|
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 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:23 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com