Hawke wrote:

I guess you didn't think that the "weather" anywhere else mattered
except for in D.C., because while there was a bad snowstorm there in
Vancouver, B.C. it's balmy warm and there isn't enough snow for the
Olympics.


So what, near the 45th parallel in Michigan, back in the early 80's, we had like two years
of low and late snow. Wiped out a few snowmobile manufacturers and a shop I worked out
part time.

It is the weather, we never know whether it will be normal or not. Sheesh.

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

Wes wrote:
Hawke wrote:

I guess you didn't think that the "weather" anywhere else mattered
except for in D.C., because while there was a bad snowstorm there in
Vancouver, B.C. it's balmy warm and there isn't enough snow for the
Olympics.


So what, near the 45th parallel in Michigan, back in the early 80's, we had like two years
of low and late snow. Wiped out a few snowmobile manufacturers and a shop I worked out
part time.

It is the weather, we never know whether it will be normal or not. Sheesh.

Wes


That's what we have climate scientists for. To tell us what the facts
are regarding earth's climate. For a while now they have been telling us
that the data shows the planet is warming up and it's not a natural
event but one produced by human combustion of fossil fuels. When they
tell us something different we will change our view on the subject. But
until the consensus of climate scientists is that their conclusions
about global warming were in error we're going to keep believing in what
they tell us the science is on the subject. We're only firm believers in
global warming because that is what the scientists have said is
happening. When they say otherwise then we'll change our views too.
Unlike the deniers who never change their views no matter what.

Hawke

"Hawke" wrote in message
...
Wes wrote:
Hawke wrote:

I guess you didn't think that the "weather" anywhere else mattered
except for in D.C., because while there was a bad snowstorm there in
Vancouver, B.C. it's balmy warm and there isn't enough snow for the
Olympics.


So what, near the 45th parallel in Michigan, back in the early 80's, we
had like two years
of low and late snow. Wiped out a few snowmobile manufacturers and a
shop I worked out
part time.

It is the weather, we never know whether it will be normal or not.
Sheesh.

Wes


That's what we have climate scientists for. To tell us what the facts are
regarding earth's climate. For a while now they have been telling us that
the data shows the planet is warming up and it's not a natural event but
one produced by human combustion of fossil fuels. When they tell us
something different we will change our view on the subject. But until the
consensus of climate scientists is that their conclusions about global
warming were in error we're going to keep believing in what they tell us
the science is on the subject. We're only firm believers in global warming
because that is what the scientists have said is happening. When they say
otherwise then we'll change our views too. Unlike the deniers who never
change their views no matter what.

Hawke

Replace all the "we","us", and "we're"s in your diatribe above and you'll
have it pretty much correct. In other words, you will change your belief
system as often as the weather changes. LOL! Any way the wind blows.

"Hawke" wrote in message

That's what we have climate scientists for. To tell us what the facts
are regarding earth's climate. For a while now they have been telling
us that the data shows the planet is warming up and it's not a natural
event but one produced by human combustion of fossil fuels. When they
tell us something different we will change our view on the subject.
But until the consensus of climate scientists is that their
conclusions about global warming were in error we're going to keep
believing in what they tell us the science is on the subject. We're
only firm believers in global warming because that is what the
scientists have said is happening. When they say otherwise then we'll
change our views too. Unlike the deniers who never change their views
no matter what.

Hawke

Replace all the "we","us", and "we're"s in your diatribe above and
you'll have it pretty much correct. In other words, you will change your
belief system as often as the weather changes. LOL! Any way the wind blows.



Key Climate Change Data Laden With Errors:

A science blogger uncovered a catalogue of errors in records that form a
key part of the scientific evidence for global warming, it emerged Tuesday.

The mistakes, which led to the data from a large number of weather
stations being discarded or misused, were overlooked by professional
scientists and only discovered when Britain's national weather service,
the Met Office, made data publicly available in December after the
so-called Climate-gate e-mail scandal.

Although the errors did not alter the bigger picture on climate change,
they were seized upon as a further sign that scientific institutions
were not sufficiently transparent.

"It makes you wonder how many other problems there are in the data,"
said John Graham-Cumming, the programmer who spotted the mistakes. "The
whole idea of doing science without releasing your data is quite worrying."

After being alerted of the problems last month, the Met Office issued a
corrected version of its land-based temperature record on its Web site.

"We are grateful to Dr. Graham-Cumming, but they are quite minor
changes," said Peter Stott, head of climate monitoring and attribution
at the Met Office.

"It shows how open we are. We have put an exhaustive amount of
information out there to show people exactly what we do."

The errors related to the calculation of the average global temperature
trend since 1850, based on measurements from land-based thermometers.
The record is regarded as one of the most robust pieces of empirical
evidence for global warming during the past century.

After trying to reproduce figures shown in scientific publications and
on the Met Office Web site, Graham-Cumming identified a number of
problems with the way measurements from Australian weather stations were
averaged.

