|
Calling all Global Warmist "scientists...
On 12/20/09 5:25 PM, Bill McKee wrote:
wrote in message m... On 12/20/09 4:15 PM, Frogwatch wrote: On Dec 20, 4:03 pm, "Bill wrote: wrote in message ... wrote in message ... Loogypicker wrote: On Dec 20, 8:49 am, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: Often I'm accused of "avoiding" truth when it comes to AGW. I'm the "creationist" in a sense that I don't understand the highly complex nature of climate anatomy. I'm picking on "details". I'm a corporate schill. I don't understand "peer review" (even though I have "peer reviewed" over 600 math texts, dissertations and master's thesis in my life). Yada, yada, yada. Ok - without getting into the politics, I want Loogy and the other AGW types to defend this. http://www.financialpost.com/opinion...tml?id=62e1c98... Remember - this is your side - this is how you are presenting your information. This describes what happens when one of the most widely used sources of information is controlled and massaged and only one side of the "science" is presented. Go ahead - defend this. I'll wait. Okay. Just because SOME (a very small percentage) tried to cook some books does in no way shape nor form prove whether or not global warming is or isn't occuring. And why we need 100% rational hard real scientists to look at the issue without the policitical money grabing schemes. Currently it is about money, money greed. Carbon tax, carbon credits and extortion. That isn't science, that is political greed and nanny state BS. Even if it is warming, is that so bad? Equatorial zones have evaporation to keep temperatures moderate, but the polar areas would get most of the warming. Is that so bad you can golf or go boating in norther US or Canada in January? Hell, that is green, as more green further north would not hurt mankind. Be it golf green or green in your pocket. My utility bill would even become more moderate and less carbon to heat my home at -35C. Eco nuts are "sky is falling" nut balls following the government love in for excuses for more taxes. Someone wise once said to me, always follow the money for your answers. Well the green thing is fostered by government greed for taxation, be it carbon taxes or carbon credits it is about taking our money for them to waste on GM/Bank/Government like ponzi schemes. In the mean time, more green lawns and forrests will absorb more carbon. Nature has a unique way of balancing the Earth and eco freeks just don't want to admit that hard fact of reality. Good grief... well, you've pretty much summed up the loonieness of the deniers. Good for you! -- Nom=de=Plume You just accentuated the loonieness of the gullible. I defy anybody to show me tide guage data showing seal level rise increase since 1900. I defy anybody to show me tree ring data showing warming since 1960. So, THERE IS NO evidence for AGW at all. If you believe there is, then show me the data. Put up or shut up. Here ya go, Mr. Science Junior: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Re...Level_Rise.png Go ahead...dispute that data, and in as complete a fashion. Put up or shut up. http://www.financialpost.com/opinion...d-5078af9cb409 You're offering as rebuttal an opinion piece from a global warming denier that appeared in a right-wing conservative financial rag? snerk |
Calling all Global Warmist "scientists...
On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 16:50:12 -0500, Geoduck
wrote: On 12/20/09 4:30 PM, nom=de=plume wrote: "Bill wrote in message m... wrote in message ... wrote in message ... Loogypicker wrote: On Dec 20, 8:49 am, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: Often I'm accused of "avoiding" truth when it comes to AGW. I'm the "creationist" in a sense that I don't understand the highly complex nature of climate anatomy. I'm picking on "details". I'm a corporate schill. I don't understand "peer review" (even though I have "peer reviewed" over 600 math texts, dissertations and master's thesis in my life). Yada, yada, yada. Ok - without getting into the politics, I want Loogy and the other AGW types to defend this. http://www.financialpost.com/opinion...tml?id=62e1c98... Remember - this is your side - this is how you are presenting your information. This describes what happens when one of the most widely used sources of information is controlled and massaged and only one side of the "science" is presented. Go ahead - defend this. I'll wait. Okay. Just because SOME (a very small percentage) tried to cook some books does in no way shape nor form prove whether or not global warming is or isn't occuring. And why we need 100% rational hard real scientists to look at the issue without the policitical money grabing schemes. Currently it is about money, money greed. Carbon tax, carbon credits and extortion. That isn't science, that is political greed and nanny state BS. Even if it is warming, is that so bad? Equatorial zones have evaporation to keep temperatures moderate, but the polar areas would get most of the warming. Is that so bad you can golf or go boating in norther US or Canada in January? Hell, that is green, as more green further north would not hurt mankind. Be it golf green or green in your pocket. My utility bill would even become more moderate and less carbon to heat my home at -35C. Eco nuts are "sky is falling" nut balls following the government love in for excuses for more taxes. Someone wise once said to me, always follow the money for your answers. Well the green thing is fostered by government greed for taxation, be it carbon taxes or carbon credits it is about taking our money for them to waste on GM/Bank/Government like ponzi schemes. In the mean time, more green lawns and forrests will absorb more carbon. Nature has a unique way of balancing the Earth and eco freeks just don't want to admit that hard fact of reality. Good grief... well, you've pretty much summed up the loonieness of the deniers. Good for you! -- Nom=de=Plume You just accentuated the loonieness of the gullible. Yeah, I guess when someone talks science, it seems like magic to you... It's sorta interesting that we have several right-wingers in here who *claim* to be scientists, but apparently have no ability to apply the thought processes they learned in other fields to the ones usually discussed here. I wouldn't call McKee a scientist of any sort, though...his last work experience was rounding up illegals at shape-ups to work on home improvement projects. Looks like Harry picked up a new nickname. -- Have a Super Christmas and a Spectacular New Year! John H |
Calling all Global Warmist "scientists...
"Harry" wrote in message ... On 12/20/09 5:25 PM, Bill McKee wrote: wrote in message m... On 12/20/09 4:15 PM, Frogwatch wrote: On Dec 20, 4:03 pm, "Bill wrote: wrote in message ... wrote in message ... Loogypicker wrote: On Dec 20, 8:49 am, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: Often I'm accused of "avoiding" truth when it comes to AGW. I'm the "creationist" in a sense that I don't understand the highly complex nature of climate anatomy. I'm picking on "details". I'm a corporate schill. I don't understand "peer review" (even though I have "peer reviewed" over 600 math texts, dissertations and master's thesis in my life). Yada, yada, yada. Ok - without getting into the politics, I want Loogy and the other AGW types to defend this. http://www.financialpost.com/opinion...tml?id=62e1c98... Remember - this is your side - this is how you are presenting your information. This describes what happens when one of the most widely used sources of information is controlled and massaged and only one side of the "science" is presented. Go ahead - defend this. I'll wait. Okay. Just because SOME (a very small percentage) tried to cook some books does in no way shape nor form prove whether or not global warming is or isn't occuring. And why we need 100% rational hard real scientists to look at the issue without the policitical money grabing schemes. Currently it is about money, money greed. Carbon tax, carbon credits and extortion. That isn't science, that is political greed and nanny state BS. Even if it is warming, is that so bad? Equatorial zones have evaporation to keep temperatures moderate, but the polar areas would get most of the warming. Is that so bad you can golf or go boating in norther US or Canada in January? Hell, that is green, as more green further north would not hurt mankind. Be it golf green or green in your pocket. My utility bill would even become more moderate and less carbon to heat my home at -35C. Eco nuts are "sky is falling" nut balls following the government love in for excuses for more taxes. Someone wise once said to me, always follow the money for your answers. Well the green thing is fostered by government greed for taxation, be it carbon taxes or carbon credits it is about taking our money for them to waste on GM/Bank/Government like ponzi schemes. In the mean time, more green lawns and forrests will absorb more carbon. Nature has a unique way of balancing the Earth and eco freeks just don't want to admit that hard fact of reality. Good grief... well, you've pretty much summed up the loonieness of the deniers. Good for you! -- Nom=de=Plume You just accentuated the loonieness of the gullible. I defy anybody to show me tide guage data showing seal level rise increase since 1900. I defy anybody to show me tree ring data showing warming since 1960. So, THERE IS NO evidence for AGW at all. If you believe there is, then show me the data. Put up or shut up. Here ya go, Mr. Science Junior: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Re...Level_Rise.png Go ahead...dispute that data, and in as complete a fashion. Put up or shut up. http://www.financialpost.com/opinion...d-5078af9cb409 You're offering as rebuttal an opinion piece from a global warming denier that appeared in a right-wing conservative financial rag? snerk Snerk? Refute it. |
Calling all Global Warmist "scientists...
Harry wrote:
On 12/20/09 3:00 PM, Canuck57 wrote: nom=de=plume wrote: "D.Duck" wrote in message ... Loogypicker wrote: On Dec 20, 10:54 am, "D.Duck" wrote: Loogypicker wrote: On Dec 20, 8:49 am, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: Often I'm accused of "avoiding" truth when it comes to AGW. I'm the "creationist" in a sense that I don't understand the highly complex nature of climate anatomy. I'm picking on "details". I'm a corporate schill. I don't understand "peer review" (even though I have "peer reviewed" over 600 math texts, dissertations and master's thesis in my life). Yada, yada, yada. Ok - without getting into the politics, I want Loogy and the other AGW types to defend this. http://www.financialpost.com/opinion...tml?id=62e1c98... Remember - this is your side - this is how you are presenting your information. This describes what happens when one of the most widely used sources of information is controlled and massaged and only one side of the "science" is presented. Go ahead - defend this. I'll wait. Okay. Just because SOME (a very small percentage) tried to cook some books does in no way shape nor form prove whether or not global warming is or isn't occuring. It's not whether it's occurring or not, it's whether it will reach some troublesome level.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - And the article does nothing to answer that question. Of course it doesn't, nobody has that answer. Can you answer the question? Untrue. It can be and has been answered. Adverse climate change is happening. It will get worse. We are a significant contributor. We can prevent things from spiraling out of control. Especially since no tangible proof exists it is with in our control at all. In fact, clear evidence exists that it is NOT within our ability to control. Why are you and the other troglodytes so fearful of mans' efforts to reduce his polluting of the planet? What's the downside? More efficient cars? More windmills? More solar industry? Less demand for oil-based products? Not fearful at all, just realizing such efforts as Kyoto and Copenhagen are totally inept, ineffectual and a raving rouse for the gullable public. Total farce of mega proportions. First, it ignores the #1 cause of carbon emmissions, population. Want to reduce polution, then reduce the number sof human carbon units. Reduce the standard of living too. Set maximum consumption on electricity and watch Gore change his tune. The whole premise of of the big green sell is to raise taxes. If they wanted to be effective, they would have hard limits on population growth set on nations that have out of control population growth. And that would include Africa, India and Asia, the worst offenders. The next part is warming so bad? Want an ice age instead? Outdoor ice skating in Florida is the alternative to warming. |
Calling all Global Warmist "scientists...
On 12/20/09 6:49 PM, I am Tosk wrote:
In articlewZCdnQlCM9iJAbPWnZ2dnUVZ_rdi4p2d@earthlink .com, says... On 12/20/09 4:30 PM, nom=de=plume wrote: "Bill wrote in message m... wrote in message ... wrote in message ... Loogypicker wrote: On Dec 20, 8:49 am, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: Often I'm accused of "avoiding" truth when it comes to AGW. I'm the "creationist" in a sense that I don't understand the highly complex nature of climate anatomy. I'm picking on "details". I'm a corporate schill. I don't understand "peer review" (even though I have "peer reviewed" over 600 math texts, dissertations and master's thesis in my life). Yada, yada, yada. Ok - without getting into the politics, I want Loogy and the other AGW types to defend this. http://www.financialpost.com/opinion...tml?id=62e1c98... Remember - this is your side - this is how you are presenting your information. This describes what happens when one of the most widely used sources of information is controlled and massaged and only one side of the "science" is presented. Go ahead - defend this. I'll wait. Okay. Just because SOME (a very small percentage) tried to cook some books does in no way shape nor form prove whether or not global warming is or isn't occuring. And why we need 100% rational hard real scientists to look at the issue without the policitical money grabing schemes. Currently it is about money, money greed. Carbon tax, carbon credits and extortion. That isn't science, that is political greed and nanny state BS. Even if it is warming, is that so bad? Equatorial zones have evaporation to keep temperatures moderate, but the polar areas would get most of the warming. Is that so bad you can golf or go boating in norther US or Canada in January? Hell, that is green, as more green further north would not hurt mankind. Be it golf green or green in your pocket. My utility bill would even become more moderate and less carbon to heat my home at -35C. Eco nuts are "sky is falling" nut balls following the government love in for excuses for more taxes. Someone wise once said to me, always follow the money for your answers. Well the green thing is fostered by government greed for taxation, be it carbon taxes or carbon credits it is about taking our money for them to waste on GM/Bank/Government like ponzi schemes. In the mean time, more green lawns and forrests will absorb more carbon. Nature has a unique way of balancing the Earth and eco freeks just don't want to admit that hard fact of reality. Good grief... well, you've pretty much summed up the loonieness of the deniers. Good for you! -- Nom=de=Plume You just accentuated the loonieness of the gullible. Yeah, I guess when someone talks science, it seems like magic to you... It's sorta interesting that we have several right-wingers in here who *claim* to be scientists, but apparently have no ability to apply the thought processes they learned in other fields to the ones usually discussed here. I wouldn't call McKee a scientist of any sort, though...his last work experience was rounding up illegals at shape-ups to work on home improvement projects. So, there are no scientists here and we all have to choose which scientists we trust.. Me, I trust the ones who have not been proven over and over again to be fudging the data... How would you know? You don't have the education to discern reality. |
Calling all Global Warmist "scientists...
