In article ,
says...
You wrote:

In article ,
says...
You wrote:

In article ,
says...

There is no such evidence that human activity is responsible for
climate change.

Well, I should have known I was talking with a flat earth proponent.

Replying with personal attacks rather than any evidence further
enhances my statement.

The problem for you is that you think we all "believe" when, in fact,
that's not our currency.

Our currency is evidence.

Then present some.

The fact that the sun heats both planets does not preclude that we've
messing with the earth's atmosphere. When you change a system as
integral to the earth's condition as its atmosphere, it's going to
produce change.

Present evidence of the change, and that human activity is causal of that
change.

No sum of evidence would convince a flat earther that the world is
round.

Waste o' time.

jps

In article ,
says...

"jps" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...
You wrote:

In article ,
says...

There is no such evidence that human activity is responsible for
climate
change.

Well, I should have known I was talking with a flat earth proponent.

Replying with personal attacks rather than any evidence further enhances
my
statement.

The problem for you is that you think we all "believe" when, in fact,
that's not our currency.

Our currency is evidence.

The fact that the sun heats both planets does not preclude that we've
messing with the earth's atmosphere. When you change a system as
integral to the earth's condition as its atmosphere, it's going to
produce change.

The fact that you don't "believe" this is no concern of mine.

jps


Hang on a minute. Let's say you have a small garden that produces certain
predictable results for a number of years. Now, you build a greenhouse over
that garden, and continue growing the exact same things you did before. Are
you suggesting that things MIGHT go differently with the greenhouse in
place? If that's what you're saying, you'd better be prepared to back it up
with links like crazy.

I'll reply NY-style.

You want evidence? I gotch yer evidence right heeeaa.

jps

"Sean Corbett" wrote in message
...
You wrote:

In article ,
says...
You wrote:

In article ,
says...
You wrote:

In article ,
says...

There is no such evidence that human activity is responsible for
climate change.

Well, I should have known I was talking with a flat earth
proponent.

Replying with personal attacks rather than any evidence further
enhances my statement.

The problem for you is that you think we all "believe" when, in
fact, that's not our currency.

Our currency is evidence.

Then present some.

The fact that the sun heats both planets does not preclude that
we've messing with the earth's atmosphere. When you change a system
as integral to the earth's condition as its atmosphere, it's going
to produce change.

Present evidence of the change, and that human activity is causal of
that change.

No sum of evidence would convince a flat earther that the world is
round.

No amount of attack will make up for the lack of evidence.


Do you feel that human activity has no effect, some effect, or what? I'm
asking about your own personal hunch, not "evidence".

"jps" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

"jps" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...
You wrote:

In article ,
says...

There is no such evidence that human activity is responsible for
climate
change.

Well, I should have known I was talking with a flat earth proponent.

Replying with personal attacks rather than any evidence further
enhances
my
statement.

The problem for you is that you think we all "believe" when, in fact,
that's not our currency.

Our currency is evidence.

The fact that the sun heats both planets does not preclude that we've
messing with the earth's atmosphere. When you change a system as
integral to the earth's condition as its atmosphere, it's going to
produce change.

The fact that you don't "believe" this is no concern of mine.

jps


Hang on a minute. Let's say you have a small garden that produces certain
predictable results for a number of years. Now, you build a greenhouse
over
that garden, and continue growing the exact same things you did before.
Are
you suggesting that things MIGHT go differently with the greenhouse in
place? If that's what you're saying, you'd better be prepared to back it
up
with links like crazy.

I'll reply NY-style.

You want evidence? I gotch yer evidence right heeeaa.

jps

Next, you're going to claim that if you're waiting for a pot of water to
boil, putting a lid on it will speed things up.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"jps" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

"jps" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...
You wrote:

In article ,
says...

There is no such evidence that human activity is responsible for
climate
change.

Well, I should have known I was talking with a flat earth proponent.

Replying with personal attacks rather than any evidence further
enhances
my
statement.