He found that data from seven stations was discarded. Data from a
further 112 Australian stations, 28 percent of the total, were not being
fully included in calculations of year-on-year temperature differences.

"I'm not a climate skeptic, I think it's pretty sure that the world is
warming up, but this does show why the raw data and not just the results
should be available," he said.

During the checking procedure, Met Office officials discovered further
problems with U.S. temperature calculations. They realized that 121 of
the U.S. stations did not have unique identifier codes, meaning that
data for these stations was either being overwritten or assigned to the
wrong location.

When all of the errors identified were corrected, the temperature trend
remained well within the 95 percent confidence range of the original
plot, meaning that the difference would not be considered scientifically
significant.



World May Not Be Warming, Say Scientists:

The United Nations climate panel faces a new challenge from scientists
casting doubt on its claim that global temperatures are rising
inexorably because of human pollution.

The predicted temperature changes (darker red indicating greater change)
due to global warming, based on data from the Hadley Centre that some
scientists now question.

In its last assessment, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) said the evidence that the world was warming was "unequivocal."
It warned that greenhouse gases had already heated the world by 0.7C and
that there could be 5C-6C more warming by 2100, with devastating impacts
on humanity and wildlife.

New research casts doubt on such claims, however. Some even suggest the
world may not be warming much at all.

"The temperature records cannot be relied on as indicators of global
change," said John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at the
University of Alabama in Huntsville, a former lead author on the IPCC.

The doubts of Christy and a number of other researchers focus on the
thousands of weather stations around the world, which have been used to
collect temperature data over the past 150 years.

These stations, they believe, have been seriously compromised by factors
such as urbanization, changes in land use and, in many cases, being
moved from site to site.

Christy has published research papers looking at these effects in three
different regions: east Africa, California and Alabama.

"The story is the same for each one," he said. "The popular data sets
show a lot of warming but the apparent temperature rise was actually
caused by local factors affecting the weather stations, such as land
development."

The IPCC faces similar criticisms from Ross McKitrick, professor of
economics at the University of Guelph, Canada, who was invited by the
panel to review its last report. The experience turned him into a strong
critic and he has since published a research paper questioning its methods.

"We concluded, with overwhelming statistical significance, that the
IPCC's climate data are contaminated with surface effects from
industrialization and data quality problems. These add up to a large
warming bias," he said.

Such warnings are supported by a study of U.S. weather stations
co-written by Anthony Watts, an American meteorologist and climate
change sceptic.

His study, which has not been peer reviewed, is illustrated with
photographs of weather stations in locations where their readings are
distorted by heat-generating equipment. Some are next to
air-conditioning units or are on waste treatment plants. One of the most
infamous: a weather station next to a waste incinerator.


Global Warming in Last 15 Years Insignificant, U.K.'s Top Climate
Scientist Admits:

The embattled ex-head of the research center at the heart of the
Climate-gate scandal dropped a bombshell over the weekend, admitting in
an interview with the BBC that there has been no global warming over the
past 15 years.

Phil Jones, former head of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the
University of East Anglia, made a number of eye-popping statements to
the BBC's climate reporter on Sunday. Data from CRU, where Jones was the
chief scientist, is key evidence behind the claim that the growth of
cities (which are warmer than countryside) isn't a factor in global
warming and was cited by the U.N.'s climate science body to bolster
statements about rapid global warming in recent decades.

Jones's latest statements seemed to contradict the CRU's data.

In response to the question, "do you agree that from 1995 to the present
there has been no statistically significant global warming?", Jones said
yes, adding that the average increase of 0.12C per year over that time
period "is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical
significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods,
and much less likely for shorter periods."

Jones is nevertheless 100% confident that the climate has warmed, he
stated, admitting that the Climate-gate scandal has undermined public
confidence in science. The scandal has worn down Jones as well: Since
the e-mails emerged -- and were subsequently posted online at
www.EastAngliaEmails.com -- Jones has stepped down from his position,
been forced to admit that he “misjudged” the handling of requests for
information, and even acknowledged contemplating suicide.

Jones also allowed for the possibility that the world as a whole was
warmer in medieval times than it is today -- a concession that may also
undermine theories that global warming is caused by man.

In addition, Jones admitted that an overall lack of organization, and
his poor record keeping and office-tidying skills, had contributed to
his reluctance to share data with critics, which he regretted.

"To say when you're the record keeper for the globe's temperature that
you're not a good record keeper, well, that's going to come back to
haunt you for a long, long time," Pat Michaels.of the Cato Institute, a
public-policy think tank, told Fox News.


--
Steve W.

