Re: Interesting Carl Sagan quotes

[Doug Bashford]

Re: Interesting Carl Sagan quotes;
On Mon, 7 May 2012, Tunderbar wrote:
> On May 7, 3:26 pm, kym horsell wrote:
> > On Tuesday, May 8, 2012 4:56:52 AM UTC+10, Tunderbar wrote:
> > > On May 7, 11:14 am, kym horsell <kymhors...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, May 8, 2012 1:25:16 AM UTC+10, Tunderbar wrote:
> > > > > Skeptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and religion, by
> > > > > which deep thoughts can be winnowed from deep nonsense.
> > > > > Carl Sagan
> >
> > > > The reason Venus is like a hell seems to be what is called the greenhouse effect…The greenhouse effect can make an earth-like world into a planetary inferno…the hell of Venus is in stark contrast to the comparative heaven of its neighbouring world, our little planetary home, the earth….Carbon dioxide and water vapour make a modest greenhouse effect without which, our oceans would be frozen solid. A little greenhouse effect is a good thing. But Venus is an ominous reminder that in a world rather like the earth, things can go wrong. There is no guarantee that our planet will always be so hospitable.  To maintain this clement world we must understand it and appreciate it. The runaway greenhouse effect on Venus is a valuable reminder that we should take the increasing greenhouse effect on earth seriously.
> > > > -- Carl Sagan
> >
> > > > --
> > > > quote mining:
> > > > The repeated use of quotes out of context in order to skew or contort
> > > > the meaning of a passage or speech by an author on a controversial subject.
> > > > -- Urban Dictionary
> >
> > > ignoring the tiny little factor of the planets proximity to the SUN.
> >
> > So you're now saying -- after kicking off this threat about quotes
> > from Carl Sagan -- he is not to be trusted even in his own area of
> > expertise?

Why does he do that?
Tunderbar has his religion: Republicanism.

=============insert:
about: Don't ignore the Science Deniers, – talk to them
differently -- Christian Science Monitor;
On Tue, 27 Mar 2012, Doug Bashford wrote:
http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2011/0624/Don-t-ignore-climate-skeptics-talk-to-them-differently
>
> Don't ignore climate skeptics – talk to them differently

============= end insert


>
> You should not paraphrase people when what they say is so
> straightforward. It makes you look like a shmuck.
>
> Venus is not the Earth. Even if Sagan chose to use it as a bad
> analogy, it does not detract from what he said about science and
> scepticism. Apples and oranges.

So tell us, religion Boy...just what did you think
your quotes from Sagan said that support your
anti-Science stance? After all, what he said
was standard Science.

Can I make a wild-assed guess what you
think he said? Could it be that you have
mistaken scientific consensus for "authority!?"
...and do also think evolution is "just a theory," too?

These are common mistakes of science haters and
other scientific illiterates.

Have you ever been an expert on a topic?
...such as a professional ....whatever?
a professional mechanic, or real estate agent,
gun smith,...whatever? Have you?
And had some delusional loudmouth trying to
act like he's an expert too? ....and the more
pissed off he became, the louder that spoiled
six-year-old squealed????

Of course you have. We all have.
And did the brat fool you for even
one micro-second????

That's how you and your fellow science-haters
sound. Oh you are soo sure of yourselves!
Yes.... you brats somehow know more about atmospheric
science than atmospheric scientists.
Sure. We see that now.


Unlike the new breed of Republicans, most Americans
don't hate science.
Unlike this new breed of feelsgood Republicans,
most Americans don't think politicians, lobbyists,
and talk show hosts know more about
atmospheric science than atmospheric scientists...

What’s in YOUR wallet?

>
> It does make it interesting when a highly respected scientist on the
> one hand makes clear statements about scepticism and the importance of
> the scientific method

Here's another little clue for you Sparky.
The crux of what Sagan was saying is that
if you need certainty, stay in Church, cuz
it aint in Science. Yet your position is
to attack Science using cryptoChurch dogma,
assumption base, and world view as evidence.
That's so EXTREMELY unscientific, I call
that anti-Science and Science-hating as the
best analogy I can find.

Yer a fraud pal. You are no different from
the "Creation Sciencers" who also pretend to respect
and love Science.

So that said, let me conclude:
Go fuck yerself with yer teeeny little fraudulent mind.

Any questions?




> >
> > What does that say about your effort and your judgment in the first place, then?
> >
> > --
> > [Knuckleheads can't differentiate between experts and other knuckleheads:]
> >
> > [P]eople who are incompetent not only have an inflated sense of their
> > own competence, but are also incapable of even recognizing competence.

BINGO!
See my example above: RE: pretending to be an expert.

> > [An experiment showed no matter how well subjects performed on a test they
> > believed themselves to be equally competent and their test score would be "B"].
> > [W]hen [the authors] shared the performance of other participants with the
> > people who performed poorly (hoping that they would then adjust their
> > self-perception downward) people who scored poorly failed to adjust their
> > self-perception of their performance.
> > -- Mark Hoofnagle,http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/about.php

BINGO!

about: Don't ignore the Science Deniers, – talk to them
differently -- Christian Science Monitor;
On Tue, 27 Mar 2012, Doug Bashford wrote:

http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2011/0624/Don-t-ignore-climate-skeptics-talk-to-them-differently
>
> Don't ignore climate skeptics – talk to them differently

> The facts won’t convince doubters of climate change.

That's cuz Science Denial is their new religion.
It might work like this:
http://www.groupsrv.com/science/about472630.html




The insane twist the facts to fit their world view.
The rational change their world view to fit the facts.

[Doug Bashford]

Re: Interesting Carl Sagan quotes;

On Mon, 07 May 2012, AGWFacts wrote:
> On Mon, 7 May 2012, Tunderbar wrote:
>
> > Skeptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and religion, by
> > which deep thoughts can be winnowed from deep nonsense.
> > Carl Sagan
>

> So why did you quote him when you ignored his advice?

