SCIENTISTS WARN: "SUDDEN" CLIMATE CHANGE POSSIBLE
Economic Democracy
the Washington Post, and with findings from that
wellknown radical and scientifically uninformed
group (sarcastic comment) namely the National Academy
of Sciences.
Ask yourself what it says about the corporate media
that so few Americans know about this report, or about
the findings in the other EARTHDAY posts today?
And what does it say that almost no American
knows the 60% "dirty little secret"? (See post by that name)
Now:
A WARNING ON CLIMATE CHANGE
POLLUTION'S EFFECTS COULD BE SUDDEN, NAS REPORT SAYS
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A2865\
0-2001Dec11¬Found=true
By Eric Pianin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, December 12, 2001; Page A11
[This only made page 11 (!!) of the Washington Post!]
While recent climate change studies have focused on the risks of a
gradual rise in the Earth's temperature, a new National Academy of
Sciences report has concluded that greenhouse gases and other
pollutants could trigger large, abrupt and potentially disastrous
climate changes.c
Citing a wealth of paleontological evidence, historical observations
and computer modeling analyses reaching back hundreds of centuries,
researchers found evidence that, in some places, periods of gradual
changes were punctuated by sudden temperature spikes of about 10
degrees Celsius in only a decade.
Roughly half of the warming that has occurred in the northern part of
the Atlantic Ocean since the last ice age was achieved in only a
decade, the report said. That warming was accompanied by significant
climate changes across the globe, including flooding and drought, it
said. Since then, less dramatic climate changes have occurred,
affecting precipitation, hurricanes and the El Niqo events that have
disrupted temperatures in the tropical Pacific.
"Abrupt climate changes were especially common when the climate system
was being forced to change most rapidly," the study states. "Thus,
greenhouse warming and other human alterations of the earth system may
increase the possibility of large, abrupt, and unwelcome regional or
global climatic events."
...
= = = =
STILL FEELING LIKE THE MAINSTREAM U.S. CORPORATE MEDIA
IS GIVING A FULL HONEST PICTURE OF WHAT'S GOING ON?
= = = =
Daily online radio show, news reporting: www.DemocracyNow.org
= = = =
Sorry we cannot read/reply to most usenet posts but welcome email
For more information: http://EconomicDemocracy.org/wtc/ (peace)
And http://EconomicDemocracy.org/ (general)
ANTI-SPAM EMAIL NOTE: For email "info" and "map" don't work. Email instead
to m-a-i-l-m-a-i-l (without the dashes) at economicdemocracy.org
Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )
Economic Democracy wrote:
>
> Re: SCIENTISTS WARN: "SUDDEN" CLIMATE CHANGE POSSIBLE
>
Anything is possible. We shouldn't make policy based on wildly inventive
ideas about what could happen.
I voted for Bush. What a mistake.
the Earth's problems?
D Kat
(the anti-intellectual element in our society would prefer to think that
anything which educated and respected scientists say is by definition a
falsehood) you cannot question that it degrades our quality of life. What
morons would chose to live in filth when we in the "supposedly" richest
nation in the world have the means of living in a country with clean air and
water? Who would by choice chose to bath in a bathtub that they just took a
shit in? Probably some silly questions. Who am I to say. Hell, I'm still
pondering on why we have wires strung on poll in this country (something the
Brits called "a quaint custom")... DKat
"Economic Democracy" <in...@economicdemocracy.org> wrote in message
news:59d9354.03112...@posting.google.com...
Stuart Grey
Commies are hoping to capitalize on the
now known relationship between sun spots
and global temperature. The sun has been
more active of late than at any time known
to man, according to ice core studies.
And the more sun spots, the hotter the earth
gets. We can expect some very hot temperatures
in the near future.
The hope is to convince ignorant people that
the global temperature rise is due to man
made CO2, not due to solar activity, so they
can shut down capitalism and the commie rat
bastards can control the world.
fãhç
http://www.osei.noaa.gov/Events/Unique/Smog/2001/UNIsmog180_G8.jpg
"D Kat" <dk...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8sSxb.445$iU5.2...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
Vendicar Decarian
> morons would chose to live in filth when we in the "supposedly" richest
> nation in the world have the means of living in a country with clean air
and
> water?
NeoCon's would prefer that YOU live in filth while they suck the life
blood from your bank account.
fãhç
"Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )"
You mean like the policies based on the wild speculations that Iraq had WMD,
was a danger to the freedom of America, and was supplying al Qeada with WMD
and terrorist training? You mean like that Bill? Interesting.
Here's a reminder for you...
http://www.angelfire.com/creep/gwbush/remindus.html
fãhç
That's a pretty funny little fantasy you have going there. Too bad that
global warming has been documented to be occurring long before any recent
sunspot activity.
Perhaps you should educate yourself. (The charts on page 3 blow away your
paranoid communist theory)
http://www.unep.ch/ipcc/pub/spm22-01.pdf
Stuart Grey
făhç wrote:
> "Stuart Grey" <Stuar...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>Commies are hoping to capitalize on the
>>now known relationship between sun spots
>>and global temperature. The sun has been
>>more active of late than at any time known
>>to man, according to ice core studies.
>>
>>And the more sun spots, the hotter the earth
>>gets. We can expect some very hot temperatures
>>in the near future.
>>
>>The hope is to convince ignorant people that
>>the global temperature rise is due to man
>>made CO2, not due to solar activity, so they
>>can shut down capitalism and the commie rat
>>bastards can control the world.
>
>
> That's a pretty funny little fantasy you have going there.
It's called "science", jackass. Something you
commiecrats are unfamiliar with.
> Too bad that
> global warming has been documented to be occurring long before any recent
> sunspot activity.
What a stupid ass. Your ignorance clearly is showing.
Sunspots have been happening since before there was
life on earth, you idiot. They have an 11 year short
cycle and there is evidence there are even longer
cycles.
You're just another lying commiecrat spreading his
lies on the usenet.
fãhç
Awe, sounds like I struck a nerve. Deflecting away from your statement of
"The sun has been more active of late than at any time known to man" isn't
going to work. You claimed that *recent* sunspot activity was being used to
dupe people into believing a communist plot. Clearly that is not true.
Here's that link for you again. Give it a read. What have you got to be
afraid of? If you think it's stupid, at least it will give you a laugh.
http://www.unep.ch/ipcc/pub/spm22-01.pdf
fãhç
>
> What a stupid ass. Your ignorance clearly is showing.
> Sunspots have been happening since before there was
> life on earth, you idiot. They have an 11 year short
> cycle and there is evidence there are even longer
> cycles.
>
> You're just another lying commiecrat spreading his
> lies on the usenet.
Natural contributions to climate change are not ignored in the IPCC report.
Here's just a snippet from the scientific report you are refusing to
acknowledge or read.
Report of Working Group I of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC)
http://www.unep.ch/ipcc/pub/spm22-01.pdf
From Page 9
Natural factors have made small contributions to radiative forcing over the
past century.
Radiative forcing due to changes in solar irradiance for the period since
1750 is estimated to be about +0.3 Wm-2 most of which occurred during the
first half of the 20th century. Since the late 1970's, satellite
instruments have observed small oscillations due to the 11-year solar cycle.
Stuart Grey
The mean global temperature fits the solar
cycle like a hand in a glove.
This PARTICULAR lie is because the damned socialist
propagandist fudged their surface data - using data
points that were warmed by urbanization, not by
global warming, to get the data to diverge from
the solar cycle explanation.
Damn liars, damned socialist. You assholes will
do anything to get your mits on power so you
can make slaves of everyone.
Stuart Grey
făhç wrote:
> "Stuart Grey" <Stuar...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>You're just another lying commiecrat spreading his
>>lies on the usenet.
>
>
> Awe, sounds like I struck a nerve.
Yeah. I don't like liars and commie propagandist.
I think anyone that hates freedom so much should
get kicked right in the ass.
> Deflecting away from your statement of
> "The sun has been more active of late than at any time known to man" isn't
> going to work. You claimed that *recent* sunspot activity was being used to
> dupe people into believing a communist plot. Clearly that is not true.
Clearly it is true. Recent data on solar activity points
to the extraordinary cycle we are now in, same as it was
approximately 20ky ago, when there was extraordinary global
warming. Of course, there was no capitalism around back
then to put the blame on.
That doesn't stop you socialist pinkos from going around
trying to stir up hysterics against America. "oh, we're
all gonna die because America uses energy" And all that
crap.
> Here's that link for you again. Give it a read. What have you got to be
> afraid of? If you think it's stupid, at least it will give you a laugh.
> http://www.unep.ch/ipcc/pub/spm22-01.pdf
I've read all this shit before. I've better things
to do than read commie propaganda.
Yes, the earth IS warming. NO, the vast majority of
it is NOT caused by man. CO2 isn't even a major greenhouse
gas - compared to water, it's trivial.
Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )
" făhç" wrote:
>
> "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )"
> <std...@backpacker.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Economic Democracy wrote:
> > >
> > > Re: SCIENTISTS WARN: "SUDDEN" CLIMATE CHANGE POSSIBLE
> > >
> > Anything is possible. We shouldn't make policy based on wildly inventive
> > ideas about what could happen.
>
> You mean like the policies based on the wild speculations that Iraq had WMD,
>
How wild is it to suspect that Saddam had WMD? He had them for many
years, used them against neighbouring countries and his own people. He
was supposed to come clean and resisted doing so for more than a decade.
He appears even to have suggested by way of back channels that he had
WMDs and we know he was involved in banned ballistic missile technology.
Wild speculations? You are nuts.
Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )
The Sun has been very active and it seems to be so active even during
times that should be low event areas on the normal 11 year cycle. You
miss all that?
D Kat
country (1970's) that as soon as you got away from the coast's you would
see beautiful clear skies.... You don't see those anymore no matter where
you fly.. DK
" fãhç" <%e%i%f%s@%f%d.tw> wrote in message
news:qrTxb.2751$US3.2212@okepread03...
H. E. Taylor
Do you have a theory to explain why the satellites
keep measuring 1366 (+/-1) W/m^2 from the sun?
http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pics/comp_d19_vg.gif
http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=solar_const
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/ACRIMSAT/acrimsat.html
<curious>
-het
--
"The Kyoto treaty threatens to limit the exercise of American military
power ... unilateral military actions as in Grenada, Panama and Libya
will become politically and diplomatically more difficult "
-Letter signed by Dick Cheney to Bill Clinton, January 22, 1998
Global Warming: http://www.autobahn.mb.ca/~het/globalwarming.html
H.E. Taylor http://www.autobahn.mb.ca/~het/
fãhç
>
> Small oscillations your fat, lying ASS!
> The mean global temperature fits the solar
> cycle like a hand in a glove.
Right, climatologists from all of the world compiled this data. Then some
paranoid nobody like you shrieks hysterically in a newsgroup that it is all
lies and a communist plot, but offers no supporting evidence. Easy to see
who has more credibility.
http://www.unep.ch/ipcc/pub/spm22-01.pdf
fãhç
"Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )"
news:3FC81941...@backpacker.com...
http://www.unep.ch/ipcc/pub/spm22-01.pdf
fãhç
"Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )"
<std...@backpacker.com> wrote:
>
>
> " făhç" wrote:
> >
> > "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )"
> > <std...@backpacker.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Economic Democracy wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Re: SCIENTISTS WARN: "SUDDEN" CLIMATE CHANGE POSSIBLE
> > > >
> > > Anything is possible. We shouldn't make policy based on wildly
inventive
> > > ideas about what could happen.