Burled Frau wrote:

That's what we have climate scientists for. To tell us what the facts
are regarding earth's climate. For a while now they have been telling
us that the data shows the planet is warming up and it's not a natural
event but one produced by human combustion of fossil fuels. When they
tell us something different we will change our view on the subject.
But until the consensus of climate scientists is that their
conclusions about global warming were in error we're going to keep
believing in what they tell us the science is on the subject. We're
only firm believers in global warming because that is what the
scientists have said is happening. When they say otherwise then we'll
change our views too. Unlike the deniers who never change their views
no matter what.

Hawke

Replace all the "we","us", and "we're"s in your diatribe above and
you'll have it pretty much correct. In other words, you will change your
belief system as often as the weather changes. LOL! Any way the wind blows.


Yeah, pretty much. That's how science works, which you seem not to
understand. Unlike religion which starts with received knowledge from on
high and works from there. You have a belief system that works like
religion and mine works like science. I take it you're a Christian,
right? In other words, when the evidence points in a different direction
I adapt my views to the new evidence. You should try it some time. It's
a lot better than just asking god for answers like you do.

Hawke

"Hawke" wrote in message
...
Burled Frau wrote:

That's what we have climate scientists for. To tell us what the facts
are regarding earth's climate. For a while now they have been telling us
that the data shows the planet is warming up and it's not a natural
event but one produced by human combustion of fossil fuels. When they
tell us something different we will change our view on the subject. But
until the consensus of climate scientists is that their conclusions
about global warming were in error we're going to keep believing in what
they tell us the science is on the subject. We're only firm believers in
global warming because that is what the scientists have said is
happening. When they say otherwise then we'll change our views too.
Unlike the deniers who never change their views no matter what.

Hawke

Replace all the "we","us", and "we're"s in your diatribe above and you'll
have it pretty much correct. In other words, you will change your belief
system as often as the weather changes. LOL! Any way the wind blows.


Yeah, pretty much. That's how science works, which you seem not to
understand. Unlike religion which starts with received knowledge from on
high and works from there. You have a belief system that works like
religion and mine works like science. I take it you're a Christian, right?
In other words, when the evidence points in a different direction I adapt
my views to the new evidence. You should try it some time. It's a lot
better than just asking god for answers like you do.

Hawke

I haven't claimed a religion, but God tells me you are a libtard. The
science that God created verifies that you are a libtard. Now, if you have
science that you can produce about so-called Gorbal Warming, let's see it.
Post your research. If you don't have any research to share, post a link to
where the research exists.

My science teacher always said, don't take my word for it, look at the
research, or do your own research. So, convince me libtard. Show your work.

On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 09:41:16 -0500, the infamous "Steve W."
scrawled the following:

"Hawke" wrote in message

That's what we have climate scientists for. To tell us what the facts
are regarding earth's climate. For a while now they have been telling
us that the data shows the planet is warming up and it's not a natural
event but one produced by human combustion of fossil fuels. When they
tell us something different we will change our view on the subject.
But until the consensus of climate scientists is that their
conclusions about global warming were in error we're going to keep
believing in what they tell us the science is on the subject. We're
only firm believers in global warming because that is what the
scientists have said is happening. When they say otherwise then we'll
change our views too. Unlike the deniers who never change their views
no matter what.

Hawke

[So, Parakeet, did the following reports from Steve ruffle your
feathers a bit? Your Gods are all fessin' up to their dirty deeds,
and 1 has even contemplated suicide because of the heavy guilt. And
that is as it should be. "They" have killed people with their lies.
Let us know when you finally see the light. It just keeps getting
brighter and brighter out here. All you have to do is look. (Your
reply to me will be killed since you're still filtered, but I'll see
if it someone quotes you.)]


Replace all the "we","us", and "we're"s in your diatribe above and
you'll have it pretty much correct. In other words, you will change your
belief system as often as the weather changes. LOL! Any way the wind blows.



Key Climate Change Data Laden With Errors:
--snip--

World May Not Be Warming, Say Scientists:
--snip--

Global Warming in Last 15 Years Insignificant, U.K.'s Top Climate
Scientist Admits:
--snip--

Thanks for your post, Steve. It's all good news. Now, if only the
leaders of this scam would get together for a Jonestown Koolaid party,
maybe at Algore's place in TN...

--
Note to The O -

You can't build a reputation on what you are going to do.
-- Henry Ford

Larry Jaques wrote:

[So, Parakeet, did the following reports from Steve ruffle your
feathers a bit? Your Gods are all fessin' up to their dirty deeds,
and 1 has even contemplated suicide because of the heavy guilt. And
that is as it should be. "They" have killed people with their lies.
Let us know when you finally see the light. It just keeps getting
brighter and brighter out here. All you have to do is look. (Your
reply to me will be killed since you're still filtered, but I'll see
if it someone quotes you.)]

