OT - Scary Global Warming Stuff on History Channel (Call to Arms for Vets/Boaters)
 

On Nov 12, 2:52 pm, Gene Kearns
wrote:
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 18:03:05 -0000, penned the
following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

|
|You do realize that water vapor has risen rapidly, don't you? Do you
|have any idea why?

Watch out, man, watch out..... when he realizes it is the same
document he wanted to quote with me, but wouldn't accept as fact, he's
probably going to cut and run........

I don't think he has a grasp on what drivel he's posted!

..... and then you'll be piled on by his small town janitor sock
puppet that brags about not being married and still lives with his
mommy in a 700 sq ft house in Podunk, NY! Duck, because he might
actually use the "P" word! He might even make disparaging remarks
about your family!

Ohhhhh.... they're a dangerous pair, they are.....

--

Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Oak Island, NC.

Homepagehttp://pamandgene.idleplay.net/

Rec.boats at Lee Yeaton's Bayguidehttp://www.thebayguide.com/rec.boats
-----------------www.Newsgroup-Binaries.com- *Completion*Retention*Speed*
Access your favorite newsgroups from home or on the road
-----------------

Yep, I already predicted such behavior, and your prediction about the
other pig piling lowlife seems to be coming to fruition, also!

OT - Scary Global Warming Stuff on History Channel (Call to Arms for Vets/Boaters)
 

wrote in message
oups.com...
On Nov 12, 2:34 pm, "Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute"
wrote:
In messagenews:qo5hj3t2c7bvhid1joj28lvenotn7l2g1e@4ax .com, Gene Kearns
sprach forth the following:





On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 17:42:28 GMT, BillP penned the following well
considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

|
|"Gene Kearns" wrote in message
. ..
| On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 16:44:15 GMT, BillP penned the following well
| considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:
|
| |
| |"Gene Kearns" wrote in
| |
| | Wonderful textbook example of both hasty generalization and false
| | dilemma. Don't they teach logic in schools any more?
| |
| |My statement is logical, sorry if that doesn't fit your religion.
| |
| |Lets make it easy for you- we'll take one at a time.
| |
| |
| |1- Atmospheric CO2 is not the only, not even the primary greenhouse
| |gas. Water Vapor is the major component (95%).
| |
| |Is this a true or false statement ?
| |
|
| Do you accept the entire FAQ document published by NOAA, that
| suggests that CO2 is the second most abundant greenhouse gas, as a
| factual document?
|
|
|Yes I agree that CO2 (approx 3.5% of all greenhouse gases) is the
|second most abundant greenhouse gas behind water vapor, but back to my
|question-
|
|1- Atmospheric CO2 is not the only, not even the primary greenhouse
|gas.
||Water Vapor is the major component (95%).
|
|True or false?
|

Nice try, but either you accept the document as factual or not.

I'm not going to engage is some sort of pointless verbal excursion
with you while you cherry pick passages, from however many documents,
you feel support your pre-defined position.

What a ****ing pussy. With the world's ugliest wife.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


You hide behind usenet calling people names, saying crappy things
about their families, etc, again all the while hiding like a scared
little punk, then have the audacity to call someone else a pussy? Look
in the mirror, lowlife.


What mirror? They're not allowed in his cell.

OT - Scary Global Warming Stuff on History Channel (Call to Arms for Vets/Boaters)
 

wrote
I guess that you aren't bright enough or just don't want to think
about things IN CONTEXT, eh?

That, or I'm just not taking you seriously. I retort, you decide...

OT - Scary Global Warming Stuff on History Channel (Call to Armsfor Vets/Boaters)
 

OT - Scary Global Warming Stuff on History Channel (Call to Arms for Vets/Boaters)
 

"BAR" wrote in message
. ..


Take a stab at telling us why Mars is heating up at the same rate as
Earth. Tell us how the Martians have increased the level of greenhouse
gases in the Martian atmosphere.

copycats.

Eisboch

OT - Scary Global Warming Stuff on History Channel (Call toArms for Vets/Boaters)
 

On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 17:10:40 -0500, BAR wrote:


Take a stab at telling us why Mars is heating up at the same rate as
Earth. Tell us how the Martians have increased the level of greenhouse
gases in the Martian atmosphere.

