Interesting New Global Warming Study
 

I've been something of a concerned skeptic regarding CO2 emissions and
greenhouse effect on climate change. There's been a fair amount of
hard evidence that the earth is warming up but there has been plenty
of room for doubt whether or not the cause was man made or not.

This new study is significant for a number of reasons: 1) The
scientists conducting the study have heretofore regarded themselves as
skeptics; and 2) Much of their funding comes from the petroleum
industry, in fact, a particularly conservative part of the industry.
In short, this is not good news and we should pay attention regardless
of political beliefs.

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/Jef...s/article.html

Excerpts from the findings:

"Call me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in
previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very
existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive
research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global
warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming
were correct. I'm now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely
the cause."

"Despite the special interest of their funders, BEST has made it
clear, both on their web site and in the results they've come to, that
funding sources will not play a role in the results of their research,
and that they "will be presented with full transparency."

"Just as important, our record is long enough that we could search for
the fingerprint of solar variability, based on the historical record
of sunspots. That fingerprint is absent. Although the I.P.C.C. allowed
for the possibility that variations in sunlight could have ended the
Little Ice Age, a period of cooling from the 14th century to about
1850, our data argues strongly that the temperature rise of the past
250 years cannot be attributed to solar changes."

More he

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?_r=1

Interesting New Global Warming Study
 

In article ,
says...

I've been something of a concerned skeptic regarding CO2 emissions and
greenhouse effect on climate change. There's been a fair amount of
hard evidence that the earth is warming up but there has been plenty
of room for doubt whether or not the cause was man made or not.

This new study is significant for a number of reasons: 1) The
scientists conducting the study have heretofore regarded themselves as
skeptics; and 2) Much of their funding comes from the petroleum
industry, in fact, a particularly conservative part of the industry.
In short, this is not good news and we should pay attention regardless
of political beliefs.

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/Jef...s/article.html

Excerpts from the findings:

"Call me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in
previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very
existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive
research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global
warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming
were correct. I'm now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely
the cause."

"Despite the special interest of their funders, BEST has made it
clear, both on their web site and in the results they've come to, that
funding sources will not play a role in the results of their research,
and that they "will be presented with full transparency."

"Just as important, our record is long enough that we could search for
the fingerprint of solar variability, based on the historical record
of sunspots. That fingerprint is absent. Although the I.P.C.C. allowed
for the possibility that variations in sunlight could have ended the
Little Ice Age, a period of cooling from the 14th century to about
1850, our data argues strongly that the temperature rise of the past
250 years cannot be attributed to solar changes."

More he

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?_r=1

Uh, oh. The hard core righties will surely be going insane over this!
They don't think climate change is happening at all, let alone that man
has a large hand in it.

Interesting New Global Warming Study
 

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.

Interesting New Global Warming Study
 

On Jul 30, 10:52*am, Wayne.B wrote:
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.

hopefully common sense will prevail before it's too late.
I was always sceptical about the buying and selling of carbon tax
credits. Here our provincial govt mandated how much power should come
from from renewable sources such as wind farm, hydro electric etc.
The usual problem is that the consumer always pays more... one way or
the other.

Interesting New Global Warming Study
 

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.

Yes, it is. The non-science minded right wingers don't realize just the
destruction that a mere degree or so of the averages can do.

Interesting New Global Warming Study
 

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 08:41:24 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

Uh, oh. The hard core righties will surely be going insane over this!
They don't think climate change is happening at all, let alone that man
has a large hand in it.

===

It is unfortunate that the issue has become politicized.

Interesting New Global Warming Study
 

On 7/30/12 9:52 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
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.



Aren't you a die-hard skeptic because of your investments in fossil fuel?

--
I'm a liberal because militant fundamentalist ignorant science-denying
religious xenophobic corporate oligarchy just doesn't work for me.

Interesting New Global Warming Study
 

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 08:41:24 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

Uh, oh. The hard core righties will surely be going insane over this!
They don't think climate change is happening at all, let alone that man
has a large hand in it.

===

It is unfortunate that the issue has become politicized.

You bet it is, but the damage is done in that regard.

Interesting New Global Warming Study
 

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 11:03:59 -0400, X ` Man
wrote:

On 7/30/12 9:52 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
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.



Aren't you a die-hard skeptic because of your investments in fossil fuel?

===

Not at all. As a matter of fact I've always been an advocate of
alternative energy strategies because I regard it as the right thing
to do for several different reasons.

I'm in a nearly ideal climate for solar power and will probably end up
with panels on my roof one of these days as the total system cost
continues to decrease and reliability/longevity increases. Fossil
fuel is still a good investment however and I'll dedicate some
significant percentage of assets to it as long as the returns are
there. There's only so much oil in the ground and it will continue to
be valuable as a lubricant and industrial feedstock. Additionally,
natural gas could turn out to be the ultimate clean fuel as fuel cell
technology improves and diesel to gas conversion becomes more common.