No Pierre, nothing Steve can say or do could possibly ruffle me in any
way. The opinions of lightweights like you folks are pretty much
completely irrelevant. Look at you, you don't even have the sand to
debate with people who don't agree with you. How much more of a baby can
you possibly be? As usual you can't analyze data worth a darn, which is
why you come to the wrong conclusion when a few scientists are caught
doing something wrong. Unlike you, I look at what decades of science on
climate change shows us. And I listen to what the preponderance of the
experts say not just the ones who work for energy companies. Or a few
that have been proven to be liars. So far I don't hear the scientists of
the world saying oops, we screwed up, there is no global warming. But
since I am not a climate scientist myself and took the word of the
experts, if they say they made a mistake they I'll change my view too.
So far I see no reason to throw out all the data from decades of
research because a few scientists did something wrong. Science doesn't
work like that.



Global Warming in Last 15 Years Insignificant, U.K.'s Top Climate
Scientist Admits:
--snip--

Thanks for your post, Steve. It's all good news. Now, if only the
leaders of this scam would get together for a Jonestown Koolaid party,
maybe at Algore's place in TN...


And you can get together with the worlds gross polluters and the energy
industry as they celebrate the conning of the masses of asses, of which
you are one. They had all their "experts" and had their company
"scientists" tell you that none of the burning of fossil fuels by the
millions of tons has any negative effect, and you bought it. It's just
too bad you can't apply your skepticism to the energy industry the way
you do to anything Democrats do. But you can't so whatever the energy
companies tell you automatically becomes a fact to you. Climate
scientists you question but energy company polluters you do not. See
what happens in a year. I'd be willing to bet that the experts are going
to say the same thing next year they have said for the last decade.
Global warming exists and man is doing it. Me, I'd rather be safe than
sorry. I don't know what you use for your logic. I can't find any.

Hawke

On Feb 18, 1:28*am, Hawke wrote:
I'd be willing to bet that the experts are going
to say the same thing next year they have said for the last decade.
Global warming exists and man is doing it. Me, I'd rather be safe than
sorry. I don't know what you use for your logic. I can't find any.

Hawke

My guess is that next year they will be saying that Global warming may
exist and man may be doing it. As I see it now burning fossil fuels
ought to be producing some effect on the earths temperature, but it is
really hard to prove it.

Read Super Freakenomics. There is a section on global warming in it.
CO2 is not a major influence on global warming. Water Vapor is the
biggest factor, Methane is second. CO2 is a minor player.

Dan

On 2/18/2010 6:05 AM, wrote:
On Feb 18, 1:28 am, wrote:
I'd be willing to bet that the experts are going
to say the same thing next year they have said for the last decade.
Global warming exists and man is doing it. Me, I'd rather be safe than
sorry. I don't know what you use for your logic. I can't find any.

Hawke

My guess is that next year they will be saying that Global warming may
exist and man may be doing it. As I see it now burning fossil fuels
ought to be producing some effect on the earths temperature, but it is
really hard to prove it.

Read Super Freakenomics. There is a section on global warming in it.
CO2 is not a major influence on global warming. Water Vapor is the
biggest factor, Methane is second. CO2 is a minor player.

Dan



I just watched a show called How the Earth Was Made. It was all about
climate change over the ages and specifically about ice ages. They had
geologists who were studying ice cores that were 2 million years old. It
was a good show. When you see how many years the earth was mainly
covered by ice it makes you wonder about global warming. Seeing all that
ice makes warming seem not so bad. My point is that we could have all
the global warming going on and then whatever it is that creates ice
ages could come into play and over ride the warming. If earth's orbit
were to shift just a little the planet could go back to being covered in
ice. If the sun put out less energy for a short time we could have
another ice age. Any number of things could trigger another ice age.
None of that is happening now and from the science collected over the
last 20 years the data shows we're getting hotter. I find it hard to
believe that man's burning of fossil fuels doesn't have any effect. I
have seen what burning gasoline does in L.A. so I can't believe we
couldn't do the same thing planet wide. It's hard to know what to
believe when the anti global warming side is putting out propaganda to
support the energy industry. All we have to rely on is what scientists
tell us. I saw the geologists explaining how the landscape of the earth
was created by glaciers. I don't know otherwise so I take their word for
it. They know more than I do. It's the same with the global warming. The
scientific experts have said the planet is getting hotter for 20 years.
I have to take their word for it. When there is proof showing that's
wrong I'll accept it. Until then I'll believe what the vast majority of
the experts say is true. And as long as energy producers have a
financial reason to make global warming seem false I'll be skeptical
about their arguments.

Hawke

On Feb 20, 12:20*am, Hawke wrote:


.. And as long as energy producers have a
financial reason to make global warming seem false I'll be skeptical
about their arguments.

Hawke

Just do not forget that there are financial reasons to be is support
of global warming too. You do not get grant money to study why
everything is good. And all the alternate energy folks have an
incentive to have global warming be a big problem that their alternate
energy production can solve if the government will just create some
tax right offs.

The energy producers do not have as big an incentive. Oil is going to
be valuable as a feedstock for petrochemicals for a long long time.

Do get a copy of Super Freakenomics from the library. It is fun
reading.

