OT: Global Climate Change: 56 years of Warning
Desertphile
specifically the history behind warnings from scientists about
global warming since 1953, is available from greenman3610:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XB3S0fnOr0M
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
VoiceOfReason
wrote:
> Yet another fine YouTube video about global climate change and
> specifically the history behind warnings from scientists about
> global warming since 1953, is available from greenman3610:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XB3S0fnOr0M
I saw that one the other day. Good video. But of course, GW deniers
ignore facts just like evolution deniers.
Nashton
We're all glad that 2 of the dumbest posters to ever have created an
account on Usenet and used it, agree with each other.
Dave Fritzinger
You're in the wrong thread, but, yeah, you and ASI do seem to agree on
most things...
VoiceOfReason
Be gone, twerpazoid.
David Hare-Scott
When you have no actual argument resort to insult. Just standard procedure
for you.
David
Ye Old One
group when s/he wrote:
>We're all glad that 2 of the dumbest posters to ever have created an
>account on Usenet and used it, agree with each other.
Yep, you and Mudbrain were really made for each other.
--
Bob.
NashtOff - the moron who claimed "All drugs are derived from the ToE."
Paul J Gans
All it proves is that the Global Warming Conspiracy has been
at it far longer than any of us has expected. You might almost
think that it had some facts going for it.
Nah, couldn't be...
--
--- Paul J. Gans
Robert Grumbine
loony climate column of the year, Fred Hiatt (editor in chief of
the Washington Post's editorial page -- Will's home) rapidly concluded
that there was some organized attack on Will and the Post. It was
impossible that so many people were independantly writing in saying
that Will had made the same errors. Certainly couldn't be that Will
had, in fact, been wrong about those points.
In the followup, the Ombudsman went in to more detail and said
that the Post had a 'multilevel fact checking' process for Will's
editorial. The 'fact checking' apparently consisted of observing
that Will (or his flunkies) had submitted 20 links to support his
claims. I made this (and the Post links are there as well) a game
on my blog -- challenging folks to find 20 links to support
any given untrue claim of their choice. Nobody found it very
difficult:
http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/2009/03/20-links-game.html
Of course Will was indeed wrong. Will's column ran, syndicated
of course, on a Sunday (biggest circulation of the week). Hiatt
refused to publish any corrective letters to the editor until
5 weeks later. He then ran them on a Saturday (lowest circulation
of the week) and, of course, they weren't syndicated.
People keep claiming there's 'liberal media' in the country.
Maybe they can point me to it. The Post surely is not such a thing.
Back to the original -- the fellow who does the youtube videos
mentioned tries to get his facts right. I sometimes am seeing
his requests for sources, verification, clarification before he
releases a video.
--
Robert Grumbine http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/ Science blog
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
Desertphile
Oh, but it *IS!* Al Gore was only five years old when he started
the myth of global warming, and according to the records shown in
the video he used staunch Republican conservatives to perpetuate
that myth. Oh, the perfidity!
Paul J Gans
Imagine the hue and cry if some major figure in US Government
(or the press, for that matter) came out strongly defending the
idea of a flat earth. And further imagine if he (or she)
stated that there was a vast conspiracy on the part of the "round
earthers" to hide that truth.
Now imagine what would happen if some major figure in the US Government
(or the press, for that matter) came out strongly defending teh
idea that there is NO global warming.
Well, you get the idea.
In my view they are all cowards. Most of them know better, but
they go where the money and the political pressure point them.
As a result we (i.e. the humans) are going down the drain.
Even the NYTimes, which is what passes for a "liberal" newspaper
these days, will print pro-warming stories but will fail to
label deniers in the terms they deserve, i.e, delusional, or,
more often, simple liars. So they mostly satisfy both sides.
I'd personally be willing to go down the medical care road and
do away with "human caused" global warming if I could get somebody
in government or the media to demand that we accept that global
warming, no matter what the cause, is here and that we have to
plan to do something about it. Is anyone even making estimates
as to where we would relocate the entire population of south
Florida? How we are going to take care of the enormous populations
living in what are already deserts? Anybody even care what fraction
of our airports are within 10 feet of sea level and will flood in
any major storm in the late 21st century?
