On Sat, 01 Aug 2009 11:45:33 -0400, NotNow wrote:

Calif Bill wrote:
"NotNow" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:
"NotNow" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:
"NotNow" wrote in message
...
BAR wrote:
NotNow wrote:
BAR wrote:
Vic Smith wrote:
Ran across this after seeing an article in boattest about a guy
with a
Nordhavn doing the trip Atlantic to Pacific.
http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/...y/1620336.html

Weird when you consider the travails of Franklin and Amundsen.
If the passage gets going good it could affect Panama Canal
revenues.
You could see the Chinese jump on the Global Warming band wagon at
that point.
I wonder how the passage is getting "increasingly ice free" when the
republican politicians are forcing everyone in their party to be
darned near militant in telling everyone that global warming just
isn't happening despite all of the data proving otherwise?
Where is the peer reviewed data.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

http://wdc.cricyt.edu.ar/paleo/globalwarming/end.html
Which states in part:

When one reviews all the data, both from thermometers and
paleotemperature proxies, it becomes clear that the Earth has warmed
significantly over the last 140 years; Global Warming is a reality.
Multiple paleoclimatic studies indicate that recent years, the 1990s,
and the 20th century are all the warmest, on a global basis, of the
last 600, and most likely 1200 years. It appears that the global
warming of the last century is unprecedented in the last 1,200 years.
The peer review does not address man causes for global warming. Earth
has heated and cooled for it whole life. What did man do to cause the
last Ice Age about 15,000 years ago? The mini ice age 500 years ago?
And the warming afterwards?
It does not matter what has happened and how it happened in the past. We
are talking about the CURRENT situation. That's why the right's
insistence that it isn't man made is non-think.
Now the past does not matter in global warming and history does not enter
into science. I am not sure I want you engineering a building for me.
You would ignore codes, etc as they are based on history.
Uh, no not really. Codes are based on known strengths, stresses, strains,
etc. And you use the CURRENT code. Using your analogy, you'd want me to
design by a standard that was a few million years old.

Nope, what I said if history did not matter. You would be designing to
codes at are as first written. They would not be changed because of
history. Exactly the opposite of what you stated.



The problem here is simple. *I* was talking about a specific problem,
not problems in general. As far as the topic I was discussing, history
does not matter. Why? Simple. Because the cataclysmic events that shaped
the climate at a given point in time doesn't matter anymore. What does a
history that involves things like super volcanoes, giant meteors hitting
earth, etc. have to do with man made pollution and it's affects on
climate that is occuring right now?

If history doesn't matter, why look back 140 years?

Or, why use Bush as an excuse for everything Obama does?
--

John H

NotNow wrote:
Keith Nuttle wrote:
NotNow wrote:
Keith Nuttle wrote:
NotNow wrote:
Calif Bill wrote:



If the past does not matter you have no basis to say there is global
warming. Yesterday, last week, last year, last decades'
temperatures, don't exist therefore there are no temperatures to
compare today's temperature, so it can not be increasing

Do this. Show me unmitigated, researchable data that proves for a
fact that global warming isn't occurring.

There is some data showing regional warming. There is some data
showing regional cooling. We have been collecting data on the weather
for a little more than two hundred years. Probably half of this time
with imprecise equipment and poor sampling techniques. The first half
of this database has a very limited scope in relation to the total
surface area of the earth. There are still large area of the surface
of the earth (water and land) that have no data history for the
temperature.

Based on this small sampling of data there are some privative computer
models that have been developed that based on this small data pool
project the numbers forward and show a warming trend. However they
did not predict the cooling that has been experienced in the current
century. They can not accurately predict the weather from day to day.
(We have record high temperatures in the western US and record low
highs in the Midwestern US. In fact because of these low temperature
we may see increases in alcohol (gasoline), and various foods because
of low yields.)

If you get passed the politics and look at the data being generated,
there are signs that the world is warming, but there are also signs
that it is cooling. The ice on one side of the antarctic has been
decreasing BUT the ice on the other side has been increasing. The
current that comes out of the Arctic down the west side of Greenland
is colder and stronger after weakening in the late 1900's

Archeology, paleontology and other long term sciences have shown that
global warming is a cyclic phenomena, with cycles 100000 years or more
in length. There are too many variables, and the cycles too long, to
make any accurate prediction from the limited data set we currently
have. There is definitely too little data available to start trying
to modify the weather when we don't know all of the variables that
control it. (If we do something wrong we could make a bad situation
worse.) It is absolutely too early to start throwing trillions of
dollars at a situation that is not known nor understood.