Dan

"Hawke" wrote in message
...
On 2/18/2010 6:05 AM, wrote:
On Feb 18, 1:28 am, wrote:
I'd be willing to bet that the experts are going
to say the same thing next year they have said for the last decade.
Global warming exists and man is doing it. Me, I'd rather be safe than
sorry. I don't know what you use for your logic. I can't find any.

Hawke

My guess is that next year they will be saying that Global warming may
exist and man may be doing it. As I see it now burning fossil fuels
ought to be producing some effect on the earths temperature, but it is
really hard to prove it.

Read Super Freakenomics. There is a section on global warming in it.
CO2 is not a major influence on global warming. Water Vapor is the
biggest factor, Methane is second. CO2 is a minor player.

Dan



I just watched a show called How the Earth Was Made. It was all about
climate change over the ages and specifically about ice ages. They had
geologists who were studying ice cores that were 2 million years old. It
was a good show. When you see how many years the earth was mainly covered
by ice it makes you wonder about global warming. Seeing all that ice makes
warming seem not so bad. My point is that we could have all the global
warming going on and then whatever it is that creates ice ages could come
into play and over ride the warming. If earth's orbit were to shift just a
little the planet could go back to being covered in ice. If the sun put
out less energy for a short time we could have another ice age. Any number
of things could trigger another ice age. None of that is happening now and
from the science collected over the last 20 years the data shows we're
getting hotter. I find it hard to believe that man's burning of fossil
fuels doesn't have any effect. I have seen what burning gasoline does in
L.A. so I can't believe we couldn't do the same thing planet wide. It's
hard to know what to believe when the anti global warming side is putting
out propaganda to support the energy industry. All we have to rely on is
what scientists tell us. I saw the geologists explaining how the landscape
of the earth was created by glaciers. I don't know otherwise so I take
their word for it. They know more than I do. It's the same with the global
warming. The scientific experts have said the planet is getting hotter for
20 years. I have to take their word for it. When there is proof showing
that's wrong I'll accept it. Until then I'll believe what the vast
majority of the experts say is true. And as long as energy producers have
a financial reason to make global warming seem false I'll be skeptical
about their arguments.

Hawke

Explain how burning gasoline in L.A. is making the planet Pluto hotter.

On 2/19/2010 5:38 PM, wrote:
On Feb 20, 12:20 am, wrote:


. And as long as energy producers have a
financial reason to make global warming seem false I'll be skeptical
about their arguments.

Hawke

Just do not forget that there are financial reasons to be is support
of global warming too. You do not get grant money to study why
everything is good. And all the alternate energy folks have an
incentive to have global warming be a big problem that their alternate
energy production can solve if the government will just create some
tax right offs.

The energy producers do not have as big an incentive. Oil is going to
be valuable as a feedstock for petrochemicals for a long long time.

Do get a copy of Super Freakenomics from the library. It is fun
reading.

Dan



I know the book you are talking about. I saw the author on Book TV
talking about the book. It sounded interesting but I have not had the
time to read it. I'm working on the Ruin of the Roman Empire at the
moment so I don't know when I'll get the chance to take a look at it.

On other thing about the climate scientists. It's true that they may
have financial interests now in getting grants but for a long time those
scientists were just gathering data on the environment and no one had
even heard of global warming. They just collected random data and when
years went by and it got hotter every year only then did they start
talking about warming on a global scale. If it's a proven fact that man
is causing global warming by burning fossil fuels that will mean a
global switch away from those fuels. That will damage or destroy the
fossil fuel industry. Companies would do a lot to prevent that, right?

Hawke

I just watched a show called How the Earth Was Made. It was all about
climate change over the ages and specifically about ice ages. They had
geologists who were studying ice cores that were 2 million years old.
It was a good show. When you see how many years the earth was mainly
covered by ice it makes you wonder about global warming. Seeing all
that ice makes warming seem not so bad. My point is that we could have
all the global warming going on and then whatever it is that creates
ice ages could come into play and over ride the warming. If earth's
orbit were to shift just a little the planet could go back to being
covered in ice. If the sun put out less energy for a short time we
could have another ice age. Any number of things could trigger another
ice age. None of that is happening now and from the science collected
over the last 20 years the data shows we're getting hotter. I find it
hard to believe that man's burning of fossil fuels doesn't have any
effect. I have seen what burning gasoline does in L.A. so I can't
believe we couldn't do the same thing planet wide. It's hard to know
what to believe when the anti global warming side is putting out
propaganda to support the energy industry. All we have to rely on is
what scientists tell us. I saw the geologists explaining how the
landscape of the earth was created by glaciers. I don't know otherwise
so I take their word for it. They know more than I do. It's the same
with the global warming. The scientific experts have said the planet
is getting hotter for 20 years. I have to take their word for it. When
there is proof showing that's wrong I'll accept it. Until then I'll
believe what the vast majority of the experts say is true. And as long
as energy producers have a financial reason to make global warming
seem false I'll be skeptical about their arguments.