> >
> > You mean like the policies based on the wild speculations that Iraq had
WMD,
> >
> How wild is it to suspect that Saddam had WMD? He had them for many
> years, used them against neighbouring countries and his own people. He
> was supposed to come clean and resisted doing so for more than a decade.
> He appears even to have suggested by way of back channels that he had
The only "back channels" were lies from the Bush administration.
> WMDs and we know he was involved in banned ballistic missile technology.
> Wild speculations? You are nuts.
The vast majority of the intelligence community, and even Bush's top WMD
hunter would say you and Bush are nuts.
US soldiers killed: 430+
US soldiers wounded: 2,000+
Iraqi civilians killed: 7,800+
WMD found: 0
fãhç
"H. E. Taylor" <h...@despam.autobahn.mb.ca> wrote in message
news:3FC854...@despam.autobahn.mb.ca...
> In article <WoTxb.249488$275.921123@attbi_s53>,
> <Stuar...@comcastdot.net> Stuart Grey wrote:
> >
> > Commies are hoping to capitalize on the
> > now known relationship between sun spots
> > and global temperature. The sun has been
> > more active of late than at any time known
> > to man, according to ice core studies.
> >
> > And the more sun spots, the hotter the earth
> > gets. We can expect some very hot temperatures
> > in the near future.
> >
> > The hope is to convince ignorant people that
> > the global temperature rise is due to man
> > made CO2, not due to solar activity, so they
> > can shut down capitalism and the commie rat
> > bastards can control the world.
> >
>
> Do you have a theory to explain why the satellites
> keep measuring 1366 (+/-1) W/m^2 from the sun?
No he doesn't have an answer, or any evidence to support his hysterical
conspiracy theory of climatologists trying to destroy capitalism with global
warming theories.
Stuart Grey
făhç wrote:
> "Stuart Grey" <Stuar...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>Small oscillations your fat, lying ASS!
>>The mean global temperature fits the solar
>>cycle like a hand in a glove.
>
>
> Right, climatologists from all of the world compiled this data.
And a number of commie propagandist...
Climatologist don't intentionally use bad data.
Commie propagandist do.
> Then some
> paranoid nobody like you shrieks hysterically in a newsgroup that it is all
> lies and a communist plot, but offers no supporting evidence.
Actually, it was the Wall Street Journal, a
number of years ago.
> Easy to see who has more credibility.
Yes. The WSJ.
fãhç
"Stuart Grey" <Stuar...@comcastdot.net> wrote:
>
>
> făhç wrote:
> > "Stuart Grey" <Stuar...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> >>Small oscillations your fat, lying ASS!
> >>The mean global temperature fits the solar
> >>cycle like a hand in a glove.
> >
> >
> > Right, climatologists from all of the world compiled this data.
>
> And a number of commie propagandist...
>
> Climatologist don't intentionally use bad data.
> Commie propagandist do.
Yawn. More unsupported conspiracy theories.
> > Then some
> > paranoid nobody like you shrieks hysterically in a newsgroup that it is
all
> > lies and a communist plot, but offers no supporting evidence.
>
> Actually, it was the Wall Street Journal, a
> number of years ago.
>
> > Easy to see who has more credibility.
>
> Yes. The WSJ.
Ah yes, that scientific journal called the Wall Street Journal. Hah! Gee,
you don't think the WSJ has any special interests in polluting businesses do
you? And you've done a really fine job of posting a link to the article
too.
Your rantings about commie conspiracies of destroy capitalism by faking
global warming fall apart when compared to reality of past policy changes.
One example would be the switch in electronics manufacturing away from freon
based cleaning solutions. That policy change created more business and more
profits. Making policy changes to reduce greenhouse gases and ozone
depletion will not destroy capitalism, it will result in more opportunities
to make money. People who resist such policy changes are supporters of
crony capitalism that want to keep new businesses from making any money.
fãhç
>
> The hope is to convince ignorant people that
> the global temperature rise is due to man
> made CO2, not due to solar activity, so they
> can shut down capitalism and the commie rat
> bastards can control the world.
Opponents like to claim that global warming models can not be accurate (even
though the models closely approximate known historical data) because
weather, and supposedly climate, are too chaotic to predict. Opponents also
claim that reducing greenhouse gas emissions will cause economic chaos.
What do they base this on? Economic computer models! If anyone could
possibly product an accurate economic model I'd like to see it so I could
make a few billion off the stock market. So it seems that opponents like to
cite inaccuracy of computer models only when it suites them, and claim
computer models are accurate only when they support their conspiracy
theories.
THE MYTH ON HIGH COSTS AND ECONOMIC CHAOS
Returning U.S. and Canadian greenhouse gas emissions to 1990
levels would require a cut in energy usage of more than 20 percent.
This will result in price increases for most types of energy, which
will wreak havoc on the economy.
THE FACTS
Economic predictions of the impact on the U.S. economy from
reductions in greenhouse gas emissions vary widely as a result of
the differing assumptions built into the economic models. Models
based on worst case assumptions predict a reduction in gross
domestic product (GDP) growth, while others based on best- case
assumptions predict stimulated economic growth. People need not
accept all the best-case or worst-case assumptions. It is
reasonable to predict that with sensible public policies and
international cooperation, greenhouse gas emissions can be reduced
with minimal impacts on the economy. For more info see, The Costs
of Climate ProtectionA Guide for the Perplexed. June 1997. Dr.
Robert Repetto, Vice President and Senior Economist, and Duncan
Austin, Associate, WRI
THE MYTH ON COMPETITIVENESS
The proposed global climate treaty would hurt U.S. and
Canada's industry's international competitiveness. As a result,
energy-intensive industries would flee to developing countries that
have much weaker environmental standards than our own, leading to
significant job loss.
THE FACTS
Over two-thirds of U.S. trade and investment is with other
industrialized countries that generally have higher energy prices
and are also bound to the same emissions reductions under the
climate treaty. U.S. foreign direct investments in energy-intensive
sectors are not flowing to developing countries with low-energy
prices, bur rather to other industrialized countries with higher
energy prices. Among U.S. industries that produce goods that can
be traded, less then 2 percent of jobs are in energy intensive
sectors. In fact, 90 percent of these jobs are concentrated in
sectors where energy costs equal less then three percent the value
of sales. Since 1990, energy prices in developing countries have
risen dramatically. This price rise is the result of on-going
energy sector reforms that will continue regardless of commitments
made in Kyoto. For more info see, "US Competitiveness is Not At
Risk in the Climate Negotiations", October 1997. Dr. Robert
Repetto, Vice President and Senior Economist, WRI Crescencia
Maurer, Associate, World Resource Institute.
Stuart Grey
făhç wrote:
> "Stuart Grey" <Stuar...@comcastdot.net> wrote:
>
>>The hope is to convince ignorant people that
>>the global temperature rise is due to man
>>made CO2, not due to solar activity, so they
>>can shut down capitalism and the commie rat
>>bastards can control the world.
>
>
> Opponents like to claim that global warming models can not be accurate (even
> though the models closely approximate known historical data) because
> weather, and supposedly climate, are too chaotic to predict.
You don't know shit about science, asshole.
If it doesn't predict, it's damn worthless as a model.
If the model does NOT describe the system, it's a bad
model.
You're just another commiecrat spreading lies, trying
to shut down America because you hate us.
> Opponents also
> claim that reducing greenhouse gas emissions will cause economic chaos.
> What do they base this on? Economic computer models!
What a dumbshit you are. Our models of the economy are
much better than the models that you commiecrats fabricate,
because the economist who make the models of the economy
don't start with the conclusion that global warming will
destroy the earth, and then work back to make a model that
predicts this. A scientist starts out with an unbiased
outlook, and makes the model and then TESTS the model.
Every test of the commiecrat model has FAILED to predict.
The last model had us dead by now. It didn't happen.
> If anyone could
> possibly product an accurate economic model I'd like to see it so I could
> make a few billion off the stock market.
LOL! The economic projections are well known, and
guys like Greenspan at the federal reserve run them
and then make after market reports. No, you stupid
ass, you can't get rich off of the accurate economic
models. First off, only the government has clear access
to all of the data. If you want to gather all the
data, it's gonna cost you megabucks because all these
corporations don't have to report to YOU.
< snip commiecrat gibber and propaganda. >
This is getting old.
Vendicar Decarian
> Economic Democracy wrote:
> > Re: SCIENTISTS WARN: "SUDDEN" CLIMATE CHANGE POSSIBLE
"Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )"
<std...@backpacker.com> wrote in message
> Anything is possible. We shouldn't make policy based on wildly inventive
> ideas about what could happen.
And policy should not ignore the potential effects that non-action is
predicted to cause.
Vendicar Decarian
"Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )"
> He
> was supposed to come clean and resisted doing so for more than a decade.
And he did.
Bush continued to lie about the existance of these fantom WMD's.
Bush is a perpetual liar.
Vendicar Decarian
Maybe he thinks chicken pox causes Pregnancy.
"Stuart Grey" <Stuar...@comcastdot.net> wrote in message
news:WoTxb.249488$275.921123@attbi_s53...
Vendicar Decarian
> What a stupid ass. Your ignorance clearly is showing.
> Sunspots have been happening since before there was
> life on earth, you idiot.
Well, there is absolutely no evidence to backup that bizzar assertion...
Bahahahah... Amazing what fools will proclaim.
Vendicar Decarian
> Yeah. I don't like liars and commie propagandist.
> I think anyone that hates freedom so much should
> get kicked right in the ass.
When ignorant NeoCon's are caught in a lie, they invariably start to call
the catcher a "commie".
It's a well known Conservative flaw, very similar to the Jew Baiting done by
their NeoNazi brothers in crime.
Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )
Given Saddam's behaviour, it was logical to conclude that he had WMDs.
Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )
You might consider that vis a vis the Middle East and leaving it in the
status quo of Saddam and the people under his thumb.
--
"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata."
+-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous"
fãhç
"Stuart Grey" <Stuar...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
> făhç wrote:
>
> > "Stuart Grey" <Stuar...@comcastdot.net> wrote:
> >
> >>The hope is to convince ignorant people that
> >>the global temperature rise is due to man
> >>made CO2, not due to solar activity, so they
> >>can shut down capitalism and the commie rat
> >>bastards can control the world.
> >
> >
> > Opponents like to claim that global warming models can not be accurate
> > (even
> > though the models closely approximate known historical data) because
> > weather, and supposedly climate, are too chaotic to predict.
>
> You don't know shit about science, asshole.
>
> If it doesn't predict, it's damn worthless as a model.
> If the model does NOT describe the system, it's a bad
> model.
And the model accurately predicts the climate changes. Apparently everyone
but you can see the correlation between real and modeled climate data in
this report...
http://www.unep.ch/ipcc/pub/spm22-01.pdf
> > Opponents also
> > claim that reducing greenhouse gas emissions will cause economic chaos.
> > What do they base this on? Economic computer models!