On 12/20/09 7:33 PM, Canuck57 wrote:
Harry wrote: On 12/20/09 3:00 PM, Canuck57 wrote: nom=de=plume wrote: "D.Duck" wrote in message ... Loogypicker wrote: On Dec 20, 10:54 am, "D.Duck" wrote: Loogypicker wrote: On Dec 20, 8:49 am, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: Often I'm accused of "avoiding" truth when it comes to AGW. I'm the "creationist" in a sense that I don't understand the highly complex nature of climate anatomy. I'm picking on "details". I'm a corporate schill. I don't understand "peer review" (even though I have "peer reviewed" over 600 math texts, dissertations and master's thesis in my life). Yada, yada, yada. Ok - without getting into the politics, I want Loogy and the other AGW types to defend this. http://www.financialpost.com/opinion...tml?id=62e1c98... Remember - this is your side - this is how you are presenting your information. This describes what happens when one of the most widely used sources of information is controlled and massaged and only one side of the "science" is presented. Go ahead - defend this. I'll wait. Okay. Just because SOME (a very small percentage) tried to cook some books does in no way shape nor form prove whether or not global warming is or isn't occuring. It's not whether it's occurring or not, it's whether it will reach some troublesome level.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - And the article does nothing to answer that question. Of course it doesn't, nobody has that answer. Can you answer the question? Untrue. It can be and has been answered. Adverse climate change is happening. It will get worse. We are a significant contributor. We can prevent things from spiraling out of control. Especially since no tangible proof exists it is with in our control at all. In fact, clear evidence exists that it is NOT within our ability to control. Why are you and the other troglodytes so fearful of mans' efforts to reduce his polluting of the planet? What's the downside? More efficient cars? More windmills? More solar industry? Less demand for oil-based products? Not fearful at all, just realizing such efforts as Kyoto and Copenhagen are totally inept, ineffectual and a raving rouse for the gullable public. Total farce of mega proportions. And you do *what* for a living that qualifies you to make such judgments? |
Calling all Global Warmist "scientists...
nom=de=plume wrote:
"Canuck57" wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: "D.Duck" wrote in message ... Loogypicker wrote: On Dec 20, 10:54 am, "D.Duck" wrote: Loogypicker wrote: On Dec 20, 8:49 am, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: Often I'm accused of "avoiding" truth when it comes to AGW. I'm the "creationist" in a sense that I don't understand the highly complex nature of climate anatomy. I'm picking on "details". I'm a corporate schill. I don't understand "peer review" (even though I have "peer reviewed" over 600 math texts, dissertations and master's thesis in my life). Yada, yada, yada. Ok - without getting into the politics, I want Loogy and the other AGW types to defend this. http://www.financialpost.com/opinion...tml?id=62e1c98... Remember - this is your side - this is how you are presenting your information. This describes what happens when one of the most widely used sources of information is controlled and massaged and only one side of the "science" is presented. Go ahead - defend this. I'll wait. Okay. Just because SOME (a very small percentage) tried to cook some books does in no way shape nor form prove whether or not global warming is or isn't occuring. It's not whether it's occurring or not, it's whether it will reach some troublesome level.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - And the article does nothing to answer that question. Of course it doesn't, nobody has that answer. Can you answer the question? Untrue. It can be and has been answered. Adverse climate change is happening. It will get worse. We are a significant contributor. We can prevent things from spiraling out of control. Especially since no tangible proof exists it is with in our control at all. In fact, clear evidence exists that it is NOT within our ability to control. Well, let's see... we pumped untold tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. The temps have gone up and are predicted to go up even more. So, I guess refraining from pumping more C02 wouldn't work. That's your logical argument? In my area, we have reached recod lows just a few days ago, 116 years since it was that cold. Last winter we came within 1 degree of all time records about 4 days.This summer was late, cool and never even came close to records, in fact July was 5C cooler than average all month. On a geological time line, the earth is relatively cool, even in the midevil times it was warmer. 2/3rds of the antarctic ice cap is less than 10,000 years old. If you were managing this planets weather, and assuming CO2 warms it up, you would say go baby burn oil and coal! CO2 is a naturally occuring element, and in the ages of the greatest biodiversity on earth, CO2 was 6 times todays levels, as a byproduct of how much life there was. The all time CO2 lows, life was near extict as ice covered the planet. In fact all the oil, coal and other carbon we now excavate and drill for was on the surface as living ecosystems. You should be more worried about the chromium and other heavy metals GM, Chrylser and Ford (and others0 put at the bottom of the great lakes and into the oceans. Or the 10 sylable compounds in your dumps leaching into the ground water. Just because some crack pot sell FUD, doesn't mean you have to believe it, CO2 is recyclable product, plants can survive it better than the fumes form plastic GM parts. And last I checked an iron engine block was more friendly than some of the plastics and ceramics now used. Keep on believing the hypocracy you are fed, as it is the government line. Not effective for ecology, but very effective at justifing more tax slavery. |
Calling all Global Warmist "scientists...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m... "Harry" wrote in message m... On 12/20/09 4:15 PM, Frogwatch wrote: On Dec 20, 4:03 pm, "Bill wrote: wrote in message ... wrote in message ... Loogypicker wrote: On Dec 20, 8:49 am, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: Often I'm accused of "avoiding" truth when it comes to AGW. I'm the "creationist" in a sense that I don't understand the highly complex nature of climate anatomy. I'm picking on "details". I'm a corporate schill. I don't understand "peer review" (even though I have "peer reviewed" over 600 math texts, dissertations and master's thesis in my life). Yada, yada, yada. Ok - without getting into the politics, I want Loogy and the other AGW types to defend this. http://www.financialpost.com/opinion...tml?id=62e1c98... Remember - this is your side - this is how you are presenting your information. This describes what happens when one of the most widely used sources of information is controlled and massaged and only one side of the "science" is presented. Go ahead - defend this. I'll wait. Okay. Just because SOME (a very small percentage) tried to cook some books does in no way shape nor form prove whether or not global warming is or isn't occuring. And why we need 100% rational hard real scientists to look at the issue without the policitical money grabing schemes. Currently it is about money, money greed. Carbon tax, carbon credits and extortion. That isn't science, that is political greed and nanny state BS. Even if it is warming, is that so bad? Equatorial zones have evaporation to keep temperatures moderate, but the polar areas would get most of the warming. Is that so bad you can golf or go boating in norther US or Canada in January? Hell, that is green, as more green further north would not hurt mankind. Be it golf green or green in your pocket. My utility bill would even become more moderate and less carbon to heat my home at -35C. Eco nuts are "sky is falling" nut balls following the government love in for excuses for more taxes. Someone wise once said to me, always follow the money for your answers. Well the green thing is fostered by government greed for taxation, be it carbon taxes or carbon credits it is about taking our money for them to waste on GM/Bank/Government like ponzi schemes. In the mean time, more green lawns and forrests will absorb more carbon. Nature has a unique way of balancing the Earth and eco freeks just don't want to admit that hard fact of reality. Good grief... well, you've pretty much summed up the loonieness of the deniers. Good for you! -- Nom=de=Plume You just accentuated the loonieness of the gullible. I defy anybody to show me tide guage data showing seal level rise increase since 1900. I defy anybody to show me tree ring data showing warming since 1960. So, THERE IS NO evidence for AGW at all. If you believe there is, then show me the data. Put up or shut up. Here ya go, Mr. Science Junior: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Re...Level_Rise.png Go ahead...dispute that data, and in as complete a fashion. Put up or shut up. http://www.financialpost.com/opinion...d-5078af9cb409 Yeah, he's got an opinion. He's a right wing nutcase. He's outnumbered by the science. Good for you. Show us some science. Put up or shut up Bill. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Calling all Global Warmist "scientists...
"Frogwatch" wrote in message
... On Dec 20, 4:50 pm, Geoduck wrote: On 12/20/09 4:30 PM, nom=de=plume wrote: "Bill wrote in message om... wrote in message ... wrote in message ... Loogypicker wrote: On Dec 20, 8:49 am, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: Often I'm accused of "avoiding" truth when it comes to AGW. I'm the "creationist" in a sense that I don't understand the highly complex nature of climate anatomy. I'm picking on "details". I'm a corporate schill. I don't understand "peer review" (even though I have "peer reviewed" over 600 math texts, dissertations and master's thesis in my life). Yada, yada, yada. Ok - without getting into the politics, I want Loogy and the other AGW types to defend this. http://www.financialpost.com/opinion...tml?id=62e1c98... Remember - this is your side - this is how you are presenting your information. This describes what happens when one of the most widely used sources of information is controlled and massaged and only one side of the "science" is presented. Go ahead - defend this. I'll wait. Okay. Just because SOME (a very small percentage) tried to cook some books does in no way shape nor form prove whether or not global warming is or isn't occuring. And why we need 100% rational hard real scientists to look at the issue without the policitical money grabing schemes. Currently it is about money, money greed. Carbon tax, carbon credits and extortion. That isn't science, that is political greed and nanny state BS. Even if it is warming, is that so bad? Equatorial zones have evaporation to keep temperatures moderate, but the polar areas would get most of the warming. Is that so bad you can golf or go boating in norther US or Canada in January? Hell, that is green, as more green further north would not hurt mankind. Be it golf green or green in your pocket. My utility bill would even become more moderate and less carbon to heat my home at -35C. Eco nuts are "sky is falling" nut balls following the government love in for excuses for more taxes. Someone wise once said to me, always follow the money for your answers. Well the green thing is fostered by government greed for taxation, be it carbon taxes or carbon credits it is about taking our money for them to waste on GM/Bank/Government like ponzi schemes. In the mean time, more green lawns and forrests will absorb more carbon. Nature has a unique way of balancing the Earth and eco freeks just don't want to admit that hard fact of reality. Good grief... well, you've pretty much summed up the loonieness of the deniers. Good for you! -- Nom=de=Plume You just accentuated the loonieness of the gullible. Yeah, I guess when someone talks science, it seems like magic to you... It's sorta interesting that we have several right-wingers in here who *claim* to be scientists, but apparently have no ability to apply the thought processes they learned in other fields to the ones usually discussed here. I wouldn't call McKee a scientist of any sort, though...his last work experience was rounding up illegals at shape-ups to work on home improvement projects. First, the Wiki graph does NOT show any increase in rise since 1900, go back and check it. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/ -- Nom=de=Plume |
Calling all Global Warmist "scientists...
"Frogwatch" wrote in message
... On Dec 20, 4:50 pm, Geoduck wrote: On 12/20/09 4:30 PM, nom=de=plume wrote: "Bill wrote in message om... wrote in message ... wrote in message ... Loogypicker wrote: On Dec 20, 8:49 am, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: Often I'm accused of "avoiding" truth when it comes to AGW. I'm the "creationist" in a sense that I don't understand the highly complex nature of climate anatomy. I'm picking on "details". I'm a corporate schill. I don't understand "peer review" (even though I have "peer reviewed" over 600 math texts, dissertations and master's thesis in my life). Yada, yada, yada. Ok - without getting into the politics, I want Loogy and the other AGW types to defend this. http://www.financialpost.com/opinion...tml?id=62e1c98... Remember - this is your side - this is how you are presenting your information. This describes what happens when one of the most widely used sources of information is controlled and massaged and only one side of the "science" is presented. Go ahead - defend this. I'll wait. Okay. Just because SOME (a very small percentage) tried to cook some books does in no way shape nor form prove whether or not global warming is or isn't occuring. And why we need 100% rational hard real scientists to look at the issue without the policitical money grabing schemes. Currently it is about money, money greed. Carbon tax, carbon credits and extortion. That isn't science, that is political greed and nanny state BS. Even if it is warming, is that so bad? Equatorial zones have evaporation to keep temperatures moderate, but the polar areas would get most of the warming. Is that so bad you can golf or go boating in norther US or Canada in January? Hell, that is green, as more green further north would not hurt mankind. Be it golf green or green in your pocket. My utility bill would even become more moderate and less carbon to heat my home at -35C. Eco nuts are "sky is falling" nut balls following the government love in for excuses for more taxes. Someone wise once said to me, always follow the money for your answers. Well the green thing is fostered by government greed for taxation, be it carbon taxes or carbon credits it is about taking our money for them to waste on GM/Bank/Government like ponzi schemes. In the mean time, more green lawns and forrests will absorb more carbon. Nature has a unique way of balancing the Earth and eco freeks just don't want to admit that hard fact of reality. Good grief... well, you've pretty much summed up the loonieness of the deniers. Good for you! -- Nom=de=Plume You just accentuated the loonieness of the gullible. Yeah, I guess when someone talks science, it seems like magic to you... It's sorta interesting that we have several right-wingers in here who *claim* to be scientists, but apparently have no ability to apply the thought processes they learned in other fields to the ones usually discussed here. I wouldn't call McKee a scientist of any sort, though...his last work experience was rounding up illegals at shape-ups to work on home improvement projects. Again, that data from NOAA does not show any evidence of sea level rise increase. Note that the graph inset in which they show 3.2mm/yr is Satellite data which is contradicted by their own tide guage data, so, no evidence of a change. One cannot change instruments in mid course and then use just the one that agrees with your theory, that IS NOT science. Are you blind? Get someone to see to go to the page and scroll down. NOAA is wrong. I'm betting that's your argument. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/ -- Nom=de=Plume |
Calling all Global Warmist "scientists...
"Frogwatch" wrote in message
... On Dec 20, 4:50 pm, Geoduck wrote: On 12/20/09 4:30 PM, nom=de=plume wrote: "Bill wrote in message om... wrote in message ... wrote in message ... Loogypicker wrote: On Dec 20, 8:49 am, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: Often I'm accused of "avoiding" truth when it comes to AGW. I'm the "creationist" in a sense that I don't understand the highly complex nature of climate anatomy. I'm picking on "details". I'm a corporate schill. I don't understand "peer review" (even though I have "peer reviewed" over 600 math texts, dissertations and master's thesis in my life). Yada, yada, yada. Ok - without getting into the politics, I want Loogy and the other AGW types to defend this. http://www.financialpost.com/opinion...tml?id=62e1c98... Remember - this is your side - this is how you are presenting your information. This describes what happens when one of the most widely used sources of information is controlled and massaged and only one side of the "science" is presented. Go ahead - defend this. I'll wait. Okay. Just because SOME (a very small percentage) tried to cook some books does in no way shape nor form prove whether or not global warming is or isn't occuring. And why we need 100% rational hard real scientists to look at the issue without the policitical money grabing schemes. Currently it is about money, money greed. Carbon tax, carbon credits and extortion. That isn't science, that is political greed and nanny state BS. Even if it is warming, is that so bad? Equatorial zones have evaporation to keep temperatures moderate, but the polar areas would get most of the warming. Is that so bad you can golf or go boating in norther US or Canada in January? Hell, that is green, as more green further north would not hurt mankind. Be it golf green or green in your pocket. My utility bill would even become more moderate and less carbon to heat my home at -35C. Eco nuts are "sky is falling" nut balls following the government love in for excuses for more taxes. Someone wise once said to me, always follow the money for your answers. Well the green thing is fostered by government greed for taxation, be it carbon taxes or carbon credits it is about taking our money for them to waste on GM/Bank/Government like ponzi schemes. In the mean time, more green lawns and forrests will absorb more carbon. Nature has a unique way of balancing the Earth and eco freeks just don't want to admit that hard fact of reality. Good grief... well, you've pretty much summed up the loonieness of the deniers. Good for you! -- Nom=de=Plume You just accentuated the loonieness of the gullible. Yeah, I guess when someone talks science, it seems like magic to you... It's sorta interesting that we have several right-wingers in here who *claim* to be scientists, but apparently have no ability to apply the thought processes they learned in other fields to the ones usually discussed here. I wouldn't call McKee a scientist of any sort, though...his last work experience was rounding up illegals at shape-ups to work on home improvement projects. The surface temps they show are so heavily contaminated by urban heat island effects as to be useless. The Russians say the Siberian data was cherry picked to show increase where none existed thus the surface temp data cannot even be used. We also know that they cherry picked the data from Australia to show an increase that is not shown by all the rest of the data. We also know they used a single station at 67 degrees south on the Antarctic Peninsula for ALL of Antarctica although the station had been heavily altered giving a huge increase in temp. Thus, THERE IS NO DATA SHOWING AGW. Reply: You're a joke. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Calling all Global Warmist "scientists...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m... "Geoduck" wrote in message m... On 12/20/09 4:30 PM, nom=de=plume wrote: "Bill wrote in message m... wrote in message ... wrote in message ... Loogypicker wrote: On Dec 20, 8:49 am, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: Often I'm accused of "avoiding" truth when it comes to AGW. I'm the "creationist" in a sense that I don't understand the highly complex nature of climate anatomy. I'm picking on "details". I'm a corporate schill. I don't understand "peer review" (even though I have "peer reviewed" over 600 math texts, dissertations and master's thesis in my life). Yada, yada, yada. Ok - without getting into the politics, I want Loogy and the other AGW types to defend this. http://www.financialpost.com/opinion...tml?id=62e1c98... Remember - this is your side - this is how you are presenting your information. This describes what happens when one of the most widely used sources of information is controlled and massaged and only one side of the "science" is presented. Go ahead - defend this. I'll wait. Okay. Just because SOME (a very small percentage) tried to cook some books does in no way shape nor form prove whether or not global warming is or isn't occuring. And why we need 100% rational hard real scientists to look at the issue without the policitical money grabing schemes. Currently it is about money, money greed. Carbon tax, carbon credits and extortion. That isn't science, that is political greed and nanny state BS. Even if it is warming, is that so bad? Equatorial zones have evaporation to keep temperatures moderate, but the polar areas would get most of the warming. Is that so bad you can golf or go boating in norther US or Canada in January? Hell, that is green, as more green further north would not hurt mankind. Be it golf green or green in your pocket. My utility bill would even become more moderate and less carbon to heat my home at -35C. Eco nuts are "sky is falling" nut balls following the government love in for excuses for more taxes. Someone wise once said to me, always follow the money for your answers. Well the green thing is fostered by government greed for taxation, be it carbon taxes or carbon credits it is about taking our money for them to waste on GM/Bank/Government like ponzi schemes. In the mean time, more green lawns and forrests will absorb more carbon. Nature has a unique way of balancing the Earth and eco freeks just don't want to admit that hard fact of reality. Good grief... well, you've pretty much summed up the loonieness of the deniers. Good for you! -- Nom=de=Plume You just accentuated the loonieness of the gullible. Yeah, I guess when someone talks science, it seems like magic to you... It's sorta interesting that we have several right-wingers in here who *claim* to be scientists, but apparently have no ability to apply the thought processes they learned in other fields to the ones usually discussed here. I wouldn't call McKee a scientist of any sort, though...his last work experience was rounding up illegals at shape-ups to work on home improvement projects. Actually the only times I have rounded up day laborers at the gathering spots, was because the request for workers to the EDD never supplied workers. And as a degreed engineer with patent and designing high tech and biomed stuff, I would qualify as a scientist a hell of a lot more than a person who sells used clothes and or is a clam. Whooo... try again to put me down if it makes you feel better. Why don't you tell us about your "patent" that's either pending or completed. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Calling all Global Warmist "scientists...