> Back to the original -- the fellow who does the youtube videos
>mentioned tries to get his facts right. I sometimes am seeing
>his requests for sources, verification, clarification before he
>releases a video.
Well, there is a well-organized climate conspiracy, but it isn't
the global warming folks. It is the deniers, and they can and
will ruin you if you make too much noise.
Paul J Gans
>On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 02:45:34 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
><gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>> VoiceOfReason <papa...@cybertown.com> wrote:
>> >On Dec 14, 9:49 pm, Desertphile <desertph...@invalid-address.net>
>> >wrote:
>> >> Yet another fine YouTube video about global climate change and
>> >> specifically the history behind warnings from scientists about
>> >> global warming since 1953, is available from greenman3610:
>> >>
>> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XB3S0fnOr0M
>> >I saw that one the other day. Good video. But of course, GW deniers
>> >ignore facts just like evolution deniers.
>
>> All it proves is that the Global Warming Conspiracy has been
>> at it far longer than any of us has expected. You might almost
>> think that it had some facts going for it.
>>
>> Nah, couldn't be...
>Oh, but it *IS!* Al Gore was only five years old when he started
>the myth of global warming, and according to the records shown in
>the video he used staunch Republican conservatives to perpetuate
>that myth. Oh, the perfidity!
There you go, folks! Proof positive that the conspiracy exists!!!
Robert Grumbine
> Robert Grumbine <bo...@saltmine.radix.net> wrote:
>>In article <hg9hke$mh8$1...@reader1.panix.com>, Paul J Gans wrote:
[trim]
True, though I am starting to think there wouldn't be much objection
to the flat earther either. We're truly heading for that promised
land of relativism.
> In my view they are all cowards. Most of them know better, but
> they go where the money and the political pressure point them.
> As a result we (i.e. the humans) are going down the drain.
>
> Even the NYTimes, which is what passes for a "liberal" newspaper
> these days, will print pro-warming stories but will fail to
> label deniers in the terms they deserve, i.e, delusional, or,
> more often, simple liars. So they mostly satisfy both sides.
Any more, they're awfully inclined to 'he said, she said'
reporting. Quote from a scientist, and from a whack job, and
equate the two positions under 'some think this, some think that'.
Andy Revkin used to be consistently pretty good, but lately has
gone even to making most of the story what the whack job had to
say. That will shortly not matter as the Times is also giving
him early retirement, to be replaced by press releases, it seems.
> I'd personally be willing to go down the medical care road and
> do away with "human caused" global warming if I could get somebody
> in government or the media to demand that we accept that global
> warming, no matter what the cause, is here and that we have to
> plan to do something about it. Is anyone even making estimates
> as to where we would relocate the entire population of south
> Florida?
No, but there are already estimates for how expensive it would
be to build a dike around most of Florida. Then add the Atlantic
coast of the US. Don't have to worry so much about the Pacific
as the coast is steeper and less sandy, but still many large
cities (ports). And Alaska. The numbers rapidly exceed things
like the total military budget or the bank bailout. And this is
just one of the many climate change effects on us.
> How we are going to take care of the enormous populations
> living in what are already deserts? Anybody even care what fraction
> of our airports are within 10 feet of sea level and will flood in
> any major storm in the late 21st century?
Boston within 30 years, perhaps already. I haven't been watching
it closely, but did land at Logan in 1992, which looked even then
to be an ocean landing.
>> Back to the original -- the fellow who does the youtube videos
>>mentioned tries to get his facts right. I sometimes am seeing
>>his requests for sources, verification, clarification before he
>>releases a video.
>
> Well, there is a well-organized climate conspiracy, but it isn't
> the global warming folks. It is the deniers, and they can and
> will ruin you if you make too much noise.
That vein is how I know I'm not having much effect with my
blog. Ok, not that mine is really aimed that way either.
There hardly needs to be much organization against the science.
The science message is scary, the anti-science message sounds friendly.
