Calling all Global Warmist "scientists...
 

On Dec 20, 11:32*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Canuck57" wrote in message

...



nom=de=plume wrote:
"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
Loogypicker wrote:
On Dec 20, 8:49 am, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:
Often I'm accused of "avoiding" truth when it comes to AGW. *I'm the
"creationist" in a sense that I don't understand the highly complex
nature of climate anatomy. *I'm picking on "details". I'm a corporate
schill. I don't understand "peer review" (even though I have "peer
reviewed" over 600 math texts, dissertations and master's thesis in my
life). Yada, yada, yada.

Ok - without getting into the politics, I want Loogy and the other AGW
types to defend this.

http://www.financialpost.com/opinion...tml?id=62e1c98...

Remember - this is your side - this is how you are presenting your
information. This describes what happens when one of the most widely
used sources of information is controlled and massaged and only one
side of the "science" is presented.

Go ahead - defend this.

I'll wait.
Okay. Just because SOME (a very small percentage) tried to cook some
books does in no way shape nor form prove whether or not global
warming is or isn't occuring.
Agreed. *But then I too agree with your hidden point, they don't know
for sure. *It is safe to say it is getting warmer or colder. *But it
scares the hell out of me with so little real evidence either way that
they are ready to go off and mess with the weather, setup CO2 recovery
plants and the like.

Sounds like a pied piper mentality of the herd of idiots who need to
believe in something that is actually a good thing.

Because if it is warming, means mankind will be spared the hardship
of -35C in Florida.

Sounds like you know nothing about the science of global climate change.

Well, I don't need 3 PhDs in but kissing to figure out if it isn't getting
warmer, it must be getting cooler. *Or visa versa depending on what you
subscribe to. *The probability of temperature staying constant in any
point on the planet in a given year is highly improbable.

But then good science isn't FUD based and does not generate $$$. *All you
have to do to see it is fraud is to see who benefits. *In CO2s case,
governments raising taxes.

Remember it wasn't that long ago, maybe 15 years ago they said it was
cooling. *Good science hasn't changed that much in just 15 years on this
planet anyways.

I question if it is warming, my eyes tell me in the last 5 years it
hasn't. *Have utility bills to show it and I notice it. *Second, if it is
warming, is it really something to be concerned about? *I would be more
worried about global cooling, as nothing animal like lives on glaciers.
Oh, they might traverse one, but live on a glacier the size of North
America presents a logitstical problem.

It is all about selling taxes to tax-slaves. *All motives point to greed,
junk science, fraud and government taxation.

Go ahead, take cheap shots with BS, if it makes you feal good. *After all,
what you believe in is now in question as just another FAD of FUD to
manage the herds for money.

How about in "and" kissing? How about just one PhD? How about 1/2 brain?

I think you should immediately stop paying taxes.

--
Nom=de=Plume

For some indication of how they have tortured the data to make it
conform to warming theory, look at this blog about temps at Darwin in
Oz:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/2...er/#more-14358

Calling all Global Warmist "scientists...
 

On Dec 20, 11:32*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Canuck57" wrote in message

...



nom=de=plume wrote:
"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
Loogypicker wrote:
On Dec 20, 8:49 am, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:
Often I'm accused of "avoiding" truth when it comes to AGW. *I'm the
"creationist" in a sense that I don't understand the highly complex
nature of climate anatomy. *I'm picking on "details". I'm a corporate
schill. I don't understand "peer review" (even though I have "peer
reviewed" over 600 math texts, dissertations and master's thesis in my
life). Yada, yada, yada.

Ok - without getting into the politics, I want Loogy and the other AGW
types to defend this.

http://www.financialpost.com/opinion...tml?id=62e1c98...

Remember - this is your side - this is how you are presenting your
information. This describes what happens when one of the most widely
used sources of information is controlled and massaged and only one
side of the "science" is presented.

Go ahead - defend this.