These kids think pissing on Science is "Skeptical scrutiny."


>
> > A central lesson of science is that to understand complex issues (or
> > even simple ones), we must try to free our minds of dogma and to
> > guarantee the freedom to publish, to contradict, and to experiment.
> > Arguments from authority are unacceptable.
> > Carl Sagan
>
> So why did you quote him when you ignored his advice?

1) These kids think tossing out scientific method is "free
our minds of dogma."

2) These kids think scientific consensus is like "Arguments
from authority."


>
> > It is the responsibility of scientists never to suppress knowledge, no
> > matter how awkward that knowledge is, no matter how it may bother
> > those in power; we are not smart enough to decide which pieces of
> > knowledge are permissible, and which are not. …
> > — Carl Sagan
>
> So why did you quote him when you ignored his advice?

1) These kids think science not giving evey kooky
unsupported idea a "fair" trail is "to suppress knowledge."

2) These kids think their kooky Limbaugh-supported idea is
like that "awkward knowledge."




>
> > One of the great commandments of science is, 'Mistrust arguments from
> > authority'. (Scientists, being primates, and thus given to dominance
> > hierarchies, of course do not always follow this commandment.)
> > — Carl Sagan

> So why did you quote him when you ignored his advice?

see above: "arguments from authority."


>
> > The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the
> > suppression of ideas.
> > — Carl Sagan
>
> So why did you quote him when you ignored his advice?

1) These kids are delusional. Many of them believe in Black
Helecopters, Limbaugh, Elex Jones, and End Times.

2) These kids are so ignorant, they have no clue of their
own ignorance.


>
> > The method of science is tried and true. It is not perfect, it's just
> > the best we have. And to abandon it, with its skeptical protocols, is
> > the pathway to a dark age.
> > — Carl Sagan
>
> So why did you quote him when you ignored his advice?


1) These kids are so ignorant, they actually believe that
they and politicians, lobbyists, and talk show hosts

know more about atmospheric science than atmospheric
scientists.

2) These kids are so ignorant, they actually believe
that the above list of unsupported, whiney complaints
somehow constitutes the skeptical protocols of
The method of science.


>
> > The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion or in
> > politics, but it is not the path to knowledge; it has no in the
> > endeavor of science. We do not know in advance who will discover
> > fundamental insights.
> > — Carl Sagan
>
> So why did you quote him when you ignored his advice?


These kids think they have those "uncomfortable ideas."
These kids have obviously not read Kuhn's book:
"The Structure of Scientific Revolutions,"
to give the above context.

Also, being steeped in religion, they associate Science
with religion: they both give answers, right?
Hence many love to cite "imperfect science."
(Unarticulated argument: Religion is perfect! ...thus
Science-imperfect means wrong!)

................snip

> "Since [Cosmos] was first broadcast the dangers of the increasing
> greenhouse effect have become much more clear. We burn fossil
> fuels, like coal and gas and petroleum, putting more carbon
> dioxide into the atmosphere and thereby heating the Earth. The
> hellish conditions on Venus are a reminder that this is serious
> business. Computer models that successfully explain the climates
> of other planets predict the deaths of forests, parched croplands,
> the flooding of coastal cities, environmental refugees, widespread
> disasters in the next century unless we change our ways." --- Dr.
> Carl Sagan
>
> Carl Sagan on Global Warming:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQ5u-l9Je0s

Unlike the new breed of Republicans, most Americans
don't hate science.
Unlike this new breed of feelsgood Republicans,
most Americans don't think politicians, lobbyists,
and talk show hosts know more about
atmospheric science than atmospheric scientists...

What’s in YOUR wallet?

[Richard Steel]

> So tell us, religion Boy...just what did you think
> your quotes from Sagan said that support your
> anti-Science stance?  After all, what he said
> was standard Science.

There is no such thing as "standard Science". Science is about
constant challenges.

Sagan died in 1996 - before the period when Al Gore turned Global
Warming into a religion, and insisted that GW was "settled science."
I suspect that Carl would have had a good horselaugh such a concept.

Also, Sagan died before the predictions by the Warm Mongers simply
didn't pan out. It was predicted that America would lose our beaches
by now, and coastal cities were supposed to be at risk. There was to
be no more snow in winter.

It just didn't happen as predicted.

[Phlip]

Strawman argument. Sagan was too smart to say "beaches WILL be washed
away by 2012".

ACC was predicted in the 70s, and the general predictions - of ranges
of average temperature - have come true.

How's your early Spring going?

[Richard Steel]

I live in California, and it's been a bit cool.

What I haven't noticed is any beachfront property lost. Or the end of
rain during Winter. Low islands are doing just fine.

We were supposed to be halfway to "waterworld" by now. What
happened? Oh, right - upon learning that pretty much none of your
predictions have come true, you've change the name of your scam to
"climate change," or "environmental crisis", or something else.

And you're stupid enough not to notice that the predictions never came
true.

[2966 Dead]

Liar.

[Doug Bashford]

Re: Interesting Carl Sagan quotes;

On Mon, 7 May 2012, Richard Steel wrote:


>
> > So tell us, religion Boy...just what did you think
> > your quotes from Sagan said that support your
> > anti-Science stance?  After all, what he said
> > was standard Science.
>
> There is no such thing as "standard Science". Science is about
> constant challenges.

True. Yet compared to you kids' Creation Sciencer approach
to science indeed there is.
Why don't you do yourself a favor?
Find out why science will not give your kind
the "fair trial" you mistakenly think
your corporatist hypothesis deserves. Learn a little
Science. Here's a starter: Kuhn's book:
"The Structure of Scientific Revolutions."

...you might not look so silly.
Jeepers, guess what "The Structure of Scientific
Revolutions" is about!!???? Guess.

