right...global warming
Mercellus Bohren
BIG CHUNKS OF ICE PEOPLE!!!111
--------------------------
BARROW, Alaska (AP) - Ridges of sea ice packing car-sized chunks of the cold
stuff slammed onto a road in this northern Alaskan town in quantities not
seen in nearly three decades.
Two ice surges, known to Alaska Natives as ivus, stunned residents who had
never seen such large blocks of ice rammed ashore.
"It just looked like a big old mountain of ice," said L.A. Leavitt, 19, who
left his nightshift job at the city to check out the ridges.
Ivus are like frozen tsunamis and crash ashore violently. They have killed
hunters and are among the Arctic's most feared natural phenomena.
The ivus crashed ashore Tuesday after strong winds from Russia and eastward
currents began pushing pack ice toward Barrow last weekend, said North Slope
Borough disaster coordinator Rob Elkins.
By late Monday, thick, old sea ice known as multiyear ice had shoved
younger, thinner ice onto shore.
Witnesses here said the northernmost ridge was about 20 feet high and 100
feet long and contained car-size blocks. Ice left a coastal road with only
one lane, they said.
"It was just an amazing sight," said Elkins. "It looks like huge stacks of
huge ice cubes."
Raymond Arritt
> This global warming thing is a crock.
> BIG CHUNKS OF ICE PEOPLE!!!111
>
> --------------------------
>
> BARROW, Alaska (AP) - Ridges of sea ice packing car-sized chunks of the cold
> stuff slammed onto a road in this northern Alaskan town in quantities not
> seen in nearly three decades.
Gosh. Whoever thought there'd be big chunks of ice in Alaska during
wintertime?
unclejr
> This global warming thing is a crock.
Meanwhile, it's RAINING here in Minnesota today (it's JANUARY)!
-Junior
Wonko the Sane
news:d0OCf.6497$jO....@tornado.texas.rr.com:
> This global warming thing is a crock.
> BIG CHUNKS OF ICE PEOPLE!!!111
>
> --------------------------
>
> BARROW, Alaska (AP) - Ridges of sea ice packing car-sized chunks of
> the cold stuff slammed onto a road in this northern Alaskan town in
> quantities not seen in nearly three decades.
So it was this warm three decades ago? That doesn't fit the dogm ...
er ... theory.
Doug
--
"There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly
what the Universe
is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be
replaced by something even
more bizarre and inexplicable.
"There is another which states that this has already happened."
Douglas Adams
James Schrumpf
rage.
OTOH, it's 55 degrees on 28 January in Washington, DC.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
James Schrumpf http://www.hilltopper.net
We Must Protect this Couch!
NobodyYouKnow
> This global warming thing is a crock.
> BIG CHUNKS OF ICE PEOPLE!!!111
>
> --------------------------
>
> BARROW, Alaska (AP) - Ridges of sea ice packing car-sized chunks of
> the cold stuff slammed onto a road in this northern Alaskan town in
> quantities not seen in nearly three decades.
>
> Two ice surges, known to Alaska Natives as ivus, stunned residents
> who had never seen such large blocks of ice rammed ashore.
This is mosly a factor of the large open ocean stretchs which allow the wind
to create forces to push the ice around. Normally the ice packs the surface
and thus is more resistant to being shifted around that hard as the wind
cannot get as good a grip on a frozen ice surface as it can on water (
making currents that push the ice ). The ice is there regardless. It is the
increase in open water ( thus in the decline in ice area from warming of the
arctic ) that is causing this phenomenon.
Chris Bellomy
: This global warming thing is a crock.
: BIG CHUNKS OF ICE PEOPLE!!!111
You know what causes ice to break into chunks?
Think real hard about this.
Zaphod Beeblebrox
Is that really you man?
--
I'm so hip I have trouble seeing over my pelvis.
I'm so cool you can keep a side of meat in me for months.
Bryan S. Slick
the street and beaten by an angry mob for writing..
You can't possibly be serious.
Though if you were a GW kook.. well, honestly I guess it wouldn't shock
me.
--
Bryan S. Slick, onyx_hokie at yahoo dot com
"To those who have fought for it,
freedom has a flavor the protected will never know."
Chris Bellomy
: At about Sat, 28 Jan 2006 22:07:08 GMT, Chris Bellomy was dragged into
:
: :In alt.fan.mike-dahmus Mercellus Bohren <merce...@yahoo.com> wrote:
: :: This global warming thing is a crock.
: :: BIG CHUNKS OF ICE PEOPLE!!!111
: :
: :You know what causes ice to break into chunks?
: :
: :Think real hard about this.
:
: You can't possibly be serious.
You know. Physics. This is really really simple.
Bryan S. Slick
Chris.. if you think that the ice chunks mentioned are evidence of
warming because of the very local phenomenon of humongous chunks melting
(from the *horror music* .. GLO-BAL.. WAR-MING!!!, don'tchaknow!) and
breaking into smaller ones is evidence for worldwide GW.. come on.
GW is a total crock.
Unclaimed Mysteries
Steroids have slipped into the seals' food chain. Did I get it right?
--
It Came From C. L. Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.
http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net
Wunderkind
> This global warming thing is a crock.
> BIG CHUNKS OF ICE PEOPLE!!!111
>
> --------------------------
>
> BARROW, Alaska (AP) - Ridges of sea ice packing car-sized chunks of the cold
> stuff slammed onto a road in this northern Alaskan town in quantities not
> seen in nearly three decades.
As any reasonable person knows, global warming impacts the globe, but
not uniformly. Global warming is and will be characterized by abnormal
and atypical events in all latitudes.
WK
Unclaimed Mysteries
> GW is a total crock.
>
I agree. And his brother is a lousy governor too.
the real mh
Global warming is a misnomer to begin with. "Global Climate Change" is
more accurate.
Chris Bellomy
:
: :In alt.fan.mike-dahmus Mercellus Bohren <merce...@yahoo.com> wrote:
: :: This global warming thing is a crock.
: :: BIG CHUNKS OF ICE PEOPLE!!!111
: :
: :You know what causes ice to break into chunks?
: :
: :Think real hard about this.
:
: You can't possibly be serious.
Actually, I'll offer a more serious answer, though I'm
amused people can't figure out the obvious thing that
the ice wouldn't break up into chunks in the first
place if it weren't melting.