I'll wait.
Okay. Just because SOME (a very small percentage) tried to cook some
books does in no way shape nor form prove whether or not global
warming is or isn't occuring.
Agreed. *But then I too agree with your hidden point, they don't know
for sure. *It is safe to say it is getting warmer or colder. *But it
scares the hell out of me with so little real evidence either way that
they are ready to go off and mess with the weather, setup CO2 recovery
plants and the like.

Sounds like a pied piper mentality of the herd of idiots who need to
believe in something that is actually a good thing.

Because if it is warming, means mankind will be spared the hardship
of -35C in Florida.

Sounds like you know nothing about the science of global climate change.

Well, I don't need 3 PhDs in but kissing to figure out if it isn't getting
warmer, it must be getting cooler. *Or visa versa depending on what you
subscribe to. *The probability of temperature staying constant in any
point on the planet in a given year is highly improbable.

But then good science isn't FUD based and does not generate $$$. *All you
have to do to see it is fraud is to see who benefits. *In CO2s case,
governments raising taxes.

Remember it wasn't that long ago, maybe 15 years ago they said it was
cooling. *Good science hasn't changed that much in just 15 years on this
planet anyways.

I question if it is warming, my eyes tell me in the last 5 years it
hasn't. *Have utility bills to show it and I notice it. *Second, if it is
warming, is it really something to be concerned about? *I would be more
worried about global cooling, as nothing animal like lives on glaciers.
Oh, they might traverse one, but live on a glacier the size of North
America presents a logitstical problem.

It is all about selling taxes to tax-slaves. *All motives point to greed,
junk science, fraud and government taxation.

Go ahead, take cheap shots with BS, if it makes you feal good. *After all,
what you believe in is now in question as just another FAD of FUD to
manage the herds for money.

How about in "and" kissing? How about just one PhD? How about 1/2 brain?

I think you should immediately stop paying taxes.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Nom needs to familiarize herself with warming theory that says that
anthropogenic CO2 levels before the mid 20th century were insufficient
to cause anything. There actually are records of CO2 levels in the
20th century so we do know it has increased in the 20th century and
the warmites agree that levels before 1900 were too low to have any
effect.

Calling all Global Warmist "scientists...
 

On Dec 20, 11:32*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Canuck57" wrote in message

...



nom=de=plume wrote:
"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
Loogypicker wrote:
On Dec 20, 8:49 am, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:
Often I'm accused of "avoiding" truth when it comes to AGW. *I'm the
"creationist" in a sense that I don't understand the highly complex
nature of climate anatomy. *I'm picking on "details". I'm a corporate
schill. I don't understand "peer review" (even though I have "peer
reviewed" over 600 math texts, dissertations and master's thesis in my
life). Yada, yada, yada.

Ok - without getting into the politics, I want Loogy and the other AGW
types to defend this.

http://www.financialpost.com/opinion...tml?id=62e1c98...

Remember - this is your side - this is how you are presenting your
information. This describes what happens when one of the most widely
used sources of information is controlled and massaged and only one
side of the "science" is presented.

Go ahead - defend this.

I'll wait.
Okay. Just because SOME (a very small percentage) tried to cook some
books does in no way shape nor form prove whether or not global
warming is or isn't occuring.
Agreed. *But then I too agree with your hidden point, they don't know
for sure. *It is safe to say it is getting warmer or colder. *But it
scares the hell out of me with so little real evidence either way that
they are ready to go off and mess with the weather, setup CO2 recovery
plants and the like.

Sounds like a pied piper mentality of the herd of idiots who need to
believe in something that is actually a good thing.

Because if it is warming, means mankind will be spared the hardship
of -35C in Florida.

Sounds like you know nothing about the science of global climate change.

Well, I don't need 3 PhDs in but kissing to figure out if it isn't getting
warmer, it must be getting cooler. *Or visa versa depending on what you
subscribe to. *The probability of temperature staying constant in any
point on the planet in a given year is highly improbable.