"I am Tosk" wrote in message
... In article , says... On 12/20/09 4:30 PM, nom=de=plume wrote: "Bill wrote in message m... wrote in message ... wrote in message ... Loogypicker wrote: On Dec 20, 8:49 am, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: Often I'm accused of "avoiding" truth when it comes to AGW. I'm the "creationist" in a sense that I don't understand the highly complex nature of climate anatomy. I'm picking on "details". I'm a corporate schill. I don't understand "peer review" (even though I have "peer reviewed" over 600 math texts, dissertations and master's thesis in my life). Yada, yada, yada. Ok - without getting into the politics, I want Loogy and the other AGW types to defend this. http://www.financialpost.com/opinion...tml?id=62e1c98... Remember - this is your side - this is how you are presenting your information. This describes what happens when one of the most widely used sources of information is controlled and massaged and only one side of the "science" is presented. Go ahead - defend this. I'll wait. Okay. Just because SOME (a very small percentage) tried to cook some books does in no way shape nor form prove whether or not global warming is or isn't occuring. And why we need 100% rational hard real scientists to look at the issue without the policitical money grabing schemes. Currently it is about money, money greed. Carbon tax, carbon credits and extortion. That isn't science, that is political greed and nanny state BS. Even if it is warming, is that so bad? Equatorial zones have evaporation to keep temperatures moderate, but the polar areas would get most of the warming. Is that so bad you can golf or go boating in norther US or Canada in January? Hell, that is green, as more green further north would not hurt mankind. Be it golf green or green in your pocket. My utility bill would even become more moderate and less carbon to heat my home at -35C. Eco nuts are "sky is falling" nut balls following the government love in for excuses for more taxes. Someone wise once said to me, always follow the money for your answers. Well the green thing is fostered by government greed for taxation, be it carbon taxes or carbon credits it is about taking our money for them to waste on GM/Bank/Government like ponzi schemes. In the mean time, more green lawns and forrests will absorb more carbon. Nature has a unique way of balancing the Earth and eco freeks just don't want to admit that hard fact of reality. Good grief... well, you've pretty much summed up the loonieness of the deniers. Good for you! -- Nom=de=Plume You just accentuated the loonieness of the gullible. Yeah, I guess when someone talks science, it seems like magic to you... It's sorta interesting that we have several right-wingers in here who *claim* to be scientists, but apparently have no ability to apply the thought processes they learned in other fields to the ones usually discussed here. I wouldn't call McKee a scientist of any sort, though...his last work experience was rounding up illegals at shape-ups to work on home improvement projects. So, there are no scientists here and we all have to choose which scientists we trust.. Me, I trust the ones who have not been proven over and over again to be fudging the data... I know. I know!! These guys! http://culturematters.wordpress.com/...re-really-hot/ -- Nom=de=Plume |
Calling all Global Warmist "scientists...
"Canuck57" wrote in message
... nom=de=plume wrote: "Canuck57" wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: "D.Duck" wrote in message ... Loogypicker wrote: On Dec 20, 10:54 am, "D.Duck" wrote: Loogypicker wrote: On Dec 20, 8:49 am, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: Often I'm accused of "avoiding" truth when it comes to AGW. I'm the "creationist" in a sense that I don't understand the highly complex nature of climate anatomy. I'm picking on "details". I'm a corporate schill. I don't understand "peer review" (even though I have "peer reviewed" over 600 math texts, dissertations and master's thesis in my life). Yada, yada, yada. Ok - without getting into the politics, I want Loogy and the other AGW types to defend this. http://www.financialpost.com/opinion...tml?id=62e1c98... Remember - this is your side - this is how you are presenting your information. This describes what happens when one of the most widely used sources of information is controlled and massaged and only one side of the "science" is presented. Go ahead - defend this. I'll wait. Okay. Just because SOME (a very small percentage) tried to cook some books does in no way shape nor form prove whether or not global warming is or isn't occuring. It's not whether it's occurring or not, it's whether it will reach some troublesome level.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - And the article does nothing to answer that question. Of course it doesn't, nobody has that answer. Can you answer the question? Untrue. It can be and has been answered. Adverse climate change is happening. It will get worse. We are a significant contributor. We can prevent things from spiraling out of control. Especially since no tangible proof exists it is with in our control at all. In fact, clear evidence exists that it is NOT within our ability to control. Well, let's see... we pumped untold tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. The temps have gone up and are predicted to go up even more. So, I guess refraining from pumping more C02 wouldn't work. That's your logical argument? In my area, we have reached recod lows just a few days ago, 116 years since it was that cold. Last winter we came within 1 degree of all time records about 4 days.This summer was late, cool and never even came close to records, in fact July was 5C cooler than average all month. Right, but do you realize that some would use that as an argument _for_ the adverse, human created, climate change? You do realize that don't you? Wild variations... not just "warming." On a geological time line, the earth is relatively cool, even in the midevil times it was warmer. 2/3rds of the antarctic ice cap is less than 10,000 years old. If you were managing this planets weather, and assuming CO2 warms it up, you would say go baby burn oil and coal! We heard that from someone from Alaska. She's an idiot. CO2 is a naturally occuring element, and in the ages of the greatest biodiversity on earth, CO2 was 6 times todays levels, as a byproduct of how much life there was. The all time CO2 lows, life was near extict as ice covered the planet. Wow... naturally occuring. Same with methane... don't light a match with that one. In fact all the oil, coal and other carbon we now excavate and drill for was on the surface as living ecosystems. You should be more worried about the chromium and other heavy metals GM, Chrylser and Ford (and others0 put at the bottom of the great lakes and into the oceans. Or the 10 sylable compounds in your dumps leaching into the ground water. I'm very concerned about heavy metals. Two different concerns. Just because some crack pot sell FUD, doesn't mean you have to believe it, CO2 is recyclable product, plants can survive it better than the fumes form plastic GM parts. And last I checked an iron engine block was more friendly than some of the plastics and ceramics now used. Keep on believing the hypocracy you are fed, as it is the government line. Not effective for ecology, but very effective at justifing more tax slavery. Keep on mixing science-talk with magic. I'm sure it sounds good, but it's meaningless. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Calling all Global Warmist "scientists...
Harry wrote:
On 12/20/09 2:58 PM, Canuck57 wrote: D.Duck wrote: Loogypicker wrote: On Dec 20, 8:49 am, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: Often I'm accused of "avoiding" truth when it comes to AGW. I'm the "creationist" in a sense that I don't understand the highly complex nature of climate anatomy. I'm picking on "details". I'm a corporate schill. I don't understand "peer review" (even though I have "peer reviewed" over 600 math texts, dissertations and master's thesis in my life). Yada, yada, yada. Ok - without getting into the politics, I want Loogy and the other AGW types to defend this. http://www.financialpost.com/opinion...tml?id=62e1c98... Remember - this is your side - this is how you are presenting your information. This describes what happens when one of the most widely used sources of information is controlled and massaged and only one side of the "science" is presented. Go ahead - defend this. I'll wait. Okay. Just because SOME (a very small percentage) tried to cook some books does in no way shape nor form prove whether or not global warming is or isn't occuring. It's not whether it's occurring or not, it's whether it will reach some troublesome level. And it might even be a blessing in disguise! What? How so? Lets say the world on average goes up 6C. Real big amount, even more than the zealots say is worst case. Lets theorize what happens. Some of this is based on fact as it has occured before in recent and ancient history. http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7x.html Ok, the polar regions melt, 2/3rds of the ice is less than 10,000 years old anyway. Polar regions will see most of the warming as evaporation and ocean currents will regulate it. Contrary to the ocean is rising, it may actually receed. Warmer polar air will carry much more vapor and rainfall. And as ice melts it shrinks in volume with the release of trapped gases and molecular contraction. Basic high school stuff, try it, freeze water in a thin glass container and watch it crack when the water hits -5C and expands. Without the cold on the polar regions average humidity will increase. Rain forests maybe even in Alaska. Vegitation in the north and southern hemispheres grow more quickly retaining water on land, taller and more prolific. A byproduct of this is more farm land, especially in Russia and in Canada. Maybe even grow oranges in Wisonsin some day. Fish population in northern lakes will grow quicky, making commercial harvesting in Hudsons Bay and other large areas economical for food harvesting due to fast growing fish stocks in warmer waters. Something is going to have to give with Africa's population growth as food is going to be soon short if they continue. Who knows, golfing might not be so bad in January twilight in Fairbanks Alaska or the Yukon. Certainly the fishing will be much better. As new air currents form, less dry air, world percipitation is bound to go up in most areas. Given fresh water is a problem for most countries in the world, this is very good. Not much lives without water. Many deserts will return to lush vegitation as was seen in other eras such as the Jurasic. In fact, the Jurasic had 6 time todays carbon levels and so much vegitation heards of dionosaurs did quite well. Reptiles enjoyed the constant warm climate. Especally in the Jurasic Terrestrial period where huge herds of herbivorous dinosaurs like the Brachiosaurus would eat 400 pounds of food per day! That is a lot of carbon just in breathing and craping, forge tthe methane. That is a lot of green salad to feed herds of these. The plants grew fast with lots of carbon, essential for most plant life after all in this period and periods before it that is where the coal, natural gas and oil really came from in the first place. Just dead mater cooked for eons...carbon trapped and not released, it isn't even man made. But the addtitional carbon allows for more vegitation which we as humans need for one reason or another. Eat you peas, a main ingredient is carbon as is the roast beef. But something good can't be used by government and fraudsters to suck money out of your pocket. The earth has checks an balances we don't fully understand, but can see in the billions of years of fossil records they exist. Even when a huge extinction even occurs, the earth gets around to compensating for it. And causes are often intersellar, a metor here and there. In fact the most prolific life diversity periods atomospheric carbon was very high. My suggestion is for mankind to forget CO2 issues, end silly wars, even if you have to low yeild nuke'em. Nuking them burns less carbon, imagine the pile of CO2 and plastics spent on middle east wars! We waste far too much time on power, greed, herd insanity and feeding politicial and social egos. Want to insure mankinds survival, go to the stars and populate elsewhere and work on social evolution to match technology. As one of these next items can end it all in short order, just like many of the the mass extinction events in the past. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:%2...9_mathilde.jpg Now that could be a problem worth the hype as there will be no boating with beer for many, many years.... CO2 is designed to keep our minds off of strife, off of our governments screw ups of economics, off the flaws of modern society. Feeds the idle minds fear and off of the real issues. Sort of like teach them to hate somethign else like CO2, and they will hate you less. It is herd management for tax slavery. We as a species think too shallow to last on more than shier luck. Andromeda Strain, The Omega Man all possibilities as out of control herds of humans can develop something it now. But we don't have the social controls in place to prevent it. Who knows, many H1N1 or AIDS mutates...history is full of plagues. But as H1N1 is turning out, just FUD that sells lots of mercury vapor (polutant) laced drugs for profit. But at least it might be warmer in the mean time. Can't say skin holds up well in sub-zero temperatures now or 10,000 years from now. Lets hope the crazies are right and it is actually warming. Remember, it wasn't that long ago the junk scientists said it was cooling. 10 years is squat in earths history and for that much to change smells of knee jerk junk science. So please go to bed with greenie FUD induced fear. Me, I will go to bed knowing the sun will rise and the world will be here. Even if it isn't, I would rather enjoy my much too short of a life than pander to bull**** fraudsters. |
Calling all Global Warmist "scientists...
nom=de=plume wrote:
"Canuck57" wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: "Canuck57" wrote in message ... Loogypicker wrote: On Dec 20, 8:49 am, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: Often I'm accused of "avoiding" truth when it comes to AGW. I'm the "creationist" in a sense that I don't understand the highly complex nature of climate anatomy. I'm picking on "details". I'm a corporate schill. I don't understand "peer review" (even though I have "peer reviewed" over 600 math texts, dissertations and master's thesis in my life). Yada, yada, yada. Ok - without getting into the politics, I want Loogy and the other AGW types to defend this. http://www.financialpost.com/opinion...tml?id=62e1c98... Remember - this is your side - this is how you are presenting your information. This describes what happens when one of the most widely used sources of information is controlled and massaged and only one side of the "science" is presented. Go ahead - defend this. I'll wait. Okay. Just because SOME (a very small percentage) tried to cook some books does in no way shape nor form prove whether or not global warming is or isn't occuring. And why we need 100% rational hard real scientists to look at the issue without the policitical money grabing schemes. Currently it is about money, money greed. Carbon tax, carbon credits and extortion. That isn't science, that is political greed and nanny state BS. Even if it is warming, is that so bad? Equatorial zones have evaporation to keep temperatures moderate, but the polar areas would get most of the warming. Is that so bad you can golf or go boating in norther US or Canada in January? Hell, that is green, as more green further north would not hurt mankind. Be it golf green or green in your pocket. My utility bill would even become more moderate and less carbon to heat my home at -35C. Eco nuts are "sky is falling" nut balls following the government love in for excuses for more taxes. Someone wise once said to me, always follow the money for your answers. Well the green thing is fostered by government greed for taxation, be it carbon taxes or carbon credits it is about taking our money for them to waste on GM/Bank/Government like ponzi schemes. In the mean time, more green lawns and forrests will absorb more carbon. Nature has a unique way of balancing the Earth and eco freeks just don't want to admit that hard fact of reality. Good grief... well, you've pretty much summed up the loonieness of the deniers. Good for you! So you think the sky is falling and the end of the world is near.... You take scifi and FUD far too seriously. No. You're the one who KNOWS the sky is falling with "scientific" fraud, because you read some out of context emails. FYI, the world is going to be just fine. It's the people who'll be in trouble. Actually, what scares me about the green fraud and the H1N1 hype is how easily a mass of people can get so off track from reality in such a short period of time. Sure does not give me the assurances that mankind is mature enough to handle a rapidly developing technolgical capabilties without the social evolution to go with it. We clearly show with CO2 and H1N1 we are scared like mice, dumb like nails, and can be a managed herd towards whatever our puppet masters want us to do. I think now I understand how German and Japanese were so easily herded into thinking they could really dominate the world. Man isn't socially or politicially evolving fast enough to survive the technology we have. THX-1038 is on soon I think. I wonder if author/director/actors know how real that just might become in 75 or 200 years. Should show the Solent Green before it, after all most can't tell fiction from reality even after it has bitten them in the ass. But Soilent Green scenario due to over population is a scary thought. Want something to worry about? Pick something real: http://www.thedailygreen.com/environ...ation-47010905 Sit back and think about 2 billion more Africans to feed, burn carbon, war, strife, starvation... all avoidable if the nations leaders gave a crap about this planet. But to them, it is about the money.... |
Calling all Global Warmist "scientists...