The science message involves uncertainties*, the anti-science message
is absolutely certain. The science message means discussing planned
change, the anti-science message means ignoring all change until after
it's too late. Science involves fighting inertia, anti-science
involves arguing in favor of inertia.
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Too bad we no
longer believe in such aphorisms. (Went the way of 'work ethic',
'ingenuity', 'sweat equity', and the like.)
Michael Siemon
Robert Grumbine <bo...@saltmine.radix.net> wrote:
...
> > Well, there is a well-organized climate conspiracy, but it isn't
> > the global warming folks. It is the deniers, and they can and
> > will ruin you if you make too much noise.
>
> That vein is how I know I'm not having much effect with my
> blog. Ok, not that mine is really aimed that way either.
>
> There hardly needs to be much organization against the science.
> The science message is scary, the anti-science message sounds friendly.
> The science message involves uncertainties*, the anti-science message
> is absolutely certain. The science message means discussing planned
> change, the anti-science message means ignoring all change until after
> it's too late. Science involves fighting inertia, anti-science
> involves arguing in favor of inertia.
>
> An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Too bad we no
> longer believe in such aphorisms. (Went the way of 'work ethic',
> 'ingenuity', 'sweat equity', and the like.)
Yes; and we will reap what _they_ sow. And they will blame us.
Desertphile
Golly, the Washington Post as usual has abandoned reality and all
sense of ethics and morals, to repeat common lies:
1. Claims that scientists (especially climatologists) were united
in concerns over Global Cooling in 1970s.
2. States that sea ice is same today as 1979. At best, misleading
and disingenuous. And, his source disagrees with him.
3. States that there has been no global warming for a decade. At
absolute best, misleading and disingenuous. And, his source
disagrees with him.
> Of course Will was indeed wrong. Will's column ran, syndicated
> of course, on a Sunday (biggest circulation of the week). Hiatt
> refused to publish any corrective letters to the editor until
> 5 weeks later. He then ran them on a Saturday (lowest circulation
> of the week) and, of course, they weren't syndicated.
>
> People keep claiming there's 'liberal media' in the country.
> Maybe they can point me to it. The Post surely is not such a thing.
Any news source that was "liberal" in the USA would not last more
than a month, at best. It wouldn't find any advertisers.
> Back to the original -- the fellow who does the youtube videos
> mentioned tries to get his facts right. I sometimes am seeing
> his requests for sources, verification, clarification before he
> releases a video.
--
Ray Martinez
wrote:
> Yet another fine YouTube video about global climate change and
> specifically the history behind warnings from scientists about
> global warming since 1953, is available from greenman3610:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XB3S0fnOr0M
>
> Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
> "Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
[EDITED VERSION; FIRST MESSAGE DELETED DUE TO ERROR]
The Copenhagen protesters (= evolutionists) and their "sky is falling"
secular apocalypse fanaticism, is somewhat amusing. These misguided
souls have placed their trust in a fraudulent interpretation of
scientific data. No one really disputes some degree of warming, the
issue is cause. GW is a natural cycle that was scheduled to happen
anyway. The polar ice cap is not ancient. Ten years from now these
idiots and their scientists will have egg on their face. The world
will go on and get what's really coming to them as End Time events, as
predicted in the Book of Revelation, will continue to unfold. God will
preserve this world so He can mete out His wrath on a world that has
rejected His Son and Word. As a matter of principle we throw all of
our recycleables away; buy SUVs; and gloat over the fact that
developing nations hold all of the cards.
Ray
Robert Grumbine
"I've got mine, screw the rest of you." Not an original moral
philosophy, and somehow I'm not surprised to see it espoused by
this serial liar.
Ye Old One
<pyram...@yahoo.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Dec 14, 6:49�pm, Desertphile <desertph...@invalid-address.net>
>wrote:
>> Yet another fine YouTube video about global climate change and
>> specifically the history behind warnings from scientists about
>> global warming since 1953, is available from greenman3610:
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XB3S0fnOr0M
>>
>> Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
>> "Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
>
>The Copenhagen protesters (= evolutionists) and their "sky is falling"
>secular apocalypse fanaticism, is somewhat amusing. These misguided
>souls have placed their trust in a fraudulent interpretation of
>scientific data.