So here I go:
We know the global temperature is rising. Nobody disputes
this. The only thing in question (and it's in question only
in political circles, the scientists are about as in con-
sensus on this as scientists ever get) is whether the warming
is attributable to human activity.
On this I will disqualify myself from authoritative comment
because I am pretty far from being a scientist in a relevant
field.
What I am qualified to comment on is the political dynamics
of the issue. Clearly, the conservatives here arrived at this
argument with an agenda: they have money to make, and releasing
greenhouse gases help them make it. They don't want to mess
with the expense of curbing said gases, even if their com-
petitors are burdened with the same expense. OK, I think
economic self-interest is a legitimate cause, so that's fine
as far as it goes.
On the other side, I see... nada. Really, there's selfish
agenda I can see in supporting measures to curb global warming.
Unless the environmental technology industry is controlled by
Al Gore and the readers of Daily Kos, I just don't see it. So
I think that these people are more likely to be telling it as
they really see it.
So these are the choices:
1. GW isn't happening and we we curb greenhouse gases. Result:
Money gets spent once to modernize, otherwise status quo except
the argument dissolves due to lack of substance. Also, the
atmosphere is less impacted by human activity (obviously),
irrespective of how this may or may not manifest.
2. GW isn't happening and we do nothing. Result: status quo
and the argument finally dissolves due to lack of substance.
3. GW is happening and we curb greenhouse gases. Presumably
we solve the problem by spending money one time, human race
would survive to nuke itself later, apes become the dominant
species until Charlton Heston returns to find the Statue of
Liberty.
4. GW is happening and we don't curb greenhouse gases. This
would be really really really bad.
I am for a future that includes Charlton Heston. Anybody who
isn't hates America.
Chris Bellomy
:
: :In alt.fan.mike-dahmus Bryan S. Slick <onyx_...@yahoo.cem> wrote:
: :: At about Sat, 28 Jan 2006 22:07:08 GMT, Chris Bellomy was dragged into
: :: the street and beaten by an angry mob for writing..
: ::
: :: :In alt.fan.mike-dahmus Mercellus Bohren <merce...@yahoo.com> wrote:
: :: :: This global warming thing is a crock.
: :: :: BIG CHUNKS OF ICE PEOPLE!!!111
: :: :
: :: :You know what causes ice to break into chunks?
: :: :
: :: :Think real hard about this.
: ::
: :: You can't possibly be serious.
: :
: :You know. Physics. This is really really simple.
:
: Chris.. if you think that the ice chunks mentioned are evidence of
: warming because of the very local phenomenon of humongous chunks melting
: (from the *horror music* .. GLO-BAL.. WAR-MING!!!, don'tchaknow!) and
: breaking into smaller ones is evidence for worldwide GW.. come on.
Why do you hate Charlton Heston?
Also, I wasn't speaking to global warming here. I was speaking
to this specific example of a phenomenon which itself is caused
by warming, unbeknownst apparently to the original poster.
Jefferson N Glapski
This is a local phenomenon. While Global Warming is believed by nutcases,
this doesn't disprove it.
--
Jefferson N. Glapski
http://www.freealberta.com
Grumpy AuContraire
going out of control.
They have been cold for about the same time that we have been warm.
The only thing worse than bad science is no science...
JT
Daniel Seriff
magic shirt!
I always knew you were a damn dirty ape, Chris.
--
Daniel Seriff
Tradition is the preservation of the flame, not the adoration of the ashes.
--Gustav Mahler
leinbacker
The Earth's natural process of warming and cooling.
Mercellus Bohren
news:0T2sjer...@redshark.goodshow.net...
I wonder why this was crossposted?
Chris Bellomy
:
Sure, if that's what you want to believe. Doesn't change
this thread any.
Randy Howard
(in article <MPG.1e45d1a77...@news-40.giganews.com>):
> GW is a total crock.
GW is not a crock. Temperature has been going up and down in
very long cycles on this planet for a r e a l l y long time.
What is a crock is those that think they know what the cause of
it is. Keep in mind that Mars seems to be in the same cycle we
are right now, yet there are no SUVs, people overfilling their
gas tanks at noon on hot days, or cows farting out too much
methane.
--
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
"The power of accurate observation is called cynicism by those
who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
How 'bout them Horns?
Mercellus Bohren
news:OZWCf.366$VM4...@fe19.lga...
>
> I think one of the reasons that America is overrun by ignoramii,
> is that there are so many lights in the cities, none of these
> people have ever really looked at the stars. There are stars.
All the mensans in West Virginia would agree with you, I'm sure.
Coby Beck
news:0001HW.C0019A0A...@news.verizon.net...
> Bryan S. Slick wrote
> (in article <MPG.1e45d1a77...@news-40.giganews.com>):
>
>> GW is a total crock.
>
> GW is not a crock. Temperature has been going up and down in
> very long cycles on this planet for a r e a l l y long time.
Have a look at this graph to see how natural what is going on now is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png
> What is a crock is those that think they know what the cause of
> it is. Keep in mind that Mars seems to be in the same cycle we
> are right now
Two snapshots of one ice escarpment and we have people claiming an
equivalence with 150 years of direct surface measurements, 2000 years of
proxy reconstructions and mountains of other data.
Ridiculous.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")
Chris Bellomy
: "Randy Howard" <randy...@FOOverizonBAR.net> wrote in message
Why do you hate Charlton Heston?
(It's amazing how this issue brings out the Usenet pseudo-
scientists who puff out their chests and act like they know
better than the real deal, blissfully unaware of their own
desperation to be taken seriously, equally unaware that
they're not.)
(Also, it's interesting to me how conservatives want
absolute proof that we're doomed before they'll agree to
do anything about it, as though it'll be possible then.
Not exactly a flattering portrait of conservatives as a
group, but then what is?)
Randy Howard
(in article <0T2sk53...@redshark.goodshow.net>):
> (Also, it's interesting to me how conservatives want
> absolute proof that we're doomed before they'll agree to
> do anything about it, as though it'll be possible then.
Hint: When "we're doomed", we'll start dying off, right? After
that process begins, humans stop doing so many things that will
"warm up" the planet if you are correct about the cause.
Then, the process will stabilize again once enough people are
dead. If they all die, then it should happen even faster. Then
some other critters will evolve and the whole thing will start
over again.
If they don't all die, perhaps its just nature's way of fighting
off the stupidity of humanity that insists upon generating as
many bodies as possible, and keeping them alive as long as
possible. Once things get back to a reasonable level, life
starts forward again.
