"Jeff Thies" wrote in message
...
On 1/29/2011 7:48 PM, Steve B wrote:
"Dean wrote in message
...
A little perspective for those in the Northeast and sick of snow.
http://tinyurl.com/4lufyy8

So, how's all that global warming working for you?


I wouldn't take you to be ignorant, but that is the simplistic denier
response. Which one of those right wingnut morons came up with that?

Global warming is only a degree or so, not enough to make the summers
bake and winter to go away. Is that what you thought?

What happens is that it is enough, to melt arctic ice shelves, since
much of the warming is concentrated in the arctic. That is a major player
in the Jet Stream which has been shifting poleward.

http://climate.uu-uno.org/articles/v...4/?topic=23694

But every cool summer day, or cold winter day, some moron says: "How's
all that global warming working for you.".

Jeff

It's just a saying, Jeff. I am so tired of millions of Chicken Littles
running around on their bicycles eating tofu and wailing about the weather.
I personally spend about one second a week thinking of it on the average.

The question was directed at each person to provoke thought. I do know we
are headed towards a precipice, but the momentum of the masses will take us
over the edge before the resistance of the sane can slow things down. As
long as there's enough gas in the car to go get more beer, most people are
ignorantly happy.

Steve

Heart surgery pending?
Read up and prepare.
Learn how to care for a friend.
Download the book.
http://cabgbypasssurgery.com

HeyBub wrote:
bud-- wrote:
The consistent climate science is that the global temperature is going
up. There is remarkable consensus by the vast majority of climate
scientists looking at climate from multiple viewpoints. And remarkable
consensus that the rise is the result of human activity.

"Science" does not depend on majority vote.

Consensus is not majority vote.

Perhaps denialists could find out what consensus, climate and weather. mean.


This does not mean the concept is not a valid way to govern one's life.
Inasmuch as Global Warming is a faith-based religion - a cult, to be sure,
but a religion nevertheless - those who believe in it must be accorded
respect for their beliefs.


Global warming, caused by CO2, produced by human activity, is widely
accepted in the sciences.

Amongst those who back global warming:
the vast majority (way over 90%) of climate scientists
the US National Academy of Sciences
the national science academies of all major countries of Europe and all
major world industrialized nations.
a large number of professional societies, just a few being
American Institute of Physics,
American Meteorological Society
American Chemical Society
World Meteorological Organization
the well know scientist George Bush 2

Science has long since coalesced behind global warming.

Denialist arguments are boring - like talking to creationists. And for
much the same reason.

--
bud--

In article ,
Jeff Thies wrote:

On 1/31/2011 7:56 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
In the 1970s, I remember that aerosol cans were going to
kill us all, due to global cooling. That's before freon was
going to destroy the ozone hole.

And chlorinated hydrocarbons were largely banned worldwide and the
ozone hole closed up.

The year-to-year variation in the size of the ozone hole is mainly
related to the weather conditions in the polar stratosphere. The warmer
conditions that prevailed over Antarctica in the winter of 2010 resulted
in a smaller ozone hole as compared to previous years.
http://www.theozonehole.com/2010ozone.htm

The depth and size of the Antarctic ozone hole are governed by the
temperature of the stratosphere and amount of sunlight reaching the
south polar region. The graphs below show the progress of this year¹s
ozone hole, compared to the highest and lowest values measured since
1979. The values in red indicate the maximum or minimum values observed
so far for the year. Also available is a table that includes these
maximum areas and minimum ozone values for each year, along with the
date of occurrence.

http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/
And from the Ausies:
Stratospheric ozone levels in New Zealand have changed considerably over
time. Levels have stabilised in the last decade, ****reversing decreases
in the 1980s and 1990s****. A turning point in ozone concentrations may
have been reached in 1997. ****Much of the stabilisation over the last
decade can be attributed to reduced ozone depletion over Antarctica as a
result of higher springtime polar temperatures and slightly reduced
levels of chlorine and bromine in the stratosphere.*** (emphasis mine)

http://www.mfe.govt.nz/environmental...osphere/ozone/



That is what happens when you respond to a problem rather than deny
it. Otherwise you've completely mucked up the facts.


Certainly looks that way to me. Especially since the Ausies
specifically say most of the difference is related to naturally occuring
things (ie antarctic weather. )



Unfortunately CO2 persists in the atmosphere for a very long time,
and the deniers are particularly effective in stopping any action.

Look at the websites. Most say that the things that impact on the ozone
clean themselves up.

--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
---PJ O'Rourke

"Steve B" wrote in
:

OK, Mr. Global Climate Change Denier, I say let's have this
conversation in, oh, 5 years, after all doubt has been removed (and
we're even closer to, or past, the "tipping point").

We're all going to die. Run for your lives.

But where?

Steve

Heart surgery pending?
Read up and prepare.
Learn how to care for a friend.
Download the book.
http://cabgbypasssurgery.com



Nobody gets out alive...

