Global Warming is a hoax
Sean Durbin
Global warming is actually something that happens naturally . Sometimes
throughout the globe's history it got warmer and colder and during the
Ice Age it was very cold but then during the Middle Ages it got warm .
So you it's Mother Nature warming and cooling the earth not man made
green house gases. Only green house gases cums out of librel asses.
Lookout
wrote:
Then george bush lied? Is that what you're telling us?
http://www.thedeets.com/2007/01/30/bush-admits-global-warming-exists/
BobR
Warming any longer but instead call it "Climate Change". They had to
change the terms since they couldn't support the Global Warming model
with facts. Even one of the original scientists who blew up the
Global Warming hysteria has now admitted that his models were greatly
flawed. Still, Gore and his sky is falling crowd insist that we are
all DOOMED! Now however, if it is "warmer than normal" it is climate
change or if it is "colder than normal" it is climate change and if it
floods (which it has NEVER done before) it is climate change and a
drought is of course...Climate change. Heaven forbid that you get the
runs or constipation because that will be CLIMATE CHANGE as well.
I can't help but laugh at the whole thing since I clearly remember the
scientific uproar over the Pending NEW ICE AGE warnings of the 60's
and 70's. I just hope I live long enough to see the hysteria over the
next occurence of the reversal in the magnetic poles. Talk about
Climate Change! That will be climate Change you can Believe In and I
don't doubt for a second that Bush will get blamed for it.
Alex DeLarge
> http://www.thedeets.com/2007/01/30/bush-admits-global-warming-exists/
There's that Bush derangement syndrome again - get on with you stinking
libitard life.
Sanders Kaufman
news:ip2me51urd5hni2ii...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 10:13:30 -0600, Sean Durbin <badas...@aol.com>
>>So you it's Mother Nature warming and cooling the earth not man made
>>green house gases. Only green house gases cums out of librel asses.
>
> Then george bush lied? Is that what you're telling us?
It's not really about global warming.
It's just about a very angry, very small, man venting his anger on how his
life turned out.
Alex DeLarge
Milt Bradley
sailor, you're afraid to shave you beard because your face looks like a
cunt, and you can't get a full time job. But hey, the recession is
officially over because of Obama's stimulous. He has created or saved a
million and a half jobs. You must have got one of those, right? Maybe
it's his bullshit again. ya think? You worthless Commie degenerate.
tankfixer
mrLo...@yahoo.com says...
Make up your mind, before you argued Bush is a lying idiot, now you say
he is telling the truth ?
Sanders Kaufman
news:EqKGm.995$Js....@newsfe10.iad...
> Sanders Kaufman wrote:
>> It's not really about global warming.
>> It's just about a very angry, very small, man venting his anger on how
>> his life turned out.
>>
> You know about that, right "Bucky?" Your wife left with some Black sailor,
> you're afraid to shave you beard because your face looks like a
Like I said... a very angry, very small man.
Sanders Kaufman
news:MPG.2555214...@news.bytemine.net...
> Make up your mind, before you argued Bush is a lying idiot, now you say
> he is telling the truth ?
So - you really don't know that even liars sometimes tell the truth?
That explains a lot about hy you half-wits support Bush.
You heard him say some ONE thing that was true, and in a fit of faith-based
ignorance, decided he was incapable of lying!
Alex DeLarge
Alex DeLarge
> "tankfixer" <paul.c...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.2555214...@news.bytemine.net...
>
>> Make up your mind, before you argued Bush is a lying idiot, now you say
>> he is telling the truth ?
>
> So - you really don't know that even liars sometimes tell the truth?
You don't.
tankfixer
Keep flopping like a flounder son.
BobR
> "tankfixer" <paul.carr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Yep, sometimes even liars tell the truth and we are still waiting for
that to happen with Obama. You know what they say though....there is
an exception to every rule and Obama may prove the exception.
God's Debris
back bad hurricanes?? We were told to expect that to continue because
it was due to "climate change". Funny how it's been at least two
years with pretty much nothing in the way of hurricane activity.
Trevor Wilson
"BobR" <re...@r-a-reed-assoc.com> wrote in message
news:4301d08b-c1ed-44f7...@w19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
>
> I can't help but laugh at the whole thing since I clearly remember the
> scientific uproar over the Pending NEW ICE AGE warnings of the 60's
> and 70's.
**Bollocks you do. The same idiots who claim that global warming is not
occuring (ie: the fossil fuel lobby) are the same idiots who claimed that
there was an ice age coming. All the smart science was backing global
warming back in the 1970s. Dunno about the 1960s, because I wasn't reading
scientific journals in the 1960s. I was reading them in the 1970s though.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Milt Bradley
Sanders Kaufman
news:445qe59e3pjnj8ca2...@4ax.com...
> Anyone recall a couple years ago when we had a couple years of back to
> back bad hurricanes?? We were told to expect that to continue because
> it was due to "climate change". Funny how it's been at least two
> years with pretty much nothing in the way of hurricane activity.
That's what you were saying the year BEFORE the hurricanes, too.
And now that there's a brief pause, you pretend that it didn't happen... and
that it's not going to happen again.
Meanwhile, ships are floating freely through what used to be known as the
polar ice cap.
Your obsession with denouncing science is insane. Seek help.
Sanders Kaufman
news:7l4kdvF...@mid.individual.net...
> "BobR" <re...@r-a-reed-assoc.com> wrote in message
>> I can't help but laugh at the whole thing since I clearly remember the
>> scientific uproar over the Pending NEW ICE AGE warnings of the 60's
>> and 70's.
>
> **Bollocks you do. The same idiots who claim that global warming is not
> occuring (ie: the fossil fuel lobby) are the same idiots who claimed that
> there was an ice age coming. All the smart science was backing global
> warming back in the 1970s. Dunno about the 1960s, because I wasn't reading
> scientific journals in the 1960s. I was reading them in the 1970s though.
You're right to note the era.
During the 60's and 70's, the Republicans and their oil lobbyists put out a
lot of propaganda to the young people of the day - denouncing science.
Now, that folks in that generation are the only ones who don't believe their
eyes, even as they SEE the polar ice caps melt.
BobR
>
> - Show quoted text -
Lived in the Houston area for over 40 years and we were well educated
on hurricanes. Dr. Niel Frank was the expert on them and was the
weatherman on channel 2. He was the former head of the National
Hurricane Center and made sure everyone was educated. For years he
commented on the fact that the number of annual hurricanes were below
normal. He also commented on the fact that we had very little
historical knowledge prior to the advent of satelite coverage of the
exact number of annual hurricanes. Most were in the open oceans and
never recorded because they never hit land. Even with current
records, one year or two years does not indicate a change in the
patterns.
BobR
Gawd damn Sanders, do you blame the Republicans everytime you have a
case of constipation? You are so full of hatred for Republicans and
Christians it must keep you awake at night trying to find something
else to blame on them. You are sick!
BobR
You might have read a few but apparently weren't too good a
remembering them.
God's Debris
You miss the point. it was ludicrous for the "experts" to be telling
us it was due climate change after only two abnormal years, but they
were. And the polar ice cap has come and gone before, way before man
put all the CO2 in the air. You need to stop accepting everything as
fact when even the pro GM people admit their models are WAY less then
perfect. It's far from settled science no matter how many times
people make that statement. Have you read the UN report? It's full
on equivocal statements and it's not even written by the scientists.
It's about as factual as a Corporations annual report.
Milt Bradley
That's why you should not be teaching little children. You aren't smart
enough. The Antarctic ice area is growing. You idiot. Guess what? Polar
bears aren't dying either.
Trevor Wilson
**Considerably better than you. Read this:
http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2F2008BAMS2370.1&ct=1
Download and read the .pdf. I have every confidence that you will:
a) Not do so.
b) Fail to understand what is written anyway.
Global cooling was, as it is now, in the realm of junk science.
Global warming was, as it is now, in the realm of proper science.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
BobR
wrote:
> "BobR" <re...@r-a-reed-assoc.com> wrote in message
>
> news:90028be4-6581-4407...@o10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 31, 11:25 pm, "Trevor Wilson"
>
>
>
>
>
> <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
> > "BobR" <re...@r-a-reed-assoc.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:4301d08b-c1ed-44f7...@w19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > I can't help but laugh at the whole thing since I clearly remember the
> > > scientific uproar over the Pending NEW ICE AGE warnings of the 60's
> > > and 70's.
>
> > **Bollocks you do. The same idiots who claim that global warming is not
> > occuring (ie: the fossil fuel lobby) are the same idiots who claimed that
> > there was an ice age coming. All the smart science was backing global
> > warming back in the 1970s. Dunno about the 1960s, because I wasn't reading
> > scientific journals in the 1960s. I was reading them in the 1970s though.
>
> > --
> > Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au
>
> You might have read a few but apparently weren't too good a
> remembering them.
>
> **Considerably better than you. Read this:
>
>
> Download and read the .pdf. I have every confidence that you will:
>
> a) Not do so.
> b) Fail to understand what is written anyway.
>
> Global cooling was, as it is now, in the realm of junk science.
> Global warming was, as it is now, in the realm of proper science.
>
> --
>
> - Show quoted text -
Sorry to disappoint you ignorant conclusions but I had already read it
and understood it completely. That doesn't change anything and even
NASA was among those who in the 60's and 70's was claiming that a NEW
ICE AGE was coming. I didn't say I agreed with them then any more
than I agree with all the bullshit global warming now. Then as now,
some science is junk and some is proper but none of it can accurately
predict the weather next week much less the next 100 years.
