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?

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.

On Dec 20, 8:59*am, 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.

So, they cherry picked tide data to show sea level rise they attribute
to global warming when the record from tide guages shows nothing.
They used tree ring data to show temps in the distant past but decided
that when thye do not show rise since 1960 they ignore the data, they
conspire to prevent any anti-agw publications, they conspire to remove
all anti-agw views from wiki. Their motive, money. East Anglia got
$24 million for their "climate research" and researchers in the USA
got huge sums too. This is not science, it is pure fraud.

On 12/20/09 10:58 AM, Frogwatch wrote:
On Dec 20, 8:59 am, 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.

So, they cherry picked tide data to show sea level rise they attribute
to global warming when the record from tide guages shows nothing.
They used tree ring data to show temps in the distant past but decided
that when thye do not show rise since 1960 they ignore the data, they
conspire to prevent any anti-agw publications, they conspire to remove
all anti-agw views from wiki. Their motive, money. East Anglia got
$24 million for their "climate research" and researchers in the USA
got huge sums too. This is not science, it is pure fraud.


You, tom and the other flatlanders are just soooooo convincing.
Especially you.

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.

"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

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.

"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.


--
Nom=de=Plume

"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.

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.