Maybe it's time that we start shooting people that say things
like "if only one life can be saved, it will be worth it", and
"someday, doctors will allow us to live healthily for hundreds
of years".
Or, start colonizing other chunks of rocks in the Universe.
Jefferson N Glapski
So your argument is that the volatility of global temperature changes is
increasing? Is the skewness or kurtosis of global temperatures
increasing/decreasing/staying the change?
You haven't even established the first order effects that gave Global
Warming its reincarnation from Global Cooling in the 1970s. You will need
answers for the first three - and more importantly, proof, because Global
Warming becomes anything except a reason for left wingers to try to add
fascist controls to the economy.
Jefferson N Glapski
> In alt.fan.mike-dahmus Bryan S. Slick <onyx_...@yahoo.cem> wrote:
>> At about Sat, 28 Jan 2006 22:07:08 GMT, Chris Bellomy was dragged
>> into the street and beaten by an angry mob for writing..
>>
>>> In alt.fan.mike-dahmus Mercellus Bohren <merce...@yahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> This global warming thing is a crock.
>>>> BIG CHUNKS OF ICE PEOPLE!!!111
>>>
>>> You know what causes ice to break into chunks?
>>>
>>> Think real hard about this.
>>
>> You can't possibly be serious.
>
> Actually, I'll offer a more serious answer, though I'm
> amused people can't figure out the obvious thing that
> the ice wouldn't break up into chunks in the first
> place if it weren't melting.
>
> So here I go:
>
> We know the global temperature is rising. Nobody disputes
> this. The only thing in question (and it's in question only
> in political circles, the scientists are about as in con-
> sensus on this as scientists ever get) is whether the warming
> is attributable to human activity.
There is doubt on this, and it centers around time period.
Are global temperatures rising from 1981-1997? NASA says no:
http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/essd12mar97_1.htm
Are global temperatures rising over the medium term (say last 1000 years)?
No:
http://www.heartland.org/pdf/12312.pdf
Nobody disputes this because you ignore those that do dispute it.
And since the earth has been warmer in the past, prior to mankind, it is
pretty obvious that the temperature movements we've seen are not due to
man's activity.
Anthropogenic Contribution to the Greenhouse Effect,
expressed as a Percentage of Total (Water Vapor Included) Based on
concentrations (ppb) adjusted for heat retention characteristics % of All
Greenhouse Gases % Natural % Man-made
Water vapor 95.000% 94.999%
0.001%
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 3.618% 3.502%
0.117%
Methane (CH4) 0.360% 0.294%
0.066%
Nitrous Oxide (N2O) 0.950% 0.903%
0.047%
Misc. gases ( CFC's, etc.) 0.072% 0.025%
0.047%
Total 100.00% 99.72
0.28%
> On this I will disqualify myself from authoritative comment
> because I am pretty far from being a scientist in a relevant
> field.
>
> What I am qualified to comment on is the political dynamics
> of the issue. Clearly, the conservatives here arrived at this
> argument with an agenda: they have money to make, and releasing
> greenhouse gases help them make it. They don't want to mess
> with the expense of curbing said gases, even if their com-
> petitors are burdened with the same expense. OK, I think
> economic self-interest is a legitimate cause, so that's fine
> as far as it goes.
Socialists have an agenda too. Don't fool yourself.
> On the other side, I see... nada. Really, there's selfish
> agenda I can see in supporting measures to curb global warming.
> Unless the environmental technology industry is controlled by
> Al Gore and the readers of Daily Kos, I just don't see it. So
> I think that these people are more likely to be telling it as
> they really see it.
Perhaps you don't see the trillions of dollars at stake by regulating
businesses worldwide, but most people can. Every side has an agenda. Either
you are ignorant or dishonest. In Canada, what is at stake is tens of
billions of dollars per year, as Kyoto in practice will seek to tax
Alberta's oil wealth, while hydroelectricity in Quebec and Manitoba and the
auto industry in Ontario is exempt. If a tiny country like Canada has
hundreds of billions at stake over the next few years, what do you think the
impact on the world is? It is a scheme for redistributing wealth.
> So these are the choices:
>
> 1. GW isn't happening and we we curb greenhouse gases. Result:
> Money gets spent once to modernize, otherwise status quo except
> the argument dissolves due to lack of substance. Also, the
> atmosphere is less impacted by human activity (obviously),
> irrespective of how this may or may not manifest.
Money doesn't get spent once to modernize. Money gets redistributed via
force. Capital is wasted on uneconomic investments. Economic activity is
reduced - and because of that
> 2. GW isn't happening and we do nothing. Result: status quo
> and the argument finally dissolves due to lack of substance.
This is the optimal solution, because the malinvestment caused by GW
advocates won't happen.
> 3. GW is happening and we curb greenhouse gases. Presumably
> we solve the problem by spending money one time, human race
> would survive to nuke itself later, apes become the dominant
> species until Charlton Heston returns to find the Statue of
> Liberty.
One time spending? Do tell.
> 4. GW is happening and we don't curb greenhouse gases. This
> would be really really really bad.
Why would it be bad? Because you say so? Or would it make uninhabitable
lands habitable? Prove that statement. And pick tomorrow's lottery numbers
since you claim to be accurate at predicting the future.
Jefferson N Glapski
> X-No-archive: yes
> Bryan S. Slick wrote:
>> At about Sun, 29 Jan 2006 00:00:09 GMT, Chris Bellomy was dragged
>> into the street and beaten by an angry mob for writing..
>>
>>> In alt.fan.mike-dahmus Bryan S. Slick <onyx_...@yahoo.cem> wrote:
>>>> At about Sat, 28 Jan 2006 22:07:08 GMT, Chris Bellomy was dragged
>>>> into the street and beaten by an angry mob for writing..
>>>>
>>>>> In alt.fan.mike-dahmus Mercellus Bohren <merce...@yahoo.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> This global warming thing is a crock.
>>>>>> BIG CHUNKS OF ICE PEOPLE!!!111
>>>>>
>>>>> You know what causes ice to break into chunks?
>>>>>
>>>>> Think real hard about this.
>>>>
>>>> You can't possibly be serious.
>>>
>>
>> warming because of the very local phenomenon of humongous chunks
>> melting (from the *horror music* .. GLO-BAL.. WAR-MING!!!,
>> don'tchaknow!) and breaking into smaller ones is evidence for
>> worldwide GW.. come on.
