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!

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 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?

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?

"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

"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.


--
Nom=de=Plume

"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.


--
Nom=de=Plume

"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.

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.

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.