Wrong, as usual.
> No one really disputes some degree of warming, the
>issue is cause. GW is a natural cycle that was scheduled to happen
>anyway.
No, in fact we should be moving back into an ice age by now.
>The polar ice cap is not ancient.
Ah! So how old do you think they are Dishonest Ray?
> Ten years from now these
>idiots are their scientists will have egg on their face. The world
>will go on
Of course it will. Humans have survived far worse before. However, our
projected population may not survive. Sure, we can take the heat, but
we would need to reduce our population dramatically if we want to
have anything like our current standard of living.
> and get what's really coming to them as End Time events, as
>predicted in the Book of Revelation,
Fairy stories again Dishonest Ray.
> will continue to unfold. God will
>preserve this world so He can mete out His wrath on a world that has
>rejected His Son and Word. As a matter of principle we throw all of
>our recycleables away; buy SUVs;
You are too poor to afford to even has such a luxury.
> and gloat over the fact that
>developing nations hold all of the cards.
>
>Ray
--
Bob.
If brains were dynamite, you wouldn't have enough to blow your nose.
Desertphile
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Dec 14, 6:49�pm, Desertphile <desertph...@invalid-address.net>
> wrote:
> > Yet another fine YouTube video about global climate change and
> > specifically the history behind warnings from scientists about
> > global warming since 1953, is available from greenman3610:
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XB3S0fnOr0M
> The Copenhagen protesters (= evolutionists) and their "sky is falling"
> secular apocalypse fanaticism, is somewhat amusing.
Yes, if anyone claims the sky is falling then that is a little bit
amusing, and a great deal sad. Do you know anyone who is claiming
the sky is falling?
> These misguided
> souls have placed their trust in a fraudulent interpretation of
> scientific data.
If the scientists are wrong, tell them, Ray: why tell us here in
talk.origins that nearly every climatologist in the world is
wrong? It is your duty as a human being to share your knowledge
with the world and correct all these scientists: what the hell are
you waiting for?
> No one really disputes some degree of warming, the
> issue is cause.
That issue has been decided by consensus.
> GW is a natural cycle that was scheduled to happen anyway.
No evidence: *DISMISSED!*
> The polar ice cap is not ancient.
A few hundred thousand years is indeed not ancient in geological
periods.
> Ten years from now these
> idiots are their scientists will have egg on their face.
Yes, mostly because they were too conservative in their estimates
of how quickly humans are heating up the planet, and the rise of
sea levels.
> The world
> will go on and get what's really coming to them as End Time events,
"End times?" That doesn't make any sense.
> as predicted in the Book of Revelation,
The Book of Revelation is writen in the past-tense.
Puppet_Sock
[snip]
> I'd personally be willing to go down the medical care road and
> do away with "human caused" global warming if I could get somebody
> in government or the media to demand that we accept that global
> warming, no matter what the cause, is here and that we have to
> plan to do something about it. �Is anyone even making estimates
> as to where we would relocate the entire population of south
> Florida? �How we are going to take care of the enormous populations
> living in what are already deserts? �Anybody even care what fraction
> of our airports are within 10 feet of sea level and will flood in
> any major storm in the late 21st century?
Um. Dude. It is not possible you are this ill informed.
The maximum sea level rise predictions for the 21st century amount
to about 30 inches, with a most probable value, according to the
alarmists,
of about 14 inches or so. These days, the rate has slacked off quite a
bit,
and the last 20 years or so would tend to indicate a rise in the 21st
century of far less than that.
The 20 feet that Algor lied about will require 1000s of years, even
if the most alarmist of alarmist predicitons are true.
Florida needing to be evacuated? Not in the 21st century. Not likely
by the 30th century.
You are clearly either too stupid to have anything that could be
classified as an opinion, or you are telling great big deliberate
falsehoods. My bet is that your trousers are aflame.
