On 18 Apr 2006 09:04:24 -0700, "basskisser"
wrote:


Hans wrote:
On 18 Apr 2006 07:00:57 -0700, "basskisser"
wrote:


Hans wrote:
On 17 Apr 2006 06:22:36 -0700, "basskisser"
wrote:


Hans wrote:
On 12 Apr 2006 07:05:26 -0700, "basskisser"
wrote:


Calif Bill wrote:
"Bryan" wrote in message
...

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
ink.net...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m...9/ixworld.html


Feel free to join the previous cluster **** on this same subject, begun
by your clone, Bert. :-)


Maybe your son will learn something when he travels Europe.



What's in Europe that his son might learn (seriously, not trying to get
between you and Doug)?


His son is going to Europe on a school trip. And travel is supposed to
broaden your horizons. His mind is made up that the global warming is man
caused. Will not consider that the earth is always heating and cooling and
it may be mother nature and not just man. Why is Mars also warming at the
same time? Mars Rovers?

You do realize, don't you, Bill, that the warming is happening at a
pace that hasn't happened before? And you also realize, that just
because there is a cyclic warming and cooling that is astronomy based,
doesn't mean that man hasn't had a profound influence on that warming,
don't you?


Some questions for you.

Why did the Norse have something like a 100 years of successful
farming in Greenland on fields that are now tundra?

Uh, I never, ever said that there is no cyclic global warming/cooling
trends.


What percentage of C02 is "man made" What percentage is naturally
occurring?

Doesn't matter. The earth can take what is naturally occuring, and keep
things in balance. But, there's a saturation point, just like with most
things.

Keep what in balance? What is the saturation point?
And it does matter. If 99% of the CO2 is naturally occurring the
world's economics could come to screaming halt and it would make
little or no difference.

What to hell does the "world's economics" have to do with anything that
I've stated in this thread???

Are you really that obtuse? The world's economy is what is driving man
made C02 emissions.

Until somebody is ready to state what percentage of the world's C02 is
created by man you are flying in a blind liberal frenzy.

What has happened with the world's average temperature since the late
90s?

It's risen: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/ftpdata/tavegl2v.dat

The chart has no headers or delimiters. I have no idea what the values
mean.

Not my problem. I read it just fine!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m...9/ixworld.html

Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records
of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that
for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase
(there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that
differs significantly from zero).

Significance is the key word here. You see, if we are talking about the
a hundred pounds of feathers, one or two more feathers is
insignificant. If we are talking about global warming, a slight
deviation from zero IS significant.

I couldn't agree more.
And the study referenced above shows a SLIGHT DECREASE from 1998 to
2005

But it's only ONE STUDY...........ONE....there are hundreds and
hundreds that dispute that.


Who has less integrity? A group of scientists attempting to enhance
funding by using scare tactics. Or a Washington lobbyist opposing
universal heath care?

A Washington lobbyist.
Hint: whenever a group of scientist agree on anything it is because
there is funding available and has nothing to do with any major
truths being discovered.

Horse****.


Obviously you haven't sat on a funding review board for sponsored
research. Some of the tactics I have seen employed would put a King's
Cross hooker to shame.

I guess you've never seen a Washington lobbyist in action.


I have.
Much more straight forward than several scientific bodies fighting for
the same funding. You can, almost, predict the outcome before the
research ever starts.
It usually starts with "I believe our xxx institution is more attune
to your requirements than yyy or zzz"

Science comes hard for some people, apparently. While inane political
blather seems perfectly plausible to same. Go figure.

Read between the lines.

No thank you, I prefer real data over what someone may possibly, maybe,
sort of, perhaps is trying to say.



Get back to me when you get hard data you can trust. To the funding
goes the results.


--This space available for a really clever sig

On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 01:51:41 GMT, "surfnturf" wrote:


"Hans" & "basskisser wrote a lot.
-----------------------

Probably the most important question to ask about published reseach is:

"Who paid for the study?" Always follow the cash.