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
s.com...


Eggs-ackly. What I call the pinhead mainstream media has a habit of
getting everything wrong when it comes to anything technical or
scientific. This ranges from the local TV nooz reporter to vaunted
national "science writers" like the pathetic Gina Kolata of the New York
Times.


Look what happens when a local station tries to cover a science story, they
invariably rush a camera crew out to the nearest institution of higher
learning and ask Prof. Smeglisky of the Corrosion Flats Community College
Science Dept. about [whatever]. So some guy who has been teaching intro
science courses for the past decade or two blathers away about asteroids or
DNA or climate change to some mindless reporter who couldn't mix two-part
epoxy without gluing himself to the wall--anything remotely resembling
scientific fact that makes it into the "news" broadcast is purely
coincidental.

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...

Which is why I don't, at least in this case. While the forecasts WERE on
the weather channel or the Today Show, they were real time interviews
with the guys from the Hurricane Center in Miami. The honchoes were the
ones making the pronouncements. They were also the ones giving their
reasons. It is real hard to misinterpret it when you hear with your own
ears, their own words.

I recall statements about the possibility of more hurricanes and more
powerful hurricanes as a result of the Gulf becoming warmer, but I don't
remember scientists making dead-certain predictions it was going to happen
next hurricane season.

On 1/30/2011 1:48 PM, The Daring Dufas wrote:
On 1/30/2011 9:07 AM, wrote:
Heres a question for those who dont believe in global warming!

If the poles melt and flood the coast lines, will you stll deny its
global warming?

Or just claim its not caused by man?

Everyone will get interested in global warming once the wall streeters
are getting their 5 grand shoes wet going to work

Funny thing about Global Warming, it's actually misnamed. It should be
called Solar System Warming because a Russian scientist discovered that
the planet Mars is warming up just the same as The earth. Unless there
are greedy, evil, Republican, pollution mongers on Mars, something else
is going on like maybe The Sun is emitting more radiation. Don't ya just
love the Chicken Littles of the world. :-)


http://preview.tinyurl.com/24k59w


Did you read the whole article?

Amato Evan, a climate scientist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison,
added that "the idea just isn't supported by the theory or by the
observations."

Planets' Wobbles

The conventional theory is that climate changes on Mars can be explained
primarily by small alterations in the planet's orbit and tilt, not by
changes in the sun.

"Wobbles in the orbit of Mars are the main cause of its climate change
in the current era," Oxford's Wilson explained. (Related: "Don't Blame
Sun for Global Warming, Study Says" [September 13, 2006].)



So, one Russian Scientist, who happens to think the way you like is
enough to convince you? I think this explains Sarah Palin. And you call
us "Moonbats"!

Jeff



TDD

In ,
The Daring Dufas spewed forth:
On 1/30/2011 9:07 AM, wrote:
Heres a question for those who dont believe in global warming!

If the poles melt and flood the coast lines, will you stll deny its
global warming?

Or just claim its not caused by man?

Everyone will get interested in global warming once the wall
streeters are getting their 5 grand shoes wet going to work

Funny thing about Global Warming, it's actually misnamed. It should be
called Solar System Warming because a Russian scientist discovered
that the planet Mars is warming up just the same as The earth. Unless
there are greedy, evil, Republican, pollution mongers on Mars,
something else is going on like maybe The Sun is emitting more
radiation. Don't ya just love the Chicken Littles of the world. :-)

http://preview.tinyurl.com/24k59w

TDD

When did Bush, Cheney and Palin go to Mars?g

Bob F wrote:
Steve B wrote:
"Dean Hoffman" wrote in message
...
A little perspective for those in the Northeast and sick of
snow. http://tinyurl.com/4lufyy8

So, how's all that global warming working for you?

Weather extremes are expected symptoms.

This just in from East Anglia:

"Weather" is NOT climate change in months that have an "R" in their names.
Otherwise it is.

There's actual data to demonstrate this.

"Red Green" wrote

"Steve B" wrote

We're all going to die. Run for your lives.

But where?

Steve

Nobody gets out alive...

And those who realize and admit that fact have a lot less angst during the
process.

Steve

bud-- wrote:
HeyBub wrote:
bud-- wrote:
The consistent climate science is that the global temperature is
going up. There is remarkable consensus by the vast majority of
climate scientists looking at climate from multiple viewpoints. And
remarkable consensus that the rise is the result of human activity.

"Science" does not depend on majority vote.

Consensus is not majority vote.

Perhaps denialists could find out what consensus, climate and
weather. mean.

"Consensus" = An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole.

So "Global Warming" cannot be a "consensus inasmuch as the group (of climate
scientists), as a whole, do not subscribe to the notion.

"Weather" - change occurring during months that have an "R" in them.
"Global Warming" - change occurring during the months without an "R".



