Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Why Don't Global Warmers Just STFU

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Dude777

unread,
Jan 12, 2010, 6:59:11 AM1/12/10
to
According to the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado,
Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per
cent, since 2007 � and even the most committed global warming activists
do not dispute this.

They say that their research shows that much of the warming was caused
by oceanic cycles when they were in a �warm mode� as opposed to the
present �cold mode�.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1242011/DAVID-ROSE-The-mini-ice-age-starts-here.html

Tad Perry

unread,
Jan 12, 2010, 7:09:20 AM1/12/10
to
"Dude777" <dud...@dude.mail.com> wrote in message
news:hiho8g$poo$1...@news.eternal-september.org...

> According to the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado, Arctic
> summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent,
> since 2007 � and even the most committed global warming activists do not
> dispute this.
>
> They say that their research shows that much of the warming was caused by
> oceanic cycles when they were in a �warm mode� as opposed to the present
> �cold mode�.

It's because the warm mode will cycle back through again even warmer than
the last time.

The analogy of a kid on a swing with increasing energy on each push is
fairly accurate.

Your criticism holds no water.

Larger and larger swings in both extremes. What you see fits this perfectly.

Why did I say it if it isn't the truth?

tvp

Dude777

unread,
Jan 12, 2010, 7:11:37 AM1/12/10
to

'Cause you're ignorant?

La Cosa Nostradamus

unread,
Jan 12, 2010, 7:41:02 AM1/12/10
to
Its radical climate change.

You yourself stated just how fast the sea ice formed.

Maybe you noticed where the rash of earthquakes took place on the globe
during the time period you stated. If you draw a line from the center of
the earth through the rash of earthquakes you will get a line that touches
Eris everytime the earth rotates.

Eris has an impact on the earth and all other planets. The same force has
caused Venus to erupt violently and in the last 30 years, the temperature
has DOUBLED. Pluto was initially discoved solely based on the fact that
something had to cause the pertubations that affect planetary orbits.

Something has to be causing our climatory changes. Something has to have
caused Venus to explode. My statements add up irrefutably. Look at Eris'
path and determine what effects it would have on the earth. Then look at
the earthquake data over the last century. Same graph.

It's not rocket science.


Music
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=7CBC79A5A43EA115&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL


Dec 21, 2012
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=BEACDF838531C36C&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL

-------�
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com

Dude777

unread,
Jan 12, 2010, 7:57:47 AM1/12/10
to
La Cosa Nostradamus wrote:

> It's not rocket science.

It's not man-made either.

La Cosa Nostradamus

unread,
Jan 12, 2010, 8:17:14 AM1/12/10
to

Man has a teeny effect.

The warmers must be blathering at venus and projecting hot air at the
place, heating it by 15 degrees per year for 1/3 of a century.


Music
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=7CBC79A5A43EA115&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL

______________________________________________________________________�
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com


Beldin the Sorcerer

unread,
Jan 12, 2010, 8:18:47 AM1/12/10
to

"Dude777" <dud...@dude.mail.com> wrote in message
news:hihrma$bv5$1...@news.eternal-september.org...

> La Cosa Nostradamus wrote:
>
>> It's not rocket science.
>
> It's not man-made either.
The vast overwhelming majority of trained scientists in the world differ
with your view.

We realize you can operate Google, but that does not qualify you


La Cosa Nostradamus

unread,
Jan 12, 2010, 8:46:43 AM1/12/10
to

There was a time most scientists believed that the sun revolved around
the earth.


Years ago your pals had people put to death when we proved how
closedminded you are


Thank God you putz' are only allowed to voice your old beliefs online
these days.


Music
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=7CBC79A5A43EA115&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL

---�
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com


Jerry Sturdivant

unread,
Jan 12, 2010, 8:40:34 AM1/12/10
to

"Dude777" <dud...@dude.mail.com> wrote in message

news:hiho8g$poo$1...@news.eternal-september.org...

> According to the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado, Arctic
> summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent,
> since 2007 � and even the most committed global warming activists do not
> dispute this.

It's called, Winter. And each summer more TOTAL ice melts. Only those living
in denial would consider a square mile of one-inch thick winter-time ice
equivalent to a one cubic mile of ice.


> They say that their research shows that much of the warming was caused by
> oceanic cycles when they were in a �warm mode� as opposed to the present
> �cold mode�.

They?


Jerry 'n Vegas

- Don't judge folks by their relatives.


Beldin the Sorcerer

unread,
Jan 12, 2010, 8:58:05 AM1/12/10
to

"La Cosa Nostradamus" <a6f...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
news:33bu17x...@recgroups.com...

> On Jan 12 2010 8:18 AM, Beldin the Sorcerer wrote:
>
>> "Dude777" <dud...@dude.mail.com> wrote in message
>> news:hihrma$bv5$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> > La Cosa Nostradamus wrote:
>> >
>> >> It's not rocket science.
>> >
>> > It's not man-made either.
>> The vast overwhelming majority of trained scientists in the world differ
>> with your view.
>>
>> We realize you can operate Google, but that does not qualify you
>
> There was a time most scientists believed that the sun revolved around
> the earth.
>

No, that was never the case

Skillz, you don't know what 'science' is.

>
> Years ago your pals had people put to death when we proved how
> closedminded you are

Skillz, sober up
Till then, shut up
You're fucked in the head, boy.
Not like Jerry is. Seriously You Need A Fucking Shrink fucked in the head


Will in New Haven

unread,
Jan 12, 2010, 9:28:37 AM1/12/10
to
On Jan 12, 8:18 am, "Beldin the Sorcerer" <beldin...@verizon.net>
wrote:
> "Dude777" <dude...@dude.mail.com> wrote in message

>
> news:hihrma$bv5$1...@news.eternal-september.org...> La Cosa Nostradamus wrote:
>
> >> It's not rocket science.
>
> > It's not man-made either.
>
> The vast overwhelming majority of trained scientists in the world differ
> with your view.

The majority is not vast unless your definition of vast is very much
smaller than most. The majority think human activity is part of the
cause, not all of it. That does not translate to a vast majority
saying it's not man-made.

--
Will in New Haven

Will in New Haven

unread,
Jan 12, 2010, 9:30:45 AM1/12/10
to
On Jan 12, 8:46 am, "La Cosa Nostradamus" <a6f4...@webnntp.invalid>
wrote:

> On Jan 12 2010 8:18 AM, Beldin the Sorcerer wrote:
>
> > "Dude777" <dude...@dude.mail.com> wrote in message

> >news:hihrma$bv5$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> > > La Cosa Nostradamus wrote:
>
> > >> It's not rocket science.
>
> > > It's not man-made either.
> > The vast overwhelming majority of trained scientists in the world differ
> > with your view.
>
> > We realize you can operate Google, but that does not qualify you
>
> There was  a time most scientists believed that the sun revolved around
> the earth.

There were no scientists then. There were natural philosophers who
were the begginings of science but one of the first thing real science
did when it became active was to show this was nonsense. There have
certainly been ideas accepted by science that had to be modified or
changed as new facts became evident but this was not one of them.

--
Will in New Haven

>


> Years ago your pals had people put to death when we proved how
> closedminded you are
>
> Thank God you putz' are only allowed to voice your old beliefs online
> these days.
>

> Musichttp://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=7CBC79A5A43EA115&playnext=1&p...
>
> Dec 21, 2012http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=BEACDF838531C36C&playnext=1&p...

Beldin the Sorcerer

unread,
Jan 12, 2010, 10:08:37 AM1/12/10
to

"Will in New Haven" <bill....@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote in message
news:b0f7a9e4-c315-4a06...@26g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...