Trevor Wilson
**Clearly, you have not. Read the .pdf.
That doesn't change anything and even
NASA was among those who in the 60's and 70's was claiming that a NEW
ICE AGE was coming.
**Read the .pdf. It demonstrates your misconceptions.
I didn't say I agreed with them then any more
than I agree with all the bullshit global warming now.
**Of course you don't. You don't understand basic science. That is pretty
standard for people with little or no scientific education.
Then as now,
some science is junk and some is proper but none of it can accurately
predict the weather next week much less the next 100 years.
**Standard misconception for those with no scientific training. 'Weather' is
not the same as 'climate'.
As the .pdf adequately demonstrates, all the smart money was on global
warming back in the 1960s and 1970s. Just as it is now. Global cooling was
junk science. Serious scientists discounted it then, just as they do now.
Those who have little knowledge of science (like yourself) will rely on
religion, rather than science every time.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
BobR
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Sorry to disappoint you ignorant conclusions but I had already read it
> and understood it completely.
>
> **Clearly, you have not. Read the .pdf.
>
Clearly you make ASS-U-mptions that you have not way of supporting but
will go down trying.
> That doesn't change anything and even
> NASA was among those who in the 60's and 70's was claiming that a NEW
> ICE AGE was coming.
>
> **Read the .pdf. It demonstrates your misconceptions.
>
Total BULL SHIT!
> I didn't say I agreed with them then any more
> than I agree with all the bullshit global warming now.
>
> **Of course you don't. You don't understand basic science. That is pretty
> standard for people with little or no scientific education.
>
Well professor just what are your qualifications to be teaching?
> Then as now,
> some science is junk and some is proper but none of it can accurately
> predict the weather next week much less the next 100 years.
>
> **Standard misconception for those with no scientific training. 'Weather' is
> not the same as 'climate'.
>
NO SHIT! Now tell me something that I don't know.
> As the .pdf adequately demonstrates, all the smart money was on global
> warming back in the 1960s and 1970s. Just as it is now. Global cooling was
> junk science. Serious scientists discounted it then, just as they do now.
Yes and more and more serious scientists are now discounting the
global warming models as full of holes which is why the popular term
now has become "Climate Change" instead of global warming.
> Those who have little knowledge of science (like yourself) will rely on
> religion, rather than science every time.
>
Again with the unfounded ASS_U-mptions that I rely on religion rather
than science. Where did I make any mention of religion? I didn't but
you make the Assumption anyway.
> --
> Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Are you sure your name isn't Jaun? You reach ignorant unfounded
conclusions and then defend them without fail. Get down off your high
and mighty know it all pedestal and quit assuming that you know it
all. The jury is still out on global warming as it was on global
cooling. The science behind both is just theories and based on models
that vary all over the place. You have made up your mind that global
warming is the only "valid" science and will reject any and all
research to the contrary. Sorry but I don't buy all the dooms day
arguments based on the current data.
Trevor Wilson
**I will remind you of your rampant stupidity, once more. Here is your
stupid, ill-informed claim:
"I can't help but laugh at the whole thing since I clearly remember the
scientific uproar over the Pending NEW ICE AGE warnings of the 60's
and 70's."
There was no "scientific uproar". As I clearly demonstrated with my
evidence, a handful of junk science articles does not counter the massive
evidence supported by real science. If you took the time to read and
understand what I submitted to you, I would not be forced to expose your
scientific illiteracy to the world. It is, indeed, sad, that you choose to
hide in your own ignorance, rather than acquiring a decent education. This
is typical of the religious nutters that permeate this planet and attempt to
pollute the minds of others.
> That doesn't change anything and even
> NASA was among those who in the 60's and 70's was claiming that a NEW
> ICE AGE was coming.
>
> **Read the .pdf. It demonstrates your misconceptions.
>
Total BULL SHIT!
**It's only total bullshit to those who failed to read the .pdf. Since you
failed to read the .pdf, we can only conclude that you are a fool. The
evidence is there.
> I didn't say I agreed with them then any more
> than I agree with all the bullshit global warming now.
>
> **Of course you don't. You don't understand basic science. That is pretty
> standard for people with little or no scientific education.
>
Well professor just what are your qualifications to be teaching?
**I have a scientific education. You have none.
> Then as now,
> some science is junk and some is proper but none of it can accurately
> predict the weather next week much less the next 100 years.
>
> **Standard misconception for those with no scientific training. 'Weather'
> is
> not the same as 'climate'.
>
NO SHIT! Now tell me something that I don't know.
**I've been doing that throughout this thread. You know nothing. Worse, you
have no desire to learn either.
> As the .pdf adequately demonstrates, all the smart money was on global
> warming back in the 1960s and 1970s. Just as it is now. Global cooling was
> junk science. Serious scientists discounted it then, just as they do now.
Yes and more and more serious scientists are now discounting the
global warming models as full of holes which is why the popular term
now has become "Climate Change" instead of global warming.
**Bollocks. Serious scientists have not altered their stance. The science is
irrefutable. The only people left in denial are religious nutters, fossil
fuel lobbyists and scientific illiterates.
> Those who have little knowledge of science (like yourself) will rely on
> religion, rather than science every time.
>
Again with the unfounded ASS_U-mptions that I rely on religion rather
than science. Where did I make any mention of religion? I didn't but
you make the Assumption anyway.
**You are either:
* A religious nutter
* A fossil fuel lobbyist
* Scientific illiterate.
Choose one.
> --
> Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Are you sure your name isn't Jaun?
**You can't read either?
You reach ignorant unfounded
conclusions and then defend them without fail.
**I provided evidence to debunk your original claim. You fail to read that
evidence and then claim I am wrong. You are an idiot.
Get down off your high
and mighty know it all pedestal and quit assuming that you know it
all.
**I do not know it all. I just know a whole lot more than you do about
science. That much is abundantly clear.
The jury is still out on global warming as it was on global
cooling.
**Nope. Only religious nutters, fossil fuel lobbyists and scientific
illiterates manage to ignore the overwhelming science backing global
warming. The jury is not out. The jury is back, the verdict returned and we
are just arguing over the solutions.
The science behind both is just theories and based on models
that vary all over the place.
**Nope. The evidence shows that global warming is occuring. The only issues
that remain are how much and how quickly. That is where the models lack
accuracy. The direction of the trend is clear. The magnitude of that trend
is unclear.
You have made up your mind that global
warming is the only "valid" science and will reject any and all
research to the contrary.
**THERE IS NO RESEARCH TO THE CONTRARY! There is just junk science.
Sorry but I don't buy all the dooms day
arguments based on the current data.
**Of course you don't. You have no idea about real science.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
BobR
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Sorry to disappoint you ignorant conclusions but I had already read it
> > and understood it completely.
>
> > **Clearly, you have not. Read the .pdf.
>
> Clearly you make ASS-U-mptions that you have not way of supporting but
> will go down trying.
>
> **I will remind you of your rampant stupidity, once more. Here is your
> stupid, ill-informed claim:
>
> "I can't help but laugh at the whole thing since I clearly remember the
> scientific uproar over the Pending NEW ICE AGE warnings of the 60's
> and 70's."
>
> There was no "scientific uproar". As I clearly demonstrated with my
> evidence, a handful of junk science articles does not counter the massive
> evidence supported by real science. If you took the time to read and
> understand what I submitted to you, I would not be forced to expose your
> scientific illiteracy to the world. It is, indeed, sad, that you choose to
> hide in your own ignorance, rather than acquiring a decent education. This
> is typical of the religious nutters that permeate this planet and attempt to
> pollute the minds of others.
>
First of all, I had read that long before you posted the link so take
your ass-u-mption and shove it back up your ass. You didn't
demonstrate anything, there was widespread reporting of the "NEW ICE
AGE" back in the late 60's and early 70's and that is a fact that you
can't deny no matter how hard you try. I thought is was junk back
then and I still believe it today as is most the crap about global
warming. It doesn't have a damn thing to do with religion as you keep
trying to claim but everything to do with historical evidence of past
global warming and cooling events.
> > That doesn't change anything and even
> > NASA was among those who in the 60's and 70's was claiming that a NEW
> > ICE AGE was coming.
>
> > **Read the .pdf. It demonstrates your misconceptions.
>
> Total BULL SHIT!
>
> **It's only total bullshit to those who failed to read the .pdf. Since you
> failed to read the .pdf, we can only conclude that you are a fool. The
> evidence is there.
>
Like I said and you ignore, I read the report and it doesn't prove
anything that I said to be wrong.
> > I didn't say I agreed with them then any more
> > than I agree with all the bullshit global warming now.
>
> > **Of course you don't. You don't understand basic science. That is pretty
> > standard for people with little or no scientific education.
>
> Well professor just what are your qualifications to be teaching?
>
> **I have a scientific education. You have none.
>
Right, once again you make an ASS-U-mption that you can't prove or
even begin to support. Fact is that you have bought into a bunch of
crap and are too damn stuborn to admit it.
> > Then as now,
> > some science is junk and some is proper but none of it can accurately
> > predict the weather next week much less the next 100 years.
>
> > **Standard misconception for those with no scientific training. 'Weather'
> > is
> > not the same as 'climate'.
>
> NO SHIT! Now tell me something that I don't know.
>
> **I've been doing that throughout this thread. You know nothing. Worse, you
> have no desire to learn either.
>
You haven't told me anything that I haven't heard before. Your
problem is that you are never willing to even consider that there
might be conflicting evidence that would prove your pet theory wrong.
> > As the .pdf adequately demonstrates, all the smart money was on global
> > warming back in the 1960s and 1970s. Just as it is now. Global cooling was
> > junk science. Serious scientists discounted it then, just as they do now.