Kuhn & Popper were to Science what Einstien
was to Physics. Stop screaming yer ignorance
like the brat I mentioned..

> Sagan died in 1996 - before the period when Al Gore turned Global
> Warming into a religion, and insisted that GW was "settled science."
> I suspect that Carl would have had a good horselaugh such a concept.

Al Gore was attempting to translate science lingo
into lay speak. ....to people like you who don't
even know what "scientific theory" means.
...to your buddies who say Evolution is "just a
theory," .....etc.

>
> Also, Sagan died before the predictions by the Warm Mongers simply
> didn't pan out. It was predicted that America would lose our beaches
> by now, and coastal cities were supposed to be at risk. There was to
> be no more snow in winter.

There ya kids go again, blindly mouthing
FoxLimbaughtomyville&Co.

> It just didn't happen as predicted.

Yes, you know well what FoxLimbaughtomyville&Co
TOLD YOU Science predicted, don't you?
.....what original thinkers you kids are!

[Liberals are VERMIN]

Sagan was too worried about nuclear winter to worry about global
warming.

[Richard Steel]

> > What I haven't noticed is any beachfront property lost.  Or the end of
> > rain during Winter.  Low islands are doing just fine.

> > We were supposed to be halfway to "waterworld" by now.  What happened?
> > Oh, right - upon learning that pretty much none of your predictions have
> > come true, you've change the name of your scam to "climate change," or
> > "environmental crisis", or something else.

> Liar.

I know you are, but what am I?

[Richard Steel]

> >What I haven't noticed is any beachfront property lost.  Or the end of
> >rain during Winter.  Low islands are doing just fine.

> So--what you're saying is that you have absolutely NO independent,
> common sense ability to understand what "global warming" is, what is
> happening, and the up-coming results from it?

> You only have faux snooze (or National enguirer) "authorities" that
> tell you what you know?

I have a window. Nearly a quarter of a century ago, the Warm Mongers
said that California would be a desert about now. New York was never
to have another White Christmas. The oceans were supposed to have
taken away ocean front property, and low lying islands were supposed
to be flooded.

That's what we were warned.

None of it has happened.

Every hour that passes without a disaster is another thousand people
who realize that Global Warming is the biggest scam in world history.

[Richard Steel]

Oh, yes, didn't Sagan claim that the world was going to end in a few
weeks because Saddam set fire to the oil fields? The fires were put
out in months, instead of decades.

[2966 Dead]

On Tue, 08 May 2012 13:40:37 -0700, Richard Steel wrote:

>> >What I haven't noticed is any beachfront property lost.  Or the end of
>> >rain during Winter.  Low islands are doing just fine.
>
>> So--what you're saying is that you have absolutely NO independent,
>> common sense ability to understand what "global warming" is, what is
>> happening, and the up-coming results from it?
>
>> You only have faux snooze (or National enguirer) "authorities" that
>> tell you what you know?
>
> I have a window. Nearly a quarter of a century ago, the Warm Mongers
> said that California would be a desert about now.

Let's see a cite for that little claim, Lying Bill.

New York was never to
> have another White Christmas. The oceans were supposed to have taken
> away ocean front property, and low lying islands were supposed to be
> flooded.

Cite. Cite. Cite.

Or should I just call you a liar four more times?

[2966 Dead]

You're an anonymous asshole troll who likes to make false statements.

Are you really so mentally and emotionally feeble that this is the best
you have to contribute?

[Richard Steel]

> > > So tell us, religion Boy...just what did you think
> > > your quotes from Sagan said that support your
> > > anti-Science stance?  After all, what he said
> > > was standard Science.

> > There is no such thing as "standard Science".  Science is about
> > constant challenges.

> True.

And yet you call people who dare question Global Warming ugly names.

(nonsense about Creationism deleted)

> > Sagan died in 1996 - before the period when Al Gore turned Global
> > Warming into a religion, and insisted that GW was "settled science."
> > I suspect that Carl would have had a good horselaugh such a concept.

> Al Gore was attempting to translate science lingo
> into lay speak.  ....to people like you who don't
> even know what "scientific theory" means.
> ...to your buddies who say Evolution is "just a
> theory," .....etc.

And yet Al Gore has never debated a skeptic. He doesn't take
questions from them voluntarily.

Why is that, I wonder?

> > Also, Sagan died before the predictions by the Warm Mongers simply
> > didn't pan out.  It was predicted that America would lose our beaches
> > by now, and coastal cities were supposed to be at risk.   There was to
> > be no more snow in winter.

> There ya kids go again, blindly mouthing
> FoxLimbaughtomyville&Co.

Here's your problem - the predictions by FOX News and Rush Limbaugh
turned out to be correct.

The Warm Mongers? Er, not so much.

Remember when Saddam set fire to his oil fields after losing a war,
and Carl Sagan hysterically went on CNN and predicted all life on
Earth would end in a few weeks, thanks to nuclear winter? How'd THAT
work out for yah?

> > It just didn't happen as predicted.

> Yes, you know well what FoxLimbaughtomyville&Co
> TOLD YOU Science predicted, don't you?

No, I laughed when "scientists" predicted it twenty five years ago.
Remember when "scientists" claimed that up to one fifth of the world
would be dead of AIDS by 1990? Oprah went on the air and yelped
hysterically.

Hey, remember when all bees were going to die because they didn't like
cell phones?

And you demand that we take these people's word without question?

> .....what original thinkers you kids are!

>   The insane twist the facts to fit their world view.
>   The rational change their world view to fit the facts.

No, all that's necessary is a memory, and a wind to look out of.
Global Warming didn't happen. Nuclear Winter didn't happen. One
fifth of the Earth's population didn't die of AIDS. And bees are
still making honey, and pollinating plants.