Hawke

Explain how burning gasoline in L.A. is making the planet Pluto hotter.



How exactly do you jump to that conclusion from what I wrote? I was
saying that the combustion of fossil fuels in a highly populated area
like L.A. was enough to have a major impact on the environment. It
basically ruined the air quality. I used to live there. I'm saying that
if man can negatively affect the quality of the air in a local area like
L.A. why is it a big jump to think man can do the same thing on a planet
wide scale? Or why can't man increase the temperature of the planet if
he burns enough fossil fuel? Not only do I think we can do that I think
we did do it. Lots of climate scientists say we did too. I'll believe
them over what a coal company says any day of the week. The question is
why would you believe a coal or an oil company when they tell you global
warming is not caused by using their products?

Hawke

"Hawke" wrote in message
...

I just watched a show called How the Earth Was Made. It was all about
climate change over the ages and specifically about ice ages. They had
geologists who were studying ice cores that were 2 million years old.
It was a good show. When you see how many years the earth was mainly
covered by ice it makes you wonder about global warming. Seeing all
that ice makes warming seem not so bad. My point is that we could have
all the global warming going on and then whatever it is that creates
ice ages could come into play and over ride the warming. If earth's
orbit were to shift just a little the planet could go back to being
covered in ice. If the sun put out less energy for a short time we
could have another ice age. Any number of things could trigger another
ice age. None of that is happening now and from the science collected
over the last 20 years the data shows we're getting hotter. I find it
hard to believe that man's burning of fossil fuels doesn't have any
effect. I have seen what burning gasoline does in L.A. so I can't
believe we couldn't do the same thing planet wide. It's hard to know
what to believe when the anti global warming side is putting out
propaganda to support the energy industry. All we have to rely on is
what scientists tell us. I saw the geologists explaining how the
landscape of the earth was created by glaciers. I don't know otherwise
so I take their word for it. They know more than I do. It's the same
with the global warming. The scientific experts have said the planet
is getting hotter for 20 years. I have to take their word for it. When
there is proof showing that's wrong I'll accept it. Until then I'll
believe what the vast majority of the experts say is true. And as long
as energy producers have a financial reason to make global warming
seem false I'll be skeptical about their arguments.

Hawke

Explain how burning gasoline in L.A. is making the planet Pluto hotter.



How exactly do you jump to that conclusion from what I wrote? I was saying
that the combustion of fossil fuels in a highly populated area like L.A.
was enough to have a major impact on the environment. It basically ruined
the air quality. I used to live there. I'm saying that if man can
negatively affect the quality of the air in a local area like L.A. why is
it a big jump to think man can do the same thing on a planet wide scale?
Or why can't man increase the temperature of the planet if he burns enough
fossil fuel? Not only do I think we can do that I think we did do it. Lots
of climate scientists say we did too. I'll believe them over what a coal
company says any day of the week. The question is why would you believe a
coal or an oil company when they tell you global warming is not caused by
using their products?

Hawke


Ok, then explain how burning oil, coal, or gasoline anywhere on Earth, not
just locally in L.A., is making the planet Pluto hotter.

On Feb 21, 5:29*am, Hawke wrote:
If it's a proven fact that man
is causing global warming by burning fossil fuels that will mean a
global switch away from those fuels. That will damage or destroy the
fossil fuel industry. Companies would do a lot to prevent that, right?

Hawke

I think companies would do a lot to prevent the destruction of the
fossil fuel industry. But I do not think they are worried about that
happening. We could not survive without the petroleum products used
by cars, trucks, railroads, airplanes and ships.
The same applies to coal fired electricity plants. And then there is
lubricating oil and grease. And plastics such as nylon, orlon,
polyethelene. Shingles and asphalt for roads.

The amount of diesel fuel needed by the ethanol industry is about the
same amount of energy as is in the ethanol produced.

Dan

Explain how burning gasoline in L.A. is making the planet Pluto hotter.



How exactly do you jump to that conclusion from what I wrote? I was
saying that the combustion of fossil fuels in a highly populated area
like L.A. was enough to have a major impact on the environment. It
basically ruined the air quality. I used to live there. I'm saying
that if man can negatively affect the quality of the air in a local
area like L.A. why is it a big jump to think man can do the same thing
on a planet wide scale? Or why can't man increase the temperature of
the planet if he burns enough fossil fuel? Not only do I think we can
do that I think we did do it. Lots of climate scientists say we did
too. I'll believe them over what a coal company says any day of the
week. The question is why would you believe a coal or an oil company
when they tell you global warming is not caused by using their products?

Hawke


Ok, then explain how burning oil, coal, or gasoline anywhere on Earth,
not just locally in L.A., is making the planet Pluto hotter.

