Embracing Climate Change, or Why I Have Enjoyed the Cooler Summer
 

JustWait wrote:
In article , "Giga"
says...
"tg" wrote in message
...
On Aug 25, 8:04 am, BAR wrote:
tg wrote:
On Aug 25, 7:07 am, BAR wrote:
Giga Giga wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 19:04:21 -0700 (PDT), BOfL
wrote:
How can there be an idea of perfection or a perfect state of being,
if
such a thing has never existed or been experienced previously? Such
a
concept can only come from an extrinsic source, something outside
of
the human experience, ergo the possibility of "God.") Perhaps
someone sometime will provide some reasonable answers to this
conundrum. No one has yet, to my satisfaction.
--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
And what answers would be adequate?
Many want proof, but dont know what the proof should be.
BOfL
What I was hoping to do was to point out what seems to me to be a bit
of an irony - a contradiction of dogmas of those that are wholesale
subscribers to global warming alarmism and also adopt a stoic,
clinical definition of evolution and death. It's difficult for me to
imagine how the conflict of those perspectives can be reconciled. I'm
more than willing to be enlightened if for some reason I'm confused
in
comprehending those perspectives.
Some things can be changed by human beings and some things can't. If
global
warming is caused by human beings then presumably we can stop it as
well. If
global warming is likely to lead to consequences we don't want then we
may
want to stop it. Also we seem to have the means to stop it or
alleviate it,
by reducing co2 output, and maybe other techniques. So if we can and
want to
stop it why not? Its the same principle we apply to everything, for
instance
if you are uncomfortable, and you can change that, then why not? If
you can
forsee that leaving a pan on the stove is going to burn what you are
cooking
then turn down the heat or take it off the cooker?
However, the more sun light that is shed on the actual "data" that is
used as the basis for proponents of the human caused global warming the
fewer the scientists who support human caused global warming become.
That's interesting. Could you please provide the data to support your
claim?
Yes, it is all in the public domain. If you keep up with current events
you shouldn't have any problem finding the information on your own.
OK. I'd just like to point out that there is absolute proof of
Anthropogenic Climate Change. All of it is in the public domain. You
shouldn't have trouble finding it on your own. And there are no
scientists who disagree with it.

What a laugh.... "No scientists"?? If I show you one, will you shut up
and admit you are full of ****?

When I pee in the pool the water in the pool becomes warmer and my body
becomes colder.

+Thats not true by a really long long way!

Embracing Climate Change, or Why I Have Enjoyed the Cooler Summer
 

On Aug 25, 2:46*pm, JustWait wrote:
In article , "Giga"
says...

OK. I'd just like to point out that there is absolute proof of
Anthropogenic Climate Change. All of it is in the public domain. You
shouldn't have trouble finding it on your own. And there are no
scientists who disagree with it.

What a laugh.... "No scientists"?? If I show you one, will you shut up
and admit you are full of ****?

You might try Freeman Dyson:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/ma...1&pagewanted=1

There is of course another issue which is the source of the fraud
underlying ACC - far, far worse than AGW.

With AGW, they could at least look at temperature graphs and make
comparisons. Of course they are now scurrying away from AGW as fast as
their little legs can carry them because these temperature comparisons
just haven't been cooperating in recent years to support their case.

But "climate change", wow, what a potential free for all. You can use
any parameter you want and find something - ANYTHING - that looks a
little off the norm, and boom it's enough to generate hysteria.

Embracing Climate Change, or Why I Have Enjoyed the Cooler Summer
 

On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 05:59:18 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
wrote:

On Aug 25, 8:04*am, BAR wrote:
tg wrote:
On Aug 25, 7:07 am, BAR wrote:
Giga Giga wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 19:04:21 -0700 (PDT), BOfL
wrote:
How can there be an idea of perfection or a perfect state of being, if
such a thing has never existed or been experienced previously? Such a
concept can only come from an extrinsic source, something outside of
the human experience, ergo the possibility of "God.") Perhaps
someone sometime will provide some reasonable answers to this
conundrum. No one has yet, to my satisfaction.
--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
And what answers would be adequate?
Many want proof, but dont know what the proof should be.
BOfL
What I was hoping to do was to point out what seems to me to be a bit
of an irony - a contradiction of dogmas of those that are wholesale
subscribers to global warming alarmism and also adopt a stoic,
clinical definition of evolution and death. *It's difficult for me to
imagine how the conflict of those perspectives can be reconciled. *I'm
more than willing to be enlightened if for some reason I'm confused in
comprehending those perspectives.
Some things can be changed by human beings and some things can't. If global
warming is caused by human beings then presumably we can stop it as well. If
global warming is likely to lead to consequences we don't want then we may
want to stop it. Also we seem to have the means to stop it or alleviate it,
by reducing co2 output, and maybe other techniques. So if we can and want to
stop it why not? Its the same principle we apply to everything, for instance
if you are uncomfortable, and you can change that, then why not? If you can
forsee that leaving a pan on the stove is going to burn what you are cooking
then turn down the heat or take it off the cooker?
However, the more sun light that is shed on the actual "data" that is
used as the basis for proponents of the human caused global warming the
* fewer the scientists who support human caused global warming become.

That's interesting. Could you please provide the data to support your
claim?

Yes, it is all in the public domain. If you keep up with current events
you shouldn't have any problem finding the information on your own. Or
if you are just looking at the issue from one side then you will never
see the info and it will not matter what data I provide to support my
position.

The most interesting thing is that "Climate Change" legislation in the
US has suddenly taken a back seat to "Health Insurance Reform", its
current name of the day. Why nobody would support climate change
legislation when they found out that it was just a means to transfer
income.-

the only process to 'transfer income' is to vote for the GOP. they've
engineered the biggest income transfer in history...from the middle
class to the wealthy...

THEN they got much of the middle class to believe this is the way god
means it to be.

jesus, i wish i had their marketing system.

If you hadn't left your assets 'out in the street', you'd still have
them. It's *your* job to watch *your* assets.
--
John H

"If you think healthcare is expensive now, wait until it's free!"
--Anonymous

Embracing Climate Change, or Why I Have Enjoyed the Cooler Summer
 

On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 09:03:40 -0700 (PDT), tg
wrote:

On Aug 25, 11:19*am, "Giga" "Giga" just(removetheseandaddmatthe end)
wrote:
"BAR" wrote in message

...



Giga Giga wrote:
wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 19:04:21 -0700 (PDT), BOfL
wrote:

How can there be an idea of perfection or a perfect state of being, if
such a thing has never existed or been experienced previously? Such a
concept can only come from an extrinsic source, something outside of
the human experience, ergo the possibility of "God.") Perhaps
someone sometime will provide some reasonable answers to this
conundrum. No one has yet, to my satisfaction.

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
And what answers would be adequate?
Many want proof, but dont know what the proof should be.

BOfL
What I was hoping to do was to point out what seems to me to be a bit
of an irony - a contradiction of dogmas of those that are wholesale
subscribers to global warming alarmism and also adopt a stoic,
clinical definition of evolution and death. *It's difficult for me to
imagine how the conflict of those perspectives can be reconciled. *I'm
more than willing to be enlightened if for some reason I'm confused in
comprehending those perspectives.

Some things can be changed by human beings and some things can't. If
global warming is caused by human beings then presumably we can stop it
as well. If global warming is likely to lead to consequences we don't
want then we may want to stop it. Also we seem to have the means to stop
it or alleviate it, by reducing co2 output, and maybe other techniques.
So if we can and want to stop it why not? Its the same principle we apply
to everything, for instance if you are uncomfortable, and you can change
that, then why not? If you can forsee that leaving a pan on the stove is
going to burn what you are cooking then turn down the heat or take it off
the cooker?

However, the more sun light that is shed on the actual "data" that is used
as the basis for proponents of the human caused global warming the fewer
the scientists who support human caused global warming become.