On Jan 12, 8:18 am, "Beldin the Sorcerer" <beldin...@verizon.net>
wrote:
> "Dude777" <dude...@dude.mail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:hihrma$bv5$1...@news.eternal-september.org...> La Cosa Nostradamus
> wrote:
>
> >> It's not rocket science.
>
> > It's not man-made either.
>
> The vast overwhelming majority of trained scientists in the world differ
> with your view.

The majority is not vast unless your definition of vast is very much
smaller than most.

***
95% seems pretty vast
***


The majority think human activity is part of the
cause, not all of it.

***
His view seems to be that NONE of it is

***


That does not translate to a vast majority
saying it's not man-made.

***
Is this a typo?

Dave the Clueless

unread,
Jan 12, 2010, 10:56:09 AM1/12/10
to

Where do you get 95% from, Bel-tard?

-----�

La Cosa Nostradamus

unread,
Jan 12, 2010, 11:53:01 AM1/12/10
to

La Cosa Nostradamus

unread,
Jan 12, 2010, 11:51:09 AM1/12/10
to
On Jan 12 2010 9:30 AM, Will in New Haven wrote:

> There were no scientists then. There were natural philosophers who
> were the begginings of science but one of the first thing real science
> did when it became active was to show this was nonsense. There have
> certainly been ideas accepted by science that had to be modified or
> changed as new facts became evident but this was not one of them.
>

> news:33bu17x...@recgroups.com...


> > On Jan 12 2010 8:18 AM, Beldin the Sorcerer wrote:
> >

> >> "Dude777" <dud...@dude.mail.com> wrote in message


> >> news:hihrma$bv5$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> >> > La Cosa Nostradamus wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> It's not rocket science.
> >> >
> >> > It's not man-made either.
> >> The vast overwhelming majority of trained scientists in the world differ
> >> with your view.
> >>
> >> We realize you can operate Google, but that does not qualify you
> >

______________________________________________________________________�

La Cosa Nostradamus

unread,
Jan 12, 2010, 11:50:31 AM1/12/10
to
On Jan 12 2010 8:58 AM, Beldin the Sorcerer wrote:

> "La Cosa Nostradamus" <a6f...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message

> > There was a time most scientists believed that the sun revolved around


> > the earth.
> >
>
> No, that was never the case

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

Have a nice day !! :)

--------�

number6

unread,
Jan 12, 2010, 11:52:09 AM1/12/10
to
On Jan 12, 10:56 am, "Dave the Clueless" <fract...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Jan 12 2010 11:08 AM, Beldin the Sorcerer wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Will in New Haven" <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote in message

I think he polled idiots morons and shitheads ...

La Cosa Nostradamus

unread,
Jan 12, 2010, 12:14:25 PM1/12/10
to
On Jan 12 2010 11:52 AM, number6 wrote:

> > Where do you get 95% from, Bel-tard?
> >
>
> I think he polled idiots morons and shitheads ...

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

________________________________________________________________________�

Omaha8_Beach

unread,
Jan 12, 2010, 1:46:00 PM1/12/10
to
On Jan 12, 8:30 am, Will in New Haven

<bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
>
> There were no scientists then. There were natural philosophers who
> were the begginings of science but one of the first thing real science
> did when it became active was to show this was nonsense. There have
> certainly been ideas accepted by science that had to be modified or
> changed as new facts became evident but this was not one of them.


There were scientists then. Part of the reason they didn't support
the Heliocentric theory was because they couldn't account for the lack
of any observable parallax. They couldn't observe any with their
instruments at that time because the stars were much farther away than
they thought.

Omaha8

joeturn

unread,
Jan 12, 2010, 3:35:20 PM1/12/10
to

But it is artificial!

An excerp from accurate history!

Twelve humanoid, and one Reptilian, groups donated DNA for this
purpose. Mankind was developed in the area now known as Iran/Iraq, as
well as parts of Africa. Hybrids were also developed on Atlantis and
Lemuria. Remnants of these are seen today as the Bigfoot or Yeti in
North America and Asia; the aborigines of Australia; and the pygmies
and Watusi in Africa.

The African versions were created by beings from a nomadic, artificial
planet known as Nibiru, or Marduk. These Reptilian-like beings travel
in a manufactured world looping our solar system.

The Sumerians called them Anunnaki.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


It is here, we would have to assume, the family of AN, with son’s
Enki / Enlil (Lucifer / Michael - Adon / Yahweh) arrived from Sirius
techno craft, with all the Nephilim genetic disasters we called THE
RETURN OF ENKI. While people like Sitchin can add useful puzzle pieces
like how their home atmosphere repair could gain the necessary gravity
fractality using gold deposits, the Sumerian basically did not give
him a clue as to the bigger galactic politic mess than triggered
Enki’s (Abraham) genetic experiments. After repeatedly encountering
the Enki/Enlil story in Australia (fish or dolphin god vs snake god -
LEVITE), it was cool to listen to Creto Mutwa tell the Zulu
KILIMANJARO means ENKI mountain!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The cosmic joke to this project is that all of the groups donating DNA
secretly programmed sequences to cause their genetic strand to be
predominant. This set the precedent for eternal conflict. Humanity was
doomed to fight and be controlled. No one group would ever be in
charge. The project was doomed for failure before it even began!

Read its in here
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sumer_anunnaki/reptiles/reptiles17a.htm

Irish Mike

unread,
Jan 12, 2010, 4:40:05 PM1/12/10
to
On Jan 12 2010 7:59 AM, Dude777 wrote:

> According to the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado,
> Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per

> cent, since 2007 � and even the most committed global warming activists

> do not dispute this.
>
> They say that their research shows that much of the warming was caused

> by oceanic cycles when they were in a �warm mode� as opposed to the
> present �cold mode�.
>
>
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1242011/DAVID-ROSE-The-mini-ice-age-starts-here.html

Global warming is the biggest scam ever pulled on the American people. It
makes Bernard Madoff look like a crooked Girl Scout selling over priced
cookies.

Irish Mike

Jerry Sturdivant

unread,
Jan 12, 2010, 6:06:59 PM1/12/10
to

"Irish Mike" <ad7...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
news:lq6v17...@recgroups.com...


> On Jan 12 2010 7:59 AM, Dude777 wrote:
>
>> According to the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado,
>> Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per

>> cent, since 2007 - and even the most committed global warming activists


>> do not dispute this.
>>
>> They say that their research shows that much of the warming was caused
>> by oceanic cycles when they were in a 'warm mode' as opposed to the
>> present 'cold mode'.
>>
>>
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1242011/DAVID-ROSE-The-mini-ice-age-starts-here.html
>
> Global warming is the biggest scam ever pulled on the American people.


Poor old, Cut & Paste & Run Mike is still an idiot.


Jerry 'n Vegas

- Don 't interfere with somethin' that ain't bothering you none.

Beldin the Sorcerer

unread,
Jan 12, 2010, 9:29:13 PM1/12/10
to

"La Cosa Nostradamus" <a6f...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
news:nrlu17x...@recgroups.com...

> On Jan 12 2010 8:58 AM, Beldin the Sorcerer wrote:
>
>> "La Cosa Nostradamus" <a6f...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
>
>> > There was a time most scientists believed that the sun revolved around
>> > the earth.
>> >
>>
>> No, that was never the case
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei

Skillz, learn to read.

Start with this :
Galileo Galilei (Italian pronunciation: [gali'l?o gali'l?i]; 15 February
1564[4] - 8 January 1642)[1][5] was an Italian physicist, mathematician,
astronomer, and philosopher who played a major role in the Scientific
Revolution. His achievements include improvements to the telescope and
consequent astronomical observations, and support for Copernicanism. Galileo
has been called the "father of modern observational astronomy,"[6] the
"father of modern physics,"[7] the "father of science,"[7] and "the Father
of Modern Science."[8] Stephen Hawking says, "Galileo, perhaps more than any
other single person, was responsible for the birth of modern science

In other words, you idiot, there were NO scientists before him

There were religious types and nutjobs and philosophers
You know, kinda like the crank idiots you cite to support your whackjob
theories


Beldin the Sorcerer

unread,
Jan 12, 2010, 9:32:12 PM1/12/10
to

"Omaha8_Beach" <kenh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:bd7e8345-1574-4edd...@e37g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...