This does not mean the concept is not a valid way to govern one's
life. Inasmuch as Global Warming is a faith-based religion - a cult,
to be sure, but a religion nevertheless - those who believe in it
must be accorded respect for their beliefs.


Global warming, caused by CO2, produced by human activity, is widely
accepted in the sciences.

Amongst those who back global warming:
the vast majority (way over 90%) of climate scientists
the US National Academy of Sciences
the national science academies of all major countries of Europe and
all major world industrialized nations.
a large number of professional societies, just a few being
American Institute of Physics,
American Meteorological Society
American Chemical Society
World Meteorological Organization
the well know scientist George Bush 2

Science has long since coalesced behind global warming.

Denialist arguments are boring - like talking to creationists. And for
much the same reason.

Listening to a climate alarmist is like a Jew listening to a Jehovah's
Witness door-knocker. And for much the same reasons.

Jeff Thies wrote:

That's a ways off. In the meantime everyone will have to adjust to the
new climates. Adapting to a new climate is neither easy or painless.


It is when you consider the alternatives.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
Bob F wrote:
Steve B wrote:
"Dean Hoffman" wrote in message
...
A little perspective for those in the Northeast and sick of
snow. http://tinyurl.com/4lufyy8

So, how's all that global warming working for you?

Weather extremes are expected symptoms.

This just in from East Anglia:

"Weather" is NOT climate change in months that have an "R" in their names.
Otherwise it is.

There's actual data to demonstrate this.

I propose oyster season as factual proof!

Steve

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
bud-- wrote:
HeyBub wrote:
bud-- wrote:
The consistent climate science is that the global temperature is
going up. There is remarkable consensus by the vast majority of
climate scientists looking at climate from multiple viewpoints. And
remarkable consensus that the rise is the result of human activity.

"Science" does not depend on majority vote.

Consensus is not majority vote.

Perhaps denialists could find out what consensus, climate and
weather. mean.

"Consensus" = An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole.

So "Global Warming" cannot be a "consensus inasmuch as the group (of
climate scientists), as a whole, do not subscribe to the notion.

"Weather" - change occurring during months that have an "R" in them.
"Global Warming" - change occurring during the months without an "R".



This does not mean the concept is not a valid way to govern one's
life. Inasmuch as Global Warming is a faith-based religion - a cult,
to be sure, but a religion nevertheless - those who believe in it
must be accorded respect for their beliefs.


Global warming, caused by CO2, produced by human activity, is widely
accepted in the sciences.

Amongst those who back global warming:
the vast majority (way over 90%) of climate scientists
the US National Academy of Sciences
the national science academies of all major countries of Europe and
all major world industrialized nations.
a large number of professional societies, just a few being
American Institute of Physics,
American Meteorological Society
American Chemical Society
World Meteorological Organization
the well know scientist George Bush 2

Science has long since coalesced behind global warming.

Denialist arguments are boring - like talking to creationists. And for
much the same reason.

Listening to a climate alarmist is like a Jew listening to a Jehovah's
Witness door-knocker. And for much the same reasons.

If I could do my life over, I'd be a weatherman.

"Well, folks, it might rain tomorrow. Or not."

"Now, where's my check?"

Steve

On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 15:08:54 -0800, "Steve B"
wrote:


"HeyBub" wrote in message
om...
Bob F wrote:
Steve B wrote:
"Dean Hoffman" wrote in message
...
A little perspective for those in the Northeast and sick of
snow. http://tinyurl.com/4lufyy8

So, how's all that global warming working for you?

Weather extremes are expected symptoms.

This just in from East Anglia:

"Weather" is NOT climate change in months that have an "R" in their names.
Otherwise it is.

There's actual data to demonstrate this.

I propose oyster season as factual proof!

Steve


You are correct.

Oysters are harvested and consumed in months with an "R".

You mentioned thread drift. Others have mentioned Godwin's
law. I put them together. Bibbitty bobbitty boo. See what
you got?

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"Red Green" wrote in message
...
"Stormin Mormon" wrote
in news:ii6kpm
:

You and every other Nazi.


I'm get old faster. Some replies I just don't understand.

On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 14:42:02 GMT, Red Green
wrote:



From blizzards to wind turbines to epileptic seizures.

Threads are funny ain't they :-)

Yep. But the thread turned into global warming right off the bat.
Anything but that!
So far your photo of the wind turbines is the only post I even read.
When I see a bunch of numbers and links to "scientific studies"
all that means is somebody else will come back with their own
numbers and links to counter-studies.
Nobody ever changes their position.
That's why I don't have one. Don't like to be locked in.
I'll wait for the floods or the ice age.
Have both my boat and igloo ready.
That 1922 article was interesting. Clicked on that.
How come nobody mentioned the mini-ice age of a few hundred years ago?
Yeah, explain that one!

