|
Calling all Global Warmist "scientists...
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...d-5078af9cb409 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. |
Calling all Global Warmist "scientists...
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. |
Calling all Global Warmist "scientists...
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. |
Calling all Global Warmist "scientists...
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...d-5078af9cb409 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. Defend what? Junk Science or science for profit? Can't do that. As a boater, I welcome warming if in fact they are right, and I have reasons to doubt they are right. But lets say in January I go bass fishing in Trout Lake in January, or all of Minnesota, Michigan or Wisconsin, or even north into Ontario and Manitoba is that so bad? Even the costs of boating would go down as the docks would be used for 12 months and not 4 months. Allowing operators to make boating more affordable. And I would rather spend my money on boating than heat for the home. I for one hope they are right that is it warming, I view it good for all boaters as a boat does not work well on a 12" of solid ice. And the fish grow very slow in the cold. With warmer winters natural fishery production goes right up. Longer summers give them lots of food so we can catch them and have a great time doing it. And bigger fish too! So what Darwinian disease do the global warmists have that they would rather see us hit the ice age were not much of anything lives? Because if your not warming, you be getting colder. So I fail to see the locic of eco freeks. |
Calling all Global Warmist "scientists...
On Dec 20, 8:59*am, 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. So, they cherry picked tide data to show sea level rise they attribute to global warming when the record from tide guages shows nothing. They used tree ring data to show temps in the distant past but decided that when thye do not show rise since 1960 they ignore the data, they conspire to prevent any anti-agw publications, they conspire to remove all anti-agw views from wiki. Their motive, money. East Anglia got $24 million for their "climate research" and researchers in the USA got huge sums too. This is not science, it is pure fraud. |
Calling all Global Warmist "scientists...
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. |
Calling all Global Warmist "scientists...
On 12/20/09 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...d-5078af9cb409 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. Find another hobby, tom-tom. You're only convincing yourself and scumbags like your boy herring. |
Calling all Global Warmist "scientists...
On 12/20/09 10:58 AM, Frogwatch wrote:
On Dec 20, 8:59 am, 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. So, they cherry picked tide data to show sea level rise they attribute to global warming when the record from tide guages shows nothing. They used tree ring data to show temps in the distant past but decided that when thye do not show rise since 1960 they ignore the data, they conspire to prevent any anti-agw publications, they conspire to remove all anti-agw views from wiki. Their motive, money. East Anglia got $24 million for their "climate research" and researchers in the USA got huge sums too. This is not science, it is pure fraud. You, tom and the other flatlanders are just soooooo convincing. Especially you. |
Calling all Global Warmist "scientists...
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. |
Calling all Global Warmist "scientists...
On Dec 20, 8:59*am, 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.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - hellooooooo??? |
Calling all Global Warmist "scientists...
On 12/20/09 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. Define "troublesome." I find it damned funny that academic committees anywhere have an anti-science shill like tom-tom on peer review boards. |
Calling all Global Warmist "scientists...
"Loogypicker" wrote in message
... 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. Exactly. And, the "trick" term in scientific circles doesn't mean fraud. It can really be equated with a "technique" of dealing with data. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Calling all Global Warmist "scientists...
"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 |
Calling all Global Warmist "scientists...
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? |
Calling all Global Warmist "scientists...
Harry wrote:
On 12/20/09 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. Define "troublesome." I find it damned funny that academic committees anywhere have an anti-science shill like tom-tom on peer review boards. Smarter people than me can't define "troublesome" as it pertains to global warming. |
Calling all Global Warmist "scientists...
"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. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Calling all Global Warmist "scientists...
"D.Duck" wrote in message
... Harry wrote: On 12/20/09 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. Define "troublesome." I find it damned funny that academic committees anywhere have an anti-science shill like tom-tom on peer review boards. Smarter people than me can't define "troublesome" as it pertains to global warming. They can and they did. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Calling all Global Warmist "scientists...
On Dec 20, 1:25*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Loogypicker" wrote in message ... 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. Exactly. And, the "trick" term in scientific circles doesn't mean fraud. It can really be equated with a "technique" of dealing with data. -- Nom=de=Plume- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - And usually IS used as a term for technique. BUT, it's all they have, they need something. |
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. 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. |
Calling all Global Warmist "scientists...
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. |
Calling all Global Warmist "scientists...
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! |
Calling all Global Warmist "scientists...
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. |
Calling all Global Warmist "scientists...
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? |
Calling all Global Warmist "scientists...
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? |
Calling all Global Warmist "scientists...
"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 |
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. 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 |
Calling all Global Warmist "scientists...
"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 |
Calling all Global Warmist "scientists...
"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. |
Calling all Global Warmist "scientists...
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. |
Calling all Global Warmist "scientists...
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. |
Calling all Global Warmist "scientists...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m... "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. Yeah, I guess when someone talks science, it seems like magic to you... -- Nom=de=Plume |
Calling all Global Warmist "scientists...
"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/ -- Nom=de=Plume |
Calling all Global Warmist "scientists...
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. |
Calling all Global Warmist "scientists...