>
> Yes and more and more serious scientists are now discounting the
> global warming models as full of holes which is why the popular term
> now has become "Climate Change" instead of global warming.
>
> **Bollocks. Serious scientists have not altered their stance. The science is
> irrefutable. The only people left in denial are religious nutters, fossil
> fuel lobbyists and scientific illiterates.
>
None are so blind as those who refuse to see....that fits you to a
"T".
> > Those who have little knowledge of science (like yourself) will rely on
> > religion, rather than science every time.
>
> Again with the unfounded ASS_U-mptions that I rely on religion rather
> than science. Where did I make any mention of religion? I didn't but
> you make the Assumption anyway.
>
> **You are either:
> * A religious nutter
> * A fossil fuel lobbyist
> * Scientific illiterate.
>
> Choose one.
>
NONE OF THE ABOVE.
> > --
> > Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au-Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Are you sure your name isn't Jaun?
>
> **You can't read either?
>
> You reach ignorant unfounded
> conclusions and then defend them without fail.
>
> **I provided evidence to debunk your original claim. You fail to read that
> evidence and then claim I am wrong. You are an idiot.
>
> Get down off your high
> and mighty know it all pedestal and quit assuming that you know it
> all.
>
> **I do not know it all. I just know a whole lot more than you do about
> science. That much is abundantly clear.
>
Still on that high pedestal I see.
> The jury is still out on global warming as it was on global
> cooling.
>
> **Nope. Only religious nutters, fossil fuel lobbyists and scientific
> illiterates manage to ignore the overwhelming science backing global
> warming. The jury is not out. The jury is back, the verdict returned and we
> are just arguing over the solutions.
>
> The science behind both is just theories and based on models
> that vary all over the place.
>
> **Nope. The evidence shows that global warming is occuring. The only issues
> that remain are how much and how quickly. That is where the models lack
> accuracy. The direction of the trend is clear. The magnitude of that trend
> is unclear.
>
> You have made up your mind that global
> warming is the only "valid" science and will reject any and all
> research to the contrary.
>
> **THERE IS NO RESEARCH TO THE CONTRARY! There is just junk science.
>
> Sorry but I don't buy all the dooms day
> arguments based on the current data.
>
> **Of course you don't. You have no idea about real science.
>
> --
> Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au- Hide quoted text -
>
You belittle those who believe in religion but are no different from
them. You have developed a belief that despite any and all evidence
to the contrary you insist is and will always be only factual answer.
Like the religious nut case, you try to tear down anyone who dares to
disagree with you. Real science does not reach a conclusion and then
only accept evidence that supports that conclusion. Real science
looks at all the facts, both pro and con before forming a theory.
Real science also accepts that it may not have all the facts to model
the future events.
Trevor Wilson
**You have not read it. Had you taken the time to read the evidence, you
would not have made this idiotic and demonstrably false claim:
---
"I can't help but laugh at the whole thing since I clearly remember the
scientific uproar over the Pending NEW ICE AGE warnings of the 60's and
70's."
---
You didn't
demonstrate anything, there was widespread reporting of the "NEW ICE
AGE" back in the late 60's and early 70's
**Nope. There was some junk science. The overwhelming majority of articles
were concerned with global warming. Which, had you taken the time to read
the .pdf, you would understand.
and that is a fact that you
can't deny no matter how hard you try. I thought is was junk back
then and I still believe it today as is most the crap about global
warming.
**Of course you do. You are scientifically illiterate.
It doesn't have a damn thing to do with religion as you keep
trying to claim but everything to do with historical evidence of past
global warming and cooling events.
**Like this?
http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/
> > That doesn't change anything and even
> > NASA was among those who in the 60's and 70's was claiming that a NEW
> > ICE AGE was coming.
>
> > **Read the .pdf. It demonstrates your misconceptions.
>
> Total BULL SHIT!
>
> **It's only total bullshit to those who failed to read the .pdf. Since you
> failed to read the .pdf, we can only conclude that you are a fool. The
> evidence is there.
>
Like I said and you ignore, I read the report and it doesn't prove
anything that I said to be wrong.
**Read the report.
> > I didn't say I agreed with them then any more
> > than I agree with all the bullshit global warming now.
>
> > **Of course you don't. You don't understand basic science. That is
> > pretty
> > standard for people with little or no scientific education.
>
> Well professor just what are your qualifications to be teaching?
>
> **I have a scientific education. You have none.
>
Right, once again you make an ASS-U-mption that you can't prove or
even begin to support.
**Your scientific illiteracy is proven by your words.
Fact is that you have bought into a bunch of
crap and are too damn stuborn to admit it.
**I accept the science, not the rhetoric and certainly not the lies
promulgated by the fossil fuel lobby.
> > Then as now,
> > some science is junk and some is proper but none of it can accurately
> > predict the weather next week much less the next 100 years.
>
> > **Standard misconception for those with no scientific training.
> > 'Weather'
> > is
> > not the same as 'climate'.
>
> NO SHIT! Now tell me something that I don't know.
>
> **I've been doing that throughout this thread. You know nothing. Worse,
> you
> have no desire to learn either.
>
You haven't told me anything that I haven't heard before.
***Sure I have. I provided evidence to prove your statement incorrect.
Your
problem is that you are never willing to even consider that there
might be conflicting evidence that would prove your pet theory wrong.
**WHEN any evidence is submitted, I will consider it. There is zero evidence
to support your unscientific claims.
NONE OF THE ABOVE.
**OK. I'll accpet that you are all of the above until proven otherwise.
> > --
> > Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au-Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Are you sure your name isn't Jaun?
>
> **You can't read either?
**You can't read either?
>
> You reach ignorant unfounded
> conclusions and then defend them without fail.
>
> **I provided evidence to debunk your original claim. You fail to read that
> evidence and then claim I am wrong. You are an idiot.
>
> Get down off your high
> and mighty know it all pedestal and quit assuming that you know it
> all.
>
> **I do not know it all. I just know a whole lot more than you do about
> science. That much is abundantly clear.
>
Still on that high pedestal I see.
**Just stating facts. You probably know more about the Bible and religious
claptrap than I do.
**I don't belittle them. Religion is claptrap and irrlevant.
You have developed a belief that despite any and all evidence
to the contrary you insist is and will always be only factual answer.
**This would be a pot, kettle, black moment. I provided evidence to prove
the falsity of your statement.
Like the religious nut case, you try to tear down anyone who dares to
disagree with you.
**Not at all. I provide evidence and facts. You do not accept evidence and
facts. That makes you an idiot.
Real science does not reach a conclusion and then
only accept evidence that supports that conclusion.
**Correct. Lack of evidence means that there is a lack of evidence.
Real science
looks at all the facts, both pro and con before forming a theory.
**Real science looks at evidence. If there is no evidence, there is no
compuction for science to examine any competing theories.
Real science also accepts that it may not have all the facts to model
the future events.
**Of course. You have failed to note that there is no evidence to support
your claims.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Sanders Kaufman
> On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 19:34:11 -0600, "Sanders Kaufman"
> You miss the point. it was ludicrous for the "experts" to be telling
> us it was due climate change after only two abnormal years, but they
> were.
Oh, I get the point just fine - and it's not REALLY about climate change.
It's called an "inferiority complex", and it's manifesting as a "delusion of
grandeur".
There's no expert anywhere in the world who would tell you that global
warming caused the hurricanes.
If such conversations are occurring, they are not occurring with experts.
But you keep complaining that they're telling you these things.
That's called a "delusion".
The fact that you're imagining this conversation as if the other people are
experts and you are a layman, and the fact that you are besting them at the
imaginary argument makes it a "delusion of grandeur".
The reason you developed a delusion of grandeur is by way of an inferiority
complex.
You think you're smart - but for some reason, obviously smart people don't
accept you as such.
This is a real problem for you because it undermines your delusion of
grandeur.
Without that, you have to accept that you're just like everyone else in the
world.
Now - you're stuck in a cycle.
You need validation - but you don't get validation.
So you make up your own validation through imaginary conversations in which
you best experts at their own game.
You try to parlay that imagined validation into real validation through
conversations on Usenet.
But, possibly because of your advanced age, there's noone here who sees
eye-to-eye with you, either.
The best you can hope for here is to find a few others who, for their own
reasons, will join you in denouncing successful people.
The GOOD NEWS is that there is a way to break this cycle.
If you simply return to school and become an expert at something yourself,
your desire to denounce REAL experts will diminish significantly.
It will also increase your overall health - heart rate, blood pressure,
serotonin imbalances, cardio - all these will be better when this stressor
is relieved.
Unfortunately - you're not likely to choose this course because it would
require you to face, head-on, the fact that your delusion is not real, and
that you really do need to work on self-improvement. Rather, it's much
easier for you to just heckle real experts than to become one yourself.
Bigots face a similar problem.
Their frustration, too, has nothing to do with their obsession - but rather,
is just a manifestation of an inferiority complex.
Finally, it's worth noting that this very common mental defect is not
normally caused by any physical condition.
So, instead of being categorized as a "mental disorder", it's characterized
as a "personality disorder".
There's no pill or serum or operation that can treat it.
The only treatment is for you to decide to change the nature of your
character.
BobR
>>problem is that you are never willing to even consider that there
>>might be conflicting evidence that would prove your pet theory wrong.
>**WHEN any evidence is submitted, I will consider it. There is zero evidence
>to support your unscientific claims.
Now there is the biggest lie you have ever told. You would never
accept any evidence that would even remotely disprove your conclusions
and would as you have repeatedly done simply call them junk science.
That is not not and never has been the characteristic of a good
scientist.