[Harold Burton]

In article <joc0vo$5v7$1...@dont-email.me>, 2966 Dead <de...@gone.com>
wrote:

> On Tue, 08 May 2012 13:36:20 -0700, Richard Steel wrote:
>
> >> > What I haven't noticed is any beachfront property lost.  Or the end
> >> > of rain during Winter.  Low islands are doing just fine.
> >
> >> > We were supposed to be halfway to "waterworld" by now.  What
> >> > happened? Oh, right - upon learning that pretty much none of your
> >> > predictions have come true, you've change the name of your scam to
> >> > "climate change," or "environmental crisis", or something else.
> >
> >> Liar.
> >
> > I know you are, but what am I?
>
> You're an anonymous asshole troll who likes to make false statements.

He's you?



snicker

[Steve]

On Tue, 8 May 2012 20:51:04 +0000 (UTC), 2966 Dead <de...@gone.com>
wrote:

That's from David (Zepp) Jamieson who apparently refused to
allow the woman he claims to still be married to use of his
Internet account, and then when she got fined for broken tail
lights and failure to licence the family pets, he refused to
help her pay the fines and then after a decade, she was forced
to do community service.

The truth may be that Zepp has been lying about still being
married to her and instead, she left him for reasons Zepp doesn't
want to admit.

What's porky hiding here?

[Fredric L. Rice]

Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:

>On Tue, 8 May 2012 13:40:37 -0700 (PDT), Richard Steel
><rstee...@aol.com> wrote:
>>> >What I haven't noticed is any beachfront property lost.  Or the end of
>>> >rain during Winter.  Low islands are doing just fine.
>>> So--what you're saying is that you have absolutely NO independent,
>>> common sense ability to understand what "global warming" is, what is
>>> happening, and the up-coming results from it?
>>> You only have faux snooze (or National enguirer) "authorities" that
>>> tell you what you know?
>>I have a window.

>BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>Only you could say that and keep a straight face.

I'm fondly reminded of the shitbag Republical morons who looked at
Winter snow across the United States and proclaimed that global
warming was a myth. :)

---
http://www.skeptictank.org/

[AGWFacts]

We see it all thetime in the alt.global-warming newsgroup during
the northern hemisphere winter. Yet when record global average
temperature records are broken, they wail "It's only weather!"

> ---
> http://www.skeptictank.org/


--
Denialism: "The employment of rhetorical arguments to give the appearance
of legitimate debate where there is none."

[2966 Dead]

They got really upset when we pointed out to them that the big snows were
caused by the storms being warmer than winter storms usually are, and
thus held more moisture.

If it's 26 and precipitating, it's probably going to be snow. If it's 28
and precipitating, it's still probably going to be snow, only more of
it.
>
> ---
> http://www.skeptictank.org/

[Richard Steel]

[Richard Steel]

On May 8, 1:47 pm, 2966 Dead <d...@gone.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 08 May 2012 13:40:37 -0700, Richard Steel wrote:
> >> >What I haven't noticed is any beachfront property lost.  Or the end of
> >> >rain during Winter.  Low islands are doing just fine.
>
> >> So--what you're saying is that you have absolutely NO independent,
> >> common sense ability to understand what "global warming" is, what is
> >> happening, and the up-coming results from it?
>
> >> You only have faux snooze (or National enguirer) "authorities" that
> >> tell you what you know?
>
> > I have a window.  Nearly a quarter of a century ago, the Warm Mongers
> > said that California would be a desert about now.

> Let's see a cite for that little claim, Lying Bill.

You're now denying that the Warm Mongers have predicted disaster for
the past quarter of a century? Really?

Isn't THAT interesting?

>  New York was never to
>
> > have another White Christmas.  The oceans were supposed to have taken
> > away ocean front property, and low lying islands were supposed to be
> > flooded.

> Cite.  Cite. Cite.

http://www.amazon.com/An-Inconvenient-Truth-Planetary-Emergency/dp/B000QEJ0WY/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1336535371&sr=1-1

> Or should I just call you a liar four more times?

You can call me a liar all you like - it doesn't raise the oceans at
all.

[Richard Steel]

On May 8, 3:50 pm, Yoorg...@Jurgis.net wrote:
> On Tue, 8 May 2012 13:40:37 -0700 (PDT), Richard Steel

>
> <rsteel2...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >> >What I haven't noticed is any beachfront property lost.  Or the end of
> >> >rain during Winter.  Low islands are doing just fine.
>
> >> So--what you're saying is that you have absolutely NO independent,
> >> common sense ability to understand what "global warming" is, what is
> >> happening, and the up-coming results from it?
>
> >> You only have faux snooze (or National enguirer) "authorities" that
> >> tell you what you know?

> >I have a window.

> BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

> Only you could say that and keep a straight face.

What's happening outside YOUR window that proves global warming his
happening?

[Richard Steel]

> I'm fondly reminded of the shitbag Republical morons who looked at
> Winter snow across the United States and proclaimed that global
> warming was a myth. :)

I'm fondly reminded that Al Gore predicted that the Oceans would rise
20 feet.

Sooooooooooooo, where's that happening?

[Phlip]

On May 8, 9:02 pm, Richard Steel <rsteel2...@aol.com> wrote:

> What's happening outside YOUR window that proves global warming his
> happening?

The rainy season in So Cal hasn't ended yet. It still sprinkles every
early morning. Spring should be dry.

[Richard Steel]

'Gaia' scientist James Lovelock reverses himself: I was 'alarmist'
about climate change & so was Gore! 'The problem is we don't know what
the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago'

Climate Shocker: In 2007, Lovelock Predicted Global Warming Doom:
'Billions of us will die; few breeding pairs of people that survive
will be in Arctic'
Monday, April 23, 2012By Marc Morano – Climate Depot

MSNBC, perhaps the most unlikely of news sources, reports on what may
be seen as the official end of the man-made global warming fear
movement.