But then good science isn't FUD based and does not generate $$$. *All you
have to do to see it is fraud is to see who benefits. *In CO2s case,
governments raising taxes.

Remember it wasn't that long ago, maybe 15 years ago they said it was
cooling. *Good science hasn't changed that much in just 15 years on this
planet anyways.

I question if it is warming, my eyes tell me in the last 5 years it
hasn't. *Have utility bills to show it and I notice it. *Second, if it is
warming, is it really something to be concerned about? *I would be more
worried about global cooling, as nothing animal like lives on glaciers.
Oh, they might traverse one, but live on a glacier the size of North
America presents a logitstical problem.

It is all about selling taxes to tax-slaves. *All motives point to greed,
junk science, fraud and government taxation.

Go ahead, take cheap shots with BS, if it makes you feal good. *After all,
what you believe in is now in question as just another FAD of FUD to
manage the herds for money.

How about in "and" kissing? How about just one PhD? How about 1/2 brain?

I think you should immediately stop paying taxes.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Considering that we now know that Wiki was heavily censored by
warmites, references using Wiki should no longer be used to support
any part of this argument.

Calling all Global Warmist "scientists...
 

On Dec 20, 11:53*pm, Frogwatch wrote:
On Dec 20, 11:32*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:



"Canuck57" wrote in message

...

nom=de=plume wrote:
"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
Loogypicker wrote:
On Dec 20, 8:49 am, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:
Often I'm accused of "avoiding" truth when it comes to AGW. *I'm the
"creationist" in a sense that I don't understand the highly complex
nature of climate anatomy. *I'm picking on "details". I'm a corporate
schill. I don't understand "peer review" (even though I have "peer
reviewed" over 600 math texts, dissertations and master's thesis in my
life). Yada, yada, yada.

Ok - without getting into the politics, I want Loogy and the other AGW
types to defend this.

http://www.financialpost.com/opinion...tml?id=62e1c98...

Remember - this is your side - this is how you are presenting your
information. This describes what happens when one of the most widely
used sources of information is controlled and massaged and only one
side of the "science" is presented.

Go ahead - defend this.

I'll wait.
Okay. Just because SOME (a very small percentage) tried to cook some
books does in no way shape nor form prove whether or not global
warming is or isn't occuring.
Agreed. *But then I too agree with your hidden point, they don't know
for sure. *It is safe to say it is getting warmer or colder. *But it
scares the hell out of me with so little real evidence either way that
they are ready to go off and mess with the weather, setup CO2 recovery
plants and the like.

Sounds like a pied piper mentality of the herd of idiots who need to
believe in something that is actually a good thing.

Because if it is warming, means mankind will be spared the hardship
of -35C in Florida.

Sounds like you know nothing about the science of global climate change.

Well, I don't need 3 PhDs in but kissing to figure out if it isn't getting
warmer, it must be getting cooler. *Or visa versa depending on what you
subscribe to. *The probability of temperature staying constant in any
point on the planet in a given year is highly improbable.

But then good science isn't FUD based and does not generate $$$. *All you
have to do to see it is fraud is to see who benefits. *In CO2s case,
governments raising taxes.

Remember it wasn't that long ago, maybe 15 years ago they said it was
cooling. *Good science hasn't changed that much in just 15 years on this
planet anyways.

I question if it is warming, my eyes tell me in the last 5 years it
hasn't. *Have utility bills to show it and I notice it. *Second, if it is
warming, is it really something to be concerned about? *I would be more
worried about global cooling, as nothing animal like lives on glaciers.
Oh, they might traverse one, but live on a glacier the size of North
America presents a logitstical problem.

It is all about selling taxes to tax-slaves. *All motives point to greed,
junk science, fraud and government taxation.

Go ahead, take cheap shots with BS, if it makes you feal good. *After all,
what you believe in is now in question as just another FAD of FUD to
manage the herds for money.

