On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 23:33:22 -0800, the infamous "LDosser"
scrawled the following:

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 22:15:33 -0700, the infamous Mark & Juanita
scrawled the following:

.. wrote:

Dear All,
As you know global warming is endangering the future of life on the
planet. It will also affect us;
... snip of global warming hoax spam


Too bad the spammer won't see this. Another nail in the AGW coffin:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6991177.ece

Consensus! /or not ... (Well, we *thought* he was gonna say they were
going to melt, so we kinda ran with it. We were busy publishing the story
so really didn't get to attend his paper presentation.)

The IPCC sure stepped on its own dick that time, huh? Maybe they'll
get some sense and review -everything- they've ever received,
especially from Michael Mann's known-corrupt _CRU_.


This is actually worse than it looks. Global Climate Models (GCM) have to
take many, many variables into consideration. In general the planet will be
divided into a number of distinct areas. such as a two by two degree grid.
Once the mapping has been agreed upon, each block is encoded for surface
type and may or may not have values associated with it. A surface type may
be water, sand, ice, forest, and so on. Typical values might be albedo or,
in the case of water surface, albedo and temperature. Now, all that
considered and adding the new knowledge on the Himalayan Glaciers, one
wonders just what they were using for data in the Himalayas! Either they
made up data (Falsified), or don't consider that in their GCM. If they made
up data, one wonders just how much else was pulled from a dark place. If
they didn't take the Himalayas into consideration, just what kind of ****ty
GCM are they running?!

Bingo: several of the _many_ unanswered million dollar questions!

--
The greatest fine art of the future will be the making
of a comfortable living from a small piece of land.
--Abraham Lincoln