I fully understand that there is a cyclic element to the problem. BUT,
you can not deny data that shows that air pollution has corresponded
perfectly with the warming trend that we are now seeing. That has only
occurred before with super volcano events. Anyone who just shoves good
data under the rug because it doesn't meet their current ideology just
isn't very good at science.


Global warming also corresponds to the growth in the feminist movement,
the development of the computer industry, the growth in the Latino
population of the US, and several other non related phenomena.

I will stick with my original statement, there just is not sufficient
data to predict long range climate trends. As a scientist all data is
valid whether if fits you preconceived notions or not.

I have been involved in to many experiments where the final conclusion
was not what was indicated by the initial trend in a few data points.
In most of these cases, when the absolute variation in the data was know
the trend in the initial data was shown to be random variance.

On Sat, 01 Aug 2009 16:10:13 -0400, Keith Nuttle
wrote:

NotNow wrote:
Keith Nuttle wrote:
NotNow wrote:
Keith Nuttle wrote:
NotNow wrote:
Calif Bill wrote:



If the past does not matter you have no basis to say there is global
warming. Yesterday, last week, last year, last decades'
temperatures, don't exist therefore there are no temperatures to
compare today's temperature, so it can not be increasing

Do this. Show me unmitigated, researchable data that proves for a
fact that global warming isn't occurring.

There is some data showing regional warming. There is some data
showing regional cooling. We have been collecting data on the weather
for a little more than two hundred years. Probably half of this time
with imprecise equipment and poor sampling techniques. The first half
of this database has a very limited scope in relation to the total
surface area of the earth. There are still large area of the surface
of the earth (water and land) that have no data history for the
temperature.

Based on this small sampling of data there are some privative computer
models that have been developed that based on this small data pool
project the numbers forward and show a warming trend. However they
did not predict the cooling that has been experienced in the current
century. They can not accurately predict the weather from day to day.
(We have record high temperatures in the western US and record low
highs in the Midwestern US. In fact because of these low temperature
we may see increases in alcohol (gasoline), and various foods because
of low yields.)

If you get passed the politics and look at the data being generated,
there are signs that the world is warming, but there are also signs
that it is cooling. The ice on one side of the antarctic has been
decreasing BUT the ice on the other side has been increasing. The
current that comes out of the Arctic down the west side of Greenland
is colder and stronger after weakening in the late 1900's

Archeology, paleontology and other long term sciences have shown that
global warming is a cyclic phenomena, with cycles 100000 years or more
in length. There are too many variables, and the cycles too long, to
make any accurate prediction from the limited data set we currently
have. There is definitely too little data available to start trying
to modify the weather when we don't know all of the variables that
control it. (If we do something wrong we could make a bad situation
worse.) It is absolutely too early to start throwing trillions of
dollars at a situation that is not known nor understood.

I fully understand that there is a cyclic element to the problem. BUT,
you can not deny data that shows that air pollution has corresponded
perfectly with the warming trend that we are now seeing. That has only
occurred before with super volcano events. Anyone who just shoves good
data under the rug because it doesn't meet their current ideology just
isn't very good at science.


Global warming also corresponds to the growth in the feminist movement,
the development of the computer industry, the growth in the Latino
population of the US, and several other non related phenomena.

I will stick with my original statement, there just is not sufficient
data to predict long range climate trends. As a scientist all data is
valid whether if fits you preconceived notions or not.

I have been involved in to many experiments where the final conclusion
was not what was indicated by the initial trend in a few data points.
In most of these cases, when the absolute variation in the data was know
the trend in the initial data was shown to be random variance.

It's also true that the number of births by unwed mothers in DC has
increased along with the increases in pay given to high school
teachers in Atlanta, GA.