>>
>
> occurred over the last 11 and just because last year was the warmest
> year in all of recorded history - despite no el Niño - doesn't mean
> it's really any warmer, right, genius?
http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7x.html
The earth has been MUCH warmer in the past.
"Climatologists have used various techniques and evidence to reconstruct a
history of the Earth's past climate. From this data they have found that
during most of the Earth's history global temperatures were probably 8 to
15° Celsius warmer than today."
And if GW does exist - if one only looks at meteorological instruments (a
dumb idea) - explain the cooling period from 1940 to 1970.
Jefferson N Glapski
In other posts, you claim you lacked scientific expertise. In the time
between that post and this one, you've apparently obtained a doctorate in a
related field. Congratulations.
This one of those pseudo-scientists?
http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen.htm
> (Also, it's interesting to me how conservatives want
> absolute proof that we're doomed before they'll agree to
> do anything about it, as though it'll be possible then.
> Not exactly a flattering portrait of conservatives as a
> group, but then what is?)
It's interesting that fascists like you want to create a scapegoat and then
act against it without proof and ignore any negative effects of that action.
Chris Bellomy
No, I can just tell the difference between actual peer-
reviewed scientists on one hand, and wankers like you on
the other.
Surprising as it may be to you, this is not a terribly
difficult skill to master.
Randy Howard
(in article <93YCf.17664$%I1....@fe17.lga>):
> Randy Howard wrote:
>
>> Or, start colonizing other chunks of rocks in the Universe.
>
> That would require that you look at the universe
> rather than, say, your dick.
I'll take your word for it.
Mike Smith
I think Chrissey is more of a useful idiot for the fascists, rather
than being a fascist. He doesn't possess the intelligence to be a real
fascist, but he can be useful to them, by mindlessly repeating their
dogma.
BTW, global warming started about 18,000 years ago, and will continue
until we enter our next ice age. There is not much we can do, one way
or another, to affect that cycle.
Mike Smith
Mercellus Bohren
> In article <d0OCf.6497$jO....@tornado.texas.rr.com>,
> merce...@yahoo.com says...
> > This global warming thing is a crock.
> > BIG CHUNKS OF ICE PEOPLE!!!111
> >
> >
> > BARROW, Alaska (AP) - Ridges of sea ice packing car-sized chunks of the cold
> > stuff slammed onto a road in this northern Alaskan town in quantities not
> > seen in nearly three decades.
> >
> > never seen such large blocks of ice rammed ashore.
> >
>
> Under normal conditions (i.e., colder temperatures) those big blocks of
> loose ice would still be attached to the mother ship. But they are
> breaking loose due to warmer-than-normal temperatures.
>
> Ed
So, nearly three decades ago, things were not normal too?
Define the word "normal" with respect to geological time.
Chris Bellomy
: On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 08:18:22 GMT, "Jefferson N Glapski"
Congratulations, Glapski, you got Mike Smith on your side.
It's a red letter day!
Mike Smith
<cos...@lifeform.org> wrote:
>Mike Smith wrote:
>
>> BTW, global warming started about 18,000 years ago, and will continue
>> until we enter our next ice age. There is not much we can do, one way
>> or another, to affect that cycle.
>
>Ding, you win a stupid prize.
>
>http://cosmic.lifeform.org
>
>Ignorance is apolitical.
>
>http://cosmic.lifeform.org
You do realize that web site is ate up with stupid, right?
Is that the "prize" I won? A trip to that stupid site?
Although it does appear to be an excellent example of ignorance.
Mike Smith
Wunderkind
You should be an excellent judge of ignorance based on personal
experience with it!
WK
Mercellus Bohren
case in point
Coby Beck
news:1138554122.1...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Define the word "normal" with respect to geological time.
No humans.
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")
Jefferson N Glapski
> Jefferson N Glapski wrote:
>> Chris Bellomy wrote:
>>> In alt.fan.mike-dahmus Bryan S. Slick <onyx_...@yahoo.cem> wrote:
>>>> At about Sat, 28 Jan 2006 22:07:08 GMT, Chris Bellomy was dragged
>>>> into the street and beaten by an angry mob for writing..
>>>>
>>>>> In alt.fan.mike-dahmus Mercellus Bohren <merce...@yahoo.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> This global warming thing is a crock.
>>>>>> BIG CHUNKS OF ICE PEOPLE!!!111
>>>>> You know what causes ice to break into chunks?
>>>>>
>>>>> Think real hard about this.
>>>> You can't possibly be serious.
>>> Actually, I'll offer a more serious answer, though I'm
>>> amused people can't figure out the obvious thing that
>>> the ice wouldn't break up into chunks in the first
>>> place if it weren't melting.
>>>
>>> So here I go:
>>>
>>> We know the global temperature is rising. Nobody disputes
>>> this. The only thing in question (and it's in question only
>>> in political circles, the scientists are about as in con-
>>> sensus on this as scientists ever get) is whether the warming
>>> is attributable to human activity.
>>
>> There is doubt on this, and it centers around time period.
>
Make it worth my while, and I'll start to imitate you.
>> Are global temperatures rising from 1981-1997? NASA says no:
>> http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/essd12mar97_1.htm
>
> Ding! Guess what, it's 2006!
Guess what, 9 years in a 6 billion year history isn't a speck of dust. Try
getting something that has positive degrees of freedom when you are finished
overmodeling global warming.
You'd look at 9 years of history in a person starting at age 9 and ending
age 18 and project them to be 48' tall by the time they reach 45 years old.
>> Are global temperatures rising over the medium term (say last 1000
>> years)? No:
>> http://www.heartland.org/pdf/12312.pdf
>
> Ding! The Heartland Institute!
So? Do you dispute the existence of something called the Medieval Warm
Period, which was named as such because it was warmer than it is now?
>> Nobody disputes this because you ignore those that do dispute it.
>
> Ding! They have no credible evidence to support their claims.
Richard Lindzen or you? I think I'll take the scientist over the retard.
>> And since the earth has been warmer in the past, prior to mankind,
>> it is pretty obvious that the temperature movements we've seen are
>> not due to man's activity.
>
> Ignorance is so easy!
Yes, you do indicate that.