Sanders Kaufman
> "BobR" <re...@r-a-reed-assoc.com> wrote in message
> **I will remind you of your rampant stupidity, once more. Here is your
> stupid, ill-informed claim:
>
> "I can't help but laugh at the whole thing since I clearly remember the
> scientific uproar over the Pending NEW ICE AGE warnings of the 60's
> and 70's."
>
> There was no "scientific uproar". As I clearly demonstrated with my
> evidence, a handful of junk science articles does not counter the massive
> evidence supported by real science. If you took the time to read and
> understand what I submitted to you,
That's a matter of perspective.
A cat is not intimidating... unless you're a mouse.
Similarly, results of research into climate change are not uproarious...
unless you're a comedian or half-wit.
BobR here is a double-play - a half-wit who gets his news from the Comedy
Channel.
Trevor Wilson
"Sanders Kaufman" <bu...@kaufman.net> wrote in message
news:kEKHm.8606$Cc6....@newsfe07.iad...
**That much seems to be abundantly clear. Science is certainly not high on
his list of things to study.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
SaPeIsMa
Here's something that makes a SERIOUS dent in the IPCC study
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/29/yamal_scandal/
Watch trevie run away and hide at the sight of it.
Trevor Wilson
"SaPeIsMa" <SaPe...@HotMail.com> wrote in message
news:_t-dnT4xefw3G3LX...@posted.cpinternet...
**Bollocks. I have NEVER cited tree rings as temperature proxies. You may
construct your own strawman arguments to defend your own stupidity however.
Address my cited data, or fuck off.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Lookout
Period
End of discussion.
BobR
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Got to love it when two ignorant and arrogant morons congratulate each
other for being ignorant and arrogant morons.
Trevor Wilson
**You are mistaking ignorance for intellect and arrogance for knowledge. You
consistent failure to address my points is clear evidence of these facts.
I suggest you study some science, BEFORE you attempt to argue scientific
matters with adults in future.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
BobR
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Got to love it when two ignorant and arrogant morons congratulate each
> other for being ignorant and arrogant morons.
>
> **You are mistaking ignorance for intellect and arrogance for knowledge. You
> consistent failure to address my points is clear evidence of these facts.
>
You give yourself way too much credit but that is to be expected.
> I suggest you study some science, BEFORE you attempt to argue scientific
> matters with adults in future.
>
Take your own advice for a change.
God's Debris
blah blah blah.
God's Debris
<tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>
> Then as now,
>some science is junk and some is proper but none of it can accurately
>predict the weather next week much less the next 100 years.
>
>**Standard misconception for those with no scientific training. 'Weather' is
>not the same as 'climate'.
I've noticed this is the latest bit of sleight of hand the GW
alarmists have started trotting out as if that excused the almost
total failure of their models to actually predict anything
successfully.
God's Debris
I know several highly educated scientists who do not agree that GW is
a proven theory. You simply have blinders on and refuse to accept the
FACT that many people with appropriate credentials have looked at ALL
the evidence and do not find it compelling. You act more like a child
then a schooled and informed individual.
Gray Ghost
news:bb220914-e47e-4b30...@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
Trev is just trying to demonstrate stupidity on as many subjects as possible.
Milt Bradley
instead of a parasite.
Gray Ghost
> You act more like a child
> then a schooled and informed individual.
>
There is an excellent reason for that.
Gray Ghost
Ask Trev about his friend the sharpshooter who can stop his heart while
shooting. Trev's not real big on the physical sciences.
Trevor Wilson
"God's Debris" <hea...@dead.net> wrote in message
news:79cve5d733efsule8...@4ax.com...
**Name them and their specialties. Provide us with contact details.
You simply have blinders on and refuse to accept the
> FACT that many people with appropriate credentials have looked at ALL
> the evidence and do not find it compelling.
**I accept that a TINY minority of people, with appropriate credentials do
not find the fact or global warming compelling. People like Lindzen, who has
been paid US$2,500.00 per day by the fossil fuel lobby.
You act more like a child
> then a schooled and informed individual.
**Feel free to present some science rather than ad hoc attacks.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
John-Melb
wrote:
> You act more like a child
>
> > then a schooled and informed individual.
>
> **Feel free to present some science rather than ad hoc attacks.
What? you want science (or evidence) that you act more like a child
than a schooled and informed individual?
OK, it's here
http://groups.google.com.au/group/aus.politics.guns
Tell us again about your friend who can STOP his heart?
Scout
Trevor's knowledge of science is limited to his certain knowledge that a
person can by an just an act of will stop his heart from beating.
With that as a basis, it doesn't take much to conclude Trevor doesn't even
have a passing knowledge of the scientific method much less actually USING
it.
Alex DeLarge
> It's
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/climate_change/1023334.stm
Are we, the fossil-fuel-burning public, partially responsible for this
recent warming trend? Almost assuredly not.
These small global temperature increases of the last 25 years and over
the last century are likely natural changes that the globe has seen many
times in the past.
Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes
William M. Gray
Colorado State University
This small warming is likely a result of the natural alterations in
global ocean currents which are driven by ocean salinity variations.
Ocean circulation variations are as yet little understood.
Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature
changes. We are not that influential.
There is a negative or complementary nature to human-induced greenhouse
gas increases in comparison with the dominant natural greenhouse gas of
water vapour and its cloud derivatives.
It has been assumed by the human-induced global warming advocates that
as anthropogenic greenhouse gases increase that water vapour and
upper-level cloudiness will also rise and lead to accelerated warming -
a positive feedback loop.
It is not the human-induced greenhouse gases themselves which cause
significant warming but the assumed extra water vapour and cloudiness
that some scientists hypothesise.
Negative feedback
The global general circulation models which simulate significant amounts
of human-induced warming are incorrectly structured to give this
positive feedback loop.
Their internal model assumptions are thus not realistic.
Mainstream opinion believes that pollution contributes to climate change
As human-induced greenhouse gases rise, global-averaged upper-level
atmospheric water vapour and thin cirrus should be expected to decrease
not increase.
Water vapour and cirrus cloudiness should be thought of as a negative
rather than a positive feedback to human-induced - or anthropogenic
greenhouse gas increases.
No significant human-induced greenhouse gas warming can occur with such
a negative feedback loop.
Alex DeLarge
> "SaPeIsMa" <SaPe...@HotMail.com> wrote in message
> news:_t-dnT4xefw3G3LX...@posted.cpinternet...
>> "BobR" <re...@r-a-reed-assoc.com> wrote in message
>> news:bb220914-e47e-4b30...@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>>>>> Your
>>>>> problem is that you are never willing to even consider that there
>>>>> might be conflicting evidence that would prove your pet theory wrong.
>>>
>>>> **WHEN any evidence is submitted, I will consider it. There is zero
>>>> evidence
>>>> to support your unscientific claims.
>>> Now there is the biggest lie you have ever told. You would never
>>> accept any evidence that would even remotely disprove your conclusions
>>> and would as you have repeatedly done simply call them junk science.
>>> That is not not and never has been the characteristic of a good
>>> scientist.
>>>
>> Here's something that makes a SERIOUS dent in the IPCC study
>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/29/yamal_scandal/
>>
>> Watch trevie run away and hide at the sight of it.
>
> **Bollocks. I have
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/climate_change/1023334.stm
Alex DeLarge
> "God's Debris" <hea...@dead.net> wrote in message
> news:nblse5lh4408jp1re...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 19:34:11 -0600, "Sanders Kaufman"
>
>> You miss the point. it was ludicrous for the "experts" to be telling
>> us it was due climate change after only two abnormal years, but they
>> were.
>
> Oh, I get the point just fine -
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/climate_change/1023334.stm
Alex DeLarge
> "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
> news:7l93fvF...@mid.individual.net...
>> "BobR" <re...@r-a-reed-assoc.com> wrote in message
>
>> **I will remind you of your rampant stupidity, once more. Here is your
>> stupid, ill-informed claim:
>>
>> "I can't help but laugh at the whole thing since I clearly remember the
>> scientific uproar over the Pending NEW ICE AGE warnings of the 60's
>> and 70's."
>>
>> There was no "scientific uproar". As I clearly demonstrated with my
>> evidence, a handful of junk science articles does not counter the
>> massive evidence supported by real science. If you took the time to
>> read and understand what I submitted to you,
>
> That's a matter of perspective.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/climate_change/1023334.stm
Alex DeLarge
Alex DeLarge
Phxbrd
Wishful Thinking has no place in any scientific community. If you have
scientific proof against the reality of global warming, now would be a good
time to offer it here. It should take into consideration the thickness of
the polar ice caps and not just their fluctuating shorelines.
There is stone cold evidence in glacial ice cores that the beginning of the
industrial revolution marked the beginning of global warming, regardless of
either long or short term climate cycles. You'd have no doubt if you saw
the smoke issued from The Four Corners coal-fired power plant in New Mexico.
It's belched into the atmosphere 24/7/365, and it's just one of many all
over the world.
Alex DeLarge
OK:
Alex DeLarge
> You'd have no doubt if you saw
> the smoke issued from The Four Corners coal-fired power plant in New Mexico.
> It's belched into the atmosphere 24/7/365, and it's just one of many all
> over the world.
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2009/11/01/20091101water-ngs1101.html
The Navajo Generating Station, the huge coal-fired power plant outside
Page, supplies a fraction of Arizona's electricity demand, but its role
in moving water to the state's largest cities has thrust it into a
growing battle over the cost of cleaning up air pollution.
In the two months since the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
proposed rules that would require costly new air-scrubbing equipment at
the plant, the debate has escalated into a war of increasingly dire
predictions: Tribal economies could collapse. The plant itself could
close. The price of water sold to Phoenix and Tucson could quadruple.
