On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 11:32:05 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 05:50:55 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:

I'll condense it for you.

1750: PDO displays an unusually strong oscillation.[2]
1905: After a strong swing, PDO changed to a "warm" phase.
1946: PDO changed to a "cool" phase. [See the blue section of the
graph on the right]
1977: PDO changed to a "warm" phase.[3]
1998: PDO index showed several years of "cool" values, but did not
remain in that pattern.[4]
2008: The early stages of a cool phase of the basin-wide Pacific
Decadal Oscillation

That does NOTHING to scientifically prove that man has had no impact
on global warming.


I agree with you there but the CO2 trend actually goes back 8000 years
and tracks population growth as closely as any other metric.

As I say, the upcoming thermonuclear war when the western economies
fail will fix all of that.
It will be damned cold here for a few hundred years. We may even have
glaciers coming down across Canada and Western Europe again.

How do you expect that nuclear war to start? Do you expect us to
attack China, or China to attack us? Or will Europe come after us? Or
will it be a country like Pakistan?
--
Loogy says:

Conservative = Good
Liberal = Bad

I agree. John H

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 11:32:05 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 05:50:55 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:

I'll condense it for you.

1750: PDO displays an unusually strong oscillation.[2]
1905: After a strong swing, PDO changed to a "warm" phase.
1946: PDO changed to a "cool" phase. [See the blue section of the
graph on the right]
1977: PDO changed to a "warm" phase.[3]
1998: PDO index showed several years of "cool" values, but did not
remain in that pattern.[4]
2008: The early stages of a cool phase of the basin-wide Pacific
Decadal Oscillation

That does NOTHING to scientifically prove that man has had no impact
on global warming.


I agree with you there but the CO2 trend actually goes back 8000 years
and tracks population growth as closely as any other metric.

As I say, the upcoming thermonuclear war when the western economies
fail will fix all of that.
It will be damned cold here for a few hundred years. We may even have
glaciers coming down across Canada and Western Europe again.

How do you expect that nuclear war to start? Do you expect us to
attack China, or China to attack us? Or will Europe come after us? Or
will it be a country like Pakistan?


Cheney... duhhh...

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 17:10:26 -0500, John H.
wrote:

I agree with you there but the CO2 trend actually goes back 8000 years
and tracks population growth as closely as any other metric.

As I say, the upcoming thermonuclear war when the western economies
fail will fix all of that.
It will be damned cold here for a few hundred years. We may even have
glaciers coming down across Canada and Western Europe again.

How do you expect that nuclear war to start? Do you expect us to
attack China, or China to attack us? Or will Europe come after us? Or
will it be a country like Pakistan?

I think we are going to be so economically stressed that we will have
to cut back on our foreign military adventures and stop being the
middle east policeman.
A war will start over there that will quickly go nuclear, the rest of
the world will be sucked in to try and stop it and there you go.
Where does it start?
There are already 3 known nuclear powers in that area and perhaps a
couple more knocking on the door. Who know if there are any Soviet
weapons on the market that could pop up anywhere. .
Take your pick.


In real life, it won't take many "nuclear volcanos" to turn back the
global warming clock. Compared to even the most crude devices we have
now, Nagasaki was just a firecracker. We also knew enough to do air
bursts in Japan. I wouldn't count on the current bunch of up and
coming nuclear powers to be that sophisticated. Ground bursts are a
whole lot dirtier.



The only way to prevent a nuclear war among other countries, such as Pak.
and India is to be involved. We don't need to be the policeman, but we do
need to be a fair arbiter of the truth.


--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 21:54:23 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 17:10:26 -0500, John H.
wrote:

I agree with you there but the CO2 trend actually goes back 8000 years
and tracks population growth as closely as any other metric.

As I say, the upcoming thermonuclear war when the western economies
fail will fix all of that.
It will be damned cold here for a few hundred years. We may even have
glaciers coming down across Canada and Western Europe again.

How do you expect that nuclear war to start? Do you expect us to
attack China, or China to attack us? Or will Europe come after us? Or
will it be a country like Pakistan?

I think we are going to be so economically stressed that we will have
to cut back on our foreign military adventures and stop being the
middle east policeman.
A war will start over there that will quickly go nuclear, the rest of
the world will be sucked in to try and stop it and there you go.
Where does it start?
There are already 3 known nuclear powers in that area and perhaps a
couple more knocking on the door. Who know if there are any Soviet
weapons on the market that could pop up anywhere. .
Take your pick.


In real life, it won't take many "nuclear volcanos" to turn back the
global warming clock. Compared to even the most crude devices we have
now, Nagasaki was just a firecracker. We also knew enough to do air
bursts in Japan. I wouldn't count on the current bunch of up and
coming nuclear powers to be that sophisticated. Ground bursts are a
whole lot dirtier.



The only way to prevent a nuclear war among other countries, such as Pak.
and India is to be involved. We don't need to be the policeman, but we do
need to be a fair arbiter of the truth.