Apples and oranges. First, we don't know if Mars is warming. So, no one
can be sure of it's rate. Second, Mars' atmosphere *is* a greenhouse
gas, predominately carbon dioxide.

You can't look at the Earth without looking at the surrounding planets.

And you can't look at the surrounding planets without taking into
consideration their differences, only three have atmospheres, and the
duration of their orbits vary considerably.

I'm guessing that you think the Sun is to blame for our recent
temperature increase. I'd point out, the Sun is the second most studied
body in this Solar System.

OT - Scary Global Warming Stuff on History Channel (Call to Arms for Vets/Boaters)
 

On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 17:10:40 -0500, BAR wrote:

Take a stab at telling us why Mars is heating up at the same rate as
Earth. Tell us how the Martians have increased the level of greenhouse
gases in the Martian atmosphere.

Martians, as we all know, live under the surface and have been
hibernating for the last million or so years.

They recently discovered Spirit and Opportunity wandering around on
the surface and believing they are under attack, have awakened and are
now rewarming the surface and reestablishing the atmosphere prepatory
to invading Earth.

You heard it here first.

OT - Scary Global Warming Stuff on History Channel (Call to Arms for Vets/Boaters)
 

On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 22:41:34 -0000, wrote:

On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 17:10:40 -0500, BAR wrote:


Take a stab at telling us why Mars is heating up at the same rate as
Earth. Tell us how the Martians have increased the level of greenhouse
gases in the Martian atmosphere.

Apples and oranges. First, we don't know if Mars is warming. So, no one
can be sure of it's rate. Second, Mars' atmosphere *is* a greenhouse
gas, predominately carbon dioxide.

You can't look at the Earth without looking at the surrounding planets.

And you can't look at the surrounding planets without taking into
consideration their differences, only three have atmospheres, and the
duration of their orbits vary considerably.

I'm guessing that you think the Sun is to blame for our recent
temperature increase. I'd point out, the Sun is the second most studied
body in this Solar System.

Nah - not even close. I'd suspect more like, oh I don't know, not
even ranked.

Playboy models are probably the most studied bodies in this Solar
System.

OT - Scary Global Warming Stuff on History Channel (Call to Armsfor Vets/Boaters)
 

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 17:10:40 -0500, BAR wrote:

Take a stab at telling us why Mars is heating up at the same rate as
Earth. Tell us how the Martians have increased the level of greenhouse
gases in the Martian atmosphere.

Martians, as we all know, live under the surface and have been
hibernating for the last million or so years.

Don't Martians spew CO2 flatulnce?

They recently discovered Spirit and Opportunity wandering around on
the surface and believing they are under attack, have awakened and are
now rewarming the surface and reestablishing the atmosphere prepatory
to invading Earth.

You heard it here first.

OT - Scary Global Warming Stuff on History Channel (Call to Arms for Vets/Boaters)
 

On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 19:11:53 GMT, "BillP"
wrote:


"Gene Kearns"
Nice try, but either you accept the document as factual or not.

I'm not going to engage is some sort of pointless verbal excursion
with you while you cherry pick passages, from however many documents,
you feel support your pre-defined position.


LOL, bye............


Oops, sorry Bill. You can't be Bassy.
He never gives up in under two weeks. LOL
Mark E. Williams

OT - Scary Global Warming Stuff on History Channel (Call to Arms for Vets/Boaters)
 

On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 16:44:15 GMT, "BillP"
wrote:

snippity-snip

My statement is logical, sorry if that doesn't fit your religion.

Lets make it easy for you- we'll take one at a time.


1- Atmospheric CO2 is not the only, not even the primary greenhouse gas.
Water Vapor is the major component (95%).

Is this a true or false statement ?


Oh My God! It's Bassy.
Mark E. Williams
PS...Ok I'll admit I'm the worst sock spotter on the internet but just
look and what he said and how he said it. :o)

OT - Scary Global Warming Stuff on History Channel (Call to Arms for Vets/Boaters)
 

On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 20:24:21 -0600, Maynard G. Krebbs
wrote:

PS...Ok I'll admit I'm the worst sock spotter on the internet

Check your feet.

