| Page 2 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Went up to the boat today
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 22:08:58 -0600, KLC Lewis wrote:
Correlation does not imply causation. What will the consequences be? Nobody knows. Computer models don't even agree. Al Gore, of course, picks the absolutely worst outcome and touts it as gospel, while the majority of the models show the average increase in temperature following a very steady and moderate rate. Personally, I'm in favor of a slight increase in global temperature, and the benefits that will bring. None so blind as those who will not see. What part of there being 3X as much CO2 in the atmosphere as there ever has been in 650,000 years are you not getting? You can stick your head back in the sand now. |
Went up to the boat today
"mr.b" wrote in message ... On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 22:08:58 -0600, KLC Lewis wrote: Correlation does not imply causation. What will the consequences be? Nobody knows. Computer models don't even agree. Al Gore, of course, picks the absolutely worst outcome and touts it as gospel, while the majority of the models show the average increase in temperature following a very steady and moderate rate. Personally, I'm in favor of a slight increase in global temperature, and the benefits that will bring. None so blind as those who will not see. What part of there being 3X as much CO2 in the atmosphere as there ever has been in 650,000 years are you not getting? You can stick your head back in the sand now. Three times as much, I think not. Here is the present accepted percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere from: http://www.met.fsu.edu/explores/atmcomp.html VARIABLE gases in the atmosphere and typical percentage values a Water vapor 0 to 4% Carbon Dioxide 0.035% Methane 0.0002% Ozone 0.000004% Note the term "variable." That means it's normal for the percentages to change from time to time. Carbon Dioxide 0.035% That's 35/100 of one percent. About 1/3 of one percent. So you are claiming 650,000 years ago that was only about 0.012%? 1) prove it 2) prove that 650,000 years ago is the BENCHMARK figure (keeping in mind that there's been life on earth for millions, if not billions, of years.) Can't do it? Surprise, surprise! Until you can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt your argument is as impotent as you are. Wilbur Hubbard |
Went up to the boat today
"Peter Hendra" wrote in message ... On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 08:42:56 -0400, Gogarty snip.. According to one report, *by 2040 the US will be only the 5th largest economy behind Brazil Russia and China - can't remember other one*. snip cheers Peter probably India |
Went up to the boat today
"Eric Stevens" wrote in message ... On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 22:08:58 -0600, "KLC Lewis" wrote: Correlation does not imply causation. What will the consequences be? Nobody knows. Computer models don't even agree. Al Gore, of course, picks the absolutely worst outcome and touts it as gospel, while the majority of the models show the average increase in temperature following a very steady and moderate rate. Personally, I'm in favor of a slight increase in global temperature, and the benefits that will bring. You should read http://energycommerce.house.gov/cmte...-testimony.pdf I have much more shocking reputable sites for you once you have digested this one. :-) Eric Stevens From a brief scan, that presentation echoes the arguments made by Al Gore. All of which are refuted in the link I posted yesterday. |
Went up to the boat today
"mr.b" wrote in message ... On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 22:08:58 -0600, KLC Lewis wrote: Correlation does not imply causation. What will the consequences be? Nobody knows. Computer models don't even agree. Al Gore, of course, picks the absolutely worst outcome and touts it as gospel, while the majority of the models show the average increase in temperature following a very steady and moderate rate. Personally, I'm in favor of a slight increase in global temperature, and the benefits that will bring. None so blind as those who will not see. What part of there being 3X as much CO2 in the atmosphere as there ever has been in 650,000 years are you not getting? You can stick your head back in the sand now. Even if this were true (it's not -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:C...ide_400kyr.png) an increase in atmospheric CO2 is constantly presented, by certain people, as a "bad thing." CO2 is an essential link for all life on this planet. More CO2 available in the air, and slightly warmer temperatures, is a good thing. |
Went up to the boat today
