Jerry Peters wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:
Jerry Peters wrote:
Charlie wrote:
"Jeff Liebermann" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 13:12:53 -0800 (PST), "."
wrote:
As you know global warming is endangering the future of life on
the planet.
Assumption, the mother of all screwups. When it's warmer than
usual, it's global warming. When it's wetter than usual, it's
global warming. When there's a drought, it's global warming.
When sunspots fail to appear, it's global warming. When there's
an unscheduled political change, or the stock market dives, it's
global warming. Anything even slightly off normal, it's global
warming. Somehow, I'm more than a little suspicious.
Of course the sources of information are also suspect. The same
people that can't predict if it's going to rain tomorrow, are now
asking us to believe their weather forecast for 100 years from
now. Global computer weather models that predict the future,
can't seem to do as well predicting known events (Maunder Minimum
and medieval warming period) in the past.
In the 1950's, one of the suggestions for preventing global
nuclear self-destruction was to unite the world against a single
threat. Contrived invaders from Mars or other outside influence
was the most common suggestion. Science fiction was written
around this theme. Well, they were close. We now have something
we can all fight together, even if it might be faked or
contrived. Maybe spending money on fighting global warming can
save the economy. Once we fix global warming, we can get
together and fight the oncoming ice age.
Do a Google search for Bolivia and glaciers.
I would like to read your rationale as to what is causing this
phenomenon of fast glacier melting.
It must be caused by something other than your hot air.
Ooh a GW True Believer. Have you properly genuflected to Al Gore yet
today?
It's been both cooler & warmer in the historical record. There were
dairy farms in Greenland in Viking times. Some of them are still
buried by ice, BTW
One of the "tricks" used by AGW True Believers is to eliminate the
Medieval Warm Period so that the current warming looks extreme.
**********. That there was localised warming in parts of the Northern
hemisphere is not denied by anyone. Localised warming does not equal
GLOBAL WARMING.
Then there's the alleged accuracy of their temperature measurements,
less that 1 degree from 100 year old data & tree rings, give me a
break!
**Give you a break? Not likely. Lying about the facts, does not
alter the truth. Proxy measurements of considerably higher accuracy
have been in use for decades.
I live in Pennsylvania. Where I'm currently sitting there were once
ice sheets, they melted, it's what happens when the earth ends a
cold period and starts to defrost, get over it.
**Good for you. Sadly, those of us with more than a grade school
education in science understand that CO2 is a significant driver of
climate on this planet. We are also aware that a 30% increase in CO2
levels is largely responsible for the warming we are presently
experiencing. Of course, if you have your own theory to present,
then do so. Make certain it is peer-reviewed though. The science
behind CO2 influenced global warming has been peer-reviewed. You
should offer nothing less.
What a ****head you are
**This would be a pot, kettle, black moment, Mr Moron. You have insulted and
demeaned at every opportunity. I suggest you take a long hard look in the
mirror.
, responding with ad-hominum attacks when
someone disagrees with your AGW religion.
**I am responding with facts, you moron.
As for my science education,
I took AP chemistry, calculus & physics in high school and I have a
BSE from a well known engineering school.
**Liar. Your education is clearly lacking. You have no idea of what
constitutes the scientific method. You rely on op-ed pieces rather than real
science.
I don't see science here, I see a religious cult using the trappings
of science to promote their ideas.
**Of course. You would not know real science if it bit you on the arse.
I'd like to see some real peer review of AGW.
**It abounds. I suggest you do some actual reading of scientific literature,
rather than op-ed pieces and popular magazines. Read some SCIENCE, you
idiot.
By scientists other than
the climastrologist in crowd. In particular, I'd like to see some
statisticians review some of the statistical techniques used by Mann
et al.
Again: DID YOU READ THE EMAILS, the ones discussing subverting the
peer review process?
**For the second teim: Yes.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au