Why are you posting that crap here, when you could be out there using your fundamental right of freedom of speech to protest against your fundamental right to freedom of speech like all the other good fascists.
Discussion subject changed to "ef_hutterite's Source: Dr Kukla Fran and Ollie Sock Puppets" by Prosecute EXXON Stockholders for Global Warming Wildfires Damages
Prosecute EXXON Stockholders for Global Warming Wildfires Damages
Ohhh, more profanity from the Bareback Mountin' Montanan who has his cow stump trained.
http://snipurl.com/td46 Results 1 - 76 of 76 for author:efhutter...@montanan.org Fuck | Fucking | Ass | Asshole
Yes a well defined fixation of male organ penetration of the defactory organ indicating repressed homosexual feelings and struggle over gender identity. Subject is a classic example exhibiting symptoms of antisocial personality disorder and has deep-rooted problems anal orientation. Be sure to check police records of older male kin for possible incest charges.
>>It's worth noting that here at Shasta, we have the exact same >>phenomenon as is seen at Rainier. The glaciers are growing. The >>reason is that while temperatures here have increased over the past >>twenty years, so has precipitation (in our case, by 50% for the past >>15 years compared to the historic average), and the glaciers remain >>well above the snowline, even though the snowline itself is rising.
>Oh my...ice age a coming!
Well, looks like you've pretty well lost again.
Time to slink away and get a new nym and start fresh. -- Putsch: leading America to asymetric warfare since 2001
>>>It's worth noting that here at Shasta, we have the exact same >>>phenomenon as is seen at Rainier. The glaciers are growing. The >>>reason is that while temperatures here have increased over the past >>>twenty years, so has precipitation (in our case, by 50% for the past >>>15 years compared to the historic average), and the glaciers remain >>>well above the snowline, even though the snowline itself is rising.
>At an international symposium convened by the Lamont-Doherty Earth >Observatory last October, the consensus answer was, "Yes, but not for >at least another five thousand years." ......
It is important to understand what time scale you are dealing with.
>In a paper drawn from that symposium and solicited by Science for its >11 February 2000 issue.....
It is also important to use as current information is as possible. A lot has happened in technology, climate, and climate research over the last six years.
>>We have however observed a sustained warming trend that has been going on >>now for over 100 years, and we have seen dozens of record breaking globally >>averaged years and that is significant.
>Same thing happened in the Cretaceous period, then...ICE AGE!
Why do you persist in living in the past? Are you worried about dinosaurs attacking too?
>>>>> Do you agree that we stand on the cusp (geologic time if you prefer) >>>>> of the next ice age?
>>>>If there were no anthropogenic perturbance to the natural forcings, I think >>>>this would be an uncontroversial position.
>>>Good...
>>>>But by "cusp" in geologic time >>>>we are talking about tens of thousands of years.
>>>Not necessarily, it could be from 75-300 years.
>>>>However, given the >>>>enormous shot of atmospheric CO2 we have injected into the balance, it may >>>>well be that we are rather now at the cusp of the end of this ice age.
>>>I hate to break it to you, we have been warming for a goodly period of >>>time...the next ice age is overdue.
>>Now all you have to do, chuckles, is explain why the CO2 has suddenly >>exploded to over 300 ppm, and why temps seem to be rising so much >>FASTER.
>Take a look at:
>~sea floor vocnaism
>~ terrestrial volcanism
>~ increasing solar radiation
My God, there were no volcanoes before 1960! Hurry, revise all the history books!
>>> >>>However, given the >>> >>>enormous shot of atmospheric CO2 we have injected into the balance, it may >>> >>>well be that we are rather now at the cusp of the end of this ice age.
>>We most certainly are.
>>> >>I hate to break it to you, we have been warming for a goodly period of >>> >>time...the next ice age is overdue.
>>>>>>>>We have however observed a sustained warming trend that has been going >>>>>>>>on now for over 100 years, and we have seen dozens of record breaking >>>>>>>>globally averaged years and that is significant.
>>>>>>> Same thing happened in the Cretaceous period, then...ICE AGE!
>>>>>>I don't believe there are any proxy records of either temp or CO2 that >>>>>>could resolve a one hundred year trend as we see today.
>>>>> "proxy records"?
>>>>> My, a new buzzowrd emerges!
>>>>If you don't know what it means,
>>> If you can't bring a relevant url...
>>Come now, this is a remarkably shallow attempt to derail the topic. Do I >>demand you provide a URL describing what you mean by "Cretaceous period"?
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2030075.stm > A huge outpouring of molten rock 250 million years ago may have been >the decisive factor in the deaths of nearly all lifeforms on the Earth >at that time.
So there were volcanoes in the past? Now I'm confused -- I thought you said this was something new since 1860, since it had to be the source for the increase in CO2 since then.
>>>>> >>I hate to break it to you, we have been warming for a goodly period of >>>>> >>time...the next ice age is overdue.
>>>>No, it's not.
>>> Yes, it certainly is!
>>> http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/students/iceage/index.html >>> The next ice age is already overdue. Its onset depends on how man >>> alters the climate by adding to the greenhouse effect. Perhaps global >>> warming with man's assistance, might be able to hold off the next ice >>> age for a little while longer.