On Dec 20, 9:08*pm, Canuck57 wrote:
Harry wrote: On 12/20/09 2:58 PM, Canuck57 wrote: D.Duck wrote: Loogypicker wrote: On Dec 20, 8:49 am, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: Often I'm accused of "avoiding" truth when it comes to AGW. I'm the "creationist" in a sense that I don't understand the highly complex nature of climate anatomy. I'm picking on "details". I'm a corporate schill. I don't understand "peer review" (even though I have "peer reviewed" over 600 math texts, dissertations and master's thesis in my life). Yada, yada, yada. Ok - without getting into the politics, I want Loogy and the other AGW types to defend this. http://www.financialpost.com/opinion...tml?id=62e1c98... Remember - this is your side - this is how you are presenting your information. This describes what happens when one of the most widely used sources of information is controlled and massaged and only one side of the "science" is presented. Go ahead - defend this. I'll wait. Okay. Just because SOME (a very small percentage) tried to cook some books does in no way shape nor form prove whether or not global warming is or isn't occuring. It's not whether it's occurring or not, it's whether it will reach some troublesome level. And it might even be a blessing in disguise! What? How so? Lets say the world on average goes up 6C. *Real big amount, even more than the zealots say is worst case. *Lets theorize what happens. *Some of this is based on fact as it has occured before in recent and ancient history. http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7x.html Ok, the polar regions melt, 2/3rds of the ice is less than 10,000 years old anyway. *Polar regions will see most of the warming as evaporation and ocean currents will regulate it. *Contrary to the ocean is rising, it may actually receed. *Warmer polar air will carry much more vapor and rainfall. *And as ice melts it shrinks in volume with the release of trapped gases and molecular contraction. *Basic high school stuff, try it, freeze water in a thin glass container and watch it crack when the water hits -5C and expands. Without the cold on the polar regions average humidity will increase. Rain forests maybe even in Alaska. *Vegitation in the north and southern hemispheres grow more quickly retaining water on land, taller and more prolific. *A byproduct of this is more farm land, especially in Russia and in Canada. *Maybe even grow oranges in Wisonsin some day. *Fish population in northern lakes will grow quicky, making commercial harvesting in Hudsons Bay and other large areas economical for food harvesting due to fast growing fish stocks in warmer waters. *Something is going to have to give with Africa's population growth as food is going to be soon short if they continue. Who knows, golfing might not be so bad in January twilight in Fairbanks Alaska or the Yukon. *Certainly the fishing will be much better. As new air currents form, less dry air, world percipitation is bound to go up in most areas. *Given fresh water is a problem for most countries in the world, this is very good. *Not much lives without water. *Many deserts will return to lush vegitation as was seen in other eras such as * the Jurasic. *In fact, the Jurasic had 6 time todays carbon levels and so much vegitation heards of dionosaurs did quite well. *Reptiles enjoyed the constant warm climate. Especally in the Jurasic Terrestrial period where huge herds of herbivorous dinosaurs like the Brachiosaurus would eat 400 pounds of food per day! *That is a lot of carbon just in breathing and craping, forge tthe methane. *That is a lot of green salad to feed herds of these. The plants grew fast with lots of carbon, essential for most plant life after all in this period and periods before it that is where the coal, natural gas and oil really came from in the first place. *Just dead mater cooked for eons...carbon trapped and not released, it isn't even man made. *But the addtitional carbon allows for more vegitation which we as humans need for one reason or another. *Eat you peas, a main ingredient is carbon as is the roast beef. But something good can't be used by government and fraudsters to suck money out of your pocket. *The earth has checks an balances we don't fully understand, but can see in the billions of years of fossil records they exist. *Even when a huge extinction even occurs, the earth gets around to compensating for it. *And causes are often intersellar, a metor here and there. In fact the most prolific life diversity periods atomospheric carbon was very high. My suggestion is for mankind to forget CO2 issues, end silly wars, even if you have to low yeild nuke'em. *Nuking them burns less carbon, imagine the pile of CO2 and plastics spent on middle east wars! *We waste far too much time on power, greed, herd insanity and feeding politicial and social egos. *Want to insure mankinds survival, go to the stars and populate elsewhere and work on social evolution to match technology. *As one of these next items can end it all in short order, just like many of the the mass extinction events in the past. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:%2...9_mathilde.jpg Now that could be a problem worth the hype as there will be no boating with beer for many, many years.... CO2 is designed to keep our minds off of strife, off of our governments screw ups of economics, off the flaws of modern society. *Feeds the idle minds fear and off of the real issues. *Sort of like teach them to hate somethign else like CO2, and they will hate you less. *It is herd management for tax slavery. We as a species think too shallow to last on more than shier luck. Andromeda Strain, The Omega Man all possibilities as out of control herds of humans can develop something it now. But we don't have the social controls in place to prevent it. *Who knows, many H1N1 or AIDS mutates...history is full of plagues. *But as H1N1 is turning out, just FUD that sells lots of mercury vapor (polutant) laced drugs for profit. But at least it might be warmer in the mean time. *Can't say skin holds up well in sub-zero temperatures now or 10,000 years from now. *Lets hope the crazies are right and it is actually warming. *Remember, it wasn't that long ago the junk scientists said it was cooling. *10 years is squat in earths history and for that much to change smells of knee jerk junk science. So please go to bed with greenie FUD induced fear. *Me, I will go to bed knowing the sun will rise and the world will be here. *Even if it isn't, I would rather enjoy my much too short of a life than pander to bull**** fraudsters. The sea level rise data shows the same rise that has been happening for the past 10,000 years and show NO rise attributable to global warming because it does not show any change in slope. Next, I truly am qualified to evaluate the data. I have run and helped obtain the data used in the basic atmospheric climate models, the old Air Force Geophysical Lab Atmospheric model. My job was to compare real observations with the models predictions. By training I am a physicist (specialty plasma and electrostatics applications) with two MS physics degrees and MSEE, numerous pubs and patents. I have spent my entire career designing experiments so I am well qualified to evaluate data and what I see is very poor experimental practice and obscenely bad data. For a long time I was willing to believe they truly had corrected for urban heat island effects but I have found the corrections were entirely bogus. The CO2 data is also bad because they simply moved the axis the ice core measurements with no justification to make the data line up with what they believed. Thus, they cannot say that pre- industrial age CO2 levels were higher or lower than now (google, "Closing the firn problem". believe it or not they still have not solved this problem) The fraudulent behavior of Mann et al has ensured that it is not not possible to reproduce his climate model because although the data still exists just as he says, we do not know what subset of the data he used, an astonishing example of scientific fraud. I used to say that there was evidence of warming but no evidence of Anthropogenic warming. Now, I will even say the evidence of warming is at best questionable and probably non-existent. I doubt there was an international conspiracy except for the one between East Anglia and Mann, however, when there is so much research money at stake, it skewed what people were willing to see. With Mann et al censuring peer reviewed pubs and Connolly censuring Wiki, there was no way that any alternative views to be heard thus it produced what amounted to an unwitting collaboration of many researchers with a small conspiracy. Thus, I stand by my assertion that there is NO evidence for AGW and am willing to debate the topic with anybody, even Mann or Jones. |
Calling all Global Warmist "scientists...
Frogwatch wrote:
On Dec 20, 4:03 pm, "Bill McKee" wrote: "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Canuck57" wrote in message ... Loogypicker wrote: On Dec 20, 8:49 am, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: Often I'm accused of "avoiding" truth when it comes to AGW. I'm the "creationist" in a sense that I don't understand the highly complex nature of climate anatomy. I'm picking on "details". I'm a corporate schill. I don't understand "peer review" (even though I have "peer reviewed" over 600 math texts, dissertations and master's thesis in my life). Yada, yada, yada. Ok - without getting into the politics, I want Loogy and the other AGW types to defend this. http://www.financialpost.com/opinion...tml?id=62e1c98... Remember - this is your side - this is how you are presenting your information. This describes what happens when one of the most widely used sources of information is controlled and massaged and only one side of the "science" is presented. Go ahead - defend this. I'll wait. Okay. Just because SOME (a very small percentage) tried to cook some books does in no way shape nor form prove whether or not global warming is or isn't occuring. And why we need 100% rational hard real scientists to look at the issue without the policitical money grabing schemes. Currently it is about money, money greed. Carbon tax, carbon credits and extortion. That isn't science, that is political greed and nanny state BS. Even if it is warming, is that so bad? Equatorial zones have evaporation to keep temperatures moderate, but the polar areas would get most of the warming. Is that so bad you can golf or go boating in norther US or Canada in January? Hell, that is green, as more green further north would not hurt mankind. Be it golf green or green in your pocket. My utility bill would even become more moderate and less carbon to heat my home at -35C. Eco nuts are "sky is falling" nut balls following the government love in for excuses for more taxes. Someone wise once said to me, always follow the money for your answers. Well the green thing is fostered by government greed for taxation, be it carbon taxes or carbon credits it is about taking our money for them to waste on GM/Bank/Government like ponzi schemes. In the mean time, more green lawns and forrests will absorb more carbon. Nature has a unique way of balancing the Earth and eco freeks just don't want to admit that hard fact of reality. Good grief... well, you've pretty much summed up the loonieness of the deniers. Good for you! -- Nom=de=Plume You just accentuated the loonieness of the gullible. I defy anybody to show me tide guage data showing seal level rise increase since 1900. I defy anybody to show me tree ring data showing warming since 1960. So, THERE IS NO evidence for AGW at all. If you believe there is, then show me the data. Put up or shut up. Be careful. I would want that stated from a credible source, one that does not profit by BS like Gore, Suzuki and government taxation. My persoanl experience says we have been cooling in the last 15 years. But I also know in the earths history, 10 years isn't a dot on a football field sized sheet of paper. |
Calling all Global Warmist "scientists...
Harry wrote:
On 12/20/09 4:15 PM, Frogwatch wrote: On Dec 20, 4:03 pm, "Bill wrote: wrote in message ... wrote in message ... Loogypicker wrote: On Dec 20, 8:49 am, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: Often I'm accused of "avoiding" truth when it comes to AGW. I'm the "creationist" in a sense that I don't understand the highly complex nature of climate anatomy. I'm picking on "details". I'm a corporate schill. I don't understand "peer review" (even though I have "peer reviewed" over 600 math texts, dissertations and master's thesis in my life). Yada, yada, yada. Ok - without getting into the politics, I want Loogy and the other AGW types to defend this. http://www.financialpost.com/opinion...tml?id=62e1c98... Remember - this is your side - this is how you are presenting your information. This describes what happens when one of the most widely used sources of information is controlled and massaged and only one side of the "science" is presented. Go ahead - defend this. I'll wait. Okay. Just because SOME (a very small percentage) tried to cook some books does in no way shape nor form prove whether or not global warming is or isn't occuring. And why we need 100% rational hard real scientists to look at the issue without the policitical money grabing schemes. Currently it is about money, money greed. Carbon tax, carbon credits and extortion. That isn't science, that is political greed and nanny state BS. Even if it is warming, is that so bad? Equatorial zones have evaporation to keep temperatures moderate, but the polar areas would get most of the warming. Is that so bad you can golf or go boating in norther US or Canada in January? Hell, that is green, as more green further north would not hurt mankind. Be it golf green or green in your pocket. My utility bill would even become more moderate and less carbon to heat my home at -35C. Eco nuts are "sky is falling" nut balls following the government love in for excuses for more taxes. Someone wise once said to me, always follow the money for your answers. Well the green thing is fostered by government greed for taxation, be it carbon taxes or carbon credits it is about taking our money for them to waste on GM/Bank/Government like ponzi schemes. In the mean time, more green lawns and forrests will absorb more carbon. Nature has a unique way of balancing the Earth and eco freeks just don't want to admit that hard fact of reality. Good grief... well, you've pretty much summed up the loonieness of the deniers. Good for you! -- Nom=de=Plume You just accentuated the loonieness of the gullible. I defy anybody to show me tide guage data showing seal level rise increase since 1900. I defy anybody to show me tree ring data showing warming since 1960. So, THERE IS NO evidence for AGW at all. If you believe there is, then show me the data. Put up or shut up. Here ya go, Mr. Science Junior: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Re...Level_Rise.png Go ahead...dispute that data, and in as complete a fashion. Put up or shut up. I would like to see how they measured it, if I measured temperatures in a downtown area, of course the temeratres have risen. It didn't account for asphalt and concreate replacing trees. Probably land errosion. Here is one, a big picture view: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fi...ate_Change.png Since it is signifigantly cooler today than when apes evolved, it is welcome that it is warming. Because the long term trend looks pretty bad for mankinds survival if the 5 million year curve continues it's dip. Or a more mid term view: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...emperature.png Looks like we were about due for a spike. My CO2 didn't cause the 4 other blips in the last 500,000 years. In fact, with a keen eye you can see a very definitive patern. And this started some 10,000 years go for the recent ramp up. Explain this please? Given ice volume is inversely proportian to animal and reptile life, I do not fear warming. Maybe explain this one? http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...Variations.png Looks like we were sliping back into a glacial period. Please explain why you want it to get cooler? Give me 5 substantiated reasons why mankind will be harmed if it warms up a bit. I don't mean some idiot that has a well dry up, happens all the time. I want a humanity view. Why would it be so bad if a 75 billion acres of sea could raise shrimp and not ice? |
Calling all Global Warmist "scientists...