I must admit I was shocked, surprised, even scandalised when I checked that
graph that Al Gore shows with CO2 and Temp following each other over
100,000s of years. look at a slightly higher resolution and you see that
temp goes up roughly 800 years *before* CO2 even starts to rise, and goes
down hundreds of years *before* CO2 falls. I can't beleive he was unaware of
how misleading the way he showed the graph was. It smells like a con-job. If
this graph shows anything is that warming leads to more CO2 eventually, and
when there is enough CO2 cooling will start eventually (this is absurd of
course). What it actually seems to show is that they are not directly
correlated at all.

Also just heard that the famous 'hockey stick' graph was equally flawed.
Apparently you can put any set of data into that model and it will come out
pretty much that shape! Wow, amazing, what a bunch of loons! But do we hear
about this from the mass media?

Another guy I heard said that after 50ppm CO2 has litle extra blanketting
effect on the Earth. Basically its like a dye, once its coloured the cloth
you can add more but the colour doesn't increase, its already fully
covered???

If you rely on superficial reports and 'what some guy said' you will
never get it right.

Scientists aren't relying on the graphs that you mention. There has
been lots of research in the last few years that was designed to
answer valid questions like the saturation argument you cite. What's
happened, contrary to what BAR said, is that scientists who started
out skeptical about ACC have been convinced otherwise. But they have
read the actual studies and have the background to interpret them.

Science always is subject to change, and if there is new evidence,
perhaps the consensus will change. But the current consensus is the
best we have. It doesn't say the world will end, it just says that
there will be disruptions of human life in various ways. And as you
say, why not change that if we can?

-tg

You mean to say Al Gore's movie was a piece of money-grubbing ****? I
know the British figured that out, but I didn't think any liberals in
the USofA had done so.

Good to hear some folks are waking up.
--
John H

"If you think healthcare is expensive now, wait until it's free!"
--Anonymous

Embracing Climate Change, or Why I Have Enjoyed the Cooler Summer
 

"JustWait" wrote in message
...
In article , "Giga"
says...

"tg" wrote in message
...
On Aug 25, 8:04 am, BAR wrote:
tg wrote:
On Aug 25, 7:07 am, BAR wrote:
Giga Giga wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 19:04:21 -0700 (PDT), BOfL

wrote:
How can there be an idea of perfection or a perfect state of
being,
if
such a thing has never existed or been experienced previously?
Such
a
concept can only come from an extrinsic source, something
outside
of
the human experience, ergo the possibility of "God.") Perhaps
someone sometime will provide some reasonable answers to this
conundrum. No one has yet, to my satisfaction.
--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband
Access
And what answers would be adequate?
Many want proof, but dont know what the proof should be.
BOfL
What I was hoping to do was to point out what seems to me to be a
bit
of an irony - a contradiction of dogmas of those that are
wholesale
subscribers to global warming alarmism and also adopt a stoic,
clinical definition of evolution and death. It's difficult for me
to
imagine how the conflict of those perspectives can be reconciled.
I'm
more than willing to be enlightened if for some reason I'm
confused
in
comprehending those perspectives.
Some things can be changed by human beings and some things can't.
If
global
warming is caused by human beings then presumably we can stop it as
well. If
global warming is likely to lead to consequences we don't want then
we
may
want to stop it. Also we seem to have the means to stop it or
alleviate it,
by reducing co2 output, and maybe other techniques. So if we can
and
want to
stop it why not? Its the same principle we apply to everything, for
instance
if you are uncomfortable, and you can change that, then why not? If
you can
forsee that leaving a pan on the stove is going to burn what you
are
cooking
then turn down the heat or take it off the cooker?
However, the more sun light that is shed on the actual "data" that
is
used as the basis for proponents of the human caused global warming
the
fewer the scientists who support human caused global warming become.

That's interesting. Could you please provide the data to support your
claim?

Yes, it is all in the public domain. If you keep up with current events
you shouldn't have any problem finding the information on your own.

OK. I'd just like to point out that there is absolute proof of
Anthropogenic Climate Change. All of it is in the public domain. You
shouldn't have trouble finding it on your own. And there are no
scientists who disagree with it.