How about in "and" kissing? How about just one PhD? How about 1/2 brain?

I think you should immediately stop paying taxes.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Considering that we now know that Wiki was heavily censored by
warmites, references using Wiki should no longer be used to support
any part of this argument.

Oh, Nom, it is not H1N1 and monkees, it is HIV and monkees. H1N1 is
associated with pigs. Do I really have to explain such basic stuff?

Calling all Global Warmist "scientists...
 

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"Harry" wrote in message
m...
On 12/20/09 4:15 PM, Frogwatch wrote:
On Dec 20, 4:03 pm, "Bill wrote:
wrote in message

...



wrote in message
...
Loogypicker wrote:
On Dec 20, 8:49 am, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:
Often I'm accused of "avoiding" truth when it comes to AGW. I'm
the
"creationist" in a sense that I don't understand the highly
complex
nature of climate anatomy. I'm picking on "details". I'm a
corporate
schill. I don't understand "peer review" (even though I have "peer
reviewed" over 600 math texts, dissertations and master's thesis
in my
life). Yada, yada, yada.

Ok - without getting into the politics, I want Loogy and the other
AGW
types to defend this.

http://www.financialpost.com/opinion...tml?id=62e1c98...

Remember - this is your side - this is how you are presenting your
information. This describes what happens when one of the most
widely
used sources of information is controlled and massaged and only
one
side of the "science" is presented.

Go ahead - defend this.

I'll wait.

Okay. Just because SOME (a very small percentage) tried to cook
some
books does in no way shape nor form prove whether or not global
warming is or isn't occuring.

And why we need 100% rational hard real scientists to look at the
issue
without the policitical money grabing schemes. Currently it is
about
money, money greed. Carbon tax, carbon credits and extortion. That
isn't science, that is political greed and nanny state BS.

Even if it is warming, is that so bad? Equatorial zones have
evaporation
to keep temperatures moderate, but the polar areas would get most of
the
warming. Is that so bad you can golf or go boating in norther US or
Canada in January?

Hell, that is green, as more green further north would not hurt
mankind.
Be it golf green or green in your pocket. My utility bill would
even
become more moderate and less carbon to heat my home at -35C.

Eco nuts are "sky is falling" nut balls following the government
love in
for excuses for more taxes. Someone wise once said to me, always
follow
the money for your answers. Well the green thing is fostered by
government greed for taxation, be it carbon taxes or carbon credits
it is
about taking our money for them to waste on GM/Bank/Government like
ponzi
schemes. In the mean time, more green lawns and forrests will
absorb
more carbon. Nature has a unique way of balancing the Earth and eco
freeks just don't want to admit that hard fact of reality.

Good grief... well, you've pretty much summed up the loonieness of
the
deniers. Good for you!

--
Nom=de=Plume

You just accentuated the loonieness of the gullible.

I defy anybody to show me tide guage data showing seal level rise
increase since 1900.
I defy anybody to show me tree ring data showing warming since 1960.
So, THERE IS NO evidence for AGW at all. If you believe there is,
then show me the data. Put up or shut up.




Here ya go, Mr. Science Junior:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Re...Level_Rise.png

Go ahead...dispute that data, and in as complete a fashion.

Put up or shut up.



http://www.financialpost.com/opinion...d-5078af9cb409



Yeah, he's got an opinion. He's a right wing nutcase. He's outnumbered by
the science. Good for you. Show us some science. Put up or shut up Bill.


--
Nom=de=Plume


You put up or shut up. Your play.

Calling all Global Warmist "scientists...
 

