scientific credibility than McKitrick.

He came into view as collaborator with fellow-collaborator Steve McIntyre as critics of the statistical quality of the work of Mann etc in their iconic "hockey stick" work, professing to demonstrate that modern warming is "unprecedented". That work was torn to shreds, mainly over simple statistical ineptitude, even though the climate science community is still pretty much in denial.

The latest along these lines was Gergis et al's recent paper proclaiming a hockey stick for Australasia and the southern hemisphere in general. Within days it was ripped to shreds on McIntyre's blog www.climateaudit.org over beginner-level statistical screw-ups, and the authors have "withdrawn" the paper:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/blog-scrutiny-forces-reappraisal/story-e6frgcjx-1226401617800

From thwir records, Gergis et al are quite clearly activists before they are scientists, IMO, and this kind of work shows them to be mediocre as scientists.

McIntyre (and perhaps McKitrick) aren't stone-age fundamentalist science-deniers - rather people who want the science to be good, and critiquing mainstream climate science, where standards have been revealed as embarassingly low.

At present, IMO anybody without an idealogical dog in the hunt has to conclude "don't know" on whether human impacts on climate change are substantial versus natural variability.

[mite...@hotmail.com]

So there is global warming and "idealogues" are the problem??


I liken it to the US economic situation. Neither side needs convincing that they're on the road to nowhere and both sides hit each other with whatever they can and ignore where they're headed.

And strangely, their universities are still teaching graduates how to get to the same place.

[Giftzwerg]

In article <js5hkt$s2e$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, mi...@FIRSTNAMEkreuzer.com
says...

> "We believe Earth and its ecosystems ? created by God's intelligent
> design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence ? are

> robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably

> suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth?s climate

> system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural
> cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history."
>
> http://www.cornwallalliance.org/articles/read/an-evangelical-declaration-on-global-warming/
>
> According to wikipedia he's an endorser of their gibberish - tells
> me all I need to know about what he thinks about science.

<laughter>

And Global Warmism *isn't* a religion? At least Christianity has the
benefit of being 2,000 years old.

Here's how stupid the Warmist Religion is. Currently, the buzz here in
Podunk is over the Vermont Air National Guard being chosen to fly the
new F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. Oh, dear, sayest the moonbats - how dare
that warmongering Obama^h^h^h^h^h Bush push his nasty war-machine on our
peaceful state.

One recent article in the shit-head local newspaper cited the potential
impact on Global Warming(TM) if the F-35 replaced the F-16 in the VTANG
at the Burlington airbase.

... as if the F-35s will be based on *some other planet* if Vermont
rejects them.

[CaligulasHorse]

On Sunday, June 24, 2012 5:09:14 PM UTC+9:30, (unknown) wrote:
>
> So there is global warming and "idealogues" are the problem??

I don't think anybody credible disputes that there has been some warming over the last 70 years or whatever, though nothing globally significant over the last ~10 years.

The issues are whether this warming is "unprecedented", mainly due to human activity & likely to continue towards some catastrophe.

The global climate models on which recent climate policy depend have shown themelves to be very poor at predicting anything, even on the multi-decade horizons for which they are designed.

[Giftzwerg]

In article <320ff8d7-7f52-4d84...@googlegroups.com>,
juri...@gmail.com says...

>
> On Sunday, June 24, 2012 8:27:32 AM UTC+9:30, Mike Kreuzer wrote:
> >

> > "We believe Earth and its ecosystems ? created by God's intelligent
> > design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence ? are

> > robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably

> > suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth?s climate

> > system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural
> > cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history."
> >
> > http://www.cornwallalliance.org/articles/read/an-evangelical-declaration-on-global-warming/
> >
> > According to wikipedia he's an endorser of their gibberish - tells
> > me all I need to know about what he thinks about science.
>
> On the other hand, most of the prominent scientists working on the "other side" are faith-based as well: in effect, a green-activist dogma.

Or a green-activist scam coalition. There's money in them thar
bullshit.

> You have to try to strip away the non-scientific motivations on both sides & focus on the quality of the science on its own terms.

Which is, of course, impossible.

And it's not a "both sides" proposition. "Human activity is causing the
planet to warm up and it's A Bad Thing" is what one side in the debate
needs to prove.

My side says, "Prove the planet is warming. Prove that human activity
is the source. Prove that it's a bad thing."

> Having looked at this stuff for a while now without any huge conscious pre-conceptions (apart from a general skepticsm about the skillfulness of models for complex systems), fwiw I think the quality of climate science is mediocre. Certainly none of the Michael Mann's etc have greater scientific credibility than McKitrick.

Well, it does beat B. Hussein Obungle's "models" of unemployment figures
for non-government teachers / non-government mailmen.

[Giftzwerg]

In article <9f610fc2-bcfb-4f8c...@googlegroups.com>,
juri...@gmail.com says...

> > So there is global warming and "idealogues" are the problem??
>
> I don't think anybody credible disputes that there has been some warming over the last 70 years or whatever, though nothing globally significant over the last ~10 years.

I dispute this. "Warming" from what baseline? Exactly.

Here in the USA, we only have a piffling couple of hundred years of data
... out of the four billion years of planet Earth's existence.

> The issues are whether this warming is "unprecedented", mainly due to human activity & likely to continue towards some catastrophe.
>
> The global climate models on which recent climate policy depend have shown themelves to be very poor at predicting anything, even on the multi-decade horizons for which they are designed.

Yep. The Warmist Cult needs to *prove* three things:

1) The planet is warming up.
2) Human activity is the cause.
3) It's A BAD THING.

So far as I can see, #1 is still in doubt.

[mite...@hotmail.com]

It has to be acknowledged that it is quiet in this newsgroup.

This is what I believe. I name this belief "The Quiet Newsgroup Church of Believers"

It has been quiet in this newsgroup before B U T this time it's different.

Therefore, I name Giftzwerg a BELIEVER!

WELCOME !!!

[mite...@hotmail.com]

On Sunday, 24 June 2012 19:58:30 UTC+10, Giftzwerg wrote:

Gifty, it ain't bad for you.

The Don't Give a Fu*k if it is Warming Cult needs to *prove* three things:
>
> 1) The planet is warming up and that there is some point where it will cease to warm up further
> 2) Human activity is not the cause.
> 3) It's NOT A BAD THING

When I look at your posts on this subject, I see Duffy up in the lookout tower trying very hard to see the approaching Global Warming.

[Giftzwerg]

In article <568f1b85-ff65-4b70...@googlegroups.com>,
mite...@hotmail.com says...

> Gifty, it ain't bad for you.
>
> The Don't Give a Fu*k if it is Warming Cult needs to *prove* three things:
> >
> > 1) The planet is warming up and that there is some point where it will cease to warm up further
> > 2) Human activity is not the cause.
> > 3) It's NOT A BAD THING
>
> When I look at your posts on this subject, I see Duffy up in the lookout tower trying very hard to see the approaching Global Warming.

But you FAIL at logic, immediately. It's not up to skeptics to prove
that global warming is not happening, that if it is that humanity is not
the proximal cause, or that it's a bad thing anyhow.

No, Kemosabe, proving a negative isn't our job. I can't prove AGW isn't
happening. I can't prove space aliens aren't secretly pulling the
strings in the US government. I can't prove my neighbor isn't a KGB
plant. I can't prove my wife isn't having a torrid affair with
Christian Bale.

But if someone can show me pictures of Mrs. G. and the BATMAN BEGINS
star boffing each other, I'd tend to believe it. Similarly, if the
Cult of Warmism manages to present proof positive that (a) global
warming is happening, (b) human activity is the cause, and (c) it's A
Bad Thing, then I'll probably convert to their religion.

Oh. Wait. They need to prove one more thing. That we can do something
about AGW that would be better than not doing something.

[mite...@hotmail.com]

On Sunday, 24 June 2012 22:13:02 UTC+10, Giftzwerg wrote:
> In article <568f1b85-ff65-4b70...@googlegroups.com>,
> mate...@hotmail.com says...

Mr G.,
I've got to admit that it is a sad tale. I admit we're not up to it. We're not up to surviving cancer either. Should we try.... Observe the ants, see which ones are about to be run over, walked on, washed away. They can't plan for the large scale events that we can observe.
We are the ants, and we think there may be some large-scale events happening. Some of us will die before our changed direction takes us away from the running water, were we to change it. Mmmm, not easy.

An ongoing global warming outcome is unpredictable in the extreme other than to expect to see things that we would wish to be otherwise.

I reckon it will introduce a new religion. That religion will arise to explain the unusual events and how it is punishment for all our sins :)
The current church-members of Global Warming will NOT be part of that new religion, because they will know how we contributed to the outcome. The current members will all be slowly deleted from the face of the earth using famine, wild weather, poisoned water from gas-wells and high temperatures. Oh, and from the clash of large numbers of too-many-people as the rising water reduces land area.

Venus is our god. We will all be made in the form of Venus. Venus got there first - Our deathly twin.

p.s. I'll be getting a plug-in Prius the day they are released in my area. They're much better than the current one. Oh, hint, talk about pollution re new cars.

[Giftzwerg]

In article <c9121ecd-6cab-4254...@googlegroups.com>,
mite...@hotmail.com says...

> p.s. I'll be getting a plug-in Prius the day they are released in my area. They're much better than the current one. Oh, hint, talk about pollution re new cars.

I'm on my second Prius. Not the plug-in kind, because I don't want a
coal-fired automobile. And not because of some "green" nonsense; a
Prius is a rather nice automobile.

[mite...@hotmail.com]

On Sunday, 24 June 2012 23:46:17 UTC+10, Giftzwerg wrote:
> In article <c9121ecd-6cab-4254...@googlegroups.com>,
> mate...@hotmail.com says...

Yes, I no longer think in dollars. I now fill the Prius with 20 Litres a week. On average, that does it. Until my battery car shows up. I'll be charging it at night, to use the excess power.
Our panels are partly supplying next-door's air-conditioning. They've only just got it. They're still thinking in dollars.

[Mike Kreuzer]

Not to worry, the F-35s aren't going to be finished any time soon. <g>

And as gratifying as it is to this old atheist to have both sides
insulting each other by calling each other a religion you know just by
calling it a religion doesn't make it so. I know jack about the
environment. Summer's warm, winter's cold, rain's wet, that's almost the
totality of my knowledge. But the overwhelming majority of people who
work in the field, who know all about this stuff, they're are all saying
the same thing. Seems I should listen to them.

Maybe they're wrong. Could be. I don't require them to prove anything to
me though. Like I'd understand it. They can do the maths & tell me the
result. Cause dealing with what they're saying seems like basic risk
analysis. Even if there's a very small chance of a very big event
happening those numbers wash out & it's reasonable to do something about
preparing.

What to do? The green movement's chock full of hippies and commies. The
best you'll get on that bell curve is a left of centre democrat type.
The solutions they'll come up with will involve sandals, free money for
people who don't wash and lots of forms to fill in. Seems a shame to
leave dealing with the future to them. To me any way.

[Frank E]

On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 05:32:00 -0400, Giftzwerg
<giftzw...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>In article <js5hkt$s2e$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, mi...@FIRSTNAMEkreuzer.com
>says...
>
>> "We believe Earth and its ecosystems ? created by God's intelligent
>> design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence ? are
>> robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably
>> suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth?s climate
>> system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural
>> cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history."
>>
>> http://www.cornwallalliance.org/articles/read/an-evangelical-declaration-on-global-warming/
>>
>> According to wikipedia he's an endorser of their gibberish - tells
>> me all I need to know about what he thinks about science.
>
><laughter>
>
>And Global Warmism *isn't* a religion? At least Christianity has the
>benefit of being 2,000 years old.
>

Mebbe so. That quote still puts the guy in the religious crackpot
category. You can boil his 'science' down to "This is what God
believes, and here's the science to back it up." I wouldn't trust his
opinion on the time of day.

Rgds, Frank

[KG_Jag]

In the U.S. the environmentalists are demanding major changes that are
extemely expensive and which most heavily fall on the working and
middle classes.

To justify this, they bear the burden of proving each of the
following:

That global warming (or is it climate change?) is real.

That such change is significant.

That such change is net "bad".

That man is causing a nearly certain amount of this change.

That said amount is significant and material.

That there are things man can do to affect the bad climate change.

That the things we do in the U.S. to effect the bad climate change
will make any material difference when other countries are not doing
anything to help and in the case of many major players are doing
things that make things worse.

The cost (economic and otherwise) of each of these proposed changes
that will help abate at least an equal amount (value) of bad climate
change.

The benefits of each of these poposed changes exceeds their costs to
those paying said costs--especially in the context of those countries
paying said costs while others "do their own thing".

That the next major climatic event is not another ice age, as we were
told in the '70's, and that any global warming is anything more than a
temporary problem that will or can delay said ice age.