OT - Scary Global Warming Stuff on History Channel (Call to Arms for Vets/Boaters)
 

"BAR" wrote in message
. ..
wrote:
On Nov 12, 9:14 am, "BillP" wrote:
wrote in message

I notice your head is still firmly planted in the sand!
Do The Math
1- Atmospheric CO2 is not the only, not even the primary greenhouse gas.
Water Vapor is the major component (95%).
2- All atmospheric CO2 from all sources is less than (three hundredths)
.03
of the total of all greenhouse gases.
3- All man made atmospheric CO2 is less than (nine ten thousandths)
.0009 of
all greenhouse gases.
4- All US produced atmospheric CO2 is less than (three hundred twenty
four
millionths) .000324 of all greenhouse gases.
5- The Kyoto Protocol requires the US to reduce our atmospheric CO2
production by (four hundred eighty six ten millionths) .0000486 of all
greenhouse gases.
6- This US CO2 reduction is equivalent to reducing a full to the brim
standard US bathtub by 3/4 of a teaspoon. A ratio of 1 to 20,576.

A- It is mathematically unlikely that atmospheric CO2 is the cause of
global
warming.
B- It is mathematically improbable that MAN MADE atmospheric CO2 causes
global warming.
C- It is mathematically impossible that US PRODUCED atmospheric CO2 is a
cause of global warming.
D- It is mathematically 20,576 times MORE IMPOSSIBLE that reducing US
produced atmospheric CO2 will have ANY IMPACT at all on global warming.

Do you want to raise all US prices by 32%, raise unemployment by 300%,
and
give up US sovereignty to the United Nations in order to remove 3/4
teaspoon
of water from a full bathtub?

Cutting US CO2 production to the levels required by the Kyoto Protocols
results in NO STATISTICAL IMPACT on total atmospheric CO2 and NO
PRACTICAL
IMPACT on global warming.

CONCLUSION

There can be only 3 logical reasons why some people are man-made global
warming proponents.
They are either:

1- Ignorant: They don't know the truth.
2- Delusional: They know the truth but refuse to believe it.
3- Liars: They know the truth and believe it, but they promote the lie
for
personal benefit.

The world is warming but not because of man's activity.

Yeah, sure, a very few scientists, and only one's with an agenda, come
up with that drivel, while thousands upon thousands (and yes, some of
them have an agenda too) have good hard data to show otherwise. People
like you and Shortwave prefer to stick your heads in the sand and
ignore that data, and will only look at data that you THINK helps make
your point.


Take a stab at telling us why Mars is heating up at the same rate as
Earth. Tell us how the Martians have increased the level of greenhouse
gases in the Martian atmosphere.

You can't look at the Earth without looking at the surrounding planets.


Those Mars Rover SUV's. Was OK when there was just 1, but now a fleet of 2.

OT - Scary Global Warming Stuff on History Channel (Call to Armsfor Vets/Boaters)
 

Calif Bill wrote:
"BAR" wrote in message
. ..
wrote:
On Nov 12, 9:14 am, "BillP" wrote:
wrote in message

I notice your head is still firmly planted in the sand!
Do The Math
1- Atmospheric CO2 is not the only, not even the primary greenhouse gas.
Water Vapor is the major component (95%).
2- All atmospheric CO2 from all sources is less than (three hundredths)
.03
of the total of all greenhouse gases.
3- All man made atmospheric CO2 is less than (nine ten thousandths)
.0009 of
all greenhouse gases.
4- All US produced atmospheric CO2 is less than (three hundred twenty
four
millionths) .000324 of all greenhouse gases.
5- The Kyoto Protocol requires the US to reduce our atmospheric CO2
production by (four hundred eighty six ten millionths) .0000486 of all
greenhouse gases.
6- This US CO2 reduction is equivalent to reducing a full to the brim
standard US bathtub by 3/4 of a teaspoon. A ratio of 1 to 20,576.

