One for the not so swift among us-
 

On 30 May 2006 10:17:22 -0700, "basskisser"
wrote:


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...489955,00.html

And he http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0219-01.htm

Both "news" articles are about the same study over a year ago, which
has since been shown to have serious flaws.

Here's a couple of things to look at:

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/391.pdf

Note that these are not some newspaper hack's slanted opinions, but
rather are open-minded, researched papers complete with abundant
references.

If Eric is still following this thread, he may find the second one
especially interesting, as it talks about the flaws in the computer
models used for climate predictions.

One for the not so swift among us-
 

On Tue, 30 May 2006 03:32:36 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:


"Jack Goff" wrote:

Correct. That's why even 5-day forecasts are often inaccurate. Then
when you realize that "Weather is *simple* compared to climate", it
makes the concept of accurate 100 year climate predictions seem
totally ludicrous!

Jack

In any case, I'm absolutely 100% positive that you are correct.

Now we're getting somewhere!


Based on your research, humans do not, and never will have any effect on the
environment. This has all been a hoax perpetrated on the world by companies
who make green ink, the most popular color in the mass mailing sent out by
environmental groups.

Huh? How did you get that from what I've written? Especially when I
wrote " It's not that most people don't acknowledge some type of
connection between warming and human activity. Rather, it's whether or
not human activity plays a *significant* role in the equation, and if
anything we might do could make any measurable difference whatsoever."

Do you read and understand what you've read, or exist here just post
inane comments?

Jack

One for the not so swift among us-
 

On Wed, 31 May 2006 01:09:38 GMT, Tom Francis
wrote:


But to answer your first question last, I'm not here permanently until
at least August if not September. We're going to be buying a house in
South Carolina on top of everything else I'm up to this summer, so
there is a limited opportunity to just chat.

Welcome to SC! Where, generally, in the state? We're around the Lake
Murray area.

Jack

One for the not so swift among us-
 

If you wish to question Dr. Lindzen's statements, I suggest you first post
proof of credentials of your own which would be considered at least equal
to his. Otherwise, silence is the only option you can employ that can
spare you further ridicule.


Gene Kearns wrote:
Richard Lindzen, Pat Michaels, Robert Balling, Sherwood Idso, and Fred
Singer is your little band of dissidents separated from the prevailing
opinion of other credible scientists, This outspoken group appears to
me to be a small band of industry paid hacks that have sacrificed
science for remuneration. If this is the best you can provide, given
the number of credible scientists working on the problem, you really
don't have much science to back your position up, do you?


You mean like the doctors who used to go on TV in the 50s
and 60s to say that smoking cigarettes was good for you?

DSK

One for the not so swift among us-
 

Harry,

You let some nit like that insult you?

The situation reminds me of an episode of the old 60's Batman series,
when Batman was telling Boy Robin about the lunacies of one of the
fabled super criminals.

"Robin, he's to be pitied more than feared"



Harry Krause wrote:
Gene Kearns wrote:
On Wed, 31 May 2006 00:59:55 GMT, Sean Corbett penned the following
well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

If you wish to question Dr. Lindzen's statements, I suggest you first post
proof of credentials of your own which would be considered at least equal
to his. Otherwise, silence is the only option you can employ that can
spare you further ridicule.

Richard Lindzen, Pat Michaels, Robert Balling, Sherwood Idso, and Fred
Singer is your little band of dissidents separated from the prevailing
opinion of other credible scientists, This outspoken group appears to
me to be a small band of industry paid hacks that have sacrificed
science for remuneration. If this is the best you can provide, given
the number of credible scientists working on the problem, you really
don't have much science to back your position up, do you?



Was I insulted by Sean Corbett, space cadet?

One for the not so swift among us-
 

Jack Goff wrote:

http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/391.pdf

funded by XOM

There's still time to get tickets to their awards dinner
honoring GWB with keynote speaker Haley Barbour at $500 to
$35,000 per person.
1625 K Street, NW #1050, Washington, DC 20006.

One for the not so swift among us-
 

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

On Mon, 29 May 2006 23:14:01 GMT, Sean Corbett penned the following
well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:


OK, which of these statements is false:

1. Mars' primary source of heat is the Sun.

2. Earth's primary source of heat is the Sun.

Ok, which of these statements is false:

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

You seem to be missing quite a bit in this discussion, although you believe
you're leading others around by the nose.

One for the not so swift among us-
 

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


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

On Mon, 29 May 2006 23:14:01 GMT, Sean Corbett penned the following
well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:


OK, which of these statements is false:

1. Mars' primary source of heat is the Sun.

2. Earth's primary source of heat is the Sun.

Ok, which of these statements is false:

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

You seem to be missing quite a bit in this discussion

Did I miss Gene's answer to whether or not Mars' primary source of heat is
the Sun? Please provide me a link to Gene's answer. Unless of course
you'd like to take the occasion to answer the question yourself.

Some of my questions to you have gone unanswered. I see no reason to show
you any further courtesy until you learn to keep up with the discussion.

One for the not so swift among us-
 

On Tue, 30 May 2006 19:52:16 -0700, -rick- wrote:

Jack Goff wrote:

http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/391.pdf

funded by XOM

and others... so? Can't debate the message, so you attempt to kill
the messenger?


There's still time to get tickets to their awards dinner
honoring GWB with keynote speaker Haley Barbour at $500 to
$35,000 per person.
1625 K Street, NW #1050, Washington, DC 20006.

Sweet!!! You going?

Face it... the climate alarmists still don't have it right. Get back
to me when they have a clue.

One for the not so swift among us-
 

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

On Wed, 31 May 2006 00:59:55 GMT, Sean Corbett penned the following
well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:


If you wish to question Dr. Lindzen's statements, I suggest you first
post proof of credentials of your own which would be considered at
least equal to his. Otherwise, silence is the only option you can
employ that can spare you further ridicule.

Richard Lindzen, Pat Michaels, Robert Balling, Sherwood Idso, and Fred
Singer is your little band of dissidents separated from the prevailing
opinion of other credible scientists, This outspoken group appears to
me to be a small band of industry paid hacks that have sacrificed
science for remuneration.

Calling a Harvard-educated, MIT-employed, chair-endowed Professor a "hack"
is a guaranteed way to get yourself laughed clear off the Internet.

Especially when you've posted not a single word demonstrating causality
between human activity and planetary temperature.

Hell, fool, you don't even acknowledge that the Earth and Mars are warmed
by the sun.

And once again, the "faithful" keep proving my point. It is their own
"religion" that must be believed, anyone questioning their faith is deemed
a heritic.
The gullible faithful GW alarmists accept the simple line of "man is at
fault" which conviently fits their political slant as well.