[Holdit]

In article <5cf93cf4-af40-437f-a1aa-
84a12a...@vs10g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>, wbur...@netscape.net
says...

>
> In the U.S. the environmentalists are demanding major changes that are
> extemely expensive and which most heavily fall on the working and
> middle classes.
>
> To justify this, they bear the burden of proving each of the
> following:
>
> That global warming (or is it climate change?) is real.

It became "Climate Change" when the warming stopped. Or something. :-)

I gave up on getting at the truth about GW/CC a long time ago, since the
whole thing is just too politicised on both sides. Too many axes being
ground to be able to hear anything clearly.

My solution is to generally support the respectful treatment of the
environment and atmosphere. Let's throw as little shit up there as we
can reasonably manage, but at the same time, don't expect me to lose
sleep over the size of my carbon footprint.

Also, if the High Priests of Climate Change had such compelling evidence
to support their case, why did they need to resort to the kind of
statistical jiggery-pokery that was exposed not too long ago?

Holdit


--
"I know ALL about soldiers. They do parades and wear red jackets and big
black wigs."
- My daughter (age 5)

[mite...@hotmail.com]

Kg, short of writing out the Climate Change mantra on a cricket bat and hitting you over the head with it, here's a couple of ideas.

You said:
> That the things we do in the U.S. to effect the bad climate change
> will make any material difference when other countries are not doing
> anything to help and in the case of many major players are doing
> things that make things worse.

Material difference? Well, that means you can decide if it is material
or not. However, if the US were to reduce its pollution levels AT ALL,
many global citizens would consider that a material difference. So,
the way business is done could improve to "put a value on pollution".
If the US put its mind to this, I'm sure all sorts of amazing ideas
would ensue. However, if profit at any cost is to continue, then your
US Economy is the perfect example of that (and the cost was too high).

> The cost (economic and otherwise) of each of these proposed changes
> that will help abate at least an equal amount (value) of bad climate
> change.

A genuine carbon tax will change the way business works. If all business
changed its methods, even in the tiniest way, there would be a massive
reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in a very short period of time. It
would appear that business would change its ways by, in particular,
changing it energy usage. US companies would improve general energy
production continuously, and every company would get the benefit of it.
If this meant higher costs initially, you can be sure that US business
would make sure that that improvement was, in the longer term, going to
be beneficial, in particular, to the US. That's how it works.
This carbon tax would need to go towards genuine, useful energy
research and to assist the middle and lower-income citizens in key ways.

> The benefits of each of these poposed changes exceeds their costs to
> those paying said costs--especially in the context of those countries
> paying said costs while others "do their own thing".

This is a hard one but you need to see a need for change in order to do it.
Here, I see from time to time the prediction that as time goes by, any
country which largely ignores the need to rigorously reduce their pollution
levels will be ostracised by those who are reducing pollution.

If you mean, will C**na continually be a rogue state by always polluting
badly overall, I know as much as you do. It has a lot to lose. A doco
some time ago had one of their people telling the interviewer how much of
its coastline would be lost by sea level rise. Someone just back from
there said that they never saw the sky during their visit (probably didn't
visit the outback). Maybe that country is simply an example of the other
worst problem we face, overpopulation. p.s I wonder if their net trawlers
pick up C**na. Probably.

Anyway, we need to keep talking about this. It really isn't going to go
away - the talking, at least :)

[Climate Change]

http://theconversation.edu.au/diamond-planets-climate-change-and-the-scientific-method-3329

[KG_Jag]

Those are general statements and conclusions--not the objective proof
that I and many others need before we accept a big hit in our poclet
books and to our life style.

Fact is that we (in the U.S. and elsewhere in the industrialized
world) are much cleaner than we were in the the late 60's (when we had
the first Earth Day) and 70's. Our wealth and values have triggered
significant technolgical advancements that materially reduce pollution
that was common and significantly larger during my high school and
college days.

Why the heck isn't the main enviro effort not aimed at the biggest
part of the pollution problem--countries like India and China? Even
in LA, I don't remember seeing the general population wearing masks
becasue the pollution in the city was so bad. I saw that in China
right before the Olympics they hosted.

[KG_Jag]

On Jun 26, 4:43 am, mitet...@hotmail.com wrote:

P.S. I am very much against Government and multi-government led social
engineering. The results are almost universally bad and are all but
universally expensive for the "results"--not ot mentioned chocked with
cronyism and multiple unintended consequences.

[mite...@hotmail.com]

Just to look at Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions

That suggests C**na produces 23% of CO2 pollution and the US produces 18%.
China has 4 times the population.

That page does not deal with other types of pollution like land clearing, eg.

On the subject of masks on faces, I was watching "Shampoo 1975" the other month and, aside from checking out the Triump Bonneville (might have been a Trophy), I was looking at the background air-pollution in Los Angeles. These days, I do as much looking at the city environment of films as I do the story. Also, watch a British tv show and look at the streets, the houses, the cars, the people going by, a travel show without having to go there :)

I just think that it is generally agreed that CO2 and others are green-house- causing gases and we know we are putting a pile of it into the atmosphere.
For this, we don't need anybody to prove anything to us. We can say "But how
much are we putting in the atmosphere?" and we can also say "They're putting more in the atmosphere than we are".

If the US which is a world-leading technology nation, to generalise, would decide that any damage to the atmosphere and possibly to the climate, is not a good idea, then the rest of the world would follow. It would have to because each new bit of technology from the US would be the latest and best at reducing the cause of pollution. As time goes by, it is thought that whoever is trailing in pollution-reduction is going to be handicapped by nations which are properly dealing with the situation, especially if the climate believers are proven, on and on, to have been right.

Since it was known that a carbon tax was being introduced here, a local supermarket chain has changed its refrigeration methods and expects to reduce their energy-use by 90% during the overnight period (they're putting curtains in front of their holding areas). There are lots of savings to be made by considering which tradional methods are being continued simply because they are tradional, when better, cheaper methods have always been available.
For a change, it puts pressure on management to be managers and not just overseers, or staff reducers. So much energy wastage going on that a situation like excess gas emission has caused us to question.

Anyway, better methods of energy-use may be one of the causes of the US's more rapid downfall, and you can be sure that more-and-more customers are already asking about the origin of products and asking themselves what they know about those origins.

Did anyone mention environmental destruction? No, just extra cost - initially.

[mite...@hotmail.com]

Uh, just two things more.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-06-23/climate-expert-says-arctic-warming-twice-as-fast/4088268

I don't know if anybody has looked at this, but I know that Florida is covered by low-lying water over much of its southern part. When the water rises by a metre, just how much of Florida will be left, do you think.

> P.S. I am very much against Government and multi-government led social
> engineering. The results are almost universally bad and are all but
> universally expensive for the "results"--not ot mentioned chocked with
> cronyism and multiple unintended consequences.

You have police (if you're prepared to pay for them) because there is some social behaviour which would make life unbearable for each individual if not kept in check). Everyone would be afraid, without the police.

There are some things that only the Government is capable of (provided that business is not allowed to override what's good for the people).

You know that business has an obligation to its shareholders to maximise profitabiltiy. You know that pollution is currently not included in costs.

With careful direction by the Government, that's when private enterprise can do the most good (in this case, for the environment - that place where everybody (oh, don't forget, EVERYTHING), rich or poor, lives).

[KG_Jag]

> Just to look at Wikipedia:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emis...

>
> That suggests C**na produces 23% of CO2 pollution and the US produces 18%.
> China has 4 times the population.
>
> That page does not deal with other types of pollution like land clearing, eg.
>
> On the subject of masks on faces, I was watching "Shampoo 1975" the other month and, aside from checking out the Triump Bonneville (might have been a Trophy), I was looking at the background air-pollution in Los Angeles.  These days, I do as much looking at the city environment of films as I do the story.  Also, watch a British tv show and look at the streets, the houses, the cars, the people going by, a travel show without having to go there :)
>
> I just think that it is generally agreed that CO2 and others are green-house- causing gases and we know we are putting a pile of it into the atmosphere.
> For this, we don't need anybody to prove anything to us.  We can say "But how
> much are we putting in the atmosphere?" and we can also say "They're putting more in the atmosphere than we are".
>
> If the US which is a world-leading technology nation, to generalise, would decide that any damage to the atmosphere and possibly to the climate, is not a good idea, then the rest of the world would follow.  It would have to because each new bit of technology from the US would be the latest and best at reducing the cause of pollution.  As time goes by, it is thought that whoever is trailing in pollution-reduction is going to be handicapped by nations which are properly dealing with the situation, especially if the climate believers are proven, on and on, to have been right.
>
> Since it was known that a carbon tax was being introduced here, a local supermarket chain has changed its refrigeration methods and expects to reduce their energy-use by 90% during the overnight period (they're putting curtains in front of their holding areas).  There are lots of savings to be made by considering which tradional methods are being continued simply because they are tradional, when better, cheaper methods have always been available.
> For a change, it puts pressure on management to be managers and not just overseers, or staff reducers.  So much energy wastage going on that a situation like excess gas emission has caused us to question.
>
> Anyway, better methods of energy-use may be one of the causes of the US's more rapid downfall, and you can be sure that more-and-more customers are already asking about the origin of products and asking themselves what they know about those origins.
>
> Did anyone mention environmental destruction?   No, just extra cost -  initially.

Old legal axiom: he who asserts must prove all aspects of his case.

You have skipped the first 8 bumpgates that have to be cleared before
we even get into this discussion.

[mite...@hotmail.com]

Kg, the proof I have is what I'd call an intellectual proof. I have combined what people have said with how I see the world. Whether the proof I have could sway you further, I doubt. I think you have a refreshing approach because you seem to have at least made it to sitting on the fence. I hope you look both ways from there and take the plunge, one way or the other.

Mike Kreuzer said it probably better than I could in a previous message.

He said:
"But the overwhelming majority of people who
work in the field, who know all about this stuff, they're are all saying
the same thing. Seems I should listen to them.

Maybe they're wrong. Could be. I don't require them to prove anything to
me though. Like I'd understand it. They can do the maths & tell me the
result. Cause dealing with what they're saying seems like basic risk
analysis. Even if there's a very small chance of a very big event
happening those numbers wash out & it's reasonable to do something about
preparing."

Now you people can fight your bushfires, and put the cost down to living on the planet, you can pick up drowned people and say "Well, at least it wasn't the better part of town that went", you can risk destroying ground water because, right now, it's not a problem, you can greatly reduce the number of other living creatures, destroy the natural order of creatures in the ocean, fill the ocean with long-life-plastic

but until, somehow, all these things can suffocate you to within an inch of your life, the jury's out.

[Giftzwerg]

In article <0874b442-4a3f-4f7e...@googlegroups.com>,
mite...@hotmail.com says...

> Mike Kreuzer said it probably better than I could in a previous message.
>
> He said:
> "But the overwhelming majority of people who
> work in the field, who know all about this stuff, they're are all saying
> the same thing. Seems I should listen to them.

I could care less what anyone is *saying*, I'm watching what they're
*doing*. Has B. Hussein OBungle parked the world's largest and fanciest
private jetliner yet? Al Gore moved into a 1,200 sq. ft. townhouse with
solar heat? Michael Moore decided to give up filmmaking because of the
fabulous, unsubstainable energy costs?

Nah. So a much better quote is:

"I'll start believing there's a crisis when the people telling me
there's a crisis start behaving as though there's a crisis."
- Glenn Reynolds

[Climate Change]

On 28/06/2012 7:08 PM, Giftzwerg wrote:
> I could care less what anyone is *saying*, I'm watching what they're
> *doing*. Has B. Hussein OBungle parked the world's largest and fanciest
> private jetliner yet? Al Gore moved into a 1,200 sq. ft. townhouse with
> solar heat? Michael Moore decided to give up filmmaking because of the
> fabulous, unsubstainable energy costs?

Most of the world's expert climate scientists are talking about climate
change, but who does Mr Giftzwerg use for advice? Politicians and
film-makers. Yes, I'm sure those 2 groups are the authority on everything.

If you want *an* *informed* *position* *on* *what* *is* *really*
*happening*, *then* *perhaps* *read* *research* *from* *an* *actual*
*climate* *scientist*.

Ah but I am forgetting.. apparently Giftzwerg is smarter than all the
climate scientists - they are all wrong and he is right (because his
proof is "Obama uses a private jet and Michael Moore makes films,
therefore climate change isn't happening").

[Holdit]

In article <MPG.2a55e9207...@news-east.giganews.com>,
giftzw...@hotmail.com says...

> In article <0874b442-4a3f-4f7e...@googlegroups.com>,
> mite...@hotmail.com says...
>
> > Mike Kreuzer said it probably better than I could in a previous message.
> >
> > He said:
> > "But the overwhelming majority of people who
> > work in the field, who know all about this stuff, they're are all saying
> > the same thing. Seems I should listen to them.
>
> I could care less what anyone is *saying*, I'm watching what they're
> *doing*. Has B. Hussein OBungle parked the world's largest and fanciest
> private jetliner yet? Al Gore moved into a 1,200 sq. ft. townhouse with
> solar heat? Michael Moore decided to give up filmmaking because of the
> fabulous, unsubstainable energy costs?
>

On the other hand, you could equally say that these indivuals are
indicating their insistence that *other* people make the necessary
sacrifices to save the planet, but that they themselves are too
important...etc, than they are indicating that they don't really believe
the danger actually exists.