A- It is mathematically unlikely that atmospheric CO2 is the cause of
global
warming.
B- It is mathematically improbable that MAN MADE atmospheric CO2 causes
global warming.
C- It is mathematically impossible that US PRODUCED atmospheric CO2 is a
cause of global warming.
D- It is mathematically 20,576 times MORE IMPOSSIBLE that reducing US
produced atmospheric CO2 will have ANY IMPACT at all on global warming.

Do you want to raise all US prices by 32%, raise unemployment by 300%,
and
give up US sovereignty to the United Nations in order to remove 3/4
teaspoon
of water from a full bathtub?

Cutting US CO2 production to the levels required by the Kyoto Protocols
results in NO STATISTICAL IMPACT on total atmospheric CO2 and NO
PRACTICAL
IMPACT on global warming.

CONCLUSION

There can be only 3 logical reasons why some people are man-made global
warming proponents.
They are either:

1- Ignorant: They don't know the truth.
2- Delusional: They know the truth but refuse to believe it.
3- Liars: They know the truth and believe it, but they promote the lie
for
personal benefit.

The world is warming but not because of man's activity.
Yeah, sure, a very few scientists, and only one's with an agenda, come
up with that drivel, while thousands upon thousands (and yes, some of
them have an agenda too) have good hard data to show otherwise. People
like you and Shortwave prefer to stick your heads in the sand and
ignore that data, and will only look at data that you THINK helps make
your point.

Take a stab at telling us why Mars is heating up at the same rate as
Earth. Tell us how the Martians have increased the level of greenhouse
gases in the Martian atmosphere.

You can't look at the Earth without looking at the surrounding planets.


Those Mars Rover SUV's. Was OK when there was just 1, but now a fleet of 2.

Don't they know about the Kyoto Protocol?

OT - Scary Global Warming Stuff on History Channel (Call to Arms for Vets/Boaters)
 

On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 23:02:14 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing penned the
following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

|Playboy models are probably the most studied bodies in this Solar
|System.

Shucks.... you beat me to it....

--

Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Oak Island, NC.

Homepage
http://pamandgene.idleplay.net/

Rec.boats at Lee Yeaton's Bayguide
http://www.thebayguide.com/rec.boats
-----------------
www.Newsgroup-Binaries.com - *Completion*Retention*Speed*
Access your favorite newsgroups from home or on the road
-----------------

OT - Scary Global Warming Stuff on History Channel (Call to Arms for Vets/Boaters)
 

On Nov 12, 2:14 pm, "BillP" wrote:
wrote in message

You do realize that water vapor has risen rapidly, don't you?

Do you have proof of this?

Yes.

OT - Scary Global Warming Stuff on History Channel (Call to Arms for Vets/Boaters)
 

On Nov 12, 5:10 pm, BAR wrote:
wrote:
On Nov 12, 9:14 am, "BillP" wrote:
wrote in message

I notice your head is still firmly planted in the sand!
Do The Math
1- Atmospheric CO2 is not the only, not even the primary greenhouse gas.
Water Vapor is the major component (95%).
2- All atmospheric CO2 from all sources is less than (three hundredths) .03
of the total of all greenhouse gases.
3- All man made atmospheric CO2 is less than (nine ten thousandths) .0009 of
all greenhouse gases.
4- All US produced atmospheric CO2 is less than (three hundred twenty four
millionths) .000324 of all greenhouse gases.
5- The Kyoto Protocol requires the US to reduce our atmospheric CO2
production by (four hundred eighty six ten millionths) .0000486 of all
greenhouse gases.
6- This US CO2 reduction is equivalent to reducing a full to the brim
standard US bathtub by 3/4 of a teaspoon. A ratio of 1 to 20,576.

A- It is mathematically unlikely that atmospheric CO2 is the cause of global
warming.
B- It is mathematically improbable that MAN MADE atmospheric CO2 causes
global warming.
C- It is mathematically impossible that US PRODUCED atmospheric CO2 is a
cause of global warming.
D- It is mathematically 20,576 times MORE IMPOSSIBLE that reducing US
produced atmospheric CO2 will have ANY IMPACT at all on global warming.

Do you want to raise all US prices by 32%, raise unemployment by 300%, and
give up US sovereignty to the United Nations in order to remove 3/4 teaspoon
of water from a full bathtub?