Interesting New Global Warming Study
 

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 11:08:47 -0400, wrote:

It certainly calls into question the use of ethanol as a fuel.

===

That's a classic example of a scientific issue becoming politicized.
Now we'll have to offer additional agricultural subsidies just to stop
that misguided program.

Interesting New Global Warming Study
 

On 7/30/2012 1:20 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 09:52:20 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

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.

Al Gore and Michael Moore are idiots; why be a contra-idiot just for
the sake of opposing them?

What about all of the scientific community that were poo-pooed just to
thumb the collective skeptical nose at the above mentioned idiots.
Where is the logic and science in that?

As long ago as 2003, the US military was gearing up for the reality
that global climate change would affect the scarcity of food, water
and energy. The warning from the US military, then, was that global
warming should "be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a U.S.
national security concern." What more does it take to attract people's
attention? For another read, see the report: "An Abrupt Climate Change
Scenario and the Implications for United States Security."

There have been past instances of global warming, but that is another
logical argument, altogether. Man has never been is sufficient numbers
with the capability to create so much heat and affect the global
atmosphere as he does now. That is a wildcard that is truly scary, in
large part because we don't understand the dynamics.

Now, maybe we can pull our collective heads out of the sand and see
what, if anything, can be done. If we have reached a critical tipping
point, all that is left is Armageddon and survival of the fittest.
Perhaps the Earth and its inhabitant, are more resilient. Fact is, we
just don't have a clue, one way or the other.


You can help by lowering your thermostat this winter.

Interesting New Global Warming Study
 

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 11:03:59 -0400, X ` Man
wrote:

On 7/30/12 9:52 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
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.



Aren't you a die-hard skeptic because of your investments in fossil fuel?

===

Not at all. As a matter of fact I've always been an advocate of
alternative energy strategies because I regard it as the right thing
to do for several different reasons.

Well, that's not a far right way of thinking!

I'm in a nearly ideal climate for solar power and will probably end up
with panels on my roof one of these days as the total system cost
continues to decrease and reliability/longevity increases. Fossil
fuel is still a good investment however and I'll dedicate some
significant percentage of assets to it as long as the returns are
there. There's only so much oil in the ground and it will continue to
be valuable as a lubricant and industrial feedstock. Additionally,
natural gas could turn out to be the ultimate clean fuel as fuel cell
technology improves and diesel to gas conversion becomes more common.

And neither is that!

Interesting New Global Warming Study
 

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

On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 21:38:26 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

I've been something of a concerned skeptic regarding CO2 emissions and
greenhouse effect on climate change. There's been a fair amount of
hard evidence that the earth is warming up but there has been plenty
of room for doubt whether or not the cause was man made or not.

This new study is significant for a number of reasons: 1) The
scientists conducting the study have heretofore regarded themselves as
skeptics; and 2) Much of their funding comes from the petroleum
industry, in fact, a particularly conservative part of the industry.
In short, this is not good news and we should pay attention regardless
of political beliefs.

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/Jef...s/article.html

Excerpts from the findings:

"Call me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in
previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very
existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive
research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global
warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming
were correct. I'm now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely
the cause."

"Despite the special interest of their funders, BEST has made it
clear, both on their web site and in the results they've come to, that
funding sources will not play a role in the results of their research,
and that they "will be presented with full transparency."

"Just as important, our record is long enough that we could search for
the fingerprint of solar variability, based on the historical record
of sunspots. That fingerprint is absent. Although the I.P.C.C. allowed
for the possibility that variations in sunlight could have ended the
Little Ice Age, a period of cooling from the 14th century to about
1850, our data argues strongly that the temperature rise of the past
250 years cannot be attributed to solar changes."

More he

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?_r=1


For me, global warming has always been obvious and I always thought
Masters was a consummate idiot for constantly pumping out little
papers that denied it. I'm glad at least one of those trees has
stepped forward and he now acknowledges there might be a forest.

I always thought that man had caused SOME global warming, but I'm
still a bit skeptical that nearly 100% is caused by man. I would have
placed the figure considerably lower than that.

What this reversal does is cast the light of doubt on all of the
previously petroleum funded studies and their hack jobs against the
vast majority of scientists that have seen this all along.

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.

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

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

Interesting New Global Warming Study
 

On 7/30/12 2:40 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 13:20:58 -0400, wrote:

As long ago as 2003, the US military was gearing up for the reality
that global climate change would affect the scarcity of food, water
and energy.

The pentagon has a plan for everything. I am sure they have planned
for alien invasion scenarios too.