"Dave" wrote in message ... On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 08:25:48 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard" said: Three times as much, I think not. Tut tut, Neal. Always a mistake to attack religious belief. Average atmospheric CO2 runs between 300 and 400 ppm -- an increase of 3x would put us at 900-1200. Are you suggesting that there is data which shows that is where we are? Or are you relying upon religious belief that suggests we will get there in a few years? You are basing your argument upon a computer model of where a few people believe we WILL be in another 43 years -- not the actual measurable data of where we are today, or where the world has been. |
Went up to the boat today
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 08:50:45 -0600, KLC Lewis wrote:
From a brief scan, that presentation echoes the arguments made by Al Gore. All of which are refuted in the link I posted yesterday. I've done more than a brief scan of the so-called experts listed as members of this right-wing wank tank you referred us to. Not one single individual listed has any specific training with respect to climatology. Lawyers, economists, political hacks with no formal schooling, political hacks with degrees in "politics" and "journalism". Absolutely pathetic. Two of these boneheads are actually advocating the use of DDT! Do you think Dow Chemical is funding this band of fools? One of these "adjunct scholars" lists proudly her work attempting to prevent the ban smoking in public places in DC. Good God! Some of them are pushing for the expansion of genetically modified organisms. Anyone smell Monsanto? I've read through the site. Their positions are so far from anything considered normal or even safe in enlightened society that it is depressing to think that the gullible, the weak-minded and the uninformed will be manipulated by this band of shameless hucksters. Absolutely pathetic. |
Went up to the boat today
"mr.b" wrote in message ... On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 08:50:45 -0600, KLC Lewis wrote: From a brief scan, that presentation echoes the arguments made by Al Gore. All of which are refuted in the link I posted yesterday. I've done more than a brief scan of the so-called experts listed as members of this right-wing wank tank you referred us to. Not one single individual listed has any specific training with respect to climatology. Lawyers, economists, political hacks with no formal schooling, political hacks with degrees in "politics" and "journalism". Absolutely pathetic. Two of these boneheads are actually advocating the use of DDT! Do you think Dow Chemical is funding this band of fools? One of these "adjunct scholars" lists proudly her work attempting to prevent the ban smoking in public places in DC. Good God! Some of them are pushing for the expansion of genetically modified organisms. Anyone smell Monsanto? I've read through the site. Their positions are so far from anything considered normal or even safe in enlightened society that it is depressing to think that the gullible, the weak-minded and the uninformed will be manipulated by this band of shameless hucksters. Absolutely pathetic. Ahhh, so anyone who disagrees with Global Warming Alarmists falls into the category of either "the gullible, the weak minded (or) the uninformed"? Rational discourse ends here. |
Went up to the boat today
In article ,
Charlie Morgan wrote: On 27 Mar 2007 10:23:01 -0500, Dave wrote: On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 08:25:48 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard" said: Three times as much, I think not. Tut tut, Neal. Always a mistake to attack religious belief. So, now you are going to try and convince us that King Tut is behind all of this? CWM Shhhhh..... -- Capt. JG @@ www.sailnow.com |
Went up to the boat today
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 09:48:23 -0600, KLC Lewis wrote:
"mr.b" wrote in message ... On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 08:50:45 -0600, KLC Lewis wrote: From a brief scan, that presentation echoes the arguments made by Al Gore. All of which are refuted in the link I posted yesterday. I've done more than a brief scan of the so-called experts listed as members of this right-wing wank tank you referred us to. Not one single individual listed has any specific training with respect to climatology. Lawyers, economists, political hacks with no formal schooling, political hacks with degrees in "politics" and "journalism". Absolutely pathetic. Two of these boneheads are actually advocating the use of DDT! Do you think Dow Chemical is funding this band of fools? One of these "adjunct scholars" lists proudly her work attempting to prevent the ban smoking in public places in DC. Good God! Some of them are pushing for the expansion of genetically modified organisms. Anyone smell Monsanto? I've read through the site. Their positions are so far from anything considered normal or even safe in enlightened society that it is depressing to think that the gullible, the weak-minded and the uninformed will be manipulated by this band of shameless hucksters. Absolutely pathetic. Ahhh, so anyone who disagrees with Global Warming Alarmists falls into the category of either "the gullible, the weak minded (or) the uninformed"? Rational discourse ends here. I've edited your post to show the way you should have written it. Rational discourse ends here. Ahhh, so anyone who disagrees with Global Warming Alarmists falls into the category of either "the gullible, the weak minded (or) the uninformed"? Feel free to respond to my critique of your so-called expert site. I'm anticipating a deafening silence. |