Socks
Frank J
wrote:
> Yet another fine YouTube video about global climate change and
> specifically the history behind warnings from scientists about
> global warming since 1953, is available from greenman3610:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XB3S0fnOr0M
>
> Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
> "Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
1953 (which I just missed by a year): DNA structure elucidated, Miller-
Urey expt., Piltdown Man exposed, and now this. Note that the "theory"
of ID can accommodate the possibility that GW is the unnamed,
unembodied, possibly deceased intelligent designer's punishment for
those other 1953 events.
Anyone want to see if Pat Robertson will spread the rumor?
Kermit
Well, yeah. When you don't have any facts on your side, and you can't
very well reason against reality, there's not much left but insults.
Kermit
Kermit
> On Dec 16, 9:20�am, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
> [snip]
>
> > I'd personally be willing to go down the medical care road and
> > do away with "human caused" global warming if I could get somebody
> > in government or the media to demand that we accept that global
> > warming, no matter what the cause, is here and that we have to
> > as to where we would relocate the entire population of south
> > living in what are already deserts? �Anybody even care what fraction
> > of our airports are within 10 feet of sea level and will flood in
> > any major storm in the late 21st century?
>
> Um. Dude. It is not possible you are this ill informed.
>
> The maximum sea level rise predictions for the 21st century amount
> to about 30 inches, with a most probable value, according to the
> alarmists,
> of about 14 inches or so. These days, the rate has slacked off quite a
> bit,
> and the last 20 years or so would tend to indicate a rise in the 21st
> century of far less than that.
>
> The 20 feet that Algor lied about will require 1000s of years, even
> if the most alarmist of alarmist predicitons are true.
>
> Florida needing to be evacuated? Not in the 21st century. Not likely
> by the 30th century.
>
> You are clearly either too stupid to have anything that could be
> classified as an opinion, or you are telling great big deliberate
> falsehoods. My bet is that your trousers are aflame.
> Socks
Try actual science:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091207165252.htm
"ScienceDaily (Dec. 8, 2009) � A new scientific study warns that sea
level could rise much faster than previously expected. By the year
2100, global sea level could rise between 75 and 190 centimetres,
according to a paper published in the Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences."
'"Since 1990 sea level has been rising at 3.4 millimetres per year,
twice as fast as on average over the 20th Century," says Stefan
Rahmstorf. Even if that rate just remained steady, this would already
lead to 34 centimetres rise in the 21st century. "But the data show us
clearly: the warmer it gets, the faster sea level rises. If we want to
prevent a galloping sea level rise, we should stop global warming as
soon as possible," adds Rahmstorf.'
Probably there are things not yet properly modeled; processes not yet
understood. But it seems to me that while Limbaugh and Beck and
company continue the hysterical harangue against Al Gore (as though he
were responsible for the Global Warming Conspiracy�), each science
paper on the subject seems to indicate that it is happening faster
than anticipated.
When someone starts in on Al Gore I know that they don't have any data
at their disposal.
Kermit
Dan Luke
> Um. Dude. It is not possible you are this ill informed.
[snip bs]
Algor? Haw!
It is not possible you know WTF you are talking about.
You are well indoctrinated, though.
> You are clearly either too stupid to have anything that could be
> classified as an opinion, or you are telling great big deliberate
> falsehoods. My bet is that your trousers are aflame.
....says the denier spear carrier. That's rich.
--
Dan
"How can an idiot be a policeman? Answer me that!"
-Chief Inspector Dreyfus
Dan Luke
"Nashton" wrote:
>
> We're all glad that 2 of the dumbest posters to ever have created an
> account on Usenet and used it, agree with each other.
>
"We?"
Are you sure you can speak for your gerbil?
What a prat you are, Nashie.
Paul J Gans
>On Dec 16, 9:20 am, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>[snip]
>> I'd personally be willing to go down the medical care road and
>> do away with "human caused" global warming if I could get somebody
>> in government or the media to demand that we accept that global
>> warming, no matter what the cause, is here and that we have to
>> plan to do something about it. Is anyone even making estimates
>> as to where we would relocate the entire population of south
>> Florida? How we are going to take care of the enormous populations
>> living in what are already deserts? Anybody even care what fraction
>> of our airports are within 10 feet of sea level and will flood in
>> any major storm in the late 21st century?