The new EPA rules, if adopted by the agency, would force owners of the
two plants to install complex new air scrubbers that use ammonia to
break down the pollutants. Navajo's owners say the systems cost too much
money and could push power rates out of reach for the plant's users.
They also argue that the added scrubbers would produce visibility
improvements imperceptible to human eyes.
One reason tempers have flared is the unusual role the generating
station plays, both in its own backyard and in the state's population
centers.
The coal burned to produce electricity is mined on the nearby Hopi and
Navajo Indian reservations, and tribal members supply much of the labor
needed to keep the plant running. If the plant closed, the tribes would
lose the jobs and millions of dollars in revenue from the coal.
Although the tribes have long sided with environmentalists on resource
issues, leaders condemned the Sierra Club and other groups for
supporting the EPA plan, creating schisms within the tribes.
The plant, owned by five utilities and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation,
powers the state's largest conveyor of water, the Central Arizona
Project Canal, supplying electricity cheaply enough to pump water 3,000
feet uphill, from the Colorado River to Phoenix and Tucson.
That link between water and energy has raised anew doubts about
subsidizing cheap water with cheap electricity, but CAP officials say
there's little question that the EPA plan would result in higher prices
for water users.
"What we do can't be done without water or power," said David Modeer,
general manager of the Central Arizona Water Conservation District.
"Power is the biggest expense related to the price of our water. I can't
think of any bigger threat to us other than the Colorado going dry."
Trevor Wilson
"Alex DeLarge" <kor...@milk.bar> wrote in message
news:hcpphs$5b3$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> "SaPeIsMa" <SaPe...@HotMail.com> wrote in message
>> news:_t-dnT4xefw3G3LX...@posted.cpinternet...
>>> "BobR" <re...@r-a-reed-assoc.com> wrote in message
>>> news:bb220914-e47e-4b30...@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>> Your
>>>>>> problem is that you are never willing to even consider that there
>>>>>> might be conflicting evidence that would prove your pet theory wrong.
>>>>
>>>>> **WHEN any evidence is submitted, I will consider it. There is zero
>>>>> evidence
>>>>> to support your unscientific claims.
>>>> Now there is the biggest lie you have ever told. You would never
>>>> accept any evidence that would even remotely disprove your conclusions
>>>> and would as you have repeatedly done simply call them junk science.
>>>> That is not not and never has been the characteristic of a good
>>>> scientist.
>>>>
>>> Here's something that makes a SERIOUS dent in the IPCC study
>>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/29/yamal_scandal/
>>>
>>> Watch trevie run away and hide at the sight of it.
>>
>> **Bollocks. I have
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/climate_change/1023334.stm
>
> Are we, the fossil-fuel-burning public, partially responsible for this
> recent warming trend? Almost assuredly not.
**Prove it.
>
> These small global temperature increases of the last 25 years and over the
> last century are likely natural changes that the globe has seen many times
> in the past.
**Prove it.
>
>
> Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes
**Prove it.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Wayne
"Phxbrd" <lesliese...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7lbcemF...@mid.individual.net...
Isn't the proof of man caused global warming something that falls upon
proponents of global warming, rather than the other way around?
> There is stone cold evidence in glacial ice cores that the beginning of
> the industrial revolution marked the beginning of global warming,
> regardless of either long or short term climate cycles. You'd have no
> doubt if you saw the smoke issued from The Four Corners coal-fired power
> plant in New Mexico. It's belched into the atmosphere 24/7/365, and it's
> just one of many all over the world.
>
Still--there are things missing:
1. Proof that man caused global warming. The logic doesn't work that "since
there are more people, and the climate is warming--people are causing the
warming".
2. Can it be demonstrated that the effect can be reversed by man? If not,
we just keep things tidy by picking up trash and live with the climate.
3. It global warming more of a threat than for example, a S-L sized comet
striking the Earth (as happened a few years back to Jupiter)
Sanders Kaufman
> On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 17:29:29 -0600, "Sanders Kaufman"
>>The only treatment is for you to decide to change the nature of your
>>character.
>
> blah blah blah.
That's pretty much how I feel when you relate one of your imaginary
conversations.
Milt Bradley
Milt Bradley
bunch of politically correct tree huggers and whale worshipers. Just
about the time you appear to be normal, you post some crazy bullshit put
out by Socialist Democrats. Ron Paul would slap you silly.
Sanders Kaufman
>>**That much seems to be abundantly clear. Science is certainly not high on
>>his list of things to study.
>
> I know several highly educated scientists who do not agree that GW is
> a proven theory.
No - you don't.
That's just something you've been TOLD.
It's not really anything you've EXPERIENCED.
You need to learn the difference between the conversations you have in real
life, and the ones that just happen in your own mind.
Only then will you even BEGIN to be able to grasp such complex scientific
concepts as why ice melts and water freezes.
RD (The Sandman)
Why? Can't you prove that we are and to what extent?
>> These small global temperature increases of the last 25 years and
>> over the last century are likely natural changes that the globe has
>> seen many times in the past.
>
> **Prove it.
Why? Can't you prove that it is different from those other natural
changes?
>> Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature
>> changes
>
> **Prove it.
Why? Can't you prove that it does?
I think that it is mostly a natural cycle but that humans have added some
unquantifiable quality to it. How much, I don't know.....but then I
don't profess to know like you do.
--
Sleep well tonight,
RD (The Sandman)
Let's see if I have this healthcare thingy right. Congress is to pass
a plan written by a committee whose head has said he doesn't understand
it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it, signed by a president who
hasn't read it, with funding administered by a Treasury chief who didn't
pay his taxes because he didn't understand TurboTax, overseen by an obese
Surgeon General and financed by a country that's nearly broke.
What could possibly go wrong?
Sanders Kaufman
> I've noticed this is the latest bit of sleight of hand the GW
> alarmists have started trotting out as if that excused the almost
> total failure of their models to actually predict anything
> successfully.
That's kind of funny - since this climate change is about what is already
happening, rather than a prediction of what might someday happen.
Since all of the mainstream climate change theorists say that we can still
affect future climate, you must be getting your info from the lunatic
fringes.
If you change that, and go to legitimate, mainstream sources, you'll find
much more rational thinking on the matter.
Sanders Kaufman
news:Xns9CB812AFF12F9We...@216.196.97.142..
> Ask Trev about his friend the sharpshooter who can stop his heart while
> shooting. Trev's not real big on the physical sciences.
You've never been to sniper school, learned karate, or took yoga, have you?
It's something they really DO teach - in all three schools.
They all teach you to how to get your heart to skip a beat - and it's not
very difficult.
But, I suppose, if I was an inbred half-wit, hillbilly, it would seem like
science fiction to me, too.
Trevor Wilson
"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9CB88F63...@216.196.97.130...
**Because 'Alex' made the claim. It is up to 'Alex' prove his claim.
> Can't you prove that we are and to what extent?
**I did not make the claim. 'Alex' did. 'Alex' needs to prove his claim.
>
>>> These small global temperature increases of the last 25 years and
>>> over the last century are likely natural changes that the globe has
>>> seen many times in the past.
>>
>> **Prove it.
>
> Why?
**Because 'Alex' made the claim. It is up to 'Alex' prove his claim.
Can't you prove that it is different from those other natural
> changes?
**Me? no. The IPCC has published 4 reports dealing with the issue in a very
comprehensive manner. I suggest you read those reports, if you want to know.
>
>>> Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature
>>> changes
>>
>> **Prove it.
>
> Why?
**Because 'Alex' made the claim. It is up to 'Alex' prove his claim.
Can't you prove that it does?
**'Alex' made the claim. It is up to 'Alex' to prove his claim.
>
>
> I think that it is mostly a natural cycle but that humans have added some
> unquantifiable quality to it. How much, I don't know.....but then I
> don't profess to know like you do.
**All the data I've read on the matter suggests that natural processes have
contributed around 20% of the observed temperature increase. The other 80%
is likely due to the higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. Those higher
levels of CO2 were, almost certainly, caused by human influence. Therefore,
it is highly likely that humans are mostly responsible for most of the
global warming we are presently experiencing.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Alex DeLarge
Read the rest of the article, DIPSHIT!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/climate_change/1023334.stm
Are we, the fossil-fuel-burning public, partially responsible for this
recent warming trend? Almost assuredly not.
These small global temperature increases of the last 25 years and over
the last century are likely natural changes that the globe has seen many
times in the past.
Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes
William M. Gray
Colorado State University
This small warming is likely a result of the natural alterations in
global ocean currents which are driven by ocean salinity variations.
Ocean circulation variations are as yet little understood.
Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature
Alex DeLarge
> "God's Debris" <hea...@dead.net> wrote in message
> news:79cve5d733efsule8...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 11:46:23 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
>
>>> **That much seems to be abundantly clear. Science is certainly not
>>> high on
>>> his list of things to study.
>>
>> I know several highly educated scientists who do not agree that GW is
>> a proven theory.
>
> No - you don't.
>
Alex DeLarge
It's a closed loop Sandman, unless we can increase solar input we have
NO ability to produce long term global warming.
All we can do is increase cloudiness which leads to short term warming
followed by rapid cooling.
Alex DeLarge
Read the article, DIPSHIT!
> Can't you prove that it is different from those other natural
>> changes?
>
> **Me? no. The IPCC has published 4 reports dealing with the issue in a very
> comprehensive manner. I suggest you read those reports, if you want to know.
I suggest you study closed system, negative feedback loop.
>>>> Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature
>>>> changes
>>> **Prove it.
>> Why?