MSNBC April 23, 2012: 'Gaia' scientist James Lovelock reverses
himself: I was 'alarmist' about climate change & so was Gore! 'The
problem is we don't know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew
20 years ago'

Contrast Lovelock's 2012 skeptical climate views with his 2007 beliefs
during the height of the man-made climate fear movement. [ Flashback
2007: Lovelock Predicts Global Warming Doom: 'Billions of us will die;
few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in Arctic' ]

How fitting that a major organ of the man-made climate fear promotion,
MSNBC, would deliver one of the final and most dramatic death knells
to the climate movement. One of the founders of climate alarm bails
out with help from the media that helped hype and propel the movement.

More MSNBC article excerpts: Lovelock pointed to Gore's “An
Inconvenient Truth” and Tim Flannery's “The Weather Makers” as other
examples of “alarmist” forecasts of the future...”The problem is we
don't know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago.
That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked
clear-cut, but it hasn't happened,” Lovelock said. “The climate is
doing its usual tricks. There's nothing much really happening yet. We
were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now,” he said. “The
world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years
is a reasonable time... it (the temperature) has stayed almost
constant, whereas it should have been rising -- carbon dioxide is
rising, no question about that,” he added...Asked if he was now a
climate skeptic, Lovelock told msnbc.com: “It depends what you mean by
a skeptic. I'm not a denier.” He said human-caused carbon dioxide
emissions were driving an increase in the global temperature, but
added that the effect of the oceans was not well enough understood and
could have a key role. “It (the sea) could make all the difference
between a hot age and an ice age,” he said. 'I made a mistake' As “an
independent and a loner,” he said he did not mind saying “All right, I
made a mistake.” He claimed a university or government scientist might
fear an admission of a mistake would lead to the loss of funding.”

End MSNBC article excerpt.

#

Climate Depot began reporting on Lovelock's conversion away from
climate fears in 2010 as he began reconsidering the alleged 'settled
science.” See below for Climate Depot's reporting on the evolution of
James Lovelock's climate views.

SHOCK 2010: UK Green Guru James Lovelock Reconsiders Warming Views?!:
Lovelock: Man-made Carbon Emissions 'Have Saved Us from A New Ice Age'
-- Lovelock: 'I hate all this business about feeling guilty about what
we're doing. We're not guilty' -- 'We haven't learned the lessons of
the ozone-hole debate. It's important to know just how much you have
got to be careful' -- 'According to Dr Lovelock's Gaia theory, the
earth is capable of curing itself. 'A planet that is effectively alive
can regulate itself and its composition and climate,” he said'

James Lovelock on Ozone hole science: 'We should have been warned by
the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so
bad...' 'Something like 80% of the measurements being made during that
time were either faked, or incompetently done'

Lovelock: 'We haven't got the physics worked out yet...I think the
public are right. That's why I'm soft on the sceptics. Science has got
overblown'

2010: Green Guru Lovelock Says Warmists 'Scared Stiff': 'The great
climate science centers around the world are more than well aware how
weak their science is'

Green Guru James Lovelock: Humans are too stupid to prevent global
warming -- Urges 'putting democracy on hold for a while' to battle
warming -- Lovelock on Climategate: Scandal left him feeling 'utterly
disgusted' -- 'Fudging the data in any way whatsoever is quite
literally a sin against the holy ghost of science'

[2966 Dead]

That's the fog monster. "Late night and early morning fog with
drizzle". A standard June delight in SC, caused by a warming interior
and subsequent onshore breeze.

Oh, you say it's not June yet...?

[2966 Dead]

When did he say this would happen by, bubbles?

Are you still trying to claim IPCC said the Arctic would be permanently
ice-free by 2011? That was one of my favourites of your random bursts of
bullshit.

[Syamu Mami Hyderabad1]

fgh

[Richard Steel]

> > What's happening outside YOUR window that proves global warming his
> > happening?

> The rainy season in So Cal hasn't ended yet. It still sprinkles every
> early morning. Spring should be dry.

But it's not an unlivable Hellhole, with chunks of Santa Monica under
water.

[Richard Steel]

On May 8, 9:55 pm, 2966 Dead <d...@gone.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 08 May 2012 21:03:54 -0700, Richard Steel wrote:
> >> I'm fondly reminded of the shitbag Republical morons who looked at
> >> Winter snow across the United States and proclaimed that global warming
> >> was a myth. :)
>
> > I'm fondly reminded that Al Gore predicted that the Oceans would rise 20
> > feet.
>
> > Sooooooooooooo, where's that happening?
>
> When did he say this would happen by, bubbles?

By 2100. That would average to about a four every four years.

If Gore's predictions were correct, the oceans would have risen two
feet by now.

The oceans rising two feet would be a disaster. Simply put, it just
hasn't happened.

What HAS happened is that Al Gore has become a very wealthy man off
the Global Warming scam.

[Richard Steel]

> >> What's happening outside YOUR window that proves global warming his
> >> happening?

> > The rainy season in So Cal hasn't ended yet. It still sprinkles every
> > early morning. Spring should be dry.

> That's the fog monster.  "Late night and early morning fog with
> drizzle".  A standard June delight in SC, caused by a warming interior
> and subsequent onshore breeze.

> Oh, you say it's not June yet...?

Oh, my God, it's a bit foggy and there's a slight drizzle. Run! Run
for your lives. It's the end of the world!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-TfZslHKoo

[2966 Dead]

But I'm sure you're trying your best to make it an unlivable hellhole.

[2966 Dead]

On Wed, 09 May 2012 00:31:01 -0700, Richard Steel wrote:

> On May 8, 9:55 pm, 2966 Dead <d...@gone.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 08 May 2012 21:03:54 -0700, Richard Steel wrote:
>> >> I'm fondly reminded of the shitbag Republical morons who looked at
>> >> Winter snow across the United States and proclaimed that global
>> >> warming was a myth. :)
>>
>> > I'm fondly reminded that Al Gore predicted that the Oceans would rise
>> > 20 feet.
>>
>> > Sooooooooooooo, where's that happening?
>>
>> When did he say this would happen by, bubbles?
>
> By 2100. That would average to about a four every four years.

