On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 12:12:26 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:

"The melting and freezing of moisture on top of Kilimanjaro appears to
be part of “a natural process of dry and wet periods.” The present
melting is not the result of “environmental damage caused by man.”

http://tinyurl.com/yjrgovc

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture08520.html

Ooopsie - what with the CRU scandal, the impending NASA data scandal
(which, but the way I foretold almost two months ago), the fact that
there has been no AGW that anybody who uses real instead of faked data
can find, it's been bad couple of weeks for the Church of AGW.

Don't worry - those of us more rational folks feel your pain.

NOT!!!

I note the A. Does that mean you accept that there is global warming,
just not anthropologically caused? I ask, because some of the "flat
earthers" deny *any* global warming. For them, a few out of context
passages from some hacked emails, overweight all the retreating glaciers,
Northwest Passage access, and retreating pack ice.

For me, the science that the planet is warming, is clear. The science
that it is anthropological, is less clear. However, I have a question.
While I can't say with certainty, that global warming is anthropological,
can you say with certainty, it is not?

On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 21:29:15 -0500, Rob wrote:

Loogypicker wrote:
On Dec 5, 3:48 pm, John wrote:

On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 12:12:26 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports





wrote:

"The melting and freezing of moisture on top of Kilimanjaro appears to
be part of “a natural process of dry and wet periods.” The present
melting is not the result of “environmental damage caused by man.”


http://tinyurl.com/yjrgovc


http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture08520.html


Ooopsie - what with the CRU scandal, the impending NASA data scandal
(which, but the way I foretold almost two months ago), the fact that
there has been no AGW that anybody who uses real instead of faked data
can find, it's been bad couple of weeks for the Church of AGW.


Don't worry - those of us more rational folks feel your pain.


NOT!!!

This damn global warming has got almost two inches of snow on my lawn.
--

John H- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That's about the most scientifically stupid statement I've ever heard.

I took it as a joke.

Rob

Now I'm ****ed. That was meant to be as scientific as some of the
other **** spewed by the Algore fanatics.

Joke my ass.
--

John H

On Sun, 06 Dec 2009 00:51:16 -0600, thunder
wrote:

On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 12:12:26 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:

"The melting and freezing of moisture on top of Kilimanjaro appears to
be part of ?a natural process of dry and wet periods.? The present
melting is not the result of ?environmental damage caused by man.?

http://tinyurl.com/yjrgovc

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture08520.html

Ooopsie - what with the CRU scandal, the impending NASA data scandal
(which, but the way I foretold almost two months ago), the fact that
there has been no AGW that anybody who uses real instead of faked data
can find, it's been bad couple of weeks for the Church of AGW.

Don't worry - those of us more rational folks feel your pain.

NOT!!!

I note the A. Does that mean you accept that there is global warming,
just not anthropologically caused? I ask, because some of the "flat
earthers" deny *any* global warming. For them, a few out of context
passages from some hacked emails, overweight all the retreating glaciers,
Northwest Passage access, and retreating pack ice.

For me, the science that the planet is warming, is clear. The science
that it is anthropological, is less clear. However, I have a question.
While I can't say with certainty, that global warming is anthropological,
can you say with certainty, it is not?

That's the same type question Loogy would ask. The question has to do
with 'degree'. Given that some warming may have occurred over the past
century and a half, *how much*, i.e., what percent, is anthropologic?

The Algores would have us believe, with extremely dubious proof, that
the percent is extremely high and that multiple trillions of dollars
will reduce it.

Horse****.
--

John H

On Dec 6, 8:23*am, John H wrote:
On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 21:29:15 -0500, Rob wrote:
Loogypicker wrote:
On Dec 5, 3:48 pm, John *wrote:

On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 12:12:26 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports

*wrote:

"The melting and freezing of moisture on top of Kilimanjaro appears to
be part of *“a natural process of dry and wet periods.” The present
melting is not the result of “environmental damage caused by man.”

http://tinyurl.com/yjrgovc

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture08520.html

Ooopsie - what with the CRU scandal, the impending NASA data scandal
(which, but the way I foretold almost two months ago), the fact that
there has been no AGW that anybody who uses real instead of faked data
can find, it's been bad couple of weeks for the Church of AGW.

Don't worry - those of us more rational folks feel your pain.

NOT!!!

This damn global warming has got almost two inches of snow on my lawn..
--

John H- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That's about the most scientifically stupid statement I've ever heard.