***
Go read my reply to Skillz.
Scientists as we think of them today didn't exist then. G.G. was pretty much
the first
Those on the edges of the scientific method, of course, did not support the
theory Skillz cited
So basically, as usual, he hasn't got a leg to stand on


Beldin the Sorcerer

unread,
Jan 12, 2010, 9:41:16 PM1/12/10
to

"Dave the Clueless" <frac...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:pliu17x...@recgroups.com...
A guy who names himself clueless ought to not insult his intellectual
superiors
The figure is widely reported, coming from the vast number of scientific
organizations worldwide who signed on to the theory


Beldin the Sorcerer

unread,
Jan 12, 2010, 9:41:39 PM1/12/10
to

"number6" <snum...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:b0dcb9da-4b7b-4fd8...@26g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...

***
No, skillz, I didn't call you


La Cosa Nostradamus

unread,
Jan 12, 2010, 9:53:30 PM1/12/10
to

You cant be that stupid

Music
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=7CBC79A5A43EA115&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL

_____________________________________________________________________�

Beldin the Sorcerer

unread,
Jan 12, 2010, 10:49:17 PM1/12/10
to

"La Cosa Nostradamus" <a6f...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
news:a6pv17x...@recgroups.com...
You are, obviously.
Scientists are practitioners of the scientific method.
Fuck Skillz, see a shrink and shut the fuck up

>


FL Turbo

unread,
Jan 12, 2010, 11:09:51 PM1/12/10
to
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 05:40:34 -0800, "Jerry Sturdivant"
<jer...@cox.net> wrote:

>
>
>"Dude777" <dud...@dude.mail.com> wrote in message
>news:hiho8g$poo$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>> According to the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado, Arctic
>> summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent,

>> since 2007 � and even the most committed global warming activists do not

>> dispute this.
>
>It's called, Winter. And each summer more TOTAL ice melts. Only those living
>in denial would consider a square mile of one-inch thick winter-time ice
>equivalent to a one cubic mile of ice.
>

As you may have noticed even in Vegas the temperatures are just a
little on the colder side.
In the rest of the country, this winter is damn cold.
Reports from the whole northern hemisphere show some damnably cold and
snowy weather.

Probably, the weather in the Arctic is quite a bit colder than in the
preceding years too, eh?

As Mark Twain may have put it, "Reports of the death of Arctic sea ice
have been highly exaggerated."

What to do, what to do?

Maybe we just watch to see what happens next?
Them poor ole polar bears may not all drown after all, eh?

>
>> They say that their research shows that much of the warming was caused by

>> oceanic cycles when they were in a �warm mode� as opposed to the present
>> �cold mode�.
>
>They?
>
Basically, it's one of the UN funded IPCC Global Warmenist's
scientists named Mojib Latif, who probably made a big mistake by
telling some reporter what he actually thinks, instead of the view
that was demanded of him by his employers.

(Just my snarky little guess. I don't know.)

By way of the incomparable Anthony Watts.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/11/ipcc-scientist-global-cooling-headed-our-way-for-the-next-30-years/#more-15116
IPCC scientist: Global cooling headed our way for the next 30 years?
11 01 2010

UPDATE: The subject of this article, Mojib Latif, has challenged the
Daily Mail article and it�s interpretation. In another story at the
Guardian, Latif says the interpretation by the Daily Mail and a
similar story in the Telegraph is wrongly interpreting his work.

Read the Guardian story here and decide for yourself. If anyone knows
of a contact for Dr. Latif, please leave it in comments as I�ll make
this forum available to him should he wish to elaborate further.

h/t to WUWT reader Werner Weber for notifying me.

UPDATE2: Werner Weber writes to me in email:

> I have send him an e-mail, pointing out what happened during the night
> and invite him to take the oportunity to present his views in one of the
> leading sceptics blogs.

=====================================

We�ve been covering a lot of the recent cold outbreaks under the
�weather is not climate department� heading. This story however is
about both weather and climate and what one IPCC scientist thinks is
headed our way.

According to IPCC scientist Mojib Latif in an article for the Daily
Mail, it could be just the beginning of a decades-long deep freeze.
Latif is known as one of the world�s leading climate modelers.

Latif, is a professor at the Leibniz Institute at Germany�s Kiel
University and an author of the U.N.�s Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) report. Latif is a prominent scientist in the
UN�s IPCC climate research group.

Latif thinks the cold snap Americans, Brits, and Europeans have been
suffering through is the beginning of another cycle, this one a down
cycle. He says we�re in for 30 years of cooler temperatures. While
maybe it is a harsh prediction, he calls it a �mini ice age�. That
phrase is sure to stick in the craw of more than a few people. His
theory is based on an analysis of natural oscillations in water
temperatures in the oceans.

According to his He believes our current cold weather pattern is a
pause, a �30-years-long blip�, in the larger cycle of global
warming, which postulates that temperatures will rise rapidly over the
coming years.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

At a U.N. conference in September, Latif said that changes in the
North Atlantic Oscillation could mask over any �manmade global
warming� for the next few decades. He said the fluctuations in the NAO
could also be responsible for much of the rise in global temperatures
seen over the past 30 years.

In a stunning revelation, he told the Daily Mail that:

�a significant share of the warming we saw from 1980 to 2000 and at
earlier periods in the 20th Century was due to these cycles � perhaps
as much as 50 percent.�

Quite a revelation, and a smack down of much of the climate science in
the last 30 years that attributes the cause mostly to CO2 increases.

In other news, Arctic sea ice is on the rise too.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As the common advice goes, read the whole thing.

Keep your eyes open for Professor Latif's response to the request for
clarification about his reported comments to the UK's Daily Mail.

Personally, I would like to hear what he has to say.
Please tell me if you hear something new.

FL Turbo

unread,
Jan 12, 2010, 11:36:23 PM1/12/10
to
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 08:18:47 -0500, "Beldin the Sorcerer"
<beld...@verizon.net> wrote:

>
>"Dude777" <dud...@dude.mail.com> wrote in message
>news:hihrma$bv5$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> La Cosa Nostradamus wrote:
>>
>>> It's not rocket science.
>>
>> It's not man-made either.
>The vast overwhelming majority of trained scientists in the world differ
>with your view.
>

Oh, good grief.
Now it isn't only an "overwhelming" majority, but a "vast
overwhelming" majority?

You're going in the wrong direction, Dude.

It's probably time you took a little break from playing Inet poker and
posting BAHH stories, and took another look at the developing AGW
kerfuffle.

Specifically, the ClimateGate story.

Don't look for Realclimate to tell you anything but the standard
"Move on, folks. Nothing to see here."

>We realize you can operate Google, but that does not qualify you
>

And don't rely on Google to give you any leads to anything besides the
same, old SameOld AGW mantras.

I'm only trying to help you.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, unless
it agrees with your own reason and common sense."
Charles R. Martin

Beldin the Sorcerer

unread,
Jan 13, 2010, 12:00:21 AM1/13/10
to

"FL Turbo" <noe...@notime.com> wrote in message
news:q2iqk5l779njd98h7...@4ax.com...