>
> What a dumbshit you are. Our models of the economy are
> much better than the models that you commiecrats fabricate,
Hahahahaha! Talk about dumbshits. Nobody can predict with any accuracy
what is going to happen next in the stock market or the economy. This is
proven every single day. A monkey throwing feces at the Wall Street Journal
could pick stocks that perform just as well as the most highly acclaimed
analyst.
> because the economist who make the models of the economy
> don't start with the conclusion that global warming will
> destroy the earth, and then work back to make a model that
> predicts this. A scientist starts out with an unbiased
> outlook, and makes the model and then TESTS the model.
> Every test of the commiecrat model has FAILED to predict.
> The last model had us dead by now. It didn't happen.
Really? Then how do you explain the accurate of the model data to real data
in this report?
http://www.unep.ch/ipcc/pub/spm22-01.pdf
> > If anyone could
> > possibly product an accurate economic model I'd like to see it so I
> > could make a few billion off the stock market.
>
> LOL! The economic projections are well known, and
> guys like Greenspan at the federal reserve run them
> and then make after market reports.
Right, everybody loved Greenspan and thought he was a genius when the
economy was doing well. As soon as it turned sour, everyone hated him and
complained he didn't know what he was doing. You have a selective memory.
The Federal Reserve's manipulation of the markets is just one more random
factor that adds to the chaos.
Anyone that thinks they can possibly gather and analyze enough data from all
companies, markets, world events, governments, the daily thoughts of stock
traders, CEOs, CFOs, salespeople, etc. to predict the future of the economy
for more than the end of a quarter is completely delusional.
Someone who thinks they could gather all that data and then predict the
economic outcome of a world-wide policy changes is completely insane.
The climate models shown in this report are far more accurate than any
economic models, let alone economic predictions of policy changes.
http://www.unep.ch/ipcc/pub/spm22-01.pdf
> < snip commiecrat gibber and propaganda. >
>
> This is getting old.
Yes, your lack of any evidence and paranoid shrieking about communist plots
got old back in the 1950's during the McCarthy era (a hero of yours, no
doubt).
Next.
fãhç
"Stuart Grey" <Stuar...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> făhç wrote:
>
> > "Stuart Grey" <Stuar...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> >>You're just another lying commiecrat spreading his
> >>lies on the usenet.
> >
> >
> > Awe, sounds like I struck a nerve.
>
> Yeah. I don't like liars and commie propagandist.
> I think anyone that hates freedom so much should
> get kicked right in the ass.
>
> > Deflecting away from your statement of
> > "The sun has been more active of late than at any time known to man"
isn't
> > going to work. You claimed that *recent* sunspot activity was being
used to
> > dupe people into believing a communist plot. Clearly that is not true.
>
> Clearly it is true. Recent data on solar activity points
> to the extraordinary cycle we are now in, same as it was
> approximately 20ky ago, when there was extraordinary global
> warming. Of course, there was no capitalism around back
> then to put the blame on.
Here's the data. You are wrong. Case closed.
http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pics/comp_d19_vg.gif
fãhç
"Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )"
<std...@backpacker.com> wrote in message
Given correctly handled intel on Saddam, it was logical to conclude he did
*not* have WMDs. Bush and the Pentagon ignored the intelligence community
and started creating their bogus data in the Office of Special Plans which
is universally laughed at by the real intelligence community.
Next.
fãhç
"Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )"
<std...@backpacker.com> wrote in message
>
>
> Vendicar Decarian wrote:
> >
> > > Economic Democracy wrote:
> > > > Re: SCIENTISTS WARN: "SUDDEN" CLIMATE CHANGE POSSIBLE
> >
> > "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )"
> > <std...@backpacker.com> wrote in message
> > > Anything is possible. We shouldn't make policy based on wildly
inventive
> > > ideas about what could happen.
> >
> > And policy should not ignore the potential effects that non-action is
> > predicted to cause.
> >
> You might consider that vis a vis the Middle East and leaving it in the
> status quo of Saddam and the people under his thumb.
>
Ah, the final deflection has arrived. When faced with the facts that Bush
is full of shit about WMD and lied to the world about Saddam being a threat,
neo-cons always fall back to the last line of defense, "We did it to help
those poor defenseless people."
You must be feeling guilty that your hero Reagan and members of Bush's
administration armed, trained, and help keep Saddam in power so that he
could keep those people under his thumb.
When has it ever been the right of any nation to invade another nation just
because it doesn't like how they run their country?
When American colonists didn't like their government, they themselves
attacked the British. Although the colonists had some help from the French,
it was always the colonists that were out front putting their lives on the
line. So why is it again that Iraqis didn't take care of their own mess?
Why is it that Americans are putting their lives on the line supposedly for
the freedom of Iraqis? Why aren't the Iraqis themselves fighting for their
own freedom? Oh, wait, that's right, they are, but Bush calls those people
terrorists.
Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )
" făhç" wrote:
>
> "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )"
> <std...@backpacker.com> wrote in message
> news:3FCA45DC...@backpacker.com...
> >
> >
> > Vendicar Decarian wrote:
> > >
> > > "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )"
> > > <std...@backpacker.com> wrote in message
> > > > He
> > > > was supposed to come clean and resisted doing so for more than a
> decade.
> > >
> > > And he did.
> > >
> > > Bush continued to lie about the existance of these fantom WMD's.
> > >
> > Given Saddam's behaviour, it was logical to conclude that he had WMDs.
>
> Given correctly handled intel on Saddam, it was logical to conclude he did
> *not* have WMDs.
>
Now that is just a lie. Saddam's behaviour suggested strongly that he
had something to hide. Claiming otherwise is just insane.
Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )
" făhç" wrote:
>
> "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )"
> <std...@backpacker.com> wrote in message
> news:3FCA4608...@backpacker.com...
> >
> >
> > Vendicar Decarian wrote:
> > >
> > > > Economic Democracy wrote:
> > > > > Re: SCIENTISTS WARN: "SUDDEN" CLIMATE CHANGE POSSIBLE
> > >
> > > "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )"
> > > <std...@backpacker.com> wrote in message
> > > > Anything is possible. We shouldn't make policy based on wildly
> inventive
> > > > ideas about what could happen.
> > >
> > > And policy should not ignore the potential effects that non-action is
> > > predicted to cause.
> > >
> > You might consider that vis a vis the Middle East and leaving it in the
> > status quo of Saddam and the people under his thumb.
> >
>
> Ah, the final deflection has arrived. When faced with the facts that Bush
> is full of shit about WMD
>
It is so amazing that in 2003 we are hearing from you kooks that Saddam
just couldn't possibly have WMDs when he had them back in the first gulf
war and many were even destroyed with by the inspectors. Of course even
though he has spend years frustrating inspectors, he couldn't possibly
have WMDs now. Laugh.
> and lied to the world about Saddam being a threat,
> neo-cons always fall back to the last line of defense, "We did it to help
> those poor defenseless people."
>
We've always said that the people of Iraq deserve a chance at freedom.
Feel free to tell us what the threat is though. Put the names of the
groups and countries that are threats to the US right here ---->
fãhç
"Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )"
<std...@backpacker.com> wrote in message
>
>
> " făhç" wrote:
> >
> > "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )"
> > <std...@backpacker.com> wrote in message
> > news:3FCA45DC...@backpacker.com...
> > >
> > >
> > > Vendicar Decarian wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )"
> > > > <std...@backpacker.com> wrote in message
> > > > > He
> > > > > was supposed to come clean and resisted doing so for more than a
> > decade.
> > > >
> > > > And he did.
> > > >
> > > > Bush continued to lie about the existance of these fantom WMD's.
> > > >
> > > Given Saddam's behaviour, it was logical to conclude that he had WMDs.
> >
> > Given correctly handled intel on Saddam, it was logical to conclude he
did
> > *not* have WMDs.
> >
> Now that is just a lie. Saddam's behaviour suggested strongly that he
> had something to hide. Claiming otherwise is just insane.
>
Bush and the Pentagon ignored the intelligence community and started
creating their bogus data in the Office of Special Plans which is
universally laughed at by the real intelligence community. Given correctly
handled intel on Saddam, it was logical to conclude he did *not* have WMDs.
Next.
fãhç
"Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )"
<std...@backpacker.com> wrote in message
>
>
> " făhç" wrote:
> >
> > "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )"
> > <std...@backpacker.com> wrote in message
> > news:3FCA4608...@backpacker.com...
> > > >
> > > the status quo of Saddam and the people under his thumb.
> > >
> >
> > Ah, the final deflection has arrived. When faced with the facts that
> > Bush is full of shit about WMD
> >
> It is so amazing that in 2003 we are hearing from you kooks that Saddam
> just couldn't possibly have WMDs when he had them back in the first gulf
> war and many were even destroyed with by the inspectors. Of course even
> though he has spend years frustrating inspectors, he couldn't possibly
> have WMDs now. Laugh.
Not amazing, but logical. It's astounding that even with Bush's lies
exposed, Bush's top WMD hunter unable to find *any* evidence of WMDs after
months of unrestricted access (and Rummie claimed he knew exactly where the
WMDs in Iraq were), that there are still apologists out there claiming that
Bush didn't lie. They refuse to believe that when the inspectors destroyed
Saddam's WMDs and couldn't find any more, that it actually meant that Saddam
didn't have any more. The Bush apologists' lack of rational thought is
truly amazing.
> > and lied to the world about Saddam being a threat,
> > neo-cons always fall back to the last line of defense, "We did it to
> > help those poor defenseless people."
> >
> We've always said that the people of Iraq deserve a chance at freedom.
> Feel free to tell us what the threat is though. Put the names of the
> groups and countries that are threats to the US right here ---->
A big zero, both before invading Iraq and now. What's your point? Are you
ready to admit that Bush lied that Iraq was a threat to America?
Listen to just some of those Bush lies again....
http://www.angelfire.com/creep/gwbush/remindus.html
Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )
You are a kook.
Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )
" făhç" wrote:
>
> "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )"
> <std...@backpacker.com> wrote in message
> news:3FCA5396...@backpacker.com...
> >
> >
> > " făhç" wrote:
> > >
> > > "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )"
> > > <std...@backpacker.com> wrote in message
> > > news:3FCA4608...@backpacker.com...
> > > > >
> > > > You might consider that vis a vis the Middle East and leaving it in
> > > > the status quo of Saddam and the people under his thumb.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Ah, the final deflection has arrived. When faced with the facts that
> > > Bush is full of shit about WMD
> > >
> > It is so amazing that in 2003 we are hearing from you kooks that Saddam
> > just couldn't possibly have WMDs when he had them back in the first gulf
> > war and many were even destroyed with by the inspectors. Of course even
> > though he has spend years frustrating inspectors, he couldn't possibly
> > have WMDs now. Laugh.
>
> Not amazing, but logical. It's astounding that even with Bush's lies
> exposed, Bush's top WMD hunter unable to find *any* evidence of WMDs after
> months of unrestricted access (and Rummie claimed he knew exactly where the
> WMDs in Iraq were), that there are still apologists out there claiming that
> Bush didn't lie. T
>
Show us where Bush lied?
Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )
" făhç" wrote:
>
> > We've always said that the people of Iraq deserve a chance at freedom.
> > Feel free to tell us what the threat is though. Put the names of the
> > groups and countries that are threats to the US right here ---->
>
> A big zero, both before invading Iraq and now. What's your point? Are you
> ready to admit that Bush lied that Iraq was a threat to America?