On Dec 20, 4:50*pm, Geoduck wrote:
On 12/20/09 4:30 PM, nom=de=plume wrote: "Bill *wrote in message om... *wrote in message ... *wrote in message ... Loogypicker wrote: On Dec 20, 8:49 am, Tom Francis - SWSports *wrote: Often I'm accused of "avoiding" truth when it comes to AGW. *I'm the "creationist" in a sense that I don't understand the highly complex nature of climate anatomy. *I'm picking on "details". I'm a corporate schill. I don't understand "peer review" (even though I have "peer reviewed" over 600 math texts, dissertations and master's thesis in my life). Yada, yada, yada. Ok - without getting into the politics, I want Loogy and the other AGW types to defend this. http://www.financialpost.com/opinion...tml?id=62e1c98... Remember - this is your side - this is how you are presenting your information. This describes what happens when one of the most widely used sources of information is controlled and massaged and only one side of the "science" is presented. Go ahead - defend this. I'll wait. Okay. Just because SOME (a very small percentage) tried to cook some books does in no way shape nor form prove whether or not global warming is or isn't occuring. And why we need 100% rational hard real scientists to look at the issue without the policitical money grabing schemes. *Currently it is about money, money greed. *Carbon tax, carbon credits and extortion. *That isn't science, that is political greed and nanny state BS. Even if it is warming, is that so bad? *Equatorial zones have evaporation to keep temperatures moderate, but the polar areas would get most of the warming. *Is that so bad you can golf or go boating in norther US or Canada in January? Hell, that is green, as more green further north would not hurt mankind. Be it golf green or green in your pocket. *My utility bill would even become more moderate and less carbon to heat my home at -35C. Eco nuts are "sky is falling" nut balls following the government love in for excuses for more taxes. *Someone wise once said to me, always follow the money for your answers. *Well the green thing is fostered by government greed for taxation, be it carbon taxes or carbon credits it is about taking our money for them to waste on GM/Bank/Government like ponzi schemes. *In the mean time, more green lawns and forrests will absorb more carbon. *Nature has a unique way of balancing the Earth and eco freeks just don't want to admit that hard fact of reality. Good grief... well, you've pretty much summed up the loonieness of the deniers. Good for you! -- Nom=de=Plume You just accentuated the loonieness of the gullible. Yeah, I guess when someone talks science, it seems like magic to you... It's sorta interesting that we have several right-wingers in here who *claim* to be scientists, but apparently have no ability to apply the thought processes they learned in other fields to the ones usually discussed here. I wouldn't call McKee a scientist of any sort, though...his last work experience was rounding up illegals at shape-ups to work on home improvement projects. First, the Wiki graph does NOT show any increase in rise since 1900, go back and check it. |
Calling all Global Warmist "scientists...
On Dec 20, 4:50*pm, Geoduck wrote:
On 12/20/09 4:30 PM, nom=de=plume wrote: "Bill *wrote in message om... *wrote in message ... *wrote in message ... Loogypicker wrote: On Dec 20, 8:49 am, Tom Francis - SWSports *wrote: Often I'm accused of "avoiding" truth when it comes to AGW. *I'm the "creationist" in a sense that I don't understand the highly complex nature of climate anatomy. *I'm picking on "details". I'm a corporate schill. I don't understand "peer review" (even though I have "peer reviewed" over 600 math texts, dissertations and master's thesis in my life). Yada, yada, yada. Ok - without getting into the politics, I want Loogy and the other AGW types to defend this. http://www.financialpost.com/opinion...tml?id=62e1c98... Remember - this is your side - this is how you are presenting your information. This describes what happens when one of the most widely used sources of information is controlled and massaged and only one side of the "science" is presented. Go ahead - defend this. I'll wait. Okay. Just because SOME (a very small percentage) tried to cook some books does in no way shape nor form prove whether or not global warming is or isn't occuring. And why we need 100% rational hard real scientists to look at the issue without the policitical money grabing schemes. *Currently it is about money, money greed. *Carbon tax, carbon credits and extortion. *That isn't science, that is political greed and nanny state BS. Even if it is warming, is that so bad? *Equatorial zones have evaporation to keep temperatures moderate, but the polar areas would get most of the warming. *Is that so bad you can golf or go boating in norther US or Canada in January? Hell, that is green, as more green further north would not hurt mankind. Be it golf green or green in your pocket. *My utility bill would even become more moderate and less carbon to heat my home at -35C. Eco nuts are "sky is falling" nut balls following the government love in for excuses for more taxes. *Someone wise once said to me, always follow the money for your answers. *Well the green thing is fostered by government greed for taxation, be it carbon taxes or carbon credits it is about taking our money for them to waste on GM/Bank/Government like ponzi schemes. *In the mean time, more green lawns and forrests will absorb more carbon. *Nature has a unique way of balancing the Earth and eco freeks just don't want to admit that hard fact of reality. Good grief... well, you've pretty much summed up the loonieness of the deniers. Good for you! -- Nom=de=Plume You just accentuated the loonieness of the gullible. Yeah, I guess when someone talks science, it seems like magic to you... It's sorta interesting that we have several right-wingers in here who *claim* to be scientists, but apparently have no ability to apply the thought processes they learned in other fields to the ones usually discussed here. I wouldn't call McKee a scientist of any sort, though...his last work experience was rounding up illegals at shape-ups to work on home improvement projects. 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. |
Calling all Global Warmist "scientists...