On 12/20/09 9:08 PM, Canuck57 wrote:
Harry wrote: On 12/20/09 2:58 PM, Canuck57 wrote: D.Duck wrote: Loogypicker wrote: On Dec 20, 8:49 am, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: Often I'm accused of "avoiding" truth when it comes to AGW. I'm the "creationist" in a sense that I don't understand the highly complex nature of climate anatomy. I'm picking on "details". I'm a corporate schill. I don't understand "peer review" (even though I have "peer reviewed" over 600 math texts, dissertations and master's thesis in my life). Yada, yada, yada. Ok - without getting into the politics, I want Loogy and the other AGW types to defend this. http://www.financialpost.com/opinion...tml?id=62e1c98... Remember - this is your side - this is how you are presenting your information. This describes what happens when one of the most widely used sources of information is controlled and massaged and only one side of the "science" is presented. Go ahead - defend this. I'll wait. Okay. Just because SOME (a very small percentage) tried to cook some books does in no way shape nor form prove whether or not global warming is or isn't occuring. It's not whether it's occurring or not, it's whether it will reach some troublesome level. And it might even be a blessing in disguise! What? How so? Lets say the world on average goes up 6C. Real big amount, even more than the zealots say is worst case. Lets theorize what happens. Some of this is based on fact as it has occured before in recent and ancient history. http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7x.html Ok, the polar regions melt, 2/3rds of the ice is less than 10,000 years old anyway. Polar regions will see most of the warming as evaporation and ocean currents will regulate it. Contrary to the ocean is rising, it may actually receed. Warmer polar air will carry much more vapor and rainfall. And as ice melts it shrinks in volume with the release of trapped gases and molecular contraction. Basic high school stuff, try it, freeze water in a thin glass container and watch it crack when the water hits -5C and expands. Without the cold on the polar regions average humidity will increase. Rain forests maybe even in Alaska. Vegitation in the north and southern hemispheres grow more quickly retaining water on land, taller and more prolific. A byproduct of this is more farm land, especially in Russia and in Canada. Maybe even grow oranges in Wisonsin some day. Fish population in northern lakes will grow quicky, making commercial harvesting in Hudsons Bay and other large areas economical for food harvesting due to fast growing fish stocks in warmer waters. Something is going to have to give with Africa's population growth as food is going to be soon short if they continue. Who knows, golfing might not be so bad in January twilight in Fairbanks Alaska or the Yukon. Certainly the fishing will be much better. As new air currents form, less dry air, world percipitation is bound to go up in most areas. Given fresh water is a problem for most countries in the world, this is very good. Not much lives without water. Many deserts will return to lush vegitation as was seen in other eras such as the Jurasic. In fact, the Jurasic had 6 time todays carbon levels and so much vegitation heards of dionosaurs did quite well. Reptiles enjoyed the constant warm climate. Especally in the Jurasic Terrestrial period where huge herds of herbivorous dinosaurs like the Brachiosaurus would eat 400 pounds of food per day! That is a lot of carbon just in breathing and craping, forge tthe methane. That is a lot of green salad to feed herds of these. The plants grew fast with lots of carbon, essential for most plant life after all in this period and periods before it that is where the coal, natural gas and oil really came from in the first place. Just dead mater cooked for eons...carbon trapped and not released, it isn't even man made. But the addtitional carbon allows for more vegitation which we as humans need for one reason or another. Eat you peas, a main ingredient is carbon as is the roast beef. But something good can't be used by government and fraudsters to suck money out of your pocket. The earth has checks an balances we don't fully understand, but can see in the billions of years of fossil records they exist. Even when a huge extinction even occurs, the earth gets around to compensating for it. And causes are often intersellar, a metor here and there. In fact the most prolific life diversity periods atomospheric carbon was very high. My suggestion is for mankind to forget CO2 issues, end silly wars, even if you have to low yeild nuke'em. Nuking them burns less carbon, imagine the pile of CO2 and plastics spent on middle east wars! We waste far too much time on power, greed, herd insanity and feeding politicial and social egos. Want to insure mankinds survival, go to the stars and populate elsewhere and work on social evolution to match technology. As one of these next items can end it all in short order, just like many of the the mass extinction events in the past. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:%2...9_mathilde.jpg Now that could be a problem worth the hype as there will be no boating with beer for many, many years.... CO2 is designed to keep our minds off of strife, off of our governments screw ups of economics, off the flaws of modern society. Feeds the idle minds fear and off of the real issues. Sort of like teach them to hate somethign else like CO2, and they will hate you less. It is herd management for tax slavery. We as a species think too shallow to last on more than shier luck. Andromeda Strain, The Omega Man all possibilities as out of control herds of humans can develop something it now. But we don't have the social controls in place to prevent it. Who knows, many H1N1 or AIDS mutates...history is full of plagues. But as H1N1 is turning out, just FUD that sells lots of mercury vapor (polutant) laced drugs for profit. But at least it might be warmer in the mean time. Can't say skin holds up well in sub-zero temperatures now or 10,000 years from now. Lets hope the crazies are right and it is actually warming. Remember, it wasn't that long ago the junk scientists said it was cooling. 10 years is squat in earths history and for that much to change smells of knee jerk junk science. So please go to bed with greenie FUD induced fear. Me, I will go to bed knowing the sun will rise and the world will be here. Even if it isn't, I would rather enjoy my much too short of a life than pander to bull**** fraudsters. Thankfully, you are in charge of nothing and no one rational will consider your opinions. You're left with the ditzy former governor of Alaska and the even nuttier U.S. Senator from Oklahoma. |
Calling all Global Warmist "scientists...
nom=de=plume wrote:
"Frogwatch" wrote in message ... On Dec 20, 4:03 pm, "Bill McKee" wrote: "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Canuck57" wrote in message ... Loogypicker wrote: On Dec 20, 8:49 am, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: Often I'm accused of "avoiding" truth when it comes to AGW. I'm the "creationist" in a sense that I don't understand the highly complex nature of climate anatomy. I'm picking on "details". I'm a corporate schill. I don't understand "peer review" (even though I have "peer reviewed" over 600 math texts, dissertations and master's thesis in my life). Yada, yada, yada. Ok - without getting into the politics, I want Loogy and the other AGW types to defend this. http://www.financialpost.com/opinion...tml?id=62e1c98... Remember - this is your side - this is how you are presenting your information. This describes what happens when one of the most widely used sources of information is controlled and massaged and only one side of the "science" is presented. Go ahead - defend this. I'll wait. Okay. Just because SOME (a very small percentage) tried to cook some books does in no way shape nor form prove whether or not global warming is or isn't occuring. And why we need 100% rational hard real scientists to look at the issue without the policitical money grabing schemes. Currently it is about money, money greed. Carbon tax, carbon credits and extortion. That isn't science, that is political greed and nanny state BS. Even if it is warming, is that so bad? Equatorial zones have evaporation to keep temperatures moderate, but the polar areas would get most of the warming. Is that so bad you can golf or go boating in norther US or Canada in January? Hell, that is green, as more green further north would not hurt mankind. Be it golf green or green in your pocket. My utility bill would even become more moderate and less carbon to heat my home at -35C. Eco nuts are "sky is falling" nut balls following the government love in for excuses for more taxes. Someone wise once said to me, always follow the money for your answers. Well the green thing is fostered by government greed for taxation, be it carbon taxes or carbon credits it is about taking our money for them to waste on GM/Bank/Government like ponzi schemes. In the mean time, more green lawns and forrests will absorb more carbon. Nature has a unique way of balancing the Earth and eco freeks just don't want to admit that hard fact of reality. Good grief... well, you've pretty much summed up the loonieness of the deniers. Good for you! -- Nom=de=Plume You just accentuated the loonieness of the gullible. I defy anybody to show me tide guage data showing seal level rise increase since 1900. I defy anybody to show me tree ring data showing warming since 1960. So, THERE IS NO evidence for AGW at all. If you believe there is, then show me the data. Put up or shut up. Try google: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/ Looks like it was on the rise before the automobile and heavy industrialisation. Bet uif you normalize the chart below, a better corralation exists. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wo...n_%28UN%29.svg Bet population growth mimics CO2 growth. Go figure, yet the worst growth offender, Africa is completely ignored. Sounds like eco freeks are picking the wrong targets. |
Calling all Global Warmist "scientists...
Frogwatch wrote:
On Dec 20, 4:50 pm, Geoduck wrote: On 12/20/09 4:30 PM, nom=de=plume wrote: "Bill wrote in message m... wrote in message ... wrote in message ... Loogypicker wrote: On Dec 20, 8:49 am, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: Often I'm accused of "avoiding" truth when it comes to AGW. I'm the "creationist" in a sense that I don't understand the highly complex nature of climate anatomy. I'm picking on "details". I'm a corporate schill. I don't understand "peer review" (even though I have "peer reviewed" over 600 math texts, dissertations and master's thesis in my life). Yada, yada, yada. Ok - without getting into the politics, I want Loogy and the other AGW types to defend this. http://www.financialpost.com/opinion...tml?id=62e1c98... Remember - this is your side - this is how you are presenting your information. This describes what happens when one of the most widely used sources of information is controlled and massaged and only one side of the "science" is presented. Go ahead - defend this. I'll wait. Okay. Just because SOME (a very small percentage) tried to cook some books does in no way shape nor form prove whether or not global warming is or isn't occuring. And why we need 100% rational hard real scientists to look at the issue without the policitical money grabing schemes. Currently it is about money, money greed. Carbon tax, carbon credits and extortion. That isn't science, that is political greed and nanny state BS. Even if it is warming, is that so bad? Equatorial zones have evaporation to keep temperatures moderate, but the polar areas would get most of the warming. Is that so bad you can golf or go boating in norther US or Canada in January? Hell, that is green, as more green further north would not hurt mankind. Be it golf green or green in your pocket. My utility bill would even become more moderate and less carbon to heat my home at -35C. Eco nuts are "sky is falling" nut balls following the government love in for excuses for more taxes. Someone wise once said to me, always follow the money for your answers. Well the green thing is fostered by government greed for taxation, be it carbon taxes or carbon credits it is about taking our money for them to waste on GM/Bank/Government like ponzi schemes. In the mean time, more green lawns and forrests will absorb more carbon. Nature has a unique way of balancing the Earth and eco freeks just don't want to admit that hard fact of reality. Good grief... well, you've pretty much summed up the loonieness of the deniers. Good for you! -- Nom=de=Plume You just accentuated the loonieness of the gullible. Yeah, I guess when someone talks science, it seems like magic to you... It's sorta interesting that we have several right-wingers in here who *claim* to be scientists, but apparently have no ability to apply the thought processes they learned in other fields to the ones usually discussed here. I wouldn't call McKee a scientist of any sort, though...his last work experience was rounding up illegals at shape-ups to work on home improvement projects. Again, that data from NOAA does not show any evidence of sea level rise increase. Note that the graph inset in which they show 3.2mm/yr is Satellite data which is contradicted by their own tide guage data, so, no evidence of a change. One cannot change instruments in mid course and then use just the one that agrees with your theory, that IS NOT science. And they didn't have satellites in 1880... makes me suspicious as it gets. Causes could have been simple land errosion. And fluxuations will occur. |
Calling all Global Warmist "scientists...
nom=de=plume wrote:
"Canuck57" wrote in message ... Loogypicker wrote: On Dec 20, 8:49 am, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: Often I'm accused of "avoiding" truth when it comes to AGW. I'm the "creationist" in a sense that I don't understand the highly complex nature of climate anatomy. I'm picking on "details". I'm a corporate schill. I don't understand "peer review" (even though I have "peer reviewed" over 600 math texts, dissertations and master's thesis in my life). Yada, yada, yada. Ok - without getting into the politics, I want Loogy and the other AGW types to defend this. http://www.financialpost.com/opinion...tml?id=62e1c98... Remember - this is your side - this is how you are presenting your information. This describes what happens when one of the most widely used sources of information is controlled and massaged and only one side of the "science" is presented. Go ahead - defend this. I'll wait. Okay. Just because SOME (a very small percentage) tried to cook some books does in no way shape nor form prove whether or not global warming is or isn't occuring. Agreed. But then I too agree with your hidden point, they don't know for sure. It is safe to say it is getting warmer or colder. But it scares the hell out of me with so little real evidence either way that they are ready to go off and mess with the weather, setup CO2 recovery plants and the like. Sounds like a pied piper mentality of the herd of idiots who need to believe in something that is actually a good thing. Because if it is warming, means mankind will be spared the hardship of -35C in Florida. Sounds like you know nothing about the science of global climate change. Well, I don't need 3 PhDs in but kissing to figure out if it isn't getting warmer, it must be getting cooler. Or visa versa depending on what you subscribe to. The probability of temperature staying constant in any point on the planet in a given year is highly improbable. But then good science isn't FUD based and does not generate $$$. All you have to do to see it is fraud is to see who benefits. In CO2s case, governments raising taxes. Remember it wasn't that long ago, maybe 15 years ago they said it was cooling. Good science hasn't changed that much in just 15 years on this planet anyways. I question if it is warming, my eyes tell me in the last 5 years it hasn't. Have utility bills to show it and I notice it. Second, if it is warming, is it really something to be concerned about? I would be more worried about global cooling, as nothing animal like lives on glaciers. Oh, they might traverse one, but live on a glacier the size of North America presents a logitstical problem. It is all about selling taxes to tax-slaves. All motives point to greed, junk science, fraud and government taxation. Go ahead, take cheap shots with BS, if it makes you feal good. After all, what you believe in is now in question as just another FAD of FUD to manage the herds for money. |
Calling all Global Warmist "scientists...