The problem for you is that you think we all "believe" when, in fact,
that's not our currency.

Our currency is evidence.

The fact that the sun heats both planets does not preclude that we've
messing with the earth's atmosphere. When you change a system as
integral to the earth's condition as its atmosphere, it's going to
produce change.

The fact that you don't "believe" this is no concern of mine.

jps


Hang on a minute. Let's say you have a small garden that produces certain
predictable results for a number of years. Now, you build a greenhouse
over
that garden, and continue growing the exact same things you did before.
Are
you suggesting that things MIGHT go differently with the greenhouse in
place? If that's what you're saying, you'd better be prepared to back it
up
with links like crazy.

I'll reply NY-style.

You want evidence? I gotch yer evidence right heeeaa.

jps

Next, you're going to claim that if you're waiting for a pot of water to
boil, putting a lid on it will speed things up.

Hehe!

"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"jps" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

"jps" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...
You wrote:

In article ,
says...

There is no such evidence that human activity is responsible for
climate
change.

Well, I should have known I was talking with a flat earth
proponent.

Replying with personal attacks rather than any evidence further
enhances
my
statement.

The problem for you is that you think we all "believe" when, in
fact,
that's not our currency.

Our currency is evidence.

The fact that the sun heats both planets does not preclude that
we've
messing with the earth's atmosphere. When you change a system as
integral to the earth's condition as its atmosphere, it's going to
produce change.

The fact that you don't "believe" this is no concern of mine.

jps


Hang on a minute. Let's say you have a small garden that produces
certain
predictable results for a number of years. Now, you build a greenhouse
over
that garden, and continue growing the exact same things you did
before.
Are
you suggesting that things MIGHT go differently with the greenhouse in
place? If that's what you're saying, you'd better be prepared to back
it
up
with links like crazy.

I'll reply NY-style.

You want evidence? I gotch yer evidence right heeeaa.

jps

Next, you're going to claim that if you're waiting for a pot of water to
boil, putting a lid on it will speed things up.

Hehe!


Stephen Hawking says that physical events here have an effect on the other
side of the galaxy, and that someday, these will be measurable. Another
fanatic. What a hack this guy is.

On Tue, 30 May 2006 20:31:25 GMT, Shortwave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Tue, 30 May 2006 09:24:45 -0700, jps wrote:

Our currency is evidence.

The fact that the sun heats both planets does not preclude that we've
messing with the earth's atmosphere. When you change a system as
integral to the earth's condition as its atmosphere, it's going to
produce change.

The fact that you don't "believe" this is no concern of min

Are you discussing the agit-prop "An Inconvenient Truth" by Al "I
invented the Internet" - "Love Story was modeled after Tipper and me"
Gore?

Please - Anyone with an historical perspective and a modicum of
knowledge about metrology and physics will tell you that (1) They
don't have a freakin' clue if there is or isn't "global warming" and
(2) the recent "activity" is more about normal solar/current patterns
than "global warming".

Then again, this is Al "I'm so freakin' smart I scare myself to death"
Gore. :)

Believe what you will, but actually try to understand the varying
opinions from all the respected scientists involved in this debate
rather than Al "The Sky is Falling - or at least Warming Up" Gore.

On another subject, did you buy a new bigger, betterer boat?

Are you back? For a while this time? Are we going to have to put up with
you again?

If you'll notice, all the best people have stayed out of the global warming
debate.
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

"Sean Corbett" wrote in message
...
You wrote:

In article ,
says...
You wrote:

In article ,
says...
You wrote:

In article ,
says...

There is no such evidence that human activity is responsible for
climate change.

Well, I should have known I was talking with a flat earth
proponent.

Replying with personal attacks rather than any evidence further
enhances my statement.

The problem for you is that you think we all "believe" when, in
fact, that's not our currency.

Our currency is evidence.

Then present some.

The fact that the sun heats both planets does not preclude that
we've messing with the earth's atmosphere. When you change a system
as integral to the earth's condition as its atmosphere, it's going
to produce change.