On Dec 20, 4:50*pm, Geoduck wrote:
On 12/20/09 4:30 PM, nom=de=plume wrote: "Bill *wrote in message om... *wrote in message ... *wrote in message ... Loogypicker wrote: On Dec 20, 8:49 am, Tom Francis - SWSports *wrote: Often I'm accused of "avoiding" truth when it comes to AGW. *I'm the "creationist" in a sense that I don't understand the highly complex nature of climate anatomy. *I'm picking on "details". I'm a corporate schill. I don't understand "peer review" (even though I have "peer reviewed" over 600 math texts, dissertations and master's thesis in my life). Yada, yada, yada. Ok - without getting into the politics, I want Loogy and the other AGW types to defend this. http://www.financialpost.com/opinion...tml?id=62e1c98... Remember - this is your side - this is how you are presenting your information. This describes what happens when one of the most widely used sources of information is controlled and massaged and only one side of the "science" is presented. Go ahead - defend this. I'll wait. Okay. Just because SOME (a very small percentage) tried to cook some books does in no way shape nor form prove whether or not global warming is or isn't occuring. And why we need 100% rational hard real scientists to look at the issue without the policitical money grabing schemes. *Currently it is about money, money greed. *Carbon tax, carbon credits and extortion. *That isn't science, that is political greed and nanny state BS. Even if it is warming, is that so bad? *Equatorial zones have evaporation to keep temperatures moderate, but the polar areas would get most of the warming. *Is that so bad you can golf or go boating in norther US or Canada in January? Hell, that is green, as more green further north would not hurt mankind. Be it golf green or green in your pocket. *My utility bill would even become more moderate and less carbon to heat my home at -35C. Eco nuts are "sky is falling" nut balls following the government love in for excuses for more taxes. *Someone wise once said to me, always follow the money for your answers. *Well the green thing is fostered by government greed for taxation, be it carbon taxes or carbon credits it is about taking our money for them to waste on GM/Bank/Government like ponzi schemes. *In the mean time, more green lawns and forrests will absorb more carbon. *Nature has a unique way of balancing the Earth and eco freeks just don't want to admit that hard fact of reality. Good grief... well, you've pretty much summed up the loonieness of the deniers. Good for you! -- Nom=de=Plume You just accentuated the loonieness of the gullible. Yeah, I guess when someone talks science, it seems like magic to you... It's sorta interesting that we have several right-wingers in here who *claim* to be scientists, but apparently have no ability to apply the thought processes they learned in other fields to the ones usually discussed here. I wouldn't call McKee a scientist of any sort, though...his last work experience was rounding up illegals at shape-ups to work on home improvement projects. The surface temps they show are so heavily contaminated by urban heat island effects as to be useless. The Russians say the Siberian data was cherry picked to show increase where none existed thus the surface temp data cannot even be used. We also know that they cherry picked the data from Australia to show an increase that is not shown by all the rest of the data. We also know they used a single station at 67 degrees south on the Antarctic Peninsula for ALL of Antarctica although the station had been heavily altered giving a huge increase in temp. Thus, THERE IS NO DATA SHOWING AGW. |
Calling all Global Warmist "scientists...
On 12/20/09 5:01 PM, Frogwatch wrote:
On Dec 20, 4:50 pm, 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. The reality is, it wouldn't matter what data was offered up...you righties would work assiduously to try to deny it. The first graph shows a measurable rise in sea levels, compiled by those with credentials, which you do not have. The land-based and satellite based findings coincide closely. Both lines in the chart are rising towards the right. Obviously, there isn't a lot of data for the sat lines on the chart. The narrative with the graph indicates some of the shortcomings of the data collection and findings, and the data surely show what you are denying. What's your problem with cutting back on manmade causes of carbon dioxide and other pollutants? Do you have financial interests in oil or the burning of Amazonian forests? Might you someday have to buy a vehicle with much higher fuel mileage or even one that uses alternative fuels? Or is all this just the usual right-wing "step on the neck of progress" bull****? |
Calling all Global Warmist "scientists...
On 12/20/09 5:05 PM, Frogwatch wrote:
On Dec 20, 4:50 pm, 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. The surface temps they show are so heavily contaminated by urban heat island effects as to be useless. The Russians say the Siberian data was cherry picked to show increase where none existed thus the surface temp data cannot even be used. We also know that they cherry picked the data from Australia to show an increase that is not shown by all the rest of the data. We also know they used a single station at 67 degrees south on the Antarctic Peninsula for ALL of Antarctica although the station had been heavily altered giving a huge increase in temp. Thus, THERE IS NO DATA SHOWING AGW. Uh-huh. The reality: you and your boys will attack the data no matter what. |
Calling all Global Warmist "scientists...
"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 |
Calling all Global Warmist "scientists...
"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. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:12 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com