>>> "Watch out, Al Gore. The glaciers will get you!" With that appended >>> note, my friend, retired field geologist Jack Sauers, forwarded to me >>> a report that should have been a lead item in every newspaper in the >>> world. It was the news that the best-measured glacier in North >>> America, the Nisqually on Mount Rainier, has been growing since 1931.
>>Isn't it a little self serving to reject all the evidence we have of warming >>as inconclusive while simultaneously citing a single growing glacier as >>evidence of the onset of an ice age? Thry looking at a global survey: >>http://nsidc.org/sotc/glacier_balance.html
>>> http://biocab.org/Tropospheric_Temperature_Variability.html >>> We should also take account of the disturbing increase of Earth's >>> volcanism for the current Warming Variability; volcanism has been >>> increasing so fast in the last 10 years that at present there are more >>> than 100 active volcanoes that now are transferring longwave infrared >>> radiations (from magma and heated gases and dust) to the atmosphere >>> and the oceans. Experts in Volcanism consider that the Earth had not >>> presented the current level of volcanic activity at least since 20000 >>> years ago. Remember that the longwave infrared radiation is >>> transferred more slowly to the outer space than the shortwave of the >>> infrared radiation coming from the Sun and from other places of the >>> Universe. (Infrared radiation = heat).
>>Becasue this is the first time I saw you post something quantitative about >>current volcanic activity, rather than just reports of particular eruptions, >>I followed the link to see the references this article used to support its >>claims.
>>There was not a single one. Try to remember that just because you read it >>on the innernets does not mean it is true.
Now scroll down and look at the figure about deuterium. You see the current CO2 is far above any previous. Also look at the figure "Global Climate Forcings."
More cherry picking and quoting out of context. Pathetic.
>>>>"ef_hutterite" <efhutter...@montanan.org> wrote in message >>>>news:fffjb25p5lh4o5ejcajfta1o1b519e4kmt@4ax.com... >>>>> On 15 Jul 2006 20:53:05 -0700, lifefo...@charter.net wrote: >>>>> . Since 1980, there has been an advance of more than 55% of the 625 >>>>> mountain glaciers under observation by the World Glacier Monitoring >>>>> group in Zurich. (From 1926 to 1960, some 70-95% of these glaciers >>>>> were in retreat.)
>>>>This data is quite incorrect. I invite you to read an excellent account of >>>>some real investigative journalism into this 55% number, which was echoed >>>>around the web as 555 out of 625 for a while due to a typo by David Bellamy. >>>>The story is here: >>>>http://www.alternet.org
>>>Alternet?????
>>>ROTFLAMO!
>>>A lieberal conspiracy site!
>>>TOO FUCKING FUNNY!!
>>You're about to eat those words.
>Nope.
>>I went to the horse's mouth: the World Glacier Monitoring Group >>itself.
>>It looks like glaciation is in full retreat at an accelerating pace. >>The correct number was probably that only 55 of the glaciers were not >>in retreat out of the 625 that are monitored.
>http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF1/141.html >As we all know, things are going to get worse before they get better: >The Northern Hemisphere is in for a period of increasing glaciation >during the next few thousand years. That is the conclusion of three >researchers reporting in the December 10, 1976, issue of Science
So you quoted a 1978 article and now a 1976 one? Your bank probably gives away free calendars.
>magazine. The three, J. D. Hays, John Imbrie and N. J. Shackleton, >have examined the geologic record over the past 450,000 years by >analyzing drill cores of sediments on the floor of the South Atlantic >Ocean. By measuring the relative abundance and composition of life >species in the sediments and being able to date when the sediments >were laid down, they were able to obtain an index of the global >climate over the 450,000-year period.
>The scientists found cyclic variations in the climate that they could >relate both to periods of glaciation and to cyclic variations in the >earth's orbit. Wobbling of the earth's rotation axis (period 41,000 >years), shift of the date of the equinoxes (period 21,000 years) and >change in the degree of circularity of the earth's motion about the >sun (period 100,000 years) all are found to be important. By extending >the past behavior into the near future, Hays, Imbrie and Schackleton >predict a long term trend over the next 20,000 years toward extensive >glaciation and cooler climate.
Which means it could start 19,999 years from now?
>Assuming the correctness of the prediction, the effect on Alaska will >be profound. Many mountain valleys will again become ice-filled. >Ground transportation corridors through the Alaska Range and the >Brooks Range will be closed. As more sea water is tied up in ice, the >coastlines will expand outward and the Bering Land Bridge will >reappear. Someday it will be possible to drive a car past Nome to >Moscow.
Since we are warming instread of cooling, why can you not see the warming is not part of a natural cycle then?
>>>We have however observed a sustained warming trend that has been going on >>>now for over 100 years, and we have seen dozens of record breaking globally >>>averaged years and that is significant.
>>Same thing happened in the Cretaceous period, then...ICE AGE!
>>>>>> Do you agree that we stand on the cusp (geologic time if you prefer) >>>>>> of the next ice age?