That's an important one.
--

John H

NotNow wrote:
Calif Bill wrote:
"NotNow" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:
"NotNow" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:
"NotNow" wrote in message
...
BAR wrote:
NotNow wrote:
BAR wrote:
Vic Smith wrote:
Ran across this after seeing an article in boattest about a
guy with a
Nordhavn doing the trip Atlantic to Pacific.
http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/...y/1620336.html

Weird when you consider the travails of Franklin and Amundsen.
If the passage gets going good it could affect Panama Canal
revenues.
You could see the Chinese jump on the Global Warming band
wagon at that point.
I wonder how the passage is getting "increasingly ice free"
when the republican politicians are forcing everyone in their
party to be darned near militant in telling everyone that
global warming just isn't happening despite all of the data
proving otherwise?
Where is the peer reviewed data.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

http://wdc.cricyt.edu.ar/paleo/globalwarming/end.html
Which states in part:

When one reviews all the data, both from thermometers and
paleotemperature proxies, it becomes clear that the Earth has
warmed significantly over the last 140 years; Global Warming is a
reality. Multiple paleoclimatic studies indicate that recent
years, the 1990s, and the 20th century are all the warmest, on a
global basis, of the last 600, and most likely 1200 years. It
appears that the global warming of the last century is
unprecedented in the last 1,200 years.
The peer review does not address man causes for global warming.
Earth has heated and cooled for it whole life. What did man do to
cause the last Ice Age about 15,000 years ago? The mini ice age
500 years ago? And the warming afterwards?
It does not matter what has happened and how it happened in the
past. We are talking about the CURRENT situation. That's why the
right's insistence that it isn't man made is non-think.
Now the past does not matter in global warming and history does not
enter into science. I am not sure I want you engineering a building
for me. You would ignore codes, etc as they are based on history.
Uh, no not really. Codes are based on known strengths, stresses,
strains, etc. And you use the CURRENT code. Using your analogy, you'd
want me to design by a standard that was a few million years old.

Nope, what I said if history did not matter. You would be designing
to codes at are as first written. They would not be changed because
of history. Exactly the opposite of what you stated.


The problem here is simple. *I* was talking about a specific problem,
not problems in general. As far as the topic I was discussing, history
does not matter. Why? Simple. Because the cataclysmic events that shaped
the climate at a given point in time doesn't matter anymore. What does a
history that involves things like super volcanoes, giant meteors hitting
earth, etc. have to do with man made pollution and it's affects on
climate that is occuring right now?

What effect did Mount Pinatubo's eruption have on the Earth's atmosphere?

John Again wrote:
On Sat, 01 Aug 2009 11:45:33 -0400, NotNow wrote:

Calif Bill wrote:
"NotNow" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:
"NotNow" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:
"NotNow" wrote in message
...
BAR wrote:
NotNow wrote:
BAR wrote:
Vic Smith wrote:
Ran across this after seeing an article in boattest about a guy
with a
Nordhavn doing the trip Atlantic to Pacific.
http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/...y/1620336.html

Weird when you consider the travails of Franklin and Amundsen.
If the passage gets going good it could affect Panama Canal
revenues.
You could see the Chinese jump on the Global Warming band wagon at
that point.
I wonder how the passage is getting "increasingly ice free" when the
republican politicians are forcing everyone in their party to be
darned near militant in telling everyone that global warming just
isn't happening despite all of the data proving otherwise?
Where is the peer reviewed data.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

http://wdc.cricyt.edu.ar/paleo/globalwarming/end.html
Which states in part:

When one reviews all the data, both from thermometers and
paleotemperature proxies, it becomes clear that the Earth has warmed
significantly over the last 140 years; Global Warming is a reality.
Multiple paleoclimatic studies indicate that recent years, the 1990s,
and the 20th century are all the warmest, on a global basis, of the
last 600, and most likely 1200 years. It appears that the global
warming of the last century is unprecedented in the last 1,200 years.
The peer review does not address man causes for global warming. Earth
has heated and cooled for it whole life. What did man do to cause the
last Ice Age about 15,000 years ago? The mini ice age 500 years ago?
And the warming afterwards?
It does not matter what has happened and how it happened in the past. We
are talking about the CURRENT situation. That's why the right's
insistence that it isn't man made is non-think.
Now the past does not matter in global warming and history does not enter
into science. I am not sure I want you engineering a building for me.
You would ignore codes, etc as they are based on history.
Uh, no not really. Codes are based on known strengths, stresses, strains,
etc. And you use the CURRENT code. Using your analogy, you'd want me to
design by a standard that was a few million years old.
Nope, what I said if history did not matter. You would be designing to
codes at are as first written. They would not be changed because of
history. Exactly the opposite of what you stated.


