On 7/31/2012 8:07 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 16:46:07 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 15:16:06 -0400, Wayne.B wrote:

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 14:43:31 -0400, John H.
wrote:

Thanks for posting. It is a good heuristic read, if nothing else (or
should be).

Well, hey...you gotta remember the source.

===

What source is that?

The NYT. If the source of information is a liberal rag, shouldn't it be disregarded?

===

Actually I first saw it on the Weather Underground web site. If they
have any political bias it is news to me. The report itself was
published in scientific circles and has attracted quite a bit of
attention elsewhere. As far as I know no one has tried to discredit
it. The study itself was funded by some folks who are more
conservative than you or I. As I stated previously, it is highly
regrettable when serious issues of science become politicized.

People like John just won't believe science, they only believe what FOX
tells them.


Besides being a Dumbocrat, you are probably a union slave as well. You
are boring and repetitive;just like krause.

On 7/31/2012 8:12 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 07:19:13 -0400, wrote:

In summation: Wow, the last skeptic has been drug across the finish
line and now, only now, the "skeptics" believe what virtually every
other scientist has known for years! That, in retrospect, might really
be the bad news.

===

Either way, global warming is probably going to be bad news.

There are several reasons in my opinion why there have been die hard
skeptics, including myself. 1) Al Gore was absolutely the wrong
spokesman for the original message. His overall lack of credibility
and borderline hysteria made him a poor messenger. 2) It is
abundantly clear that there have been many past instances of global
warming/cooling that demonstrably had nothing to do with fossil fuel
emissions.

Which means that warming and cooling and warming again is just a natural
cycle that the Earth goes through.
Damned right! Don't believe good science, believe FOX!!!

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2011/9#temp


Of cousce it's too soon to tell, but your noaa charts suggest the global
heat wave might have reached a peak around 2007. Could be we are already
on the back side of the curve.

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 08:07:54 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 16:46:07 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 15:16:06 -0400, Wayne.B wrote:

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 14:43:31 -0400, John H.
wrote:

Thanks for posting. It is a good heuristic read, if nothing else (or
should be).

Well, hey...you gotta remember the source.

===

What source is that?

The NYT. If the source of information is a liberal rag, shouldn't it be disregarded?

===

Actually I first saw it on the Weather Underground web site. If they
have any political bias it is news to me. The report itself was
published in scientific circles and has attracted quite a bit of
attention elsewhere. As far as I know no one has tried to discredit
it. The study itself was funded by some folks who are more
conservative than you or I. As I stated previously, it is highly
regrettable when serious issues of science become politicized.

People like John just won't believe science, they only believe what FOX
tells them.

Now Kevin, it's a fact that you watch Fox much more than I do!

It seems like you have a Fox quote daily.

Maybe kevin does, but I do not.

In article m,
says...

On 7/31/2012 8:07 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 16:46:07 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 15:16:06 -0400, Wayne.B wrote:

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 14:43:31 -0400, John H.
wrote:

Thanks for posting. It is a good heuristic read, if nothing else (or
should be).

Well, hey...you gotta remember the source.

===

What source is that?

The NYT. If the source of information is a liberal rag, shouldn't it be disregarded?

===

Actually I first saw it on the Weather Underground web site. If they
have any political bias it is news to me. The report itself was
published in scientific circles and has attracted quite a bit of
attention elsewhere. As far as I know no one has tried to discredit
it. The study itself was funded by some folks who are more
conservative than you or I. As I stated previously, it is highly
regrettable when serious issues of science become politicized.

People like John just won't believe science, they only believe what FOX
tells them.


Besides being a Dumbocrat, you are probably a union slave as well. You
are boring and repetitive;just like krause.

Well, once again and as usual, you are wrong on both.

In article om,
says...

On 7/31/2012 8:12 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 07:19:13 -0400, wrote:

In summation: Wow, the last skeptic has been drug across the finish
line and now, only now, the "skeptics" believe what virtually every
other scientist has known for years! That, in retrospect, might really
be the bad news.

===

Either way, global warming is probably going to be bad news.

There are several reasons in my opinion why there have been die hard
skeptics, including myself. 1) Al Gore was absolutely the wrong
spokesman for the original message. His overall lack of credibility
and borderline hysteria made him a poor messenger. 2) It is
abundantly clear that there have been many past instances of global
warming/cooling that demonstrably had nothing to do with fossil fuel
emissions.

Which means that warming and cooling and warming again is just a natural
cycle that the Earth goes through.
Damned right! Don't believe good science, believe FOX!!!

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2011/9#temp


Of cousce it's too soon to tell, but your noaa charts suggest the global
heat wave might have reached a peak around 2007. Could be we are already
on the back side of the curve.

Uh, no.....

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 18:10:53 -0400, Wayne.B wrote:

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 16:46:07 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 15:16:06 -0400, Wayne.B wrote:

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 14:43:31 -0400, John H.
wrote:

Thanks for posting. It is a good heuristic read, if nothing else (or
should be).

Well, hey...you gotta remember the source.

===

What source is that?

The NYT. If the source of information is a liberal rag, shouldn't it be disregarded?