>
> **Because 'Alex' made the claim. It is up to 'Alex' prove his claim.
>
> Can't you prove that it does?
>
> **'Alex' made the claim. It is up to 'Alex' to prove his claim.
Can man increase solar radiation?
No.
Case closed.
Anything we do to increase cloudiness will cause short term warming
followed by long term cooling.
>>
>> I think that it is mostly a natural cycle but that humans have added some
>> unquantifiable quality to it. How much, I don't know.....but then I
>> don't profess to know like you do.
>
> **All the data I've read on the matter suggests that natural processes have
> contributed around 20% of the observed temperature increase. The other 80%
> is likely due to the higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. Those higher
> levels of CO2 were, almost certainly, caused by human influence. Therefore,
> it is highly likely that humans are mostly responsible for most of the
> global warming we are presently experiencing.
Which, if even remotely accurate means we're about to have one heck of
an ice age.
Enjoy.
We have added no new heating inputs to the system. It remains a closed
loop with negative feedback.
RD (The Sandman)
> "God's Debris" <hea...@dead.net> wrote in message
> news:80cve5t4i331uf03t...@4ax.com...
>
>> I've noticed this is the latest bit of sleight of hand the GW
>> alarmists have started trotting out as if that excused the almost
>> total failure of their models to actually predict anything
>> successfully.
>
> That's kind of funny - since this climate change is about what is
> already happening, rather than a prediction of what might someday
> happen.
Same in the 70s with global cooling.
> Since all of the mainstream climate change theorists say that
> we can still affect future climate, you must be getting your info from
> the lunatic fringes.
No, not all of them say that.
> If you change that, and go to legitimate, mainstream sources, you'll
> find much more rational thinking on the matter.
IOW, if someone comes up with something that disagrees with you, you will
claim that it is not from a "legitimate, mainstream source". ;)
RD (The Sandman)
> "Gray Ghost" <grey_ghost47...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9CB812AFF12F9We...@216.196.97.142..
>> Ask Trev about his friend the sharpshooter who can stop his heart
>> while shooting. Trev's not real big on the physical sciences.
>
> You've never been to sniper school, learned karate, or took yoga, have
> you? It's something they really DO teach - in all three schools.
In sniper school they teach you how to *SLOW* your heartrate to a very
slow rate. Skipping one beat doesn't do much for your shooting ability
since that is less than one second. However, one can slow their
heartrate to a point where it doesn't affect the rifle.
> They all teach you to how to get your heart to skip a beat - and it's
> not very difficult.
It's that little switch between your legs, isn't it, Saunders. ;)
> But, I suppose, if I was an inbred half-wit, hillbilly, it would seem
> like science fiction to me, too.
Why? My heart skips beats all the time......
Trevor Wilson
"Alex DeLarge" <kor...@milk.bar> wrote in message
**YOU made the claim. YOU prove it.
>
>> Can't you prove that it is different from those other natural
>>> changes?
>>
>> **Me? no. The IPCC has published 4 reports dealing with the issue in a
>> very comprehensive manner. I suggest you read those reports, if you want
>> to know.
>
> I suggest you study closed system, negative feedback loop.
**Why? This planet is not part of a closed system. We have external inputs
and losses. Radiation flows in from the Sun and heat is radiated out.
>>>>> Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature
>>>>> changes
>>>> **Prove it.
>>> Why?
>>
>> **Because 'Alex' made the claim. It is up to 'Alex' prove his claim.
>>
>> Can't you prove that it does?
>>
>> **'Alex' made the claim. It is up to 'Alex' to prove his claim.
>
> Can man increase solar radiation?
**Nope.
>
> No.
>
> Case closed.
**Only to a complete moron. Study up on CO2 and it's effects. CO2 is highly
resonant at several infra-red frequencies. CO2 absorbs infra-red energy,
thus increasing the kinetic energy of the CO2 molecules. This kinetic energy
is then transferred to nearby molecules in the atmosphere, thus increasing
the kinetic energy of the whole system. The real problem occurs at night,
when heat which is re-radiated from the ground heats CO2 molecules, thus
increasing nighttime temperatures.
>
> Anything we do to increase cloudiness will cause short term warming
> followed by long term cooling.
**Prove it. Use the Sahara as part of your proof. Use the Atacama as part of
your proof. Use Australia as part of your proof.
>
>>>
>>> I think that it is mostly a natural cycle but that humans have added
>>> some
>>> unquantifiable quality to it. How much, I don't know.....but then I
>>> don't profess to know like you do.
>>
>> **All the data I've read on the matter suggests that natural processes
>> have contributed around 20% of the observed temperature increase. The
>> other 80% is likely due to the higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.
>> Those higher levels of CO2 were, almost certainly, caused by human
>> influence. Therefore, it is highly likely that humans are mostly
>> responsible for most of the global warming we are presently experiencing.
>
> Which, if even remotely accurate means we're about to have one heck of an
> ice age.
**Prove it.
>
> Enjoy.
>
> We have added no new heating inputs to the system. It remains a closed
> loop with negative feedback.
**Wrong.
* It is not a closed system.
* We have increased the heat holding capacity of the system.
* There is no evidence that your alleged "negative feedback" will save us
from further damaging temperature rises.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Gray Ghost
> "Sanders Kaufman" <bu...@kaufman.net> wrote in
> news:D41Im.8051$Mg....@newsfe01.iad:
>
>> "Gray Ghost" <grey_ghost47...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9CB812AFF12F9We...@216.196.97.142..
>>> Ask Trev about his friend the sharpshooter who can stop his heart
>>> while shooting. Trev's not real big on the physical sciences.
>>
>> You've never been to sniper school, learned karate, or took yoga, have
>> you? It's something they really DO teach - in all three schools.
>
> In sniper school they teach you how to *SLOW* your heartrate to a very
> slow rate. Skipping one beat doesn't do much for your shooting ability
> since that is less than one second. However, one can slow their
> heartrate to a point where it doesn't affect the rifle.
>
>> They all teach you to how to get your heart to skip a beat - and it's
>> not very difficult.
>
> It's that little switch between your legs, isn't it, Saunders. ;)
>
>> But, I suppose, if I was an inbred half-wit, hillbilly, it would seem
>> like science fiction to me, too.
>
> Why? My heart skips beats all the time......
>
>
>
Is the Coughman suggesting one can stop one's heart, on demand?!? Whew! Yeah
the Democrat view of reality could use some Windex.
Alex DeLarge
The atmosphere acts as a closed loop.
If we heat it up clouds increase, then temperatures drop, period.
>>>>>> Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature
>>>>>> changes
>>>>> **Prove it.
>>>> Why?
>>> **Because 'Alex' made the claim. It is up to 'Alex' prove his claim.
>>>
>>> Can't you prove that it does?
>>>
>>> **'Alex' made the claim. It is up to 'Alex' to prove his claim.
>> Can man increase solar radiation?
>
> **Nope.
>
>> No.
>>
>> Case closed.
>
> **Only to a complete moron. Study up on CO2 and it's effects. CO2 is highly
> resonant at several infra-red frequencies. CO2 absorbs infra-red energy,
> thus increasing the kinetic energy of the CO2 molecules. This kinetic energy
> is then transferred to nearby molecules in the atmosphere, thus increasing
> the kinetic energy of the whole system. The real problem occurs at night,
> when heat which is re-radiated from the ground heats CO2 molecules, thus
> increasing nighttime temperatures.
Irrelevant, as any net increase in long term cloudiness will eventually
decrease ALL temperatures.
See: Albedo.
>> Anything we do to increase cloudiness will cause short term warming
>> followed by long term cooling.
>
> **Prove it. Use the Sahara as part of your proof. Use the Atacama as part of
> your proof. Use Australia as part of your proof.
Use your brain.
Anything we do to increase long term cloudiness will inevitably COOL the
planet, deal.
>>>> I think that it is mostly a natural cycle but that humans have added
>>>> some
>>>> unquantifiable quality to it. How much, I don't know.....but then I
>>>> don't profess to know like you do.
>>> **All the data I've read on the matter suggests that natural processes
>>> have contributed around 20% of the observed temperature increase. The
>>> other 80% is likely due to the higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.
>>> Those higher levels of CO2 were, almost certainly, caused by human
>>> influence. Therefore, it is highly likely that humans are mostly
>>> responsible for most of the global warming we are presently experiencing.
>> Which, if even remotely accurate means we're about to have one heck of an
>> ice age.
>
> **Prove it.
>
>> Enjoy.
>>
>> We have added no new heating inputs to the system. It remains a closed
>> loop with negative feedback.
>
> **Wrong.
Nope.
> * It is not a closed system.
We supply NO heating input, only the sun can change that balance
significantly.
> * We have increased the heat holding capacity of the system.
We _may_ have done so.
> * There is no evidence that your alleged "negative feedback" will save us
> from further damaging temperature rises.
There is _every_ past ice age.
Do your homework, twerp.
Trevor Wilson
> "Sanders Kaufman" <bu...@kaufman.net> wrote in
> news:c%0Im.3487$M45....@newsfe06.iad:
>
>> "God's Debris" <hea...@dead.net> wrote in message
>> news:80cve5t4i331uf03t...@4ax.com...
>>
>>> I've noticed this is the latest bit of sleight of hand the GW
>>> alarmists have started trotting out as if that excused the almost
>>> total failure of their models to actually predict anything
>>> successfully.
>>
>> That's kind of funny - since this climate change is about what is
>> already happening, rather than a prediction of what might someday
>> happen.
>
> Same in the 70s with global cooling.