--Vic

On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 16:56:44 -0600, "HeyBub" wrote:

Jeff Thies wrote:

That's a ways off. In the meantime everyone will have to adjust to the
new climates. Adapting to a new climate is neither easy or painless.


It is when you consider the alternatives.

Suicide is Painless.

Steve B wrote:

If I could do my life over, I'd be a weatherman.

"Well, folks, it might rain tomorrow. Or not."

"Now, where's my check?"


Ever wonder how they come up with those predictions?

Easy, they get ten weathermen or staff in a room. "Okay, how many of you
think it will rain tomorrow? One, two... seven. That's it? Okay then."

"Tomorrow expect a 70% chance of rain...

In article , Vic Smith wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 14:42:02 GMT, Red Green wrote:

From blizzards to wind turbines to epileptic seizures.

Threads are funny ain't they :-)

Yep. But the thread turned into global warming right off the bat.
Anything but that!
So far your photo of the wind turbines is the only post I even read.
When I see a bunch of numbers and links to "scientific studies"
all that means is somebody else will come back with their own
numbers and links to counter-studies.
Nobody ever changes their position.
That's why I don't have one. Don't like to be locked in.
I'll wait for the floods or the ice age.
Have both my boat and igloo ready.
That 1922 article was interesting. Clicked on that.
How come nobody mentioned the mini-ice age of a few hundred years ago?
Yeah, explain that one!

That one has a name, "Little Ice Age".

It is widely attributed to the Maunder Minimum, a 1,000-year-class dip
in solar activity, often thought to be a feature of a roughly 1,000 year
cycle among the at-least-4 cycles that the sun has.

Many of those claiming that anthropogenic global warming is a problem
that requires major government actions and lifestyle changes argue that
the LIA was less than what it is often made out to be, or only
significantly affected a small portion of the world.

It is likely that we are going into a near-repeat of the Dalton Minimum,
a lesser and shorter roughly 2.5 to maybe 3 decade dip in solar activity
that is on a ~210 year cycle, as best as these things are known. This is
coinciding with downturns in a ~64-70 year Atlantic "oscillation" and a
possibly-loosely-linked ~60-64 year Pacific one.

Despite rising CO2, global temperature looks to me having fair chance to
actually sustain a slight downturn from a few years ago to ~2035.

Once these cycles reverse and global temperature shoots up from ~2035 to
~2070, we'll know really well how much effect CO2 has on global
temperature. But I see strong signs that it's ~50-60% of that mentioned
by those saying we need to do something about it. For example, how almost
half of the warming of global temperature after 1973 appears to me to be
from periodic factors.
--
- Don Klipstein )

On 1/31/2011 4:53 PM, HeyBub wrote:
bud-- wrote:
HeyBub wrote:
bud-- wrote:
The consistent climate science is that the global temperature is
going up. There is remarkable consensus by the vast majority of
climate scientists looking at climate from multiple viewpoints. And
remarkable consensus that the rise is the result of human activity.

"Science" does not depend on majority vote.

Consensus is not majority vote.

Perhaps denialists could find out what consensus, climate and
weather. mean.

"Consensus" = An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole.

So "Global Warming" cannot be a "consensus inasmuch as the group (of climate
scientists), as a whole, do not subscribe to the notion.

"Weather" - change occurring during months that have an "R" in them.
"Global Warming" - change occurring during the months without an "R".



This does not mean the concept is not a valid way to govern one's
life. Inasmuch as Global Warming is a faith-based religion - a cult,
to be sure, but a religion nevertheless - those who believe in it
must be accorded respect for their beliefs.


Global warming, caused by CO2, produced by human activity, is widely
accepted in the sciences.

Amongst those who back global warming:
the vast majority (way over 90%) of climate scientists
the US National Academy of Sciences
the national science academies of all major countries of Europe and
all major world industrialized nations.
a large number of professional societies, just a few being
American Institute of Physics,
American Meteorological Society
American Chemical Society
World Meteorological Organization
the well know scientist George Bush 2

Science has long since coalesced behind global warming.

Denialist arguments are boring - like talking to creationists. And for
much the same reason.

Listening to a climate alarmist is like a Jew listening to a Jehovah's
Witness door-knocker. And for much the same reasons.


Doesn't that little religious container attached to the front door frame
ward Jehovah Witness types off? I used to keep a black cape
and headdress with horns on it to put on whenever I saw them come to the
house. "Are you innocent virgins? Please come in, we need a sacrifice to
Satan and you'll do just fine!" Those bicycles are quite fast. :-0

TDD

On 1/31/2011 8:59 PM, HeyBub wrote:
Steve B wrote:

If I could do my life over, I'd be a weatherman.

"Well, folks, it might rain tomorrow. Or not."

"Now, where's my check?"


Ever wonder how they come up with those predictions?