Cutting US CO2 production to the levels required by the Kyoto Protocols
results in NO STATISTICAL IMPACT on total atmospheric CO2 and NO PRACTICAL
IMPACT on global warming.

CONCLUSION

There can be only 3 logical reasons why some people are man-made global
warming proponents.
They are either:

1- Ignorant: They don't know the truth.
2- Delusional: They know the truth but refuse to believe it.
3- Liars: They know the truth and believe it, but they promote the lie for
personal benefit.

The world is warming but not because of man's activity.

Yeah, sure, a very few scientists, and only one's with an agenda, come
up with that drivel, while thousands upon thousands (and yes, some of
them have an agenda too) have good hard data to show otherwise. People
like you and Shortwave prefer to stick your heads in the sand and
ignore that data, and will only look at data that you THINK helps make
your point.

Take a stab at telling us why Mars is heating up at the same rate as
Earth.

It's not heating at the same rate as Earth.


Tell us how the Martians have increased the level of greenhouse
gases in the Martian atmosphere.

Apples and oranges. It's absurdly stupid to try and compare Mar's
environment to Earths.



You can't look at the Earth without looking at the surrounding planets.-

Horse****, and ignorance.

Here's a start:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192




Recently, there have been some suggestions that "global warming" has
been observed on Mars (e.g. here). These are based on observations of
regional change around the South Polar Cap, but seem to have been
extended into a "global" change, and used by some to infer an external
common mechanism for global warming on Earth and Mars (e.g. here and
here). But this is incorrect reasoning and based on faulty
understanding of the data.



A couple of basic issues first : the Martian year is about 2 Earth
years (687 days). Currently it is late winter in Mars's northern
hemisphere, so late summer in the southern hemisphere. Martian
eccentricity is about 0.1 - over 5 times larger than Earth's, so the
insolation (INcoming SOLar radiATION) variation over the orbit is
substantial, and contributes significantly more to seasonality than on
the Earth, although Mars's obliquity (the angle of its spin axis to
the orbital plane) still dominates the seasons. The alignment of
obliquity and eccentricity due to precession is a much stronger effect
than for the Earth, leading to "great" summers and winters on time
scales of tens of thousands of years (the precessional period is
170,000 years). Since Mars has no oceans and a thin atmosphere, the
thermal inertia is low, and Martian climate is easily perturbed by
external influences, including solar variations. However, solar
irradiance is now well measured by satellite and has been declining
slightly over the last few years as it moves towards a solar minimum.

OT - Scary Global Warming Stuff on History Channel (Call to Arms for Vets/Boaters)
 

On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 17:10:40 -0500, BAR penned the following well
considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

wrote:
| On Nov 12, 9:14 am, "BillP" wrote:
| wrote in message
|
| I notice your head is still firmly planted in the sand!
| Do The Math
| 1- Atmospheric CO2 is not the only, not even the primary greenhouse gas.
| Water Vapor is the major component (95%).
| 2- All atmospheric CO2 from all sources is less than (three hundredths) .03
| of the total of all greenhouse gases.
| 3- All man made atmospheric CO2 is less than (nine ten thousandths) .0009 of
| all greenhouse gases.
| 4- All US produced atmospheric CO2 is less than (three hundred twenty four
| millionths) .000324 of all greenhouse gases.
| 5- The Kyoto Protocol requires the US to reduce our atmospheric CO2
| production by (four hundred eighty six ten millionths) .0000486 of all
| greenhouse gases.
| 6- This US CO2 reduction is equivalent to reducing a full to the brim
| standard US bathtub by 3/4 of a teaspoon. A ratio of 1 to 20,576.
|
| A- It is mathematically unlikely that atmospheric CO2 is the cause of global
| warming.
| B- It is mathematically improbable that MAN MADE atmospheric CO2 causes
| global warming.
| C- It is mathematically impossible that US PRODUCED atmospheric CO2 is a
| cause of global warming.
| D- It is mathematically 20,576 times MORE IMPOSSIBLE that reducing US
| produced atmospheric CO2 will have ANY IMPACT at all on global warming.
|
| Do you want to raise all US prices by 32%, raise unemployment by 300%, and
| give up US sovereignty to the United Nations in order to remove 3/4 teaspoon
| of water from a full bathtub?
|
| Cutting US CO2 production to the levels required by the Kyoto Protocols
| results in NO STATISTICAL IMPACT on total atmospheric CO2 and NO PRACTICAL
| IMPACT on global warming.
|
| CONCLUSION
|
| There can be only 3 logical reasons why some people are man-made global
| warming proponents.
| They are either:
|
| 1- Ignorant: They don't know the truth.
| 2- Delusional: They know the truth but refuse to believe it.
| 3- Liars: They know the truth and believe it, but they promote the lie for
| personal benefit.
|
| The world is warming but not because of man's activity.
|
| Yeah, sure, a very few scientists, and only one's with an agenda, come
| up with that drivel, while thousands upon thousands (and yes, some of
| them have an agenda too) have good hard data to show otherwise. People
| like you and Shortwave prefer to stick your heads in the sand and
| ignore that data, and will only look at data that you THINK helps make
| your point.
|
|
|Take a stab at telling us why Mars is heating up at the same rate as
|Earth. Tell us how the Martians have increased the level of greenhouse
|gases in the Martian atmosphere.