XXXXX university research group... "Sluts are Us!"


--This space available for a really clever sig

Hans wrote:
On 18 Apr 2006 09:04:24 -0700, "basskisser"
wrote:


Hans wrote:
On 18 Apr 2006 07:00:57 -0700, "basskisser"
wrote:


Hans wrote:
On 17 Apr 2006 06:22:36 -0700, "basskisser"
wrote:


Hans wrote:
On 12 Apr 2006 07:05:26 -0700, "basskisser"
wrote:


Calif Bill wrote:
"Bryan" wrote in message
...

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
ink.net...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m...9/ixworld.html


Feel free to join the previous cluster **** on this same subject, begun
by your clone, Bert. :-)


Maybe your son will learn something when he travels Europe.



What's in Europe that his son might learn (seriously, not trying to get
between you and Doug)?


His son is going to Europe on a school trip. And travel is supposed to
broaden your horizons. His mind is made up that the global warming is man
caused. Will not consider that the earth is always heating and cooling and
it may be mother nature and not just man. Why is Mars also warming at the
same time? Mars Rovers?

You do realize, don't you, Bill, that the warming is happening at a
pace that hasn't happened before? And you also realize, that just
because there is a cyclic warming and cooling that is astronomy based,
doesn't mean that man hasn't had a profound influence on that warming,
don't you?


Some questions for you.

Why did the Norse have something like a 100 years of successful
farming in Greenland on fields that are now tundra?

Uh, I never, ever said that there is no cyclic global warming/cooling
trends.


What percentage of C02 is "man made" What percentage is naturally
occurring?

Doesn't matter. The earth can take what is naturally occuring, and keep
things in balance. But, there's a saturation point, just like with most
things.

Keep what in balance? What is the saturation point?
And it does matter. If 99% of the CO2 is naturally occurring the
world's economics could come to screaming halt and it would make
little or no difference.

What to hell does the "world's economics" have to do with anything that
I've stated in this thread???

Are you really that obtuse? The world's economy is what is driving man
made C02 emissions.

Until somebody is ready to state what percentage of the world's C02 is
created by man you are flying in a blind liberal frenzy.

What has happened with the world's average temperature since the late
90s?

It's risen: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/ftpdata/tavegl2v.dat

The chart has no headers or delimiters. I have no idea what the values
mean.

Not my problem. I read it just fine!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m...9/ixworld.html

Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records
of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that
for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase
(there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that
differs significantly from zero).

Significance is the key word here. You see, if we are talking about the
a hundred pounds of feathers, one or two more feathers is
insignificant. If we are talking about global warming, a slight
deviation from zero IS significant.

I couldn't agree more.
And the study referenced above shows a SLIGHT DECREASE from 1998 to
2005

But it's only ONE STUDY...........ONE....there are hundreds and
hundreds that dispute that.


Who has less integrity? A group of scientists attempting to enhance
funding by using scare tactics. Or a Washington lobbyist opposing
universal heath care?

A Washington lobbyist.
Hint: whenever a group of scientist agree on anything it is because
there is funding available and has nothing to do with any major
truths being discovered.

Horse****.


Obviously you haven't sat on a funding review board for sponsored
research. Some of the tactics I have seen employed would put a King's
Cross hooker to shame.

I guess you've never seen a Washington lobbyist in action.


I have.
Much more straight forward than several scientific bodies fighting for
the same funding. You can, almost, predict the outcome before the
research ever starts.
It usually starts with "I believe our xxx institution is more attune
to your requirements than yyy or zzz"

Science comes hard for some people, apparently. While inane political
blather seems perfectly plausible to same. Go figure.

Read between the lines.

No thank you, I prefer real data over what someone may possibly, maybe,
sort of, perhaps is trying to say.



Get back to me when you get hard data you can trust. To the funding
goes the results.


So you'd rather trust someone to "read between the lines" instead of
read, interpret, and present REAL data?