> Nah. So a much better quote is:
>
> "I'll start believing there's a crisis when the people telling me
> there's a crisis start behaving as though there's a crisis."
> - Glenn Reynolds
>

Good quote, and applicable to much more than the climate change debate
e.g. austerity-pushing politicians busting salary caps for their
advisors etc.

Holdit

--
"I know ALL about soldiers. They do parades and wear read coats and big

[Mike Kreuzer]

On 28/06/2012 7:08 PM, Giftzwerg wrote:

> In article <0874b442-4a3f-4f7e...@googlegroups.com>,
> mite...@hotmail.com says...
>
>> Mike Kreuzer said it probably better than I could in a previous message.
>>
>> He said:
>> "But the overwhelming majority of people who
>> work in the field, who know all about this stuff, they're are all saying
>> the same thing. Seems I should listen to them.
>
> I could care less what anyone is *saying*

[snip]

Likewise. The issue's obviously very important to you for some reason.
Enjoy.

[mite...@hotmail.com]

On Friday, 29 June 2012 07:22:45 UTC+10, Mike Kreuzer wrote:
> On 28/06/2012 7:08 PM, Giftzwerg wrote:
> > In article <0874b442-4a3f-4f7e...@googlegroups.com>,

> > mate...@hotmail.com says...

> >
> >> Mike Kreuzer said it probably better than I could in a previous message.
> >>
> >> He said:
> >> "But the overwhelming majority of people who
> >> work in the field, who know all about this stuff, they're are all saying
> >> the same thing. Seems I should listen to them.
> >
> > I could care less what anyone is *saying*
> [snip]
>
> Likewise. The issue's obviously very important to you for some reason.
> Enjoy.
>
> Regards,
> Mike Kreuzer
> www.mikekreuzer.com | www.wargamedispatches.com

Yes, but the idea that the issue is important for some reason is like saying the the US Constitution was important to those who created it, for some reason.

[Mike Kreuzer]

The US constitution rates even lower on my list of priorities. Us
foreign types are funny like that. <g>

[Vincenzo Beretta]

> "We believe Earth and its ecosystems — created by God's

> intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His

> faithful providence — are robust, resilient, self-regulating,

> and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing,
> and displaying His glory.

I heard the very same things about the financial markets - and look at how
well they worked :o)

[Giftzwerg]

In article <jsk8qa$45f$1...@dont-email.me>, vincenzo...@fastwebnet.it
says...

> > "We believe Earth and its ecosystems ? created by God's

> > intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His

> > faithful providence ? are robust, resilient, self-regulating,

> > and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing,
> > and displaying His glory.
>
> I heard the very same things about the financial markets - and look at how
> well they worked :o)

Men didn't build Earth and its ecosystem. They did build the financial
markets.

[Miowarra Tomokatu (aka Tomo)]

On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 14:59:00 -0400, Giftzwerg <giftzw...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>In article <jsk8qa$45f$1...@dont-email.me>, vincenzo...@fastwebnet.it
>says...
>
>> > "We believe Earth and its ecosystems ? created by God's
>> > intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His
>> > faithful providence ? are robust, resilient, self-regulating,
>> > and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing,
>> > and displaying His glory.
>>
>> I heard the very same things about the financial markets - and look at how
>> well they worked :o)
>
>Men didn't build Earth and its ecosystem. They did build the financial
>markets.

Men may not have BUILT it, but we've certainly been affecting it.
Since we're multiplying our numbers exponentially, we're multiplying our alteration of the ecosystem proportionally.

No organism can live in an environmment of its own excrement.
.
.
A mate of mine recently admitted to being addicted to brake fluid.
When I quizzed him about it he reckoned he could stop any time....

[Giftzwerg]

In article <covru753ofjai6416...@4ax.com>,
n...@thistime.net says...

> >> I heard the very same things about the financial markets - and look at how
> >> well they worked :o)
> >
> >Men didn't build Earth and its ecosystem. They did build the financial
> >markets.
>
> Men may not have BUILT it, but we've certainly been affecting it.

Nah. We haven't. Prove me wrong. And not with a bunch of worthless
cites from "scientists" who get their money from The Cult of Global
Warmism.

> Since we're multiplying our numbers exponentially, we're multiplying our alteration of the ecosystem proportionally.

We are? Cite?

> No organism can live in an environmment of its own excrement.

I don't know what shithole you skulk in, but my "excrement" is carried
away by a pricey and rather effective sewage treatment system.

> A mate of mine recently admitted to being addicted to brake fluid.
> When I quizzed him about it he reckoned he could stop any time....

Whereas you're just addicted to the bullshit spouted by the lefty media?

[mite...@hotmail.com]

Miowarra Tomokatu (aka Tomo) said:

>> A mate of mine recently admitted to being addicted to brake fluid.
>> When I quizzed him about it he reckoned he could stop any time....

But is he full of hot air? :)

(To avoid the usual Giftzwerg-style spat.)

[KG_Jag]

On Jun 29, 6:04 pm, mitet...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, 30 June 2012 08:27:23 UTC+10, Giftzwerg  wrote:

> > In article <covru753ofjai6416m23fjrr218cdge...@4ax.com>,

Ahhhh....the true source of global warming...and politically
constructed disasters.

[Climate Change]

On 30/06/2012 8:27 AM, Giftzwerg wrote:
> Nah. We haven't. Prove me wrong. And not with a bunch of worthless
> cites from "scientists" who get their money from The Cult of Global
> Warmism.

Well that's a convenient way of handling any argument..

If the scientist disagrees with Giftzwerg, then they are a "scientist"
who are just after the money.

I'm betting if the scientist agreed with Giftzwerg, he'd be stating how
genuine they are.

[Miowarra Tomokatu (aka Tomo)]

Now THAT'S an example of classic "wishful thinking". Gifty just thrives on spats and splatters. He's always ready with a
spray (just like an old tomcat I used to know.)

.
.
-------------------------------------------------
.....Design Parameters
.....-----------------
.....You can have it quick
......You can have it cheap
.......You can have it good
.
.
.....Pick Any Two
=================================================

[Miowarra Tomokatu (aka Tomo)]

On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 18:27:23 -0400, Giftzwerg <giftzw...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>In article <covru753ofjai6416...@4ax.com>,
>n...@thistime.net says...
>
>> >> I heard the very same things about the financial markets - and look at how
>> >> well they worked :o)
>> >
>> >Men didn't build Earth and its ecosystem. They did build the financial
>> >markets.
>>
>> Men may not have BUILT it, but we've certainly been affecting it.
>
>Nah. We haven't. Prove me wrong.

Prove you wrong???
You live on the East Coast of the USA, which USED to be forest - humnans cut that down and made it an urban environment.
That's affected the environment.
Poor farming practices in the USA in the 1920s caused the dustbowl of the 1930s which exacerbated the financial
breakdown of the time. That's a graphic affect to the environment.

That's only two examples from your own locality.

I can cite the introduction of the European rabbit and fox vermin in my own and the consequent inroads on the indigenous
animal population. There's also the cane toad but we seem to have stopped the fire ant infestation.

>And not with a bunch of worthless
>cites from "scientists" who get their money from The Cult of Global
>Warmism.
>
>> Since we're multiplying our numbers exponentially, we're multiplying our alteration of the ecosystem proportionally.
>
>We are? Cite?

Here's the best estimate data from your own government Census Bureau (but I doubt there's a data set you won't
automatically dismiss as a futile debating tactic) - graph it out for yourself - it's exponential, especially since the
year 1800CE.

You'll find various equations which describe population growth in living systems here
http://www.ebiblioteka.lt/resursai/LMA/Biologija/Bio63/Bio63_19.pdf
Most of them clearly demonstrate exponential population growth and massive crashes in different kinds of environments.
It may be too complex for you though.

>> No organism can live in an environmment of its own excrement.
>
>I don't know what shithole you skulk in, but my "excrement" is carried
>away by a pricey and rather effective sewage treatment system.

Mine too - so either of us individuals is living in such an environment but there's no other planet we can (presently)
dump our excrement onto.

This world is a closed system which used to be able to cope with organic waste and was in homeostasis.
However we humans have unbalanced our own ecology (largely by wiping out or constraining our major predators) and we
have also destroyed many of the ecological processing systems which used to detoxify all the organic wastes. Filling
swamps, damming rivers, clearing forests are all actions which diminish the ability of the pre-existing organic systems
to process wastes.

>
>> A mate of mine recently admitted to being addicted to brake fluid.
>> When I quizzed him about it he reckoned he could stop any time....
>
>Whereas you're just addicted to the bullshit spouted by the lefty media?

Facts and data are just SOOOO politically inconvenient for the rabid righties, aren't they?
.
.
.
Blessed are they who run round in circles
For they shall be known as Big Wheels.

[Climate Change]

On 1/07/2012 6:36 AM, Miowarra Tomokatu (aka Tomo) wrote:
> I can cite the introduction of the European rabbit and fox vermin in my own and the consequent inroads on the indigenous
> animal population. There's also the cane toad but we seem to have stopped the fire ant infestation.

Cane toads can be annoying - I end up putting them in the freezer, not
sure if that is the most humane. Haven't seen any fire ants yet (but
haven't been here in Qld for long).

Even the household pets (dogs, cats) can have a detrimental effect on
the environment. (and then there's always people who somehow think they
are helping when they give food to native animals)

[Giftzwerg]

In article <l0nuu7t0t1bld161n...@4ax.com>,
n...@thistime.net says...

> >> Men may not have BUILT it, but we've certainly been affecting it.
> >
> >Nah. We haven't. Prove me wrong.
>
> Prove you wrong???
> You live on the East Coast of the USA, which USED to be forest - humnans cut that down and made it an urban environment.

Wrong. We cut down the forest and created a *farming* environment -
covered with *crops*, not pavement. And when farming proved more
feasible in the Midwest, we abandoned 90% of the fields. In Vermont,
there are vastly more trees than in 1910.

This increases Devil Carbon ... how, exactly?

> That's affected the environment.

Sure. In a trivial way with no long-lasting implications.

> Poor farming practices in the USA in the 1920s caused the dustbowl of the 1930s which exacerbated the financial
> breakdown of the time. That's a graphic affect to the environment.

Sure. In a trivial way with no long-lasting implications.

> That's only two examples from your own locality.

Two ridiculous, silly examples which in no way illustrate The Coming
Apocalypse predicted by the Cult Of Warmism.

> I can cite the introduction of the European rabbit and fox vermin in my own and the consequent inroads on the indigenous
> animal population. There's also the cane toad but we seem to have stopped the fire ant infestation.

<helpless laughter>

Ah. The "cane toad." Herald O' Doom.

> >And not with a bunch of worthless
> >cites from "scientists" who get their money from The Cult of Global
> >Warmism.
> >
> >> Since we're multiplying our numbers exponentially, we're multiplying our alteration of the ecosystem proportionally.
> >
> >We are? Cite?
>
> Here's the best estimate data from your own government Census Bureau (but I doubt there's a data set you won't
> automatically dismiss as a futile debating tactic) - graph it out for yourself - it's exponential, especially since the
> year 1800CE.

Uh, where's the best estimate data?

> You'll find various equations which describe population growth in living systems here
> http://www.ebiblioteka.lt/resursai/LMA/Biologija/Bio63/Bio63_19.pdf
> Most of them clearly demonstrate exponential population growth and massive crashes in different kinds of environments.
> It may be too complex for you though.

<sarcasm>
Ah. Yes. How crystal-clear your cite is. I see the light now.

"Mathematical modelling of biosystems exemplified
by investigation of microbial population growth" absolutely proves The
Cult Of Warmism's nutcase theory that humanity is raping the batfuck out
of the whole planet and we're all doomed.
</sarcasm>

<laughter>

PS: The guy misspelt "modeling." Must be a dumb fucking Lithuanian or
something.

> >> No organism can live in an environmment of its own excrement.
> >
> >I don't know what shithole you skulk in, but my "excrement" is carried
> >away by a pricey and rather effective sewage treatment system.
>
> Mine too - so either of us individuals is living in such an environment but there's no other planet we can (presently)
> dump our excrement onto.

The whole point of modern sewage treatment is to convert excrement into
non-excrement. So it doesn't matter what "planet" we dump it on.

> This world is a closed system which used to be able to cope with organic waste and was in homeostasis.
> However we humans have unbalanced our own ecology (largely by wiping out or constraining our major predators) and we
> have also destroyed many of the ecological processing systems which used to detoxify all the organic wastes. Filling
> swamps, damming rivers, clearing forests are all actions which diminish the ability of the pre-existing organic systems
> to process wastes.