>>> Anthropogenic Contribution to the Greenhouse Effect,
>> expressed as a Percentage of Total (Water Vapor Included) Based on
>> concentrations (ppb) adjusted for heat retention characteristics %
>> of All Greenhouse Gases % Natural % Man-made
>> Water vapor 95.000% 94.999%
>> 0.001%
>> Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 3.618% 3.502%
>> 0.117%
>> Methane (CH4) 0.360% 0.294%
>> 0.066%
>> Nitrous Oxide (N2O) 0.950% 0.903%
>> 0.047%
>> Misc. gases ( CFC's, etc.) 0.072% 0.025%
>> 0.047%
>> Total 100.00% 99.72
>> 0.28%
>
> Ding! You are a real She-Man!
Facts hurt your brain, lady?
>>> On this I will disqualify myself from authoritative comment
>>> because I am pretty far from being a scientist in a relevant
>>> field.
>>>
>>> What I am qualified to comment on is the political dynamics
>>> of the issue. Clearly, the conservatives here arrived at this
>>> argument with an agenda: they have money to make, and releasing
>>> greenhouse gases help them make it. They don't want to mess
>>> with the expense of curbing said gases, even if their com-
>>> petitors are burdened with the same expense. OK, I think
>>> economic self-interest is a legitimate cause, so that's fine
>>> as far as it goes.
>>
>> Socialists have an agenda too. Don't fool yourself.
>
> Social Science? Maybe they took too much Social Studies in High
> School.
Apparently, they took too little in HS.
>>> On the other side, I see... nada. Really, there's selfish
>>> agenda I can see in supporting measures to curb global warming.
>>> Unless the environmental technology industry is controlled by
>>> Al Gore and the readers of Daily Kos, I just don't see it. So
>>> I think that these people are more likely to be telling it as
>>> they really see it.
>>
>> Perhaps you don't see the trillions of dollars at stake by regulating
>> businesses worldwide, but most people can. Every side has an agenda.
>> Either you are ignorant or dishonest. In Canada, what is at stake is
>> tens of billions of dollars per year, as Kyoto in practice will seek
>> to tax Alberta's oil wealth, while hydroelectricity in Quebec and
>> Manitoba and the auto industry in Ontario is exempt. If a tiny
>> country like Canada has hundreds of billions at stake over the next
>> few years, what do you think the impact on the world is? It is a
>> scheme for redistributing wealth.
>
> Ding! Wow, that is so scientific.
What do you think carbon emmission credits are? If you don't think nobody
has a stake in CO2, guarantee all my trading losses in CO2 then. Then again,
you would have to have money in order to do that, rather than living those
of us with jobs.
>> Why would it be bad? Because you say so? Or would it make
>> uninhabitable lands habitable? Prove that statement. And pick
>> tomorrow's lottery numbers since you claim to be accurate at
>> predicting the future.
>
> Ding! Since you can't refute it, it's got to be good!
>
> http://cosmic.lifeform.org
He didn't offer anything. He just said it had to be bad. No proof was
offered - similar to your witty rejoinder. I can't predict the future, save
you will prove you're an idiot with your next post.
Jefferson N Glapski
> Jefferson N Glapski wrote:
> totally dependent upon hydrocarbon combustion
> to make their living, far in excess of the
> biological carrying capacity of the planet.
Precisely. And it's 15C cooler today. So perhaps mankind isn't responsible
for the earth's natural temperature record.
>> And if GW does exist
>
> Ding - another winner.
Ding! You're so cute!
> - if one only looks at meteorological instruments
>
> One doesn't, one uses all the scientific evidence
> at one's disposal, and there is a lot of it to use.
>
> explain the cooling period from 1940 to 1970.
>
> My GOD, you have just invalidated ALL climate science!
>
> I can't believe we missed that. Prepare for greatness Glapski!
>
> http://cosmic.lifeform.org
Explain it then. For extra credit, note how the correlation between
increasing man-made CO2 production and temperature is negative during this
time period.
Your parents never read you the story about the Emperor having no clothes,
right? Or else, you really loved it and want to be the Emperor.
Jefferson N Glapski
> X-No-archive: yes
>> Peter Principle wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Yeah, I mean just because the 10 warmest years ever recorded have
>>> occurred over the last 11 and just because last year was the warmest
>>> year in all of recorded history - despite no el Niño - doesn't mean
>>> it's really any warmer, right, genius?
>>
>> http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7x.html
>>
>> The earth has been MUCH warmer in the past.
>
> well have heated things up a bit, as, no doubt, did colliding with
> another planet.
Exactly. The temperature variations we are experiencing now are well within
expected temperatures, given the earth's history. Hell, even given the
earth's recent history.
The earth itself is still cooling, too.
Jefferson N Glapski
Ever heard of Richard Lindzen? He's one of those peer reviewed scientists
that you have no idea about.
> Surprising as it may be to you, this is not a terribly
> difficult skill to master.
You have problems dressing yourself.
Jefferson N Glapski
It all depends how you measure it. Sure, temperatures have risen from the
Little Ice Age, where New England papers complained of a year "without a
summer," or as you note, the actual ice age. But temperatures has fallen
from the Medieval Warm period.
When you ask someone if the price of something has risen or fallen, the
logical step is to ask, "Compared with what date?" The GW zombies who
blindly adhere to their dogma without asking that are simply being
dishonest.
Mike Smith
Yep... I ridicule you liberals ignorance on a daily basis, so I could
claim to be a bit of an expert on it...
Mike Smith
Jefferson N Glapski
> Mike Smith wrote:
>
>> BTW, global warming started about 18,000 years ago, and will continue
>> until we enter our next ice age. There is not much we can do, one way
>> or another, to affect that cycle.
>
Are you saying temperatures have fallen since the Ice Age? Please inform us!
Jefferson N Glapski
I played football against a Mike Smith too. I also watch a Mike Smith on a
cooking show!
As long as I don't have the goosesteppers like you on my side, I'll be able
to sleep at night.
Jefferson N Glapski
> Jefferson N Glapski wrote:
>>> Wunderkind wrote:
>>>> Mercellus Bohren wrote:
>>>>> This global warming thing is a crock.
>>>>> BIG CHUNKS OF ICE PEOPLE!!!111
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> BARROW, Alaska (AP) - Ridges of sea ice packing car-sized chunks
>>>>> of the cold stuff slammed onto a road in this northern Alaskan
>>>>> town in quantities not seen in nearly three decades.
>>>> but not uniformly. Global warming is and will be characterized by
>>>> abnormal and atypical events in all latitudes.
>>>>
>>>> WK
>>> Global warming is a misnomer to begin with. "Global Climate Change"
>>> is more accurate.