>
So no countries are a threat to the US? You missed out on 9/11
completely!?
Steveo
Stuart Grey wrote:
You are getting old, fascist. If you can't handle different opinions, I
suggest that you relocate to a place where one one opinion is allowed --
try China, Cuba, or the White House.
fãhç
"Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )"
<std...@backpacker.com> wrote in message
>
> " fãhç" wrote:
> >
> > Bush and the Pentagon ignored the intelligence community and started
> > creating their bogus data in the Office of Special Plans which is
> > universally laughed at by the real intelligence community. Given
> > correctly handled intel on Saddam, it was logical to conclude he
> > did *not* have WMDs.
> >
> > Next.
> >
>
> You are a kook.
Sounds more like you are an uninformed idiot. But then you always come off
that way in these newsgroups Bill.
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Office+of+Special+Plans%22&start=0
You might want to look through these hits Bill, there is even an unfavorable
NewsMax story on the OSP among them.
Steveo
Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack ) wrote:
>
> " făhç" wrote:
>
>>>We've always said that the people of Iraq deserve a chance at freedom.
>>>Feel free to tell us what the threat is though. Put the names of the
>>>groups and countries that are threats to the US right here ---->
>>
>>A big zero, both before invading Iraq and now. What's your point? Are you
>>ready to admit that Bush lied that Iraq was a threat to America?
>>
>
> So no countries are a threat to the US? You missed out on 9/11
> completely!?
>
>
What country was responsible for 9/11?
fãhç
"Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )"
<std...@backpacker.com> wrote in message
>
>
> " făhç" wrote:
> >
> > > We've always said that the people of Iraq deserve a chance at freedom.
> > > Feel free to tell us what the threat is though. Put the names of the
> > > groups and countries that are threats to the US right here ---->
> >
> > A big zero, both before invading Iraq and now. What's your point? Are
> > you ready to admit that Bush lied that Iraq was a threat to America?
> >
>
> So no countries are a threat to the US? You missed out on 9/11
> completely!?
Really? Is al Qeada a country Bill? Geez you are an idiot.
fãhç
"Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )"
<std...@backpacker.com> wrote in message
>
> " fãhç" wrote:
> >
> >
> > Not amazing, but logical. It's astounding that even with Bush's lies
> > exposed, Bush's top WMD hunter unable to find *any* evidence of WMDs
after
> > months of unrestricted access (and Rummie claimed he knew exactly where
the
> > WMDs in Iraq were), that there are still apologists out there claiming
that
> > truly amazing.
> >
>
> Show us where Bush lied?
Again? Aren't you tired of having your master's lies pointed out to you
yet, or do you have some sort of brain damage that has affected your memory?
Here is just a short list of some of Bush's lies. Please entertain us by
trying to weasel out of them for Bush. I'm sure you won't. As usual, you
will just trim out all the lies you can't refute.
LIE #1: "The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear
weapons program ... Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum
tubes and other equipment need for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich
uranium for nuclear weapons." - President Bush, Oct. 7, 2002, in Cincinnati.
FACT: This story, leaked to and breathlessly reported by Judith Miller in
the New York Times, has turned out to be complete baloney. Department of
Energy officials, who monitor nuclear plants, say the tubes could not be
used for enriching uranium. One intelligence analyst, who was part of the
tubes investigation, angrily told The New Republic: "You had senior American
officials like Condoleezza Rice saying the only use of this aluminum really
is uranium centrifuges. She said that on television. And that's just a lie."
LIE #2: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently
sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." - President Bush,
Jan.28, 2003, in the State of the Union address.
FACT: This whopper was based on a document that the White House already knew
to be a forgery thanks to the CIA. Sold to Italian intelligence by some
hustler, the document carried the signature of an official who had been out
of office for 10 years and referenced a constitution that was no longer in
effect. The ex-ambassador who the CIA sent to check out the story is pissed:
"They knew the Niger story was a flat-out lie," he told the New Republic,
anonymously. "They [the White House] were unpersuasive about aluminum tubes
and added this to make their case more strongly."
LIE #3: "We believe [Saddam] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." -
Vice President Cheney on March 16, 2003 on "Meet the Press."
FACT: There was and is absolutely zero basis for this statement. CIA reports
up through 2002 showed no evidence of an Iraqi nuclear weapons program.
LIE #4: "[The CIA possesses] solid reporting of senior-level contacts
between Iraq and al-Qaeda going back a decade." - CIA Director George Tenet
in a written statement released Oct. 7, 2002 and echoed in that evening's
speech by President Bush.
FACT: Intelligence agencies knew of tentative contacts between Saddam and
al-Qaeda in the early '90s, but found no proof of a continuing relationship.
In other words, by tweaking language, Tenet and Bush spun the
intelligence180 degrees to say exactly the opposite of what it suggested.
LIE #5: "We've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making
and poisons and deadly gases ... Alliance with terrorists could allow the
Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints." -
President Bush, Oct. 7.
FACT: No evidence of this has ever been leaked or produced. Colin Powell
told the U.N. this alleged training took place in a camp in northern Iraq.
To his great embarrassment, the area he indicated was later revealed to be
outside Iraq's control and patrolled by Allied war planes.
LIE #6: "We have also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a
growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to
disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We are concerned
that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVs [unmanned aerial vehicles]
for missions targeting the United States." - President Bush, Oct. 7.
FACT: Said drones can't fly more than 300 miles, and Iraq is 6,000 miles
from the U.S. coastline. Furthermore, Iraq's drone-building program wasn't
much more advanced than your average model plane enthusiast. And isn't a
"manned aerial vehicle" just a scary way to say "plane"?
LIE #7: "We have seen intelligence over many months that they have chemical
and biological weapons, and that they have dispersed them and that they're
weaponized and that, in one case at least, the command and control
arrangements have been established." - President Bush, Feb. 8, 2003, in a
national radio address.
FACT: Despite a massive nationwide search by U.S. and British forces, there
are no signs, traces or examples of chemical weapons being deployed in the
field, or anywhere else during the war.
LIE #8: "Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of
between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough to fill
16,000 battlefield rockets." - Secretary of State Colin Powell, Feb. 5 2003,
in remarks to the UN Security Council.
FACT: Putting aside the glaring fact that not one drop of this massive
stockpile has been found, as previously reported on AlterNet our own
intelligence reports show that these stocks - if they existed - were well
past their use-by date and therefore useless as weapon fodder.
LIE #9: "We know where [Iraq's WMD] are. They're in the area around Tikrit
and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat." - Secretary of
Defense Donald Rumsfeld, March 30, 2003, in statements to the press.
FACT: Needless to say, no such weapons were found, not to the east, west,
south or north, somewhat or otherwise.
LIE #10: "Yes, we found a biological laboratory in Iraq which the UN
prohibited." - President Bush in remarks in Poland, published
internationally June 1, 2003.
FACT: This was reference to the discovery of two modified truck trailers
that the CIA claimed were potential mobile biological weapons lab. But
British and American experts - including the State Department's intelligence
wing in a report released this week - have since declared this to be untrue.
According to the British, and much to Prime Minister Tony Blair's
embarrassment, the trailers are actually exactly what Iraq said they were;
facilities to fill weather balloons, sold to them by the British themselves.
Stuart Grey
propagandist. Probably both!
http://www.intellicast.com/DrDewpoint/Library/1208/
The data on solar activity agrees quite well with
global temperature, as you can see from figure 1.
http://www.intellicast.com/DrDewpoint/Library/1208/figure01.shtml
About the early 1990s, when this study was done, the
commiecrats formed a rebuttal by FUDGING THE SURFACE
TEMPERATURE DATA by using data collected from points
that had become urbanized over the period of the study.
When upper air temperatures are considered, there is
NO EXCESS WARMING, and it's all consistent with the
solar cycle.
Eliminate the bogus data points from the data set, and
the temperature still agrees with sun spot cycle.
You can get the paper on the link between solar
activity and global temperature here.
http://www.dea-ccat.dk/sun/JASTP2.htm
Don't let lying commiecrat scum bags sway you with
their disdain for the truth and pro commie propaganda!
The only "pox" going on here is the commiecrats on
the scientific community; they are trying to turn
science into a commie propaganda machine, much as
they have in commie nations.
Stuart Grey
Vendicar Decarian wrote:
Read my other post, you lying jackass.
http://www.dea-ccat.dk/sun/JASTP2.htm
"Published december 1998 in Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial
Physics, Vol 60, Number 18, pp 1719-1728
Solar cycle length hypothesis appears to support the IPCC on global warming"
Another commiecrat lying idiot is exposed!
Stuart Grey
Vendicar Decarian wrote:
> "Stuart Grey" <Stuar...@comcastdot.net> wrote in message
> news:xrUxb.341957$HS4.2919728@attbi_s01...
>
>>Yeah. I don't like liars and commie propagandist.
>>I think anyone that hates freedom so much should
>>get kicked right in the ass.
>
>
> When ignorant NeoCon's are caught in a lie, they invariably start to call
> the catcher a "commie".
Not all liars are commies...
All commies ARE liars, however.
And so far today, I nailed you telling two
massive whoppers!
> It's a well known Conservative flaw, very similar to the Jew Baiting done by
> their NeoNazi brothers in crime.
You mean like your buddy Joe Stalin, commiecrat?
Stuart Grey
făhç wrote:
< repetitive gibber >
Wow. You just gibber the same thing over and over
again, don't you?
As I told that other fool (your sock puppet?)
global warming is due to solar activity, not
CO2.
CO2 is a MINOR greenhouse gas, compared to
water vapor.
The amount of warming due to CO2 by conventional
greenhouse theory is INSIGNIFICANT, in the noise
level.
There is almost perfect correlation between global
temperature and the solar cycle. Coincidence?
Statistically, the possibility of that is just
about zero.
Now go away. We had enough "watermelon" science.
fãhç
>
> <unsubstantiated paranoid shrieking>
Still waiting for you to provide any cite, but you have none.
Time for your medication old man. That tin foil hat of yours needs
replacing too.
Stuart Grey
făhç wrote:
> "Stuart Grey" <Stuar...@comcast.net> wrote:
LOL! That's just solar irradiance data, you
stupid dip shit. You are not a very good commiecrat
propagandist, are you? I've worked with much better
commiecrats.
Here's how a better commiecrat would have handled
it...
They would point to the graph that shows over the
last 10 years how the global temperature is diverging
from following the solar cycle, and following the
CO2 levels.
Then I come back and point to the corrected data,
that eliminates the surface data points gathered by
areas that have become urbanized over the last
ten years, show how with this correction it follows
the air temperature data and past data for as far
back as studies can determine so it's correct, and then
I show how that again follows solar cycle - (NOT
just irradiance).
That's when you throw you hands up and point to the
latest commiecrat lie - the one where all the bad
temperature data is included and a lot of statistical
hand waving is done to reach the commiecrat conclusion.
Then I laugh at how pathetic that is, point to the bad
data, and you slink away for another forum where there
are not people as well informed as I.
fãhç
"Stuart Grey" <Stuar...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ZYvyb.371918$Tr4.1101361@attbi_s03...
>
> <Paranoid communist conspiracy theories snipped>
The Earth's surface and all layers of the atmosphere show a warming trend
except for certain regions of the lower troposphere (clouds, water, weather)
and the lower stratosphere. Nothing unexpected by recent climate models and
certainly doesn't support the crony-capitalist/warhawk/faith-based theories
on climate change that you keep shrieking about.
