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.

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?

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.

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?

"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?


--
Nom=de=Plume

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.

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
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.

Right, but do you realize that some would use that as an argument _for_ the
adverse, human created, climate change? You do realize that don't you? Wild
variations... not just "warming."


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!

We heard that from someone from Alaska. She's an idiot.


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.

Wow... naturally occuring. Same with methane... don't light a match with
that one.


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.

I'm very concerned about heavy metals. Two different concerns.


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.

Keep on mixing science-talk with magic. I'm sure it sounds good, but it's
meaningless.

--
Nom=de=Plume