>>
>> So your argument is that
>
> you are an ignoramus. The evidence is conclusive.
If the evidence is conclusive, then why did you conveniently edit my
question, which was:
"So your argument is that the volatility of global temperature changes is
increasing? Is the skewness or kurtosis of global temperatures
increasing/decreasing/staying the change?"
I've never seen anyone try to answer that. The funny thing is that people
who make such claims don't have the slightest idea of what skewness or
kurtosis are. Like you, since I scared you into deleting them.
>> the volatility of global temperature changes is
>> increasing? Is the skewness or kurtosis of global temperatures
>> increasing/decreasing/staying the change?
>>
>> You haven't even established the first order effects that gave Global
>> Warming its reincarnation from Global Cooling in the 1970s. You will
>> need answers for the first three - and more importantly, proof,
>> because Global Warming becomes anything except a reason for left
>> wingers to try to add fascist controls to the economy.
>
> Ding! Ah yes. Since you can't falsify the hypothesis, demand proof!
Falsify the hypothesis? I work with statistics and probability distributions
every day. I deal with kurtosis and skewness every day. It is pretty obvious
what increasing the rate of change implies. The kurtosis was added as a
private joke, which I am sure you'll fail to understand - because it is
quite condescending.
Can anyone point me to ONE study regarding the increasing volatility of
global temperatures.
Can you tell me who or what ARCH is?
Chris Bellomy
: > X-No-archive: yes
: > Jefferson N Glapski wrote:
: >> Peter Principle wrote:
: >
: >>>> GW is a total crock.
: >>>
: >>> Yeah, I mean just because the 10 warmest years ever recorded have
: >>> occurred over the last 11 and just because last year was the warmest
: >>> it's really any warmer, right, genius?
: >>
: >> http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7x.html
: >>
: >> The earth has been MUCH warmer in the past.
: >
: > Um, much cooler, too. But, yes, I imagine being covered in lava might
: > well have heated things up a bit, as, no doubt, did colliding with
: > another planet.
:
: Exactly. The temperature variations we are experiencing now are well within
: expected temperatures, given the earth's history. Hell, even given the
: earth's recent history.
Nobody doubts whether the earth will survive. The question
is whether humans will.
Seems like a question that deserves better thought than you
give it. But then, one couls say that about any question.
Jefferson N Glapski
Geology. The forgotten but extremely relative science in this discussion.
2.5 billion years ago a significant event happened in the earth's
atmospheric history, as recorded by geologists. You think that every GW
schmuck would use this, but alas, it does not confirm with their political
viewpoint.
Jefferson N Glapski
> "Mercellus Bohren" <merce...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1138554122.1...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
>> Define the word "normal" with respect to geological time.
>
> No humans.
That still doesn't answer his question, but it does show your complete lack
of knowledge of the subject.
Coby Beck
news:tecDf.125134$m05.80274@clgrps12...
>
> It all depends how you measure it. Sure, temperatures have risen from the
> Little Ice Age, where New England papers complained of a year "without a
> summer," or as you note, the actual ice age. But temperatures has fallen
> from the Medieval Warm period.
>
> When you ask someone if the price of something has risen or fallen, the
> logical step is to ask, "Compared with what date?" The GW zombies who
> blindly adhere to their dogma without asking that are simply being
> dishonest.
REPOST:
The reliable instrumental record only goes back 145 years. This is a simple
fact that we are stuck with. The correct characterization of 2005 is to say
it was likely the warmest year in *at least* 145 years.
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig2-1.htm (this graph stops at
2001).
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/
An interesting comment from the GISS site:
"Record warmth in 2005 is notable, because global temperature has not
received any boost from a tropical El Niño this year. The 1998
meteorological year, on the contrary, was lifted 0.2°C above the trend line
by the strongest El Niño of the past century."
There is another direct measurement record that can tell us things about
temperature over the last 500 years and that is borehole measurements,
basically drilling a deep hole and measuring the temperature down there.
This gives us information about century scale temperature changes as warmer
or cooler pulses propogate down through the earth's crust, but it smooths
out short term or yearly flucuations. Read about it here:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/borehole/index.html see the temperature trend
here: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/pollack.html
Thus we can reasonably conclude that it is warmer now than any time in the
last 500 years though it is not possible to comment on individual years.
Using what are called "proxy data" it is possible to make reconstructions of
temperature much further back. There is solid reason to claim that the
temperature is higher now than it has been in the last 1 or even 2 thousand
years. The constructions avaliable are all slightly different but:
"they all show some similar patterns of temperature change over the last
several centuries. Most striking is the fact that each record reveals that
the 20th century is the warmest of the entire record, and that warming was
most dramatic after 1920"
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleolast.html
Thus we can reasonably say it is warmer now than any other time in the last
one thousand years.
The only other candidate for a higher temperature period going back through
the entire Holocene (~12000bp to now) is called the Holocene Climatic
Optimum some 6000 years ago. It is not known exactly what the temperatures
were but they may have been as warm as now. I think that conclusion is less
likely as it has been determined that the anamolous warmth of that time was
actually only in the nothern hemisphere and only in the winter.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/holocene.html
Wikipedia has a nice graph of many reconstructions of Holocene temperature
all superimposed also with an average of all of them together:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png
Thus one can reasonably believe that it is warmer now than at any other time
in the last 12000 years.
Before the current interglacial period the planet was in the grip of a much
cooler glacial period with ice sheets well down into the continental US.
This 450Kyr record can be read in antarctic ice core analyses.
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig2-22.htm
Thus we can say that if our reading of the Holocene is correct, it is warmer
now than at any other time in over the last 100,000 years. That is the
entire history of our species, admittedly a blip on the geological timescale
that covers 4.5 billion years.
Considering that during some stages of this 4.5 billion years of history the
planet would not have supported any life, let alone humans, this geological
timescale is of very questionable relevance. The Holocene certainly covers
the entire history of human civilization: agriculture, cities..that kind of
thing, and it has been very stable til now. There is a strong case to made
that our civilizations would not have developed without this stability.
Our species has only been on the scene for 100K yrs. CO2 levels today are
higher now than at anytime in at least the past 650Kyrs, probably almost one
million.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=221
That is a large sample for a small thing like the human species.
END REPOST
Coby Beck
> Geology. The forgotten but extremely relative science in this discussion.