Anything to keep sucking as much as it can off the taxpayers.

--
I'm a liberal because militant fundamentalist ignorant science-denying
religious xenophobic corporate oligarchy just doesn't work for me.

Interesting New Global Warming Study
 

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?

Interesting New Global Warming Study
 

On 7/30/2012 3:53 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 14:48:21 -0400, X ` Man
wrote:

On 7/30/12 2:40 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 13:20:58 -0400, wrote:

As long ago as 2003, the US military was gearing up for the reality
that global climate change would affect the scarcity of food, water
and energy.

The pentagon has a plan for everything. I am sure they have planned
for alien invasion scenarios too.



Anything to keep sucking as much as it can off the taxpayers.

We would be ****ed if they didn't have a plan.


And he'd find a way to blame it on GWB.

Interesting New Global Warming Study
 

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?

Interesting New Global Warming Study
 

On 7/30/2012 8:52 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
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.


Don't worry LENR (Low Energy Nuclear Reaction) is on the way!
Mikek

Interesting New Global Warming Study
 

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.

Interesting New Global Warming Study
 

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.

Interesting New Global Warming Study
 

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? Oh, wait...

--
I'm a liberal because militant fundamentalist ignorant science-denying
religious xenophobic corporate oligarchy just doesn't work for me.

Interesting New Global Warming Study
 

In article ,
says...


As long ago as 2003, the US military was gearing up for the reality
that global climate change would affect the scarcity of food, water
and energy. The warning from the US military, then, was that global
warming should "be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a U.S.
national security concern." What more does it take to attract people's
attention? For another read, see the report: "An Abrupt Climate Change
Scenario and the Implications for United States Security."

The military has a plan to invade Canada. The military has plans for
every contingency.

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums...hp/t-9586.html

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nati...ecret-defence-
plans-included-file-on-invasion-of-fiji/story-e6frg8yo-1226389513967

It doens't matter whose military it is, they are always planning for
every possible scenario.

Interesting New Global Warming Study
 

On 7/31/12 7:57 AM, BAR wrote:
In article ,
says...


As long ago as 2003, the US military was gearing up for the reality
that global climate change would affect the scarcity of food, water
and energy. The warning from the US military, then, was that global
warming should "be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a U.S.
national security concern." What more does it take to attract people's
attention? For another read, see the report: "An Abrupt Climate Change
Scenario and the Implications for United States Security."

The military has a plan to invade Canada. The military has plans for
every contingency.

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums...hp/t-9586.html

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nati...ecret-defence-
plans-included-file-on-invasion-of-fiji/story-e6frg8yo-1226389513967

It doens't matter whose military it is, they are always planning for
every possible scenario.


Well, of course. Boys will be boys, and it helps keep the boys in uniform.


--
I'm a liberal because militant fundamentalist ignorant science-denying
religious xenophobic corporate oligarchy just doesn't work for me.

Interesting New Global Warming Study
 

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.

Interesting New Global Warming Study
 

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

Interesting New Global Warming Study
 

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.

Interesting New Global Warming Study
 

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!

Interesting New Global Warming Study
 

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.

Interesting New Global Warming Study
 

On 7/31/2012 8:07 AM, X ` Man wrote:
On 7/31/12 7:57 AM, BAR wrote:
In article ,
says...


As long ago as 2003, the US military was gearing up for the reality
that global climate change would affect the scarcity of food, water
and energy. The warning from the US military, then, was that global
warming should "be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a U.S.
national security concern." What more does it take to attract people's
attention? For another read, see the report: "An Abrupt Climate Change
Scenario and the Implications for United States Security."

The military has a plan to invade Canada. The military has plans for
every contingency.

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums...hp/t-9586.html

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nati...ecret-defence-
plans-included-file-on-invasion-of-fiji/story-e6frg8yo-1226389513967

It doens't matter whose military it is, they are always planning for
every possible scenario.


Well, of course. Boys will be boys, and it helps keep the boys in uniform.


Ahhh. The boys in uniform disrespected by one of the cowards. That's SOP
for them.

Interesting New Global Warming Study
 

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?



--
I'm a liberal because the militant fundamentalist ignorant
science-denying religious xenophobic corporate oligarchy of modern
Republican conservatism just doesn't work for me or my country.

Interesting New Global Warming Study
 

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.

Interesting New Global Warming Study
 

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.

Interesting New Global Warming Study
 

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.

Interesting New Global Warming Study
 

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.

Interesting New Global Warming Study
 

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.....

Interesting New Global Warming Study
 

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?

Interesting New Global Warming Study
 

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.

Interesting New Global Warming Study
 

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.

Interesting New Global Warming Study
 

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.

Interesting New Global Warming Study
 

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.