Oh. Well, it's not 2100 then, is it. By my calculation, we have 87
years, seven months and twenty one days to go.

>
> If Gore's predictions were correct, the oceans would have risen two feet
> by now.

Liar. For one thing, it's an accelerating process, and NOBODY has
predicted really significant ocean level rises by this point. Much as
you lie and try to pretend they have.

In fact, bubbles, ocean levels actually DROPPED a little bit in 2010.
Did you know that? Would you like to know why?

>
> The oceans rising two feet would be a disaster. Simply put, it just
> hasn't happened.

Of course it hasn't. But nobody except you claimed it would.

>
> What HAS happened is that Al Gore has become a very wealthy man off the
> Global Warming scam.

Liar. Gore's income from the global warming work he does all goes to
either charity or science. He's already independently wealthy.

[2966 Dead]

Poor Fake Bill. We have you snapping furiously at your own tail now...

[Bill Ward]

Do you ever think about how your attitude affects lurkers? It could be
one of the reasons you're losing so badly.

[2966 Dead]

Trust me, there's no point in wasting courtesy or respect on the likes of
Fake Bill.

Feel free to try it for yourself, of course.

Maybe you know someone who predicted Santa Monica would be "an unlivable
Hellhole, with chunks [...] under water." If so, speak up.

[2966 Dead]

On Wed, 09 May 2012 08:28:25 -0600, Yoorghis wrote:

> In what time frame did he predict that?

It turns out he was talking 2100. And Fake Bill is pretending that the
rise would be a constant beginning with when the prediction was made.

[Bill Ward]

I'll take that as a "no". If you're secretly trying to further discredit
CAGWers, keep up the good work.

[2966 Dead]

Uh huh. Tell us more. How do you feel about the issue?

[Bill Ward]

Truth be told, I don't think it's really necessary, as CAGWers are doing
fine all by themselves at destroying any remaining credibility they may
have had. But if that's what you want to do, don't stop on my account.

[2966 Dead]

That's about what I thought.

[Richard Steel]

> >> The rainy season in So Cal hasn't ended yet. It still sprinkles every
> >> early morning. Spring should be dry.

> > But it's not an unlivable Hellhole, with chunks of Santa Monica under
> > water.

> But I'm sure you're trying your best to make it an unlivable hellhole.

Me? I'm a delightful fellow, beloved by all who know me.

[Richard Steel]

> >You're now denying that the Warm Mongers have predicted disaster for
> >the past quarter of a century?  Really?

> Are you denying the scientific evidence of rising ozone, CO2, cutting
> rain forests, and shrinking Polar caps?

Pretty much. I was warned we'd be in the middle of the end of the
world right now, and it hasn't happened. Sorry, but the scam is over.

[Richard Steel]

On May 9, 6:18 am, 2966 Dead <d...@gone.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 09 May 2012 00:31:01 -0700, Richard Steel wrote:
> > On May 8, 9:55 pm, 2966 Dead <d...@gone.com> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 08 May 2012 21:03:54 -0700, Richard Steel wrote:
> >> >> I'm fondly reminded of the shitbag Republical morons who looked at
> >> >> Winter snow across the United States and proclaimed that global
> >> >> warming was a myth. :)
>
> >> > I'm fondly reminded that Al Gore predicted that the Oceans would rise
> >> > 20 feet.
>
> >> > Sooooooooooooo, where's that happening?
>
> >> When did he say this would happen by, bubbles?
>
> > By 2100.  That would average to about a four every four years.
>
> Oh.  Well, it's not 2100 then, is it.  By my calculation, we have 87
> years, seven months and twenty one days to go.

And is it your opinion that the oceans will stay steady for 87 years,
seven months, and twenty one days, then suddenly JUMP 20 feet?

The oceans should have risen about two feet by now.

They haven't.

> > If Gore's predictions were correct, the oceans would have risen two feet
> > by now.

> Liar.  For one thing, it's an accelerating process, and NOBODY has
> predicted really significant ocean level rises by this point.  Much as
> you lie and try to pretend they have.

So now you're running away from a quarter of a century of hysteria.

hehehehehehehehhehehehehehhe.

The scam is over.

[Richard Steel]

> >Are you still trying to claim IPCC said the Arctic would be permanently
> >ice-free by 2011?  That was one of my favourites of your random bursts of
> >bullshit.

Actually, it's the BBC that made the "claim".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13002706

New warning on Arctic sea ice melt
Richard Black By Richard Black Environment correspondent, BBC News


Scientists who predicted a few years ago that Arctic summers could be
ice-free by 2013 now say summer sea ice will probably be gone in this
decade.

The original prediction, made in 2007, gained Wieslaw Maslowski's team
a deal of criticism from some of their peers.

Now they are working with a new computer model - compiled partly in
response to those criticisms - that produces a "best guess" date of
2016.

Their work was unveiled at the European Geosciences Union (EGU) annual
meeting.

The new model is designed to replicate real-world interactions, or
"couplings", between the Arctic ocean, the atmosphere, the sea ice and
rivers carrying freshwater into the sea.

"In the past... we were just extrapolating into the future assuming
that trends might persist as we've seen in recent times," said Dr
Maslowski, who works at Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey,
California.

"Now we're trying to be more systematic, and we've developed a
regional Arctic climate model that's very similar to the global
climate models participating in Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) assessments," he told BBC News.

"We can run a fully coupled model for the past and present and see
what our model will predict for the future in terms of the sea ice and
the Arctic climate."

And one of the projections it comes out with is that the summer melt
could lead to ice-free Arctic seas by 2016 - "plus or minus three
years".