<laughter>

So what we need is more wolves and tigers running about? Eating
children at bus stops?

> >Whereas you're just addicted to the bullshit spouted by the lefty media?
>
> Facts and data are just SOOOO politically inconvenient for the rabid righties, aren't they?

"Data" like "Mathematical modelling of biosystems exemplified
by investigation of microbial population growth" isn't a bit
inconvenient.

We love this kinda shit. Makes you guys look like fucking lunatics.

[mite...@hotmail.com]

Giftzwerg,

I think it's possible we may be warming the planet.

Do you think we should do anything about it?

If we were warming the planet, do you think we should have done anything about it?

Who should go first? and what modifiers should be applied?

I'd listen to you on this one.

[Giftzwerg]

In article <66ad7367-85e5-46c5...@googlegroups.com>,
mite...@hotmail.com says...

> I think it's possible we may be warming the planet.
>
> Do you think we should do anything about it?
>
> If we were warming the planet, do you think we should have done anything about it?
>
> Who should go first? and what modifiers should be applied?
>
> I'd listen to you on this one.

*My* carbon footprint is tiny. I guess it's me that's "going first."

Mrs. G's car gets 42 miles to the gallon. Mine gets 61. She drives 2.5
miles to work. I walk to work. My house is so well-insulated that we
heat the whole thing with a woodstove that burns about 3/4 of a cord of
wood every winter. My electric bill last month was $67 - and all the
electricity came from Hydro-Quebec and VT Yankee nuclear.

Name me one fucking asshat Global Warming Cultist who's currently
scolding me for The Imminent Death Of Planet Earth who *behaves* as well
as I do, energy usage-wise.

Heck, I use less energy than White Devil Oilman George W. Bush does:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp

As always, my point is the appalling hypocrisy of the leftist / warmist
cultists. They want *me* - with my tiny energy usage - to cut back,
even as they head off to a Copenhagen conference in hundreds of jet
airliners to discuss how me and mine are raping the planet.

They talk the talk. I walk the walk.

[Miowarra Tomokatu (aka Tomo)]

On Sun, 1 Jul 2012 07:02:03 -0400, Giftzwerg <giftzw...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>In article <l0nuu7t0t1bld161n...@4ax.com>,
>n...@thistime.net says...
>
>> >> Men may not have BUILT it, but we've certainly been affecting it.
>> >
>> >Nah. We haven't. Prove me wrong.
>>
>> Prove you wrong???
>> You live on the East Coast of the USA, which USED to be forest - humnans cut that down and made it an urban environment.
>
>Wrong. We cut down the forest and created a *farming* environment -
>covered with *crops*, not pavement. And when farming proved more
>feasible in the Midwest, we abandoned 90% of the fields. In Vermont,
>there are vastly more trees than in 1910.
>
>This increases Devil Carbon ... how, exactly?

Your point was that humans hadn't/couldn't/didn't change the environment. ou're trying to move the goalposts.

>
>> That's affected the environment.
>
>Sure. In a trivial way with no long-lasting implications.

And your eminent qualifications in ecological sciences which encourage you to be so dogmatic are based upon......???
You HAVE heard of "unintended consequences"? They count too when we're talking environmental changes.

>> Poor farming practices in the USA in the 1920s caused the dustbowl of the 1930s which exacerbated the financial
>> breakdown of the time. That's a graphic affect to the environment.
>
>Sure. In a trivial way with no long-lasting implications.

See above.

>
>> That's only two examples from your own locality.
>
>Two ridiculous, silly examples which in no way illustrate The Coming
>Apocalypse predicted by the Cult Of Warmism.

Nor were they intended to, just to refute your idiotic assertion that humans didn't affect the environment.

>
>> I can cite the introduction of the European rabbit and fox vermin in my own and the consequent inroads on the indigenous
>> animal population. There's also the cane toad but we seem to have stopped the fire ant infestation.
>
><helpless laughter>
>
>Ah. The "cane toad." Herald O' Doom.

You display massive ignorance of the size of the problem and its seriousness.

>
>> >And not with a bunch of worthless
>> >cites from "scientists" who get their money from The Cult of Global
>> >Warmism.
>> >
>> >> Since we're multiplying our numbers exponentially, we're multiplying our alteration of the ecosystem proportionally.
>> >
>> >We are? Cite?
>>
>> Here's the best estimate data from your own government Census Bureau (but I doubt there's a data set you won't
>> automatically dismiss as a futile debating tactic) - graph it out for yourself - it's exponential, especially since the
>> year 1800CE.
>
>Uh, where's the best estimate data?

Whoops! "Sorry about dat, chief".
http://www.census.gov/population/international/data/worldpop/table_history.php

>
>> You'll find various equations which describe population growth in living systems here
>> http://www.ebiblioteka.lt/resursai/LMA/Biologija/Bio63/Bio63_19.pdf
>> Most of them clearly demonstrate exponential population growth and massive crashes in different kinds of environments.
>> It may be too complex for you though.
>
><sarcasm>
>Ah. Yes. How crystal-clear your cite is. I see the light now.
>
>"Mathematical modelling of biosystems exemplified
>by investigation of microbial population growth" absolutely proves The
>Cult Of Warmism's nutcase theory that humanity is raping the batfuck out
>of the whole planet and we're all doomed.
></sarcasm>
>
><laughter>

It DOES nonetheless, demonstrate the exponential growth of organisms, which was what it was intended to illustrate, not
whatever whackjob far-out goalpost shifting you're doing again. Try to stay on-topic OK?

>
>PS: The guy misspelt "modeling." Must be a dumb fucking Lithuanian or
>something.

The English-speaking world recognises Ameican misspellings but doesn't imitate them.
It's normal and correct to double the consonant following a vowel in English (but not American). You're little frogs in
a big puddle.

>
>> >> No organism can live in an environmment of its own excrement.
>> >
>> >I don't know what shithole you skulk in, but my "excrement" is carried
>> >away by a pricey and rather effective sewage treatment system.
>>
>> Mine too - so either of us individuals is living in such an environment but there's no other planet we can (presently)
>> dump our excrement onto.
>
>The whole point of modern sewage treatment is to convert excrement into
>non-excrement. So it doesn't matter what "planet" we dump it on.
>
>> This world is a closed system which used to be able to cope with organic waste and was in homeostasis.
>> However we humans have unbalanced our own ecology (largely by wiping out or constraining our major predators) and we
>> have also destroyed many of the ecological processing systems which used to detoxify all the organic wastes. Filling
>> swamps, damming rivers, clearing forests are all actions which diminish the ability of the pre-existing organic systems
>> to process wastes.
>
><laughter>
>
>So what we need is more wolves and tigers running about? Eating
>children at bus stops?

Microbes will be much more efficient.
But you have the anti-vaccination nincompoops working on that, haven't you. They'll provide a satisfactory reinfection
pool so the diseases aren't wiped out.

>
>> >Whereas you're just addicted to the bullshit spouted by the lefty media?
>>
>> Facts and data are just SOOOO politically inconvenient for the rabid righties, aren't they?
>
>"Data" like "Mathematical modelling of biosystems exemplified
>by investigation of microbial population growth" isn't a bit
>inconvenient.
>
>We love this kinda shit. Makes you guys look like fucking lunatics.

You didn't read it or couldn't understand it, could you.
Facts are so terribly confusing, aren't they.
.
.
---------------------------------------------------------------
See all, 'ear all, say nowt.
Eat all, sup all, pay nowt.
An' if tha does owt for nowt, do it for thysen.

[Miowarra Tomokatu (aka Tomo)]

On Sun, 01 Jul 2012 10:34:51 +1000, Climate Change <climate...@itsafact.com> wrote:

>On 1/07/2012 6:36 AM, Miowarra Tomokatu (aka Tomo) wrote:
>> I can cite the introduction of the European rabbit and fox vermin in my own and the consequent inroads on the indigenous
>> animal population. There's also the cane toad but we seem to have stopped the fire ant infestation.
>
>Cane toads can be annoying - I end up putting them in the freezer, not
>sure if that is the most humane. Haven't seen any fire ants yet (but
>haven't been here in Qld for long).

The fire ants were concentrated around the Brisbane suburbs. It was assumed they'd come off the docs but the last I
heard was (about) two years ago and there was a SERIOUS methyl bromide spraying campaign going on and the authorities
were semi-confident they had a hold on the infestation.

>
>Even the household pets (dogs, cats) can have a detrimental effect on
>the environment. (and then there's always people who somehow think they
>are helping when they give food to native animals)

.
.
---------00000000000000000000----------------
Sex is like real estate.......
Get lots while you're young.

[Giftzwerg]

In article <13c1v7d5e6r2fs98j...@4ax.com>,
n...@thistime.net says...

> >Two ridiculous, silly examples which in no way illustrate The Coming
> >Apocalypse predicted by the Cult Of Warmism.
>
> Nor were they intended to, just to refute your idiotic assertion that humans didn't affect the environment.

I've never asserted that humans don't affect the environment. I've
simply asserted that it's not been proven by the Cult Of Global Warming
that we affect it in some negative way.

Yes. We plow grasslands under to grow useful crops. What of it?

> >Ah. The "cane toad." Herald O' Doom.

> You display massive ignorance of the size of the problem and its seriousness.

What has the cane toad to do with The Cult of Global Warmism?

> >> Here's the best estimate data from your own government Census Bureau (but I doubt there's a data set you won't
> >> automatically dismiss as a futile debating tactic) - graph it out for yourself - it's exponential, especially since the
> >> year 1800CE.
> >
> >Uh, where's the best estimate data?
> Whoops! "Sorry about dat, chief".
> http://www.census.gov/population/international/data/worldpop/table_history.php

Yes. Human population is growing. I haven't fathered any children
(that I know of...).

So what?

> ><sarcasm>
> >Ah. Yes. How crystal-clear your cite is. I see the light now.
> >
> >"Mathematical modelling of biosystems exemplified
> >by investigation of microbial population growth" absolutely proves The
> >Cult Of Warmism's nutcase theory that humanity is raping the batfuck out
> >of the whole planet and we're all doomed.
> ></sarcasm>
> >
> ><laughter>
>
> It DOES nonetheless, demonstrate the exponential growth of organisms, which was what it was intended to illustrate, not
> whatever whackjob far-out goalpost shifting you're doing again. Try to stay on-topic OK?

Are "microbes" some sort of AGW issue?

> >PS: The guy misspelt "modeling." Must be a dumb fucking Lithuanian or
> >something.
>
> The English-speaking world recognises Ameican misspellings but doesn't imitate them.
> It's normal and correct to double the consonant following a vowel in English (but not American). You're little frogs in
> a big puddle.

Heh. We're a big fucking frog. And you know it.

> >So what we need is more wolves and tigers running about? Eating
> >children at bus stops?
>
> Microbes will be much more efficient.
> But you have the anti-vaccination nincompoops working on that, haven't you. They'll provide a satisfactory reinfection
> pool so the diseases aren't wiped out.

Since when am I some sort of poster-boy for anti-vaccinations? As luck
would have it, just 24 days ago I updated my DaTP shot, after getting a
massive splinter in my foot. Couldn't say when the last booster was, so
... precautionary.

What's your point, again?

> >"Data" like "Mathematical modelling of biosystems exemplified
> >by investigation of microbial population growth" isn't a bit
> >inconvenient.
> >
> >We love this kinda shit. Makes you guys look like fucking lunatics.
>
> You didn't read it or couldn't understand it, could you.
> Facts are so terribly confusing, aren't they.

Again, Einstein, summarize it for us idjits.

[mite...@hotmail.com]

On Monday, 2 July 2012 04:54:53 UTC+10, Giftzwerg wrote:
> In article <66ad7367-85e5-46c5...@googlegroups.com>,
> mate...@hotmail.com says...

Giftzwerg, it's all about where do we go from here.

It does seem that your main objections are political.

The warmist lunatics flying around in planes are just more tourists. The difference is that when they get there, you'd hope they would be discussing what may be a key aspect of all our futures. The other people are simply looking around.


The type of energy production needs to change. "Warmists flying around" are using today's transport, but carrying a message that today's transport is bad for the planet. Yes, you don't like the people, the personalities. No problem.

Yes, you have low energy usage, a couple without children living in certain circumstances. That is very good. If you had two children, one doing snow-skiing and the other surf-rescue, then your energy usage would go up and you'd be travelling more, in today's transport.

If all the world got on to today's transport, non-stop, for a year, but it resulted in a complete change of thought for a better way to travel in the future, the planet would be gazillions of any units better off. But yes, you don't like the personalities. Get that.

More people who can live like you do is what we need. If your company says, "Giftzwerg, we really don't need you anymore so we're going to transfer you to (your place - new place = 40 miles) and see if you choose to leave us, you don't leave, but your transport costs (pollution, here) are still minimal, that would be the best outcome. (If you could work from home (and I'm sure you c o u l d), that would be better still because of lower pollution costs).