>>>>>If there were no anthropogenic perturbance to the natural forcings, I >think >>>>>this would be an uncontroversial position.
>>>>Good...
>>>>>But by "cusp" in geologic time >>>>>we are talking about tens of thousands of years.
>>>>Not necessarily, it could be from 75-300 years.
>>>>>However, given the >>>>>enormous shot of atmospheric CO2 we have injected into the balance, it may >>>>>well be that we are rather now at the cusp of the end of this ice age.
>>>>I hate to break it to you, we have been warming for a goodly period of >>>>time...the next ice age is overdue.
>>>Now all you have to do, chuckles, is explain why the CO2 has suddenly >>>exploded to over 300 ppm, and why temps seem to be rising so much >>>FASTER.
>>Take a look at:
>>~sea floor vocnaism
>>~ terrestrial volcanism
>>~ increasing solar radiation
>My God, there were no volcanoes before 1960! Hurry, revise all the history >books!
Or just be man enough to admit that there are multiple inputs for global "warming".
>>>> >>>However, given the >>>> >>>enormous shot of atmospheric CO2 we have injected into the balance, it >may >>>> >>>well be that we are rather now at the cusp of the end of this ice age.
>>>We most certainly are.
>>>> >>I hate to break it to you, we have been warming for a goodly period of >>>> >>time...the next ice age is overdue.
>>>>>>>>>We have however observed a sustained warming trend that has been going >>>>>>>>>on now for over 100 years, and we have seen dozens of record breaking >>>>>>>>>globally averaged years and that is significant.
>>>>>>>> Same thing happened in the Cretaceous period, then...ICE AGE!
>>>>>>>I don't believe there are any proxy records of either temp or CO2 that >>>>>>>could resolve a one hundred year trend as we see today.
>>>>>> "proxy records"?
>>>>>> My, a new buzzowrd emerges!
>>>>>If you don't know what it means,
>>>> If you can't bring a relevant url...
>>>Come now, this is a remarkably shallow attempt to derail the topic. Do I >>>demand you provide a URL describing what you mean by "Cretaceous period"?
>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2030075.stm >> A huge outpouring of molten rock 250 million years ago may have been >>the decisive factor in the deaths of nearly all lifeforms on the Earth >>at that time.
>So there were volcanoes in the past? Now I'm confused -- I thought you said >this was something new since 1860, since it had to be the source for the >increase in CO2 since then.
I said there are multiple inputs, INCLUDING increased sea floor volcanism.
>>>> http://biocab.org/Tropospheric_Temperature_Variability.html >>>> We should also take account of the disturbing increase of Earth's >>>> volcanism for the current Warming Variability; volcanism has been >>>> increasing so fast in the last 10 years that at present there are more >>>> than 100 active volcanoes that now are transferring longwave infrared >>>> radiations (from magma and heated gases and dust) to the atmosphere >>>> and the oceans. Experts in Volcanism consider that the Earth had not >>>> presented the current level of volcanic activity at least since 20000 >>>> years ago. Remember that the longwave infrared radiation is >>>> transferred more slowly to the outer space than the shortwave of the >>>> infrared radiation coming from the Sun and from other places of the >>>> Universe. (Infrared radiation = heat).
>>>Becasue this is the first time I saw you post something quantitative about >>>current volcanic activity, rather than just reports of particular eruptions, >>>I followed the link to see the references this article used to support its >>>claims.
>>>There was not a single one. Try to remember that just because you read it >>>on the innernets does not mean it is true.
>Now scroll down and look at the figure about deuterium. You see the current >CO2 is far above any previous. Also look at the figure "Global Climate >Forcings."
>More cherry picking and quoting out of context. Pathetic.
>>>>>> >>I hate to break it to you, we have been warming for a goodly period of >>>>>> >>time...the next ice age is overdue.
>>>>>No, it's not.
>>>> Yes, it certainly is!
>>>> http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/students/iceage/index.html >>>> The next ice age is already overdue. Its onset depends on how man >>>> alters the climate by adding to the greenhouse effect. Perhaps global >>>> warming with man's assistance, might be able to hold off the next ice >>>> age for a little while longer.
>>>> "Watch out, Al Gore. The glaciers will get you!" With that appended >>>> note, my friend, retired field geologist Jack Sauers, forwarded to me >>>> a report that should have been a lead item in every newspaper in the >>>> world. It was the news that the best-measured glacier in North >>>> America, the Nisqually on Mount Rainier, has been growing since 1931.
>>>Isn't it a little self serving to reject all the evidence we have of warming >>>as inconclusive while simultaneously citing a single growing glacier as >>>evidence of the onset of an ice age? Thry looking at a global survey: >>>http://nsidc.org/sotc/glacier_balance.html
>>Underwater volcanic activity in the Arctic Ocean far stronger than >>anyone ever imagined!
>Prove it's stronger than in the past if you want to prove this is the cause of >the current warming.
Multiple urls have already been presented on that matter, and too we kmnow that man was ill equiped to monitor sea floor volcanism until quite recently.
>>(This strongly confirms my belief that >>underwater volcanic activity is heating the seas; not human activity.)
>So now you are claiming volcanoes didn't exist before 1860.