> On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 08:18:47 -0500, "Beldin the Sorcerer"
> <beld...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Dude777" <dud...@dude.mail.com> wrote in message
>>news:hihrma$bv5$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> La Cosa Nostradamus wrote:
>>>
>>>> It's not rocket science.
>>>
>>> It's not man-made either.
>>The vast overwhelming majority of trained scientists in the world differ
>>with your view.
>>
> Oh, good grief.
> Now it isn't only an "overwhelming" majority, but a "vast
> overwhelming" majority?
95-5, Turbo, is 95-5

>
> You're going in the wrong direction, Dude.

No, son
Your sense of denial is just making you continue to be an idiot

>
> It's probably time you took a little break from playing Inet poker and
> posting BAHH stories, and took another look at the developing AGW
> kerfuffle.
>
> Specifically, the ClimateGate story.
>
> Don't look for Realclimate to tell you anything but the standard
> "Move on, folks. Nothing to see here."
>
>>We realize you can operate Google, but that does not qualify you
>>
> And don't rely on Google to give you any leads to anything besides the
> same, old SameOld AGW mantras.
>
> I'm only trying to help you.
>

No you're not
You're trying to die before the check comes for the problem
That, while making you a selfish prick, is not completely unforgiveable.
I, on the other hand, WON'T be dying before this becomes a huge deal, and
therefore need it fixed as cheaply as possible


> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, unless
> it agrees with your own reason and common sense."
> Charles R. Martin

What a fucking retard

Most of scientific discovery comes from things that turn out to be quite
counterintuitive

You think those different weighted balls falling at the same speed made
intuitive common sense?

Turbo, you give THIS quote, it explains a lot about why you're so wrong in
the area of science

>


Stephen Jacobs

unread,
Jan 13, 2010, 7:32:41 AM1/13/10
to

"FL Turbo" <noe...@notime.com> wrote in message
news:q2iqk5l779njd98h7...@4ax.com...
.........................

>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, unless
> it agrees with your own reason and common sense."
> Charles R. Martin
>

I just wanted to take exception to the tag line. Yeah, pure authority
shouldn't count for much. But experience and common sense are ever so
easily over-rated. The classical (literally) proof is Zeno's six paradoxes,
which pretty much prove that "common sense" is incompatible with reality.
More recent, and pretty generally accepted, is that whether you're standing
still or traveling along in the direction that a light ray is going (or in
any other state of unaccelerated motion)(and it doesn't matter who gets to
judge what "standing still" means), the measured velocity of light in a
vacuum is the same. And the weirdness and non-common-sensicality of quantum
mechanics defy brief description--yet without quantum weirdness the world
couldn't exist (Zeno was right that way). (GPS is an every-day tool
routinely adjusted for relativistic effects. Lasers and LEDs are every-day
items comprehensible only with quantum mechanical explanations)


Jerry Sturdivant

unread,
Jan 13, 2010, 8:23:17 AM1/13/10
to

"FL Turbo" <noe...@notime.com> wrote in message

news:m1eqk59c2b73t3g6u...@4ax.com...


> On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 05:40:34 -0800, "Jerry Sturdivant"
> <jer...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"Dude777" <dud...@dude.mail.com> wrote in message
>>news:hiho8g$poo$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>
>>> According to the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado,
>>> Arctic
>>> summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent,

>>> since 2007 - and even the most committed global warming activists do not


>>> dispute this.
>>
>>It's called, Winter. And each summer more TOTAL ice melts. Only those
>>living
>>in denial would consider a square mile of one-inch thick winter-time ice
>>equivalent to a one cubic mile of ice.
>>
> As you may have noticed even in Vegas the temperatures are just a
> little on the colder side.
> In the rest of the country, this winter is damn cold.
> Reports from the whole northern hemisphere show some damnably cold and
> snowy weather.
>
> Probably, the weather in the Arctic is quite a bit colder than in the
> preceding years too, eh?

Yea, it's called winter.

They changed the name to climate change, for the weak of mind. Those unable
to grasp what global warming means and what it does. But even with that,
this is obviously over your head. I'm sure that when summer comes you'll
start worrying that, "Gee, it's getting warm, maybe they're right!" You
better change threads.


Jerry 'n Vegas

- The biggest troublemaker you'll probably ever have to deal with, watches
you from the mirror every mornin'.


Dave the Clueless

unread,
Jan 13, 2010, 9:07:54 AM1/13/10
to
On Jan 12 2010 10:41 PM, Beldin the Sorcerer wrote:

> >
> > Where do you get 95% from, Bel-tard?
> A guy who names himself clueless ought to not insult his intellectual
> superiors
> The figure is widely reported, coming from the vast number of scientific
> organizations worldwide who signed on to the theory

Cite me one, Bel-dork.

Beldin the Sorcerer

unread,
Jan 13, 2010, 9:00:09 AM1/13/10
to

"Dave the Clueless" <frac...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:qm0127...@recgroups.com...

> On Jan 12 2010 10:41 PM, Beldin the Sorcerer wrote:
>
>> >
>> > Where do you get 95% from, Bel-tard?
>> A guy who names himself clueless ought to not insult his intellectual
>> superiors
>> The figure is widely reported, coming from the vast number of scientific
>> organizations worldwide who signed on to the theory
>
> Cite me one, Bel-dork.
I've cited the entire list, repeatedly

Google it, or just go to Wikipedia

Dave the Clueless

unread,
Jan 13, 2010, 3:49:19 PM1/13/10
to
They can't. They've hung their stupid hopes of One World Government
squarely on this rapidly unraveling nonsense and they can't back off now.
Just like the "Health Care" plan, they hope to ram this down our throats
before we wake up and see it for what it is.

Big Science, paid for by Big Government and supported by Big Energy (who
stands to make trillions on carbon credits) are behind all this. The Big
Media lapdogs of Big Government are obediently publishing this arrant
tripe as 'news'.

There is hope however. True scientists, independent thinkers reviewing
actual data and performing real tests are the world's best hope against
Big Science, funded by Big Government and Big Energy. Bravely pointing out
that the now public computer models (revealed to us by true patriots
fighting against the lies of Big Science, Big Government and Big Energy)
contain code to skew any data input into a warming trend these heroic men
and women stand against the lies of our Corporate Overlords.

And the insipid credulous fools like JiV and Bel-tard can only yammer the
same old lines fed to them by their masters. Sad, really.

------�
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com

Jerry Sturdivant

unread,
Jan 13, 2010, 4:38:35 PM1/13/10
to

"Dave the Clueless" <frac...@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:f7o127x...@recgroups.com...

> They can't. They've hung their stupid hopes of One World Government
> squarely on this rapidly unraveling nonsense and they can't back off now.

How do you connect the FACT of global warming to One World Government? Or
should I say, "Where'd you get that cool aid?"


> Just like the "Health Care" plan, they hope to ram this down our throats
> before we wake up and see it for what it is.

Really? What is it? You're actually FOR insurance monopolies being able to
cancel policy holders when they cost the company too much money?

> Big Science, paid for by Big Government and supported by Big Energy (who
> stands to make trillions on carbon credits) are behind all this.

Yea, right, Big Oil is trying to sell us on Global Warming. (I see why
you're called Clueless).

> The Big Media lapdogs of Big Government are obediently
> publishing this arrant tripe as 'news'.

As the arctic melts and glaciers recede..


> There is hope however.

Not you for you.


> True scientists, independent thinkers reviewing actual data and
> performing real tests are the world's best hope against Big Science,
> funded by Big Government and Big Energy. Bravely pointing out
> that the now public computer models (revealed to us by true patriots
> fighting against the lies of Big Science, Big Government and Big Energy)
> contain code to skew any data input into a warming trend these heroic men
> and women stand against the lies of our Corporate Overlords.

Total BS you got from the same cool aid fountain. If it's any comfort, at
least you're not alone in being fooled.


Jerry 'n Vegas

Dave the Clueless

unread,
Jan 13, 2010, 5:02:19 PM1/13/10
to

Typical responses from the Big Government Shill. Read right from the
handbook.