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"Geoduck" wrote in message
m...
On 12/20/09 4:30 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
"Bill wrote in message
m...

wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
Loogypicker wrote:
On Dec 20, 8:49 am, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:
Often I'm accused of "avoiding" truth when it comes to AGW. I'm
the
"creationist" in a sense that I don't understand the highly
complex
nature of climate anatomy. I'm picking on "details". I'm a
corporate
schill. I don't understand "peer review" (even though I have "peer
reviewed" over 600 math texts, dissertations and master's thesis
in my
life). Yada, yada, yada.

Ok - without getting into the politics, I want Loogy and the other
AGW
types to defend this.

http://www.financialpost.com/opinion...tml?id=62e1c98...

Remember - this is your side - this is how you are presenting your
information. This describes what happens when one of the most
widely
used sources of information is controlled and massaged and only
one
side of the "science" is presented.

Go ahead - defend this.

I'll wait.

Okay. Just because SOME (a very small percentage) tried to cook
some
books does in no way shape nor form prove whether or not global
warming is or isn't occuring.

And why we need 100% rational hard real scientists to look at the
issue
without the policitical money grabing schemes. Currently it is
about
money, money greed. Carbon tax, carbon credits and extortion. That
isn't science, that is political greed and nanny state BS.

Even if it is warming, is that so bad? Equatorial zones have
evaporation to keep temperatures moderate, but the polar areas would
get
most of the warming. Is that so bad you can golf or go boating in
norther US or Canada in January?

Hell, that is green, as more green further north would not hurt
mankind.
Be it golf green or green in your pocket. My utility bill would
even
become more moderate and less carbon to heat my home at -35C.

Eco nuts are "sky is falling" nut balls following the government
love in
for excuses for more taxes. Someone wise once said to me, always
follow
the money for your answers. Well the green thing is fostered by
government greed for taxation, be it carbon taxes or carbon credits
it
is about taking our money for them to waste on GM/Bank/Government
like
ponzi schemes. In the mean time, more green lawns and forrests will
absorb more carbon. Nature has a unique way of balancing the Earth
and
eco freeks just don't want to admit that hard fact of reality.


Good grief... well, you've pretty much summed up the loonieness of
the
deniers. Good for you!


--
Nom=de=Plume


You just accentuated the loonieness of the gullible.



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



It's sorta interesting that we have several right-wingers in here who
*claim* to be scientists, but apparently have no ability to apply the
thought processes they learned in other fields to the ones usually
discussed here. I wouldn't call McKee a scientist of any sort,
though...his last work experience was rounding up illegals at shape-ups
to work on home improvement projects.

Actually the only times I have rounded up day laborers at the gathering
spots, was because the request for workers to the EDD never supplied
workers. And as a degreed engineer with patent and designing high tech
and biomed stuff, I would qualify as a scientist a hell of a lot more
than a person who sells used clothes and or is a clam.


Whooo... try again to put me down if it makes you feel better. Why don't
you tell us about your "patent" that's either pending or completed.

--
Nom=de=Plume


You are a claimed Patent attorney. Do a search.

Calling all Global Warmist "scientists...
 

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"Harry" wrote in message
m...
On 12/20/09 4:15 PM, Frogwatch wrote:
On Dec 20, 4:03 pm, "Bill wrote:
wrote in message

...



wrote in message
...
Loogypicker wrote:
On Dec 20, 8:49 am, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:
Often I'm accused of "avoiding" truth when it comes to AGW. I'm
the
"creationist" in a sense that I don't understand the highly
complex
nature of climate anatomy. I'm picking on "details". I'm a
corporate
schill. I don't understand "peer review" (even though I have
"peer
reviewed" over 600 math texts, dissertations and master's thesis
in my
life). Yada, yada, yada.

Ok - without getting into the politics, I want Loogy and the
other AGW
types to defend this.

http://www.financialpost.com/opinion...tml?id=62e1c98...

Remember - this is your side - this is how you are presenting
your
information. This describes what happens when one of the most
widely
used sources of information is controlled and massaged and only
one
side of the "science" is presented.

Go ahead - defend this.

I'll wait.