>
> 2.5 billion years ago a significant event happened in the earth's
> atmospheric history, as recorded by geologists. You think that every GW
> schmuck would use this, but alas, it does not confirm with their political
> viewpoint.
I don't know what happened 2.5 billion years ago, hopefully there is some
relevance to today, maybe you will be less evasive.
An interesting event happened 55 million years ago and that says a lot
abouit what may befall the planet now and for the next 100K years. Google
for Paleocene/Eocene Thermal Maximum
Coby Beck
> Coby Beck wrote:
>> "Mercellus Bohren" <merce...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1138554122.1...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> Define the word "normal" with respect to geological time.
>>
>> No humans.
>
> That still doesn't answer his question, but it does show your complete
> lack of knowledge of the subject.
How so? Have humans existed during most of the geological history of this
planet? If not, then perhaps you will see my point that it is not
immediately clear why a varied geological history should be reassurance in
the face of current climate changes.
Wunderkind
WK
Coby Beck
>> We know the global temperature is rising. Nobody disputes
>> this. The only thing in question (and it's in question only
>> in political circles, the scientists are about as in con-
>> sensus on this as scientists ever get) is whether the warming
>> is attributable to human activity.
>
> There is doubt on this, and it centers around time period.
>
> http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/essd12mar97_1.htm
This is seven year old, overturned research. The same people who did the
analysis you are pointing to have corrected numerous errors several times
over the years and their latest analysis reveals the same kind of warming as
seen everywhere else. But 7 years old is just a blip in geological time,
right?
All the various temperature records and indicators agree.
Satellite and Radio sondes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=170
Instrumental records:
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig2-1.htm
Borehole analysis:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/pollack.html
Glacial melt observations:
http://nsidc.org/sotc/glacier_balance.html
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=129
Sea ice melt:
http://nsidc.org/news/press/20050928_trendscontinue.html
Sea level rise:
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
Aren't you tired of fighting off reality yet?
> And since the earth has been warmer in the past, prior to mankind, it is
> pretty obvious that the temperature movements we've seen are not due to
> man's activity.
Complete illogic, as you must know.
> Anthropogenic Contribution to the Greenhouse Effect,
> expressed as a Percentage of Total (Water Vapor Included) Based on
> concentrations (ppb) adjusted for heat retention characteristics % of All
> Greenhouse Gases % Natural % Man-made
> Water vapor 95.000% 94.999%
> 0.001%
> Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 3.618% 3.502%
> 0.117%
> Methane (CH4) 0.360% 0.294%
> 0.066%
> Nitrous Oxide (N2O) 0.950% 0.903%
> 0.047%
> Misc. gases ( CFC's, etc.) 0.072% 0.025%
> 0.047%
> Total 100.00% 99.72
> 0.28%
What is your source for these numbers? According to all of the scientific
literature and climate experts I have read, CO2 contributes about 20-30% to
the overall greenhouse effect. The precision of your numbers and the fact
that they do not add up to more than 100% (as they should do to overlapping
and saturation of absorbtion bands) suggests it is not a scientific source.
Please see this paper:
http://www.atmo.arizona.edu/students/courselinks/spring04/atmo451b/pdf/RadiationBudget.pdf
The textbook reference here:
http://www.radix.net/~bobg/climate/halpern.trap.html
and the article at RealClimate here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=220
Coby Beck
> Peter Principle wrote:
>> Yeah, I mean just because the 10 warmest years ever recorded have
>> occurred over the last 11 and just because last year was the warmest
>> it's really any warmer, right, genius?
>
> http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7x.html
>
> The earth has been MUCH warmer in the past.
>
> history of the Earth's past climate. From this data they have found that
> during most of the Earth's history global temperatures were probably 8 to
> 15° Celsius warmer than today."
Why don't you also tell us how oxygen levels for most of this time were well
below what we have today? In short: so what?? "Venus has *way* more CO2 in
its atmosphere, so why are we complaining?" (I guess there is a less
intelligent point to make after all...)
> And if GW does exist - if one only looks at meteorological instruments (a
> dumb idea) - explain the cooling period from 1940 to 1970.
Since it is clear you know very little about this issue, I highly recommend
beginning your education here:
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm
As for your specific question, the cooling in mid 20th century was due to
particulate aurosol pollution. Google for the phrase "global dimming" it is
still a subject of debate and uncertainty for the future.
stephenj
> "Jefferson N Glapski" <jeffers...@PENNSTATEglapski.com> wrote in message
> Our species has only been on the scene for 100K yrs. CO2 levels today are
> higher now than at anytime in at least the past 650Kyrs, probably almost one
> million.
ok, so CO2 levels have been higher than they are now some time in the
pre-human past, right?
--
"when i visited Aden before collectivization,
all the markets were full of fish product. After
collectivization, the fish immediately disappeared."
- Aleksandr Vassiliev, Soviet KGB official
Jefferson N Glapski
> Jefferson N Glapski wrote:
>>> Jefferson N Glapski wrote:
>>>> Peter Principle wrote:
>>>>> Bryan S. Slick wrote:
>>>>>> At about Sun, 29 Jan 2006 00:00:09 GMT, Chris Bellomy was dragged
>>>>>> into the street and beaten by an angry mob for writing..
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In alt.fan.mike-dahmus Bryan S. Slick <onyx_...@yahoo.cem>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> At about Sat, 28 Jan 2006 22:07:08 GMT, Chris Bellomy was
>>>>>>>> dragged into the street and beaten by an angry mob for
>>>>>>>> writing..
>>>>>>>>> In alt.fan.mike-dahmus Mercellus Bohren <merce...@yahoo.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> This global warming thing is a crock.
>>>>>>>>>> BIG CHUNKS OF ICE PEOPLE!!!111
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Think real hard about this.
>>>>>>>> You can't possibly be serious.
>>>>>>> You know. Physics. This is really really simple.
>>>>>> Chris.. if you think that the ice chunks mentioned are evidence
>>>>>> of warming because of the very local phenomenon of humongous
>>>>>> chunks melting (from the *horror music* .. GLO-BAL.. WAR-MING!!!,
>>>>>> don'tchaknow!) and breaking into smaller ones is evidence for
>>>>>> worldwide GW.. come on.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> GW is a total crock.
>>>>> occurred over the last 11 and just because last year was the
>>>>> warmest year in all of recorded history - despite no el Niño -
>>>>> doesn't mean it's really any warmer, right, genius?