--------�

FL Turbo

unread,
Jan 13, 2010, 8:17:13 PM1/13/10
to

This is also true.

I vaguely remember reading some simplistic explanations of how lasers
and LEDs work.
I don't remember the explanations as specifically using quantum
mechanics.

Demonstrating that they actually work in real time applications is
good enough for me.

In my youth, I spent a lot of time trying to understand the
relativistic effect that Einstein predicted.
I can't say that I can understand how the speed of light can be the
same to any observer everywhere, but I accept it.
As you note, GPS systems are one real time application that prove that
Al Einstein and the boys knew what they were talking about.

Now jumping back to the AGW kerfuffle.

"common sense" tells us that there is there are an enormous amount of
variables involved in shaping global climate.

Maybe some day there will be an "Einstein of Global Climate" that can
tie it all up into a neat package, with predictions that can actually
be checked and proven by the actual results.

We certainly aren't there yet, and tomorrow doesn't look very
promising either.
(Not even the day after that, either.)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
�In general, we look for a new law by the following process.
First, we guess it.
Then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what
would be implied if this law that we guessed is right.
Then we compare the result of the computation to nature, with
experiment or experience; compare it directly with observation to see
if it works.

If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong.
It�s that simple statement that is the key to science.
It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is.
It does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess,
or what his name is � if it disagrees with experiment it is wrong.�

-Dr. Richard Feynman, �The Character of Natural Law,� The MIT Press,
1965, p. 156.

FL Turbo

unread,
Jan 13, 2010, 8:44:01 PM1/13/10
to
On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 00:00:21 -0500, "Beldin the Sorcerer"
<beld...@verizon.net> wrote:

>
>"FL Turbo" <noe...@notime.com> wrote in message
>news:q2iqk5l779njd98h7...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 08:18:47 -0500, "Beldin the Sorcerer"
>> <beld...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Dude777" <dud...@dude.mail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:hihrma$bv5$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>> La Cosa Nostradamus wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It's not rocket science.
>>>>
>>>> It's not man-made either.
>>>The vast overwhelming majority of trained scientists in the world differ
>>>with your view.
>>>
>> Oh, good grief.
>> Now it isn't only an "overwhelming" majority, but a "vast
>> overwhelming" majority?

>95-5, Turbo, is 95-5
>
Where did you get that number from?
It must have been some reliable, unimpeachable source.

I'd hate to accuse you of just pulling it out of your hindquarters.

>>
>> You're going in the wrong direction, Dude.
>No, son
>Your sense of denial is just making you continue to be an idiot
>

Not so, shithead.

>>
>> It's probably time you took a little break from playing Inet poker and
>> posting BAHH stories, and took another look at the developing AGW
>> kerfuffle.
>>
>> Specifically, the ClimateGate story.
>>
>> Don't look for Realclimate to tell you anything but the standard
>> "Move on, folks. Nothing to see here."
>>
>>>We realize you can operate Google, but that does not qualify you
>>>

Hah.
If anyone has to depend on Google for the story, they would mostly
only find sources that are onboard with the AGW story line.
Is that how you get your opinion?

Wikipedia?
There's another story there.

>> And don't rely on Google to give you any leads to anything besides the
>> same, old SameOld AGW mantras.
>>
>> I'm only trying to help you.
>>
>No you're not
>You're trying to die before the check comes for the problem
>That, while making you a selfish prick, is not completely unforgiveable.
>I, on the other hand, WON'T be dying before this becomes a huge deal, and
>therefore need it fixed as cheaply as possible
>

Well, the signs right now at this particular moment show a new cooling
trend.

How long are you willing to bitterly cling to the Global Warming theme
if the next few years show the trend towards colder winters and colder
climate?

10 years?
15 years?
20 years?

Just how strong is your Faith?
Semi-serious question here.
How many years of planetary cooling would it take to change your
opinion?

Hmmm?

>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, unless
>> it agrees with your own reason and common sense."
>> Charles R. Martin
>What a fucking retard
>
>Most of scientific discovery comes from things that turn out to be quite
>counterintuitive
>

It does?
Personally, I think most scientific discovery comes from people asking
the question "How and why does this happen?", and then following it
through with experimentation.

>You think those different weighted balls falling at the same speed made
>intuitive common sense?
>

It took only a simple experiment to prove the reality.

My SWAG is that there were plenty of people who knew the truth, but
didn't dare open their mouth for fear of running afoul of the Dogma of
the day.

>Turbo, you give THIS quote, it explains a lot about why you're so wrong in
>the area of science
>

Heh.

"Turbo - ...so wrong in the area of science"
Beldin

That's going to make a good tagline.

FL Turbo

unread,
Jan 13, 2010, 9:03:12 PM1/13/10
to
On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 05:23:17 -0800, "Jerry Sturdivant"
<jer...@cox.net> wrote:

>
>"FL Turbo" <noe...@notime.com> wrote in message
>news:m1eqk59c2b73t3g6u...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 05:40:34 -0800, "Jerry Sturdivant"
>> <jer...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>"Dude777" <dud...@dude.mail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:hiho8g$poo$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>
>>>> According to the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado,
>>>> Arctic
>>>> summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent,
>>>> since 2007 - and even the most committed global warming activists do not
>>>> dispute this.
>>>
>>>It's called, Winter. And each summer more TOTAL ice melts. Only those
>>>living
>>>in denial would consider a square mile of one-inch thick winter-time ice
>>>equivalent to a one cubic mile of ice.
>>>

So what's your prediction of how many years until the summer Arctic
ice goes to zero?

Here's your chance for RGP immortality if you predict the exact time.

Think carefully.
You don't want to be like AlGore who always predicted 5 years,
starting about 10 years ago.

>> As you may have noticed even in Vegas the temperatures are just a
>> little on the colder side.
>> In the rest of the country, this winter is damn cold.
>> Reports from the whole northern hemisphere show some damnably cold and
>> snowy weather.
>>
>> Probably, the weather in the Arctic is quite a bit colder than in the
>> preceding years too, eh?
>
>Yea, it's called winter.
>

Yes, and a very, very cold winter, too.
A cold winter like that can freeze a whole lot of ice.

>They changed the name to climate change, for the weak of mind. Those unable
>to grasp what global warming means and what it does. But even with that,
>this is obviously over your head. I'm sure that when summer comes you'll
>start worrying that, "Gee, it's getting warm, maybe they're right!" You
>better change threads.
>

You're a funny guy.
They changed the name to climate change when the Global Warming meme
ran into a string of years where the global temperature didn't follow
the hysterical ranting of people like AlGore.

The Hockey Stick broke a long time ago.

http://www.andrewbostom.org/blog/2008/12/25/horse-hockey-climate-scientology-%E2%80%9Cgetting-rid%E2%80%9D-of-the-medieval-warming-period/

Hockey Stick Climate Scientologists Contemplating Their Work

>
>Jerry 'n Vegas
>
>- The biggest troublemaker you'll probably ever have to deal with, watches
>you from the mirror every mornin'.
>

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"He's his own worst enemy."
"Not while I'm alive he isn't."

Groucho Marx ?

Jerry Sturdivant

unread,
Jan 14, 2010, 7:47:51 AM1/14/10
to

"Dave the Clueless" <frac...@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:bgs127x...@recgroups.com...

No, it's from the scientists.

But you got your information from who?


Jerry 'n Vegas

Jerry Sturdivant

unread,
Jan 14, 2010, 8:06:15 AM1/14/10
to

"FL Turbo" <noe...@notime.com> wrote in message

news:lqtsk5994kc71odto...@4ax.com...