===

Actually I first saw it on the Weather Underground web site. If they
have any political bias it is news to me. The report itself was
published in scientific circles and has attracted quite a bit of
attention elsewhere. As far as I know no one has tried to discredit
it. The study itself was funded by some folks who are more
conservative than you or I. As I stated previously, it is highly
regrettable when serious issues of science become politicized.

It sure didn't help when the Democrats walked out of the Al Gore hearing so as to show their disdain
for Bjorn Lomborg. Now Huffington is saying he is changing his tune - becoming more accepting of the
fact that global climate change is occurring. Even during that hearing he didn't dispute the
occurrence of global climate change, but did dispute several of Al's findings - which were quite
inaccurate.

Such as?

In article , dump-on-
says...

On 7/31/12 8:32 AM, John H. wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 07:55:34 -0400, X ` Man wrote:

On 7/31/12 7:53 AM, BAR wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 07:19:13 -0400, wrote:

In summation: Wow, the last skeptic has been drug across the finish
line and now, only now, the "skeptics" believe what virtually every
other scientist has known for years! That, in retrospect, might really
be the bad news.

===

Either way, global warming is probably going to be bad news.

There are several reasons in my opinion why there have been die hard
skeptics, including myself. 1) Al Gore was absolutely the wrong
spokesman for the original message. His overall lack of credibility
and borderline hysteria made him a poor messenger. 2) It is
abundantly clear that there have been many past instances of global
warming/cooling that demonstrably had nothing to do with fossil fuel
emissions.

Which means that warming and cooling and warming again is just a natural
cycle that the Earth goes through.



Isn't wonderful that we have a university-educated, Ph.D level
climatologist like BAR here in rec.boats who is correct?

Yes!



It's sort of sad that bottomfeeders like you and your buttbuddy Meyer
find it necessary to change the posts of others to make them fit into
your narrow little minds. But, what the hell, that's all you
Conservatrashers have these days, right?

John does childish things when a topic isn't going his way.

On 7/31/2012 8:38 AM, X ` Man wrote:
On 7/31/12 8:32 AM, John H. wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 07:55:34 -0400, X ` Man
wrote:

On 7/31/12 7:53 AM, BAR wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 07:19:13 -0400, wrote:

In summation: Wow, the last skeptic has been drug across the finish
line and now, only now, the "skeptics" believe what virtually every
other scientist has known for years! That, in retrospect, might
really
be the bad news.

===

Either way, global warming is probably going to be bad news.

There are several reasons in my opinion why there have been die hard
skeptics, including myself. 1) Al Gore was absolutely the wrong
spokesman for the original message. His overall lack of credibility
and borderline hysteria made him a poor messenger. 2) It is
abundantly clear that there have been many past instances of global
warming/cooling that demonstrably had nothing to do with fossil fuel
emissions.

Which means that warming and cooling and warming again is just a
natural
cycle that the Earth goes through.



Isn't wonderful that we have a university-educated, Ph.D level
climatologist like BAR here in rec.boats who is correct?

Yes!



It's sort of sad that bottomfeeders like you and your buttbuddy Meyer
find it necessary to change the posts of others to make them fit into
your narrow little minds. But, what the hell, that's all you
Conservatrashers have these days, right?



Don't be sad. You'll be reunited with Skipper soon enough.

On 7/31/2012 8:53 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article m,
says...

On 7/31/2012 8:07 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 16:46:07 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 15:16:06 -0400, Wayne.B wrote:

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 14:43:31 -0400, John H.
wrote:

Thanks for posting. It is a good heuristic read, if nothing else (or
should be).

Well, hey...you gotta remember the source.

===

What source is that?

The NYT. If the source of information is a liberal rag, shouldn't it be disregarded?

===

Actually I first saw it on the Weather Underground web site. If they
have any political bias it is news to me. The report itself was
published in scientific circles and has attracted quite a bit of
attention elsewhere. As far as I know no one has tried to discredit
it. The study itself was funded by some folks who are more
conservative than you or I. As I stated previously, it is highly
regrettable when serious issues of science become politicized.

People like John just won't believe science, they only believe what FOX
tells them.


Besides being a Dumbocrat, you are probably a union slave as well. You
are boring and repetitive;just like krause.

Well, once again and as usual, you are wrong on both.

OK, but the second sentence stands.

On 7/31/2012 8:54 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article om,
says...

On 7/31/2012 8:12 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 07:19:13 -0400, wrote:

In summation: Wow, the last skeptic has been drug across the finish
line and now, only now, the "skeptics" believe what virtually every
other scientist has known for years! That, in retrospect, might really
be the bad news.

===

Either way, global warming is probably going to be bad news.

There are several reasons in my opinion why there have been die hard
skeptics, including myself. 1) Al Gore was absolutely the wrong
spokesman for the original message. His overall lack of credibility
and borderline hysteria made him a poor messenger. 2) It is
abundantly clear that there have been many past instances of global
warming/cooling that demonstrably had nothing to do with fossil fuel
emissions.

Which means that warming and cooling and warming again is just a natural
cycle that the Earth goes through.
Damned right! Don't believe good science, believe FOX!!!

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2011/9#temp


Of cousce it's too soon to tell, but your noaa charts suggest the global
heat wave might have reached a peak around 2007. Could be we are already
on the back side of the curve.

Uh, no.....

Here's your chance to insert an unbroken long link to back up your bold
assertion.