"Canuck57" wrote in message
... nom=de=plume wrote: "Canuck57" wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: "Canuck57" wrote in message ... Loogypicker wrote: On Dec 20, 8:49 am, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: Often I'm accused of "avoiding" truth when it comes to AGW. I'm the "creationist" in a sense that I don't understand the highly complex nature of climate anatomy. I'm picking on "details". I'm a corporate schill. I don't understand "peer review" (even though I have "peer reviewed" over 600 math texts, dissertations and master's thesis in my life). Yada, yada, yada. Ok - without getting into the politics, I want Loogy and the other AGW types to defend this. http://www.financialpost.com/opinion...tml?id=62e1c98... Remember - this is your side - this is how you are presenting your information. This describes what happens when one of the most widely used sources of information is controlled and massaged and only one side of the "science" is presented. Go ahead - defend this. I'll wait. Okay. Just because SOME (a very small percentage) tried to cook some books does in no way shape nor form prove whether or not global warming is or isn't occuring. And why we need 100% rational hard real scientists to look at the issue without the policitical money grabing schemes. Currently it is about money, money greed. Carbon tax, carbon credits and extortion. That isn't science, that is political greed and nanny state BS. Even if it is warming, is that so bad? Equatorial zones have evaporation to keep temperatures moderate, but the polar areas would get most of the warming. Is that so bad you can golf or go boating in norther US or Canada in January? Hell, that is green, as more green further north would not hurt mankind. Be it golf green or green in your pocket. My utility bill would even become more moderate and less carbon to heat my home at -35C. Eco nuts are "sky is falling" nut balls following the government love in for excuses for more taxes. Someone wise once said to me, always follow the money for your answers. Well the green thing is fostered by government greed for taxation, be it carbon taxes or carbon credits it is about taking our money for them to waste on GM/Bank/Government like ponzi schemes. In the mean time, more green lawns and forrests will absorb more carbon. Nature has a unique way of balancing the Earth and eco freeks just don't want to admit that hard fact of reality. Good grief... well, you've pretty much summed up the loonieness of the deniers. Good for you! So you think the sky is falling and the end of the world is near.... You take scifi and FUD far too seriously. No. You're the one who KNOWS the sky is falling with "scientific" fraud, because you read some out of context emails. FYI, the world is going to be just fine. It's the people who'll be in trouble. Actually, what scares me about the green fraud and the H1N1 hype is how easily a mass of people can get so off track from reality in such a short period of time. Sure does not give me the assurances that mankind is mature enough to handle a rapidly developing technolgical capabilties without the social evolution to go with it. We clearly show with CO2 and H1N1 we are scared like mice, dumb like nails, and can be a managed herd towards whatever our puppet masters want us to do. I think now I understand how German and Japanese were so easily herded into thinking they could really dominate the world. Man isn't socially or politicially evolving fast enough to survive the technology we have. THX-1038 is on soon I think. I wonder if author/director/actors know how real that just might become in 75 or 200 years. Should show the Solent Green before it, after all most can't tell fiction from reality even after it has bitten them in the ass. But Soilent Green scenario due to over population is a scary thought. Want something to worry about? Pick something real: http://www.thedailygreen.com/environ...ation-47010905 Sit back and think about 2 billion more Africans to feed, burn carbon, war, strife, starvation... all avoidable if the nations leaders gave a crap about this planet. But to them, it is about the money.... Woooooo H1N1 conspiracy... I think the little tin hat won't help much... -- Nom=de=Plume |
Calling all Global Warmist "scientists...
On Dec 20, 10:58*pm, Canuck57 wrote:
nom=de=plume wrote: "Canuck57" wrote in message ... Loogypicker wrote: On Dec 20, 8:49 am, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: Often I'm accused of "avoiding" truth when it comes to AGW. *I'm the "creationist" in a sense that I don't understand the highly complex nature of climate anatomy. *I'm picking on "details". I'm a corporate schill. I don't understand "peer review" (even though I have "peer reviewed" over 600 math texts, dissertations and master's thesis in my life). Yada, yada, yada. Ok - without getting into the politics, I want Loogy and the other AGW types to defend this. http://www.financialpost.com/opinion...tml?id=62e1c98... Remember - this is your side - this is how you are presenting your information. This describes what happens when one of the most widely used sources of information is controlled and massaged and only one side of the "science" is presented. Go ahead - defend this. I'll wait. Okay. Just because SOME (a very small percentage) tried to cook some books does in no way shape nor form prove whether or not global warming is or isn't occuring. Agreed. *But then I too agree with your hidden point, they don't know for sure. *It is safe to say it is getting warmer or colder. *But it scares the hell out of me with so little real evidence either way that they are ready to go off and mess with the weather, setup CO2 recovery plants and the like. Sounds like a pied piper mentality of the herd of idiots who need to believe in something that is actually a good thing. Because if it is warming, means mankind will be spared the hardship of -35C in Florida. Sounds like you know nothing about the science of global climate change.. Well, I don't need 3 PhDs in but kissing to figure out if it isn't getting warmer, it must be getting cooler. *Or visa versa depending on what you subscribe to. *The probability of temperature staying constant in any point on the planet in a given year is highly improbable. But then good science isn't FUD based and does not generate $$$. *All you have to do to see it is fraud is to see who benefits. *In CO2s case, governments raising taxes. Remember it wasn't that long ago, maybe 15 years ago they said it was cooling. *Good science hasn't changed that much in just 15 years on this planet anyways. I question if it is warming, my eyes tell me in the last 5 years it hasn't. *Have utility bills to show it and I notice it. *Second, if it is warming, is it really something to be concerned about? *I would be more worried about global cooling, as nothing animal like lives on glaciers. *Oh, they might traverse one, but live on a glacier the size of North America presents a logitstical problem. It is all about selling taxes to tax-slaves. *All motives point to greed, junk science, fraud and government taxation. Go ahead, take cheap shots with BS, if it makes you feal good. *After all, what you believe in is now in question as just another FAD of FUD to manage the herds for money. Being an inventor, I'd be financially better off with global warming cuz it is easy to invent energy saving stuff. Unfortunately, the reality is that we will not have much AGW. Sun is very quiet and of course it is much cooler now than 12 yrs ago. The corellation tween sunspots and climate records is very good unlike the total lack of AGW data. |
Calling all Global Warmist "scientists...
"Canuck57" wrote in message
... nom=de=plume wrote: "Frogwatch" wrote in message ... On Dec 20, 4:03 pm, "Bill McKee" wrote: "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Canuck57" wrote in message ... Loogypicker wrote: On Dec 20, 8:49 am, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: Often I'm accused of "avoiding" truth when it comes to AGW. I'm the "creationist" in a sense that I don't understand the highly complex nature of climate anatomy. I'm picking on "details". I'm a corporate schill. I don't understand "peer review" (even though I have "peer reviewed" over 600 math texts, dissertations and master's thesis in my life). Yada, yada, yada. Ok - without getting into the politics, I want Loogy and the other AGW types to defend this. http://www.financialpost.com/opinion...tml?id=62e1c98... Remember - this is your side - this is how you are presenting your information. This describes what happens when one of the most widely used sources of information is controlled and massaged and only one side of the "science" is presented. Go ahead - defend this. I'll wait. Okay. Just because SOME (a very small percentage) tried to cook some books does in no way shape nor form prove whether or not global warming is or isn't occuring. And why we need 100% rational hard real scientists to look at the issue without the policitical money grabing schemes. Currently it is about money, money greed. Carbon tax, carbon credits and extortion. That isn't science, that is political greed and nanny state BS. Even if it is warming, is that so bad? Equatorial zones have evaporation to keep temperatures moderate, but the polar areas would get most of the warming. Is that so bad you can golf or go boating in norther US or Canada in January? Hell, that is green, as more green further north would not hurt mankind. Be it golf green or green in your pocket. My utility bill would even become more moderate and less carbon to heat my home at -35C. Eco nuts are "sky is falling" nut balls following the government love in for excuses for more taxes. Someone wise once said to me, always follow the money for your answers. Well the green thing is fostered by government greed for taxation, be it carbon taxes or carbon credits it is about taking our money for them to waste on GM/Bank/Government like ponzi schemes. In the mean time, more green lawns and forrests will absorb more carbon. Nature has a unique way of balancing the Earth and eco freeks just don't want to admit that hard fact of reality. Good grief... well, you've pretty much summed up the loonieness of the deniers. Good for you! -- Nom=de=Plume You just accentuated the loonieness of the gullible. I defy anybody to show me tide guage data showing seal level rise increase since 1900. I defy anybody to show me tree ring data showing warming since 1960. So, THERE IS NO evidence for AGW at all. If you believe there is, then show me the data. Put up or shut up. Try google: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/ Looks like it was on the rise before the automobile and heavy industrialisation. Bet uif you normalize the chart below, a better corralation exists. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wo...n_%28UN%29.svg Bet population growth mimics CO2 growth. Go figure, yet the worst growth offender, Africa is completely ignored. Sounds like eco freeks are picking the wrong targets. Perhaps you should look up the term Industrial Revolution... http://ecology.com/features/industri...ion/index.html -- Nom=de=Plume |
Calling all Global Warmist "scientists...
"Canuck57" wrote in message
... Frogwatch wrote: On Dec 20, 4:03 pm, "Bill McKee" wrote: "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Canuck57" wrote in message ... Loogypicker wrote: On Dec 20, 8:49 am, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: Often I'm accused of "avoiding" truth when it comes to AGW. I'm the "creationist" in a sense that I don't understand the highly complex nature of climate anatomy. I'm picking on "details". I'm a corporate schill. I don't understand "peer review" (even though I have "peer reviewed" over 600 math texts, dissertations and master's thesis in my life). Yada, yada, yada. Ok - without getting into the politics, I want Loogy and the other AGW types to defend this. http://www.financialpost.com/opinion...tml?id=62e1c98... Remember - this is your side - this is how you are presenting your information. This describes what happens when one of the most widely used sources of information is controlled and massaged and only one side of the "science" is presented. Go ahead - defend this. I'll wait. Okay. Just because SOME (a very small percentage) tried to cook some books does in no way shape nor form prove whether or not global warming is or isn't occuring. And why we need 100% rational hard real scientists to look at the issue without the policitical money grabing schemes. Currently it is about money, money greed. Carbon tax, carbon credits and extortion. That isn't science, that is political greed and nanny state BS. Even if it is warming, is that so bad? Equatorial zones have evaporation to keep temperatures moderate, but the polar areas would get most of the warming. Is that so bad you can golf or go boating in norther US or Canada in January? Hell, that is green, as more green further north would not hurt mankind. Be it golf green or green in your pocket. My utility bill would even become more moderate and less carbon to heat my home at -35C. Eco nuts are "sky is falling" nut balls following the government love in for excuses for more taxes. Someone wise once said to me, always follow the money for your answers. Well the green thing is fostered by government greed for taxation, be it carbon taxes or carbon credits it is about taking our money for them to waste on GM/Bank/Government like ponzi schemes. In the mean time, more green lawns and forrests will absorb more carbon. Nature has a unique way of balancing the Earth and eco freeks just don't want to admit that hard fact of reality. Good grief... well, you've pretty much summed up the loonieness of the deniers. Good for you! -- Nom=de=Plume You just accentuated the loonieness of the gullible. I defy anybody to show me tide guage data showing seal level rise increase since 1900. I defy anybody to show me tree ring data showing warming since 1960. So, THERE IS NO evidence for AGW at all. If you believe there is, then show me the data. Put up or shut up. Be careful. I would want that stated from a credible source, one that does not profit by BS like Gore, Suzuki and government taxation. My persoanl experience says we have been cooling in the last 15 years. But I also know in the earths history, 10 years isn't a dot on a football field sized sheet of paper. Your "personal experience"? Wow... that's incredible science you have there. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Calling all Global Warmist "scientists...
"Canuck57" wrote in message
... Frogwatch wrote: On Dec 20, 4:50 pm, Geoduck wrote: On 12/20/09 4:30 PM, nom=de=plume wrote: "Bill wrote in message m... wrote in message ... wrote in message ... Loogypicker wrote: On Dec 20, 8:49 am, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: Often I'm accused of "avoiding" truth when it comes to AGW. I'm the "creationist" in a sense that I don't understand the highly complex nature of climate anatomy. I'm picking on "details". I'm a corporate schill. I don't understand "peer review" (even though I have "peer reviewed" over 600 math texts, dissertations and master's thesis in my life). Yada, yada, yada. Ok - without getting into the politics, I want Loogy and the other AGW types to defend this. http://www.financialpost.com/opinion...tml?id=62e1c98... Remember - this is your side - this is how you are presenting your information. This describes what happens when one of the most widely used sources of information is controlled and massaged and only one side of the "science" is presented. Go ahead - defend this. I'll wait. Okay. Just because SOME (a very small percentage) tried to cook some books does in no way shape nor form prove whether or not global warming is or isn't occuring. And why we need 100% rational hard real scientists to look at the issue without the policitical money grabing schemes. Currently it is about money, money greed. Carbon tax, carbon credits and extortion. That isn't science, that is political greed and nanny state BS. Even if it is warming, is that so bad? Equatorial zones have evaporation to keep temperatures moderate, but the polar areas would get most of the warming. Is that so bad you can golf or go boating in norther US or Canada in January? Hell, that is green, as more green further north would not hurt mankind. Be it golf green or green in your pocket. My utility bill would even become more moderate and less carbon to heat my home at -35C. Eco nuts are "sky is falling" nut balls following the government love in for excuses for more taxes. Someone wise once said to me, always follow the money for your answers. Well the green thing is fostered by government greed for taxation, be it carbon taxes or carbon credits it is about taking our money for them to waste on GM/Bank/Government like ponzi schemes. In the mean time, more green lawns and forrests will absorb more carbon. Nature has a unique way of balancing the Earth and eco freeks just don't want to admit that hard fact of reality. Good grief... well, you've pretty much summed up the loonieness of the deniers. Good for you! -- Nom=de=Plume You just accentuated the loonieness of the gullible. Yeah, I guess when someone talks science, it seems like magic to you... It's sorta interesting that we have several right-wingers in here who *claim* to be scientists, but apparently have no ability to apply the thought processes they learned in other fields to the ones usually discussed here. I wouldn't call McKee a scientist of any sort, though...his last work experience was rounding up illegals at shape-ups to work on home improvement projects. Again, that data from NOAA does not show any evidence of sea level rise increase. Note that the graph inset in which they show 3.2mm/yr is Satellite data which is contradicted by their own tide guage data, so, no evidence of a change. One cannot change instruments in mid course and then use just the one that agrees with your theory, that IS NOT science. And they didn't have satellites in 1880... makes me suspicious as it gets. Causes could have been simple land errosion. And fluxuations will occur. It's a vast H1N1 conspiracy that started with gay monkeys in Africa. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Calling all Global Warmist "scientists...
