Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: Climate slowdown means extreme rates of warming 'not as likely'? Who are you kidding, David?
1 view
Skip to first unread message
Man of Mind
May 21, 2013, 9:59:52 AM5/21/13
to
On 5/21/2013 7:14 AM, David Hartung wrote:
> On 05/21/2013 06:11 AM, Man of Mind wrote:
>> On 5/20/2013 10:45 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>
>> Still trying to parade this worthless pseudo-science around, eh?
>>
>>> If the climate researchers got the predictions for the past 15 years
>>> wrong,
>>
>> Incorrect..
>>
>> http://grist.org/climate-energy/global-warming-stopped-in-1998/
>
> The article to which I linked was posted two days ago,
> and has as one of its prime sources a research paper
> published on that same day
You neglected to mention that your article states clearly
that "But long-term, the expected temperature rises will
not alter significantly", and speaks to 'climate sensitivity'.
> From where I sit, the BBC article makes use of recent research,
> and should be seriously considered
Nah, it has an even larger range of 'uncertainty'..
"It is a bigger range of uncertainty," said Dr Otto.
"But it still includes the old range. We would all
like climate sensitivity to be lower but it isn't."
> As I say repeatedly, the fact that temperatures averages have
> been warmer is inescapable, the issue is why.
There is no question as to why, except for you begging
the 'question', David. The volume of air in our troposphere
is finite, and we keep adding an estimated 30 billion tons
of carbon dioxide to that finite volume of air every year..
Quibbling endlessly about this does nothing to improve
the situation, and pretending that it will wreck our
national economy is just another quaint rationalization
being spoon-fed to you by those who stand to lose the
obscene profits they're already making..
> At this point I am not willing to blame mankind
That's your problem..
> especially since such blaming always seems to include
> the USA as the bad guy.
Don't take it so personally, after all, decades of exploiting
other nations and manufacturing your consent, it is indeed
much easier to fool you than to convince you that you've been
fooled..
--
"The Republicans are the party that says
government doesn't work and then they get
elected and prove it." --P. J. O'Rourke
> On 05/21/2013 06:11 AM, Man of Mind wrote:
>> On 5/20/2013 10:45 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>
>> Still trying to parade this worthless pseudo-science around, eh?
>>
>>> If the climate researchers got the predictions for the past 15 years
>>> wrong,
>>
>> Incorrect..
>>
>> http://grist.org/climate-energy/global-warming-stopped-in-1998/
>
> The article to which I linked was posted two days ago,
> and has as one of its prime sources a research paper
> published on that same day
You neglected to mention that your article states clearly
that "But long-term, the expected temperature rises will
not alter significantly", and speaks to 'climate sensitivity'.
> From where I sit, the BBC article makes use of recent research,
> and should be seriously considered
Nah, it has an even larger range of 'uncertainty'..
"It is a bigger range of uncertainty," said Dr Otto.
"But it still includes the old range. We would all
like climate sensitivity to be lower but it isn't."
> As I say repeatedly, the fact that temperatures averages have
> been warmer is inescapable, the issue is why.
There is no question as to why, except for you begging
the 'question', David. The volume of air in our troposphere
is finite, and we keep adding an estimated 30 billion tons
of carbon dioxide to that finite volume of air every year..
Quibbling endlessly about this does nothing to improve
the situation, and pretending that it will wreck our
national economy is just another quaint rationalization
being spoon-fed to you by those who stand to lose the
obscene profits they're already making..
> At this point I am not willing to blame mankind
That's your problem..
> especially since such blaming always seems to include
> the USA as the bad guy.
Don't take it so personally, after all, decades of exploiting
other nations and manufacturing your consent, it is indeed
much easier to fool you than to convince you that you've been
fooled..
--
"The Republicans are the party that says
government doesn't work and then they get
elected and prove it." --P. J. O'Rourke
David Hartung
May 21, 2013, 10:28:42 AM5/21/13
to
On 05/21/2013 08:59 AM, Man of Mind wrote:
> On 5/21/2013 7:14 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>> On 05/21/2013 06:11 AM, Man of Mind wrote:
>>> On 5/20/2013 10:45 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>
>>> Still trying to parade this worthless pseudo-science around, eh?
>>>
>>>> If the climate researchers got the predictions for the past 15 years
>>>> wrong,
>>>
>>> Incorrect..
>>>
>>> http://grist.org/climate-energy/global-warming-stopped-in-1998/
>>
>> The article to which I linked was posted two days ago,
>> and has as one of its prime sources a research paper
>> published on that same day
>
> You neglected to mention that your article states clearly
> that "But long-term, the expected temperature rises will
> not alter significantly", and speaks to 'climate sensitivity'.
You may wish to go back and read y original post again.
> On 5/21/2013 7:14 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>> On 05/21/2013 06:11 AM, Man of Mind wrote:
>>> On 5/20/2013 10:45 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>
>>> Still trying to parade this worthless pseudo-science around, eh?
>>>
>>>> If the climate researchers got the predictions for the past 15 years
>>>> wrong,
>>>
>>> Incorrect..
>>>
>>> http://grist.org/climate-energy/global-warming-stopped-in-1998/
>>
>> The article to which I linked was posted two days ago,
>> and has as one of its prime sources a research paper
>> published on that same day
>
> You neglected to mention that your article states clearly
> that "But long-term, the expected temperature rises will
> not alter significantly", and speaks to 'climate sensitivity'.