Wrong.

"Global warming could be heating Mars four times faster than Earth due
to a mutually reinforcing interplay of wind-swept dust and changes in
reflected heat from the Sun, according to a study released Wednesday."
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...ow_article= 1

|You can't look at the Earth without looking at the surrounding planets.

Wrong.

"The paper is interesting but it hasn't got anything to do with the
question of human impact on global warming on Earth," Dr. Nicholls
said.

"It's not an excuse to argue that humans are not causing global
warming on Earth."
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21506814-2,00.html


".....variations in radiation from the surface of Mars are fueling
strong winds that stir up giant dust storms, trapping heat and raising
the planet's temperature. "
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems...4/s1890339.htm

I guess it is the giant dust storms, here on Earth, that make our
weather even vaguely comparable to Mars. Or not.

--

Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Oak Island, NC.

Homepage
http://pamandgene.idleplay.net/

Rec.boats at Lee Yeaton's Bayguide
http://www.thebayguide.com/rec.boats
-----------------
www.Newsgroup-Binaries.com - *Completion*Retention*Speed*
Access your favorite newsgroups from home or on the road
-----------------

OT - Scary Global Warming Stuff on History Channel (Call to Armsfor Vets/Boaters)
 

Gene Kearns wrote:

".....variations in radiation from the surface of Mars are fueling
strong winds that stir up giant dust storms, trapping heat and raising
the planet's temperature. "
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems...4/s1890339.htm

I guess it is the giant dust storms, here on Earth, that make our
weather even vaguely comparable to Mars. Or not.


What is causing the variations in radiation?

OT - Scary Global Warming Stuff on History Channel (Call to Armsfor Vets/Boaters)
 

BAR wrote:
Gene Kearns wrote:

".....variations in radiation from the surface of Mars are fueling
strong winds that stir up giant dust storms, trapping heat and raising
the planet's temperature. "
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems...4/s1890339.htm

I guess it is the giant dust storms, here on Earth, that make our
weather even vaguely comparable to Mars. Or not.


What is causing the variations in radiation?


Not what, who. It's SW Tom. Someone, stupidly, gave him the Universal
Radiation Rheostat.

OT - Scary Global Warming Stuff on History Channel (Call to Arms for Vets/Boaters)
 

On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 10:44:55 -0500, BAR penned the following well
considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

|Gene Kearns wrote:
|
| ".....variations in radiation from the surface of Mars are fueling
| strong winds that stir up giant dust storms, trapping heat and raising
| the planet's temperature. "
| http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems...4/s1890339.htm
|
| I guess it is the giant dust storms, here on Earth, that make our
| weather even vaguely comparable to Mars. Or not.
|
|
|What is causing the variations in radiation?

Dust.

--

Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Oak Island, NC.