"Canuck57" wrote in message
... nom=de=plume wrote: "Canuck57" wrote in message ... Loogypicker wrote: On Dec 20, 8:49 am, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: Often I'm accused of "avoiding" truth when it comes to AGW. I'm the "creationist" in a sense that I don't understand the highly complex nature of climate anatomy. I'm picking on "details". I'm a corporate schill. I don't understand "peer review" (even though I have "peer reviewed" over 600 math texts, dissertations and master's thesis in my life). Yada, yada, yada. Ok - without getting into the politics, I want Loogy and the other AGW types to defend this. http://www.financialpost.com/opinion...tml?id=62e1c98... Remember - this is your side - this is how you are presenting your information. This describes what happens when one of the most widely used sources of information is controlled and massaged and only one side of the "science" is presented. Go ahead - defend this. I'll wait. Okay. Just because SOME (a very small percentage) tried to cook some books does in no way shape nor form prove whether or not global warming is or isn't occuring. Agreed. But then I too agree with your hidden point, they don't know for sure. It is safe to say it is getting warmer or colder. But it scares the hell out of me with so little real evidence either way that they are ready to go off and mess with the weather, setup CO2 recovery plants and the like. Sounds like a pied piper mentality of the herd of idiots who need to believe in something that is actually a good thing. Because if it is warming, means mankind will be spared the hardship of -35C in Florida. Sounds like you know nothing about the science of global climate change. Well, I don't need 3 PhDs in but kissing to figure out if it isn't getting warmer, it must be getting cooler. Or visa versa depending on what you subscribe to. The probability of temperature staying constant in any point on the planet in a given year is highly improbable. But then good science isn't FUD based and does not generate $$$. All you have to do to see it is fraud is to see who benefits. In CO2s case, governments raising taxes. Remember it wasn't that long ago, maybe 15 years ago they said it was cooling. Good science hasn't changed that much in just 15 years on this planet anyways. I question if it is warming, my eyes tell me in the last 5 years it hasn't. Have utility bills to show it and I notice it. Second, if it is warming, is it really something to be concerned about? I would be more worried about global cooling, as nothing animal like lives on glaciers. Oh, they might traverse one, but live on a glacier the size of North America presents a logitstical problem. It is all about selling taxes to tax-slaves. All motives point to greed, junk science, fraud and government taxation. Go ahead, take cheap shots with BS, if it makes you feal good. After all, what you believe in is now in question as just another FAD of FUD to manage the herds for money. How about in "and" kissing? How about just one PhD? How about 1/2 brain? I think you should immediately stop paying taxes. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Calling all Global Warmist "scientists...
On Dec 20, 11:32*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Canuck57" wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: "Canuck57" wrote in message ... Loogypicker wrote: On Dec 20, 8:49 am, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: Often I'm accused of "avoiding" truth when it comes to AGW. *I'm the "creationist" in a sense that I don't understand the highly complex nature of climate anatomy. *I'm picking on "details". I'm a corporate schill. I don't understand "peer review" (even though I have "peer reviewed" over 600 math texts, dissertations and master's thesis in my life). Yada, yada, yada. Ok - without getting into the politics, I want Loogy and the other AGW types to defend this. http://www.financialpost.com/opinion...tml?id=62e1c98... Remember - this is your side - this is how you are presenting your information. This describes what happens when one of the most widely used sources of information is controlled and massaged and only one side of the "science" is presented. Go ahead - defend this. I'll wait. Okay. Just because SOME (a very small percentage) tried to cook some books does in no way shape nor form prove whether or not global warming is or isn't occuring. Agreed. *But then I too agree with your hidden point, they don't know for sure. *It is safe to say it is getting warmer or colder. *But it scares the hell out of me with so little real evidence either way that they are ready to go off and mess with the weather, setup CO2 recovery plants and the like. Sounds like a pied piper mentality of the herd of idiots who need to believe in something that is actually a good thing. Because if it is warming, means mankind will be spared the hardship of -35C in Florida. Sounds like you know nothing about the science of global climate change. Well, I don't need 3 PhDs in but kissing to figure out if it isn't getting warmer, it must be getting cooler. *Or visa versa depending on what you subscribe to. *The probability of temperature staying constant in any point on the planet in a given year is highly improbable. But then good science isn't FUD based and does not generate $$$. *All you have to do to see it is fraud is to see who benefits. *In CO2s case, governments raising taxes. Remember it wasn't that long ago, maybe 15 years ago they said it was cooling. *Good science hasn't changed that much in just 15 years on this planet anyways. I question if it is warming, my eyes tell me in the last 5 years it hasn't. *Have utility bills to show it and I notice it. *Second, if it is warming, is it really something to be concerned about? *I would be more worried about global cooling, as nothing animal like lives on glaciers. Oh, they might traverse one, but live on a glacier the size of North America presents a logitstical problem. It is all about selling taxes to tax-slaves. *All motives point to greed, junk science, fraud and government taxation. Go ahead, take cheap shots with BS, if it makes you feal good. *After all, what you believe in is now in question as just another FAD of FUD to manage the herds for money. How about in "and" kissing? How about just one PhD? How about 1/2 brain? I think you should immediately stop paying taxes. -- Nom=de=Plume For some indication of how they have tortured the data to make it conform to warming theory, look at this blog about temps at Darwin in Oz: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/2...er/#more-14358 |
Calling all Global Warmist "scientists...
On Dec 20, 11:32*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Canuck57" wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: "Canuck57" wrote in message ... Loogypicker wrote: On Dec 20, 8:49 am, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: Often I'm accused of "avoiding" truth when it comes to AGW. *I'm the "creationist" in a sense that I don't understand the highly complex nature of climate anatomy. *I'm picking on "details". I'm a corporate schill. I don't understand "peer review" (even though I have "peer reviewed" over 600 math texts, dissertations and master's thesis in my life). Yada, yada, yada. Ok - without getting into the politics, I want Loogy and the other AGW types to defend this. http://www.financialpost.com/opinion...tml?id=62e1c98... Remember - this is your side - this is how you are presenting your information. This describes what happens when one of the most widely used sources of information is controlled and massaged and only one side of the "science" is presented. Go ahead - defend this. I'll wait. Okay. Just because SOME (a very small percentage) tried to cook some books does in no way shape nor form prove whether or not global warming is or isn't occuring. Agreed. *But then I too agree with your hidden point, they don't know for sure. *It is safe to say it is getting warmer or colder. *But it scares the hell out of me with so little real evidence either way that they are ready to go off and mess with the weather, setup CO2 recovery plants and the like. Sounds like a pied piper mentality of the herd of idiots who need to believe in something that is actually a good thing. Because if it is warming, means mankind will be spared the hardship of -35C in Florida. Sounds like you know nothing about the science of global climate change. Well, I don't need 3 PhDs in but kissing to figure out if it isn't getting warmer, it must be getting cooler. *Or visa versa depending on what you subscribe to. *The probability of temperature staying constant in any point on the planet in a given year is highly improbable. But then good science isn't FUD based and does not generate $$$. *All you have to do to see it is fraud is to see who benefits. *In CO2s case, governments raising taxes. Remember it wasn't that long ago, maybe 15 years ago they said it was cooling. *Good science hasn't changed that much in just 15 years on this planet anyways. I question if it is warming, my eyes tell me in the last 5 years it hasn't. *Have utility bills to show it and I notice it. *Second, if it is warming, is it really something to be concerned about? *I would be more worried about global cooling, as nothing animal like lives on glaciers. Oh, they might traverse one, but live on a glacier the size of North America presents a logitstical problem. It is all about selling taxes to tax-slaves. *All motives point to greed, junk science, fraud and government taxation. Go ahead, take cheap shots with BS, if it makes you feal good. *After all, what you believe in is now in question as just another FAD of FUD to manage the herds for money. How about in "and" kissing? How about just one PhD? How about 1/2 brain? I think you should immediately stop paying taxes. -- Nom=de=Plume Nom needs to familiarize herself with warming theory that says that anthropogenic CO2 levels before the mid 20th century were insufficient to cause anything. There actually are records of CO2 levels in the 20th century so we do know it has increased in the 20th century and the warmites agree that levels before 1900 were too low to have any effect. |
Calling all Global Warmist "scientists...
On Dec 20, 11:32*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Canuck57" wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: "Canuck57" wrote in message ... Loogypicker wrote: On Dec 20, 8:49 am, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: Often I'm accused of "avoiding" truth when it comes to AGW. *I'm the "creationist" in a sense that I don't understand the highly complex nature of climate anatomy. *I'm picking on "details". I'm a corporate schill. I don't understand "peer review" (even though I have "peer reviewed" over 600 math texts, dissertations and master's thesis in my life). Yada, yada, yada. Ok - without getting into the politics, I want Loogy and the other AGW types to defend this. http://www.financialpost.com/opinion...tml?id=62e1c98... Remember - this is your side - this is how you are presenting your information. This describes what happens when one of the most widely used sources of information is controlled and massaged and only one side of the "science" is presented. Go ahead - defend this. I'll wait. Okay. Just because SOME (a very small percentage) tried to cook some books does in no way shape nor form prove whether or not global warming is or isn't occuring. Agreed. *But then I too agree with your hidden point, they don't know for sure. *It is safe to say it is getting warmer or colder. *But it scares the hell out of me with so little real evidence either way that they are ready to go off and mess with the weather, setup CO2 recovery plants and the like. Sounds like a pied piper mentality of the herd of idiots who need to believe in something that is actually a good thing. Because if it is warming, means mankind will be spared the hardship of -35C in Florida. Sounds like you know nothing about the science of global climate change. Well, I don't need 3 PhDs in but kissing to figure out if it isn't getting warmer, it must be getting cooler. *Or visa versa depending on what you subscribe to. *The probability of temperature staying constant in any point on the planet in a given year is highly improbable. But then good science isn't FUD based and does not generate $$$. *All you have to do to see it is fraud is to see who benefits. *In CO2s case, governments raising taxes. Remember it wasn't that long ago, maybe 15 years ago they said it was cooling. *Good science hasn't changed that much in just 15 years on this planet anyways. I question if it is warming, my eyes tell me in the last 5 years it hasn't. *Have utility bills to show it and I notice it. *Second, if it is warming, is it really something to be concerned about? *I would be more worried about global cooling, as nothing animal like lives on glaciers. Oh, they might traverse one, but live on a glacier the size of North America presents a logitstical problem. It is all about selling taxes to tax-slaves. *All motives point to greed, junk science, fraud and government taxation. Go ahead, take cheap shots with BS, if it makes you feal good. *After all, what you believe in is now in question as just another FAD of FUD to manage the herds for money. How about in "and" kissing? How about just one PhD? How about 1/2 brain? I think you should immediately stop paying taxes. -- Nom=de=Plume Considering that we now know that Wiki was heavily censored by warmites, references using Wiki should no longer be used to support any part of this argument. |
Calling all Global Warmist "scientists...
On Dec 20, 11:53*pm, Frogwatch wrote:
On Dec 20, 11:32*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "Canuck57" wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: "Canuck57" wrote in message ... Loogypicker wrote: On Dec 20, 8:49 am, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: Often I'm accused of "avoiding" truth when it comes to AGW. *I'm the "creationist" in a sense that I don't understand the highly complex nature of climate anatomy. *I'm picking on "details". I'm a corporate schill. I don't understand "peer review" (even though I have "peer reviewed" over 600 math texts, dissertations and master's thesis in my life). Yada, yada, yada. Ok - without getting into the politics, I want Loogy and the other AGW types to defend this. http://www.financialpost.com/opinion...tml?id=62e1c98... Remember - this is your side - this is how you are presenting your information. This describes what happens when one of the most widely used sources of information is controlled and massaged and only one side of the "science" is presented. Go ahead - defend this. I'll wait. Okay. Just because SOME (a very small percentage) tried to cook some books does in no way shape nor form prove whether or not global warming is or isn't occuring. Agreed. *But then I too agree with your hidden point, they don't know for sure. *It is safe to say it is getting warmer or colder. *But it scares the hell out of me with so little real evidence either way that they are ready to go off and mess with the weather, setup CO2 recovery plants and the like. Sounds like a pied piper mentality of the herd of idiots who need to believe in something that is actually a good thing. Because if it is warming, means mankind will be spared the hardship of -35C in Florida. Sounds like you know nothing about the science of global climate change. Well, I don't need 3 PhDs in but kissing to figure out if it isn't getting warmer, it must be getting cooler. *Or visa versa depending on what you subscribe to. *The probability of temperature staying constant in any point on the planet in a given year is highly improbable. But then good science isn't FUD based and does not generate $$$. *All you have to do to see it is fraud is to see who benefits. *In CO2s case, governments raising taxes. Remember it wasn't that long ago, maybe 15 years ago they said it was cooling. *Good science hasn't changed that much in just 15 years on this planet anyways. I question if it is warming, my eyes tell me in the last 5 years it hasn't. *Have utility bills to show it and I notice it. *Second, if it is warming, is it really something to be concerned about? *I would be more worried about global cooling, as nothing animal like lives on glaciers. Oh, they might traverse one, but live on a glacier the size of North America presents a logitstical problem. It is all about selling taxes to tax-slaves. *All motives point to greed, junk science, fraud and government taxation. Go ahead, take cheap shots with BS, if it makes you feal good. *After all, what you believe in is now in question as just another FAD of FUD to manage the herds for money. How about in "and" kissing? How about just one PhD? How about 1/2 brain? I think you should immediately stop paying taxes. -- Nom=de=Plume Considering that we now know that Wiki was heavily censored by warmites, references using Wiki should no longer be used to support any part of this argument. Oh, Nom, it is not H1N1 and monkees, it is HIV and monkees. H1N1 is associated with pigs. Do I really have to explain such basic stuff? |
Calling all Global Warmist "scientists...
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message m... "Harry" wrote in message m... On 12/20/09 4:15 PM, Frogwatch wrote: On Dec 20, 4:03 pm, "Bill wrote: wrote in message ... wrote in message ... Loogypicker wrote: On Dec 20, 8:49 am, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: Often I'm accused of "avoiding" truth when it comes to AGW. I'm the "creationist" in a sense that I don't understand the highly complex nature of climate anatomy. I'm picking on "details". I'm a corporate schill. I don't understand "peer review" (even though I have "peer reviewed" over 600 math texts, dissertations and master's thesis in my life). Yada, yada, yada. Ok - without getting into the politics, I want Loogy and the other AGW types to defend this. http://www.financialpost.com/opinion...tml?id=62e1c98... Remember - this is your side - this is how you are presenting your information. This describes what happens when one of the most widely used sources of information is controlled and massaged and only one side of the "science" is presented. Go ahead - defend this. I'll wait. Okay. Just because SOME (a very small percentage) tried to cook some books does in no way shape nor form prove whether or not global warming is or isn't occuring. And why we need 100% rational hard real scientists to look at the issue without the policitical money grabing schemes. Currently it is about money, money greed. Carbon tax, carbon credits and extortion. That isn't science, that is political greed and nanny state BS. Even if it is warming, is that so bad? Equatorial zones have evaporation to keep temperatures moderate, but the polar areas would get most of the warming. Is that so bad you can golf or go boating in norther US or Canada in January? Hell, that is green, as more green further north would not hurt mankind. Be it golf green or green in your pocket. My utility bill would even become more moderate and less carbon to heat my home at -35C. Eco nuts are "sky is falling" nut balls following the government love in for excuses for more taxes. Someone wise once said to me, always follow the money for your answers. Well the green thing is fostered by government greed for taxation, be it carbon taxes or carbon credits it is about taking our money for them to waste on GM/Bank/Government like ponzi schemes. In the mean time, more green lawns and forrests will absorb more carbon. Nature has a unique way of balancing the Earth and eco freeks just don't want to admit that hard fact of reality. Good grief... well, you've pretty much summed up the loonieness of the deniers. Good for you! -- Nom=de=Plume You just accentuated the loonieness of the gullible. I defy anybody to show me tide guage data showing seal level rise increase since 1900. I defy anybody to show me tree ring data showing warming since 1960. So, THERE IS NO evidence for AGW at all. If you believe there is, then show me the data. Put up or shut up. Here ya go, Mr. Science Junior: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Re...Level_Rise.png Go ahead...dispute that data, and in as complete a fashion. Put up or shut up. http://www.financialpost.com/opinion...d-5078af9cb409 Yeah, he's got an opinion. He's a right wing nutcase. He's outnumbered by the science. Good for you. Show us some science. Put up or shut up Bill. -- Nom=de=Plume You put up or shut up. Your play. |
Calling all Global Warmist "scientists...