Pollution needs to be a standard, proper cost in any transfer. The cost should only be aimed at reducing the cost of pollution

The cheapest goods could never be from China if all transport was realistically priced. They wouldn't be from the opposite side of the country. Multi industrial areas would arise within realistic distances from major population, and irreplaceable workers, such as dairy farmers, would be able to stay in their chosen industry. Anyway, there's more where that came from :)

[mite...@hotmail.com]

A little while ago, there was another report that fireants had been found even further away from the city. Considering how they expand their area by flying, it seems to me that it's a lost cause, on into the future. Another uncosted bit of commerce.

[KG_Jag]

Fool me once--shame on you.

Fool me twice--shame on me.


When I was in high school, the enviro scientist had their hockey stick
too. They told us with great conviction that man would soon be using
them as another great ice age was on the horizon. We also read about
the population bomb. Many were freaked out. More would have been, if
they weren't even more concerned about being blasted into atoms by
Soviet nukes.

30 years or so later, the enviro scientists come back with their
hockey sticks. Only this time they point them straight up and say
that this is the vector of the earth's tempature in the (now) present
and near future. Again we hear about the population bomb. Chicken
Little Act 2.

God knows what we would have heard had these guys been around and had
take time away from bleeding each other to obcess about global cooling
during the Little Ice Age.

What I know is that advances in technology have enabled the First
World Countires to make our little part of the world cleaner.
Technological advances are tied to individual and economic freedom of
individuals. Government control and the sucking of resources retards
the process. People prefer a clean environment to a dirty one, but
will pick food, shelter and saftey instead of it. Governments who
don't have to report to their people (or who don't thnk they do) ten
not to give a sh*t about enironment in which they make the "little
people" live. Almost no eviro experts so much as exam the impact on
hunger, poverty, advances to be made in clean technologies and new
viable, cost competitive engery sources by sucking wealth from the
productive cleaner countries and transfering those funds to (or to the
benefit of) generally corrupt, ineffective, totalitarian and clueless
countries to save the enironment there.

So if you guys want to have the Earth revert to pre-man condition,
it's only fair that the countries and parts of the globe who screwed
it up first and for the longest, are the first to revert. Europe,
Asia, North Africa and the Middle East--we await your decisive
actions!

Next subject: U.S. immagration reform and why it will be sooo
different from what we did in the 80's when we were told by both
Parties that it would solve the problem--and solve it for the long
term. Stay tuned!

[mite...@hotmail.com]

The population bomb is still an issue, just not with "Educated" populations. That leaves a lot of groups going full steam ahead. Just look at who they are to determine whether they are "educated" or not.

I appreciate what you are saying. There will be no ice-age in the Arctic. Current trends point to "NO" ice there by as early as 2040. Why don't you argue that that can't be right. Be worthwhile to read.

You and you Yanks Re Government. Still wild-woodsmen, aren't you :) Whoever heard of Government for all the people. No Government for those with well-paying jobs. Government for those without. Nuh, not paying for that.

What else does Government pay for? Police, Health, Transport, Energy infrastructure, Environment, Fuckwits shooting each other at will. Probably a few more things. What would they be.


Now, I have to downgrade your opinion by a random 30% due to the Giftzwerg measure of intelligence:

"> God knows what we would have heard had these guys been around and had
> take time away from bleeding each other to obcess about global cooling

> during the Little Ice Age." (supporters, see if you can find it)

>Giftzwerg Wrote: > >PS: The guy misspelt "modeling." Must be a dumb fucking >Lithuanian or something.

However, all is not lost because, the "Old Salt who-gives-a-fuck global adjustment brings you up to 110% :)

Old Salt Wrote: Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

Therefore, thank you for your input :))))

[KG_Jag]

In Europe governments appear to be paying for most everything and for
everybody. Social democracy is the polite term for these giant
welfare and entitlement states. How's that been working for you?
How's it working for Greece, Spain, Italy, Ireland and others in the
EU? What do you folks have left in the piggy bank when the next
Napolean, Hitler or Stalin come down the pike? I submit that this is
a much greater and certain danger than a man made or significantly
enhanced environmental disaster.

I'll take a home in the woods any day.

[mite...@hotmail.com]

On Monday, 2 July 2012 16:06:17 UTC+10, KG_Jag wrote:

But, more seriously, I follow what you are saying, KG. However, it is really only the "1st world" economies which are capable of producing pollution-reducing technology and technology which produces less and less pollution.

I do believe that a large part of the 2nd and 3rd world are locked out of direct trading with the rest of the world and there is no escaping their dilemma which is no opportunity to move to low-pollution tec

On Monday, 2 July 2012 16:06:17 UTC+10, KG_Jag wrote:

I appreciate what you are saying, KG.

However, keep in mind that the 3rd world have been locked out of world trade and have no way of upgrading their technology to low-pollution methods (unless, of course, the factory is owned by a 1st world country).

Ice age? Not in the Arctic. All water by circa 2040. That should warm up the planet a bit. Fuck the current inhabitants. Let them move to New Hampshire, I say.

Overpopulation? Nah. (only south of the border shhhhhh)

"sucking wealth from the
> productive cleaner countries"

Fuck off! 5 billion gizmos designed to last just 2 years, so that more need to be bought is still a lot more pollution than 100000 at too much pollution. Make a proper product designed to last, or to be modifiable by a cheap add-on to improve it is the way to go. Who employs the factory workers after a couple of years? Next question?

I don't know what to do about the stone-agers (you know who they are, but they're not going away).

US needs to take the initiative. This is what I've been on about. You know all those bullshit hollywood feel-good films abouth great deeds requiring over-the-top clapping at the end of it.

Time for a feel-good achievement. Recognition of the problems we have developed and smart answers to get ourselves out of it.

First job. Recognise the problems. Best thing about it? I don't expect anyone in here to be up to it.

[mite...@hotmail.com]

On Monday, 2 July 2012 17:54:44 UTC+10, KG_Jag wrote:

One possibility is that "leading" US companies, some of which aren't around today, dumped bad securities (which had been bet against by other "leading" US companies, or the same "leading" US companies), in the direction of Europe, in particular. You may obtain a home in the woods any day, especially if it was included in one of the bad securities aforementioned.

Everybody had the opportunity to take "advantage" of money from "banks" for some years now, before the system refused to cooperate. Participants knew, sooner or later, but it made no sense to abandon ship, until the water rushed over the decks. Right now, it appears that the ship is proceeding at 40%, with a dull glimmer showing quite a distance overhead, but only gloom dead ahead.

Now, if a Napoleon, Hitler or Stalin does show up, possibly with a little help, it might be useful for the economy. Heaven knows, there's not much else on the horizon (urr, murky distance).

Thank god that true socialism didn't put you in this position. No, the opposite, that which you need more than ever (yes?) did.

[mite...@hotmail.com]

I needed to reply to myself this time.

I said:

> First job. Recognise the problems. Best thing about it? I don't expect anyone in here to be up to it.

Obviously incorrect. I know of people in here who are more than capable of explaining the problems. Apologies to those. You know who you are :)

[Miowarra Tomokatu (aka Tomo)]

On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 04:52:28 -0700 (PDT), mite...@hotmail.com wrote:

>First job. Recognise the problems.

Second job: Stop making it worse.
All the anti-rhetoric about greenies wanting the whole world to return to a pre-industrial age is just so much political
bullshit.
Just stop making it worse.

Never mind what may or may not have been said in the past about KG and "hockey stick" graphs, work from the current
understanding.
-------

BTW, one of you (KG or Gifty) please refer me to an authoritative and factual counter argument to the "hockey stick"
graphs. They look to me like normal graphs of exponential growth in biological systems and apply to both population
growth since the year 10000 BCE and industrial emissions of CO2 since c.1750 CE.

Is there a genuine reason to discount them?

[Giftzwerg]

In article <5pu3v7tsnut12rcsu...@4ax.com>,
n...@thistime.net says...

> BTW, one of you (KG or Gifty) please refer me to an authoritative and factual counter argument to the "hockey stick"
> graphs. They look to me like normal graphs of exponential growth in biological systems and apply to both population
> growth since the year 10000 BCE and industrial emissions of CO2 since c.1750 CE.

Googling for "hockey stick" and "global warming" and "debunk" yields me
99,200 results. One imagines that even a retard of your epic stature
can use Google?

I didn't try a search for "hockey stick" and "global warming" and "total
fucking bullshit."

[KG_Jag]

See above: he who asserts the (new, massively different from reecent
and recorded history and earth destroying) hockey stick theory bears
fo burden of proving it.

Or to restate your position: make up some bad ass apocalyptic theory
and then demand those who don't believe it must disprove it.

[Miowarra Tomokatu (aka Tomo)]

On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 18:48:50 -0400, Giftzwerg <giftzw...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>In article <5pu3v7tsnut12rcsu...@4ax.com>,
>n...@thistime.net says...
>
>> BTW, one of you (KG or Gifty) please refer me to an authoritative and factual counter argument to the "hockey stick"
>> graphs. They look to me like normal graphs of exponential growth in biological systems and apply to both population
>> growth since the year 10000 BCE and industrial emissions of CO2 since c.1750 CE.
>
>Googling for "hockey stick" and "global warming" and "debunk" yields me
>99,200 results. One imagines that even a retard of your epic stature
>can use Google?
>
>I didn't try a search for "hockey stick" and "global warming" and "total
>fucking bullshit."

In other words, you have no definitive argument, just the ramblings of coal industry lobbyists and the aluminium foil
hat mob.

I'd have been prepared to read something serious, but I'm not going to trawl through all the mental excrement that's
vomited out on the web.
.
.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Bother!" said Pooh, as the condom tore.

[mite...@hotmail.com]

It SEEMS :) to me, KG and Gw (I like that), that you don't want to believe this stuff, so what proof would be needed, for you.

You boys like rumbling around in the china shop, breaking things, but, hey!, things will always get broken (and no, they've never been fixed, just new ones)

I think there is no "proof" that you would find acceptable. It still pleases me that definitive proof does not exist, in our lifetimes. I'd prefer it that way.

The "Cite" thing is silly in this regard because IF 90 to 95% of people who are trained in aspects to do specifically with climate change agree, more and more, that the evidence is adding up, and you choose one of the other 5 to 10% of people who have a different version of events to cut and paste, then, I suggest that there is a trend towards an increasing waste of time. Time has been wasted before....

[Thewood]

Do 90-95% completely agree...all aspects of climate change. Isn't that a self-selecting dataset?

Is it all scientists, all government agency staff, all farmers, etc. That is a pretty weak retort and stat.

I am somewhat indifferent. I like some of the regulations because I can breathe and drink water. But I was taught of the coming new ice age in school. If you can tell me what happened between 1980 and 2000 and the complete switch-about in what scientists are telling us and make me not think that people studying climate change are not idiots, I might take slightly more interest.

[CaligulasHorse]

On Wednesday, July 4, 2012 7:49:00 AM UTC+9:30, Miowarra Tomokatu (aka Tomo) wrote:

> >I didn't try a search for "hockey stick" and "global warming" and "total
> >fucking bullshit."
>
>
> In other words, you have no definitive argument, just the ramblings of coal industry lobbyists and the aluminium foil
> hat mob.
>
> I'd have been prepared to read something serious, but I'm not going to trawl through all the mental excrement that's
> vomited out on the web.

Montford's "The Hockey Stick Illusion" is an excellent description of how the original hockey stick & variants were ripped to shreds:

http://www.amazon.com/Hockey-Stick-Illusion-Independent-ebook/dp/B005A54KEM/

Montford is a libertarian type whose skepticsm seems to have arisen originally from his politics, just as the the politics of the most prominent drastic-AGW scientists has obviously been a driving force for them. This is annoying and you have to shovel away rhetoric on both sides to get to the meat.

But Montford's critique here is certainly valid. Much of mainstream climate-science is statistically inept & quite willing to make up stuff to get the "right" result.

Should note that the hockey stick stuff isn't about whether or not there has been recent warming. It's about whether this warming is unprecedented. The original hockey stick & its successors were quite obviously cooked up to suppress other evidence of eg the "Medieval Warm Period" when global temperatures were quite likely similar to today's.

[Giftzwerg]

In article <naq6v751qq6691u75...@4ax.com>,
n...@thistime.net says...

> >Googling for "hockey stick" and "global warming" and "debunk" yields me
> >99,200 results. One imagines that even a retard of your epic stature
> >can use Google?
> >
> >I didn't try a search for "hockey stick" and "global warming" and "total
> >fucking bullshit."
>
>
> In other words, you have no definitive argument, just the ramblings of coal industry lobbyists and the aluminium foil
> hat mob.

In other words, you have no definitive arguments, just the ramblings of
the warmist industry and the AGW tinfoil hat mob.