"The Kyoto treaty threatens to limit the exercise of American military
power ... unilateral military actions as in Grenada, Panama and Libya
will become politically and diplomatically more difficult "
-Letter signed by Dick Cheney to Bill Clinton, January 22, 1998
fãhç
"Stuart Grey" <Stuar...@comcastdot.net> wrote:
>
> <psuedo-science taken from the Wall Street Journal snipped>
You were the one that claimed that sunspot activity was worse than ever
before and that is what was causing global warming. The chart provided
clearly shows that the solar output from the sun of no greater now than in
the past. Therefore, quite simply, your claim is wrong.
Time for your medication old man. We wouldn't want you to burst a blood
vessel in your brain now would we.
Stuart Grey
făhç wrote:
> "Stuart Grey" <Stuar...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>><unsubstantiated paranoid shrieking>
>
>
> Still waiting for you to provide any cite, but you have none.
Liar. I gave about three of them so far.
> Time for your medication old man. That tin foil hat of yours needs
> replacing too.
You're a dumb shit commiecrat. Hell, I know your
propaganda better than you do.
rwwff
> [This only made page 11 (!!) of the Washington Post!]
>
> Sciences report has concluded that greenhouse gases and other
> pollutants could trigger large, abrupt and potentially disastrous
> climate changes.c
Read the last four words. The whole article has this tone, but those
four words reveal it all. The generic reader of the Washington Post
has, over the last few decades, seen and read an untold number of
reports promising all sorts of abrupt, large, disastrous COULD HAPPENs
that never happen.
A recollection of a story about crying "wolf" repeatedly crosses my
mind...
Now, while you and I are likely satisfied with the accuracy of the
report and the science behind it, it doesn't change the fact that the
scientific community has miniscule credibility when it comes to
predicting large scale things happening fast.
And of course, there is the other problem, the REAL problem that makes
policy people ignore these things. No one in the scientific community
can belly up to the table and say IF you make reduction ABC, these
consequences WILL NOT happen. They don't do it, because in all
honesty, they can't prove that their suggested proposals will stop the
effect. We all know what is causing global warming, on the other
hand, no one can prove that it can now be halted. I tend to be one of
those that believes the effect has already passed the point of being
self-propagating. Take all the human contribution out, and I'd bet
good money that the effect would only marginally slow. Granted, its
a meaningless bet, but it expresses my point well enough.
Stuart Grey
făhç wrote:
> "Stuart Grey" <Stuar...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:ZYvyb.371918$Tr4.1101361@attbi_s03...
>
>><Paranoid communist conspiracy theories snipped>
Look!
The commiecrat snipped all the stuff that PROVED he
was bullshitting!
Again,
http://www.dea-ccat.dk/sun/JASTP2.htm
http://www.intellicast.com/DrDewpoint/Library/1208/
http://www.intellicast.com/DrDewpoint/Library/1208/figure01.shtml
See how the little commiecrat liar runs in the face of the
true facts and data!
> The Earth's surface and all layers of the atmosphere show a warming trend
> except for certain regions of the lower troposphere (clouds, water, weather)
> and the lower stratosphere.
Yep. Global warming is real. It's caused by the solar
cycle, and there's not a damn thing we can do about it.
> Nothing unexpected by recent climate models and
> certainly doesn't support the crony-capitalist/warhawk/faith-based theories
> on climate change that you keep shrieking about.
LOL! Peer reviewed journal results, that explains global
warming, and all this commiecrat asshole has is some
really LAME propaganda about carbon dioxide that he
is trying to use to shut down the American economy and
ruin the greatest capitalist nation on earth!
A REAL person concerned about global warming would
have ADMITTED that the CO2 claims is bullshit, once
he saw the VALID data. But not a commiecrat, hell no!
They have an agenda that has nothing to do with dealing
with global warming or science.
The fact is, 95% of the greenhouse effect is due to
WATER VAPOR. CO2 makes up about one tenth of 1 percent,
or 0.1%. Even so, of the CO2 in the air, only about
3% of that is man made, most of it being very much
natural.
This commiecrat doesn't even know that 120,000 years
ago, CO2 and global temperature levels were about the
same as they are NOW. Nothing man did 120,000 years
ago caused that global warming. Indeed, it appears
that the sun has periods of activity that cause the
earth to warm, which drives CO2 out of the oceans
(solubility is less when temperatures increase) and
thus, the correlation (but not causation) between
CO2 and global temperature. NOTHING in any
REASONABLE model of global warming says that the CO2 is
causing the warming! That's a FICTION of the lying
commiecrat bastards.
Vendicar Decarian
> Yep. Global warming is real. It's caused by the solar
> cycle, and there's not a damn thing we can do about it.
You should write a paper on your little theory there and submit it to a
respected Science Journal to be published.
Oh, you have no evidence to backup your assertion?
I guess your presumption is not scientific and hence just BullShit.
Have a nice day.
Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )
Don't you call for maximizing the number of Americans killed in Iraq? Is
someone like that really the best to consider scientific issues with?
Vendicar Decarian
"Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )"
<std...@backpacker.com> wrote in message
> status quo of Saddam and the people under his thumb.
Or the Liberation the globe from American state terrorism.
The more dead ameicans in Iraq the better.
Vendicar Decarian
trying to prove. Bahahahaha.... Is your IQ as low as Bush's?
"The present analysis goes a step further. We analyse the period 1579-1987
and find that the solar hypothesis - instead of contradicting - appears to
support the assumption of a significant warming due to human activities. "
Thank you for "exposing" your own stupidty.
Bahahahahahah
"Stuart Grey" <Stuar...@comcastdot.net> wrote in message
news:u_vyb.368873$HS4.3076750@attbi_s01...
ulTRAX
> făhç wrote:
> > The Earth's surface and all layers of the atmosphere show a warming trend
> > except for certain regions of the lower troposphere (clouds, water, weather)
> > and the lower stratosphere.
>
> Yep. Global warming is real. It's caused by the solar
> cycle, and there's not a damn thing we can do about it.
I see little Stewie is on another psychotic rampage. Gee... whether
global warming is anthropogenic or natural is immaterial... there's
STILL going to be effects on the environment. Don't you think? Or
don't you?
If those consequences are as serious as the shutdown of the oceanic
currents that moderate the climate in Europe or flooding of some
costal cities... then we better consider some corrective actions
REGARDLESS of the cause. This might not just mean reducing greenhouse
gas production but trying to find CO2 sinks to absorb what's already
in the atmosphere. What's YOUR approach Stewie... keeping your head up
your ass pretending that GW political dispute as opposed to an
environmental one?
fãhç
"Stuart Grey" <Stuar...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
> făhç wrote:
>
> > "Stuart Grey" <Stuar...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> >><unsubstantiated paranoid shrieking>
> >
> >
> > Still waiting for you to provide any cite, but you have none.
>
> Liar. I gave about three of them so far.
Referring to a Wall Street Journal article that you couldn't remember the
date, the author, or provide a URL for is considered a cite by you? That's
the only one I've see you claim to give to me. Since when is the WSJ a
scientific reference?
Post your three URLs here in this message.
fãhç
"Stuart Grey" <Stuar...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
> făhç wrote:
>
> > "Stuart Grey" <Stuar...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:ZYvyb.371918$Tr4.1101361@attbi_s03...
> >
> >><Paranoid communist conspiracy theories snipped>
>
> Look!
>
> The commiecrat snipped all the stuff that PROVED he
> was bullshitting!
That's the pot calling the kettle black. You were the one that started
clipping everything out of my replies and not responding to anything I said.
Look! Old man Stewie dishes it out, but doesn't complains when it's done to
him....
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=i3wyb.368905%24HS4.3078395%40attbi_s01
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=I%25eyb.362503%24Tr4.1074645%40attbi_s03
> Again,
> http://www.dea-ccat.dk/sun/JASTP2.htm
From your own cite...
"In an earlier paper we have demonstrated that for data covering the period
1860-1980 the solar hypothesis does not rule out any significant
contribution from man-made greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols. The
present analysis goes a step further. We analyse the period 1579-1987 and
find that the solar hypothesis - instead of contradicting - appears to
support the assumption of a significant warming due to human activities. In
an earlier paper we have demonstrated that for data covering the period
1860-1980 the solar hypothesis does not rule out any significant
contribution from man-made greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols. The
present analysis goes a step further. We analyse the period 1579-1987 and
find that the solar hypothesis - instead of contradicting - appears to
support the assumption of a significant warming due to human activities. "
"Therefore our findings support a total reversal of the common assumption
that a verification of the solar hypothesis would challenge the IPCC
assessment of man-made global warming."
Thanks for that link. But it contradicts everything you've been claiming.
Looks like you are the one spreading "communist lies" on usenet now!
fãhç
"ulTRAX" wrote:
>
> Stuart Grey <Stuar...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> > Yep. Global warming is real. It's caused by the solar
> > cycle, and there's not a damn thing we can do about it.
>
> I see little Stewie is on another psychotic rampage. Gee... whether
> global warming is anthropogenic or natural is immaterial... there's
> STILL going to be effects on the environment. Don't you think? Or
> don't you?
Here's a funny quote that followed from one of Psycho-Stewie's links...
"If the Sun is indeed the main contributor to the recent climate change, the
money may be better spent providing clean air in big cities"
Whether or not human activity is a significant contributor to global
warming, both sides of the table want to clean up the environment. I guess
that means Stewie is going to have to accuse the sunspot theory scientists
of being communists out to destroy America!
Steveo
Stuart Grey wrote:
>
>
> făhç wrote:
>
> < repetitive gibber >
>
> Wow. You just gibber the same thing over and over
> again, don't you?
>
> As I told that other fool (your sock puppet?)
> global warming is due to solar activity, not
> CO2.
What proof of this bizarre assertion can you offer?
>
> CO2 is a MINOR greenhouse gas, compared to
> water vapor.
What proof of this bizarre assertion can you offer?
>
> The amount of warming due to CO2 by conventional
> greenhouse theory is INSIGNIFICANT, in the noise
> level.
What proof of this bizarre assertion can hyou offer?
>
> There is almost perfect correlation between global
> temperature and the solar cycle. Coincidence?
> Statistically, the possibility of that is just
> about zero.
What proof of this bizarre assertion can hyou offer?
> Now go away. We had enough "watermelon" science.
On which planet do you reside?
Steveo
Stuart Grey wrote:
Your use of "commiecrat" instantly marks you as a kook and your use of
pseudoscience confirms it.
Stuart Grey
Vendicar Decarian wrote:
> The abstract of the very article you reference contradicts the claim you are
> trying to prove. Bahahahaha.... Is your IQ as low as Bush's?
Good for you, you commiecrat asshole.
I picked that one from a list of URLs I keep on global
warming. That one was under solar cycle and global
warming.
It was the wrong one. I meant to reference the paper
to which this one was a rebuttal. Unlike you commiecrat
lying assholes, I read BOTH sides of the argument.
As soon as I saw my mistake, I canceled my own posts,
as I just knew some moronic, juvenile commiecrat asshole,
such as yourself, would jump on it to declare victory,
like you did.