Went up to the boat today
"mr.b" wrote in message ... On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 09:48:23 -0600, KLC Lewis wrote: Ahhh, so anyone who disagrees with Global Warming Alarmists falls into the category of either "the gullible, the weak minded (or) the uninformed"? Rational discourse ends here. I've edited your post to show the way you should have written it. Rational discourse ends here. Ahhh, so anyone who disagrees with Global Warming Alarmists falls into the category of either "the gullible, the weak minded (or) the uninformed"? Feel free to respond to my critique of your so-called expert site. I'm anticipating a deafening silence. Actually, my post meant exactly what I intended as I wrote it. But I suppose when you run out of arguments, restructuring others' posts is all that's left to you. |
Went up to the boat today
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 11:13:14 -0600, KLC Lewis wrote:
Actually, my post meant exactly what I intended as I wrote it. But I suppose when you run out of arguments, restructuring others' posts is all that's left to you. hmmm....maybe I used too many words. The site you referenced is the web-presence of a bunch of paid political hacks with a Republican odour, financed by corporations with an agenda. Their "experts" lack formal training in the areas they where they advocate. They exist to obfuscate the truth and to embroil government agencies in frivolous lawsuits whenever the interests of public safety are in conflict with big businesses, like Dow Chemical, Monsanto, ADM, etc... That looks like an argument to me. You still haven't responded to that. Oh damn, I used a lot of words again... |
Went up to the boat today
"mr.b" wrote in message ... On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 11:13:14 -0600, KLC Lewis wrote: Actually, my post meant exactly what I intended as I wrote it. But I suppose when you run out of arguments, restructuring others' posts is all that's left to you. hmmm....maybe I used too many words. The site you referenced is the web-presence of a bunch of paid political hacks with a Republican odour, financed by corporations with an agenda. Their "experts" lack formal training in the areas they where they advocate. They exist to obfuscate the truth and to embroil government agencies in frivolous lawsuits whenever the interests of public safety are in conflict with big businesses, like Dow Chemical, Monsanto, ADM, etc... That looks like an argument to me. You still haven't responded to that. Oh damn, I used a lot of words again... Okay, let me respond ad-hominem in kind: Al Gore and his ilk are knee-jerk reactionary Greenies who want to control everything, everywhere, every time. They cherry-pick their data to meet their pre-conceived notions, and their "experts" lack the recognition of their peers. They despise free enterprise, and are little more than fascists who wish to Federalize all corporations and make everyone a ward of the State. Yeah, that's pretty similar to the "argument" you gave. Hope it isn't to brief for you to read between the lines. |
Went up to the boat today
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 12:37:32 -0600, KLC Lewis wrote:
"mr.b" wrote in message ... On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 11:13:14 -0600, KLC Lewis wrote: Actually, my post meant exactly what I intended as I wrote it. But I suppose when you run out of arguments, restructuring others' posts is all that's left to you. hmmm....maybe I used too many words. The site you referenced is the web-presence of a bunch of paid political hacks with a Republican odour, financed by corporations with an agenda. Their "experts" lack formal training in the areas they where they advocate. They exist to obfuscate the truth and to embroil government agencies in frivolous lawsuits whenever the interests of public safety are in conflict with big businesses, like Dow Chemical, Monsanto, ADM, etc... That looks like an argument to me. You still haven't responded to that. Oh damn, I used a lot of words again... Okay, let me respond ad-hominem in kind: Al Gore and his ilk are knee-jerk reactionary Greenies who want to control everything, everywhere, every time. They cherry-pick their data to meet their pre-conceived notions, and their "experts" lack the recognition of their peers. They despise free enterprise, and are little more than fascists who wish to Federalize all corporations and make everyone a ward of the State. oh my...I'm sorry. You're one of those. I didn't realize. Do you seriously believe this **** or are you just playing with my head? I mean, because if you're serious, you have no idea how retarded this looks to a non-American. Yeah, that's pretty similar to the "argument" you gave. Hope it isn't to brief for you to read between the lines. Well no, it wasn't similar at all and you still haven't said anything of value. Though reading your responses has reminded me of one of the great leaders of your country who perhaps said it best; "What a waste it is to lose one's mind. Or not to have a mind is being very wasteful. How true that is." Please feel free to get back to doing whatever it is that you do...as long as it isn't trying to speak/write intelligently about climate change. |