Easy, they get ten weathermen or staff in a room. "Okay, how many of you
think it will rain tomorrow? One, two... seven. That's it? Okay then."

"Tomorrow expect a 70% chance of rain...


I heard someone explain that the prediction meant there was a chance
of rain over 70% of the area. Of course, I haven't researched it but
perhaps someone posting here may know if that's correct.

TDD

In art. , The Daring Dufas wrote:
On 1/31/2011 8:59 PM, HeyBub wrote:
Steve B wrote:

If I could do my life over, I'd be a weatherman.

"Well, folks, it might rain tomorrow. Or not."

"Now, where's my check?"

Ever wonder how they come up with those predictions?

Easy, they get ten weathermen or staff in a room. "Okay, how many of you
think it will rain tomorrow? One, two... seven. That's it? Okay then."

"Tomorrow expect a 70% chance of rain...

I heard someone explain that the prediction meant there was a chance
of rain over 70% of the area. Of course, I haven't researched it but
perhaps someone posting here may know if that's correct.

TDD

Should I be correct in seeing this, I do congratulate my fellow
daring dufas (or for that matter even a fellow engineer),

For getting away from Usenet-disfavored Top Posting...

In Usenet, posting "bottom" and "interleaved-in-response-to-short-points"
is OK.

Best for now,
--
- Don Klipstein )

On 1/31/2011 11:39 PM, Don Klipstein wrote:
In , The Daring Dufas wrote:
On 1/31/2011 8:59 PM, HeyBub wrote:
Steve B wrote:

If I could do my life over, I'd be a weatherman.

"Well, folks, it might rain tomorrow. Or not."

"Now, where's my check?"

Ever wonder how they come up with those predictions?

Easy, they get ten weathermen or staff in a room. "Okay, how many of you
think it will rain tomorrow? One, two... seven. That's it? Okay then."

"Tomorrow expect a 70% chance of rain...

I heard someone explain that the prediction meant there was a chance
of rain over 70% of the area. Of course, I haven't researched it but
perhaps someone posting here may know if that's correct.

TDD

Should I be correct in seeing this, I do congratulate my fellow
daring dufas (or for that matter even a fellow engineer),

For getting away from Usenet-disfavored Top Posting...

In Usenet, posting "bottom" and "interleaved-in-response-to-short-points"
is OK.

Best for now,

Thanks I suppose..... but I've never top posted, except perhaps way back
in the last century when I was a clueless newbie. :-)

TDD

So, how's all that global warming working for you?

Weather extremes are expected symptoms.

To quote psychiatry: bi-polar dis-order!

--
@~@ Might, Courage, Vision, SINCERITY.
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and Farce be with you!
/( _ )\ (x86_64 Ubuntu 9.10) Linux 2.6.37
^ ^ 19:37:01 up 1 day 6:48 0 users load average: 1.01 1.03 1.09
�借貸! ��騙! ��交! �打交! �打劫! �自殺! 請考慮綜� (CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_...sub_addressesa

The Daring Dufas wrote:

Listening to a climate alarmist is like a Jew listening to a
Jehovah's Witness door-knocker. And for much the same reasons.


Doesn't that little religious container attached to the front door
frame ward Jehovah Witness types off?

No, it's an attractant.

I used to keep a black cape
and headdress with horns on it to put on whenever I saw them come to
the house. "Are you innocent virgins? Please come in, we need a
sacrifice to Satan and you'll do just fine!"

Those bicycles are quite
fast. :-0

You should not scare them off but listen to the spiel.

You will learn important religious tenants, i.e.: Jehovah Witnesses use
cars, Mormons use bicycles.

Jeff Thies wrote:

Planets' Wobbles

The conventional theory is that climate changes on Mars can be
explained primarily by small alterations in the planet's orbit and
tilt, not by changes in the sun.

"Wobbles in the orbit of Mars are the main cause of its climate change
in the current era," Oxford's Wilson explained. (Related: "Don't Blame
Sun for Global Warming, Study Says" [September 13, 2006].)

So, one Russian Scientist, who happens to think the way you like is
enough to convince you? I think this explains Sarah Palin. And you
call us "Moonbats"!


Uh, yeah.

But I don't think anyone has claimed that Sarah Palin wobbles. I mean she
probably has a normal female wiggle, but "wobble"?

On 2/1/2011 6:34 AM, HeyBub wrote:
The Daring Dufas wrote:

Listening to a climate alarmist is like a Jew listening to a
Jehovah's Witness door-knocker. And for much the same reasons.


Doesn't that little religious container attached to the front door
frame ward Jehovah Witness types off?

No, it's an attractant.

I used to keep a black cape
and headdress with horns on it to put on whenever I saw them come to
the house. "Are you innocent virgins? Please come in, we need a
sacrifice to Satan and you'll do just fine!"

Those bicycles are quite
fast. :-0

You should not scare them off but listen to the spiel.