**So-called "global cooling" was promoted by the same junk scientists that
are denying global warming today. Mainstream science journals published very
little about so-called "global cooling" back in the 1970s. Read this (follow
the links):
http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2008/10/global-cooling-was-a-myth.html
>
>> Since all of the mainstream climate change theorists say that
>> we can still affect future climate, you must be getting your info from
>> the lunatic fringes.
>
> No, not all of them say that.
**True enough. There are guys like Lindzen who claim that global warming is
bunk. Of course, Lindzen is paid more than US$2,500.00/day by the fossil
fuel industry. I guess money buys lies from anyone.
>
>> If you change that, and go to legitimate, mainstream sources, you'll
>> find much more rational thinking on the matter.
>
> IOW, if someone comes up with something that disagrees with you, you will
> claim that it is not from a "legitimate, mainstream source". ;)
**Nope. Legitemate mainstream science is done and dusted. Only the idiots,
the liars and the religious nutters dispute the facts.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Mitchell Holman
"Politically correct tree huggers" - like George Bush?
"First of all, the globe IS warming"
George Bush, March 29, 2006
"I recognise the surface of the earth is warmer and
that an increase in greenhouse gases caused by humans
is contributing to the problem"
George Bush, July 7 2005
> Just
> about the time you appear to be normal, you post some crazy bullshit
> put out by Socialist Democrats. Ron Paul would slap you silly.
Ron Paul, the creationist?
http://darwin.eeb.uconn.edu/uncommon-ground/archives/2007/12/ron-paul-
and-cr.html
Ron Paul, who doesn't believe in the separation
of church and state?
http://www.irregulartimes.com/ronpaulseparation.html
Phxbrd
"Wayne" <mygarb...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:hcq4lr$grc$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Huh?
>
>> There is stone cold evidence in glacial ice cores that the beginning of
>> the industrial revolution marked the beginning of global warming,
>> regardless of either long or short term climate cycles. You'd have no
>> doubt if you saw the smoke issued from The Four Corners coal-fired power
>> plant in New Mexico. It's belched into the atmosphere 24/7/365, and it's
>> just one of many all over the world.
>>
> Still--there are things missing:
Wrong. There are only proofs that some prefer to ignore and/or deny. There
is also a Flat Earth Society.
Scout
> "Gray Ghost" <grey_ghost47...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9CB812AFF12F9We...@216.196.97.142..
>> Ask Trev about his friend the sharpshooter who can stop his heart
>> while shooting. Trev's not real big on the physical sciences.
>
> You've never been to sniper school, learned karate, or took yoga,
> have you? It's something they really DO teach - in all three schools.
> They all teach you to how to get your heart to skip a beat - and it's
> not very difficult.
Cite please.
Gray Ghost
news:7lbcemF...@mid.individual.net:
Ya mean like the geologic record that shows warming and cooling trends over
millions of years. Yep them Cretacous dinosaurs made some high sulphur
pollution.
> There is stone cold evidence in glacial ice cores that the beginning of
> the industrial revolution marked the beginning of global warming,
> regardless of either long or short term climate cycles. You'd have no
> doubt if you saw the smoke issued from The Four Corners coal-fired power
> plant in New Mexico. It's belched into the atmosphere 24/7/365, and it's
> just one of many all over the world.
I can go watch the coal fired electric plant near my house. I didn't realize
it was a coal foired plant at first as it only seems to produce real exhaust
when it's cold. Thock white stuff usually. Wonder what that is.
As fas as ice cores go, give me a 10,000,000 year minimum analysis before you
start making absolute statements about 100 year periods which are absurd
little farts in geologic time.
BTW, have you heard that the sun warms the earth? have you heard that we just
wnet from an active sunspot cycle to a quiet one and that local, immediate
tempratures seem tied to that pretty significantly.
So unless you're gonna put a catalytic converter on the sun, piss off.
Gray Ghost
Hell, if it's all intrastate tell the EPA to fuck off and die.
Scout
Yep, the current trend started then, but if we are subject to global warming
because of the industrial revolution.....then why is it colder now than it
was in the middle ages?????
Why is it that for the last 8 years we have seen a small but steady decline
in global temperatures despite no reduction in emissions?
Sorry, but there has been within recorded history temperature swings greater
than what we have now, and we can hardly blame them on the current
industrial revolution.
So, yes, the Earth experiences periods of global warming and cooling. BFT,
unless you can establish something unnatural about the current cycle. Can
you?
Then why should we consider the current changes to be anything other than
just another part of the natural cycles?
> It should take into
> consideration the thickness of the polar ice caps and not just their
> fluctuating shorelines.
And yet, thickness isn't a solitary measure of global temperature, but also
of the rate of snowfall. As such a decrease in thickness could be the result
of more than just global warming, and if the temperatures were increasing,
it wouldn't explain the expanding coverage, since higher temperatures would
tend to prevent the long term formation of larger areas of ice cover.
> There is stone cold evidence in glacial ice cores that the beginning
> of the industrial revolution marked the beginning of global warming,
> regardless of either long or short term climate cycles.
I think you need to recheck your sources, as the global temperatures have
been both hotter and colder in recorded history, and to suggest the current
cycle is caused by the industrial revolution simply begs the question of how
you explain larger variantions in our history.
> You'd have
> no doubt if you saw the smoke issued from The Four Corners coal-fired
> power plant in New Mexico. It's belched into the atmosphere 24/7/365,
> and it's just one of many all over the world.
Sure, and the total amount is but a small fraction of the total increase.
Seems there is strong evidence that when the temperatures increase then
atmospheric CO2 increases as a RESULT. IOW, more CO2 is the result of the
higher temperatures, not the cause.
Phxbrd
"Milt Bradley" <Ba...@Mexico.mx> wrote in message
news:qU0Im.32$gg...@newsfe25.iad...
We're all ignorant in some ways, but when knowledge and truth are offered
and spurned, stupidity replaces ignorance. You, my fine-feathered friend,
are stupid. That's how that works.
Bama Brian
> "Alex DeLarge" <kor...@milk.bar> wrote in message
> news:hcpphs$5b3$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>> "SaPeIsMa" <SaPe...@HotMail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:_t-dnT4xefw3G3LX...@posted.cpinternet...
>>>>>>> Your
>>>>>>> problem is that you are never willing to even consider that there
>>>>>>> might be conflicting evidence that would prove your pet theory wrong.
>>>>>> **WHEN any evidence is submitted, I will consider it. There is zero
>>>>>> evidence
>>>>>> to support your unscientific claims.
>>>>> Now there is the biggest lie you have ever told. You would never
>>>>> accept any evidence that would even remotely disprove your conclusions
>>>>> and would as you have repeatedly done simply call them junk science.
>>>>> That is not not and never has been the characteristic of a good
>>>>> scientist.
>>>>>
>>>> Here's something that makes a SERIOUS dent in the IPCC study
>>>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/29/yamal_scandal/
>>>>
>>>> Watch trevie run away and hide at the sight of it.
>>> **Bollocks. I have
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/climate_change/1023334.stm
>>
>> Are we, the fossil-fuel-burning public, partially responsible for this
>> recent warming trend? Almost assuredly not.
>
> **Prove it.
>
>> last century are likely natural changes that the globe has seen many times
>> in the past.
>
> **Prove it.
>
>>
>
> **Prove it.
>
>
The computer models used to predict GW cannot take old data from the
middle of the last century and predict today's climate. Therefore, they
cannot predict what the climate will be like in three decades, let alone
in three hundred years.
Global Warming and Cooling need much more study. If it is the sun's
output that drives both, and it likely is, then there's damn little we
as a species can do about it.
I know that's little solace for those who live down under, in the land
of the BIG spiders, the BIG sun, and the BIG heads, but those are the
breaks.
--
Cheers,
Bama Brian
Libertarian
"Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
George Santayana
Bama Brian
Perhaps. But the original "hockey stick" graph that touched off all the
furor has been debunked, as to the sharp bend. Also, this graph does
not account for the period of the mid 20th Century when the western
world was burning cities, touching off nukes, and in general burning
fossil fuels at a truly horrible rate. Yet there's no indication of
this in the graph the IPCC used. There ought to be at least a small
spike - but there isn't.
Even more to the point, when one actually looks at the data and looks at
the CO2 vs. temperature rise, it becomes obvious that the temperature
rise leads the CO2 rise, and not the other way around. It is as though
the temperature rise is heating up the oceans and driving the CO2 out of
them.
You claim to have looked at the data. I'd suggest you look at it again,
critically. And if you do, look at the summary in the latest report
where it calls for more study and more funding - which means more
conferences in resort cities.
The IPCC has become an example of Pournelle's "Iron Law of Bureaucracy"
in action.
Bama Brian
Then why are the deserts so cold at night? I've heard that this is
because there is no cloud cover to reflect the CO2 back to the ground,
yet I've lived in the deep south in the US where there is frequently no
cloud cover at night, yet the nights stay warm. Maybe it's the humidity
that moderates the day/night temperature cycle, hmm?
Enough said. I'm not going to bother with this thread anymore. Neither
you nor I can definitively say what is driving the GW/GC cycles with any
assurance. Right now, the issue has become a political one, supported
by those with something to gain for maintaining the political pressure.
<SNIP>
Phxbrd
No, moron. I mean the geologic record in glacier ice cores that goes back
200,000+ years
Yep them Cretacous dinosaurs made some high sulphur
> pollution.
>
>> There is stone cold evidence in glacial ice cores that the beginning of
>> the industrial revolution marked the beginning of global warming,
>> regardless of either long or short term climate cycles. You'd have no
>> doubt if you saw the smoke issued from The Four Corners coal-fired power
>> plant in New Mexico. It's belched into the atmosphere 24/7/365, and it's
>> just one of many all over the world.