> On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 05:23:17 -0800, "Jerry Sturdivant"
> <jer...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"FL Turbo" <noe...@notime.com> wrote in message
>>news:m1eqk59c2b73t3g6u...@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 05:40:34 -0800, "Jerry Sturdivant"
>>> <jer...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Dude777" <dud...@dude.mail.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:hiho8g$poo$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>
>>>>> According to the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado,
>>>>> Arctic
>>>>> summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent,
>>>>> since 2007 - and even the most committed global warming activists do
>>>>> not
>>>>> dispute this.

>>>> It's called, Winter. And each summer more TOTAL ice melts. Only
>>>> those living in denial would consider a square mile of one-inch
>>>> thick winter-time ice equivalent to a one cubic mile of ice.

> So what's your prediction of how many years
> until the summer Arctic ice goes to zero?

It's not my prediction. It's what the scientists predict. You're used to the
idea Rush Limbaugh, or FOX (speaking for the oil companies) are telling you
the scientists are wrong and they are right.


> Here's your chance for RGP immortality if you predict the exact time.
>
> Think carefully.

Keep dodging. Keep pretending. Keep drinking big oil cool aid. You've been
fooled before.

>>> Probably, the weather in the Arctic is quite a bit colder than in the
>>> preceding years too, eh?

>>Yea, it's called winter.

> Yes, and a very, very cold winter, too.
> A cold winter like that can freeze a whole lot of ice.

I knew it! You believe a seasonal change is an indication of long term
change.

>> They changed the name to climate change, for the weak of mind. Those
>> unable
>> to grasp what global warming means and what it does. But even with that,
>> this is obviously over your head. I'm sure that when summer comes you'll
>> start worrying that, "Gee, it's getting warm, maybe they're right!" You
>> better change threads.


> You're a funny guy.

Still about the messenger, huh?


> They changed the name to climate change when the Global Warming
> meme ran into a string of years where the global temperature didn't
> follow the hysterical ranting of people like AlGore.

No, it was for stupid people like you that believe if it get cold in Europe,
that means it's global cooling. Or REALLY stupid people that see the winter
season coming on and believe it's global cooling. (Then, when summer get's
here, it's back to global warming again).

You're a stupid guy.


>> "And each summer more TOTAL ice melts."

>> "And each summer glaciers recede more."

Jerry 'n Vegas

Beldin the Sorcerer

unread,
Jan 14, 2010, 9:44:49 AM1/14/10
to

"FL Turbo" <noe...@notime.com> wrote in message
news:85ssk51ur12f4pjf1...@4ax.com...

> On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 00:00:21 -0500, "Beldin the Sorcerer"
> <beld...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"FL Turbo" <noe...@notime.com> wrote in message
>>news:q2iqk5l779njd98h7...@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 08:18:47 -0500, "Beldin the Sorcerer"
>>> <beld...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Dude777" <dud...@dude.mail.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:hihrma$bv5$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>> La Cosa Nostradamus wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> It's not rocket science.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's not man-made either.
>>>>The vast overwhelming majority of trained scientists in the world differ
>>>>with your view.
>>>>
>>> Oh, good grief.
>>> Now it isn't only an "overwhelming" majority, but a "vast
>>> overwhelming" majority?
>
>>95-5, Turbo, is 95-5
>>
> Where did you get that number from?
> It must have been some reliable, unimpeachable source.

It's been cited numerous times
I'm not digging it out again today.
Perhaps this weekend.

>
> I'd hate to accuse you of just pulling it out of your hindquarters.

Oh FUCK, turbo.
You pull this shit every time.
You bring up someone paid to have a position, or some known contrarian, and
I cite the evidence of bias, and you flip out. I reference all the
scientific organizations that signed off on this, and you become kind
skeptic.
What the fuck is wrong with you son?
Wait, I know... you want to spend your money, and fuck the rest of the
planet.

>
>>>
>>> You're going in the wrong direction, Dude.
>>No, son
>>Your sense of denial is just making you continue to be an idiot
>>
> Not so, shithead.

Absolutely, fucknut.

>
>>>
>>> It's probably time you took a little break from playing Inet poker and
>>> posting BAHH stories, and took another look at the developing AGW
>>> kerfuffle.
>>>
>>> Specifically, the ClimateGate story.
>>>
>>> Don't look for Realclimate to tell you anything but the standard
>>> "Move on, folks. Nothing to see here."
>>>
>>>>We realize you can operate Google, but that does not qualify you
>>>>
> Hah.
> If anyone has to depend on Google for the story, they would mostly
> only find sources that are onboard with the AGW story line.
> Is that how you get your opinion?
>
> Wikipedia?
> There's another story there.
>
>>> And don't rely on Google to give you any leads to anything besides the
>>> same, old SameOld AGW mantras.
>>>
>>> I'm only trying to help you.
>>>
>>No you're not
>>You're trying to die before the check comes for the problem
>>That, while making you a selfish prick, is not completely unforgiveable.
>>I, on the other hand, WON'T be dying before this becomes a huge deal, and
>>therefore need it fixed as cheaply as possible
>>
> Well, the signs right now at this particular moment show a new cooling
> trend.

Not especially, no.
Lots of people with less science than vested interest claim that, of course.

>
> How long are you willing to bitterly cling to the Global Warming theme
> if the next few years show the trend towards colder winters and colder
> climate?

Hey, I'm VERY flexible.
The scientific consensus shifts back, I'm HAPPY to shift with it.
Idiot boy, I know you routinely block this out, but I denied global warming
was an issue for years.... till the scientists basically all said "Hey boys,
YES, we're pretty fucked".
I'M a cheap prick too
But I can do the cost-benefit analysis and come to the right conclusion...
right for anyone who'll still be alive when the real damage starts, anyway.

Should I wish you luck on your plan to die off before hand? I really don't
want anyone to croak. OTOH, when you see the water level going up and your
tax bill spiking because you argued like a retard and elected a moron who
voted with the idiot coalition until it was too late to fix cheap, you
*might* feel a little bad


>
> 10 years?
> 15 years?
> 20 years?
>
> Just how strong is your Faith?

I have no faith.
I accept the science. It's rational, logically consistent, and confiirmed by
the largest body of peers available.
It may STILL be wrong, but the rational course is to accept it as fact, not
be a fucking retard and deny shit.


> Semi-serious question here.
> How many years of planetary cooling would it take to change your
> opinion?

Nothing that happens to the planet will change my view directly.
My view isn't an opinion.
MORONS, untrained in science, have 'opinions'
Scientists have developed theories. I accept the theory advanced by the
overwhelming majority of scientists as the one most likely true.
If that theory shifts because of weather changes, so be it.
See, idiot boy, this is called science. Not politics
Assholes politicize science


>
> Hmmm?
>
>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, unless
>>> it agrees with your own reason and common sense."
>>> Charles R. Martin
>>What a fucking retard
>>
>>Most of scientific discovery comes from things that turn out to be quite
>>counterintuitive
>>
> It does?

Yes

> Personally, I think most scientific discovery comes from people asking
> the question "How and why does this happen?", and then following it
> through with experimentation.

And most of the time that ansswer is counterintuitive, or was so obvious it
isn't a 'scientific discovery'
Michealson-Morley (Sp approximate) was completely counter-intuitive and
turned out to advance science FAR beyond any benefit gained by confirming
the 'intuitive, common sense' answer.

>
>>You think those different weighted balls falling at the same speed made
>>intuitive common sense?
>>
> It took only a simple experiment to prove the reality.

So what.... The experiment defied common sense.
That's the point.
It defies 'reason'. 'Reason' says "Heavy things fall faster"
SCIENCE says, no, they don't, and here's proof.

>
> My SWAG is that there were plenty of people who knew the truth, but
> didn't dare open their mouth for fear of running afoul of the Dogma of
> the day.

