http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=9691233

"flipper" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 15:00:24 -0000, "ian field"
wrote:



http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=9691233


Maybe they didn't want to reveal their mountain climbing magazine
source.

Someone high up in the IPCC was on the newsnight programme via video link
last night, the topic of the Himalaya glacier came up, which they famously
continued to publish the 2035 date long after knowing it was wrong.

In the studio was a climate researcher who had been misquoted by the IPCC,
he says they published a report claiming he'd "changed his mind" on some
important technical detail - without ever actually speaking to him.

As the questions toward the IPCC guy got tougher, the video link was
mysteriously broken and went to a test pattern.

ian field wrote:
"flipper" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 15:00:24 -0000, "ian field"
wrote:


http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=9691233

Maybe they didn't want to reveal their mountain climbing magazine
source.

Someone high up in the IPCC was on the newsnight programme via video link
last night, the topic of the Himalaya glacier came up, which they famously
continued to publish the 2035 date long after knowing it was wrong.

In the studio was a climate researcher who had been misquoted by the IPCC,
he says they published a report claiming he'd "changed his mind" on some
important technical detail - without ever actually speaking to him.

As the questions toward the IPCC guy got tougher, the video link was
mysteriously broken and went to a test pattern.


See attachments for proof of global warming.

On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 18:07:53 -0600, flipper wrote:

On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 14:30:42 -0000, "ian field"
wrote:


"flipper" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 15:00:24 -0000, "ian field"
wrote:



http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=9691233


Maybe they didn't want to reveal their mountain climbing magazine
source.

Someone high up in the IPCC was on the newsnight programme via video link
last night, the topic of the Himalaya glacier came up, which they famously
continued to publish the 2035 date long after knowing it was wrong.

In the studio was a climate researcher who had been misquoted by the IPCC,
he says they published a report claiming he'd "changed his mind" on some
important technical detail - without ever actually speaking to him.

As the questions toward the IPCC guy got tougher, the video link was
mysteriously broken and went to a test pattern.


Can't say I'm terribly surprised.

More often than not, when someone says "the debate is over" it means
they're afraid of loosing the debate.

It's interesting to note that, in addition to the oft quoted
"military-industrial complex," Eisenhower, in his farewell address,
warned about this kind of problem too.

"Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our
industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution
during recent decades.

In this revolution, research has become central, it also becomes more
formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is
conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
.
.
Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract
becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity.
.
.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we
should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that
public policy could itself become the captive of a
scientific-technological elite."

The problem is just as, if not astronomically more, acute with the
U.N.

I suggest that one means to balancing those concerns is robust debate
and that "the debate is over" constitutes another tactic of despotism
and, in some case, 'economic warfare'.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

Optimist. Boskone is winning this round.

Thats not wrong, it's just reading in Kelvin.

"Robert Baer" wrote in message
...
ian field wrote:
"flipper" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 15:00:24 -0000, "ian field"
wrote:


http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=9691233

Maybe they didn't want to reveal their mountain climbing magazine
source.

Someone high up in the IPCC was on the newsnight programme via video link
last night, the topic of the Himalaya glacier came up, which they
famously
continued to publish the 2035 date long after knowing it was wrong.

In the studio was a climate researcher who had been misquoted by the
IPCC,
he says they published a report claiming he'd "changed his mind" on some
important technical detail - without ever actually speaking to him.

As the questions toward the IPCC guy got tougher, the video link was
mysteriously broken and went to a test pattern.


See attachments for proof of global warming.

On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 23:32:54 -0600, "Jennifer Dylan" wrote:

Thats not wrong, it's just reading in Kelvin.

REALLY?

At that temperature Kelvin the CO2 would freeze out of the air.
Then everyone would stop breathing and die.


"Robert Baer" wrote in message
...
ian field wrote:
"flipper" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 15:00:24 -0000, "ian field"
wrote:


http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=9691233

Maybe they didn't want to reveal their mountain climbing magazine
source.

Someone high up in the IPCC was on the newsnight programme via video link
last night, the topic of the Himalaya glacier came up, which they
famously
continued to publish the 2035 date long after knowing it was wrong.

In the studio was a climate researcher who had been misquoted by the
IPCC,
he says they published a report claiming he'd "changed his mind" on some
important technical detail - without ever actually speaking to him.

As the questions toward the IPCC guy got tougher, the video link was
mysteriously broken and went to a test pattern.


See attachments for proof of global warming.

I guess I should have put a smiley face after that.
If I was serious though, Nitrogen would be a liquid
at that temp. Oxygen as well. ( I have collected liquid O2 dripping off a
liquid nitrogen hose while doing transfers.) LN2 is 77K.
-J
"JosephKK" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 23:32:54 -0600, "Jennifer Dylan"
wrote:

Thats not wrong, it's just reading in Kelvin.

REALLY?

At that temperature Kelvin the CO2 would freeze out of the air.
Then everyone would stop breathing and die.


"Robert Baer" wrote in message
...
ian field wrote:
"flipper" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 15:00:24 -0000, "ian field"
wrote:


http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=9691233

Maybe they didn't want to reveal their mountain climbing magazine
source.

Someone high up in the IPCC was on the newsnight programme via video
link
last night, the topic of the Himalaya glacier came up, which they
famously
continued to publish the 2035 date long after knowing it was wrong.

In the studio was a climate researcher who had been misquoted by the
IPCC,
he says they published a report claiming he'd "changed his mind" on some
important technical detail - without ever actually speaking to him.

As the questions toward the IPCC guy got tougher, the video link was
mysteriously broken and went to a test pattern.


See attachments for proof of global warming.

Ach! LN2 would be a gas!

"Jennifer Dylan" wrote in message
.com...
I guess I should have put a smiley face after that.
If I was serious though, Nitrogen would be a liquid
at that temp. Oxygen as well. ( I have collected liquid O2 dripping off a
liquid nitrogen hose while doing transfers.) LN2 is 77K.
-J
"JosephKK" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 23:32:54 -0600, "Jennifer Dylan"
wrote:

Thats not wrong, it's just reading in Kelvin.

REALLY?

At that temperature Kelvin the CO2 would freeze out of the air.
Then everyone would stop breathing and die.


"Robert Baer" wrote in message
...
ian field wrote:
"flipper" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 15:00:24 -0000, "ian field"
wrote:


http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=9691233

Maybe they didn't want to reveal their mountain climbing magazine
source.

Someone high up in the IPCC was on the newsnight programme via video
link
last night, the topic of the Himalaya glacier came up, which they
famously
continued to publish the 2035 date long after knowing it was wrong.

In the studio was a climate researcher who had been misquoted by the
IPCC,
he says they published a report claiming he'd "changed his mind" on
some
important technical detail - without ever actually speaking to him.

As the questions toward the IPCC guy got tougher, the video link was
mysteriously broken and went to a test pattern.


See attachments for proof of global warming.

On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 02:38:51 -0600, "Jennifer Dylan"
wrote:

Ach! LN2 would be a gas!

Liquid nitrogen would be a gas?

John

(Just ragging)

I know, I slapped my forehead when I hit send..............

"John Larkin" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 02:38:51 -0600, "Jennifer Dylan"
wrote:

Ach! LN2 would be a gas!

Liquid nitrogen would be a gas?

John

(Just ragging)

On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 17:26:50 -0600, "Jennifer Dylan"
wrote:

I know, I slapped my forehead when I hit send..............


Onosecond (n): the infinitesimal time between when you hit "send" and
you realize you did something really dumb.

John