Went up to the boat today
"mr.b" wrote in message ... On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 12:37:32 -0600, KLC Lewis wrote: "mr.b" wrote in message ... On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 11:13:14 -0600, KLC Lewis wrote: Actually, my post meant exactly what I intended as I wrote it. But I suppose when you run out of arguments, restructuring others' posts is all that's left to you. hmmm....maybe I used too many words. The site you referenced is the web-presence of a bunch of paid political hacks with a Republican odour, financed by corporations with an agenda. Their "experts" lack formal training in the areas they where they advocate. They exist to obfuscate the truth and to embroil government agencies in frivolous lawsuits whenever the interests of public safety are in conflict with big businesses, like Dow Chemical, Monsanto, ADM, etc... That looks like an argument to me. You still haven't responded to that. Oh damn, I used a lot of words again... Okay, let me respond ad-hominem in kind: Al Gore and his ilk are knee-jerk reactionary Greenies who want to control everything, everywhere, every time. They cherry-pick their data to meet their pre-conceived notions, and their "experts" lack the recognition of their peers. They despise free enterprise, and are little more than fascists who wish to Federalize all corporations and make everyone a ward of the State. oh my...I'm sorry. You're one of those. I didn't realize. Do you seriously believe this **** or are you just playing with my head? I mean, because if you're serious, you have no idea how retarded this looks to a non-American. Yeah, that's pretty similar to the "argument" you gave. Hope it isn't to brief for you to read between the lines. Well no, it wasn't similar at all and you still haven't said anything of value. Though reading your responses has reminded me of one of the great leaders of your country who perhaps said it best; "What a waste it is to lose one's mind. Or not to have a mind is being very wasteful. How true that is." Please feel free to get back to doing whatever it is that you do...as long as it isn't trying to speak/write intelligently about climate change. Remember what I said about rational discourse? You chose that path, Bubbie. Should you wish to engage in it at some time in the future, please do so. Until then... "Go thou, and do likewise." |
Went up to the boat today
In article , mr.b wrote:
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 12:37:32 -0600, KLC Lewis wrote: oh my...I'm sorry. You're one of those. I didn't realize. Do you seriously believe this **** or are you just playing with my head? I mean, because if you're serious, you have no idea how retarded this looks to a non-American. Hey. Watch it. I'm an American, but I'm too polite to say it's retarded. g Well no, it wasn't similar at all and you still haven't said anything of value. Though reading your responses has reminded me of one of the great leaders of your country who perhaps said it best; "What a waste it is to lose one's mind. Or not to have a mind is being very wasteful. How true that is." Dan... now he was something. But, on the upside, he knew how to spell potatoe. g -- Capt. JG @@ www.sailnow.com |
Went up to the boat today
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 14:19:31 -0600, KLC Lewis wrote:
snip honey, in order to take the high ground, you need to know where it is. Good luck in your search. |
Went up to the boat today
Hey Peter,
Could you set the time (or the time zone) properly on your machine. I normally sort by time and your post always show up many hours out of sequence. Don't worry, I won't accuse you of time zone plagiarism, there is no copyright on the correct time. |
Went up to the boat today
"mr.b" wrote in message ... On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 14:19:31 -0600, KLC Lewis wrote: snip honey, in order to take the high ground, you need to know where it is. Good luck in your search. Hey! He called me "honey"! Guess I made an impression after all. All I need now is a nice little pat on the butt. |
Went up to the boat today