>>>> http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7x.html
>>>>
>>>> The earth has been MUCH warmer in the past.
>>>>
>>>> "Climatologists have used various techniques and evidence to
>>>> reconstruct a history of the Earth's past climate. From this data
>>>> they have found that during most of the Earth's history global
>>>> temperatures were probably 8 to 15° Celsius warmer than today."
>>> totally dependent upon hydrocarbon combustion
>>> to make their living, far in excess of the
>>> biological carrying capacity of the planet.
>>
>> Precisely.
>
> Ding! Without a single number or equation even.
Perhaps you should make yourself familiar with boundary conditions.
8, 15 and six billion are numbers. Are you disputing that the earth wasn't
8-15C warmer back then?
>> And it's 15C cooler today. So perhaps mankind isn't responsible
>> for the earth's natural temperature record.
>
> Ignorance is still stunning to observe in its native habitat.
Your native habitat is in front of a mirror?
Jefferson N Glapski
Your "thoughts" are merely assertions. Like your assumption that increases
in fascist regulations won't have any negative consequences, and that global
warming is entirely bad and that you can predict the future. If GW does
occur, it is pretty obvious that nobody knows how it will effect everything
and anything. Wouldn't making the treeline a thing of the past have some
positive consequences? That may or may not happen, but its certainly
credible.
Jefferson N Glapski
> X-No-archive: yes
> Jefferson N Glapski wrote:
>> Peter Principle wrote:
>>> Jefferson N Glapski wrote:
>>>> Peter Principle wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> GW is a total crock.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah, I mean just because the 10 warmest years ever recorded have
>>>>> occurred over the last 11 and just because last year was the
>>>>> doesn't mean it's really any warmer, right, genius?
>>>>
>>>> http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7x.html
>>>>
>>>> The earth has been MUCH warmer in the past.
>>>
>>> Um, much cooler, too. But, yes, I imagine being covered in lava
>>> might well have heated things up a bit, as, no doubt, did colliding
>>> with another planet.
>>
>> Exactly. The temperature variations we are experiencing now are well
>> within expected temperatures, given the earth's history. Hell, even
>> given the earth's recent history.
>>
>
> Pay no attention to that slight buzzing sound. It is but one more in
> an apparently endless stream of points whizzing undetected over your
> empty pate.
You are familiar with what magma is, right? I got your pedestrian point and
made another point that flew over your head. With the earth still cooling,
that has a lesser impact on raising atmospheric temperatures. By how much,
who knows? Hell, even the sign could be up to question. We've seen with the
greatest addition of CO2 in the past 25 years - thanks Ma Nature! - that a
cooling took place.
Jefferson N Glapski
> Jefferson N Glapski wrote:
>> Peter Principle wrote:
>>> X-No-archive: yes
>>> Jefferson N Glapski wrote:
>>>> Peter Principle wrote:
>>>>>> GW is a total crock.
>>>>> Yeah, I mean just because the 10 warmest years ever recorded have
>>>>> occurred over the last 11 and just because last year was the
>>>>> warmest year in all of recorded history - despite no el Niño -
>>>>> doesn't mean it's really any warmer, right, genius?
>>>> http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7x.html
>>>>
>>>> The earth has been MUCH warmer in the past.
>>> Um, much cooler, too. But, yes, I imagine being covered in lava
>>> might well have heated things up a bit, as, no doubt, did colliding
>>> with another planet.
>>
>> Exactly.
>
>
>> The temperature variations we are experiencing now are well within
>> expected temperatures, given the earth's history. Hell, even given
>> the earth's recent history.
>
Ignoramus is not a Latin noun, idiot. It's the first person plural present
indicative of the verb ignoro. Thus, the common idea of pluralizing Latin
words ending in -us with an -i suffix makes no sense. And even if it were a
noun, the plural would be ignorami, or ignoramus (with a bar over the u),
depending on the declension. It would never be termed ignoramii.
Thus, it is quite unintentionally brilliant that use this as your sig.
Quando podeces te regi eorum fecerunt? Cunnus.
Jefferson N Glapski
> Jefferson N Glapski wrote:
>>> In alt.fan.mike-dahmus Jefferson N Glapski
>>> <jeffers...@pennstateglapski.com> wrote:
>>>> Chris Bellomy wrote:
>>>>>> "Randy Howard" <randy...@FOOverizonBAR.net> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:0001HW.C0019A0A...@news.verizon.net...
>>>>>>> Bryan S. Slick wrote
>>>>>>> (in article <MPG.1e45d1a77...@news-40.giganews.com>):
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> GW is a total crock.
>>>>>>> very long cycles on this planet for a r e a l l y long time.
>>>>>> Have a look at this graph to see how natural what is going on now
>>>>>> is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What is a crock is those that think they know what the cause of
>>>>>>> it is. Keep in mind that Mars seems to be in the same cycle we
>>>>>>> are right now
>>>>>> Two snapshots of one ice escarpment and we have people claiming
>>>>>> an equivalence with 150 years of direct surface measurements,
>>>>>> 2000 years of proxy reconstructions and mountains of other data.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ridiculous.
>>>>>> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192
>>>>> Why do you hate Charlton Heston?
>>>>>
>>>>> (It's amazing how this issue brings out the Usenet pseudo-
>>>>> scientists who puff out their chests and act like they know
>>>>> better than the real deal, blissfully unaware of their own
>>>>> desperation to be taken seriously, equally unaware that
>>>>> they're not.)
>>>> In other posts, you claim you lacked scientific expertise. In the
>>>> time between that post and this one, you've apparently obtained a
>>>> doctorate in a related field.
>>> No, I can just tell the difference between actual peer-
>>> reviewed scientists on one hand, and wankers like you on
>>> the other.
>>
>> Ever heard of Richard Lindzen? He's one of those peer reviewed
>> scientists that you have no idea about.
>
> You mean the Richard Lindzen that said this :
>
> "Picking holes in the IPCC is crucial. The notion that if you’re
> ignorant of something and somebody comes up with a wrong answer, and
> you have to accept that because you don’t have another wrong answer
> to offer is like faith healing, it’s like quackery in medicine – if
> somebody says you should take jelly beans for cancer and you say
> that’s stupid, and he says, well can you suggest something else and
> you say, no, does that mean you have to go with jelly beans?"
>
> I think we can safely disregard Lindzen.
Why? Your loss of credibility with your apoplectic responses extends to
every other area of your life.
Be a good slave and reference your quote.