> I'd have been prepared to read something serious, but I'm not going to trawl through all the mental excrement that's
> vomited out on the web.

I'd rather rack out on TMZ than any of your horseshit.

[mite...@hotmail.com]

It's good we're having this discussion.

I think every individual has to decide this for themselves (yes, yes, like religion, if you like, but there are no spirits here, and no "somebody wrote down what somebody told them..." stuff).

If I can see it, I'm quietly confident that a lot of people can, and will, eventually. For others, they won't see it, and they'll all have their reasons.

[bennyb]

So Giftz, you've stood in the rain, you're the expert on climate science. Please give us the real truth on the Higgs boson. We shouldn't be listening to the physicists, they probably just want more funding. You are the expert on particle physics, your body is made of particles. Can you please confirm for us whether the Higgs particle is real? If you havent seen it, please let us know; Or at least do a google search for us, we are retards.

[Miowarra Tomokatu (aka Tomo)]

Thank you for the rationality of your response. I shall look at that.
.
.
===============================================
Support bacteria.
They're the only culture some people have.

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 4 jul, 00:56, Giftzwerg <giftzwerg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> In other words, you have no definitive arguments, just the ramblings of
> the warmist industry and the AGW tinfoil hat mob.

Science : develop a model based on verifiable facts which manages to
make pretty accurate predictions of the future. If the facts don't
follow the model, the model is deemed wrong and will need to be
altered.

Religion : develop a model based on weed-induced "feelings" which
manages to make ludicrous predictions of the future. If the facts
don't follow the model, the facts are deemed wrong and need to be
altered or ignored.

Now, which definition uncannily resembles "Global Warming" ?

My point : discussing science with religious crackpots is like
teaching a pig to fly : bloody useless and it annoys the pig

Luckily in this case annoying the pigs is a small retribution for all
the tax money I lost due to these idiots who want to combat Global
Good Weather

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Giftzwerg]

In article <42a025d8-6076-4589-8959-eb7606ffa703
@a8g2000vbk.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com says...

"The ratchet" is certainly on vivid display this year. Those awful
wildfires in the American west? You won't hear the warmists squeaking,
"weather isn't climate" right now.

Even here in Podunk, a bunch of thunderstorms blew through last week,
causing local flooding and knocking out power at Casa G. for 18 hours.
Mass speculation in the local leftist (redundant, I know....) newspaper
over the global implications of some thunderstorms.

We're all doomed.

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 9 jul, 15:20, Giftzwerg <giftzwerg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> We're all doomed.

Probably only the Brits will get this, but anyway :)

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/DADS-ARMY-FRASER-WERE-ALL-DOOMED-UNOFFICIAL-TRIBUTE-CULT-TV-T-SHIRT-/260894124684

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Miowarra Tomokatu (aka Tomo)]

On Mon, 9 Jul 2012 07:06:54 -0700 (PDT), "eddys...@hotmail.com" <eddys...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Probably only the Brits will get this, but anyway :)

It's still running here in Oz.
Are any of the original cast still alive
.
.
I may not go down in History,
But I'll go down on your little sister.

[Mike Kreuzer]

Don't know but I doubt it - these were old guys even back then.

Regards,
Mike Kreuzer
www.mikekreuzer.com | www.wargamedispatches.com

[Climate Change]

On 10/07/2012 8:11 AM, Mike Kreuzer wrote:
>>> Probably only the Brits will get this, but anyway :)
>>
>> It's still running here in Oz. Are any of the original cast still
>> alive . . I may not go down in History, But I'll go down on your
>> little sister.
>
> Don't know but I doubt it - these were old guys even back then.

I did a quick check.. looks like some of them are still alive, including
the butcher "don't panic, don't panic":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clive_Dunn

and of course the youngest one "you stupid boy":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Lavender

[Climate Change]

On 9/07/2012 9:37 PM, eddys...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Science : develop a model based on verifiable facts which manages to
> make pretty accurate predictions of the future. If the facts don't
> follow the model, the model is deemed wrong and will need to be
> altered.
>
> Religion : develop a model based on weed-induced "feelings" which
> manages to make ludicrous predictions of the future. If the facts
> don't follow the model, the facts are deemed wrong and need to be
> altered or ignored.

Well that's about the most simplistic definitions I've ever seen. Since
when has religion been defined as being about "predictions"?

> My point : discussing science with religious crackpots is like
> teaching a pig to fly : bloody useless and it annoys the pig

I'm sure people like Isaac Newton were considered crackpots in his day.
And the earth being flat and the centre of the universe were
considered facts once, with "crackpot" theories like a spherical earth
and the sun being the centre of the universe eventually being accepted.

A theory isn't wrong just because it seems unlikely and some people
don't believe it.

[Jeff Urs]

On Monday, July 9, 2012 7:28:36 PM UTC-4, Climate Change wrote:
> I'm sure people like Isaac Newton were considered crackpots in his day.

You do know that Sir Isaac was devoutly religious, and that he published
more theological material than he did scientific?

--
Jeff

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 10 jul, 01:28, Climate Change <climate.cha...@itsafact.com> wrote:

> On 9/07/2012 9:37 PM, eddyster...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > Science : develop a model based on verifiable facts which manages to
> > make pretty accurate predictions of the future. If the facts don't
> > follow the model, the model is deemed wrong and will need to be
> > altered.
>
> > Religion : develop a model based on weed-induced "feelings" which
> > manages to make ludicrous predictions of the future. If the facts
> > don't follow the model, the facts are deemed wrong and need to be
> > altered or ignored.
>
> Well that's about the most simplistic definitions I've ever seen.  Since
> when has religion been defined as being about "predictions"?

Since about 10.000 BC - is this a trick question ?

Make Uurgh the Shaman happy by offering food and he'll ensure a
succesfull hunt in return. If you came back empty handed it meant you
didn't give that lazy bastard enough of the spoils, if you came back
with a mammoth <ahum> amount of meat it meant he did his "job" well

So the model is : input : food, power, respect - output : good hunt

I don't know about you, but I call that a predictive model.

Over time that model got just a bit more refined, with predictions
about the afterlife and such, which are smarter predictions because
nobody ever came back to dispute the model, which is much safer for
the prophets - they learned a con trick or two ever since Uurgh got
kicked out of the tribe after failing to produce a good hunt 6 times
in a row.

> > My point : discussing science with religious crackpots is like
> > teaching a pig to fly : bloody useless and it annoys the pig
>
> I'm sure people like Isaac Newton were considered crackpots in his day.

He wasn't, but who cares ?

>   And the earth being flat

> with "crackpot" theories like a spherical earth

You might want to re-examine your facts here - slowly, because I know
this is hard for religious crackpots - but ever since the ancient
Greeks and even throughout the Dark Ages a "flat earth" was *never*
the accepted scientific paradigm or even religious dogma in the
Western world.

Of course I prefer a disc shaped world carried by 4 elephants on the
back of a space turtle but that's another discussion.

> A theory isn't wrong just because it seems unlikely and some people
> don't believe it.

No, a theory is wrong because the facts don't support it and it's a
worse model for predicting the future than just random numbers. A good
example of this is that crackpot Global Warming theory.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

I still watch the occasional re-run, I still like it, but it shows its
age - it's a bit slow, comedy is much faster these days.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 4 jul, 03:17, Thewood <kprout...@gmail.com> wrote:
>  But I was taught of the coming new ice age in school.  If you can tell me what happened between 1980 and 2000 and the complete switch-about in what scientists are telling us and make me not think that people studying climate change are not idiots, I might take slightly more interest.

Back then I even had to write a paper about the upcoming Ice Age :)

The really funny thing is that this switch from cold to warm wasn't
even the first time they tried that trick.

A short history of the climate change scam :

In 1895 the first set of arcticles appears in the US papers which -
based on data collected over a couple of decades - indicated the earth
is heading for an Ice Age. Apart from the positive news that the whole
of Canada would be covered in ice, this kinda scares the people enough
that big amounts of money are thrown at investigating the problem.
This is also the driving factor for the pole expeditions in the early
20th century btw.

However, around 1930 the US experiences a decade of warmth and draught
- the famous dust-bowls - and in 1933 the New York Times publishes a
series of articles predicting Global Warming - and coining the term in
the process.

Then around 1970, after a decade of colder temperatures, the paradigm
switches again and it's all the rage to talk about the upcoming Ice
Age. I've lived through this period and with no internet to check if
what you get told is true, it was pretty scary.

Then in the nineties Al Gore thought he could make a nice career out
of switching around again and Global Warming was re-born

Purely based on statistics I'm betting a case of belgian beer that by
2020 the usual and useful idiots will be bleating about me having to
change my ways / pay taxes to combat the upcoming Ice Age (and this
time we mean it / third time lucky)

Damn' - I sure would have liked Global Warming to be true - we could
do with a couple of degrees more.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Thewood]

On Tuesday, July 10, 2012 8:25:31 AM UTC-4, eddys...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On 4 jul, 03:17, Thewood &lt;kprout...@gmail.com&gt; wrote:
> &gt;  But I was taught of the coming new ice age in school.  If you can tell me what happened between 1980 and 2000 and the complete switch-about in what scientists are telling us and make me not think that people studying climate change are not idiots, I might take slightly more interest.

>
> Back then I even had to write a paper about the upcoming Ice Age :)
>

> The really funny thing is that this switch from cold to warm wasn&#39;t

> even the first time they tried that trick.
>
> A short history of the climate change scam :
>
> In 1895 the first set of arcticles appears in the US papers which -
> based on data collected over a couple of decades - indicated the earth
> is heading for an Ice Age. Apart from the positive news that the whole
> of Canada would be covered in ice, this kinda scares the people enough
> that big amounts of money are thrown at investigating the problem.
> This is also the driving factor for the pole expeditions in the early
> 20th century btw.
>
> However, around 1930 the US experiences a decade of warmth and draught
> - the famous dust-bowls - and in 1933 the New York Times publishes a
> series of articles predicting Global Warming - and coining the term in
> the process.
>
> Then around 1970, after a decade of colder temperatures, the paradigm

> switches again and it&#39;s all the rage to talk about the upcoming Ice
> Age. I&#39;ve lived through this period and with no internet to check if

> what you get told is true, it was pretty scary.
>
> Then in the nineties Al Gore thought he could make a nice career out
> of switching around again and Global Warming was re-born
>

> Purely based on statistics I&#39;m betting a case of belgian beer that by

> 2020 the usual and useful idiots will be bleating about me having to
> change my ways / pay taxes to combat the upcoming Ice Age (and this
> time we mean it / third time lucky)
>

> Damn&#39; - I sure would have liked Global Warming to be true - we could

> do with a couple of degrees more.
>
> Greetz,
>
> Eddy Sterckx

Even funnier is that all the media is in a rage that this is the hottest record breaking summer on record in the US and therefore a sign of global warming. The official records all start in 1895. A very short amount of googling on record temps for individual states shows that New England's hottest ever decade is the 1870's. See New England states kept their own regional weather info. Something 6 of the 20 hottest years were in the 1870's. But no journalist ever looks beyond the National Weather Service press releases.

So what do the global warmers think of that?

I am no denier that temperatures might be rising, but looking a little closer at publicly available data doesn't come close to convincing me that it is anything but natural cycling of climates.

My sister was all up in arms about the tornado in Mass. last year and that is was a sign of the climate racing out of control. I had to point out to her that there were more tornadoes in the 1950's and 1930's in Mass that were much worse.

I shake my head at the hysteria.

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 10 jul, 15:47, Thewood <kprout...@gmail.com> wrote:
>  But no journalist ever looks beyond the National Weather Service press releases.

When obviously wrong data gets printed I always wonder whether it's
due to malice/hidden agenda or pure stupidity on the journalist's
part. As the same issues crop up in purely technical articles where
suspecting a hidden agenda is simply preposterous I'm leaning more and
more towards the "stupid" side of the scale when looking for an
answer.

> So what do the global warmers think of that?

Nothing - they get told what to think and that's not part of the
curriculum.

> I am no denier that temperatures might be rising, but looking a little closer at publicly available data doesn't come close to convincing me that it is anything but natural cycling of climates.

Actually, global temperatures have been declining for some years now,
but you don't see me jumping to a "New Ice Age is Coming" conclusion
just yet :)

> My sister was all up in arms about the tornado in Mass. last year and that is was a sign of the climate racing out of control.  I had to point out to her that there were more tornadoes in the 1950's and 1930's in Mass that were much worse.
>
> I shake my head at the hysteria.