Homepage
http://pamandgene.idleplay.net/

Rec.boats at Lee Yeaton's Bayguide
http://www.thebayguide.com/rec.boats
-----------------
www.Newsgroup-Binaries.com - *Completion*Retention*Speed*
Access your favorite newsgroups from home or on the road
-----------------

OT - Scary Global Warming Stuff on History Channel (Call to Arms for Vets/Boaters)
 

"Gene Kearns" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 18:03:05 -0000, penned the
following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:


|
|You do realize that water vapor has risen rapidly, don't you? Do you
|have any idea why?

Watch out, man, watch out..... when he realizes it is the same
document he wanted to quote with me, but wouldn't accept as fact, he's
probably going to cut and run........

So, you consider the IPCC document as fact, the whole truth and nothing but?
The document can be rendered useless using some of it's opening statements:

"The statements presented here are based largely on data sets that cover the
period since 1970" ( Weren't we in a cooling cycle during the 70's? )

"There is, however, a notable lack of geographical balance in the data and
literature on observed changes, with marked scarcity in developing
countries." (With such a vast amount of data missing how do we know for sure
that warming isn't a localized phenomena?)

"Based on satellite observations since the early 1980s" (The beginning of
the
current warming cycle)

"A global assessment of data since 1970 has shown it is likely that
anthropogenic warming has had a discernible influence on many physical and
biological systems." (Likely, discernable? I thought the debate was over)

There are literally hundreds of CYA statements in this document.
How anyone (without an agenda) can take this document as fact is beyond me.

OT - Scary Global Warming Stuff on History Channel (Call to Arms for Vets/Boaters)
 

wrote in message
ps.com...
On Nov 12, 2:14 pm, "BillP" wrote:
wrote in message

You do realize that water vapor has risen rapidly, don't you?

Do you have proof of this?

Yes.


Well very good then.
Do you have any proof as to why it is?

How about cloud cover, is it increasing, decreasing?

OT - Scary Global Warming Stuff on History Channel (Call to Arms for Vets/Boaters)
 

On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 22:00:51 GMT, BillP penned the following well
considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

|
|"Gene Kearns" wrote in message
.. .
| On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 18:03:05 -0000, penned the
| following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:
|
|
| |
| |You do realize that water vapor has risen rapidly, don't you? Do you
| |have any idea why?
|
| Watch out, man, watch out..... when he realizes it is the same
| document he wanted to quote with me, but wouldn't accept as fact, he's
| probably going to cut and run........
|
|So, you consider the IPCC document as fact, the whole truth and nothing but?

No, not necessarily, but then I think any document would be rendered
useless if you cherry picked out of context sentences that seem to
"prove" your point.

|The document can be rendered useless using some of it's opening statements:

That is simply a foolish statement, totally devoid of any logic.

|"The statements presented here are based largely on data sets that cover the
|period since 1970" ( Weren't we in a cooling cycle during the 70's? )

It was a bit of populist science, never supported by the scientific
community. It was actually very akin to the present feeling that
humans couldn't possibly have any effect on global warming.

|"There is, however, a notable lack of geographical balance in the data and
|literature on observed changes, with marked scarcity in developing
|countries." (With such a vast amount of data missing how do we know for sure
|that warming isn't a localized phenomena?)

Would you really like to make the case that global warming is only
taking place in developing countries?

|"Based on satellite observations since the early 1980s" (The beginning of
|the
|current warming cycle)

"The beginning of the current warming cycle" seems to be your
incorrect assumption, possibly based on the old erroneous populist
ideas of a "cooling cycle."

|"A global assessment of data since 1970 has shown it is likely that
|anthropogenic warming has had a discernible influence on many physical and
|biological systems." (Likely, discernable? I thought the debate was over)

Why are you trying to quote from a document that is (1) from a working
group and (2) is not even edited. The quote from the IPCC document
says:

"The understanding of anthropogenic warming and cooling influences on
climate has improved since the Third Assessment Report (TAR), leading
to very high confidence that the global average net effect of human
activities since 1750 has been one of warming. "

|There are literally hundreds of CYA statements in this document.
|How anyone (without an agenda) can take this document as fact is beyond me.