The problem here is simple. *I* was talking about a specific problem,
not problems in general. As far as the topic I was discussing, history
does not matter. Why? Simple. Because the cataclysmic events that shaped
the climate at a given point in time doesn't matter anymore. What does a
history that involves things like super volcanoes, giant meteors hitting
earth, etc. have to do with man made pollution and it's affects on
climate that is occuring right now?

If history doesn't matter, why look back 140 years?

WHOOSH!

Or, why use Bush as an excuse for everything Obama does?
--

The same reason why Clinton is an excuse for everything Bush does!

On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 08:34:04 -0400, NotNow wrote:

John Again wrote:
On Sat, 01 Aug 2009 11:45:33 -0400, NotNow wrote:

Calif Bill wrote:
"NotNow" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:
"NotNow" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:
"NotNow" wrote in message
...
BAR wrote:
NotNow wrote:
BAR wrote:
Vic Smith wrote:
Ran across this after seeing an article in boattest about a guy
with a
Nordhavn doing the trip Atlantic to Pacific.
http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/...y/1620336.html

Weird when you consider the travails of Franklin and Amundsen.
If the passage gets going good it could affect Panama Canal
revenues.
You could see the Chinese jump on the Global Warming band wagon at
that point.
I wonder how the passage is getting "increasingly ice free" when the
republican politicians are forcing everyone in their party to be
darned near militant in telling everyone that global warming just
isn't happening despite all of the data proving otherwise?
Where is the peer reviewed data.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

http://wdc.cricyt.edu.ar/paleo/globalwarming/end.html
Which states in part:

When one reviews all the data, both from thermometers and
paleotemperature proxies, it becomes clear that the Earth has warmed
significantly over the last 140 years; Global Warming is a reality.
Multiple paleoclimatic studies indicate that recent years, the 1990s,
and the 20th century are all the warmest, on a global basis, of the
last 600, and most likely 1200 years. It appears that the global
warming of the last century is unprecedented in the last 1,200 years.
The peer review does not address man causes for global warming. Earth
has heated and cooled for it whole life. What did man do to cause the
last Ice Age about 15,000 years ago? The mini ice age 500 years ago?
And the warming afterwards?
It does not matter what has happened and how it happened in the past. We
are talking about the CURRENT situation. That's why the right's
insistence that it isn't man made is non-think.
Now the past does not matter in global warming and history does not enter
into science. I am not sure I want you engineering a building for me.
You would ignore codes, etc as they are based on history.
Uh, no not really. Codes are based on known strengths, stresses, strains,
etc. And you use the CURRENT code. Using your analogy, you'd want me to
design by a standard that was a few million years old.
Nope, what I said if history did not matter. You would be designing to
codes at are as first written. They would not be changed because of
history. Exactly the opposite of what you stated.


The problem here is simple. *I* was talking about a specific problem,
not problems in general. As far as the topic I was discussing, history
does not matter. Why? Simple. Because the cataclysmic events that shaped
the climate at a given point in time doesn't matter anymore. What does a
history that involves things like super volcanoes, giant meteors hitting
earth, etc. have to do with man made pollution and it's affects on
climate that is occuring right now?

If history doesn't matter, why look back 140 years?

WHOOSH!

Or, why use Bush as an excuse for everything Obama does?
--

The same reason why Clinton is an excuse for everything Bush does!

Bush doesn't do.

Obama does.