Your typical, reasonable person didn't accept it.
Indeed, most kids won't accept it in school, until they see it done in front
of them.
"reason", lacking evidence, is easily wrong

Stephen Jacobs

unread,
Jan 14, 2010, 11:46:38 AM1/14/10
to

"FL Turbo" <noe...@notime.com> wrote in message
news:v9psk5hp162vdes1l...@4ax.com...

> On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 07:32:41 -0500, "Stephen Jacobs"
> <jac...@comcast.net> wrote:
............

>
> I vaguely remember reading some simplistic explanations of how lasers
> and LEDs work.
> I don't remember the explanations as specifically using quantum
> mechanics.
>
> Demonstrating that they actually work in real time applications is
> good enough for me.
>

Fine. There is no possibility that hand waving not referring back to
quantum mechanics can be anything close to a correct explanation of either
lasers or LEDs. In both instances, the action of interest depends on the
existence of a localized high energy state which can only [quickly] give up
its extra energy by light emission (the exception that makes the word
'quickly' a needed qualification can also be explained by quantum
mechanics). Both the specific energy states and the selection rules that
limit ways the energy can be dissipated are foreign to classical physics.
............


>
> Now jumping back to the AGW kerfuffle.
>
> "common sense" tells us that there is there are an enormous amount of
> variables involved in shaping global climate.
>
> Maybe some day there will be an "Einstein of Global Climate" that can
> tie it all up into a neat package, with predictions that can actually
> be checked and proven by the actual results.
>
> We certainly aren't there yet, and tomorrow doesn't look very
> promising either.
> (Not even the day after that, either.)
>

That's a quesstion of time scales. On an aeons time scale, we've been there
for at least 40 years. Earth averages something like 50 degrees warmer than
it'd be without a greenhouse effect, and atmospheric composition is a free
variable in the description. Anything that drives atmospheric composition
drives temperature. On this one, I think we can all agree that the time
scale is too long to bother with.

On a 1-year time scale, the science is pretty shaky. This is the range of
long-term weather forecasting. With a tremendous amount of effort, the
meteorologists have recently gotten better than random at predicting
averages for a few seasons. Given that heat sloshes into and out of various
compartments in the global system, I'm not sure that on a 1-year time scale
a single number can even represent global average temperature meaningfully.

The argument is over what time scale in between aeons and years the science
is good for, and what the model at the shortest 'good science' time scale
says about AGW. If the 'good science' time scale is 20 years or shorter, we
have the measurements, we have the equations and they match up. AGW is for
real. I, personally, think that the 'good science' time scale is now short
enough to make that argument valid. But the effects being compared with
theory are small. It isn't unambiguously true that comparing temperature
measurements with theory is appropriate YET.

I use the comparison of trying to push a car over a cliff (when you don't
really want to do that, only to show that you can't do it). Push. "I don't
think it moved" Push harder. "Doesn't seem to have moved yet." Push
harder yet......... Sooner or later, you're gonna move it, and it isn't
clear that you'll be able to limit damage once you do. I don't much care
whether we've just started moving that car a hair (whether theory accurately
describes historical temperature records)


da pickle

unread,
Jan 14, 2010, 5:23:27 PM1/14/10
to

"Stephen Jacobs"

> The argument is over what time scale in between aeons and years the
> science is good for, and what the model at the shortest 'good science'
> time scale says about AGW. If the 'good science' time scale is 20 years
> or shorter, we have the measurements, we have the equations and they match
> up. AGW is for real. I, personally, think that the 'good science' time
> scale is now short enough to make that argument valid. But the effects
> being compared with theory are small. It isn't unambiguously true that
> comparing temperature measurements with theory is appropriate YET.
>
> I use the comparison of trying to push a car over a cliff (when you don't
> really want to do that, only to show that you can't do it). Push. "I
> don't think it moved" Push harder. "Doesn't seem to have moved yet."
> Push harder yet......... Sooner or later, you're gonna move it, and it
> isn't clear that you'll be able to limit damage once you do. I don't much
> care whether we've just started moving that car a hair (whether theory
> accurately describes historical temperature records)

I find your comments refreshing. I know that you do not intend for your
analogy to be represetative of anything other than an analogy ... however,
you may have an "assumption" in the who-is-pushing part of the story of the
car and the cliff.

I have no real difficulty with preparing for the results of a "warming
period" ... I have a lot of difficulty with the "we can prevent it" part and
the cost-benefit discussions being proposed as the "only solution" to the
crisis.


FL Turbo

unread,
Jan 14, 2010, 9:32:27 PM1/14/10
to
On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 09:44:49 -0500, "Beldin the Sorcerer"
<beld...@verizon.net> wrote:

"digging it out" is right.
It's been buried for a while now.
The new ClimateGate revelations have already got the tombstone
installed.

The "hockey stick" is broken.

>>
>> I'd hate to accuse you of just pulling it out of your hindquarters.
>Oh FUCK, turbo.
>You pull this shit every time.
>You bring up someone paid to have a position, or some known contrarian, and
>I cite the evidence of bias, and you flip out. I reference all the
>scientific organizations that signed off on this, and you become kind
>skeptic.
>What the fuck is wrong with you son?
>Wait, I know... you want to spend your money, and fuck the rest of the
>planet.
>

Yeah, right.
That must be it.

>>
>>>>
>>>> You're going in the wrong direction, Dude.
>>>No, son
>>>Your sense of denial is just making you continue to be an idiot
>>>
>> Not so, shithead.
>Absolutely, fucknut.
>

Not so, numbnuts.
(Okay, your turn, Pewee)

>>
>>>>
>>>> It's probably time you took a little break from playing Inet poker and
>>>> posting BAHH stories, and took another look at the developing AGW
>>>> kerfuffle.
>>>>
>>>> Specifically, the ClimateGate story.
>>>>
>>>> Don't look for Realclimate to tell you anything but the standard
>>>> "Move on, folks. Nothing to see here."
>>>>
>>>>>We realize you can operate Google, but that does not qualify you
>>>>>
>> Hah.
>> If anyone has to depend on Google for the story, they would mostly
>> only find sources that are onboard with the AGW story line.
>> Is that how you get your opinion?
>>
>> Wikipedia?
>> There's another story there.
>>
>>>> And don't rely on Google to give you any leads to anything besides the
>>>> same, old SameOld AGW mantras.
>>>>
>>>> I'm only trying to help you.
>>>>
>>>No you're not

Okay, I admit it.
I'm trying to show that you're a Fool.

>>>You're trying to die before the check comes for the problem

It is to laugh.
Ha, Ha.

>>>That, while making you a selfish prick, is not completely unforgiveable.
>>>I, on the other hand, WON'T be dying before this becomes a huge deal, and
>>>therefore need it fixed as cheaply as possible
>>>
>> Well, the signs right now at this particular moment show a new cooling
>> trend.
>Not especially, no.

Anthony Watts has devised a "climate widget".
It shows the satellite data of lower troposphere temperature, current
CO2 measurement, and some other data.

It shows the trend, dating back to the first satellite measurements in
1979, up to the present time.

It debunks the famous Hockey Stick graph that the IPCC pushed to claim
"unprecedented warming" in the 90s.

It doesn't take any special technical skills to interpret the data
shown.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/widget/


>Lots of people with less science than vested interest claim that, of course.
>
>>
>> How long are you willing to bitterly cling to the Global Warming theme
>> if the next few years show the trend towards colder winters and colder
>> climate?
>
>Hey, I'm VERY flexible.

Heh.
Anybody that has ever tried to have a conversation with you in your
BAHH threads know what a bullshit claim that is.

>The scientific consensus shifts back, I'm HAPPY to shift with it.
>Idiot boy, I know you routinely block this out, but I denied global warming
>was an issue for years.... till the scientists basically all said "Hey boys,
>YES, we're pretty fucked".