I bet one of the parties will be Israel.
Pakistan and India have hammered out a working peace, really only
arguing about a little patch neither are willing to die over.
The real center point in a nuclear war in the middle east will be
Israel. The only question would be, who shoots first.
If the US was economically or politically not strong enough to back
Israel up in a conventional war, they might resort to a nuclear
counter attack. If that spilled over into Russia on Iran's northern
border, it could really get ugly fast.


I bet you're right if Iran gets too close to having a nuke. I don't think it
would start as a conventional war. It might start as a pre-emptive strike at
nuclear facilities in Iran, but if the Israelis do what they did with Iraq's
powerplant, then nothing might escalate. But, I don't believe that would be
easy to do in Iran, since they've got their facilities spread out all over
and I believe they're hardened sites.

--
Nom=de=Plume

On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 13:11:58 -0500, NotNow wrote:

Please read completely. Don't kill the messenger, don't give anecdotal
crap, but respond with good, solid science to refute each of the points.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0219-01.htm

When have you responded to the myriad of postings presented to you?
Besides, you present four year old garbage and call it science.

Wake up, Loogy.
--
Loogy says:

Conservative = Good
Liberal = Bad

I agree. John H

On Nov 4, 6:29*pm, John H. wrote:
On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 13:11:58 -0500, NotNow wrote:
Please read completely. Don't kill the messenger, don't give anecdotal
crap, but respond with good, solid science to refute each of the points.

*http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0219-01.htm

When have you responded to the myriad of postings presented to you?
Besides, you present four year old garbage and call it science.

Wake up, Loogy.
--
Loogy says:

Conservative = Good
Liberal = Bad

I agree. John H

There you go, THATS proof positive.....NOT.....

On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 13:11:58 -0500, NotNow wrote:

Please read completely. Don't kill the messenger, don't give anecdotal
crap, but respond with good, solid science to refute each of the points.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0219-01.htm

Common dreams? You've got that right.
--
Loogy says:

Conservative = Good
Liberal = Bad

I agree. John H

On Nov 4, 6:30 pm, John H. wrote:
On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 13:11:58 -0500, NotNow wrote:
Please read completely. Don't kill the messenger, don't give anecdotal
crap, but respond with good, solid science to refute each of the points.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0219-01.htm

Common dreams? You've got that right.
--
Loogy says:

Conservative = Good
Liberal = Bad

I agree. John H

The only "evidence" they present for it being human caused is a model,
that really is all they give there as evidence. By varying paramaters
in a model, I can make it prove ANYTHING.

On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 15:50:32 -0800 (PST), Frogwatch
wrote:

On Nov 4, 6:30 pm, John H. wrote:
On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 13:11:58 -0500, NotNow wrote:
Please read completely. Don't kill the messenger, don't give anecdotal
crap, but respond with good, solid science to refute each of the points.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0219-01.htm

Common dreams? You've got that right.
--
Loogy says:

Conservative = Good
Liberal = Bad

I agree. John H

The only "evidence" they present for it being human caused is a model,
that really is all they give there as evidence. By varying paramaters
in a model, I can make it prove ANYTHING.

By golly, maybe there IS a way to 'prove' pigs can fly!
--
Loogy says:

Conservative = Good
Liberal = Bad

I agree. John H

On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 15:50:32 -0800 (PST), Frogwatch
wrote:

On Nov 4, 6:30 pm, John H. wrote:
On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 13:11:58 -0500, NotNow wrote:
Please read completely. Don't kill the messenger, don't give anecdotal
crap, but respond with good, solid science to refute each of the points.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0219-01.htm

Common dreams? You've got that right.
--
Loogy says:

Conservative = Good
Liberal = Bad

I agree. John H

The only "evidence" they present for it being human caused is a model,
that really is all they give there as evidence. By varying paramaters
in a model, I can make it prove ANYTHING.

Er..that's what a mathematical/statistical model is supposed to do. By
manipulating variables, you obtain different results - that's why it's
called a model. You're taking a given set of parameters and varying
them to obtain a result.

Now can you develop a model that will produce the results you want?
Certainly - it's easy enough to do if the parameters and data sets are
limited and confined to already established results.

A good exampe is Dr Michael Mann's GRL paper (the infamous "hockey
stick"), which, in one scientific coup, overturned the whole of
climate history.

It was an essentially overlaid "graph" based on past temperature
max/mins and a set of tree ring data that was tightly controlled.
Within these limited data sets, Mann purportedly used a standard
analysis methodology called Principal Component Analysis which is a
fairly standard type of evaluative tool. PCA utilizes a technique
called normalization in which all data sets are normalized within
certain parameters. What Mann did was supress the data that did not
support his theory and enhanced the data that did. It was totally
improper, unethical and unscientific.

When the data used, even as limited as it was, is normalized within
accepted parameters, the hockey stick goes away.

So my point is that you can build a model using standard techniques
that will produce a unknown result or you can build a model using
parameters outside the accepted technique pool to produce a wanted
result.