Using Bush as the justification for Obama's actions doesn't say much
for Obama, does it?
--

John H

Drifting John wrote:
On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 08:34:04 -0400, NotNow wrote:

John Again wrote:
On Sat, 01 Aug 2009 11:45:33 -0400, NotNow wrote:

Calif Bill wrote:
"NotNow" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:
"NotNow" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:
"NotNow" wrote in message
...
BAR wrote:
NotNow wrote:
BAR wrote:
Vic Smith wrote:
Ran across this after seeing an article in boattest about a guy
with a
Nordhavn doing the trip Atlantic to Pacific.
http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/...y/1620336.html

Weird when you consider the travails of Franklin and Amundsen.
If the passage gets going good it could affect Panama Canal
revenues.
You could see the Chinese jump on the Global Warming band wagon at
that point.
I wonder how the passage is getting "increasingly ice free" when the
republican politicians are forcing everyone in their party to be
darned near militant in telling everyone that global warming just
isn't happening despite all of the data proving otherwise?
Where is the peer reviewed data.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

http://wdc.cricyt.edu.ar/paleo/globalwarming/end.html
Which states in part:

When one reviews all the data, both from thermometers and
paleotemperature proxies, it becomes clear that the Earth has warmed
significantly over the last 140 years; Global Warming is a reality.
Multiple paleoclimatic studies indicate that recent years, the 1990s,
and the 20th century are all the warmest, on a global basis, of the
last 600, and most likely 1200 years. It appears that the global
warming of the last century is unprecedented in the last 1,200 years.
The peer review does not address man causes for global warming. Earth
has heated and cooled for it whole life. What did man do to cause the
last Ice Age about 15,000 years ago? The mini ice age 500 years ago?
And the warming afterwards?
It does not matter what has happened and how it happened in the past. We
are talking about the CURRENT situation. That's why the right's
insistence that it isn't man made is non-think.
Now the past does not matter in global warming and history does not enter
into science. I am not sure I want you engineering a building for me.
You would ignore codes, etc as they are based on history.
Uh, no not really. Codes are based on known strengths, stresses, strains,
etc. And you use the CURRENT code. Using your analogy, you'd want me to
design by a standard that was a few million years old.
Nope, what I said if history did not matter. You would be designing to
codes at are as first written. They would not be changed because of
history. Exactly the opposite of what you stated.


The problem here is simple. *I* was talking about a specific problem,
not problems in general. As far as the topic I was discussing, history
does not matter. Why? Simple. Because the cataclysmic events that shaped
the climate at a given point in time doesn't matter anymore. What does a
history that involves things like super volcanoes, giant meteors hitting
earth, etc. have to do with man made pollution and it's affects on
climate that is occuring right now?
If history doesn't matter, why look back 140 years?
WHOOSH!
Or, why use Bush as an excuse for everything Obama does?
--

The same reason why Clinton is an excuse for everything Bush does!

Bush doesn't do.

Obama does.

Using Bush as the justification for Obama's actions doesn't say much
for Obama, does it?
--

John H
As usual.
Anything liberal = lying, blaming, nothing good everything bad
Anything conservative = complete honesty, never blaming, everything
wonderful.

On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 11:26:47 -0400, NotNow wrote:

Drifting John wrote:
On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 08:34:04 -0400, NotNow wrote:

John Again wrote:
On Sat, 01 Aug 2009 11:45:33 -0400, NotNow wrote:

Calif Bill wrote:
"NotNow" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:
"NotNow" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:
"NotNow" wrote in message
...
BAR wrote:
NotNow wrote:
BAR wrote:
Vic Smith wrote:
Ran across this after seeing an article in boattest about a guy
with a
Nordhavn doing the trip Atlantic to Pacific.
http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/...y/1620336.html

Weird when you consider the travails of Franklin and Amundsen.
If the passage gets going good it could affect Panama Canal
revenues.
You could see the Chinese jump on the Global Warming band wagon at
that point.
I wonder how the passage is getting "increasingly ice free" when the
republican politicians are forcing everyone in their party to be
darned near militant in telling everyone that global warming just
isn't happening despite all of the data proving otherwise?
Where is the peer reviewed data.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

http://wdc.cricyt.edu.ar/paleo/globalwarming/end.html
Which states in part:

When one reviews all the data, both from thermometers and
paleotemperature proxies, it becomes clear that the Earth has warmed
significantly over the last 140 years; Global Warming is a reality.
Multiple paleoclimatic studies indicate that recent years, the 1990s,
and the 20th century are all the warmest, on a global basis, of the
last 600, and most likely 1200 years. It appears that the global
warming of the last century is unprecedented in the last 1,200 years.
The peer review does not address man causes for global warming. Earth
has heated and cooled for it whole life. What did man do to cause the
last Ice Age about 15,000 years ago? The mini ice age 500 years ago?
And the warming afterwards?
It does not matter what has happened and how it happened in the past. We
are talking about the CURRENT situation. That's why the right's
insistence that it isn't man made is non-think.
Now the past does not matter in global warming and history does not enter
into science. I am not sure I want you engineering a building for me.
You would ignore codes, etc as they are based on history.
Uh, no not really. Codes are based on known strengths, stresses, strains,
etc. And you use the CURRENT code. Using your analogy, you'd want me to
design by a standard that was a few million years old.
Nope, what I said if history did not matter. You would be designing to
codes at are as first written. They would not be changed because of
history. Exactly the opposite of what you stated.


The problem here is simple. *I* was talking about a specific problem,
not problems in general. As far as the topic I was discussing, history
does not matter. Why? Simple. Because the cataclysmic events that shaped
the climate at a given point in time doesn't matter anymore. What does a
history that involves things like super volcanoes, giant meteors hitting
earth, etc. have to do with man made pollution and it's affects on
climate that is occuring right now?
If history doesn't matter, why look back 140 years?
WHOOSH!
Or, why use Bush as an excuse for everything Obama does?
--

The same reason why Clinton is an excuse for everything Bush does!

Bush doesn't do.

Obama does.

Using Bush as the justification for Obama's actions doesn't say much
for Obama, does it?
--

John H
As usual.
Anything liberal = lying, blaming, nothing good everything bad
Anything conservative = complete honesty, never blaming, everything
wonderful.

From where came that?

My comment had to do with the use of Bush as a rationale for Obama's
behavior.
--

John H

Drifting John wrote:
On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 11:26:47 -0400, NotNow wrote:

Drifting John wrote:
On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 08:34:04 -0400, NotNow wrote:

John Again wrote:
On Sat, 01 Aug 2009 11:45:33 -0400, NotNow wrote:

Calif Bill wrote:
"NotNow" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:
"NotNow" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:
"NotNow" wrote in message
...
BAR wrote:
NotNow wrote:
BAR wrote:
Vic Smith wrote:
Ran across this after seeing an article in boattest about a guy
with a
Nordhavn doing the trip Atlantic to Pacific.
http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/...y/1620336.html

Weird when you consider the travails of Franklin and Amundsen.
If the passage gets going good it could affect Panama Canal
revenues.
You could see the Chinese jump on the Global Warming band wagon at
that point.
I wonder how the passage is getting "increasingly ice free" when the
republican politicians are forcing everyone in their party to be
darned near militant in telling everyone that global warming just
isn't happening despite all of the data proving otherwise?
Where is the peer reviewed data.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

http://wdc.cricyt.edu.ar/paleo/globalwarming/end.html
Which states in part:

When one reviews all the data, both from thermometers and
paleotemperature proxies, it becomes clear that the Earth has warmed
significantly over the last 140 years; Global Warming is a reality.
Multiple paleoclimatic studies indicate that recent years, the 1990s,
and the 20th century are all the warmest, on a global basis, of the
last 600, and most likely 1200 years. It appears that the global
warming of the last century is unprecedented in the last 1,200 years.
The peer review does not address man causes for global warming. Earth
has heated and cooled for it whole life. What did man do to cause the
last Ice Age about 15,000 years ago? The mini ice age 500 years ago?
And the warming afterwards?
It does not matter what has happened and how it happened in the past. We
are talking about the CURRENT situation. That's why the right's
insistence that it isn't man made is non-think.
Now the past does not matter in global warming and history does not enter
into science. I am not sure I want you engineering a building for me.
You would ignore codes, etc as they are based on history.
Uh, no not really. Codes are based on known strengths, stresses, strains,
etc. And you use the CURRENT code. Using your analogy, you'd want me to
design by a standard that was a few million years old.
Nope, what I said if history did not matter. You would be designing to
codes at are as first written. They would not be changed because of
history. Exactly the opposite of what you stated.


The problem here is simple. *I* was talking about a specific problem,
not problems in general. As far as the topic I was discussing, history
does not matter. Why? Simple. Because the cataclysmic events that shaped
the climate at a given point in time doesn't matter anymore. What does a
history that involves things like super volcanoes, giant meteors hitting
earth, etc. have to do with man made pollution and it's affects on
climate that is occuring right now?
If history doesn't matter, why look back 140 years?
WHOOSH!
Or, why use Bush as an excuse for everything Obama does?
--

The same reason why Clinton is an excuse for everything Bush does!
Bush doesn't do.