You will learn important religious tenants, i.e.: Jehovah Witnesses use
cars, Mormons use bicycles.


You're right but they're both a source of hemorrhoids. I have a number
of religions in my own family and tolerate them all, until someone gets
pushy. None of my Jewish cousins have ever tried to impose their faith
on me but some of my Christian cousins are pod people who want to infect
me with their mind controlling parasite which makes the polite
use of the words "I'm sorry but I'm not interested in your faith." all
but impossible for them to comprehend and I really don't like being
mean, ugly or nasty to them. I had a dear friend who was a Moonie and
we were friends because she never tried to push her faith on me. Her
involvement in the church was good for her because it got her away from
illegal drug use and other self destructive activities she was once
caught up in. I believe that having faith and being involved in a church
is a wonderful thing for some people who's lives would be very
bad if they weren't. I always tell my devout Christian friends and
family, "Don't tell me how good you are, show me by the way you conduct
your life." :-)

TDD

"HeyBub" wrote in message
news
The Daring Dufas wrote:

Listening to a climate alarmist is like a Jew listening to a
Jehovah's Witness door-knocker. And for much the same reasons.


Doesn't that little religious container attached to the front door
frame ward Jehovah Witness types off?

No, it's an attractant.

I used to keep a black cape
and headdress with horns on it to put on whenever I saw them come to
the house. "Are you innocent virgins? Please come in, we need a
sacrifice to Satan and you'll do just fine!"

Those bicycles are quite
fast. :-0

You should not scare them off but listen to the spiel.

You will learn important religious tenants, i.e.: Jehovah Witnesses use
cars, Mormons use bicycles.

http://www.beedictionary.com/common-...enant_vs_tenet

I think you meant tenet.

--
Bobby G.

In ,
Dean Hoffman typed:
:: Steve B wrote:
::: "Dean Hoffman" wrote in
::: message ...
:::: A little perspective for those in the Northeast and
:::: sick of snow. http://tinyurl.com/4lufyy8
:::
::: So, how's all that global warming working for you?
:::
:::
::
:: Well, it's actually the effects of a strong La Nina
:: that's causing all the fun.
:: We're easing into drought conditions here in Nebraska.
:: Last summer was unusually wet.
:: Crop prices are good. Australia had bad weather as did
:: Russia. I don't know about South America off hand.
:: So I should have more money in my pocket at the end of
:: the summer. I'll be too tired to spend it though.

Don't know about more money if your pocket by end of the coming summer, but
La Nina IS something that's seldom mentioned by the zealots. The latest
scientific journals I've read seem to have come around to saying that LaNina
is the actual driving force, and the cessation of human produced CO2 might
be able to lessen the peaks, they are no longer saying it's the cause. IT's
like 2012 in a way; we'll either all be space dust or nothing will happen,
in reality. Lots of talk about what to do but nothing is happening. Things
COULD be done, but no one can see the actual problems and won't until they
are in retrospect.
However, if you go out and start calculating the number of pounds of CO2
created by volcanoes, for instance, you'll see it far outweighs man's
contributions. Then look at ALL of the steel mills: we have a few, third
nations run 24/7 steel mills around the world, so count those, too. But they
are not enough to be a cure in any way, as are the volcanoes. Then you have
the CO2 NOT being changed to O2 by the forests and trees cut down around the
world; an easy target for vengence, but nothing compared to the CO2 load of
anything so far mentioned here.
Add all of the world's forest and building fires: Still way above the
human contribution. Not going to change, either. The fires are ignited by
nature for a very good reason but you'll never stop fires from lightning and
tinder in the forests; it will burn, eventually, but not emit much CO2
compared to the amount needed to impact that of other naturally occurring
events.

Today's conditions, as bad as they are, have occurred throughout history;
this one fits into the same patter and voracity as history shows. Once
you're pre-industrial age, most of the human contributing figures didn't
exist and yet some of them were the equal of what we're seeing now.

It's time for a war of citations: Let's see verifiable, current evidence
from "real" sources about this stuff. I dare say I have more cites than you
do and likely many other sky is falling advocates, too. But we won't know
anything for sure until we are through it and can look back on it and watch
the next 50-year results.

In article , The Daring Dufas wrote:
On 1/31/2011 11:39 PM, Don Klipstein wrote:
In , The Daring Dufas wrote:
On 1/31/2011 8:59 PM, HeyBub wrote:
Steve B wrote:

If I could do my life over, I'd be a weatherman.

"Well, folks, it might rain tomorrow. Or not."

"Now, where's my check?"

Ever wonder how they come up with those predictions?

Easy, they get ten weathermen or staff in a room. "Okay, how many of you
think it will rain tomorrow? One, two... seven. That's it? Okay then."

"Tomorrow expect a 70% chance of rain...

