|
If this is global warming...
In article , Mark & Juanita wrote:
I've never had Blue Heron, what's it taste like? :-) Spotted owl. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again. |
If this is global warming...
J. Clarke writes:
I never said one scientist has received millions of dollars. And the deniers are not given credence in scientific journals. If they aren't then that alone is an indication that the journals are biased. I'm sorry, but when scientific journals are systematically rejecting a minority viewpoint there is something very, very badly wrong. I doubt that's happening. Scientists love to debunk popular misconceptions. They also love to be first with groundbreaking research. Scientists ARE biased against bad science. If the facts can't be proven, then it's not science. -- Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of $500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract. |
If this is global warming...
|
If this is global warming...
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 23:38:02 -0600, Tim Daneliuk
wrote: jo4hn wrote: Joe Bleau wrote: On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 15:01:25 -0800, jo4hn wrote: OK people. Think climate change rather than increases in temp wherever you might be. Some places may experience nastier or better weather but the overall change is an increase in temp with polar caps and glaciers melting. It's been happening for years now. Not gonna get better. Drive hybrid, save a polar bear. luck to all, jo4hn It has been happening for years, for eons even. Millions of years before man ever appeared the earth was warming and cooling. Drive SUVs and remember to save a tree you might think about wiping with spotted owls. Joe Well, ignoring the cutsie bs about spotted owls and all, keep in mind that Antarctic ice cores show that the current concentration of carbon dioxide in the air is the highest that it has ever been (.3 million Not so. It is the highest it has been *in a long time*, not "ever". I'm curious--do you have a source for that information? The analysis that I've seen of ice cores suggest that it is indeed the highest it has been during the period of time covered by the ice cores. My research in this area however has been quite limited and I may well be looking in all the wrong places. years). The number of REFERREED scientific papers that scoff at man aided CO2 is zero. Enough. or you might try prayer, jo4hn Now all you have to do is: a) Demonstrate that CO2 is causal for global warming (not done to date). At this point you will earn a Ph.D. b) Demonstrate that human action is causal for the increased CO2 levels (not done to date). At this point you will get tenure. c) Demonstrate that global warming's effects are severe and harm the environment (entirely speculative to date). At this point you will get unlimited funding. d) Demonstrate that mankind can actually substantially do something about it by changing behavior (wild speculation to date). At this point you might be electable to public office. Gore and the Earth Worshiping Pantheists wanna skip a-c and go right to d. |
If this is global warming...
"todd" writes:
As the Snopes page said - Eisenhower took the initiative in creating the Interstate Highway System. He did not invent the highway. Which isn't even close to being on point. Eisenhower was in office from 1953-1961. The Federal-Aid Highway Act was passed in 1956. So, Eisenhower can rightly claim the initiative in creating the Interstate Highway System. In contrast, Gore was not yet in office when the Internet was first created. And Eisenhower wasn't in office when the highway was invented. Perhaps he could rightly say that he took the initiative to expand the Internet, but that doesn't sound nearly as good saying you created it, so being a politician, he said the latter. In the end, I don't really care. The way he said it left him wide open for jokes to be made. You can't deny that it sounds funny, can you? No argument there. It was definitely awkward. It would have been slightly better if Gore used the term "Information Superhighway" - but even that is not very accurate. -- Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of $500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract. |
If this is global warming...
"Swingman" wrote in message ... "Bob Schmall" wrote in message Swingman wrote: "Bob Schmall" wrote in message Every single argument against global warming that I've seen here lacks one thing: hard evidence. If the average temperature is rising, which it is over the period examined, then it's warming. What's so difficult to comprehend? Don't even have to debate over "what _is_ is," to figure this out. Cause? Could be coincidence, could be the carbon. It's the only thing most people will research, lest they fall afoul of the current religion. So far we only have two rising. Solution? Certainly not the crap from Kyoto, where some, like the two most populous nations get to make gas without restriction, others must restrict. That's plain stupid. Politically it's a club to use, but the club-wielding caveman Algore is not about to suggest anything as unpopular as mandating taking the bus and leaving the car at home, or making electricity differently, or any of the other sure ways to drop emissions. You don't blame the voters, lest ye die. Let "them" do it. The ones who can't vote and will do anything to make a buck, and are therefore willing to comply. Effect? When the models can predict the next day's weather, or even agree between NOAA and the European model, I'll regard the "predictions" as more than the hot air they predict. Now go out and take some carbon out of the cycle and make it into furniture. The tree you cut will make room for another to grow. Ooops, that's not PC either.... |
If this is global warming...