The late 90's I presume?
Is that when your brain got calcified on the topic?

That sounds about right to me.
--------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------

Beldin the Sorcerer

unread,
Jan 15, 2010, 9:40:24 AM1/15/10
to

"FL Turbo" <noe...@notime.com> wrote in message
news:5pivk5tqh7ukkk3mg...@4ax.com...

Turbo, your brain melted down over the new year, perhaps?

The scientific consensus is still there

>
> The "hockey stick" is broken.

The data is still valid, and the scientist are still convinced.


>
>>>
>>> I'd hate to accuse you of just pulling it out of your hindquarters.
>>Oh FUCK, turbo.
>>You pull this shit every time.
>>You bring up someone paid to have a position, or some known contrarian,
>>and
>>I cite the evidence of bias, and you flip out. I reference all the
>>scientific organizations that signed off on this, and you become kind
>>skeptic.
>>What the fuck is wrong with you son?
>>Wait, I know... you want to spend your money, and fuck the rest of the
>>planet.
>>
> Yeah, right.
> That must be it.
>

Seems that way

>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You're going in the wrong direction, Dude.
>>>>No, son
>>>>Your sense of denial is just making you continue to be an idiot
>>>>
>>> Not so, shithead.
>>Absolutely, fucknut.
>>
> Not so, numbnuts.
> (Okay, your turn, Pewee)

Sure thing, assclown

>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It's probably time you took a little break from playing Inet poker and
>>>>> posting BAHH stories, and took another look at the developing AGW
>>>>> kerfuffle.
>>>>>
>>>>> Specifically, the ClimateGate story.
>>>>>
>>>>> Don't look for Realclimate to tell you anything but the standard
>>>>> "Move on, folks. Nothing to see here."
>>>>>
>>>>>>We realize you can operate Google, but that does not qualify you
>>>>>>
>>> Hah.
>>> If anyone has to depend on Google for the story, they would mostly
>>> only find sources that are onboard with the AGW story line.
>>> Is that how you get your opinion?
>>>
>>> Wikipedia?
>>> There's another story there.
>>>
>>>>> And don't rely on Google to give you any leads to anything besides the
>>>>> same, old SameOld AGW mantras.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm only trying to help you.
>>>>>
>>>>No you're not
>
> Okay, I admit it.
> I'm trying to show that you're a Fool.

No, you're showing the world that you are.
And admirably so. A true "ain't no such thing as global warming" retard

>
>>>>You're trying to die before the check comes for the problem
> It is to laugh.
> Ha, Ha.

No, it's rather sad

>
>>>>That, while making you a selfish prick, is not completely unforgiveable.
>>>>I, on the other hand, WON'T be dying before this becomes a huge deal,
>>>>and
>>>>therefore need it fixed as cheaply as possible
>>>>
>>> Well, the signs right now at this particular moment show a new cooling
>>> trend.
>>Not especially, no.
>
> Anthony Watts has devised a "climate widget".
> It shows the satellite data of lower troposphere temperature, current
> CO2 measurement, and some other data.
>
> It shows the trend, dating back to the first satellite measurements in
> 1979, up to the present time.
>
> It debunks the famous Hockey Stick graph that the IPCC pushed to claim
> "unprecedented warming" in the 90s.
>
> It doesn't take any special technical skills to interpret the data
> shown.

It takes technical skills to interpret all climate data.
And, of course, it doesn't 'debunk' shit.

It's 'experimental'
on for how to get the widget for your blog or website.
This widget is in the process of being fine tuned. It is currently in early
"alpha" development. You can place the widget on your website if you wish,
as the URL for the image will remain static as new developments occur. The
widget will be updated daily. though updates may be erratic until the code
and process is fully complete.

To get the widget, simply click on the right sidebar widget you see on WUWT's
sidebar, or click on the "Widget" link under the masthead above.

Comments are closed on this story, because I want them on the Widget Page
here for easy evaluation. Please go there to comment or to get the HTML code
to put this on your website or blog. - Anthony>

Do you READ the shit you cite, Turbo?


>>Lots of people with less science than vested interest claim that, of
>>course.
>>
>>>
>>> How long are you willing to bitterly cling to the Global Warming theme
>>> if the next few years show the trend towards colder winters and colder
>>> climate?
>>
>>Hey, I'm VERY flexible.
>
> Heh.
> Anybody that has ever tried to have a conversation with you in your
> BAHH threads know what a bullshit claim that is.

Fuck, Turbo, it's the most truthful thing posted to Usenet.

All you need is actual fact, not bullshit


>
>>The scientific consensus shifts back, I'm HAPPY to shift with it.
>>Idiot boy, I know you routinely block this out, but I denied global
>>warming
>>was an issue for years.... till the scientists basically all said "Hey
>>boys,
>>YES, we're pretty fucked".
>
> The late 90's I presume?

You presume, as usual, completely wrong

Somewhere in the Oughts (since that seems to be what we're calling this last
decade)


> Is that when your brain got calcified on the topic?

Oh shit, that never happened.

We realize yours did about the time someone talked about the BILL for all
this


FL Turbo

unread,
Jan 15, 2010, 10:20:46 PM1/15/10
to
On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 05:06:15 -0800, "Jerry Sturdivant"
You won't answer, will you?
It's all Big Oil, isn't it?

>
>>>> Probably, the weather in the Arctic is quite a bit colder than in the
>>>> preceding years too, eh?
>
>>>Yea, it's called winter.
>
>> Yes, and a very, very cold winter, too.
>> A cold winter like that can freeze a whole lot of ice.
>
>I knew it! You believe a seasonal change is an indication of long term
>change.
>

No, it only means that the Arctic ice will still be there far more
than 5 or 7 years longer.

My Fearless Prediction is that neither of us will live long enough to
see an ice free Arctic in the summer.

>
>
>>> They changed the name to climate change, for the weak of mind. Those
>>> unable
>>> to grasp what global warming means and what it does. But even with that,
>>> this is obviously over your head. I'm sure that when summer comes you'll
>>> start worrying that, "Gee, it's getting warm, maybe they're right!" You
>>> better change threads.
>
>
>> You're a funny guy.
>
>Still about the messenger, huh?
>

I don't blame you.
You're just carrying the message you have been propagandized into
believing.

>> They changed the name to climate change when the Global Warming
>> meme ran into a string of years where the global temperature didn't
>> follow the hysterical ranting of people like AlGore.
>
>No, it was for stupid people like you that believe if it get cold in Europe,
>that means it's global cooling. Or REALLY stupid people that see the winter
>season coming on and believe it's global cooling. (Then, when summer get's
>here, it's back to global warming again).
>
>You're a stupid guy.
>

Hey, don't take offense.
I didn't mean you were "funny" as in ghey or nuthin'
I meant "funny" as in Ha Ha.

>>> "And each summer more TOTAL ice melts."
>>> "And each summer glaciers recede more."
>
>
>

Jerry ButBush'n Vegas
FYP

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"And each winter more TOTAL water freezes."
"And each winter glaciers advance more."


Lab Rat

unread,
Jan 16, 2010, 4:40:25 AM1/16/10
to
On Jan 15 2010 2:46 AM, Stephen Jacobs wrote:

<Much snipped>

> I use the comparison of trying to push a car over a cliff (when you don't
> really want to do that, only to show that you can't do it). Push. "I don't
> think it moved" Push harder. "Doesn't seem to have moved yet." Push
> harder yet......... Sooner or later, you're gonna move it, and it isn't
> clear that you'll be able to limit damage once you do. I don't much care
> whether we've just started moving that car a hair (whether theory accurately
> describes historical temperature records)

A better analogy might be pushing a car off the flat up an ever-steeper
hill, at least in terms of temperature.

-----�

0 new messages