Capt. JG wrote:
"katy" wrote in message
...

Capt. JG wrote:

"Maxprop" wrote in message
rthlink.net...


"Capt. JG" wrote in message



So far, I haven't seen much in the way of facts from you.

(This from the guy who's been supporting his arguments with statements
like "science says it is so.")



You'll listen to big business, but not to scientists. Maybe you think
smoking doesn't cause cancer?

I listen to both sides. You don't. My only contention is that when some
scientists support the notion of GW, and others dispute it, the issue is
far from conclusive. You, of course, contend that any scientist who
disputes the notion of GW must be in the hip pockets of big business.
That is the hallmark of a closed mind.

Max




Really... you listen to both sides. So, what does science, real science
from scientists, actually say about GW? I contend that there are always a
couple of wackos who are unconvinced by the preponderance of evidence.
What do you believe in? So far, I have yet to see you cite any actual
facts on the subject.


YYou haven't got it yet...scince can look at thuings short term and draw
conclusions and science can lok at overall picutres and applyn the short
term and draw a conclusion. Your science is short-sighted...



Ummm... you're right. If science can look at the short term and draw valid
conclusion and science can look at the long term and draw valid conclusions,
then science is not short-sighted. Why don't you tell how the earth is only
10,000 years old. You need to give it up. You're not making any sense at
this point.


No...it's you who don't make sense...over the long term...the millions
of years that one can look at, the tests, based on core samplings, tree
rings, etc etc etc say that this is a cyclical and historical event...I
suppose yur contention os that there must have been ancient
civilisations of man that cuased it to happen before..if you look at
climate and weather patterns over short term, you lose track of the
previous cycles ..you cannot make conclusions based on the short erm
relative to earth climatic change...I really don't think you understand
this at all...

"katy" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:
"katy" wrote in message
...

Capt. JG wrote:

"Maxprop" wrote in message
arthlink.net...


"Capt. JG" wrote in message



So far, I haven't seen much in the way of facts from you.

(This from the guy who's been supporting his arguments with statements
like "science says it is so.")



You'll listen to big business, but not to scientists. Maybe you think
smoking doesn't cause cancer?

I listen to both sides. You don't. My only contention is that when
some scientists support the notion of GW, and others dispute it, the
issue is far from conclusive. You, of course, contend that any
scientist who disputes the notion of GW must be in the hip pockets of
big business. That is the hallmark of a closed mind.

Max




Really... you listen to both sides. So, what does science, real science
from scientists, actually say about GW? I contend that there are always
a couple of wackos who are unconvinced by the preponderance of evidence.
What do you believe in? So far, I have yet to see you cite any actual
facts on the subject.


YYou haven't got it yet...scince can look at thuings short term and draw
conclusions and science can lok at overall picutres and applyn the short
term and draw a conclusion. Your science is short-sighted...



Ummm... you're right. If science can look at the short term and draw
valid conclusion and science can look at the long term and draw valid
conclusions, then science is not short-sighted. Why don't you tell how
the earth is only 10,000 years old. You need to give it up. You're not
making any sense at this point.


No...it's you who don't make sense...over the long term...the millions of
years that one can look at, the tests, based on core samplings, tree
rings, etc etc etc say that this is a cyclical and historical event...I
suppose yur contention os that there must have been ancient civilisations
of man that cuased it to happen before..if you look at climate and weather
patterns over short term, you lose track of the previous cycles ..you
cannot make conclusions based on the short erm relative to earth climatic
change...I really don't think you understand this at all...


You don't know the facts. The facts are that the rate of climate warming has
increased dramatically in the last 100 years or so, far more than can be
explained by the normal cycle of hot/cold. In addition, the increase in
human population has prevented such things as normal relocation of plants
and animals through what would be normal migration patterns. This is not a
long term trend. This is a dramatic increase in the RATE of change, not
something that has been seen in the previous millions of years.


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Capt. JG wrote:
"katy" wrote in message
...

Capt. JG wrote:

"katy" wrote in message
...


Capt. JG wrote:


"Maxprop" wrote in message
. earthlink.net...



"Capt. JG" wrote in message




So far, I haven't seen much in the way of facts from you.