J. Clarke writes:
On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 02:58:20 +0000 (UTC), Bruce Barnett wrote: (Doug Miller) writes: Considering the political pressure behind advancing the idea that the earth is warming, scientists who affirm that conclusion are far more likely to be recipients of research grants than scientists who deny it. The peer reviewers do not get paid. Are you saying that they are all independently wealthy or that they are all subsistence farmers? They get paid by _somebody_ or else htey don't eat. And if the grant money is in research that tends to support global warming then that's what they do. No. I'm saying the peer reviewers do not get paid to REVIEW the papers. Some may even disagree with the results. That's why it's a peer review. -- Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of $500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract. |
If this is global warming...
J. Clarke writes:
And despite all this censorship, not one paper opposing global warming got published? Do tell. Yeah - amazing isn't it? Even with a $20 million budget, they were unable to find any scientists willing to LIE for them. Did you check out the link: http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/i.../epa-websites/ This points to several grants the EPA funded: http://cfpub.epa.gov/gcrp/globalrese...cCol=a rchive http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/Library...2004-5-epa.htm Where are the results of these grants? Between 1999 and 2001 the EPA published 37 issues of Global Change Research News. And since then? Go to http://cfpub.epa.gov/gcrp/globalnews...excCol=archive and check it out yourself. The last annual report was 2002. They didn't even publish any papers DISPROVING global warming. Ask yourself why. -- Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of $500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract. |
If this is global warming...
In article , Tom Watson wrote:
On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 10:53:30 GMT, (Doug Miller) wrote: In article , Tom Watson wrote: On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 02:17:53 GMT, (Doug Miller) wrote: In article , Tom Watson wrote: On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 12:55:12 GMT, (Doug Miller) wrote: In article . com, "Robatoy" wrote: On Feb 14, 8:55 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote: Gore did say, quote, "I took the initiative in creating the Internet." That is a long ways from claiming he invented the internet. That is Rove spin. Karl Rove had absolutely nothing to do with it. Gore made an ass of himself all *by* himself, without anyone else's assistance -- starting with the fact that the internet had already been in existence *long* before Gore was ever elected to Congress. You are smarter than that, Douglas: http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp I'm smart enough to know that the internet existed before Gore was elected to Congress. You may be unaware of that fact -- but that doesn't make it any less a fact. 1958 - ARPA formed in response to Sputnik launch. (note: it was not called darpa at this point.) 1967 - ARPANET design discussions held. 1969 - ARPANET commisioned by DoD for research into networking. 1970 - First publication of Host-Host protocol by ARPANET. 1973 - First international connection to ARPANET (University College Of London). Three years before AlGore's election... That was a crappy response and you know it. No, Tom, just pointing out the facts -- the internet existed before AlGore was elected to Congress, and he was lying when he said he "took the initiative in creating it". Just like he was lying when he claimed to have spent his youth working on the family farm. Just like he was lying when he claimed that his mother sang him to sleep using "Look for the Union Label" as a lullaby -- a song that wasn't written until he was in his twenties. And just like he's lying now about globabl warming. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again. |
If this is global warming...
In article , Bruce Barnett wrote:
J. Clarke writes: I never said one scientist has received millions of dollars. And the deniers are not given credence in scientific journals. If they aren't then that alone is an indication that the journals are biased. I'm sorry, but when scientific journals are systematically rejecting a minority viewpoint there is something very, very badly wrong. I doubt that's happening. Scientists love to debunk popular misconceptions. They also love to be first with groundbreaking research. Scientists ARE biased against bad science. If the facts can't be proven, then it's not science. And by that definition, global warming is not science. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again. |
If this is global warming...
In article , Bruce Barnett wrote:
(Doug Miller) writes: Gore didn't claim that he took the initiative in expanding the internet, or exploding it into commercial and home use -- he claimed he "took the initiative in creating [it]". And that is simply not true. It already existed, as you acknowledge above. It existed as a research tool for those funded by the government. Correct. So how did Al Gore have anything to do with the creation of something that already existed? It was NOT available for commercial use at the time. I didn't say that it was. And Gore didn't claim that he took the initiative in *expanding* it to commercial use -- a claim which would have been at least partially true, and at worst an exaggeration. He made the patently false claim that he took the initiative in *creating* it -- in creating something that you _agreed_ with me was already in existence before he came along. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again. |
If this is global warming...