>
> I can go watch the coal fired electric plant near my house. I didn't
> realize
> it was a coal foired plant at first as it only seems to produce real
> exhaust
> when it's cold. Thock white stuff usually. Wonder what that is.
>
> As fas as ice cores go, give me a 10,000,000 year minimum analysis before
> you
> start making absolute statements about 100 year periods which are absurd
> little farts in geologic time.
Your ignorance is astounding.
>
> BTW, have you heard that the sun warms the earth? have you heard that we
> just
> wnet from an active sunspot cycle to a quiet one and that local, immediate
> tempratures seem tied to that pretty significantly.
>
> So unless you're gonna put a catalytic converter on the sun, piss off.
Your moronic babble is barely worth a response. You need to do some basic
reading. Go find a 7th grader to help you.
Phxbrd
So that we all can.
Alex DeLarge
Planet is HOW old????
> Yep them Cretacous dinosaurs made some high sulphur
>> pollution.
>>
>>> There is stone cold evidence in glacial ice cores that the beginning of
>>> the industrial revolution marked the beginning of global warming,
>>> regardless of either long or short term climate cycles. You'd have no
>>> doubt if you saw the smoke issued from The Four Corners coal-fired power
>>> plant in New Mexico. It's belched into the atmosphere 24/7/365, and it's
>>> just one of many all over the world.
>> I can go watch the coal fired electric plant near my house. I didn't
>> realize
>> it was a coal foired plant at first as it only seems to produce real
>> exhaust
>> when it's cold. Thock white stuff usually. Wonder what that is.
>>
>> As fas as ice cores go, give me a 10,000,000 year minimum analysis before
>> you
>> start making absolute statements about 100 year periods which are absurd
>> little farts in geologic time.
>
> Your ignorance is astounding.
Your inability to refute is cemented.
>> BTW, have you heard that the sun warms the earth? have you heard that we
>> just
>> wnet from an active sunspot cycle to a quiet one and that local, immediate
>> tempratures seem tied to that pretty significantly.
>>
>> So unless you're gonna put a catalytic converter on the sun, piss off.
>
>
> Your moronic babble is barely worth a response. You need to do some basic
> reading. Go find a 7th grader to help you.
Start at NASA:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/0313irradiance.html
NASA STUDY FINDS INCREASING SOLAR TREND THAT CAN CHANGE CLIMATE
Since the late 1970s, the amount of solar radiation the sun emits,
during times of quiet sunspot activity, has increased by nearly .05
percent per decade, according to a NASA funded study.
"This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it
could cause significant climate change," said Richard Willson, a
researcher affiliated with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies
and Columbia University's Earth Institute, New York. He is the lead
author of the study recently published in Geophysical Research Letters.
The solar cycle occurs approximately every 11 years when the sun
undergoes a period of increased magnetic and sunspot activity called the
"solar maximum," followed by a quiet period called the "solar minimum."
Although the inferred increase of solar irradiance in 24 years, about
0.1 percent, is not enough to cause notable climate change, the trend
would be important if maintained for a century or more. Satellite
observations of total solar irradiance have obtained a long enough
record (over 24 years) to begin looking for this effect.
Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) is the radiant energy received by the Earth
from the sun, over all wavelengths, outside the atmosphere. TSI
interaction with the Earth's atmosphere,oceans and landmasses is the
biggest factor determining our climate. To put it into perspective,
decreases in TSI of 0.2 percent occur during the weeklong passage of
large sunspot groups across our side of the sun. These changes are
relatively insignificant compared to the sun's total output of energy,
yet equivalent to all the energy that mankind uses in a year. According
to Willson, small variations, like the one found in this study, if
sustained over many decades, could have significant climate effects.
tankfixer
says...> news:7l4kdvF...@mid.individual.net...
> >> scientific uproar over the Pending NEW ICE AGE warnings of the 60's
> >> and 70's.
> >
> > occuring (ie: the fossil fuel lobby) are the same idiots who claimed that
> > there was an ice age coming. All the smart science was backing global
> > warming back in the 1970s. Dunno about the 1960s, because I wasn't reading
> > scientific journals in the 1960s. I was reading them in the 1970s though.
>
> You're right to note the era.
> During the 60's and 70's, the Republicans and their oil lobbyists put out a
> lot of propaganda to the young people of the day - denouncing science.
> Now, that folks in that generation are the only ones who don't believe their
> eyes, even as they SEE the polar ice caps melt.
>
I recall being told in the 70's we were about to enter an ice age that
would devastate the planet....
Trevor Wilson
"tankfixer" <paul.c...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.255bf5c...@news.bytemine.net...
**That may correct. The fossil fuel lobby was active in promoting that piece
of junk science back then, just as they are now. Serious scientific
journals, however, published such nonsense rarely or not at all. Just as
now, the smart money was on global warming.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Scout
Actually, looking at the historical long term cycles we are approaching that
period in time in which the temperature could be expected to take a drastic
dive so such a projection isn't entire unsupported. However, the historical
data is highly limited and isn't too good about picking out the EXACT date
in which we could expect this next change to occur. Given how much people
were worried over a little possible increase, I can't help but feel they
will be overwhelmed by the severity of the expected drop if it follows past
trends. Though I have faith in their ability to blame the drop in
temperature on industrial measures, man, and by then the use of alternative
non-emission energy sources.
Gray Ghost
Truthfully I knew by the time I was 8 that the earth had gone through great
heating and cooling cycles over milenium. Came from a fascination with
prehistoric beasties and an early eagerness and ability to read.
These idiots are trying to extrapolate multi thousand, tens of thousands,
hundres of thousands of years of trends from 100 years of data.
And they call me unscientific? I read very recently that it had been recently
determined that heating could be caused by energy from the sun being pulled
in by our magnetic fields. I looked at my wife and said, that was high school
science and these idiots are calling it "recent".
It has become clear to me that between the falsified antigun research
(including "peer reviewed" research that is later found to be seriously
flawed) and the ridiculous global ice age/global warming silliness that a
portion of scince has permitted itself to become corrupted to the point where
it serves some social need of the ruling (or maybe those that wnat to be the
ruling) class. It's shameful really.
It's shameful really that endeavors that are supposed to be founded on a
search for truth and honest reporting of facts has been so degraded.
Frank
Gray Ghost
news:7lejjvF...@mid.individual.net:
>
> "Gray Ghost" <grey_ghost47...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9CB8E8C974902We...@216.196.97.142...
>> Alex DeLarge <kor...@milk.bar> wrote in
>> news:hcpui2$n5q$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
>>
>>> Phxbrd wrote:
>>>> You'd have no doubt if you saw
>>>> the smoke issued from The Four Corners coal-fired power plant in New
>>>> Mexico. It's belched into the atmosphere 24/7/365, and it's just one
>>>> of many all over the world.
>>>
>>> http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2009/11/01/20091101water-ngs1101.
>>> ht ml
Yeah, that's it! You found me out. I want everybody to die.
You are really about as stupid as they come.
Gray Ghost
news:hcsdd4$t1s$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
No shit? I did not know that. You would think that between say 1933 and 1949
some evidence of man's activity would show up. I've heard that it rained
more, locally, after battles because of the particulates in the atmosphere
became seeds for rain.
Ain't that something, for all the fossil fuel burned, fires and explosions
there is no blip at all you say? On and don't forget the arsenal of democracy
with all those factories belching smoke and all the coal and oil burning
trains running across the land.
Frank
Trevor Wilson
"Bama Brian" <claypo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hcsdd4$t1s$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
**There is a general concensus that the pollution created by all that mess
caused a reduction in Solar input. There is a modern day parallel, where,
after the Twin Towers were hit, civilian aircraft were grounded in the US.
This caused an increase in Solar input, due to the abscence of jet trails
over the US. When civilian flights resumed, Solar input reduced. It seems
that pollution is a good thing.
>
> Even more to the point, when one actually looks at the data and looks at
> the CO2 vs. temperature rise, it becomes obvious that the temperature rise
> leads the CO2 rise, and not the other way around. It is as though the
> temperature rise is heating up the oceans and driving the CO2 out of them.
**Not so. This is a myth which is regularly trotted out. If you care to
examine the data, you will note that CO2 rise sometimes precedes and
sometimes lags temperature rise. Right now, we are in a period where CO2
rise is preceding temperature rise. Here is the data to prove my point:
http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/
Note these dates:
- 390ky
- 352ky
- 335ky
- 305ky
- 293ky
- 258ky
- 248ky
- 203ky
- 192ky
- 184ky
- 8ky
- Now
What you should note, VERY carefully, is the fact that CO2 levels and
temperatures are VERY closely linked. When one goes up, the other invariably
follows. THAT should concern you greatly.
>
> You claim to have looked at the data. I'd suggest you look at it again,
> critically.
**I have. Clearly, by your previous claim, you have not. You merely parrot
the company line handed to you by the fossil fuel lobby. I suggest you look
at the data.
And if you do, look at the summary in the latest report
> where it calls for more study and more funding - which means more
> conferences in resort cities.
**Is there waste in the IPCC? Very probably. Before you bitch and complain
about "over-paid" scientists and "conferences in resort cities", I suggest
you examine what the deniers have up their sleeves. Start here:
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/PainAtThePump/story?id=1841989
And here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/15/business/15pay.html
It is in the interests of the fossil fuel lobby to lie to you. They earn
far, far more than any of the scientists at the IPCC.
>
> The IPCC has become an example of Pournelle's "Iron Law of Bureaucracy" in
> action.
**As opposed to Exxon? Exxon is flooded with money. YOUR money.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au