We're talking about earth here, dingbat, not Pluto. Are a lot of cattle
farting tons of methane into the atmosphere on Pluto? Oh, I guess not
Pluto doesn't have an atmosphere. Are Pluto's inhabitants burning a lot
of coal there? There is no correlation between Pluto and earth, which
even you should know.

I just saw a program yesterday called extreme ice. It was about
scientists studying ice all over the world. Glaciers and ice sheets are
melting at a rapid rate. Columbia glacier in Alaska is melting like mad.
Evidence of the increased rate of glaciers melting into the oceans is
unequivocal. Evidence from the warming in the Arctic and in Greenland's
ice sheets shows them melting rapidly. Much faster than expected from
the past. Evidence from ice from 400,000 years ago shows Co2 levels to
be much higher than any time from that period until now. The evidence
just keeps mounting that global warming is a fact. But if you don't know
the facts you might think otherwise. You obviously are not acquainted
with the facts. Not a surprise to me.

Hawke

"Hawke" wrote in message
...

Explain how burning gasoline in L.A. is making the planet Pluto hotter.



How exactly do you jump to that conclusion from what I wrote? I was
saying that the combustion of fossil fuels in a highly populated area
like L.A. was enough to have a major impact on the environment. It
basically ruined the air quality. I used to live there. I'm saying
that if man can negatively affect the quality of the air in a local
area like L.A. why is it a big jump to think man can do the same thing
on a planet wide scale? Or why can't man increase the temperature of
the planet if he burns enough fossil fuel? Not only do I think we can
do that I think we did do it. Lots of climate scientists say we did
too. I'll believe them over what a coal company says any day of the
week. The question is why would you believe a coal or an oil company
when they tell you global warming is not caused by using their products?

Hawke


Ok, then explain how burning oil, coal, or gasoline anywhere on Earth,
not just locally in L.A., is making the planet Pluto hotter.

We're talking about earth here, dingbat, not Pluto. Are a lot of cattle
farting tons of methane into the atmosphere on Pluto? Oh, I guess not
Pluto doesn't have an atmosphere. Are Pluto's inhabitants burning a lot of
coal there? There is no correlation between Pluto and earth, which even
you should know.

Ok, I give up. Tell me how are the cows farting on Earth making the planet
Pluto get hotter?



I just saw a program yesterday called extreme ice. It was about scientists
studying ice all over the world. Glaciers and ice sheets are melting at a
rapid rate. Columbia glacier in Alaska is melting like mad. Evidence of
the increased rate of glaciers melting into the oceans is unequivocal.
Evidence from the warming in the Arctic and in Greenland's ice sheets
shows them melting rapidly. Much faster than expected from the past.
Evidence from ice from 400,000 years ago shows Co2 levels to be much
higher than any time from that period until now. The evidence just keeps
mounting that global warming is a fact. But if you don't know the facts
you might think otherwise. You obviously are not acquainted with the
facts. Not a surprise to me.



That show was made especially for dopes like you.

On 2/21/2010 11:03 PM, Burled Frau wrote:


We're talking about earth here, dingbat, not Pluto. Are a lot of
cattle farting tons of methane into the atmosphere on Pluto? Oh, I
guess not Pluto doesn't have an atmosphere. Are Pluto's inhabitants
burning a lot of coal there? There is no correlation between Pluto and
earth, which even you should know.

Ok, I give up. Tell me how are the cows farting on Earth making the
planet Pluto get hotter?

Is Pluto getting hotter? How do you know that? Did you go there and
measure it for yourself or are you taking the word of scientists? I
don't see how you can do that. You don't believe scientists. Or is it
just the ones who do their research on earth you don't believe? Pluto
isn't getting warmer. I don't accept the science. There is no global
warming on Pluto.


I just saw a program yesterday called extreme ice. It was about
scientists studying ice all over the world. Glaciers and ice sheets
are melting at a rapid rate. Columbia glacier in Alaska is melting
like mad. Evidence of the increased rate of glaciers melting into the
oceans is unequivocal. Evidence from the warming in the Arctic and in
Greenland's ice sheets shows them melting rapidly. Much faster than
expected from the past. Evidence from ice from 400,000 years ago shows
Co2 levels to be much higher than any time from that period until now.
The evidence just keeps mounting that global warming is a fact. But if
you don't know the facts you might think otherwise. You obviously are
not acquainted with the facts. Not a surprise to me.



That show was made especially for dopes like you.

Actually shows like that are for guys like you. You know you're not a
very bright guy. So you can't really tell who to believe and who not to.
That's why you're a winger. If you had any brains you would watch shows
like that and see for yourself the time lapse photos of Alaska's largest
glacier and the laser measurements of the rate of its flow showing it's
shrinking. So is the ice sheet on Greenland. They have satellite photos
showing it. You are just the type of person who should be seeing this so
you would see the science for yourself and have the facts. But being a
winger you will never actually get the facts and will only get what
propaganda that the right wing network and the right wing radio talkers
want you to have. In your case it's a matter of the advice most needed
is the advice least heeded. And that explains why you talk about things
you don't know about. That is what a right winger always does. It's in
the rules for right wingers.