Obama does.

Using Bush as the justification for Obama's actions doesn't say much
for Obama, does it?
--

John H
As usual.
Anything liberal = lying, blaming, nothing good everything bad
Anything conservative = complete honesty, never blaming, everything
wonderful.

From where came that?

My comment had to do with the use of Bush as a rationale for Obama's
behavior.
--

John H

It's impossible to rationalize Oh-Bah-Mah's behavior.

On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 14:07:40 -0400, "it's me, Jim" "j i
wrote:

Drifting John wrote:
On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 11:26:47 -0400, NotNow wrote:

Drifting John wrote:
On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 08:34:04 -0400, NotNow wrote:

John Again wrote:
On Sat, 01 Aug 2009 11:45:33 -0400, NotNow wrote:

Calif Bill wrote:
"NotNow" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:
"NotNow" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:
"NotNow" wrote in message
...
BAR wrote:
NotNow wrote:
BAR wrote:
Vic Smith wrote:
Ran across this after seeing an article in boattest about a guy
with a
Nordhavn doing the trip Atlantic to Pacific.
http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/...y/1620336.html

Weird when you consider the travails of Franklin and Amundsen.
If the passage gets going good it could affect Panama Canal
revenues.
You could see the Chinese jump on the Global Warming band wagon at
that point.
I wonder how the passage is getting "increasingly ice free" when the
republican politicians are forcing everyone in their party to be
darned near militant in telling everyone that global warming just
isn't happening despite all of the data proving otherwise?
Where is the peer reviewed data.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

http://wdc.cricyt.edu.ar/paleo/globalwarming/end.html
Which states in part:

When one reviews all the data, both from thermometers and
paleotemperature proxies, it becomes clear that the Earth has warmed
significantly over the last 140 years; Global Warming is a reality.
Multiple paleoclimatic studies indicate that recent years, the 1990s,
and the 20th century are all the warmest, on a global basis, of the
last 600, and most likely 1200 years. It appears that the global
warming of the last century is unprecedented in the last 1,200 years.
The peer review does not address man causes for global warming. Earth
has heated and cooled for it whole life. What did man do to cause the
last Ice Age about 15,000 years ago? The mini ice age 500 years ago?
And the warming afterwards?
It does not matter what has happened and how it happened in the past. We
are talking about the CURRENT situation. That's why the right's
insistence that it isn't man made is non-think.
Now the past does not matter in global warming and history does not enter
into science. I am not sure I want you engineering a building for me.
You would ignore codes, etc as they are based on history.
Uh, no not really. Codes are based on known strengths, stresses, strains,
etc. And you use the CURRENT code. Using your analogy, you'd want me to
design by a standard that was a few million years old.
Nope, what I said if history did not matter. You would be designing to
codes at are as first written. They would not be changed because of
history. Exactly the opposite of what you stated.


The problem here is simple. *I* was talking about a specific problem,
not problems in general. As far as the topic I was discussing, history
does not matter. Why? Simple. Because the cataclysmic events that shaped
the climate at a given point in time doesn't matter anymore. What does a
history that involves things like super volcanoes, giant meteors hitting
earth, etc. have to do with man made pollution and it's affects on
climate that is occuring right now?
If history doesn't matter, why look back 140 years?
WHOOSH!
Or, why use Bush as an excuse for everything Obama does?
--

The same reason why Clinton is an excuse for everything Bush does!
Bush doesn't do.

Obama does.

Using Bush as the justification for Obama's actions doesn't say much
for Obama, does it?
--

John H
As usual.
Anything liberal = lying, blaming, nothing good everything bad
Anything conservative = complete honesty, never blaming, everything
wonderful.

From where came that?

My comment had to do with the use of Bush as a rationale for Obama's
behavior.
--

John H

It's impossible to rationalize Oh-Bah-Mah's behavior.

True. But the liberal fall back is to compare to Bush. Can't figure
out why they don't just discuss his behavior as is.

Embarrassed?
--

John H