However: It DOES prove that the solar cycle theory is
a valid, scientific one, unlike you and that other
damned commiecrat moron were claiming. It does prove
YOUR ignorance.
> "The present analysis goes a step further. We analyse the period 1579-1987
> and find that the solar hypothesis - instead of contradicting - appears to
> support the assumption of a significant warming due to human activities. "
If your read the paper, it's a piece of shit.
The objections the paper made are two fold: The
first "objection" was that prior to 1860, the
data is 1/10 of ONE degree off. There are two
reasons why this is a moronic objection. 1) The
data from 1860 forward is dead on and 2) the
data from 1860 suffers from poor calibration.
The second objection was that there were spikes
that were smoothed out. But again, this only makes
a difference in the data older than about 1925.
There is still remarkably good agreement between
solar activity and global temperature.
Then when you look at the paper itself, it is
FILLED with political references to Koyoto and
to saving the reasons for Koyoto. It is NOT
the work of an objective, unbiased scientist but
rather of a political asshole with an ax to
grind. Just the sort of commiecrat bullshit
I had been talking about.
> Thank you for "exposing" your own stupidty.
>
> Bahahahahahah
Dumbass commiecrat doesn't even know what an idiot
he is.
Stuart Grey
ulTRAX wrote:
> Stuart Grey <Stuar...@comcastdot.net> wrote in message news:<Ksxyb.267885$9E1.1411289@attbi_s52>...
>
>>făhç wrote:
>
>
>>>The Earth's surface and all layers of the atmosphere show a warming trend
>>>except for certain regions of the lower troposphere (clouds, water, weather)
>>>and the lower stratosphere.
>>
>>Yep. Global warming is real. It's caused by the solar
>>cycle, and there's not a damn thing we can do about it.
>
>
> I see little Stewie is on another psychotic rampage. Gee... whether
> global warming is anthropogenic or natural is immaterial... there's
> STILL going to be effects on the environment. Don't you think? Or
> don't you?
Yes, Global warming is real. :-)
> If those consequences are as serious as the shutdown of the oceanic
> currents that moderate the climate in Europe or flooding of some
> costal cities... then we better consider some corrective actions
> REGARDLESS of the cause. This might not just mean reducing greenhouse
> gas production but trying to find CO2 sinks to absorb what's already
> in the atmosphere.
You moronic retarded commie asshole.
If the CO2 is a RESULT, and not a cause, of global
warming, then cutting down on the amount of CO2
will have NO EFFECT.
Stupid commiecrat. Your like the guy who want's
to cut off a man's arm because he got snake bite,
and having been informed that the bite was on his
leg, asks "can I still cut his arm off? I really want
to cut his arm off!"
> What's YOUR approach Stewie... keeping your head up
> your ass pretending that GW political dispute as opposed to an
> environmental one?
Reason is never one of the commiecrat's strong
points! I can't believe you made this moronic
post. You assholes never do well when you have
a script for your propaganda from the commiecrat
party to follow.
Stuart Grey
fãhç wrote:
> "Stuart Grey" <Stuar...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>fãhç wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Stuart Grey" <Stuar...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>><unsubstantiated paranoid shrieking>
>>>
>>>
>>>Still waiting for you to provide any cite, but you have none.
>>
>>Liar. I gave about three of them so far.
>
>
> Referring to a Wall Street Journal article that you couldn't remember the
> date, the author, or provide a URL for is considered a cite by you?
What would be a point in doing that? Does
welfare pay for an online subscription to
the Wall Street Journal? How would you get
to it? And you would have just stuck your
head up your ass and pretended not to see
it, or would have dissed it like you just did.
There's no fricken way a commiecrat is going
to admit he's wrong on this; we know that because
the issue has NOTHING to do with global warming
and EVERYTHING to do with attacking the American
economy.
> That's
> the only one I've see you claim to give to me. Since when is the WSJ a
> scientific reference?
>
> Post your three URLs here in this message.
Here is one about your speed:
http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/19990313202232data_trunc_sys.shtml
This one is surely beyond your limited comprehension:
http://www.junkscience.com/news/robinson.htm
At least, you're going to pretend not to understand it;
as I said, you're out to sabotage the American economy,
and this Global Warming - CO2 stuff is just a propaganda
point.
This one has annoying music, but it has references you
can check:
http://www.fathersforlife.org/REA/warming4.htm
It has a pretty good link to this one:
http://www.john-daly.com/solar/solar.htm
Here's one from a research group called "NASA".
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/intro/shindell_03/
If you go down to the 3rd and 4th paragraphs, it
details what's wrong with many of the computer
models that predict global warming due to CO2 - the
ONLY concentrate on the surface temperature (where
the BOGUS data is) and ignore the upper atmosphere
(where urbanization doesn't cause bogus data points,
btw, like I've been saying).
Here's a link:
http://www.globalwarming.org/sciup/sci8-10-98.htm
"Support Grows for Sun-Climate Link
"A striking correlation has been found between changes in the sun’s
brightness and changes in global temperatures. One of the problems with
any explanation that attributes climate changes to changes in the sun’s
energy output is that the output is not large enough by itself to
account for change on earth. Several theories have been advanced to
explain how changes in the sun can translate into large climate changes
on earth.
"The New Scientist (July 11, 1998) discusses the recent work of Eigil
Friis-Christensen and Knud Lassen of the Danish Meteorological
Institute. Their theory says energetic particles from space known as
cosmic rays assist in cloud formation. The more clouds, the cooler the
earth becomes. Solar winds, according to Friis-Christensen and Lassen,
block cosmic rays leading to less cloud cover and a warmer planet."
As I have said before, you don't even know about the
link between solar activity and global warming. How
the hell is anyone suppose to take you as credible,
when you and the other eco-goons call it "a pretty
funny little fantasy" which proves that you are
IGNORANT of the theory, and "global warming has been
documented to be occurring long before any recent
sunspot activity" which proves you are IGNORANT
of the fact that sunspots have been happening for
BILLIONS of years, and the solar activity cycle
correlates well with previous ice ages and warming
periods. Hell, if you go back before 1990, the
correlation between CO2 and global warming goes
to hell. That's why the commiecrat propagandist
IGNORE the data before 1990.
Stuart Grey
făhç wrote:
> "ulTRAX" wrote:
>
>>Stuart Grey <Stuar...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Yep. Global warming is real. It's caused by the solar
>>>cycle, and there's not a damn thing we can do about it.
>>
>>I see little Stewie is on another psychotic rampage. Gee... whether
>>global warming is anthropogenic or natural is immaterial... there's
>>STILL going to be effects on the environment. Don't you think? Or
>>don't you?
>
>
> Here's a funny quote that followed from one of Psycho-Stewie's links...
You're one of Zepp's sock puppets, aren't you?
> "If the Sun is indeed the main contributor to the recent climate change, the
> money may be better spent providing clean air in big cities"
Yep.
> Whether or not human activity is a significant contributor to global
> warming, both sides of the table want to clean up the environment.
Yep. However, Republicans just plain ol' like clean air.
We know from looking at communist countries that the
commies will flush clean air as soon as they get to
power. Some of the most polluted shit holes in the world
are commie and former commie states. With the American
commiecrats, clean air is only an attack on American
industry and the American economy.
> I guess
> that means Stewie is going to have to accuse the sunspot theory scientists
> of being communists out to destroy America!
Wow, you're as irrational as ever. You must have
some sort of brain damage.
What makes you think I don't want a clean environment?
I don't know anyone who doesn't want clean air.
Stuart Grey
Steveo wrote:
>
>
> Stuart Grey wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> făhç wrote:
>>
>> < repetitive gibber >
>>
>> Wow. You just gibber the same thing over and over
>> again, don't you?
>>
>> As I told that other fool (your sock puppet?)
>> global warming is due to solar activity, not
>> CO2.
>
>
> What proof of this bizarre assertion can you offer?
That you have your head up your ass? It's pretty
damned obvious. That global warming is not due to
CO2 but due to solar activity (wow. Commiecrats
pretend that sun doesn't warm the earth! What
lying assholes.) Read the thread!
>> CO2 is a MINOR greenhouse gas, compared to
>> water vapor.
>
>
> What proof of this bizarre assertion can you offer?
You ignorant, moronic ass! This isn't even
disputed by the communist party! You don't
know the first damn thing about global warming,
and you have the boldness to LIE that this is
a "bizarre assertion"!!
< snip more proof that "Steveo" is a completely
ignorant moron who didn't even bother to search
the web to see if he was full of shit before he
posted >
Stuart Grey
Steveo wrote:
Commiecrat, as in "Commie", the familiar name
for "communist" and "crat", meaning "rule".
A commiecrat is someone who advocates communist
rule. Not all the America haters are commiecrats,
but all commiecrats are America haters.
As for pseudo science, I've addressed your complete
and utter ignorance and stupidity in another one of
your posts. Read this thread and find out what the
latest holes in the commiecrat/Koyoto attack on America
are.
Stuart Grey
Vendicar Decarian wrote:
> "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )"
> <std...@backpacker.com> wrote in message
>
>>You might consider that vis a vis the Middle East and leaving it in the
>>status quo of Saddam and the people under his thumb.
>
>
> Or the Liberation the globe from American state terrorism.
That line was straight out of the commie handbook.
> The more dead ameicans in Iraq the better.
Ah, another Democrat showing his support for the
troops!
That ANYONE every votes Democrat, and thus associates
themselves with this vile, disgusting shit bag, well,
they just have neither pride nor honor.
fãhç
>
>
> Vendicar Decarian wrote:
>
> > The more dead ameicans in Iraq the better.
>
> Ah, another Democrat showing his support for the
> troops!
>
> That ANYONE every votes Democrat, and thus associates
> themselves with this vile, disgusting shit bag, well,
> they just have neither pride nor honor.
I don't think "Vendicar Decarian" votes in the US nor is a Democrat. The
poster is in Canada. Psycho-Stewie must be one of those rubes that assumes
everyone on the internet is an American, and everyone that doesn't agree
with him is a communist. McCarthy is your hero, isn't he Stewie?
From: "Vendicar Decarian" <V...@Pyro.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.150.149.131
CustName: Cogeco Cable Solutions
Address: 950 Syscon Drive
City: Burlington
StateProv: ON
PostalCode: L7R 4S6
Country: CA
fãhç
"Stuart Grey" <Stuar...@comcastdot.net> wrote:
>
> <repetative jibber-jabber snipped>
You are basing your ridiculous communist conspiracy theory on a single paper
that used weather data from a single measurement point in a remote area of
Ireland, instead of the data from thousands of points around the globe and
satellites compiled into a global climate computer model that has been
tested for accuracy against historic data. You have proven that you don't
know the first thing about data collection and the design of experiments.
Better tighten your tin foil hat, the commies are coming!
fãhç
"Stuart Grey" <Stuar...@comcastdot.net> wrote:
>
>
> What makes you think I don't want a clean environment?
> I don't know anyone who doesn't want clean air.
You don't know the people you are defending in industry then do you?
fãhç
"Stuart Grey" <Stuar...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
> Here is one about your speed:
> http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/19990313202232data_trunc_sys.shtml
Another good one Stewie! From your own link...
"According to Shindell, the new study also confirms that changing levels of
energy from the sun are not a major cause of global warming.