Okay. Just because SOME (a very small percentage) tried to cook
some
books does in no way shape nor form prove whether or not global
warming is or isn't occuring.

And why we need 100% rational hard real scientists to look at the
issue
without the policitical money grabing schemes. Currently it is
about
money, money greed. Carbon tax, carbon credits and extortion.
That
isn't science, that is political greed and nanny state BS.

Even if it is warming, is that so bad? Equatorial zones have
evaporation
to keep temperatures moderate, but the polar areas would get most
of the
warming. Is that so bad you can golf or go boating in norther US
or
Canada in January?

Hell, that is green, as more green further north would not hurt
mankind.
Be it golf green or green in your pocket. My utility bill would
even
become more moderate and less carbon to heat my home at -35C.

Eco nuts are "sky is falling" nut balls following the government
love in
for excuses for more taxes. Someone wise once said to me, always
follow
the money for your answers. Well the green thing is fostered by
government greed for taxation, be it carbon taxes or carbon credits
it is
about taking our money for them to waste on GM/Bank/Government like
ponzi
schemes. In the mean time, more green lawns and forrests will
absorb
more carbon. Nature has a unique way of balancing the Earth and
eco
freeks just don't want to admit that hard fact of reality.

Good grief... well, you've pretty much summed up the loonieness of
the
deniers. Good for you!

--
Nom=de=Plume

You just accentuated the loonieness of the gullible.

I defy anybody to show me tide guage data showing seal level rise
increase since 1900.
I defy anybody to show me tree ring data showing warming since 1960.
So, THERE IS NO evidence for AGW at all. If you believe there is,
then show me the data. Put up or shut up.




Here ya go, Mr. Science Junior:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Re...Level_Rise.png

Go ahead...dispute that data, and in as complete a fashion.

Put up or shut up.



http://www.financialpost.com/opinion...d-5078af9cb409



Yeah, he's got an opinion. He's a right wing nutcase. He's outnumbered by
the science. Good for you. Show us some science. Put up or shut up Bill.


--
Nom=de=Plume


You put up or shut up. Your play.

Sorry Bill. I know you're somewhat slow. I think I made my point and already
"put up."

--
Nom=de=Plume

Calling all Global Warmist "scientists...
 

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"Geoduck" wrote in message
m...
On 12/20/09 4:30 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
"Bill wrote in message
m...

wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
Loogypicker wrote:
On Dec 20, 8:49 am, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:
Often I'm accused of "avoiding" truth when it comes to AGW. I'm
the
"creationist" in a sense that I don't understand the highly
complex
nature of climate anatomy. I'm picking on "details". I'm a
corporate
schill. I don't understand "peer review" (even though I have
"peer
reviewed" over 600 math texts, dissertations and master's thesis
in my
life). Yada, yada, yada.

Ok - without getting into the politics, I want Loogy and the
other AGW
types to defend this.

http://www.financialpost.com/opinion...tml?id=62e1c98...

Remember - this is your side - this is how you are presenting
your
information. This describes what happens when one of the most
widely
used sources of information is controlled and massaged and only
one
side of the "science" is presented.

Go ahead - defend this.

I'll wait.

Okay. Just because SOME (a very small percentage) tried to cook
some
books does in no way shape nor form prove whether or not global
warming is or isn't occuring.

And why we need 100% rational hard real scientists to look at the
issue
without the policitical money grabing schemes. Currently it is
about
money, money greed. Carbon tax, carbon credits and extortion.
That
isn't science, that is political greed and nanny state BS.

Even if it is warming, is that so bad? Equatorial zones have
evaporation to keep temperatures moderate, but the polar areas
would get
most of the warming. Is that so bad you can golf or go boating in
norther US or Canada in January?

Hell, that is green, as more green further north would not hurt
mankind.
Be it golf green or green in your pocket. My utility bill would
even
become more moderate and less carbon to heat my home at -35C.