It does not make predictions about the Greenland ice cap.
Thin evidence

One of the important ingredients of the new model is data on the
thickness of ice floating on the sea.

Satellites are increasingly able to detect this, usually by measuring
how far the ice sits above the sea surface - which also indicates how
far the ice extends beneath.

Inclusion of this data into the team's modelling was one of the
factors causing them to retrench on the 2013 date, which raised
eyebrows - and subsequently some criticism - when it emerged at a US
science meeting four years ago.

Since the spectacularly pronounced melting of 2007, a greater
proportion of the Arctic Ocean has been covered by thin ice that is
formed in a single season and is more vulnerable to slight temperature
increases than older, thicker ice.

Even taking this into account, the projected date range is earlier
than other researchers believe likely.

But one peer - Dr Walt Meier from the US National Snow and Ice Data
Center in Boulder, Colorado - said the behaviour of sea ice becomes
less predictable as it gets thinner.

"[Maslowski's] is quite a good model, one thing it has is really high
resolution, it can capture details that are lost in global climate
models," he said.

"But 2019 is only eight years away; there's been modelling showing
that [likely dates are around] 2040/50, and I'd still lean towards
that.

"I'd be very surprised if it's 2013 - I wouldn't be totally surprised
if it's 2019."
Crystal method

The drastic melt of 2007 remains the record loss of ice area in the
satellite era, although subsequent years have still been below the
long-term average.

But some researchers believe 2010's melt was equally as notable as
2007's, given weather conditions that were favourable to the
durability of ice.

Although many climate scientists and environmental campaigners are
seriously concerned about the fate of the Arctic sea ice, for other
parts of society and other arms of government its degradation presents
challenges and opportunities.

The Russian and Canadian governments, for example, are looking to the
opportunities for mineral exploitation that will arise; while the US
military has expressed concern about losing a natural defence around
the country's northern border for part of the year.

"I'm not trying to be alarmist and not trying to say 'we know the
future because we have a crystal ball'," said Dr Maslowski.

"Basically, we're trying to make policymakers and people who need to
know about climate change in the Arctic realise there is a chance that
summer sea ice could be gone by the end of the decade.

"For the national interest, the defence interest, I think it's
important to realise that 2040 is not a crystal ball prediction."

[Phlip]

> "Basically, we're trying to make policymakers and people who need to
> know about climate change in the Arctic realise there is a chance that
> summer sea ice could be gone by the end of the decade.

Scientists tuning their model. Part of the process. Darn.

And, incidentally, the North Pole IS ice-free, right now. You can no
longer dog sled to it. The scientists are just predicting when every
remaining speck of pack ice will be gone.

[Richard Steel]

On May 10, 6:08 am, Phlip <phlip2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > "Basically, we're trying to make policymakers and people who need to
> > know about climate change in the Arctic realise there is a chance that
> > summer sea ice could be gone by the end of the decade.

> Scientists tuning their model. Part of the process.

Nooooooooooooo - they made predictions. They were proven insanely
wrong, and now they're changing their story.

[Richard Steel]

> And, incidentally, the North Pole IS ice-free, right now. You can no
> longer dog sled to it. The scientists are just predicting when every
> remaining speck of pack ice will be gone.

Really? So it's now possible to simply sail through the Arctic
Circle? Really? My, my. Must be quite a time saver. Who's doing
that, exactly?

The "North Pole IS ice-free."

Just how big an idiot are you?

[Richard Steel]

> >> Oh, you say it's not June yet...?

> > Oh, my God, it's a bit foggy and there's a slight drizzle.  Run!  Run
> > for your lives.  It's the end of the world!!!!

> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-TfZslHKoo

> Poor Fake Bill.  We have you snapping furiously at your own tail now...

No, I'm laughing my ass off at how desperate you've become. What's
the matter, bubbula....the predictions of the End of the World didn't
come true?

[JohnM]

On May 11, 9:59 am, Richard Steel <rsteel2...@aol.com> wrote:
> > And, incidentally, the North Pole IS ice-free, right now. You can no
> > longer dog sled to it. The scientists are just predicting when every
> > remaining speck of pack ice will be gone.
>
> Really?  So it's now possible to simply sail through the Arctic
> Circle?  Really?  My, my.  Must be quite a time saver.  Who's doing
> that, exactly?

The Russians are, for one. But it really depends on how we understand
ice-free. There is no longer an intact, solid, unbreakable sheet of
ice around and over the North Pole during the peak of the melt season.
If the Arctic Ocean was not so land-locked, the summer ice would
certainly have gone awol by drifting south before now.

[erschro...@gmail.com]

On May 11, 3:57 am, Richard Steel <rsteel2...@aol.com> wrote:
> On May 10, 6:08 am, Phlip <phlip2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > "Basically, we're trying to make policymakers and people who need to
> > > know about climate change in the Arctic realise there is a chance that
> > > summer sea ice could be gone by the end of the decade.
> > Scientists tuning their model. Part of the process.
>
> Nooooooooooooo - they made predictions.

None that you claim they made though.

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

due to increasing differentials between the equator and ...
the poles, of course, I predict an increase of angular momentum
-- added to that already imposed by Russian 750,000-horse skybreakers,
viz "shiptrails" -- of the Arctic polar ice, and
total clearance in N months, give or take.

howeer, Antarctica will just get incrementally higher, as well
as probably Greenland, unless NOAA's datum has chnnged.

[Richard Steel]

On May 11, 4:34 am, JohnM <jmorgan1234...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 11, 9:59 am, Richard Steel <rsteel2...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > And, incidentally, the North Pole IS ice-free, right now. You can no
> > > longer dog sled to it. The scientists are just predicting when every
> > > remaining speck of pack ice will be gone.
>
> > Really?  So it's now possible to simply sail through the Arctic
> > Circle?  Really?  My, my.  Must be quite a time saver.  Who's doing
> > that, exactly?