Many scientists have argued that the radiation change in a solar cycle - an
increase of two to three tenths of a percent over the 20th century - are not
strong enough to account for the observed surface temperature increases. The
GISS model agrees that the solar increases do not have the ability to cause
large global temperature increases, leading Shindell to conclude that
greenhouse gasses are indeed playing the dominant role."
> This one is surely beyond your limited comprehension:
> http://www.junkscience.com/news/robinson.htm
Ah, another paper based on the single paper from a single surface location
measurement point pitted against thousands of measurements on land, sea,
air, and space.
> Here's one from a research group called "NASA".
> http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/intro/shindell_03/
Looking good Stewie! Keep posting these "commiecrat" links that contradict
you!
"The pattern of modeled surface temperature changes induced by solar
variability is well correlated with observed global warming over the first
half of the 20th century, but not with the more rapid warming seen over the
past three decades. The latter more closely resembles modeled warming
induced by increasing greenhouse gas emissions. This suggests that although
solar variability does impact surface climate indirectly, it was probably
not responsible for most of the rapid global warming seen over the past
three decades."
Really now Stewie, why do you go on?
Steveo
Gee, Stewie, I must have really pulled your chain. Your personal attacks are
most endearing and most expected. Keep up the good work, Stewie. There are
lots of awards lying around waiting to be claimed by kooks such as you.
Steveo
Yawn.
harvest dancer
> The abstract of the very article you reference contradicts the claim you are
> trying to prove. Bahahahaha.... Is your IQ as low as Bush's?
>
> "The present analysis goes a step further. We analyse the period 1579-1987
> and find that the solar hypothesis - instead of contradicting - appears to
> support the assumption of a significant warming due to human activities. "
>
> Thank you for "exposing" your own stupidty.
>
> Bahahahahahah
Hi Nudds.
news:<4f697f9f.02081...@posting.google.com>
Sincerely,
Jason
harvest dancer
Hi Nudds.
harvest dancer
> "Stuart Grey" <Stuar...@comcastdot.net> wrote in message
> news:Ksxyb.267885$9E1.1411289@attbi_s52...
> > Yep. Global warming is real. It's caused by the solar
> > cycle, and there's not a damn thing we can do about it.
>
> You should write a paper on your little theory there and submit it to a
> respected Science Journal to be published.
Hi Nudds.
ulTRAX
> ulTRAX wrote:
>
> > Stuart Grey <Stuar...@comcastdot.net> wrote in message news:<Ksxyb.267885$9E1.1411289@attbi_s52>...
> >
> >>făhç wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>The Earth's surface and all layers of the atmosphere show a warming trend
> >>>except for certain regions of the lower troposphere (clouds, water, weather)
> >>>and the lower stratosphere.
> >>
> >>Yep. Global warming is real. It's caused by the solar
> >>cycle, and there's not a damn thing we can do about it.
> >
> >
> > I see little Stewie is on another psychotic rampage. Gee... whether
> > global warming is anthropogenic or natural is immaterial... there's
> > STILL going to be effects on the environment. Don't you think? Or
> > don't you?
>
> Yes, Global warming is real. :-)
>
> > If those consequences are as serious as the shutdown of the oceanic
> > currents that moderate the climate in Europe or flooding of some
> > costal cities... then we better consider some corrective actions
> > REGARDLESS of the cause. This might not just mean reducing greenhouse
> > gas production but trying to find CO2 sinks to absorb what's already
> > in the atmosphere.
>
> You moronic retarded commie asshole.
Look little Stewie... this is your last chance to either to be civil
or better take your meds and get sane. I'm not going to piss away my
life debating another RR'tard psychotic.
> If the CO2 is a RESULT, and not a cause, of global
> warming, then cutting down on the amount of CO2
> will have NO EFFECT.
And the proof of this is? Why can't there be TWO variables in play?
Oops... that's obviously too much for your pea brain to consider.
But let's play YOUR game. Let's pretend that global warming is driven
by, what? Some solar cycle? And this warming is the cause for rising
atmospheric CO2 levels.
Since CO2 IS a greenhouse gas whether you like it or not... to claim
it has NO further effect on climate is to bet against physics itself.
So there would seem to be the very real possibility of CO2 feedback
loop where whatever CO2 you claim is released from the oceans then
raises temperatures causing MORE CO2 to be released from the oceans.
So since so much is at stake, how do we break out of this feedback
cycle?
ulTRAX
> "Stuart Grey" <Stuar...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Commies are hoping to capitalize on the
> > now known relationship between sun spots
> > and global temperature. The sun has been
> > more active of late than at any time known
> > to man, according to ice core studies.
> >
> > And the more sun spots, the hotter the earth
> > gets. We can expect some very hot temperatures
> > in the near future.
> >
> > The hope is to convince ignorant people that
> > the global temperature rise is due to man
> > made CO2, not due to solar activity, so they
> > can shut down capitalism and the commie rat
> > bastards can control the world.
>
> That's a pretty funny little fantasy you have going there. Too bad that
> global warming has been documented to be occurring long before any recent
What really sad is not that we have another RR'tard who's sabotaged
his own intelligence... they are a dime a dozen. What's sad is that
the US has political and economic institutions that are so
dysfunctional they respond primarily just to their own self-created
imperatives while being resistant to the larger reality of nature.
> Perhaps you should educate yourself. (The charts on page 3 blow away your
> paranoid communist theory)
> http://www.unep.ch/ipcc/pub/spm22-01.pdf
William Barwell
Was in in a WSJ article or on the insane WSJ idiotoral page?
--
Bush! Chimp or chump?
Cheerful Charlie
ulTRAX
message news:<u_vyb.368873$HS4.3076750@attbi_s01>...> > news:aKTxb.249557$275.921625@attbi_s53...
> >
> >>What a stupid ass. Your ignorance clearly is showing.
> >>Sunspots have been happening since before there was
> >>life on earth, you idiot.
> >
> >
> > Well, there is absolutely no evidence to backup that bizzar assertion...
> >
> > Bahahahah... Amazing what fools will proclaim.
>
> Read my other post, you lying jackass.
>
> http://www.dea-ccat.dk/sun/JASTP2.htm
>
> "Published december 1998 in Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial
> Physics, Vol 60, Number 18, pp 1719-1728
>
> Solar cycle length hypothesis appears to support the IPCC on global warming"
>
> Another commiecrat lying idiot is exposed!
If you're trying to disprove any man made global warming then it's
curious you'd post such a study. If you follow the links to the
expanded version at http://www.dea-ccat.dk/sun/pl_jg_uk.pdf the
authors
"Put briefly our conclusion is that the solar data do not agree very
well with the historic temperature data. First when we assume a
man-made warming (roughly as computed with IPCC's climate models) and
"correct" the measured temperatures for this anthropogenic
contribution the agreement becomes good. That means that the
hypothesis of an important influence of solar activity upon
terrestrial temperatures actually supports the assumption of a
man-made global warming."
All they are claiming is that there's TWO processes (solar cycle and
man made) going on at the same time. So how does this disprove your
original contention that ALL of the earth's warming is due to solar
cycles and NOTHING was caused by human activity. Here's your original
claim again:
fãhç
"William Barwell" <wbar...@mungged.mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:3fcd59a1$0$125$811e...@news.mylinuxisp.com...
We don't know, he never gave an actual cite, just a nebulous, partial
recollection of some sort of article in the WSJ.
Stuart Grey
făhç wrote:
> "Stuart Grey" <Stuar...@comcastdot.net> wrote:
>
>><repetative jibber-jabber snipped>
>
>
> You are basing your ridiculous communist conspiracy theory on a single paper
> that used weather data from a single measurement point in a remote area of
> Ireland, instead of the data from thousands of points around the globe and
> satellites
Well, that is part of the problem with your argument, isn't
it? The upper air data doesn't agree with the surface temperature
data that P.D. Jones claims refutes the Thejll & Lassen work.
In fact, if you have an unbiased scientist look at the raw
data, the first thing he'd do is toss out the surface data
that came from points that was once rural, and later on
has become warmed by urban development. Once you do that,
the surface and upper air temperatures are again in agreement,
and the temperatures are much lower than the Jones paper
claims. So the papers that Jones published to debunk
Thejll and Lassen has itself been debunked.
There was also a paper done by the Irish Armagh observatory,
using their data, and it shows 1) solar and global temperature
agreement from 1800 up to 2000. 2) The well debunked temperature
spike of the Jones data was not there.
http://www.intellicast.com/DrDewpoint/Library/1208/
> compiled into a global climate computer model that has been
> tested for accuracy against historic data.
When solar data is compared against global temperature
data, you can explain 71% of the warming the earth has
undergone as due to the sun. When you model the interaction
between the upper and lower atmosphere properly, you can
explain all of the global warming as due to the sun.
http://www.cseg.ca/conferences/2000/1029.PDF
> You have proven that you don't
> know the first thing about data collection and the design of experiments.
Actually, my graduate degree is in physics.
My undergraduate degrees are in physics,
and the other is in Electrical engineering.
I am a Principle Investigator doing Independent
Research and Development at a major corporation.
I am also working on my thesis as part of a research
project team.
So far, I've gotten three awards from the government
for some of the original work I've done. I don't
offer this as an appeal to authority, but as
evidence that I've had peer review and was judge
worthy for some of my other work, and this
refutes your claim that I "don't know the first
thing about data collection and the design of
experiments". It is what I do, all day long.
> Better tighten your tin foil hat, the commies are coming!
:-)
Stuart Grey
făhç wrote:
Well, that's a rather telling statement you're making.
I don't consider (1) that I am defending anyone in
industry; I am pointing out that socialist make
propaganda, not science. and (2) I don't consider
industry to be the enemy.
It has been my claim all along that you at least
sympathize with an organization that does consider
American industry the enemy. I think you've proven
that point.
Stuart Grey
făhç wrote:
> "Stuart Grey" <Stuar...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>Here is one about your speed:
>>http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/19990313202232data_trunc_sys.shtml
>
>
> Another good one Stewie! From your own link...
>
> "According to Shindell, the new study also confirms that changing levels of
> energy from the sun are not a major cause of global warming.
But you now know it is a real theory.
What were you calling it, "tin hat"?
You clearly know almost nothing of the
field, if you are unfamiliar with the
competing theories.
Oh, btw, Shindell is completely wrong.
> Many scientists have argued that the radiation change in a solar cycle - an
> increase of two to three tenths of a percent over the 20th century - are not
> strong enough to account for the observed surface temperature increases.
This is ironic. On the face of it, the evidence for
CO2 causing the warming is negatively indicated. The
same thing they are saying about solar fluctuations
can be said about CO2, only CO2 follows behind by
an order of magnitude.
> The
> GISS model agrees that the solar increases do not have the ability to cause
> large global temperature increases, leading Shindell to conclude that
> greenhouse gasses are indeed playing the dominant role."
Shindell's error is that they didn't know that
there has been a long term increase in the solar
cycle. His claims are based on the assumption
that it has been constant for the last 100 years.
We know now, from correlation's with tree rings,
and other historical evidence, that his assumption
is FALSE.
>>This one is surely beyond your limited comprehension:
>>http://www.junkscience.com/news/robinson.htm
>
>
> Ah, another paper based on the single paper from a single surface location
> measurement point pitted against thousands of measurements on land, sea,
> air, and space.
For one, what you say about a "single surface location"
simply isn't so.