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 08:50:45 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote: "Eric Stevens" wrote in message .. . On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 22:08:58 -0600, "KLC Lewis" wrote: Correlation does not imply causation. What will the consequences be? Nobody knows. Computer models don't even agree. Al Gore, of course, picks the absolutely worst outcome and touts it as gospel, while the majority of the models show the average increase in temperature following a very steady and moderate rate. Personally, I'm in favor of a slight increase in global temperature, and the benefits that will bring. You should read http://energycommerce.house.gov/cmte...-testimony.pdf I have much more shocking reputable sites for you once you have digested this one. :-) Eric Stevens From a brief scan, that presentation echoes the arguments made by Al Gore. All of which are refuted in the link I posted yesterday. Have another look. He actually shows that Al Gore is talking exaggerated rubbish. Eric Stevens |
Went up to the boat today
"KLC Lewis" wrote in message et... "mr.b" wrote in message ... On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 22:08:58 -0600, KLC Lewis wrote: Correlation does not imply causation. What will the consequences be? Nobody knows. Computer models don't even agree. Al Gore, of course, picks the absolutely worst outcome and touts it as gospel, while the majority of the models show the average increase in temperature following a very steady and moderate rate. Personally, I'm in favor of a slight increase in global temperature, and the benefits that will bring. None so blind as those who will not see. What part of there being 3X as much CO2 in the atmosphere as there ever has been in 650,000 years are you not getting? You can stick your head back in the sand now. Even if this were true (it's not -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:C...ide_400kyr.png) an increase in atmospheric CO2 is constantly presented, by certain people, as a "bad thing." CO2 is an essential link for all life on this planet. More CO2 available in the air, and slightly warmer temperatures, is a good thing. Rather than worry about CO2 people should be more worried about O2. I read in one article where in times past the percentage of oxygen in the air has ranged between 15% to 25%. Today it is around 21% if I recall correctly. When it was 25 percent fires popped up constantly and burned out of control. Even wet stuff would burn. The article said giant animals and insects like dragon flies with a 28" wing span thrived because of the rich oxygen content. One of the big die-offs occurred when the O2 levels got down around 15%. Animals just couldn't adapt fast enough and pretty much suffocated to death. And today we have short-sighted morons the likes of Al Gore and his minions worried to death about an insignificant raise in the CO2 levels. Somebody needs to slap the **** out of all of them. Give them something real to worry about. Wilbur Hubbard |
Went up to the boat today
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 08:01:29 -0400, "mr.b" wrote:
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 22:08:58 -0600, KLC Lewis wrote: Correlation does not imply causation. What will the consequences be? Nobody knows. Computer models don't even agree. Al Gore, of course, picks the absolutely worst outcome and touts it as gospel, while the majority of the models show the average increase in temperature following a very steady and moderate rate. Personally, I'm in favor of a slight increase in global temperature, and the benefits that will bring. None so blind as those who will not see. What part of there being 3X as much CO2 in the atmosphere as there ever has been in 650,000 years are you not getting? You can stick your head back in the sand now. The claim that there is "3X as much CO2 in the atmosphere as there ever has been in 650,000 years" is wrong at best and a lie at the worst. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-.../1806245/posts "180 YEARS OF ATMOSPHERIC CO2 GAS ANALYSIS BY CHEMICAL METHODS" "More than 90,000 accurate chemical analyses of CO2 in air since 1812 are summarised. The historic chemical data reveal that changes in CO2 track changes in temperature, and therefore climate in contrast to the simple, monotonically increasing CO2 trend depicted in the post-1990 literature on climate-change. Since 1812, the CO2 concentration in northern hemispheric air has fluctuated exhibiting three high level maxima around 1825, 1857 and 1942 the latter showing more than 400 ppm. Between 1857 and 1958, the Pettenkofer process was the standard analytical method for determining atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, and usually achieved an accuracy better than 3%. These determinations were made by several scientists of Nobel Prize level distinction. Following Callendar (1938), modern climatologists have generally ignored the historic determinations of CO2, despite the techniques being standard text book procedures in several different disciplines. Chemical methods were discredited as unreliable, choosing only few which fit the assumption of a climate CO2 connection." Eric Stevens |
Went up to the boat today
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 17:18:33 -0400, Jeff wrote:
Hey Peter, Could you set the time (or the time zone) properly on your machine. I normally sort by time and your post always show up many hours out of sequence. Don't worry, I won't accuse you of time zone plagiarism, there is no copyright on the correct time. Hi Jeff, Sorry, When I change time zones it is easier to change time and date without the zone. I keep track of different times in Sydn ey and Malaysia on my Palm. I have another on the bulkhead which constantly keeps UT. Never thought it mattered too much Done. cheers Peter |
Went up to the boat today
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 15:29:04 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote: "mr.b" wrote in message ... On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 14:19:31 -0600, KLC Lewis wrote: snip honey, in order to take the high ground, you need to know where it is. Good luck in your search. Hey! He called me "honey"! Guess I made an impression after all. All I need now is a nice little pat on the butt. Karen, I simply love to but I''m just a bit too far away. Can I take a rain cheque in case I come your way some day? Perhaps it is an opportunity to "turn the other cheek". Take it as a compliment |
Went up to the boat today
Peter Hendra wrote in
: 6,010 years Archbishop Usher set the date as 9am in the morning of the 10th of October 4004 BC They probably cut anyone's head off that asked where His Immenseness got that information....(c; Larry -- Alltel Axcess TV - 10 minutes of TV then it dumps you until you click to get 10 minutes more. It SUCKS! |
Went up to the boat today
"Dennis Pogson" wrote in
: A British gallon is 4.55 litres, but we pay about 4 times as much for it (gas) than our US cousins, so I guess it really doesn't matter! Dennis. Hey! Socialized medicine ISN'T free, ya know, just "price displaced"...(c; Larry -- Alltel Axcess TV - 10 minutes of TV then it dumps you until you click to get 10 minutes more. It SUCKS! |
Went up to the boat today
|
Went up to the boat today
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 11:21:41 +1200, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 08:01:29 -0400, "mr.b" wrote: On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 22:08:58 -0600, KLC Lewis wrote: Correlation does not imply causation. What will the consequences be? Nobody knows. Computer models don't even agree. Al Gore, of course, picks the absolutely worst outcome and touts it as gospel, while the majority of the models show the average increase in temperature following a very steady and moderate rate. Personally, I'm in favor of a slight increase in global temperature, and the benefits that will bring. None so blind as those who will not see. What part of there being 3X as much CO2 in the atmosphere as there ever has been in 650,000 years are you not getting? You can stick your head back in the sand now. The claim that there is "3X as much CO2 in the atmosphere as there ever has been in 650,000 years" is wrong at best and a lie at the worst. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-.../1806245/posts From the authoritative site you provide for us: "Free Republic is the premier online gathering place for independent, grass-roots conservatism on the web. We're working to roll back decades of governmental largesse, to root out political fraud and corruption, and to champion causes which further conservatism in America. And we always have fun doing it. Hoo-yah!" Just wondering but...what the hell does this have to do with climate change? These guys are almost as clueless as the "experts" listed on the site shared by the recently plonked KFC. Go read something written by someone who actually knows something about this issue. |
Went up to the boat today
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 01:04:33 +0000, Larry wrote:
Peter Hendra wrote in : 6,010 years Archbishop Usher set the date as 9am in the morning of the 10th of October 4004 BC They probably cut anyone's head off that asked where His Immenseness got that information....(c; Larry No Larry, They weren't that barbaric in the 17th century. They just burned them alive at the stake. This was more civilised as they might sometimes be given the chance to recant before they were burned in which case they were humanely strangled first, burned after. At least their souls would be saved. Peter |
Went up to the boat today
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 21:33:51 -0400, "mr.b" wrote:
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 11:21:41 +1200, Eric Stevens wrote: On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 08:01:29 -0400, "mr.b" wrote: On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 22:08:58 -0600, KLC Lewis wrote: Correlation does not imply causation. What will the consequences be? Nobody knows. Computer models don't even agree. Al Gore, of course, picks the absolutely worst outcome and touts it as gospel, while the majority of the models show the average increase in temperature following a very steady and moderate rate. Personally, I'm in favor of a slight increase in global temperature, and the benefits that will bring. None so blind as those who will not see. What part of there being 3X as much CO2 in the atmosphere as there ever has been in 650,000 years are you not getting? You can stick your head back in the sand now. The claim that there is "3X as much CO2 in the atmosphere as there ever has been in 650,000 years" is wrong at best and a lie at the worst. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-.../1806245/posts From the authoritative site you provide for us: "Free Republic is the premier online gathering place for independent, grass-roots conservatism on the web. We're working to roll back decades of governmental largesse, to root out political fraud and corruption, and to champion causes which further conservatism in America. And we always have fun doing it. Hoo-yah!" Just wondering but...what the hell does this have to do with climate change? These guys are almost as clueless as the "experts" listed on the site shared by the recently plonked KFC. Go read something written by someone who actually knows something about this issue. There is nothing like slinging mud, calling names and changing the subject when it comes to responding to an argument you can't deal with. I gave you the URL because it is the only place on the web where you can find a reference to the paper. You can if you like buy a copy of the peer-reviewed paper via Energy & Environment, 18:2 March/April 2007 http://www.multi-science.co.uk/ee.htm It might be a good idea. Then you would be able to deal with the facts. Eric Stevens |
Went up to the boat today
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 22:38:39 +1200, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 21:33:51 -0400, "mr.b" wrote: On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 11:21:41 +1200, Eric Stevens wrote: On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 08:01:29 -0400, "mr.b" wrote: On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 22:08:58 -0600, KLC Lewis wrote: Correlation does not imply causation. What will the consequences be? Nobody knows. Computer models don't even agree. Al Gore, of course, picks the absolutely worst outcome and touts it as gospel, while the majority of the models show the average increase in temperature following a very steady and moderate rate. Personally, I'm in favor of a slight increase in global temperature, and the benefits that will bring. None so blind as those who will not see. What part of there being 3X as much CO2 in the atmosphere as there ever has been in 650,000 years are you not getting? You can stick your head back in the sand now. The claim that there is "3X as much CO2 in the atmosphere as there ever has been in 650,000 years" is wrong at best and a lie at the worst. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-.../1806245/posts From the authoritative site you provide for us: "Free Republic is the premier online gathering place for independent, grass-roots conservatism on the web. We're working to roll back decades of governmental largesse, to root out political fraud and corruption, and to champion causes which further conservatism in America. And we always have fun doing it. Hoo-yah!" Just wondering but...what the hell does this have to do with climate change? These guys are almost as clueless as the "experts" listed on the site shared by the recently plonked KFC. Go read something written by someone who actually knows something about this issue. There is nothing like slinging mud, calling names and changing the subject when it comes to responding to an argument you can't deal with. I went to the site you referenced. Read it extensively. Quoted it's mandate. The "experts" are not. If that's mud-slinging and name-calling in your neck of the woods, I can't help you. The empirical evidence has been collected since the 50's. Current empirical evidence, such as the world-wide recession of glaciers, melting of Antarctic and Greenland ice-shelves, loss of Arctic sea ice etc. is there for all to see. The rise in atmospheric CO2 -far beyond historical levels- parallels the expansion of human industrial activity since the mid-1800's. This isn't rocket science. It isn't about retarded American political animosities. It's about us clever tool-making monkeys, ****ting, ****ing and farting in own beds and food bowls. Pull your head out of your arse. Now why don't you and Karen cozy up and have a nice conversation about the lack of curvature in the earth's surface. |
Went up to the boat today
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 10:53:52 -0400, Charlie Morgan quoted a dolt:
Hmm. It also parallels the disappearance of ear-pleasing harmonies and the rise of atonal music since the mid-1800s. Ergo, it's the change in what composers are doing that's causing an increase in CO2 levels. This prime example of "Dave-think" illustrates why I've killfiled him. Thanks for the reminder. |
Went up to the boat today