I took it as a joke.

Rob

Now I'm ****ed. That was meant to be as scientific as some of the
other **** spewed by the Algore fanatics.

Joke my ass.
--

John H- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Examples please?

On Sun, 6 Dec 2009 08:54:09 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:

On Dec 6, 8:23*am, John H wrote:
On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 21:29:15 -0500, Rob wrote:
Loogypicker wrote:
On Dec 5, 3:48 pm, John *wrote:

On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 12:12:26 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports

*wrote:

"The melting and freezing of moisture on top of Kilimanjaro appears to
be part of *“a natural process of dry and wet periods.” The present
melting is not the result of “environmental damage caused by man.”

http://tinyurl.com/yjrgovc

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture08520.html

Ooopsie - what with the CRU scandal, the impending NASA data scandal
(which, but the way I foretold almost two months ago), the fact that
there has been no AGW that anybody who uses real instead of faked data
can find, it's been bad couple of weeks for the Church of AGW.

Don't worry - those of us more rational folks feel your pain.

NOT!!!

This damn global warming has got almost two inches of snow on my lawn.
--

John H- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That's about the most scientifically stupid statement I've ever heard.

I took it as a joke.

Rob

Now I'm ****ed. That was meant to be as scientific as some of the
other **** spewed by the Algore fanatics.

Joke my ass.
--

John H- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Examples please?

Go look at your last twenty-three posts on the subject.
--

John H

On Dec 6, 12:18*pm, John H wrote:
On Sun, 6 Dec 2009 08:54:09 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker





wrote:
On Dec 6, 8:23*am, John H wrote:
On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 21:29:15 -0500, Rob wrote:
Loogypicker wrote:
On Dec 5, 3:48 pm, John *wrote:

On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 12:12:26 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports

*wrote:

"The melting and freezing of moisture on top of Kilimanjaro appears to
be part of *“a natural process of dry and wet periods.” The present
melting is not the result of “environmental damage caused by man.”

http://tinyurl.com/yjrgovc

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture08520.html

Ooopsie - what with the CRU scandal, the impending NASA data scandal
(which, but the way I foretold almost two months ago), the fact that
there has been no AGW that anybody who uses real instead of faked data
can find, it's been bad couple of weeks for the Church of AGW.

Don't worry - those of us more rational folks feel your pain.

NOT!!!

This damn global warming has got almost two inches of snow on my lawn.
--

John H- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That's about the most scientifically stupid statement I've ever heard.

I took it as a joke.

Rob

Now I'm ****ed. That was meant to be as scientific as some of the
other **** spewed by the Algore fanatics.

Joke my ass.
--

John H- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Examples please?

Go look at your last twenty-three posts on the subject.
--

John H- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

As suspected............
No evidence of such, just more blather.

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 12:12:26 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:

"The melting and freezing of moisture on top of Kilimanjaro appears to
be part of ?a natural process of dry and wet periods.? The present
melting is not the result of ?environmental damage caused by man.?

http://tinyurl.com/yjrgovc

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture08520.html

Ooopsie - what with the CRU scandal, the impending NASA data scandal
(which, but the way I foretold almost two months ago), the fact that
there has been no AGW that anybody who uses real instead of faked data
can find, it's been bad couple of weeks for the Church of AGW.

Don't worry - those of us more rational folks feel your pain.

NOT!!!

I note the A. Does that mean you accept that there is global warming,
just not anthropologically caused? I ask, because some of the "flat
earthers" deny *any* global warming. For them, a few out of context
passages from some hacked emails, overweight all the retreating glaciers,
Northwest Passage access, and retreating pack ice.

For me, the science that the planet is warming, is clear. The science
that it is anthropological, is less clear. However, I have a question.
While I can't say with certainty, that global warming is anthropological,
can you say with certainty, it is not?

So already the name calling starts, now we are "flat earthers"? Is that
the new term to use around the coffee table? snerk.

There is some pretty good evidence that the warming is normal and more
related to changes in that big yellow earth warmer in the sky. Oh, and
it isn't faked either

I am Tosk wrote:
In article ,
says...
On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 12:12:26 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:

"The melting and freezing of moisture on top of Kilimanjaro appears to
be part of ?a natural process of dry and wet periods.? The present
melting is not the result of ?environmental damage caused by man.?

http://tinyurl.com/yjrgovc

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture08520.html

Ooopsie - what with the CRU scandal, the impending NASA data scandal
(which, but the way I foretold almost two months ago), the fact that
there has been no AGW that anybody who uses real instead of faked data
can find, it's been bad couple of weeks for the Church of AGW.

