877 new snowfall records set or tied in the USA in the last week!
Möbius Pretzel
And that’s not all, for the week ending Dec 13th, there were 815 new
snowfall records set. December 2009 is shaping up to be quite the
snowmaker. Here’s a map showing continental USA records:
lorad
Listen...
Rense isn't right all the time.
IAAH
> 877 new snowfall records set or tied in the USA in the last week
Increased snowfall - just like global warming
models predict.
So how's all that denier ignorance working out for
you?
--
"I do not pretend to be able to prove that there
is no God. I equally cannot
prove that Satan is a fiction. The Christian god
may exist; so may the gods of
Olympus, or of ancient Egypt, or of Babylon. But
no one of these hypotheses is
more probable than any other: they lie outside the
region of even probable
knowledge, and therefore there is no reason to
consider any of them."
-Bertrand Russell
Beam Me Up Scotty
> On 12/29/09 6:21 PM, * Möbius Pretzel wrote:
>> 877 new snowfall records set or tied in the USA in the last week
>
> Increased snowfall - just like global warming models predict.
>
> So how's all that denier ignorance working out for you?
>
Yes... no matter what happens, the computers are programmed to attribute
it to Global warming. Millions of inputs and only one output, that
sounds like a simple program to write.
John Galt
> On 12/29/09 6:21 PM, * M�bius Pretzel wrote:
>> 877 new snowfall records set or tied in the USA in the last week
>
> Increased snowfall - just like global warming models predict.
>
> So how's all that denier ignorance working out for you?
How's that faux science working for you?
JG
SilentOtto
What is snow, rightard?
And, once you figure that out, figure out how it got into the air.
Heh heh...
Rightards....
Batshit crazy and dogshit stupid, every single last one of you.
SilentOtto
Which "faux science" is that?
I've yet to see a single study that's been shown to contain fraudulent
data.
Not one.
Zip.
With all those supposedly incriminating emails floating around, you'd
think that the deniers would be able to produce one.
John Galt
> On Dec 29, 11:00 pm, John Galt <kady...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> IAAH wrote:
>>> On 12/29/09 6:21 PM, * M bius Pretzel wrote:
>>>> 877 new snowfall records set or tied in the USA in the last week
>>> Increased snowfall - just like global warming models predict.
>>> So how's all that denier ignorance working out for you?
>> How's that faux science working for you?
>>
>> JG
>
> Which "faux science" is that?
>
> I've yet to see a single study that's been shown to contain fraudulent
> data.
Science requires repeatable experimentation, not computer modeling.
Without the former, what you have is evidence, not proof. Those of us
who hold science degrees would simply like to see a little more of "the
evidence points to....." statements, rather than "there is no longer any
debate that...." statements.
The former is proper; the latter is prevarication.
JG
Beam Me Up Scotty
Chaos out of Order
Write it, then.
SilentOtto
Dodge noted, rightard.
Heh heh...
Rightards...
SilentOtto
> SilentOtto wrote:
> > On Dec 29, 11:00 pm, John Galt <kady...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> IAAH wrote:
> >>> On 12/29/09 6:21 PM, * M bius Pretzel wrote:
> >>>> 877 new snowfall records set or tied in the USA in the last week
> >>> Increased snowfall - just like global warming models predict.
> >>> So how's all that denier ignorance working out for you?
> >> How's that faux science working for you?
>
> >> JG
>
> > Which "faux science" is that?
>
> > I've yet to see a single study that's been shown to contain fraudulent
> > data.
>
> Science requires repeatable experimentation, not computer modeling.
Tell that to the guys who calculate the trajectories of rockets.
> Without the former, what you have is evidence, not proof. Those of us
> who hold science degrees would simply like to see a little more of "the
> evidence points to....." statements, rather than "there is no longer any
> debate that...." statements.
Once the evidence reaches a certain point, there isn't any real debate
any longer.
Take the TOE as an example.
Except over some details, there -isn't- any scientific controversy.
Almost all objections to the TOE are political in nature.
The broad consensus of scientists who study AGW feel their scientific
conclusions have matured to the same level.
And, again, most of the objections are political in nature, not
scientific.
> The former is proper; the latter is prevarication.
Even your objection is political.
Möbius Pretzel
> M bius Pretzel wrote:
>
> > 877 new snowfall records set or tied in the USA in the last week
>
> Increased snowfall - just like global warming
> models predict.
.