Hawke

"Hawke" wrote in message
...
On 2/21/2010 11:03 PM, Burled Frau wrote:


We're talking about earth here, dingbat, not Pluto. Are a lot of
cattle farting tons of methane into the atmosphere on Pluto? Oh, I
guess not Pluto doesn't have an atmosphere. Are Pluto's inhabitants
burning a lot of coal there? There is no correlation between Pluto and
earth, which even you should know.

Ok, I give up. Tell me how are the cows farting on Earth making the
planet Pluto get hotter?

Is Pluto getting hotter? How do you know that? Did you go there and
measure it for yourself or are you taking the word of scientists? I don't
see how you can do that. You don't believe scientists. Or is it just the
ones who do their research on earth you don't believe? Pluto isn't getting
warmer. I don't accept the science. There is no global warming on Pluto.


I just saw a program yesterday called extreme ice. It was about
scientists studying ice all over the world. Glaciers and ice sheets
are melting at a rapid rate. Columbia glacier in Alaska is melting
like mad. Evidence of the increased rate of glaciers melting into the
oceans is unequivocal. Evidence from the warming in the Arctic and in
Greenland's ice sheets shows them melting rapidly. Much faster than
expected from the past. Evidence from ice from 400,000 years ago shows
Co2 levels to be much higher than any time from that period until now.
The evidence just keeps mounting that global warming is a fact. But if
you don't know the facts you might think otherwise. You obviously are
not acquainted with the facts. Not a surprise to me.



That show was made especially for dopes like you.

Actually shows like that are for guys like you. You know you're not a very
bright guy. So you can't really tell who to believe and who not to. That's
why you're a winger. If you had any brains you would watch shows like that
and see for yourself the time lapse photos of Alaska's largest glacier and
the laser measurements of the rate of its flow showing it's shrinking. So
is the ice sheet on Greenland. They have satellite photos showing it. You
are just the type of person who should be seeing this so you would see the
science for yourself and have the facts. But being a winger you will never
actually get the facts and will only get what propaganda that the right
wing network and the right wing radio talkers want you to have. In your
case it's a matter of the advice most needed is the advice least heeded.
And that explains why you talk about things you don't know about. That is
what a right winger always does. It's in the rules for right wingers.

Hawke

Hack the lib, gets his education from television. Tell us Hack, how do cows
farting on Earth make the planet Pluto hotter? How do their farts in L.A.
make the ice melt on Mars?

Actually shows like that are for guys like you. You know you're not a
very bright guy. So you can't really tell who to believe and who not
to. That's why you're a winger. If you had any brains you would watch
shows like that and see for yourself the time lapse photos of Alaska's
largest glacier and the laser measurements of the rate of its flow
showing it's shrinking. So is the ice sheet on Greenland. They have
satellite photos showing it. You are just the type of person who
should be seeing this so you would see the science for yourself and
have the facts. But being a winger you will never actually get the
facts and will only get what propaganda that the right wing network
and the right wing radio talkers want you to have. In your case it's a
matter of the advice most needed is the advice least heeded. And that
explains why you talk about things you don't know about. That is what
a right winger always does. It's in the rules for right wingers.

Hawke

Hack the lib, gets his education from television.

That's right, and you ought to try watching PBS some time yourself. I'd
say you might learn something but I know you won't. You lack the IQ for
anything but cartoons and comic books.


Tell us Hack, how do
cows farting on Earth make the planet Pluto hotter? How do their farts
in L.A. make the ice melt on Mars?

The same way you make everyone leave the area when you fart. You raise
the temperature with your methane gas and your putrid stink. If you were
close enough to any planet you would make ice melt. But it's obvious you
will never understand a thing about global warming so give it up. You
need to learn about it before you comment on it and you don't know the
first thing about the subject and never will. Maybe if you watched PBS
more. Nah.

Hawke

"Hawke" wrote in message
...

Tell us Hack, how do
cows farting on Earth make the planet Pluto hotter? How do their farts
in L.A. make the ice melt on Mars?

The same way you make everyone leave the area when you fart. You raise the
temperature with your methane gas and your putrid stink. If you were close
enough to any planet you would make ice melt. But it's obvious you will
never understand a thing about global warming so give it up. You need to
learn about it before you comment on it and you don't know the first thing
about the subject and never will. Maybe if you watched PBS more. Nah.

Hawke

Just so I understand you correctly, you are saying that the cows farting on
Earth make methane gas and it stinks. Then, because of the closeness of
Earth to Mars, the cows farting are causing ice to melt on Mars. So, again,
how do the cow farts on Earth cause Pluto to warm up, it's not as close as
Mars is.

Did you learn your Earth Science on some lib TV show too? Maybe you didn't
see it on TV. Maybe you just read about it in TV Guide, huh?