I heard someone explain that the prediction meant there was a chance
of rain over 70% of the area. Of course, I haven't researched it but
perhaps someone posting here may know if that's correct.

TDD

Should I be correct in seeing this, I do congratulate my fellow
daring dufas (or for that matter even a fellow engineer),

For getting away from Usenet-disfavored Top Posting...

In Usenet, posting "bottom" and "interleaved-in-response-to-short-points"
is OK.

Best for now,

Thanks I suppose..... but I've never top posted, except perhaps way back
in the last century when I was a clueless newbie. :-)

I confused your name with Stormie. Oops! Sorry!
--
- Don )

In , Twayne wrote in part:

However, if you go out and start calculating the number of pounds of CO2
created by volcanoes, for instance, you'll see it far outweighs man's
contributions.

Volcanoes, averaged over the years, are producing more like 1% as much
CO2 as fossil fuel burning is.

Then look at ALL of the steel mills: we have a few, third
nations run 24/7 steel mills around the world, so count those, too. But they
are not enough to be a cure in any way, as are the volcanoes. Then you have
the CO2 NOT being changed to O2 by the forests and trees cut down around the
world; an easy target for vengence, but nothing compared to the CO2 load of
anything so far mentioned here.
Add all of the world's forest and building fires: Still way above the
human contribution. Not going to change, either. The fires are ignited by
nature for a very good reason but you'll never stop fires from lightning and
tinder in the forests; it will burn, eventually, but not emit much CO2
compared to the amount needed to impact that of other naturally occurring
events.

Today's conditions, as bad as they are, have occurred throughout history;
this one fits into the same patter and voracity as history shows. Once
you're pre-industrial age, most of the human contributing figures didn't
exist and yet some of them were the equal of what we're seeing now.

It's time for a war of citations: Let's see verifiable, current evidence
from "real" sources about this stuff. I dare say I have more cites than you
do and likely many other sky is falling advocates, too. But we won't know
anything for sure until we are through it and can look back on it and watch
the next 50-year results.

Volcanoes produce on average 200 million tonnes of CO2 annually. In
2003, fossil fuel burning produced 26.8 billion tonnes.

http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2007/07_02_15.html
--
- Don Klipstein )

Robert Green wrote:
You will learn important religious tenants, i.e.: Jehovah Witnesses
use cars, Mormons use bicycles.

http://www.beedictionary.com/common-...enant_vs_tenet

I think you meant tenet.

Yes, thank you.

On 2/1/2011 2:35 PM Don Klipstein spake thus:

In , Twayne wrote in part:

However, if you go out and start calculating the number of pounds
of CO2 created by volcanoes, for instance, you'll see it far
outweighs man's contributions.

Volcanoes, averaged over the years, are producing more like 1% as much
CO2 as fossil fuel burning is.

Volcanoes produce on average 200 million tonnes of CO2 annually. In
2003, fossil fuel burning produced 26.8 billion tonnes.

http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2007/07_02_15.html

Anyone who's a global climate change denier because "hey, we can't be
putting *that* much CO2 into the air" clearly has no grasp of the
dimensions of the problem, whether one spells it "tons" or "tonnes".

We're burning **** at an unprecedented rate. Which apparently has a
definite, measurable effect on our planet's environment. Hey, who woulda
thunk it?


--
Comment on quaint Usenet customs, from Usenet:

To me, the *plonk...* reminds me of the old man at the public hearing
who stands to make his point, then removes his hearing aid as a sign
that he is not going to hear any rebuttals.

Don Klipstein wrote:

Volcanoes produce on average 200 million tonnes of CO2 annually. In
2003, fossil fuel burning produced 26.8 billion tonnes.

http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2007/07_02_15.html

You evidently haven't heard of the Global Warming crew's secret plan to fill
all active volcano's caldera's with concrete.

Sure, it would cost a lot, and maybe not even work, but we've got to TRY!

It's for the children.

"Don Klipstein" wrote


I confused your name with Stormie. Oops! Sorry!
--
- Don )

Stormie just wants to get that stupid religious sig up there where some
clueless twit might click on it.

Steve

On 1/31/2011 9:59 PM, Don Klipstein wrote:
In , Vic Smith wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 14:42:02 GMT, Red wrote:

From blizzards to wind turbines to epileptic seizures.

Threads are funny ain't they :-)

Yep. But the thread turned into global warming right off the bat.
Anything but that!
So far your photo of the wind turbines is the only post I even read.
When I see a bunch of numbers and links to "scientific studies"
all that means is somebody else will come back with their own
numbers and links to counter-studies.
Nobody ever changes their position.
That's why I don't have one. Don't like to be locked in.
I'll wait for the floods or the ice age.
Have both my boat and igloo ready.
That 1922 article was interesting. Clicked on that.
How come nobody mentioned the mini-ice age of a few hundred years ago?
Yeah, explain that one!

That one has a name, "Little Ice Age".