On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 12:00:16 +0000 (UTC), Bruce Barnett
wrote: J. Clarke writes: I never said one scientist has received millions of dollars. And the deniers are not given credence in scientific journals. If they aren't then that alone is an indication that the journals are biased. I'm sorry, but when scientific journals are systematically rejecting a minority viewpoint there is something very, very badly wrong. I doubt that's happening. Scientists love to debunk popular misconceptions. They also love to be first with groundbreaking research. Scientists ARE biased against bad science. If the facts can't be proven, then it's not science. So what are you asserting here? By the way, "facts can't be proven" and "facts haven't been proven" are two different things. It is not necessary to prove facts in order to publish in a peer reviewed journal. All that is necessary is to provide a means by which one's viewpoint can be tested. As to "scientists love to debunk popular misconceptions", perhaps they do but peer-reviewed journals are not the place in which they do it except in the rare case that the "popular misconception" has never before been tested. As to "loving to be first with groundbreaking research", perhaps they are, but what is at issue is not "groundbreaking research", what is at issue is the policies of journals. Perhaps there is simply _no_ scientist who disagrees with the notion of global warming or with the notion that it has a human cause. Considering that there are scientists who disagree with such well established models as General Relativity, and that they have little difficulty getting published, if there are in fact no published papers critical of the global warming hypothesis, which is far less well established and based on atmospheric modelling, an area of physics which is still evolving rapidly, this is _highly_ suspicious. Either the global warming advocates are lying about there being no published contrarian view or there is systematic bias in the journals. To assert that no credible scientist can present an argument against t is simply not believable. |
If this is global warming...
in 1345945 20070216 120516 Bruce Barnett wrote:
(Doug Miller) writes: Gore didn't claim that he took the initiative in expanding the internet, or exploding it into commercial and home use -- he claimed he "took the initiative in creating [it]". And that is simply not true. It already existed, as you acknowledge above. It existed as a research tool for those funded by the government. It was NOT available for commercial use at the time. True - that only happened in the early 90s. Who was responsible for the change? |
If this is global warming...
"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message ... and all along you thought the drum riser was invented to give the drummer better beaver shots in the front row! I would think the drummer would prefer to be lower -- doesn't gas rise? It also diffuses in direct proportion with the distance from the nozzle. You want it straight, or with a chaser? -- www.e-woodshop.net Last update: 2/07/07 |
If this is global warming...
"Tom Watson" wrote in message ... On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 12:55:12 GMT, (Doug Miller) wrote: You are smarter than that, Douglas: http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp Correct, Al Gore claimed to take the initiative in creating the internet while in congress. Thank goodness he got the ball rolling. |
If this is global warming...
"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
Skepticism is the *basis* of science. A hypothesis is not even fit for consideration if it is not, in principle, falsifiable. It is laughable that the very people clinging to their version of "science" as mainstream or consensus, demand that we rid ourselves of skepticism - the very foundation of the scientific method. One more time: It does not matter how many scientists agree about any topic we could pick. Their agreement is irrelevant until/unless they can produce data, calculation, and/or experimental data to debate. Their opinions are no more important than my cat's. That's *why* we have developed the scientific method in the past few centuries: To - as best we can - eliminate human bias. The state of education in this country has never more apparent than when the supposedly "educated" simply can not grasp, or, very likely have never even been exposed to, the above. The stated goal of our HISD schools here in Houston is to "... produce a student who is educated to the extent that he/she can gain employment in a corporate environment". That the proponents of that endeavor are starting to reap the benefits of a society educated thusly is painfully apparent from the number of folks here who are willing to have the wool pulled over their eyes by pseudo-science and statistics. Robbing them of the ability to think for themselves has got to be one of the most insidious crimes ever foisted upon the people of this country. This thread is, if nothing else, chilling to the bone ... -- www.e-woodshop.net Last update: 2/07/07 |
If this is global warming...
On Feb 16, 5:49 am, "Morris Dovey" wrote:
Roasted on a spit, it tastes somewhat like alaskan curlew - stewed with vegetables, it tastes just like chicken (and not at all like a spotted owl) -- alaskan curlew is more like platypus, imho. With a hint of mint-sauce, panda is nice eating too, especially the white meat. |
If this is global warming...
On Feb 16, 6:36 am, Tom Watson wrote:
At least give the guy credit for inventing the algorithm. I mean, how do you think it got its name? Brilliant! Consider it stolen. |
If this is global warming...