Eco nuts are "sky is falling" nut balls following the government
love in
for excuses for more taxes. Someone wise once said to me, always
follow
the money for your answers. Well the green thing is fostered by
government greed for taxation, be it carbon taxes or carbon credits
it
is about taking our money for them to waste on GM/Bank/Government
like
ponzi schemes. In the mean time, more green lawns and forrests
will
absorb more carbon. Nature has a unique way of balancing the Earth
and
eco freeks just don't want to admit that hard fact of reality.


Good grief... well, you've pretty much summed up the loonieness of
the
deniers. Good for you!


--
Nom=de=Plume


You just accentuated the loonieness of the gullible.



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



It's sorta interesting that we have several right-wingers in here who
*claim* to be scientists, but apparently have no ability to apply the
thought processes they learned in other fields to the ones usually
discussed here. I wouldn't call McKee a scientist of any sort,
though...his last work experience was rounding up illegals at shape-ups
to work on home improvement projects.

Actually the only times I have rounded up day laborers at the gathering
spots, was because the request for workers to the EDD never supplied
workers. And as a degreed engineer with patent and designing high tech
and biomed stuff, I would qualify as a scientist a hell of a lot more
than a person who sells used clothes and or is a clam.


Whooo... try again to put me down if it makes you feel better. Why don't
you tell us about your "patent" that's either pending or completed.

--
Nom=de=Plume


You are a claimed Patent attorney. Do a search.

Why would I care? I don't need to know what you claim to have done. Is Bill
M. even your real name?

FYI, you don't have to claim to be less than bright.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Calling all Global Warmist "scientists...
 

"Frogwatch" wrote in message
...
On Dec 20, 11:32 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Canuck57" wrote in message

...



nom=de=plume wrote:
"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
Loogypicker wrote:
On Dec 20, 8:49 am, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:
Often I'm accused of "avoiding" truth when it comes to AGW. I'm the
"creationist" in a sense that I don't understand the highly complex
nature of climate anatomy. I'm picking on "details". I'm a corporate
schill. I don't understand "peer review" (even though I have "peer
reviewed" over 600 math texts, dissertations and master's thesis in
my
life). Yada, yada, yada.

Ok - without getting into the politics, I want Loogy and the other
AGW
types to defend this.

http://www.financialpost.com/opinion...tml?id=62e1c98...

Remember - this is your side - this is how you are presenting your
information. This describes what happens when one of the most widely
used sources of information is controlled and massaged and only one
side of the "science" is presented.

Go ahead - defend this.

I'll wait.
Okay. Just because SOME (a very small percentage) tried to cook some
books does in no way shape nor form prove whether or not global
warming is or isn't occuring.
Agreed. But then I too agree with your hidden point, they don't know
for sure. It is safe to say it is getting warmer or colder. But it
scares the hell out of me with so little real evidence either way that
they are ready to go off and mess with the weather, setup CO2 recovery
plants and the like.

Sounds like a pied piper mentality of the herd of idiots who need to
believe in something that is actually a good thing.

Because if it is warming, means mankind will be spared the hardship
of -35C in Florida.

Sounds like you know nothing about the science of global climate
change.

Well, I don't need 3 PhDs in but kissing to figure out if it isn't
getting
warmer, it must be getting cooler. Or visa versa depending on what you
subscribe to. The probability of temperature staying constant in any
point on the planet in a given year is highly improbable.

But then good science isn't FUD based and does not generate $$$. All you
have to do to see it is fraud is to see who benefits. In CO2s case,
governments raising taxes.

Remember it wasn't that long ago, maybe 15 years ago they said it was
cooling. Good science hasn't changed that much in just 15 years on this
planet anyways.

I question if it is warming, my eyes tell me in the last 5 years it
hasn't. Have utility bills to show it and I notice it. Second, if it is
warming, is it really something to be concerned about? I would be more
worried about global cooling, as nothing animal like lives on glaciers.
Oh, they might traverse one, but live on a glacier the size of North
America presents a logitstical problem.

