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