It is widely attributed to the Maunder Minimum, a 1,000-year-class dip
in solar activity, often thought to be a feature of a roughly 1,000 year
cycle among the at-least-4 cycles that the sun has.

Many of those claiming that anthropogenic global warming is a problem
that requires major government actions and lifestyle changes argue that
the LIA was less than what it is often made out to be, or only
significantly affected a small portion of the world.

It is likely that we are going into a near-repeat of the Dalton Minimum,
a lesser and shorter roughly 2.5 to maybe 3 decade dip in solar activity
that is on a ~210 year cycle, as best as these things are known. This is
coinciding with downturns in a ~64-70 year Atlantic "oscillation" and a
possibly-loosely-linked ~60-64 year Pacific one.

Despite rising CO2, global temperature looks to me having fair chance to
actually sustain a slight downturn from a few years ago to ~2035.

It looks to me that the PDO and other Pacific conditions contributed to
cooling the *last* decade. In spite of that the climate warmed.

You simply can not pump that much CO2 into the air and have it's
contribution be negligible. Roy Spencer argues that nobody knows what
the climate sensitivity is and there are possible negative feedbacks to
the increased CO2 and warming. But it it seems more likely that there
are more significant positive feedbacks. Atmospheric methane is on the
rise, particularly in the Arctic. I think it is no coincidence that the
tundra is thawing which is a substantial methane sink. Much of the
highly reflective ice cover is gone also.

The arctic will tell what our climate is going to do. And the signs
there are very bad. There is increasing science that the collapse of the
arctic shelves is a strong factor in no longer containing the Jet Stream
to largely meredial flows. Ice in Dallas, well the Jet Stream dipped all
the way down to Mexico! No wonder.

In effect the arctic icebox has been opened up. Get used to it.

This is climate change. You can argue over how much of it is
anthropogenic. Just because we can do nothing about solar flux, then we
should do nothing about the factors we do have control over?

Jeff


Once these cycles reverse and global temperature shoots up from ~2035 to
~2070, we'll know really well how much effect CO2 has on global
temperature. But I see strong signs that it's ~50-60% of that mentioned
by those saying we need to do something about it. For example, how almost
half of the warming of global temperature after 1973 appears to me to be
from periodic factors.

Makes for greeneer plants and algae.

When I was in school, we learned that plants
breathe in CO2, and give off O2.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"Jeff Thies"
wrote in message ...


You simply can not pump that much CO2 into the air and
have it's
contribution be negligible.

On 2/2/2011 12:00 AM, Steve B wrote:
"Don wrote


I confused your name with Stormie. Oops! Sorry!
--
- Don )

Stormie just wants to get that stupid religious sig up there where some
clueless twit might click on it.

Steve



Oh come on, Stormie doesn't push his faith obnoxiously like some of my
Southern Baptist cousins who make up half my family. They're my Jesus
Freaks so I have a right to pick on them since they can drive you nuts.

TDD

On 2/1/2011 4:35 PM, Don Klipstein wrote:
, Twayne wrote in part:

However, if you go out and start calculating the number of pounds of CO2
created by volcanoes, for instance, you'll see it far outweighs man's
contributions.

Volcanoes, averaged over the years, are producing more like 1% as much
CO2 as fossil fuel burning is.

Then look at ALL of the steel mills: we have a few, third
nations run 24/7 steel mills around the world, so count those, too. But they
are not enough to be a cure in any way, as are the volcanoes. Then you have
the CO2 NOT being changed to O2 by the forests and trees cut down around the
world; an easy target for vengence, but nothing compared to the CO2 load of
anything so far mentioned here.
Add all of the world's forest and building fires: Still way above the
human contribution. Not going to change, either. The fires are ignited by
nature for a very good reason but you'll never stop fires from lightning and
tinder in the forests; it will burn, eventually, but not emit much CO2
compared to the amount needed to impact that of other naturally occurring
events.

Today's conditions, as bad as they are, have occurred throughout history;
this one fits into the same patter and voracity as history shows. Once
you're pre-industrial age, most of the human contributing figures didn't
exist and yet some of them were the equal of what we're seeing now.

It's time for a war of citations: Let's see verifiable, current evidence
from "real" sources about this stuff. I dare say I have more cites than you
do and likely many other sky is falling advocates, too. But we won't know
anything for sure until we are through it and can look back on it and watch
the next 50-year results.

Volcanoes produce on average 200 million tonnes of CO2 annually. In
2003, fossil fuel burning produced 26.8 billion tonnes.

http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2007/07_02_15.html

"OK, who's going to measure the CO2 output of the volcano today?" "Not
me, I'm not going near that thing again." "Hey, I know, get Mikey to do
it!" "Hey Mikey, want to dress up like a spaceman and go check the CO2
output of the volcano?" "Look! Mikey, he likes it!" :-)

TDD