"mr.b" wrote in message ... On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 10:53:52 -0400, Charlie Morgan quoted a dolt: Hmm. It also parallels the disappearance of ear-pleasing harmonies and the rise of atonal music since the mid-1800s. Ergo, it's the change in what composers are doing that's causing an increase in CO2 levels. This prime example of "Dave-think" illustrates why I've killfiled him. Thanks for the reminder. He is actually making a valid point, through facetiousness. Correlation does not imply causation. But then, I'm in your plonky bits, ain't I? |
Went up to the boat today
On Mar 25, 3:55 pm, "KLC Lewis" wrote:
Intending to start my spring work, I went up to Marinette WI were I keep Essie, about a 40 minute drive up the western shore of Green Bay. Had lunch, went to the marina, found that during the past few weeks in which we actually had winter snow, someone has been shoveling the snow and piling it up in several places -- most inconveniently, under the port buttocks of Escapade. Did my best to clear through the remaining snow and ice so that I could place my ladder for boarding, but couldn't get through the four inches or so located just exactly where I needed to put the ladder legs to get through the door in my winter shrink-wrap cover. Bugger it all. On the bright side, it appears that I'm the only one who thinks that it's time to be getting the boat ready for spring. Not another living soul at the marina. Karin This thread started as a wonderful bit of whimsey welcoming Spring and the boating season. It has been turned into competing diatribes that truly deserve to be on another list (any list, PLEASE!). Which goes to show, some people have clearly been in their landbound cabins too long, and really need a strong breath of sea air -- the season can't come too soon! Steve Hayes |
Went up to the boat today
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 09:58:08 -0400, "mr.b" wrote:
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 22:38:39 +1200, Eric Stevens wrote: On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 21:33:51 -0400, "mr.b" wrote: On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 11:21:41 +1200, Eric Stevens wrote: On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 08:01:29 -0400, "mr.b" wrote: On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 22:08:58 -0600, KLC Lewis wrote: Correlation does not imply causation. What will the consequences be? Nobody knows. Computer models don't even agree. Al Gore, of course, picks the absolutely worst outcome and touts it as gospel, while the majority of the models show the average increase in temperature following a very steady and moderate rate. Personally, I'm in favor of a slight increase in global temperature, and the benefits that will bring. None so blind as those who will not see. What part of there being 3X as much CO2 in the atmosphere as there ever has been in 650,000 years are you not getting? You can stick your head back in the sand now. The claim that there is "3X as much CO2 in the atmosphere as there ever has been in 650,000 years" is wrong at best and a lie at the worst. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-.../1806245/posts From the authoritative site you provide for us: "Free Republic is the premier online gathering place for independent, grass-roots conservatism on the web. We're working to roll back decades of governmental largesse, to root out political fraud and corruption, and to champion causes which further conservatism in America. And we always have fun doing it. Hoo-yah!" Just wondering but...what the hell does this have to do with climate change? These guys are almost as clueless as the "experts" listed on the site shared by the recently plonked KFC. Go read something written by someone who actually knows something about this issue. There is nothing like slinging mud, calling names and changing the subject when it comes to responding to an argument you can't deal with. I went to the site you referenced. Read it extensively. Quoted it's mandate. The "experts" are not. If that's mud-slinging and name-calling in your neck of the woods, I can't help you. The empirical evidence has been collected since the 50's. Current empirical evidence, such as the world-wide recession of glaciers, melting of Antarctic and Greenland ice-shelves, loss of Arctic sea ice etc. is there for all to see. The rise in atmospheric CO2 -far beyond historical levels- parallels the expansion of human industrial activity since the mid-1800's. This isn't rocket science. It isn't about retarded American political animosities. It's about us clever tool-making monkeys, ****ting, ****ing and farting in own beds and food bowls. Pull your head out of your arse. Now why don't you and Karen cozy up and have a nice conversation about the lack of curvature in the earth's surface. The subject is CO2 levels, not the behaviour of glaciers. We seem to have have 180 years of atmospheric analysis which is being ignored. Your polemics will not change that fact. Eric Stevens |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:02 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com