|
Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
|
Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
"basskisser" wrote in message ups.com... http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...NGE5MTQ211.DTL Because somebody tried to cool their boat cabin with it? |
Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
lolRG wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message ups.com... http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...NGE5MTQ211.DTL Because somebody tried to cool their boat cabin with it? lol that was perfect. |
Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
It takes a lot of ice to chill a bottle of Schnapps Whiskey.
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote: lolRG wrote: "basskisser" wrote in message ups.com... http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...NGE5MTQ211.DTL Because somebody tried to cool their boat cabin with it? lol that was perfect. |
Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
RG wrote: "basskisser" wrote in message ups.com... http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...NGE5MTQ211.DTL Because somebody tried to cool their boat cabin with it? Idiot. |
Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
RG wrote: "basskisser" wrote in message ups.com... http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...NGE5MTQ211.DTL Because somebody tried to cool their boat cabin with it? Too dumb to understand the article, huh? |
Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
Tim wrote: It takes a lot of ice to chill a bottle of Schnapps Whiskey. Tell us more about THE transatlantic cable..... And in case you didn't read, or comprhend, I settled the Schnapps debate very early on. It's just that some fools can't understand simple written English. |
Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote: lolRG wrote: "basskisser" wrote in message ups.com... http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...NGE5MTQ211.DTL Because somebody tried to cool their boat cabin with it? lol that was perfect. Simple minded people are ALWAYS easy to amuse...... |
Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...NGE5MTQ211.DTL The San Francisco Gate... The bellweather of unbiased journalism. g |
Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
basskisser wrote: And in case you didn't read, or comprhend, um, hmm |
Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
basskisser wrote: And in case you didn't read, or comprhend, It's just that some fools can't understand simple written English. brilliant! |
Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
basskisser wrote: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...NGE5MTQ211.DTL Ice is a fluid that ebbs and flows 10,000 years ago, there were glaciers covering most of the area where I now live. They receded. Undoubtedly was *not* due to a buildup of greenhouse gasses from the cooking fires of the handful of natives living in the area. The earth has been almost steadily "warming" since the last ice age, so the people who say that this is a natural phenomenon have some science on their side. At the same time, it would seem plausible that industrial activities, deforestation, and combustion of fossil fuels by all manner of vehicles (and vessels!) are likely contributing to or accelerating the warming. Will we reorganize societies and economies to reduce greenhouse gasses? Probably not. So far, the only real results I can see from all the yakkity yak about global warming- with people who insist that man is the sole culprit on one side of the argument and with people who insist that man does not have the capacity to affect the planet on the other side of the argument is an increase in methane and carbon dioxide. :-) It isn't difficult to come up with a list of various species that have perished on this planet due to climate change, and it isn't entirely imposible that human beings might someday be added to that list. In the final analysis; nobody with a motorized pleasure boat has any license, at all, to seriously complain about the global consumption of fossil fuel. (Sort of like Al Gore travelling around in a big SUV). A true believer would need to sink his or her boat, junk out his or her car (not just sell it, and transfer the problem to another person), and take up walking, rowing, and bicycling instead. |
Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
"RG" wrote in message m... "basskisser" wrote in message ups.com... http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...NGE5MTQ211.DTL Because somebody tried to cool their boat cabin with it? LOL! |
Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
Stanley Barthfarkle wrote: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...NGE5MTQ211.DTL The San Francisco Gate... The bellweather of unbiased journalism. g The San Francisco Gate????? WTF?? David Perlman is the San Francisco Chronicle Science Writer. And, did you just happen to see that there were 15,000 scientists at the American Geophysical Union annual meeting saying the same things? I know, I know, the party that you goose step to has told you that global warming isn't happening. And what about the team of scientist from the National Snow and Ice Data Center at the University of Colorado and the International Arctic Research Center at the University of Alaska in Fairbanks? Suppose they don't know what they are talking about, but Rush and Hannity do, huh? Well, I take it that you don't believe the article? Prove the writer wrong. I'll be waiting. |
Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
Tim wrote: basskisser wrote: And in case you didn't read, or comprhend, It's just that some fools can't understand simple written English. brilliant! You forgot to tell us about THE transatlantic cable.... |
Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