>Um. Dude. It is not possible you are this ill informed.
Oh yes. Much that is beyond your ken is possible.
>The maximum sea level rise predictions for the 21st century amount
>to about 30 inches, with a most probable value, according to the
>alarmists,
>of about 14 inches or so. These days, the rate has slacked off quite a
>bit,
>and the last 20 years or so would tend to indicate a rise in the 21st
>century of far less than that.
Well, that's wrong, but don't let it bother you.
>The 20 feet that Algor lied about will require 1000s of years, even
>if the most alarmist of alarmist predicitons are true.
>Florida needing to be evacuated? Not in the 21st century. Not likely
>by the 30th century.
Do you have a clue as to the average elevation of south Florida above
sea level? Have you ever thought about what happens to the water
table? Do you understand anything about salt infiltration into
the ground water? Have you any understanding of what a storm
surge could do?
>You are clearly either too stupid to have anything that could be
>classified as an opinion, or you are telling great big deliberate
>falsehoods. My bet is that your trousers are aflame.
If you are hunting, ostrich like, for a safe place to stick
your head, aim for Arizona. Florida sand is apt to be dangerous.
Desertphile
<unrestra...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 17, 9:12�ｿｽpm, Puppet_Sock <puppet_s...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 16, 9:20�ｿｽam, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
> > [snip]
> >
> > > I'd personally be willing to go down the medical care road and
> > > do away with "human caused" global warming if I could get somebody
> > > in government or the media to demand that we accept that global
> > > warming, no matter what the cause, is here and that we have to
> > > plan to do something about it. �ｿｽIs anyone even making estimates
> > > as to where we would relocate the entire population of south
> > > Florida? �ｿｽHow we are going to take care of the enormous populations
> > > living in what are already deserts? �ｿｽAnybody even care what fraction
> > > of our airports are within 10 feet of sea level and will flood in
> > > any major storm in the late 21st century?
> > Um. Dude. It is not possible you are this ill informed.
> >
> > The maximum sea level rise predictions for the 21st century amount
> > to about 30 inches, with a most probable value, according to the alarmists,
> > of about 14 inches or so. These days, the rate has slacked off quite a bit,
> > and the last 20 years or so would tend to indicate a rise in the 21st
> > century of far less than that.
> >
> > The 20 feet that Algor lied about will require 1000s of years, even
> > if the most alarmist of alarmist predicitons are true.
> >
> > Florida needing to be evacuated? Not in the 21st century. Not likely
> > by the 30th century.
> >
> > You are clearly either too stupid to have anything that could be
> > classified as an opinion, or you are telling great big deliberate
> > falsehoods. My bet is that your trousers are aflame.
> > Socks
> Try actual science:
A denialist cultist do actual science?! Surely you jest!
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091207165252.htm
> "ScienceDaily (Dec. 8, 2009) �ｿｽ A new scientific study warns that sea
> level could rise much faster than previously expected. By the year
> 2100, global sea level could rise between 75 and 190 centimetres,
> according to a paper published in the Proceedings of the National
> Academy of Sciences."
>
> '"Since 1990 sea level has been rising at 3.4 millimetres per year,
> twice as fast as on average over the 20th Century," says Stefan
> Rahmstorf. Even if that rate just remained steady, this would already
> lead to 34 centimetres rise in the 21st century. "But the data show us
> clearly: the warmer it gets, the faster sea level rises. If we want to
> prevent a galloping sea level rise, we should stop global warming as
> soon as possible," adds Rahmstorf.'
Parts of Australia have recorded a much higher and raster rise in
sea level than the IPCC predicted.
> Probably there are things not yet properly modeled; processes not yet
> understood. But it seems to me that while Limbaugh and Beck and
> company continue the hysterical harangue against Al Gore (as though he
> were responsible for the Global Warming Conspiracy�ｿｽ), each science
> paper on the subject seems to indicate that it is happening faster
> than anticipated.