There's 2 sorts of people. Those who draw their conclusions from facts
and those who don't bother with facts but have opinions anyway. Trying
to change the pov of the latter group is a waste of time as I found
out in my teens. Over the years I've evolved from someone who tried to
explain stuff over ignoring inane ramblings to someone who actively
adds more fuel to the fire just to teach them a lesson. Tell your
sister her insurance premium is going up because of the increased
tornado risk and that she should talk to the insurance company about
it :)

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[mite...@hotmail.com]

On Wednesday, 11 July 2012 00:17:29 UTC+10, eddys...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On 10 jul, 15:47, Thewood &lt;kprout...@gmail.com&gt; wrote:
> &gt;  But no journalist ever looks beyond the National Weather Service press releases.
>
> When obviously wrong data gets printed I always wonder whether it&#39;s
> due to malice/hidden agenda or pure stupidity on the journalist&#39;s

> part. As the same issues crop up in purely technical articles where

> suspecting a hidden agenda is simply preposterous I&#39;m leaning more and
> more towards the &quot;stupid&quot; side of the scale when looking for an
> answer.
>
> &gt; So what do the global warmers think of that?
>
> Nothing - they get told what to think and that&#39;s not part of the
> curriculum.
>
> &gt; I am no denier that temperatures might be rising, but looking a little closer at publicly available data doesn&#39;t come close to convincing me that it is anything but natural cycling of climates.

>
> Actually, global temperatures have been declining for some years now,

> but you don&#39;t see me jumping to a &quot;New Ice Age is Coming&quot; conclusion
> just yet :)
>
> &gt; My sister was all up in arms about the tornado in Mass. last year and that is was a sign of the climate racing out of control.  I had to point out to her that there were more tornadoes in the 1950&#39;s and 1930&#39;s in Mass that were much worse.
> &gt;
> &gt; I shake my head at the hysteria.
>
> There&#39;s 2 sorts of people. Those who draw their conclusions from facts
> and those who don&#39;t bother with facts but have opinions anyway. Trying

> to change the pov of the latter group is a waste of time as I found

> out in my teens. Over the years I&#39;ve evolved from someone who tried to

> explain stuff over ignoring inane ramblings to someone who actively
> adds more fuel to the fire just to teach them a lesson. Tell your
> sister her insurance premium is going up because of the increased
> tornado risk and that she should talk to the insurance company about
> it :)
>
> Greetz,
>
> Eddy Sterckx

Edd Said,


>Over the years I&#39;ve evolved from someone who tried to

> explain stuff over ignoring inane ramblings to someone who actively
> adds more fuel to the fire just to teach them a lesson. Tell your
> sister her insurance premium is going up because of the increased
> tornado risk and that she should talk to the insurance company about
> it :)

And it shows. No content here.

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 11 jul, 04:57, mitet...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >Over the years I've evolved from someone who tried to

> > explain stuff over ignoring inane ramblings to someone who actively
> > adds more fuel to the fire just to teach them a lesson. Tell your
> > sister her insurance premium is going up because of the increased
> > tornado risk and that she should talk to the insurance company about
> > it :)
>
> And it shows.  No content here.

LOL - it does seem I managed to annoy you. Mission accomplished then.
I know it's only a minor compensation for the financial loss Global
Warming idiots have caused and cost me, but at least I get something
back for my money, other than CO2 certificates ... or should they be
called indulgences ? I'm never sure about ecclesiastical terminology.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Climate Change]

On 10/07/2012 5:16 PM, eddys...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Over time that model got just a bit more refined, with predictions
> about the afterlife and such, which are smarter predictions because
> nobody ever came back to dispute the model, which is much safer for
> the prophets - they learned a con trick or two ever since Uurgh got
> kicked out of the tribe after failing to produce a good hunt 6 times
> in a row.

But my point is that some religions may include an afterlife and some
form of "predictions" - but that isn't what religion is all about. It's
about faith and spirituality and a set of beliefs. Confucianism can be
considered a religion and yet it doesn't have a belief in an afterlife
or any sort of "god". Christianity isn't the only religion in the world..

Science is all about making predictions - some work, some don't work.
But don't blame the scientists for this.. blame the journalists and
politicians for the spin they put on it.

> You might want to re-examine your facts here - slowly, because I know
> this is hard for religious crackpots - but ever since the ancient
> Greeks and even throughout the Dark Ages a "flat earth" was *never*
> the accepted scientific paradigm or even religious dogma in the
> Western world.

I was only providing an example (and I notice you didn't mention my bit
about the earth being the centre of the solar system/universe) - I
didn't say it was a recent example :-)

> No, a theory is wrong because the facts don't support it and it's a
> worse model for predicting the future than just random numbers. A good
> example of this is that crackpot Global Warming theory.

Now your statement would be more accurate if it had "In my opinion" at
the start.. or do you consider yourself more knowledgeable than most of
the world's climate scientists? And please.. don't start talking about
how there is some sort of global conspiracy amongst the world's
scientists - otherwise, I'll add you to the list of sceptics like those
who think the moon landing was faked. :-)

What facts don't support it? And where did they come from? What amuses
me is how everyone uses Al Gore as proof of climate change being
nonsense - but he is just a politician getting a benefit from
exaggerating the issue. I personally wouldn't believe any politician
(and probably not any journalist either) on this.. too many people have
a bias on it.

The only way we will know the truth is in 10/20/50 years - are we
willing to gamble the planet on being wrong? And if we take action on
climate change, we end up with a planet with more plants, less
pollution, cleaner air and a more natural environment.. wow, such
terrible consequences!

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 11 jul, 11:23, Climate Change <climate.cha...@itsafact.com> wrote:

> On 10/07/2012 5:16 PM, eddyster...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > Over time that model got just a bit more refined, with predictions
> > about the afterlife and such, which are smarter predictions because
> > nobody ever came back to dispute the model, which is much safer for
> > the prophets - they learned a con trick or two ever since Uurgh got
> > kicked out of the tribe after failing to produce a good hunt 6 times
> > in a row.
>
> But my point is that some religions may include an afterlife and some
> form of "predictions" - but that isn't what religion is all about.

It isn't ?

Mind you, I'm just an outsider, but to me they're all about making up
arbitrary rules in order to either please some deity or if you break
them make him/her/it angry. Oh, and about money of course - money for
the priest class / con artists.

>  It's
> about faith and spirituality and a set of beliefs.  Confucianism can be
> considered a religion and yet it doesn't have a belief in an afterlife
> or any sort of "god".  Christianity isn't the only religion in the world..

When I talk about religion I always mean organized religion, not the
introspective and contemplative philosophical and personal creeds. To
me the Freemasons are a religious group, but Buddhism is not. I'm as a-
religious as you can get, yet I do have my own set of "rules" I live
by - like "don't bother me and I won't bother you". Maybe religion
could be better described as getting told what to do and what to
believe by guys with alterior motives.

> Science is all about making predictions - some work, some don't work.
> But don't blame the scientists for this.. blame the journalists and
> politicians for the spin they put on it.

How many climate models did those guys in the original post
investigate ? was it 38 ? And all of them weren't worth the paper they
were put on when it came to getting any accuracy at all with regard to
predictions. Seems to me the guys to blame here *are* the scientists -
collusion or crappy scientific ethics - pick your choice.

> > You might want to re-examine your facts here - slowly, because I know
> > this is hard for religious crackpots - but ever since the ancient
> > Greeks and even throughout the Dark Ages a "flat earth" was *never*
> > the accepted scientific paradigm or even religious dogma in the
> > Western world.
>
> I was only providing an example

Yeah, which was wrong ...

> (and I notice you didn't mention my bit
> about the earth being the centre of the solar system/universe) -

I forget what your point was exactly - that science gets it wrong
sometimes ?

> > No, a theory is wrong because the facts don't support it and it's a
> > worse model for predicting the future than just random numbers. A good
> > example of this is that crackpot Global Warming theory.
>
> Now your statement would be more accurate if it had "In my opinion" at
> the start..

Nope - just read the original article linked to in the first post of
this thread.

> or do you consider yourself more knowledgeable than most of
> the world's climate scientists?

Are those the guys who created those 38 models which are worse at
predicting than just a random generator ? Well, I must say that
they're obviously smarter than me when it comes to conning people.

> And please.. don't start talking about
> how there is some sort of global conspiracy amongst the world's
> scientists

No need for that - the simple fact that scientists who publicly
disagree with the current paradigm are ostracized from publications
and barred from grants is incentive enough for them to toe the party
line. They got to feed their kids too you know.

> otherwise, I'll add you to the list of sceptics like those
> who think the moon landing was faked.  :-)

Muddying the waters a bit are we ? If it comes to cold, hard,
verifiable facts it's pretty simple : man walked on the moon, global
warming is a scam.

> What facts don't support it?

You got this completely in reverse. You assert there's such a thing as
Global Warming - let's see some cold hard facts that support your
case. Undoctered data this time please.

> And where did they come from?

Pretty irrelevant. Facts are facts.

> The only way we will know the truth is in 10/20/50 years - are we
> willing to gamble the planet on being wrong?

I'm shaking my head in disbelief that you can't spot that this is the
same scare tactics that has been used by religions the world over for
millenia : pay now or you'll be sorry later.

> And if we take action on
> climate change, we end up with a planet with more plants, less
> pollution, cleaner air and a more natural environment.. wow, such
> terrible consequences!

It might have escaped your attention that both plants and mankind
thrive better in a warmer climate - maybe you better start reading up
on the Roman and medieval warm period.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Giftzwerg]

In article <1b32c5c6-aaf8-4719-9842-78090d503237
@n5g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com says...

> > And if we take action on
> > climate change, we end up with a planet with more plants, less
> > pollution, cleaner air and a more natural environment.. wow, such
> > terrible consequences!
>
> It might have escaped your attention that both plants and mankind
> thrive better in a warmer climate - maybe you better start reading up
> on the Roman and medieval warm period.

And then there's the obvious; the "solution" proposed by the Cult of
Warmism doesn't just involve "more plants," "cleaner air," and "Magic
Unicorns" - it's all about cutting energy usage and stifling industry
and kissing goodbye to millions and millions and millions of jobs.

Yep. Millions of people out of work is a fairly terrible consequence.

[Climate Change]

On 11/07/2012 8:08 PM, eddys...@hotmail.com wrote:
> How many climate models did those guys in the original post
> investigate ? was it 38 ? And all of them weren't worth the paper they
> were put on when it came to getting any accuracy at all with regard to
> predictions. Seems to me the guys to blame here *are* the scientists -
> collusion or crappy scientific ethics - pick your choice.

Science is all about making theories and testing them. Just because
some don't work, doesn't make it any less science. There are plenty of
scientific theories out there yet to be proven - how many years did it
take to find the Higgs Boson?

> I forget what your point was exactly - that science gets it wrong
> sometimes ?

Yes science does get it wrong sometimes - nobody is perfect.

>> Now your statement would be more accurate if it had "In my opinion" at
>> the start..
>
> Nope - just read the original article linked to in the first post of
> this thread.

What - the opinion piece written by a professor of economics in the
Financial Post? Yes I guess that really does prove that Climate Change
is completely wrong - we should always take our science advice from
economics professors writing for financial newspapers, no conflict of
interest there at all.

> No need for that - the simple fact that scientists who publicly
> disagree with the current paradigm are ostracized from publications
> and barred from grants is incentive enough for them to toe the party
> line. They got to feed their kids too you know.

Cite? You have an example of climate scientists being refused grants?

>> What facts don't support it?
>
> You got this completely in reverse. You assert there's such a thing as
> Global Warming - let's see some cold hard facts that support your
> case. Undoctered data this time please.

No, you stated "a theory is wrong because the facts don't support it".

Undoctored data? Time to bring out the list:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

#17 on the list

> It might have escaped your attention that both plants and mankind
> thrive better in a warmer climate - maybe you better start reading up
> on the Roman and medieval warm period.

Not all plants, and not all humans.. and a bit difficult to thrive when
you're underwater or in a desert. Climate has always been changing -
the problem is the speed at which it is changing.

I'm not trying to convince you that climate change theory is 100%
accurate - but please don't call scientists "religious crackpots", no
scientists deserve that sort of label no matter how good or bad their
theories and models are.

[Climate Change]

On 11/07/2012 8:41 PM, Giftzwerg wrote:
> And then there's the obvious; the "solution" proposed by the Cult of
> Warmism doesn't just involve "more plants," "cleaner air," and "Magic
> Unicorns" - it's all about cutting energy usage and stifling industry
> and kissing goodbye to millions and millions and millions of jobs.
>
> Yep. Millions of people out of work is a fairly terrible consequence.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

#165 on the list

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 11 jul, 12:44, Climate Change <climate.cha...@itsafact.com> wrote:

> On 11/07/2012 8:08 PM, eddyster...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > How many climate models did those guys in the original post
> > investigate ? was it 38 ? And all of them weren't worth the paper they
> > were put on when it came to getting any accuracy at all with regard to
> > predictions. Seems to me the guys to blame here *are* the scientists -
> > collusion or crappy scientific ethics - pick your choice.
>
> Science is all about making theories and testing them.

Right. Pop quiz. And what do those climate "scientists" do when it
turns out their model is wrong ?

A: publicly retract the model and all the consequences derived by and
predicted by it.
B : massage the data so the model survives.