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message m... "Geoduck" wrote in message m... On 12/20/09 4:30 PM, nom=de=plume wrote: "Bill wrote in message m... wrote in message ... wrote in message ... Loogypicker wrote: On Dec 20, 8:49 am, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: Often I'm accused of "avoiding" truth when it comes to AGW. I'm the "creationist" in a sense that I don't understand the highly complex nature of climate anatomy. I'm picking on "details". I'm a corporate schill. I don't understand "peer review" (even though I have "peer reviewed" over 600 math texts, dissertations and master's thesis in my life). Yada, yada, yada. Ok - without getting into the politics, I want Loogy and the other AGW types to defend this. http://www.financialpost.com/opinion...tml?id=62e1c98... Remember - this is your side - this is how you are presenting your information. This describes what happens when one of the most widely used sources of information is controlled and massaged and only one side of the "science" is presented. Go ahead - defend this. I'll wait. Okay. Just because SOME (a very small percentage) tried to cook some books does in no way shape nor form prove whether or not global warming is or isn't occuring. And why we need 100% rational hard real scientists to look at the issue without the policitical money grabing schemes. Currently it is about money, money greed. Carbon tax, carbon credits and extortion. That isn't science, that is political greed and nanny state BS. Even if it is warming, is that so bad? Equatorial zones have evaporation to keep temperatures moderate, but the polar areas would get most of the warming. Is that so bad you can golf or go boating in norther US or Canada in January? Hell, that is green, as more green further north would not hurt mankind. Be it golf green or green in your pocket. My utility bill would even become more moderate and less carbon to heat my home at -35C. Eco nuts are "sky is falling" nut balls following the government love in for excuses for more taxes. Someone wise once said to me, always follow the money for your answers. Well the green thing is fostered by government greed for taxation, be it carbon taxes or carbon credits it is about taking our money for them to waste on GM/Bank/Government like ponzi schemes. In the mean time, more green lawns and forrests will absorb more carbon. Nature has a unique way of balancing the Earth and eco freeks just don't want to admit that hard fact of reality. Good grief... well, you've pretty much summed up the loonieness of the deniers. Good for you! -- Nom=de=Plume You just accentuated the loonieness of the gullible. Yeah, I guess when someone talks science, it seems like magic to you... It's sorta interesting that we have several right-wingers in here who *claim* to be scientists, but apparently have no ability to apply the thought processes they learned in other fields to the ones usually discussed here. I wouldn't call McKee a scientist of any sort, though...his last work experience was rounding up illegals at shape-ups to work on home improvement projects. Actually the only times I have rounded up day laborers at the gathering spots, was because the request for workers to the EDD never supplied workers. And as a degreed engineer with patent and designing high tech and biomed stuff, I would qualify as a scientist a hell of a lot more than a person who sells used clothes and or is a clam. Whooo... try again to put me down if it makes you feel better. Why don't you tell us about your "patent" that's either pending or completed. -- Nom=de=Plume You are a claimed Patent attorney. Do a search. |
Calling all Global Warmist "scientists...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message m... "Harry" wrote in message m... On 12/20/09 4:15 PM, Frogwatch wrote: On Dec 20, 4:03 pm, "Bill wrote: wrote in message ... wrote in message ... Loogypicker wrote: On Dec 20, 8:49 am, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: Often I'm accused of "avoiding" truth when it comes to AGW. I'm the "creationist" in a sense that I don't understand the highly complex nature of climate anatomy. I'm picking on "details". I'm a corporate schill. I don't understand "peer review" (even though I have "peer reviewed" over 600 math texts, dissertations and master's thesis in my life). Yada, yada, yada. Ok - without getting into the politics, I want Loogy and the other AGW types to defend this. http://www.financialpost.com/opinion...tml?id=62e1c98... Remember - this is your side - this is how you are presenting your information. This describes what happens when one of the most widely used sources of information is controlled and massaged and only one side of the "science" is presented. Go ahead - defend this. I'll wait. Okay. Just because SOME (a very small percentage) tried to cook some books does in no way shape nor form prove whether or not global warming is or isn't occuring. And why we need 100% rational hard real scientists to look at the issue without the policitical money grabing schemes. Currently it is about money, money greed. Carbon tax, carbon credits and extortion. That isn't science, that is political greed and nanny state BS. Even if it is warming, is that so bad? Equatorial zones have evaporation to keep temperatures moderate, but the polar areas would get most of the warming. Is that so bad you can golf or go boating in norther US or Canada in January? Hell, that is green, as more green further north would not hurt mankind. Be it golf green or green in your pocket. My utility bill would even become more moderate and less carbon to heat my home at -35C. Eco nuts are "sky is falling" nut balls following the government love in for excuses for more taxes. Someone wise once said to me, always follow the money for your answers. Well the green thing is fostered by government greed for taxation, be it carbon taxes or carbon credits it is about taking our money for them to waste on GM/Bank/Government like ponzi schemes. In the mean time, more green lawns and forrests will absorb more carbon. Nature has a unique way of balancing the Earth and eco freeks just don't want to admit that hard fact of reality. Good grief... well, you've pretty much summed up the loonieness of the deniers. Good for you! -- Nom=de=Plume You just accentuated the loonieness of the gullible. I defy anybody to show me tide guage data showing seal level rise increase since 1900. I defy anybody to show me tree ring data showing warming since 1960. So, THERE IS NO evidence for AGW at all. If you believe there is, then show me the data. Put up or shut up. Here ya go, Mr. Science Junior: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Re...Level_Rise.png Go ahead...dispute that data, and in as complete a fashion. Put up or shut up. http://www.financialpost.com/opinion...d-5078af9cb409 Yeah, he's got an opinion. He's a right wing nutcase. He's outnumbered by the science. Good for you. Show us some science. Put up or shut up Bill. -- Nom=de=Plume You put up or shut up. Your play. Sorry Bill. I know you're somewhat slow. I think I made my point and already "put up." -- Nom=de=Plume |
Calling all Global Warmist "scientists...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message m... "Geoduck" wrote in message m... On 12/20/09 4:30 PM, nom=de=plume wrote: "Bill wrote in message m... wrote in message ... wrote in message ... Loogypicker wrote: On Dec 20, 8:49 am, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: Often I'm accused of "avoiding" truth when it comes to AGW. I'm the "creationist" in a sense that I don't understand the highly complex nature of climate anatomy. I'm picking on "details". I'm a corporate schill. I don't understand "peer review" (even though I have "peer reviewed" over 600 math texts, dissertations and master's thesis in my life). Yada, yada, yada. Ok - without getting into the politics, I want Loogy and the other AGW types to defend this. http://www.financialpost.com/opinion...tml?id=62e1c98... Remember - this is your side - this is how you are presenting your information. This describes what happens when one of the most widely used sources of information is controlled and massaged and only one side of the "science" is presented. Go ahead - defend this. I'll wait. Okay. Just because SOME (a very small percentage) tried to cook some books does in no way shape nor form prove whether or not global warming is or isn't occuring. And why we need 100% rational hard real scientists to look at the issue without the policitical money grabing schemes. Currently it is about money, money greed. Carbon tax, carbon credits and extortion. That isn't science, that is political greed and nanny state BS. Even if it is warming, is that so bad? Equatorial zones have evaporation to keep temperatures moderate, but the polar areas would get most of the warming. Is that so bad you can golf or go boating in norther US or Canada in January? Hell, that is green, as more green further north would not hurt mankind. Be it golf green or green in your pocket. My utility bill would even become more moderate and less carbon to heat my home at -35C. Eco nuts are "sky is falling" nut balls following the government love in for excuses for more taxes. Someone wise once said to me, always follow the money for your answers. Well the green thing is fostered by government greed for taxation, be it carbon taxes or carbon credits it is about taking our money for them to waste on GM/Bank/Government like ponzi schemes. In the mean time, more green lawns and forrests will absorb more carbon. Nature has a unique way of balancing the Earth and eco freeks just don't want to admit that hard fact of reality. Good grief... well, you've pretty much summed up the loonieness of the deniers. Good for you! -- Nom=de=Plume You just accentuated the loonieness of the gullible. Yeah, I guess when someone talks science, it seems like magic to you... It's sorta interesting that we have several right-wingers in here who *claim* to be scientists, but apparently have no ability to apply the thought processes they learned in other fields to the ones usually discussed here. I wouldn't call McKee a scientist of any sort, though...his last work experience was rounding up illegals at shape-ups to work on home improvement projects. Actually the only times I have rounded up day laborers at the gathering spots, was because the request for workers to the EDD never supplied workers. And as a degreed engineer with patent and designing high tech and biomed stuff, I would qualify as a scientist a hell of a lot more than a person who sells used clothes and or is a clam. Whooo... try again to put me down if it makes you feel better. Why don't you tell us about your "patent" that's either pending or completed. -- Nom=de=Plume You are a claimed Patent attorney. Do a search. Why would I care? I don't need to know what you claim to have done. Is Bill M. even your real name? FYI, you don't have to claim to be less than bright. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Calling all Global Warmist "scientists...
"Frogwatch" wrote in message
... On Dec 20, 11:32 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "Canuck57" wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: "Canuck57" wrote in message ... Loogypicker wrote: On Dec 20, 8:49 am, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: Often I'm accused of "avoiding" truth when it comes to AGW. I'm the "creationist" in a sense that I don't understand the highly complex nature of climate anatomy. I'm picking on "details". I'm a corporate schill. I don't understand "peer review" (even though I have "peer reviewed" over 600 math texts, dissertations and master's thesis in my life). Yada, yada, yada. Ok - without getting into the politics, I want Loogy and the other AGW types to defend this. http://www.financialpost.com/opinion...tml?id=62e1c98... Remember - this is your side - this is how you are presenting your information. This describes what happens when one of the most widely used sources of information is controlled and massaged and only one side of the "science" is presented. Go ahead - defend this. I'll wait. Okay. Just because SOME (a very small percentage) tried to cook some books does in no way shape nor form prove whether or not global warming is or isn't occuring. Agreed. But then I too agree with your hidden point, they don't know for sure. It is safe to say it is getting warmer or colder. But it scares the hell out of me with so little real evidence either way that they are ready to go off and mess with the weather, setup CO2 recovery plants and the like. Sounds like a pied piper mentality of the herd of idiots who need to believe in something that is actually a good thing. Because if it is warming, means mankind will be spared the hardship of -35C in Florida. Sounds like you know nothing about the science of global climate change. Well, I don't need 3 PhDs in but kissing to figure out if it isn't getting warmer, it must be getting cooler. Or visa versa depending on what you subscribe to. The probability of temperature staying constant in any point on the planet in a given year is highly improbable. But then good science isn't FUD based and does not generate $$$. All you have to do to see it is fraud is to see who benefits. In CO2s case, governments raising taxes. Remember it wasn't that long ago, maybe 15 years ago they said it was cooling. Good science hasn't changed that much in just 15 years on this planet anyways. I question if it is warming, my eyes tell me in the last 5 years it hasn't. Have utility bills to show it and I notice it. Second, if it is warming, is it really something to be concerned about? I would be more worried about global cooling, as nothing animal like lives on glaciers. Oh, they might traverse one, but live on a glacier the size of North America presents a logitstical problem. It is all about selling taxes to tax-slaves. All motives point to greed, junk science, fraud and government taxation. Go ahead, take cheap shots with BS, if it makes you feal good. After all, what you believe in is now in question as just another FAD of FUD to manage the herds for money. How about in "and" kissing? How about just one PhD? How about 1/2 brain? I think you should immediately stop paying taxes. -- Nom=de=Plume For some indication of how they have tortured the data to make it conform to warming theory, look at this blog about temps at Darwin in Oz: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/2...er/#more-14358 A blog?? A blog???? -- Nom=de=Plume |
Calling all Global Warmist "scientists...
"Frogwatch" wrote in message
... On Dec 20, 11:32 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "Canuck57" wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: "Canuck57" wrote in message ... Loogypicker wrote: On Dec 20, 8:49 am, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: Often I'm accused of "avoiding" truth when it comes to AGW. I'm the "creationist" in a sense that I don't understand the highly complex nature of climate anatomy. I'm picking on "details". I'm a corporate schill. I don't understand "peer review" (even though I have "peer reviewed" over 600 math texts, dissertations and master's thesis in my life). Yada, yada, yada. Ok - without getting into the politics, I want Loogy and the other AGW types to defend this. http://www.financialpost.com/opinion...tml?id=62e1c98... Remember - this is your side - this is how you are presenting your information. This describes what happens when one of the most widely used sources of information is controlled and massaged and only one side of the "science" is presented. Go ahead - defend this. I'll wait. Okay. Just because SOME (a very small percentage) tried to cook some books does in no way shape nor form prove whether or not global warming is or isn't occuring. Agreed. But then I too agree with your hidden point, they don't know for sure. It is safe to say it is getting warmer or colder. But it scares the hell out of me with so little real evidence either way that they are ready to go off and mess with the weather, setup CO2 recovery plants and the like. Sounds like a pied piper mentality of the herd of idiots who need to believe in something that is actually a good thing. Because if it is warming, means mankind will be spared the hardship of -35C in Florida. Sounds like you know nothing about the science of global climate change. Well, I don't need 3 PhDs in but kissing to figure out if it isn't getting warmer, it must be getting cooler. Or visa versa depending on what you subscribe to. The probability of temperature staying constant in any point on the planet in a given year is highly improbable. But then good science isn't FUD based and does not generate $$$. All you have to do to see it is fraud is to see who benefits. In CO2s case, governments raising taxes. Remember it wasn't that long ago, maybe 15 years ago they said it was cooling. Good science hasn't changed that much in just 15 years on this planet anyways. I question if it is warming, my eyes tell me in the last 5 years it hasn't. Have utility bills to show it and I notice it. Second, if it is warming, is it really something to be concerned about? I would be more worried about global cooling, as nothing animal like lives on glaciers. Oh, they might traverse one, but live on a glacier the size of North America presents a logitstical problem. It is all about selling taxes to tax-slaves. All motives point to greed, junk science, fraud and government taxation. Go ahead, take cheap shots with BS, if it makes you feal good. After all, what you believe in is now in question as just another FAD of FUD to manage the herds for money. How about in "and" kissing? How about just one PhD? How about 1/2 brain? I think you should immediately stop paying taxes. -- Nom=de=Plume Nom needs to familiarize herself with warming theory that says that anthropogenic CO2 levels before the mid 20th century were insufficient to cause anything. There actually are records of CO2 levels in the 20th century so we do know it has increased in the 20th century and the warmites agree that levels before 1900 were too low to have any effect. Froggy needs to visit the planet Reality from time to time. -- Nom=de=Plume |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:31 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com