(This from the guy who's been supporting his arguments with statements
like "science says it is so.")




You'll listen to big business, but not to scientists. Maybe you think
smoking doesn't cause cancer?

I listen to both sides. You don't. My only contention is that when
some scientists support the notion of GW, and others dispute it, the
issue is far from conclusive. You, of course, contend that any
scientist who disputes the notion of GW must be in the hip pockets of
big business. That is the hallmark of a closed mind.

Max




Really... you listen to both sides. So, what does science, real science

from scientists, actually say about GW? I contend that there are always

a couple of wackos who are unconvinced by the preponderance of evidence.
What do you believe in? So far, I have yet to see you cite any actual
facts on the subject.


YYou haven't got it yet...scince can look at thuings short term and draw
conclusions and science can lok at overall picutres and applyn the short
term and draw a conclusion. Your science is short-sighted...



Ummm... you're right. If science can look at the short term and draw
valid conclusion and science can look at the long term and draw valid
conclusions, then science is not short-sighted. Why don't you tell how
the earth is only 10,000 years old. You need to give it up. You're not
making any sense at this point.


No...it's you who don't make sense...over the long term...the millions of
years that one can look at, the tests, based on core samplings, tree
rings, etc etc etc say that this is a cyclical and historical event...I
suppose yur contention os that there must have been ancient civilisations
of man that cuased it to happen before..if you look at climate and weather
patterns over short term, you lose track of the previous cycles ..you
cannot make conclusions based on the short erm relative to earth climatic
change...I really don't think you understand this at all...



You don't know the facts. The facts are that the rate of climate warming has
increased dramatically in the last 100 years or so, far more than can be
explained by the normal cycle of hot/cold. In addition, the increase in
human population has prevented such things as normal relocation of plants
and animals through what would be normal migration patterns. This is not a
long term trend. This is a dramatic increase in the RATE of change, not
something that has been seen in the previous millions of years.


What you don't understand is geoglofical and climatical history...100
years is a nothing...better go study Jon...you know nothing about
geomorphology, climatology or global cuclical changes in weather...and
since you know nothing about it, and continue to argue in a cirtcular
path that goes nowhere, I end this discussion, too...you are not even
willing to go look at what I'm talking about...but that would require
deviating from your limiteed ideas on the subject..so for now, I'm done
in this thread...

"katy" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:
"katy" wrote in message
...

Capt. JG wrote:

"katy" wrote in message
...


Capt. JG wrote:


"Maxprop" wrote in message
.earthlink.net...



"Capt. JG" wrote in message




So far, I haven't seen much in the way of facts from you.

(This from the guy who's been supporting his arguments with
statements like "science says it is so.")




You'll listen to big business, but not to scientists. Maybe you
think smoking doesn't cause cancer?

I listen to both sides. You don't. My only contention is that when
some scientists support the notion of GW, and others dispute it, the
issue is far from conclusive. You, of course, contend that any
scientist who disputes the notion of GW must be in the hip pockets of
big business. That is the hallmark of a closed mind.

Max




Really... you listen to both sides. So, what does science, real
science

from scientists, actually say about GW? I contend that there are
always

a couple of wackos who are unconvinced by the preponderance of
evidence. What do you believe in? So far, I have yet to see you cite
any actual facts on the subject.


YYou haven't got it yet...scince can look at thuings short term and
draw conclusions and science can lok at overall picutres and applyn the
short term and draw a conclusion. Your science is short-sighted...



Ummm... you're right. If science can look at the short term and draw
valid conclusion and science can look at the long term and draw valid
conclusions, then science is not short-sighted. Why don't you tell how
the earth is only 10,000 years old. You need to give it up. You're not
making any sense at this point.


No...it's you who don't make sense...over the long term...the millions of
years that one can look at, the tests, based on core samplings, tree
rings, etc etc etc say that this is a cyclical and historical event...I
suppose yur contention os that there must have been ancient civilisations
of man that cuased it to happen before..if you look at climate and
weather patterns over short term, you lose track of the previous cycles
..you cannot make conclusions based on the short erm relative to earth
climatic change...I really don't think you understand this at all...