Secondly, this Danish result was replicated with the
same result in Ireland, without Jone's bogus data
that you cling to like a security blanket.
>>Here's one from a research group called "NASA".
>>http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/intro/shindell_03/
>
>
> Looking good Stewie! Keep posting these "commiecrat" links that contradict
> you!
>
> "The pattern of modeled surface temperature changes induced by solar
> variability is well correlated with observed global warming over the first
> half of the 20th century, but not with the more rapid warming seen over the
> past three decades.
Now, go back and look at the period of 1970 to 1990 in
the Christensen and Lassen Science 1991 paper, and you'll
see this simply isn't true for this period. The period
from 1990-1994, in the Jones paper, shows a big increase
in the temperature starting in 1990.
Lots of people fell for it. The problem is, the Jones
data included bogus data points, as I explained. Jones
has been debunked. It was in all the newspapers a
few years afterwards.
Stuart Grey
făhç wrote:
>> "William Barwell" <wbar...@mungged.mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
message.
>>
>>Was in in a WSJ article or on the insane WSJ idiotoral page?
>
>
> We don't know, he never gave an actual cite, just a nebulous, partial
> recollection of some sort of article in the WSJ.
LOL! Liberals. They assume everyone is lying. I wonder
why that is? Could it be that they think everyone else
is like them?
As it turns out, I have a very, very good memory. It
also turns out that The Center for Security Policy
has a reprint of the article, for FREE, on one of
their web pages.
http://www.security-policy.org/papers/other/edwarm10.html#TOP
I've already predicted what you would do if I found
the quote. You'd ignore it as you are not interested
in the truth you're only interested in your socialist,
anti American treaty. Prove me wrong.
Stuart Grey
ulTRAX wrote:
> Resident RR'tard Stu Grey <Stuar...@comcastdot.net> vomited in
This is the guy who says that he wants me to
tone down the name calling?
What he REALLY wants is for me to show a little
respect for HIS position, while disrespects
mine. His real complaint is that I'm better
at diss'in than he is. :-)
> message news:<u_vyb.368873$HS4.3076750@attbi_s01>...
>
>>Vendicar Decarian wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Stuart Grey" <Stuar...@comcastdot.net> wrote in message
>>>news:aKTxb.249557$275.921625@attbi_s53...
>>>
>>>
>>>>What a stupid ass. Your ignorance clearly is showing.
>>>>Sunspots have been happening since before there was
>>>>life on earth, you idiot.
>>>
>>>
>>> Well, there is absolutely no evidence to backup that bizzar assertion...
>>>
>>> Bahahahah... Amazing what fools will proclaim.
>>
>>Read my other post, you lying jackass.
>>
>>http://www.dea-ccat.dk/sun/JASTP2.htm
>>
>>"Published december 1998 in Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial
>>Physics, Vol 60, Number 18, pp 1719-1728
>>
>>Solar cycle length hypothesis appears to support the IPCC on global warming"
>>
>>Another commiecrat lying idiot is exposed!
>
>
> If you're trying to disprove any man made global warming then it's
> curious you'd post such a study. If you follow the links to the
> expanded version at http://www.dea-ccat.dk/sun/pl_jg_uk.pdf the
> authors
Well, you see, you don't know the first
thing about global warming and what the
arguments are, so I have to post the other
side just so I can refute it. :-)
Stuart Grey
ulTRAX wrote:
LOL! You start out calling me "Stewie", and then
you demand that I be civil? LOL! I read some of
your other posts to other people. What you seem
to mean is that you don't like it when people call
YOU names, but you like to call other people "moron"
and the like yourself.
>>If the CO2 is a RESULT, and not a cause, of global
>>warming, then cutting down on the amount of CO2
>>will have NO EFFECT.
>
>
> And the proof of this is? Why can't there be TWO variables in play?
> Oops... that's obviously too much for your pea brain to consider.
IF the CO2 is a RESULT, and not a cause... THEN...
Okay, lets proceed from there. It's simple logic.
If the CO2 is not a cause, then changing the CO2
level is not going to have any effect.
If the butterfly next door is not a cause of your
computer crash, then killing the butterfly will
not stop your computer from crashing.
It's really very simple.
> But let's play YOUR game. Let's pretend that global warming is driven
> by, what? Some solar cycle? And this warming is the cause for rising
> atmospheric CO2 levels.
> Since CO2 IS a greenhouse gas whether you like it or not... to claim
> it has NO further effect on climate is to bet against physics itself.
LOL! In the real world of physics, we are not
nearly so qualitative. Yes, CO2 is a "greenhouse"
gas. So is water vapor. You live on a planet covered
in WATER. Again, water vapor accounts for a whopping
95% of the natural greenhouse effect. CO2 is way
down at 0.1% of the total greenhouse effect. It
is in every way insignificant.
> So there would seem to be the very real possibility of CO2 feedback
> loop where whatever CO2 you claim is released from the oceans then
> raises temperatures causing MORE CO2 to be released from the oceans.
So write a paper, and get it published. :-)
Here's a clue as to how the CO2 argument came
about. Someone noticed that Venus has a lot of
CO2 in it's atmosphere, and it's very hot. The
explanation was the greenhouse effect. Then
someone suggested that if CO2 levels were to
rise on earth, that we would have an increase
in temperature. Yeah, if it raised a LOT. You
have to remember that the pressure of the
atmosphere on Venus is about 90 times that of
earth. Venus has LOT of greenhouse gasses!
Once a qualitative study was done, the conclusion
was that there was no way that CO2 could have
an effect. And yet, some have shown a modest
correlation between CO2 levels and global
temperature! So, various (silly, I might add)
models were developed to try to explain this.
These models have been all wrong in predicting
global temperature. In science, this is called
a "failed hypothesis". Then some bright fellow
came along and noticed that the solar cycle
had a much better correlation with global
temperature than CO2 did, even explaining the
anti-correlations (where CO2 went up as
global temperature went down) during some
periods in recent history.
The answer, of course, is that correlation
does not prove causation. The sun warmed the
earth, the CO2 came out of solution of the
earth's oceans. Yes, the solubility of CO2 in
water is reduced by increasing temperature, so
it was the global warming that caused the CO2,
NOT the other way around! It's a bit more
complex than that, as most of the plants
on the earth are in the earth's oceans, and
they are the ultimate "sink" for carbon in
this CO2 cycle. Sun warms earth, oceans warm,
less CO2 in oceans, fewer plants in Oceans
due to lower CO2 (and fewer fish, btw!), more
CO2 in the air.
> So since so much is at stake, how do we break out of this feedback
> cycle?
Drop and ice cube on the sun?
You can't break out of the cycle. I suggest
that the money be spent trying to prepare for
the changes to our world that will happen naturally.
fãhç
I noticed in your responses to me today that you have almost completely
eliminated all your name calling. That is much appreciated.
My interest in this matter is in making sure that industry is policed.
Industrialists have demonstrated many times in the past that if left to
their own, they will pollute the environment with no conscience whatsoever.
A reduction or elimination in fossil fuel usage would also be beneficial to
the environment and would reduce the tendency for wars like the ones we are
having in the Middle East right now. You said in another post that you
wanted a clean environment (or at least clean air) too. So I don't think we
are that far off in what we think needs to be done, even if we don't agree
on the reasons for it.
I think the economic predictions of environmental policy changes are used by
industrialists to try to scare people into thinking environmental laws ruin
the economy and are anti-American/anti-capitalist. I think that past policy
changes have demonstrated that is not true. I do not think that point of
view makes me a communist or anti-American. But industrialists have clearly
demonstrated that they are anti-environment, which is not only
anti-American, it is anti-humanity, and down right suicidal.
As for the WSJ article, it seems to be a reprint of this other link you
posted: http://www.junkscience.com/news/robinson.htm. I can almost hear the
violins playing in the background during the dramatic "Lush Environment"
conclusion of the article. I have heard the "Lush Environment" argument
before, from the Bush administration. But in that context it was, yeah
there is global warming, and yeah it might be because of burning
hydrocarbons, but hey, it's actually good for the environment, so let's burn
more!
My questions on that section are: How is it that they came to the
conclusion that the earth is becoming more lush even in the face of urban
sprawl and deforestation reports? My second question is, where did these
Oregon chemists get the impression that our hydrocarbon based economy would
last another 1,000 years when petroleum scientists generally agree that
usable petroleum deposits will peak sometime within the next 20 to 30 years
and be for all intents and purposes be completely gone in 100 years at most?
My last question is, couldn't they have just as easily called for
development of alternative, non-hydrocarbon energy development for poverty
stricken countries and end up with the same conclusion? Perhaps even
helping to spur new industries for the entire world in the process, rather
than enslave poor nations to a dying energy source?
ulTRAX
> ulTRAX wrote:
> > If you're trying to disprove any man made global warming then it's
> > curious you'd post such a study. If you follow the links to the
> > expanded version at http://www.dea-ccat.dk/sun/pl_jg_uk.pdf the
> > authors
>
> Well, you see, you don't know the first
> thing about global warming and what the
> arguments are, so I have to post the other
> side just so I can refute it. :-)
Your own study does NOT state what you claim it did. Seems you
censored the rest of my statement. Here it is again:
If you're trying to disprove any man made global warming then it's
curious you'd post such a study. If you follow the links to the
expanded version at http://www.dea-ccat.dk/sun/pl_jg_uk.pdf the
authors
"Put briefly our conclusion is that the solar data do not agree very
ulTRAX
> ulTRAX wrote:
> >>>I see little Stewie is on another psychotic rampage. Gee... whether
> >>>global warming is anthropogenic or natural is immaterial... there's
> >>>STILL going to be effects on the environment. Don't you think? Or
> >>>don't you?
> >>
> >>Yes, Global warming is real. :-)
> >>
> >>
> >>>If those consequences are as serious as the shutdown of the oceanic
> >>>currents that moderate the climate in Europe or flooding of some
> >>>costal cities... then we better consider some corrective actions
> >>>REGARDLESS of the cause. This might not just mean reducing greenhouse
> >>>gas production but trying to find CO2 sinks to absorb what's already
> >>>in the atmosphere.
> >>
> >>You moronic retarded commie asshole.
> >
> >
> > Look little Stewie... this is your last chance to either to be civil
> > or better take your meds and get sane. I'm not going to piss away my
> > life debating another RR'tard psychotic.
>
> LOL! You start out calling me "Stewie", and then
> you demand that I be civil? LOL! I read some of
> your other posts to other people. What you seem
> to mean is that you don't like it when people call
> YOU names, but you like to call other people "moron"
> and the like yourself.
I believe that is more civil than what you called me: "moronic
retarded commie asshole" simply for raising some good points.
> >>If the CO2 is a RESULT, and not a cause, of global
> >>warming, then cutting down on the amount of CO2
> >>will have NO EFFECT.
> >
> >
> > And the proof of this is? Why can't there be TWO variables in play?
> > Oops... that's obviously too much for your pea brain to consider.
>
> IF the CO2 is a RESULT, and not a cause... THEN...
You have NOT proved your key premise. A key study YOU posted DISPROVED
your main claim that global warming is NOT due to any man made cause.
It clearly said it was. So unless you can stop glossing over your own
faulty logic with more smokescreens... this discussion's ended. Put in
other words... put up or shut TF up Spanky.