Well considering
1) the raw data was fabricated
2) the models are pure horseshit
Your assertion is horseshit.
.
> So how's all that denier ignorance working out for
> you?
I deny fantasy. I embrace the truth.
You should try that sometime...
Clave
news:6d037889-62f3-47f7...@c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
John Galt
> "SilentOtto" <silen...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:6d037889-62f3-47f7...@c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 29, 11:19 pm, John Galt <kady...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> SilentOtto wrote:
>>> On Dec 29, 11:00 pm, John Galt <kady...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> IAAH wrote:
>>>>> On 12/29/09 6:21 PM, * M bius Pretzel wrote:
>>>>>> 877 new snowfall records set or tied in the USA in the last week
>>>>> Increased snowfall - just like global warming models predict.
>>>>> So how's all that denier ignorance working out for you?
>>>> How's that faux science working for you?
>>>> JG
>>> Which "faux science" is that?
>>> I've yet to see a single study that's been shown to contain fraudulent
>>> data.
>> Science requires repeatable experimentation, not computer modeling.
>
> Tell that to the guys who calculate the trajectories of rockets.
I don't need to. They know it to be true.
>
>> Without the former, what you have is evidence, not proof. Those of us
>> who hold science degrees would simply like to see a little more of "the
>> evidence points to....." statements, rather than "there is no longer any
>> debate that...." statements.
>
> Once the evidence reaches a certain point, there isn't any real debate
> any longer.
Of course. However, the debate over if we are to that "certain point"
continues to go on.
>
> Take the TOE as an example.
>
> Except over some details, there -isn't- any scientific controversy.
>
> Almost all objections to the TOE are political in nature.
Yes, due to the continued and consistent experimentive and observational
results OVER CENTURIES.
>
> The broad consensus of scientists who study AGW feel their scientific
> conclusions have matured to the same level.
This is not the statement of a scientist, it's the statement of a
salesman. It's an "assumptive close." It's also the intellectual fallacy
known as 'argumentum ad populum', or 'appeal to consensus'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
>
> And, again, most of the objections are political in nature, not
> scientific.
Many are. However, there are THREE issues in play here. One is science;
one is politics; one is economic. In my view, the alarmists conflate the
latter two in an attempt to discount the very real issues raised by the
latter.
>
>> The former is proper; the latter is prevarication.
>
> Even your objection is political.
Wrong. It's economic. Here's what we KNOW:
1) We KNOW that energy usage (BTUs per individual) is highly correlated
to standard of living.
2) We KNOW that alternative energy sources are less efficient then the
fossil fuels they replace.
3) THEREFORE, we can conclusively say that a movement away from fossil
fuels will result in EITHER (a) lower standards of living worldwide (if
the same investment levels in energy production as we have today are
maintained), OR (b) the business of energy production will consume
larger amounts of capital in order to produce the same level of output,
thus routing that capital from other productive uses within the population.
IF we go down the path of massive and expensive accomodation, therefore,
EITHER our standards of living will decline for all, or there will be
significant job losses (standards of living will decline for some.)
With that reality staring us in the face, I do not think it surprising
in the least that people are demanding a very high level (higher than we
have today) of assuredness WRT the human factor in this phenomenon.
Further, we haven't had the entire debate on accommodation yet, which
simply and colloquially put is "is it more economically efficient to cut
carbon emissions or build dikes?"
JG
Clave
news:06G_m.418324$uO.5...@en-nntp-09.dc1.easynews.com...
I fatfingered something, but I did not write *anything* you responded to.
Jim
John Galt
> "John Galt" <kad...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:06G_m.418324$uO.5...@en-nntp-09.dc1.easynews.com...
>
> I fatfingered something, but I did not write *anything* you responded to.
>
> Jim
Yea, noticed that after I responded. It was Otto, I guess.
JG
IAAH
> IAAH squealed:
>
>> M bius Pretzel wrote:
>>
>>> 877 new snowfall records set or tied in the USA in the last week
>> Increased snowfall - just like global warming
>> models predict.
>
> .
> Well considering
>
> 1) the raw data was fabricated
That's a lie.
>
> 2) the models are pure horseshit
And that's another lie.
>
> Your assertion is horseshit.
That's your third lie.
>
>
> .
>> So how's all that denier ignorance working out for
>> you?
>
> I deny fantasy. I embrace the truth.
> You should try that sometime...
Seeing a denier write that just makes my day - we
all need a chuckle.