It is all about selling taxes to tax-slaves. All motives point to greed,
junk science, fraud and government taxation.

Go ahead, take cheap shots with BS, if it makes you feal good. After
all,
what you believe in is now in question as just another FAD of FUD to
manage the herds for money.

How about in "and" kissing? How about just one PhD? How about 1/2 brain?

I think you should immediately stop paying taxes.

--
Nom=de=Plume

For some indication of how they have tortured the data to make it
conform to warming theory, look at this blog about temps at Darwin in
Oz:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/2...er/#more-14358


A blog?? A blog????

--
Nom=de=Plume

Calling all Global Warmist "scientists...
 

"Frogwatch" wrote in message
...
On Dec 20, 11:32 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Canuck57" wrote in message

...



nom=de=plume wrote:
"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
Loogypicker wrote:
On Dec 20, 8:49 am, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:
Often I'm accused of "avoiding" truth when it comes to AGW. I'm the
"creationist" in a sense that I don't understand the highly complex
nature of climate anatomy. I'm picking on "details". I'm a corporate
schill. I don't understand "peer review" (even though I have "peer
reviewed" over 600 math texts, dissertations and master's thesis in
my
life). Yada, yada, yada.

Ok - without getting into the politics, I want Loogy and the other
AGW
types to defend this.

http://www.financialpost.com/opinion...tml?id=62e1c98...

Remember - this is your side - this is how you are presenting your
information. This describes what happens when one of the most widely
used sources of information is controlled and massaged and only one
side of the "science" is presented.

Go ahead - defend this.

I'll wait.
Okay. Just because SOME (a very small percentage) tried to cook some
books does in no way shape nor form prove whether or not global
warming is or isn't occuring.
Agreed. But then I too agree with your hidden point, they don't know
for sure. It is safe to say it is getting warmer or colder. But it
scares the hell out of me with so little real evidence either way that
they are ready to go off and mess with the weather, setup CO2 recovery
plants and the like.

Sounds like a pied piper mentality of the herd of idiots who need to
believe in something that is actually a good thing.

Because if it is warming, means mankind will be spared the hardship
of -35C in Florida.

Sounds like you know nothing about the science of global climate
change.

Well, I don't need 3 PhDs in but kissing to figure out if it isn't
getting
warmer, it must be getting cooler. Or visa versa depending on what you
subscribe to. The probability of temperature staying constant in any
point on the planet in a given year is highly improbable.

But then good science isn't FUD based and does not generate $$$. All you
have to do to see it is fraud is to see who benefits. In CO2s case,
governments raising taxes.

Remember it wasn't that long ago, maybe 15 years ago they said it was
cooling. Good science hasn't changed that much in just 15 years on this
planet anyways.

I question if it is warming, my eyes tell me in the last 5 years it
hasn't. Have utility bills to show it and I notice it. Second, if it is
warming, is it really something to be concerned about? I would be more
worried about global cooling, as nothing animal like lives on glaciers.
Oh, they might traverse one, but live on a glacier the size of North
America presents a logitstical problem.

It is all about selling taxes to tax-slaves. All motives point to greed,
junk science, fraud and government taxation.

Go ahead, take cheap shots with BS, if it makes you feal good. After
all,
what you believe in is now in question as just another FAD of FUD to
manage the herds for money.

How about in "and" kissing? How about just one PhD? How about 1/2 brain?

I think you should immediately stop paying taxes.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Nom needs to familiarize herself with warming theory that says that
anthropogenic CO2 levels before the mid 20th century were insufficient
to cause anything. There actually are records of CO2 levels in the
20th century so we do know it has increased in the 20th century and
the warmites agree that levels before 1900 were too low to have any
effect.


Froggy needs to visit the planet Reality from time to time.

--
Nom=de=Plume