You don't know the facts. The facts are that the rate of climate warming
has increased dramatically in the last 100 years or so, far more than can
be explained by the normal cycle of hot/cold. In addition, the increase
in human population has prevented such things as normal relocation of
plants and animals through what would be normal migration patterns. This
is not a long term trend. This is a dramatic increase in the RATE of
change, not something that has been seen in the previous millions of
years.


What you don't understand is geoglofical and climatical history...100
years is a nothing...better go study Jon...you know nothing about
geomorphology, climatology or global cuclical changes in weather...and
since you know nothing about it, and continue to argue in a cirtcular path
that goes nowhere, I end this discussion, too...you are not even willing
to go look at what I'm talking about...but that would require deviating
from your limiteed ideas on the subject..so for now, I'm done in this
thread...


You can't be that dense. We've never, EVER, seen a rate of change like the
last 100 years. You're just not up on the facts, and claiming you are is
just foolish. I can make the same argument... look at the facts.


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Capt. JG" wrote in message

You don't know the facts. The facts are that the rate of climate warming
has increased dramatically in the last 100 years or so, far more than can
be explained by the normal cycle of hot/cold.

What's "dramatically" Jon? Give us some numbers. Careful--I have the
facts, so don't make something up.

In addition, the increase in human population has prevented such things as
normal relocation of plants and animals through what would be normal
migration patterns. This is not a long term trend. This is a dramatic
increase in the RATE of change, not something that has been seen in the
previous millions of years.

There definitely are too many people on the globe, and wildlife (both
botanical and zoological) habitats are becoming eliminated and scarce in
many zones. But only computer models can predict the effect of such things,
and those models are often tainted by the agenda of those who design them.

Max

"Maxprop" wrote in message
link.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message

You don't know the facts. The facts are that the rate of climate warming
has increased dramatically in the last 100 years or so, far more than can
be explained by the normal cycle of hot/cold.

What's "dramatically" Jon? Give us some numbers. Careful--I have the
facts, so don't make something up.

In addition, the increase in human population has prevented such things
as normal relocation of plants and animals through what would be normal
migration patterns. This is not a long term trend. This is a dramatic
increase in the RATE of change, not something that has been seen in the
previous millions of years.

There definitely are too many people on the globe, and wildlife (both
botanical and zoological) habitats are becoming eliminated and scarce in
many zones. But only computer models can predict the effect of such
things, and those models are often tainted by the agenda of those who
design them.

Max



I'd point you to the website, but I think you can find it yourself... think
Al Gore.


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Maxprop" wrote in message
link.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message

You don't know the facts. The facts are that the rate of climate warming
has increased dramatically in the last 100 years or so, far more than
can be explained by the normal cycle of hot/cold.

What's "dramatically" Jon? Give us some numbers. Careful--I have the
facts, so don't make something up.

In addition, the increase in human population has prevented such things
as normal relocation of plants and animals through what would be normal
migration patterns. This is not a long term trend. This is a dramatic
increase in the RATE of change, not something that has been seen in the
previous millions of years.

There definitely are too many people on the globe, and wildlife (both
botanical and zoological) habitats are becoming eliminated and scarce in
many zones. But only computer models can predict the effect of such
things, and those models are often tainted by the agenda of those who
design them.

Max



I'd point you to the website, but I think you can find it yourself...
think Al Gore.

What a convenient falsehood. g

Max

"Maxprop" wrote in message
.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Maxprop" wrote in message
link.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message

You don't know the facts. The facts are that the rate of climate
warming has increased dramatically in the last 100 years or so, far
more than can be explained by the normal cycle of hot/cold.

What's "dramatically" Jon? Give us some numbers. Careful--I have the
facts, so don't make something up.

In addition, the increase in human population has prevented such things
as normal relocation of plants and animals through what would be normal
migration patterns. This is not a long term trend. This is a dramatic
increase in the RATE of change, not something that has been seen in the
previous millions of years.

There definitely are too many people on the globe, and wildlife (both
botanical and zoological) habitats are becoming eliminated and scarce in
many zones. But only computer models can predict the effect of such
things, and those models are often tainted by the agenda of those who
design them.

Max



I'd point you to the website, but I think you can find it yourself...
think Al Gore.

What a convenient falsehood. g

Max

Only for those who choose not to listen to truthhood. g

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com