Present evidence of the change, and that human activity is causal of
that change.

No sum of evidence would convince a flat earther that the world is
round.

No amount of attack will make up for the lack of evidence.

The alarmists keep proving my point.

http://www.aetherometry.com/global_w.../gw_index.html

"There is perhaps no clearer example of the arbitrary vagaries of mainstream
peer-review and its promotion of non-scientific fads, driven by political
and economic interests, than the recent promotion of the pseudoscientific
myth of 'global warming', systematically accompanied by the recurrent fits
of public hysteria it engenders amongst scientists, politicians,
environmentalists (another type of politico), mainstream science journals
and mass-media.

Fads of this type - the fear-mongering alarmist type - have become the
mainstay of official mass-media and the object of sensationalistic
'science-journalism'. There's been a whole series of such fads associated
with pseudo-scientific meteorology and climatology, that are cyclically
promoted by syndicated news media and official or mainstream science
publications.

In the 70's, in the wake of the atmospheric cooling experienced between
1945-1947 and 1972, there was a passing fad of 'global' cooling, supposedly
buttressed by study of the fossil record and ice samples, which had
'established' the existence of cycles of minor ice-ages (see reference to
the Milankovich model below). At that time, the fear was that the earth was
just turning the corner into a new ice-age. Any notion of global warming
was strictly anathema. Instead, it was argued that man-made contributions
would aggravate this cooling by the production of carbon and sulphur
aerosols. As Richard Lindzen points out [1], some of the best-selling
authors of this rubbish, like Stephen Schneider and Crispin Tickell, have
now, not so surprisingly, moved on to become apologists of the 'global
warming' hysteria. Lindzen may argue that, amongst scientists, the fad was
shortlived; yet, it is worth mentioning that, besides an ambiguous report by
the NRC of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the two reports that
initiated the 'global cooling' fad - on the natural prediction of an ice age
as the trend of future climate [2], and on the effects of CO2 and aerosols
on cooling global climate [3] - were both published in the journal Science,
the very same peer-reviewed journal that now promotes the 'reality' of
'global warming'.

Next came the fad of acid-rain, then one heard about cows and termites being
a significant source of atmosphere-polluting methane (that one was dear to
Reaganism in the early 80's), then about the hole in the stratospheric ozone
layer over Antarctica (back in 1985, by the British Antarctic Survey, BAS),
and finally 'global warming' came of age. Each fad came with smidgens of
truth scattered about in a tissue of lies, unverifiable axioms and perverse
falsification of facts. And, of course, each also came with an ever growing
number of climate modellers, now armed with supercomputers...

Pseudoscientific fads do not have, nor do they need, any reason to come
about, being set in motion solely by the political and social forces that
promote them, and the vested interests they serve. Climatology and other
environmental sciences are particularly vulnerable to this sort of
manipulation because, as Lindzen puts it, "rigor is generally impossible"
in these disciplines. But since these fads are supposed to be 'scientific',
they are compelled to search for pseudo-evidence which may serve as the
excuse (the 'scientific reason') for their promotion in mainstream journals
and the media. Typically there is a little truth in this pseudo-evidence,
but its generalization or interpretation falsifies the facts and the data,
undermining both the value and the quality of the latter. "

"P. Fritz" paulfritz ATvoyager DOTnet wrote in message
...

"There is perhaps no clearer example of the arbitrary vagaries of
mainstream peer-review and its promotion of non-scientific fads, driven by
political and economic interests

You posted this, so it's safe to assume you believe it. What economic
interests do you think drive this PARTICULAR scientific subject?



Next came the fad of acid-rain

The fad??? The NY State DEC seems to disagree, based on 30+ years' worth of
data on rain and the changes in a myriad of lakes.

Ok, which of these statements is false:


Sean Corbett wrote:
Your dodge of the question and snippage of parts of my post are accepted as
your offer of surrender.

I bet this person doesn't even see the irony of this reply.

Sean, why don't you just answer Gene's questions?

DSK