What a laugh.... "No scientists"?? If I show you one, will you shut up
and admit you are full of ****?


(the bit below was me)

+Thats not true by a really long long way!



--
Wafa free since 2009

Embracing Climate Change, or Why I Have Enjoyed the Cooler Summer
 

"BAR" wrote in message
...
thunder wrote:
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 07:43:11 -0500, jpjccd wrote:


While skinny dipping in the public domain, I stumbled across this;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scienti fic_assessment_of_global_warming

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
List_of_authors_from_Climate_Change_2007:_The_Phys ical_Science_Basis

There is no consensus.

The debate must continue. The data must be made available for peer review.

Anyone claiming that the science is settled is pursuing a political agenda
and not involved in science.


I guess that's why the US military considers it a national security risk.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Embracing Climate Change, or Why I Have Enjoyed the Cooler Summer
 

"BAR" wrote in message
...

When I pee in the pool the water in the pool becomes warmer and my body
becomes colder.


Don't pee in my pool. I don't swim in your toilet.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Embracing Climate Change, or Why I Have Enjoyed the Cooler Summer
 

On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 13:38:51 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"BAR" wrote in message
m...
thunder wrote:
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 07:43:11 -0500, jpjccd wrote:


While skinny dipping in the public domain, I stumbled across this;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scienti fic_assessment_of_global_warming

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
List_of_authors_from_Climate_Change_2007:_The_Phys ical_Science_Basis

There is no consensus.

The debate must continue. The data must be made available for peer review.

Anyone claiming that the science is settled is pursuing a political agenda
and not involved in science.


I guess that's why the US military considers it a national security risk.

Define 'it'.
--
John H

"If you think healthcare is expensive now, wait until it's free!"
--Anonymous

Embracing Climate Change, or Why I Have Enjoyed the Cooler Summer
 

Mille GT Owner wrote:
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 13:38:51 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"BAR" wrote in message
...
thunder wrote:
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 07:43:11 -0500, jpjccd wrote:


While skinny dipping in the public domain, I stumbled across this;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scienti fic_assessment_of_global_warming

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
List_of_authors_from_Climate_Change_2007:_The_Phys ical_Science_Basis
There is no consensus.

The debate must continue. The data must be made available for peer review.

Anyone claiming that the science is settled is pursuing a political agenda
and not involved in science.

I guess that's why the US military considers it a national security risk.

Define 'it'.
--
John H

"If you think healthcare is expensive now, wait until it's free!"
--Anonymous
It has been nearly 200 years and the debate on evolution is still going
on. Cancer has been a topic of investigation for over 60 years, and
still there is no cure for cancer.

How can the debate on the climate and global warming, a significantly
more complex system, be understood after about 20 years. The climate
cycles are over 100000 years in length and they claim to understand them
with about 200 years of data, of which the last 50 years are accurate.
Sounds like poor science to me.

If those that promote global warming truly believe that global warming
was a problem that had to be addressed they would be 100% behind nuclear
power which has NO greenhouse gasses. Since the supporters of global
warming are against nuclear energy, the only conclusion is it is
strictly politics.

Embracing Climate Change, or Why I Have Enjoyed the Cooler Summer
 

"Mille GT Owner" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 13:38:51 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"BAR" wrote in message
om...
thunder wrote:
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 07:43:11 -0500, jpjccd wrote:


While skinny dipping in the public domain, I stumbled across this;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scienti fic_assessment_of_global_warming

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
List_of_authors_from_Climate_Change_2007:_The_Phys ical_Science_Basis

There is no consensus.

The debate must continue. The data must be made available for peer
review.

Anyone claiming that the science is settled is pursuing a political
agenda
and not involved in science.


I guess that's why the US military considers it a national security risk.

Define 'it'.
--
John H

"If you think healthcare is expensive now, wait until it's free!"
--Anonymous


It =
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&n...=&aqi=g 9g-s1

Seriously... "it" is global climate change, as you indicated in the copied
link, specifically warming.


--
Nom=de=Plume