Tim wrote: basskisser wrote: And in case you didn't read, or comprhend, um, hmm Awe, how cute. A typo has Tim all in a girlie giggle. Now, tell us more about THE transatlantic cable. I'd like to hear about it. I understood there were several, and that the ship you wrote about wasn't even first, yet you state that it was THE cable.... |
Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
Sam wrote: "RG" wrote in message m... "basskisser" wrote in message ups.com... http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...NGE5MTQ211.DTL Because somebody tried to cool their boat cabin with it? LOL! Simple people are easily amused! Here's what you should do, go and get yourself a few of those very efficient machines. Report back on the operating costs, okay? |
Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
basskisser wrote: Tim wrote: basskisser wrote: And in case you didn't read, or comprhend, um, hmm Awe, how cute. A typo has Tim all in a girlie giggle. when did "um, hmm become a "girlie giggle"? |
Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
"basskisser" wrote in message ups.com... Sam wrote: "RG" wrote in message m... "basskisser" wrote in message ups.com... http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...NGE5MTQ211.DTL Because somebody tried to cool their boat cabin with it? LOL! Simple people are easily amused! Here's what you should do, go and get yourself a few of those very efficient machines. Report back on the operating costs, okay? LOL! |
Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
Tim wrote: basskisser wrote: Tim wrote: basskisser wrote: And in case you didn't read, or comprhend, um, hmm Awe, how cute. A typo has Tim all in a girlie giggle. when did "um, hmm become a "girlie giggle"? When you said it. |
Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
basskisser wrote: When you said it. right |
Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On 12 Dec 2006 09:22:50 -0800, "basskisser" wrote: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...NGE5MTQ211.DTL Here 'ya go Bassy - instead of the sfgate, try some real science fro the experts. Small snippet: "Analysis of records (Figures 2, 3) also shows that long-term ice trends are small and generally not statistically significant (at 95% level), while trends for shorter records are not indicative of the long-term tendencies due to large-amplitude LFO." http://www.frontier.iarc.uaf.edu/~ig.../ice/index.php Oh boy! Stirring the pot. 8) |
Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On 12 Dec 2006 09:22:50 -0800, "basskisser" wrote: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...NGE5MTQ211.DTL Here 'ya go Bassy - instead of the sfgate, try some real science fro the experts. Small snippet: "Analysis of records (Figures 2, 3) also shows that long-term ice trends are small and generally not statistically significant (at 95% level), while trends for shorter records are not indicative of the long-term tendencies due to large-amplitude LFO." http://www.frontier.iarc.uaf.edu/~ig.../ice/index.php Tom, You do know you are debating an issue with someone who believes Schnapps is a whiskey, even though the source he cited to prove his point stated Whiskey must be aged in charred oak barrels to be considered a whiskey. Do you really think you will be able to convince him of anything? Do you really think you can have an intellectual debate with Bassy |
Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
The San Francisco Gate... The bellweather of unbiased journalism. g The San Francisco Gate????? WTF?? David Perlman is the San Francisco Chronicle Science Writer. And, did you just happen to see that there were 15,000 scientists at the American Geophysical Union annual meeting saying the same things? I know, I know, the party that you goose step to has told you that global warming isn't happening. And what about the team of scientist from the National Snow and Ice Data Center at the University of Colorado and the International Arctic Research Center at the University of Alaska in Fairbanks? Suppose they don't know what they are talking about, but Rush and Hannity do, huh? Well, I take it that you don't believe the article? Prove the writer wrong. I'll be waiting. I love you too, man. Peace. |
Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
Chuck! *You* got sucked into an obvious troll?
On 12 Dec 2006 11:23:27 -0800, "Chuck Gould" wrote: basskisser wrote: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...NGE5MTQ211.DTL Ice is a fluid that ebbs and flows 10,000 years ago, there were glaciers covering most of the area where I now live. They receded. Undoubtedly was *not* due to a buildup of greenhouse gasses from the cooking fires of the handful of natives living in the area. The earth has been almost steadily "warming" since the last ice age, so the people who say that this is a natural phenomenon have some science on their side. At the same time, it would seem plausible that industrial activities, deforestation, and combustion of fossil fuels by all manner of vehicles (and vessels!) are likely contributing to or accelerating the warming. Will we reorganize societies and economies to reduce greenhouse gasses? Probably not. So far, the only real results I can see from all the yakkity yak about global warming- with people who insist that man is the sole culprit on one side of the argument and with people who insist that man does not have the capacity to affect the planet on the other side of the argument is an increase in methane and carbon dioxide. :-) It isn't difficult to come up with a list of various species that have perished on this planet due to climate change, and it isn't entirely imposible that human beings might someday be added to that list. In the final analysis; nobody with a motorized pleasure boat has any license, at all, to seriously complain about the global consumption of fossil fuel. (Sort of like Al Gore travelling around in a big SUV). A true believer would need to sink his or her boat, junk out his or her car (not just sell it, and transfer the problem to another person), and take up walking, rowing, and bicycling instead. -- John H *Have a great Christmas and a spectacular New Year!* |
Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 18:52:25 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote: On 12/12/2006 5:57 PM, Reginald P. Smithers III wrote: Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On 12 Dec 2006 09:22:50 -0800, "basskisser" wrote: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...NGE5MTQ211.DTL Here 'ya go Bassy - instead of the sfgate, try some real science fro the experts. Small snippet: "Analysis of records (Figures 2, 3) also shows that long-term ice trends are small and generally not statistically significant (at 95% level), while trends for shorter records are not indicative of the long-term tendencies due to large-amplitude LFO." http://www.frontier.iarc.uaf.edu/~ig.../ice/index.php Tom, You do know you are debating an issue with someone who believes Schnapps is a whiskey, even though the source he cited to prove his point stated Whiskey must be aged in charred oak barrels to be considered a whiskey. Do you really think you will be able to convince him of anything? Do you really think you can have an intellectual debate with Bassy And thus "Reggie" continues in his flaming ass ways... Hi, Harry! This was just to give you some of the attention you're obviously lacking. -- John H *Have a great Christmas and a spectacular New Year!* |
Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
"basskisser" wrote in message ps.com... Stanley Barthfarkle wrote: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...NGE5MTQ211.DTL The San Francisco Gate... The bellweather of unbiased journalism. g The San Francisco Gate????? WTF?? David Perlman is the San Francisco Chronicle Science Writer. And, did you just happen to see that there were 15,000 scientists at the American Geophysical Union annual meeting saying the same things? I know, I know, the party that you goose step to has told you that global warming isn't happening. And what about the team of scientist from the National Snow and Ice Data Center at the University of Colorado and the International Arctic Research Center at the University of Alaska in Fairbanks? Suppose they don't know what they are talking about, but Rush and Hannity do, huh? Well, I take it that you don't believe the article? Prove the writer wrong. I'll be waiting. LOL! |
Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
basskisser wrote: Well, I take it that you don't believe the article? Prove the writer wrong. I'll be waiting. 34 years? |
Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
Tim wrote:
basskisser wrote: Well, I take it that you don't believe the article? Prove the writer wrong. I'll be waiting. 34 years? lol, I am glad I wasn't drinking something. |
Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
JohnH wrote: Chuck! *You* got sucked into an obvious troll? Only to comment that people who consume mass amounts of fuel for discretionary pursuits, (and that would be virtually all powerboaters), are a bit light on credentials for griping about global warming. |
Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
Tim wrote:
basskisser wrote: Tim wrote: basskisser wrote: And in case you didn't read, or comprhend, um, hmm Awe, how cute. A typo has Tim all in a girlie giggle. when did "um, hmm become a "girlie giggle"? Relax. Simple boys are easily amused. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On 12 Dec 2006 09:22:50 -0800, "basskisser" wrote: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...NGE5MTQ211.DTL Here 'ya go Bassy - instead of the sfgate, try some real science fro the experts. Small snippet: "Analysis of records (Figures 2, 3) also shows that long-term ice trends are small and generally not statistically significant (at 95% level), while trends for shorter records are not indicative of the long-term tendencies due to large-amplitude LFO." http://www.frontier.iarc.uaf.edu/~ig.../ice/index.php Thanks for the post, SWS, but aren't you the "STOP IT" guy? We all know the boy lives to pick fights here and will spin them at will until the other party is exhausted. Dan -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
Harry Krause wrote:
On 12/12/2006 5:57 PM, Reginald P. Smithers III wrote: Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On 12 Dec 2006 09:22:50 -0800, "basskisser" wrote: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...NGE5MTQ211.DTL Here 'ya go Bassy - instead of the sfgate, try some real science fro the experts. Small snippet: "Analysis of records (Figures 2, 3) also shows that long-term ice trends are small and generally not statistically significant (at 95% level), while trends for shorter records are not indicative of the long-term tendencies due to large-amplitude LFO." http://www.frontier.iarc.uaf.edu/~ig.../ice/index.php Tom, You do know you are debating an issue with someone who believes Schnapps is a whiskey, even though the source he cited to prove his point stated Whiskey must be aged in charred oak barrels to be considered a whiskey. Do you really think you will be able to convince him of anything? Do you really think you can have an intellectual debate with Bassy And thus "Reggie" continues in his flaming ass ways... I don't know how you define a "flame" but this isn't even close. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 20:07:47 -0500, Dan wrote: Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On 12 Dec 2006 09:22:50 -0800, "basskisser" wrote: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...NGE5MTQ211.DTL Here 'ya go Bassy - instead of the sfgate, try some real science fro the experts. Small snippet: "Analysis of records (Figures 2, 3) also shows that long-term ice trends are small and generally not statistically significant (at 95% level), while trends for shorter records are not indicative of the long-term tendencies due to large-amplitude LFO." http://www.frontier.iarc.uaf.edu/~ig.../ice/index.php Thanks for the post, SWS, but aren't you the "STOP IT" guy? We all know the boy lives to pick fights here and will spin them at will until the other party is exhausted. See any names called in that? It's just a counter to a sfgate article that has...um....mistakes. Nope. I was referring to Kevin, not you. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 17:48:18 -0500, "ACP" wrote: "Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message . .. On 12 Dec 2006 09:22:50 -0800, "basskisser" wrote: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...NGE5MTQ211.DTL Here 'ya go Bassy - instead of the sfgate, try some real science fro the experts. Small snippet: "Analysis of records (Figures 2, 3) also shows that long-term ice trends are small and generally not statistically significant (at 95% level), while trends for shorter records are not indicative of the long-term tendencies due to large-amplitude LFO." http://www.frontier.iarc.uaf.edu/~ig.../ice/index.php Oh boy! Stirring the pot. 8) Not at all. Just pointing out that science is science. And these guys know ice science. Some folks don't like to have anything pointed out to them, credible science or not. |
Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 17:57:59 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote: Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On 12 Dec 2006 09:22:50 -0800, "basskisser" wrote: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...NGE5MTQ211.DTL Here 'ya go Bassy - instead of the sfgate, try some real science fro the experts. Small snippet: "Analysis of records (Figures 2, 3) also shows that long-term ice trends are small and generally not statistically significant (at 95% level), while trends for shorter records are not indicative of the long-term tendencies due to large-amplitude LFO." http://www.frontier.iarc.uaf.edu/~ig.../ice/index.php Tom, You do know you are debating an issue with someone who believes Schnapps is a whiskey, even though the source he cited to prove his point stated Whiskey must be aged in charred oak barrels to be considered a whiskey. Do you really think you will be able to convince him of anything? Do you really think you can have an intellectual debate with Bassy I believe that, despite opinions to the contrary, that Bassy can, and does, look at contrarian technical evidence presented without rancor and discuss it rationally. And you believe in Santa Claus too.....right????? |
Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 17:57:59 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote: Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On 12 Dec 2006 09:22:50 -0800, "basskisser" wrote: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...NGE5MTQ211.DTL Here 'ya go Bassy - instead of the sfgate, try some real science fro the experts. Small snippet: "Analysis of records (Figures 2, 3) also shows that long-term ice trends are small and generally not statistically significant (at 95% level), while trends for shorter records are not indicative of the long-term tendencies due to large-amplitude LFO." http://www.frontier.iarc.uaf.edu/~ig.../ice/index.php Tom, You do know you are debating an issue with someone who believes Schnapps is a whiskey, even though the source he cited to prove his point stated Whiskey must be aged in charred oak barrels to be considered a whiskey. Do you really think you will be able to convince him of anything? Do you really think you can have an intellectual debate with Bassy I believe that, despite opinions to the contrary, that Bassy can, and does, look at contrarian technical evidence presented without rancor and discuss it rationally. There goes another Diet Coke all over the keyboard.... |
Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 17:57:59 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote: Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On 12 Dec 2006 09:22:50 -0800, "basskisser" wrote: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...NGE5MTQ211.DTL Here 'ya go Bassy - instead of the sfgate, try some real science fro the experts. Small snippet: "Analysis of records (Figures 2, 3) also shows that long-term ice trends are small and generally not statistically significant (at 95% level), while trends for shorter records are not indicative of the long-term tendencies due to large-amplitude LFO." http://www.frontier.iarc.uaf.edu/~ig.../ice/index.php Tom, You do know you are debating an issue with someone who believes Schnapps is a whiskey, even though the source he cited to prove his point stated Whiskey must be aged in charred oak barrels to be considered a whiskey. Do you really think you will be able to convince him of anything? Do you really think you can have an intellectual debate with Bassy I believe that, despite opinions to the contrary, that Bassy can, and does, look at contrarian technical evidence presented without rancor and discuss it rationally. Tom, I wish you the best of luck. It will be interesting to see this progress. |
Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
Tim wrote: basskisser wrote: When you said it. right Glad you agree! |
Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On 12 Dec 2006 09:22:50 -0800, "basskisser" wrote: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...NGE5MTQ211.DTL Here 'ya go Bassy - instead of the sfgate, try some real science fro the experts. Where you are dead wrong is your belief that the "science" in the article came from sfgate. It didn't. Try reading again. You'll see where it came from, including NASA. As for your article, what makes you think that THAT particular article is good, sound science, but articles to the contrary from other scholars and study centers is not? Just because it doesn't fit your party's agenda, perhaps? |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:01 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com