If the answer is B, and in the case of global warming, it *is* B, then
that's not science, that's fraud.

> There are plenty of
> scientific theories out there yet to be proven

So ? Relevance ?

> how many years did it
> take to find the Higgs Boson?

So ? Relevance ?

> > I forget what your point was exactly - that science gets it wrong
> > sometimes ?
>
> Yes science does get it wrong sometimes - nobody is perfect.

Well, duh.

> >> Now your statement would be more accurate if it had "In my opinion" at
> >> the start..
>
> > Nope - just read the original article linked to in the first post of
> > this thread.
>
> What - the opinion piece written by a professor of economics in the
> Financial Post?  Yes I guess that really does prove that Climate Change
> is completely wrong - we should always take our science advice from
> economics professors writing for financial newspapers, no conflict of
> interest there at all.

When you can't dispute the facts, dispute the messenger.

> > No need for that - the simple fact that scientists who publicly
> > disagree with the current paradigm are ostracized from publications
> > and barred from grants is incentive enough for them to toe the party
> > line. They got to feed their kids too you know.
>
> Cite?  You have an example of climate scientists being refused grants?

LOL - our environment minister had and has a special budget for
"global waming studies" - he doesn't have one for "skeptical studies
into the global warming scam" - scientists aren't born yesterday you
know, they know where (currently) the money is. Just like they knew in
1890 and again in 1970 that the money was in investigating the New Ice
Age ...

This fixing of the direction of scientific inquiry then produces total
nonsense "official" reports like the one below (in Dutch) - which is a
hoot if you can read it.

http://www.klimaat.be/IMG/pdf/NKP_2009-2012-2.pdf

> >> What facts don't support it?
>
> > You got this completely in reverse. You assert there's such a thing as
> > Global Warming - let's see some cold hard facts that support your
> > case. Undoctered data this time please.
>
> No, you stated "a theory is wrong because the facts don't support it".

Exactly. There is no such thing as global warming - here's the
undoctered data :

http://reasonabledoubtclimate.wordpress.com/page/3/

> Undoctored data?  Time to bring out the list:
>
> http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
>
> #17 on the list

Sorry - I forgot that Climategate never happened in your universe.

> > It might have escaped your attention that both plants and mankind
> > thrive better in a warmer climate - maybe you better start reading up
> > on the Roman and medieval warm period.
>
> Not all plants, and not all humans.. and a bit difficult to thrive when
> you're underwater or in a desert.  Climate has always been changing -
> the problem is the speed at which it is changing.

Oh, certainly - in 1890 the climate was heading for an Ice Age, in
1933 it was heading for Global Warming, in 1970 it was heading for an
Ice Age again, and in 1995 it was Global Warming 2.0. it's pretty
obvious if you analyse these dates that the swing from cold to warm is
rapidly accelerating from 40+ years at first to 25 years the last
time. Hmm, maybe I should revise my prediction of 2020 being the year
of Ice Age 3.0 - it might be 2018.

Mind you, the climate didn't actually change that much at all, just
where climate scientists were claiming it was heading did, but that's
a finer and obviously unimportant point, that's a bit lost on the True
Believers.

> I'm not trying to convince you that climate change theory is 100%
> accurate - but please don't call scientists "religious crackpots",

Oh, I won't - I'm calling climate scientists "scam artists" - the
"religious crackpots" sobriquet is reserved for their followers.

> scientists deserve that sort of label no matter how good or bad their
> theories and models are.

If their crappy models are costing me money I'll call them as I see
them.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 11 jul, 12:41, Giftzwerg <giftzwerg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article <1b32c5c6-aaf8-4719-9842-78090d503237

> @n5g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, eddyster...@hotmail.com says...

>
> > > And if we take action on
> > > climate change, we end up with a planet with more plants, less
> > > pollution, cleaner air and a more natural environment.. wow, such
> > > terrible consequences!
>
> > It might have escaped your attention that both plants and mankind
> > thrive better in a warmer climate - maybe you better start reading up
> > on the Roman and medieval warm period.
>
> And then there's the obvious; the "solution" proposed by the Cult of
> Warmism doesn't just involve "more plants," "cleaner air," and "Magic
> Unicorns" - it's all about cutting energy usage and stifling industry
> and kissing goodbye to millions and millions and millions of jobs.

That's why I always enthusiastically propose to go totally nuclear on
the energy production question as that's the most environmentally
friendly way forward. It has the dual advantage that it's both a good
solution and annoying the crap out of those green guys :)

Solving a "problem" the "wrong way" always does :)

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Climate Change]

On 11/07/2012 9:38 PM, eddys...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> Cite? You have an example of climate scientists being refused grants?
>
> LOL - our environment minister had and has a special budget for
> "global waming studies" - he doesn't have one for "skeptical studies
> into the global warming scam" - scientists aren't born yesterday you
> know, they know where (currently) the money is. Just like they knew in
> 1890 and again in 1970 that the money was in investigating the New Ice
> Age ...

That's a blurry definition of "refused grants"

> Exactly. There is no such thing as global warming - here's the
> undoctered data :
>
> http://reasonabledoubtclimate.wordpress.com/page/3/

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

#52 on the list

>> Undoctored data? Time to bring out the list:
>>
>> http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
>>
>> #17 on the list
>
> Sorry - I forgot that Climategate never happened in your universe.

Did you actually read #17? What part of it are you disputing?

And is a 160-page investigation into it not enough for you?

http://www.cce-review.org/

You're taking skepticism to a whole new level!

> Oh, certainly - in 1890 the climate was heading for an Ice Age, in
> 1933 it was heading for Global Warming, in 1970 it was heading for an
> Ice Age again, and in 1995 it was Global Warming 2.0. it's pretty
> obvious if you analyse these dates that the swing from cold to warm is
> rapidly accelerating from 40+ years at first to 25 years the last
> time. Hmm, maybe I should revise my prediction of 2020 being the year
> of Ice Age 3.0 - it might be 2018.

Ice Age?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

#12 and #14 on the list

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 11 jul, 14:10, Climate Change <climate.cha...@itsafact.com> wrote:

> On 11/07/2012 9:38 PM, eddyster...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >> Cite?  You have an example of climate scientists being refused grants?
>
> > LOL - our environment minister had and has a special budget for
> > "global waming studies" - he doesn't have one for "skeptical studies
> > into the global warming scam" - scientists aren't born yesterday you
> > know, they know where (currently) the money is. Just like they knew in
> > 1890 and again in 1970 that the money was in investigating the New Ice
> > Age ...
>
> That's a blurry definition of "refused grants"

Only reserving money for one direction of scientific inquiry is in
reality exactly the same as refusing it for the other direction -
unless you're one of those guys who believes semantics trumps reality.

>  > Exactly. There is no such thing as global warming - here's the
>  > undoctered data :
>  >
>  >http://reasonabledoubtclimate.wordpress.com/page/3/
>
> http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
>
> #52 on the list

Did you even read your own link ?

"The Argo system, the best data available, is showing no rise in ocean
temperatures at all (indeed, a slight cooling) since it was deployed
in 2003. This data raises a lot of questions. If the heat isn't in the
atmosphere, and it's not in the oceans, where is the Global Warming
heat supposed to be?"

> >> Undoctored data?  Time to bring out the list:
>
> >>http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
>
> >> #17 on the list
>
> > Sorry - I forgot that Climategate never happened in your universe.
>
> Did you actually read #17?

Yup

> What part of it are you disputing?

Disputing ? Just ROTFLMAO at the far-fetched "explanations" some True
Believers will come up with to explain pretty straightforward
Climategate emails like :

"I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from
1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

and

"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the
moment and it is a travesty that we can't."

> And is a 160-page investigation into it not enough for you?

The Spanish Inquisition wrote lots of texts as well, doesn't mean I
start believing witches could really fly.

> You're taking skepticism to a whole new level!

It's called the IQ > 70 level.

> > Oh, certainly - in 1890 the climate was heading for an Ice Age, in
> > 1933 it was heading for Global Warming, in 1970 it was heading for an
> > Ice Age again, and in 1995 it was Global Warming 2.0. it's pretty
> > obvious if you analyse these dates that the swing from cold to warm is
> > rapidly accelerating from 40+ years at first to 25 years the last
> > time. Hmm, maybe I should revise my prediction of 2020 being the year
> > of Ice Age 3.0 - it might be 2018.
>
> Ice Age?

Yes - what's there to argue about ? Everything I typed up above is
simply fact.

1890-1933 : Ice Age - 43 years
1933-1970 : Global Warming - 37 years
1970-1995 : Ice Age 2.0 - 25 years
1995-.. : Global Warming 2.0

Stands to reason that around 2020, but probably a bit earlier, Ice Age
3.0 is up to bat again.

I knew you wouldn't recognize a perfectly valid scientific theory if
you saw one - one based on facts and with a predictive element that'll
be easily checkable in a couple of years time.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Giftzwerg]

In article <e9243867-1d96-4a00-a280-cd378cea0398
@b1g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com says...

> > Undoctored data? ï¿œTime to bring out the list:

> >
> > http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
> >
> > #17 on the list
>
> Sorry - I forgot that Climategate never happened in your universe.

This dumb fucking list is too comical for words:

"Myth: Obungle is a shitty president. What the science says: No, he
isn't - and shut up, you racists."

One is reminded of:

"M: Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the
automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.
(short pause)
A: No it isn't.
M: It is.
A: Not at all.
M: Now look.
A: (Rings bell) Good Morning!"
- Monty Python's Flying Circus

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 12 jul, 00:25, Giftzwerg <giftzwerg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article <e9243867-1d96-4a00-a280-cd378cea0398

> @b1g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, eddyster...@hotmail.com says...
>
> > > Undoctored data? Time to bring out the list:

>
> > >http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
>
> > > #17 on the list
>
> > Sorry - I forgot that Climategate never happened in your universe.
>
> This dumb fucking list is too comical for words:

Well, they have to cater to their audience. I suppose I could find the
same sort of list detailing why the Bible is right too.

Normally I don't mess with other people's religion or belief system,
but that's just as long as they leave me in peace.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 11 jul, 14:52, "eddyster...@hotmail.com" <eddyster...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>
> Stands to reason that around 2020, but probably a bit earlier, Ice Age
> 3.0 is up to bat again.

Boy, was I wrong.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming--Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html

"Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if
NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again)
Met Office releases new figures which show no warming in 15
years"

“The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an
inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data
showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years."

"The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age
to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the
Thames in the 17th Century."

"Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data
was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the
University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the
rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.”

-

Crap - there goes my prediction of 2020 - they'll be begging for tax
money to "investigate" the New Ice Age next week or so.

I wonder if I could get subsidized to keep my old CO2 spewing car for
a couple more years in order to combat this Ice Age ?

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[KG_Jag]

On Jul 17, 6:25 am, "eddyster...@hotmail.com"

<eddyster...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 11 jul, 14:52, "eddyster...@hotmail.com" <eddyster...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Stands to reason that around 2020, but probably a bit earlier, Ice Age
> > 3.0 is up to bat again.
>
> Boy, was I wrong.
>

> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-...

>
> "Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if
> NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again)
>       Met Office releases new figures which show no warming in 15
> years"
>
> “The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an
> inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data
> showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years."
>
> "The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age
> to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the
> Thames in the 17th Century."
>
> "Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data
> was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the
> University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the
> rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.”
>
> -
>
> Crap - there goes my prediction of 2020 - they'll be begging for tax
> money to "investigate" the New Ice Age next week or so.
>
> I wonder if I could get subsidized to keep my old CO2 spewing car for
> a couple more years in order to combat this Ice Age ?
>
> Greetz,
>
> Eddy Sterckx

Ask a social engineer. Only he/she knows for sure.

[Miowarra Tomokatu (aka Tomo)]

On Tue, 17 Jul 2012 06:25:28 -0700 (PDT), "eddys...@hotmail.com" <eddys...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On 11 jul, 14:52, "eddyster...@hotmail.com" <eddyster...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>>
>> Stands to reason that around 2020, but probably a bit earlier, Ice Age
>> 3.0 is up to bat again.
>
>Boy, was I wrong.
>
>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming--Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html
>
>"Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if
>NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again)
> Met Office releases new figures which show no warming in 15
>years"
>
>“The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an
>inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data
>showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years."
>
>"The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age
>to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the
>Thames in the 17th Century."
>
>"Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data
>was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the
>University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the
>rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.”
>

But then again, it may well only be a temporary reprieve.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/07/120710111111.htm

Highlight topics (read down to the end of the article for the rest of these reports)
-Warm temperature trends continue:
-Greenhouse gases climb
-Arctic sea ice extent decreases:
-Ozone levels in Arctic drop
-Sea surface temperature & ocean heat content rise:
-Ocean salinity trends continue:
.
.
===============================================
Support bacteria.
They're the only culture some people have.

[Climate Change]

Science Daily? No no no - we're supposed to get all our science advice
from The Daily Fail.