Yes, Al Gore is running the Global Warming Conspiracy, and he
started when he was five years old.
> When someone starts in on Al Gore I know that they don't have any data
> at their disposal.
>
> Kermit
--
Desertphile
<puppe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 16, 9:20�am, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
> [snip]
> > I'd personally be willing to go down the medical care road and
> > do away with "human caused" global warming if I could get somebody
> > in government or the media to demand that we accept that global
> > warming, no matter what the cause, is here and that we have to
> > plan to do something about it. �Is anyone even making estimates
> > as to where we would relocate the entire population of south
> > Florida? �How we are going to take care of the enormous populations
> > living in what are already deserts? �Anybody even care what fraction
> > of our airports are within 10 feet of sea level and will flood in
> > any major storm in the late 21st century?
> Um. Dude. It is not possible you are this ill informed.
So you decided to show just how ill-informed a person can be:
> The maximum sea level rise predictions for the 21st century amount
> to about 30 inches, with a most probable value, according to the
> alarmists,
"Alarmists?" You mean "Climatologists," and at the moment
world-wide sea levels have risen and are rising faster than
climatologists predicted.
> of about 14 inches or so. These days, the rate has slacked off quite a
> bit,
No, the rate is increasing.
Several Pacific Rim island countries have stepped up their time
schedules for evacuation, and a few are pissed off that
climatologists were too conservative in their estimates of sea-
level rising: the islanders thought they had 30 or 40 years to
evacuate, and it looks like they might have 20 or 25 years at
best.
Bali for one example has learned that instead of the 45 years they
thought they had to move their coastal infrastructure inland, now
have half that. Negara will have to be evacuated, and much of
Denpasar. They are fortunate that they have the space to move
inland.
I have a great idea! How about you go to Bali, or several other
Indonesia countries, and tell them they don't have to plan
evacuations. You will save them hundreds of billions of dollars.
Desertphile
<fc...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Dec 14, 9:49�pm, Desertphile <desertph...@invalid-address.net>
> wrote:
> > Yet another fine YouTube video about global climate change and
> > specifically the history behind warnings from scientists about
> > global warming since 1953, is available from greenman3610:
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XB3S0fnOr0M
> 1953 (which I just missed by a year): DNA structure elucidated, Miller-
> Urey expt., Piltdown Man exposed, and now this. Note that the "theory"
> of ID can accommodate the possibility that GW is the unnamed,
> unembodied, possibly deceased intelligent designer's punishment for
> those other 1953 events.
>
> Anyone want to see if Pat Robertson will spread the rumor?
Maybe 1953 was the year homosexuals started being homosexual, and
global climate change is the punishment.
--
Paul J Gans
>On Dec 17, 9:12 pm, Puppet_Sock <puppet_s...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 16, 9:20 am, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>> [snip]
>>
>> > I'd personally be willing to go down the medical care road and
>> > do away with "human caused" global warming if I could get somebody
>> > in government or the media to demand that we accept that global
>> > warming, no matter what the cause, is here and that we have to
>> > as to where we would relocate the entire population of south
>> > living in what are already deserts? Anybody even care what fraction
>> > of our airports are within 10 feet of sea level and will flood in
>> > any major storm in the late 21st century?
>>
>> Um. Dude. It is not possible you are this ill informed.
>>
>> The maximum sea level rise predictions for the 21st century amount
>> to about 30 inches, with a most probable value, according to the
>> alarmists,
>> of about 14 inches or so. These days, the rate has slacked off quite a
>> bit,
>> and the last 20 years or so would tend to indicate a rise in the 21st
>> century of far less than that.
>>
>> The 20 feet that Algor lied about will require 1000s of years, even
>> if the most alarmist of alarmist predicitons are true.
>>
>> Florida needing to be evacuated? Not in the 21st century. Not likely
>> by the 30th century.
>>
>> You are clearly either too stupid to have anything that could be
>> classified as an opinion, or you are telling great big deliberate
>> falsehoods. My bet is that your trousers are aflame.