Don't worry - those of us more rational folks feel your pain.

NOT!!!
I note the A. Does that mean you accept that there is global warming,
just not anthropologically caused? I ask, because some of the "flat
earthers" deny *any* global warming. For them, a few out of context
passages from some hacked emails, overweight all the retreating glaciers,
Northwest Passage access, and retreating pack ice.

For me, the science that the planet is warming, is clear. The science
that it is anthropological, is less clear. However, I have a question.
While I can't say with certainty, that global warming is anthropological,
can you say with certainty, it is not?

So already the name calling starts, now we are "flat earthers"? Is that
the new term to use around the coffee table? snerk.

There is some pretty good evidence that the warming is normal and more
related to changes in that big yellow earth warmer in the sky. Oh, and
it isn't faked either


Flat earther would be many steps up the ladder for a shiftless sloth
like you.

"I am Tosk" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 12:12:26 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:

"The melting and freezing of moisture on top of Kilimanjaro appears to
be part of ?a natural process of dry and wet periods.? The present
melting is not the result of ?environmental damage caused by man.?

http://tinyurl.com/yjrgovc

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture08520.html

Ooopsie - what with the CRU scandal, the impending NASA data scandal
(which, but the way I foretold almost two months ago), the fact that
there has been no AGW that anybody who uses real instead of faked data
can find, it's been bad couple of weeks for the Church of AGW.

Don't worry - those of us more rational folks feel your pain.

NOT!!!

I note the A. Does that mean you accept that there is global warming,
just not anthropologically caused? I ask, because some of the "flat
earthers" deny *any* global warming. For them, a few out of context
passages from some hacked emails, overweight all the retreating glaciers,
Northwest Passage access, and retreating pack ice.

For me, the science that the planet is warming, is clear. The science
that it is anthropological, is less clear. However, I have a question.
While I can't say with certainty, that global warming is anthropological,
can you say with certainty, it is not?

So already the name calling starts, now we are "flat earthers"? Is that
the new term to use around the coffee table? snerk.

There is some pretty good evidence that the warming is normal and more
related to changes in that big yellow earth warmer in the sky. Oh, and
it isn't faked either


No, the evidence is pretty clear that human beings are the cause of the
climate changes in recent times. Perhaps you should just be called a ludite.


--
Nom=de=Plume

On Dec 6, 7:32*pm, Gene wrote:
On Sat, 5 Dec 2009 14:10:48 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker





wrote:
On Dec 5, 3:35*pm, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:
On Sat, 5 Dec 2009 09:24:55 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker

wrote:
On Dec 5, 12:12*pm, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:
"The melting and freezing of moisture on top of Kilimanjaro appears to
be part of *“a natural process of dry and wet periods.” The present
melting is not the result of “environmental damage caused by man.”

http://tinyurl.com/yjrgovc

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture08520.html

Ooopsie - what with the CRU scandal, the impending NASA data scandal
(which, but the way I foretold almost two months ago), the fact that
there has been no AGW that anybody who uses real instead of faked data
can find, it's been bad couple of weeks for the Church of AGW.

Don't worry - those of us more rational folks feel your pain.

NOT!!!

Okay, so how in hell does THAT make one conclude irrefutably that
global warming isn't happening?

You mean that it is, like, you know, um...political and not "science"?

No, that's not what I asked, my question, exactly was:
Okay, so how in hell does THAT make one conclude irrefutably that
global warming isn't happening?

A simple question is...... why is so much *really old* ice melting?
Such as:

7 years ago the Commie News Network (CNN) makes Ridiculous claims:http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/sc...hwest.passage/

2009, OMG.....http://community.livejournal.com/ont...l/4079088.html
--
It is usually futile to try to talk facts and analysis to people who are
enjoying a sense of moral superiority in their ignorance.
*-Thomas Sowell

Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Oak Island, NC.

Homepage
*http://pamandgene.tranquilrefuge.net/boating/the_boat/my_boat.htm

Forté Agent 6.00 Build 1186- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Gene, it's obvious that those idiot scientists don't know what they're
talking about. Rush and Hannity should be the ONLY people you should
get your information from about global warming.