>> From where I sit, the BBC article makes use of recent research,
>> and should be seriously considered
>
> Nah, it has an even larger range of 'uncertainty'..
>
> "It is a bigger range of uncertainty," said Dr Otto.
>
> "But it still includes the old range. We would all
> like climate sensitivity to be lower but it isn't."
>
>> As I say repeatedly, the fact that temperatures averages have
>> been warmer is inescapable, the issue is why.
>
> There is no question as to why, except for you begging
> the 'question', David. The volume of air in our troposphere
> is finite, and we keep adding an estimated 30 billion tons
> of carbon dioxide to that finite volume of air every year..
>
> Quibbling endlessly about this does nothing to improve
> the situation, and pretending that it will wreck our
> national economy is just another quaint rationalization
> being spoon-fed to you by those who stand to lose the
> obscene profits they're already making..
>
>> At this point I am not willing to blame mankind
>
> That's your problem..
Man of Mind
May 21, 2013, 10:42:30 AM5/21/13
to
On 5/21/2013 9:28 AM, David Hartung wrote:
> On 05/21/2013 08:59 AM, Man of Mind wrote:
>> On 5/21/2013 7:14 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>> On 05/21/2013 06:11 AM, Man of Mind wrote:
>>>> On 5/20/2013 10:45 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Still trying to parade this worthless pseudo-science around, eh?
>>>>
>>>>> If the climate researchers got the predictions for the past 15 years
>>>>> wrong,
>>>>
>>>> Incorrect..
>>>>
>>>> http://grist.org/climate-energy/global-warming-stopped-in-1998/
>>>
>>> The article to which I linked was posted two days ago,
>>> and has as one of its prime sources a research paper
>>> published on that same day
>>
>> You neglected to mention that your article states clearly
>> that "But long-term, the expected temperature rises will
>> not alter significantly", and speaks to 'climate sensitivity'.
>
> You may wish to go back and read y original post again.
David, I've read your 'original post', followed up by
> On 05/21/2013 08:59 AM, Man of Mind wrote:
>> On 5/21/2013 7:14 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>> On 05/21/2013 06:11 AM, Man of Mind wrote:
>>>> On 5/20/2013 10:45 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Still trying to parade this worthless pseudo-science around, eh?
>>>>
>>>>> If the climate researchers got the predictions for the past 15 years
>>>>> wrong,
>>>>
>>>> Incorrect..
>>>>
>>>> http://grist.org/climate-energy/global-warming-stopped-in-1998/
>>>
>>> The article to which I linked was posted two days ago,
>>> and has as one of its prime sources a research paper
>>> published on that same day
>>
>> You neglected to mention that your article states clearly
>> that "But long-term, the expected temperature rises will
>> not alter significantly", and speaks to 'climate sensitivity'.
>
> You may wish to go back and read y original post again.
reading the abstract it was derived from, and even quoted
directly from the article you cited.
You're batting 0.000 again..
>>> From where I sit, the BBC article makes use of recent research,
>>> and should be seriously considered
>>
>> Nah, it has an even larger range of 'uncertainty'..
>>
>> "It is a bigger range of uncertainty," said Dr Otto.
>>
>> "But it still includes the old range. We would all
>> like climate sensitivity to be lower but it isn't."
>>
>>> As I say repeatedly, the fact that temperatures averages have
>>> been warmer is inescapable, the issue is why.
>>
>> There is no question as to why, except for you begging
>> the 'question', David. The volume of air in our troposphere
>> is finite, and we keep adding an estimated 30 billion tons
>> of carbon dioxide to that finite volume of air every year..
>>
>> Quibbling endlessly about this does nothing to improve
>> the situation, and pretending that it will wreck our
>> national economy is just another quaint rationalization
>> being spoon-fed to you by those who stand to lose the
>> obscene profits they're already making..
>>
>>> At this point I am not willing to blame mankind
>>
>> That's your problem..
>
> Perhaps.
task for it. We cannot continue to mindlessly ignore the
ecological impacts that your head-long rush towards final
extinction is causing.. Who do you think you're kidding?
Besides yourself, that is..
wy
May 21, 2013, 2:58:29 PM5/21/13
to
million threshold in CO2 emissions for the first time in history.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/may/14/record-400ppm-co2-carbon-emissions
AM
May 21, 2013, 8:12:43 PM5/21/13
to
On 5/21/2013 10:42 AM, Man of Mind wrote:
> Yup, and when you cause problems for me, I will take you to
> task for it. We cannot continue to mindlessly ignore the
> ecological impacts that your head-long rush towards final
> extinction is causing.. Who do you think you're kidding?
>
You could have just said, We Are All Going To Die...
> Yup, and when you cause problems for me, I will take you to
> task for it. We cannot continue to mindlessly ignore the
> ecological impacts that your head-long rush towards final
> extinction is causing.. Who do you think you're kidding?
>
We get it already
Yawn..........
> Besides yourself, that is..
Nice personal attack.
And you wonder why people don't believe in AGW. I mean if the science is
that good, personal attacks would not be required would they ?
I guess bullying by kid's at school is a no no for leftists, but
cyberbullying others who are not dedicated leftists on the net is OK for
the leftists ?
Wow............
opel
May 22, 2013, 11:43:32 PM5/22/13
to
On 5/21/2013 12:58 PM, wy wrote:
> we've just recently surpassed the 400 parts per
> million threshold in CO2 emissions
Amazing the climate has been cooling for 16 years, eh?
> we've just recently surpassed the 400 parts per
> million threshold in CO2 emissions
0 new messages