> The Russians are, for one.

Please provide links to prove that.

> But it really depends on how we understand
> ice-free.

"Ice free" means there's no ice there.

[John M.]

On May 12, 1:08 am, Richard Steel <rsteel2...@aol.com> wrote:
> On May 11, 4:34 am, JohnM <jmorgan1234...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 11, 9:59 am, Richard Steel <rsteel2...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > And, incidentally, the North Pole IS ice-free, right now. You can no
> > > > longer dog sled to it. The scientists are just predicting when every
> > > > remaining speck of pack ice will be gone.
>
> > > Really?  So it's now possible to simply sail through the Arctic
> > > Circle?  Really?  My, my.  Must be quite a time saver.  Who's doing
> > > that, exactly?
> > The Russians are, for one.
>
> Please provide links to prove that.

http://www.northpolevoyages.com/

> > But it really depends on how we understand
> > ice-free.
>
> "Ice free" means there's no ice there.

Only to a literalist :-)

[Richard Steel]

When reading reports which is used to imply the literal end of
civilization which were proven wrong, all trust in the Warm Mongers
are destroyed. Like the businessman who's trying to re-establish his
credit after bankruptcy, the warm monger community is allowed no
poetic flourishes. Say what you mean clearly, and provide completely
transparent evidence.....I have no faith in their word.

[George]

On 5/11/2012 11:34 PM, JohnM wrote:

> The Russians are, for one. But it really depends on how we understand
> ice-free. There is no longer an intact, solid, unbreakable sheet of
> ice around and over the North Pole during the peak of the melt season.
> If the Arctic Ocean was not so land-locked, the summer ice would
> certainly have gone awol by drifting south before now.

The last 20 years has seen sailing tours through the Arctic.
The Top Gear team drove to the North Pole a few years back

[AGWFacts]

On Wed, 9 May 2012 16:59:58 -0700 (PDT), Richard Steel
<rstee...@aol.com> wrote:

> Remember when the Warm Mongers said that that Arctic Ice Cap would be
> gone by now?

The what?

No scientist made the claim.

> > >Are you still trying to claim IPCC said the Arctic would be permanently
> > >ice-free by 2011?  That was one of my favourites of your random bursts of
> > >bullshit.

> Actually, it's the BBC that made the "claim".
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13002706
>
> New warning on Arctic sea ice melt
> Richard Black By Richard Black Environment correspondent, BBC News
>
>
> Scientists who predicted a few years ago that Arctic summers could be
> ice-free by 2013 now say summer sea ice will probably be gone in this
> decade.

No, no scientists made that prediction. One member of Maslowski's
team stated IF THE CURRENT RATE OF MELTING CONTINUES, the Arctic
would experience several weeks of ice-free conditions. No
scientist expected the year 2007 rate to continue.

Sheeeish. Turn your fucking TV off and read a science paper now
and then.

Off-topic newsgroups deleted.


--
"Desertphile isn't dead..... darn." -- Rawbush (YouTube)

[linuxgal]

Richard Steel wrote:
> On May 10, 6:08 am, Phlip <phlip2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> "Basically, we're trying to make policymakers and people who need to
>>> know about climate change in the Arctic realise there is a chance that
>>> summer sea ice could be gone by the end of the decade.
>
>> Scientists tuning their model. Part of the process.
>
> Nooooooooooooo - they made predictions. They were proven insanely
> wrong, and now they're changing their story.

That's the hallmark of an unfalsifiable, hence unscientific, silly wild
ass guess.

[R Kym Horsell]

On Wednesday, May 9, 2012 6:40:37 AM UTC+10, Richard Steel wrote:
> > >What I haven't noticed is any beachfront property lost.  Or the end of
> > >rain during Winter.  Low islands are doing just fine.
>
> > So--what you're saying is that you have absolutely NO independent,
> > common sense ability to understand what "global warming" is, what is
> > happening, and the up-coming results from it?
>
> > You only have faux snooze (or National enguirer) "authorities" that
> > tell you what you know?
>
> I have a window. Nearly a quarter of a century ago, the Warm Mongers
> said that California would be a desert about now. New York was never
> to have another White Christmas. The oceans were supposed to have
> taken away ocean front property, and low lying islands were supposed
> to be flooded.
...

It would be nice if you had a cite to these things apart from your sketchy memory.

As for California being a desert -- interestingly the data shows around 1910
the average annual rainfall for CA was around 260 mm per year.
Around 1990 the average annual rainfall is around 240 mm per year.

So, technically, CA has become a desert over the course of the 20th century, with rainfall trending still further down around .3 mm per year.

Photo here:

http://kymhorsell.dyndns.org/graphs/CA-precip.jpg

--
My fear is the fear itself. Eco-activists and fear-mongers and
doomsayers scare me when people actually believe them. But that is no
longer the case and my fear has turned into mirth and laughter. Now
I'm just having fun with you alarmist morons.
-- Tunderbar <tdco...@gmail.com>, 15 May 2012 08:46:13 -0700 (PDT)

[linuxgal]

Richard Steel wrote:
> On May 11, 4:34 am, JohnM <jmorgan1234...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 11, 9:59 am, Richard Steel <rsteel2...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> And, incidentally, the North Pole IS ice-free, right now. You can no
>>>> longer dog sled to it. The scientists are just predicting when every
>>>> remaining speck of pack ice will be gone.
>>> Really? So it's now possible to simply sail through the Arctic
>>> Circle? Really? My, my. Must be quite a time saver. Who's doing
>>> that, exactly?
>
>> The Russians are, for one.
>
> Please provide links to prove that.

They recently proved they could move LNG from Russia to China with two
tankers, but they needed an ice breaker sailing in front of them, and
they could only do it in the summer. So much for "ice free" eh?