If I was absolutely convinced that the world was flat, gazing at a
globe would probably **** me off, too.....

--

Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Oak Island, NC.

Homepage
http://pamandgene.idleplay.net/

Rec.boats at Lee Yeaton's Bayguide
http://www.thebayguide.com/rec.boats
-----------------
www.Newsgroup-Binaries.com - *Completion*Retention*Speed*
Access your favorite newsgroups from home or on the road
-----------------

OT - Scary Global Warming Stuff on History Channel (Call to Arms for Vets/Boaters)
 

On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 11:16:31 -0500, Gene Kearns
wrote:

No, not necessarily, but then I think any document would be rendered
useless if you cherry picked out of context sentences that seem to
"prove" your point.

What about the opposite - cherry picked data to "prove" the concept of
"Global" warming aka, Climate Change?

OT - Scary Global Warming Stuff on History Channel (Call to Arms for Vets/Boaters)
 

On Nov 13, 5:04 pm, "BillP" wrote:
wrote in message

ps.com...

On Nov 12, 2:14 pm, "BillP" wrote:
wrote in message

You do realize that water vapor has risen rapidly, don't you?

Do you have proof of this?

Yes.

Well very good then.
Do you have any proof as to why it is?

Yes, because warm air can sustain a higher concentration of water
vapor than cooler air without becoming saturated.
Here, I'll educate you some mo
http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/mockler.html


How about cloud cover, is it increasing, decreasing?

Yes.

OT - Scary Global Warming Stuff on History Channel (Call to Arms for Vets/Boaters)
 

"Gene Kearns" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 22:00:51 GMT, BillP penned the following well
considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

|
|"Gene Kearns" wrote in message
.. .
| On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 18:03:05 -0000, penned the
| following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:
|
|
| |
| |You do realize that water vapor has risen rapidly, don't you? Do you
| |have any idea why?
|
| Watch out, man, watch out..... when he realizes it is the same
| document he wanted to quote with me, but wouldn't accept as fact, he's
| probably going to cut and run........
|
|So, you consider the IPCC document as fact, the whole truth and nothing
but?

No, not necessarily, but then I think any document would be rendered
useless if you cherry picked out of context sentences that seem to
"prove" your point.


When a document starts out


|The document can be rendered useless using some of it's opening
statements:

That is simply a foolish statement, totally devoid of any logic.

|"The statements presented here are based largely on data sets that cover
the
|period since 1970" ( Weren't we in a cooling cycle during the 70's? )

It was a bit of populist science, never supported by the scientific
community. It was actually very akin to the present feeling that
humans couldn't possibly have any effect on global warming.

|"There is, however, a notable lack of geographical balance in the data
and
|literature on observed changes, with marked scarcity in developing
|countries." (With such a vast amount of data missing how do we know for
sure
|that warming isn't a localized phenomena?)

Would you really like to make the case that global warming is only
taking place in developing countries?

|"Based on satellite observations since the early 1980s" (The beginning of
|the
|current warming cycle)

"The beginning of the current warming cycle" seems to be your
incorrect assumption, possibly based on the old erroneous populist
ideas of a "cooling cycle."

|"A global assessment of data since 1970 has shown it is likely that
|anthropogenic warming has had a discernible influence on many physical
and
|biological systems." (Likely, discernable? I thought the debate was over)

Why are you trying to quote from a document that is (1) from a working
group and (2) is not even edited. The quote from the IPCC document
says:

"The understanding of anthropogenic warming and cooling influences on
climate has improved since the Third Assessment Report (TAR), leading
to very high confidence that the global average net effect of human
activities since 1750 has been one of warming. "

|There are literally hundreds of CYA statements in this document.
|How anyone (without an agenda) can take this document as fact is beyond
me.

If I was absolutely convinced that the world was flat, gazing at a
globe would probably **** me off, too.....

--

Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Oak Island, NC.

Homepage
http://pamandgene.idleplay.net/

Rec.boats at Lee Yeaton's Bayguide
http://www.thebayguide.com/rec.boats
-----------------
www.Newsgroup-Binaries.com - *Completion*Retention*Speed*
Access your favorite newsgroups from home or on the road
-----------------