>> Socks
>Try actual science:
>http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091207165252.htm
>"ScienceDaily (Dec. 8, 2009) — A new scientific study warns that sea
>level could rise much faster than previously expected. By the year
>2100, global sea level could rise between 75 and 190 centimetres,
>according to a paper published in the Proceedings of the National
>Academy of Sciences."
>'"Since 1990 sea level has been rising at 3.4 millimetres per year,
>twice as fast as on average over the 20th Century," says Stefan
>Rahmstorf. Even if that rate just remained steady, this would already
>lead to 34 centimetres rise in the 21st century. "But the data show us
>clearly: the warmer it gets, the faster sea level rises. If we want to
>prevent a galloping sea level rise, we should stop global warming as
>soon as possible," adds Rahmstorf.'
>Probably there are things not yet properly modeled; processes not yet
>understood. But it seems to me that while Limbaugh and Beck and
>company continue the hysterical harangue against Al Gore (as though he
>were responsible for the Global Warming Conspiracy®), each science
>paper on the subject seems to indicate that it is happening faster
>than anticipated.
>When someone starts in on Al Gore I know that they don't have any data
>at their disposal.
>Kermit
As you know (but the sock puppet may not) there are two major causes
for sea-level rise. One is melting land-based ice. The other is
simply the warming of the oceans. Water doesn't expand much per
degree C, but the ocean is very very big.
More to the point: the problem of how to meet the disaster,
(NOT how to cure global warming -- I regard that battle as lost)
is one that will take years to figure out and quite likely the
development of loads of new technology. It isn't just moving
ten million people out of Florida and millions more out of other
places, it is finding the money to relocate them, feed them, and
to create jobs for them.
We need to move NOW because it is possible that we will never again
have so much available cash as a nation. Yes, I'm talking about
increased taxes. Do we think God will sign checks?
But the planning must come first.
Steven L.
news:576d4fe9-b673-4974...@h14g2000pri.googlegroups.com:
Do you regard these views as compatible with the essence of
Christianity? I thought that Jesus died for our sins.
--
--
Steven L.
sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the "NOSPAM" before sending to this email address.
Michael Siemon
Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
...
> More to the point: the problem of how to meet the disaster,
> (NOT how to cure global warming -- I regard that battle as lost)
> is one that will take years to figure out and quite likely the
> development of loads of new technology. It isn't just moving
> ten million people out of Florida and millions more out of other
> places, it is finding the money to relocate them, feed them, and
> to create jobs for them.
>
> We need to move NOW because it is possible that we will never again
> have so much available cash as a nation. Yes, I'm talking about
> increased taxes. Do we think God will sign checks?
>
> But the planning must come first.
Planning? That's **UnAmerican**.
Paul J Gans
>...
>Planning? That's **UnAmerican**.
You've got that right.
Curiously, it seems to me that it is an opportunity to create
a fair amount of prosperity in the US.
Max
wrote:
> Yet another fine YouTube video about global climate change and
> specifically the history behind warnings from scientists about
> global warming since 1953, is available from greenman3610:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XB3S0fnOr0M
>
> --http://desertphile.org
> Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
> "Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Greenman is the undisputed King of global warming denial rebuttals.
Frank J
wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 05:01:00 -0800 (PST), Frank J
>
> > On Dec 14, 9:49�pm, Desertphile <desertph...@invalid-address.net>
> > wrote:
> > > Yet another fine YouTube video about global climate change and
> > > specifically the history behind warnings from scientists about
> > > global warming since 1953, is available from greenman3610:
>
> > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XB3S0fnOr0M
> > 1953 (which I just missed by a year): DNA structure elucidated, Miller-
> > Urey expt., Piltdown Man exposed, and now this. Note that the "theory"
> > of ID can accommodate the possibility that GW is the unnamed,
> > unembodied, possibly deceased intelligent designer's punishment for
> > those other 1953 events.
>
> > Anyone want to see if Pat Robertson will spread the rumor?
>
> Maybe 1953 was the year homosexuals started being homosexual, and
> global climate change is the punishment.
Possibly, but they were in the closet for 14 years, and came out duing
the "summer of love." ;-)