Calling all Global Warmist "scientists...
 

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"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.



Yeah, I guess when someone talks science, it seems like magic to you...

--
Nom=de=Plume

Calling all Global Warmist "scientists...
 

"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/

--
Nom=de=Plume

Calling all Global Warmist "scientists...
 

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.

Calling all Global Warmist "scientists...
 

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.

Calling all Global Warmist "scientists...
 

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.

Calling all Global Warmist "scientists...
 

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.

Calling all Global Warmist "scientists...
 

On 12/20/09 5:01 PM, Frogwatch wrote:
On Dec 20, 4:50 pm, 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.


The reality is, it wouldn't matter what data was offered up...you
righties would work assiduously to try to deny it. The first graph shows
a measurable rise in sea levels, compiled by those with credentials,
which you do not have. The land-based and satellite based findings
coincide closely.

Both lines in the chart are rising towards the right. Obviously, there
isn't a lot of data for the sat lines on the chart.

The narrative with the graph indicates some of the shortcomings of the
data collection and findings, and the data surely show what you are
denying.

What's your problem with cutting back on manmade causes of carbon
dioxide and other pollutants? Do you have financial interests in oil or
the burning of Amazonian forests? Might you someday have to buy a
vehicle with much higher fuel mileage or even one that uses alternative
fuels?

Or is all this just the usual right-wing "step on the neck of progress"
bull****?

Calling all Global Warmist "scientists...
 

On 12/20/09 5:05 PM, Frogwatch wrote:
On Dec 20, 4:50 pm, 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.

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.


Uh-huh. The reality: you and your boys will attack the data no matter what.

Calling all Global Warmist "scientists...
 

"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

Calling all Global Warmist "scientists...
 

"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.