"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 06:05:09 +0000 (UTC), with neither quill nor qualm,
(Edward A. Falk) quickly quoth:
In article ,
Larry Jaques wrote:
Damn that global warming(kumbaya).
Are you really going to pretend that you don't know that global warming
refers to the year-round temperature of the entire planet as a whole, and
isn't refuted by the fact that one geographic location happened to have a
cold winter?
Are you going to pretend that my statement wasn't a joke? If you're in
fear of the climate changes, here is a list of books to set your mind
at ease. I posted this to Lew earlier this month:
P.S: Leo and Mark never did show any proof for their fears. That's
typical of the fearmongering alarmists these days. sigh
--snip--
Larry, What was that list of books again? I meant to write
thos down and read but now I forget what thread it was on.
This time I'll copy and paste it.
Thanks.
...lew...
Google for any of the authors and it'll bring up all their great
stuff. Huber, Horner, and Lomborg are the best of the best.
From several posts in the "lead" thread:
I'm currently reading Horner's _A Politically Incorrect Guide to
Global Warming and Environmentalism_. I strongly suggest that you
purchase a copy and research his fidings so you can positively refute
Al Gore's statements, just as many other scientists (the other
"consensus") have. Horner devotes an entire chapter to Gore.
If that doesn't suit you, try any of the dozens of books by Bjorn
Lomborg, Patrick Michaels, Fred Singer, Peter Huber, or dozens of
other deniers of your alarmism.
Or read anything from the bibliography of Crichton's _State of Fear_.
I double-dog-dare ya, Leo, to prove (or disprove) it to yourself!
(I had forgotten that it was Leo, too, not just Mark Rand, who was on
the false consensus side.)
---
Stretch evidence to the fact that Global Warming(kumbaya) is all
manmade and is going to kill us and you can have your own Nobel Peace
Prize, too. Note that even in your country, they can't show Gore's
film in schools without a disclaimer of the 9 major errors (aka LIES)
in it. I wonder what he thinks of the volcano under Antarctica...
And how do you explain that the ice on the other 90% of Antarctica
(and Greenland) is thickening during all this nasty and blatant
"warming", hmm?
Whatever happened to scientists being their own skeptics? sigh
Global Warming(kumbaya) climate models have holes miles wide in them.
Why are the alarmists continuing to reduce their scare figures?
Because newer, better data still doesn't support their claims.
C'mon, guys. I dare you to do the research and prove the deniers
wrong!
---
Louis Ohland wrote provided these links:
Sir, allow the powers of technology to address your concerns:
Global Warming - Doomsday Called Off (1/5)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fr5O1HsTVgA
Global Warming - Doomsday Called Off (2/5)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fD6VBLlWmCI&NR=1
Global Warming - Doomsday Called Off (3/5)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZS2eIRkcR0&NR=1
Global Warming - Doomsday Called Off (4/5)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIbTJ6mhCqk&NR=1
Global Warming - Doomsday Called Off (5/5)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2XALmrq3ro&NR=1
If you haven't the time to watch it, let me give you the short
version.
Global warming is a scam.
Mark Rand wrote:
You're denying the accepted scientific position, justify your
denial...
(To which I added:
I love John Christy's ending statement:
"When one talks about climate models and observations, I'm reminded of
a climate scientist one time who said 'My model is right. It's the
real world which is wrong.' And I think that's what we've seen in
many cases. And, so, using observations is not as exotic, it is not
as dramatic in many cases, and, uh, occupies sort of a lower level in
the climate hierarchy of who gets attention. Because climate modeling
enterprizes are very expensive, so they have to have these
constituencies built up that seek to maintain their, um, work.
Observationalists generally do not have that, uh, same attention, and
so developing the observational data sets is sort of the weak sister
in the climate community, yet climate observations are supposed to
represent the truth, not the theory, against which our theory is to be
checked. I believe in observations and that this is where our basis
for climate change should be understood, and the perspective from
which we should see the future. If you look at the past, I don't think
the perspective of the future is all that bad." I think he meant
"projection (or prospects) for the future" in that last sentence.)
---
I forgot to add another book. I haven't read it yet, but Dennis Avery
and Fred Singer wrote _Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years_
http://tinyurl.com/yr9adn
Book Description
Supported by in-depth scientific evidence, Singer and Avery present
the compelling concept that global temperatures have been rising
mostly or entirely because of a natural cycle. Unstoppable Global
Warming explains why we're warming, why it's not very dangerous, and
why we can't stop it anyway.
-
Kindly note that not one single global warming(kumbaya) believer here
has acknowledged any of the data in any of those books nor have they
provided cites to disprove any of the data. That's probably because
they can't. (I'll leave it up to the reader to discern what I meant by
that. 
--snip--
--
An idealist believes the short run doesn't count. A cynic believes
the long run doesn't matter. A realist believes that what is done
or left undone in the short run determines the long run.
-- Sydney J. Harris
Could you let us know what books you have read by reputable climate
scientists who do believe that the accepted fact of a warming planet is
caused by man. There is a huge amount of data from climate scientists that
support the view that the warming of the planet is caused by man. Maybe they
think that the increase of carbon in the atmosphere from 280 ppm before the
industrial revolution to 380 ppm now is the result of burning fossil fuels.
You have a few sources making the case there is no man made global warming
but you don't seem to have any that support the other side of the question.
If you expect anyone to believe your data you better have what the other
side has to show too. You seem to have neglected that. Could it be that your
political view determined your scientific one? Because from what I have seen
the only people who don't think man is making the planet hotter are right
wingers. Isn't that true? Got any anti global warming research from
"liberal" scientists? Or are all your scientists former employees of tobacco
companies?
Hawke