On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 12:32:09 +0000 (UTC), Bruce Barnett
wrote: J. Clarke writes: And despite all this censorship, not one paper opposing global warming got published? Do tell. Yeah - amazing isn't it? Even with a $20 million budget, they were unable to find any scientists willing to LIE for them. See how you yourself are attempting to enforce political correctness? Did you check out the link: http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/i.../epa-websites/ This points to several grants the EPA funded: http://cfpub.epa.gov/gcrp/globalrese...cCol=a rchive http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/Library...2004-5-epa.htm Where are the results of these grants? Dunno. You're the expert on climate, where are they? Between 1999 and 2001 the EPA published 37 issues of Global Change Research News. And since then? Is that a peer reviewed journal? I'm sorry, but personally I don't give a damn of the government decided to quit spending money on an agency newsletter. Go to http://cfpub.epa.gov/gcrp/globalnews...excCol=archive and check it out yourself. The last annual report was 2002. They didn't even publish any papers DISPROVING global warming. Ask yourself why. Why should I care what an agency newletter contains? Sorry, but you're singling out a a particular publication that is not as far as I know a generally recognized peer-reviewed scientific journal and from that making a sweeping generalization. |
If this is global warming...
On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 12:14:30 +0000 (UTC), Bruce Barnett
wrote: J. Clarke writes: On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 02:58:20 +0000 (UTC), Bruce Barnett wrote: (Doug Miller) writes: Considering the political pressure behind advancing the idea that the earth is warming, scientists who affirm that conclusion are far more likely to be recipients of research grants than scientists who deny it. The peer reviewers do not get paid. Are you saying that they are all independently wealthy or that they are all subsistence farmers? They get paid by _somebody_ or else htey don't eat. And if the grant money is in research that tends to support global warming then that's what they do. No. I'm saying the peer reviewers do not get paid to REVIEW the papers. Some may even disagree with the results. That's why it's a peer review. And so it comes out that they're passing papers that contradict their viewpoint and their funding agency asks them why and what do they say? |
If this is global warming...
On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 12:05:16 +0000 (UTC), Bruce Barnett
wrote: (Doug Miller) writes: Gore didn't claim that he took the initiative in expanding the internet, or exploding it into commercial and home use -- he claimed he "took the initiative in creating [it]". And that is simply not true. It already existed, as you acknowledge above. It existed as a research tool for those funded by the government. It was NOT available for commercial use at the time. At _what_ time? What specific legislation are you talking about? |
If this is global warming...
"George" wrote in message t... If the average temperature is rising, which it is over the period examined, then it's warming. What's so difficult to comprehend? Don't even have to debate over "what _is_ is," to figure this out. Correct, however the period examined has been picked. I pick the period from March to August in the southern hemisphere. The result of those temperatures shows global cooling. Or take the period from the ice age until now. Global warming. You can make any thing look the way you want it to with the right time frame and figures. Effect? When the models can predict the next day's weather, or even agree between NOAA and the European model, I'll regard the "predictions" as more than the hot air they predict. Models predictions are just that, predictions. My guess is usually closer to what happens than what the predictions are. Models called for a winter that was going to be warmer and wetter than normal in SE Texas. When it started cooling off in August I said that it would probably be colder this winter, one month before the September prediction. Today we broke a 56 year "low" record. We have had a much colder winter than in the last 10 years. It has also been wetter, a guess that happened to be right by the models. Hurricane number and intensity models for 2006 were slightly lower than the actual occurrences in 2005 but higher than the 2005 models. The predictions were changed 2 or 3 times after we were well into the season and had only fulfilled about 15% of the predictions. The weather bureau is basically clueless more than a few days out. |
If this is global warming...
|
If this is global warming...
"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message ... As someone who makes his living using, in part, computer simulations I can also tell you that one of the other things no one has touched on here yet is the absolute uncertainty of the validity of the models being used. Absolutely correct. The models do not use enough of the correct data that actually caused weather changes to be accurate. The average person can guess as accurately as the models. |
If this is global warming...
Mark & Juanita wrote:
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 21:16:58 GMT, Lobby Dosser wrote: Bob Schmall wrote: The point is that global warming is a fact--even Shrub acknowledges it--and regardless of its causes there is great potential danger for millions of people and billions of dollars in property. But will it warm us tomorrow? So, it's a good theory because Bush acknowledges it? Or we are supposed to believe it because Bush acknowledges it? Bush doesn't get everything right and has been known to do some things for political expediency -- this appears to be one of them. Shrub sucking up to the left. Right. No doubt he was softening them up to give him $225 billion more for that sinkhole of a war. |
If this is global warming...
Mark & Juanita wrote:
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 07:34:20 -0600, "Swingman" wrote: "Robatoy" wrote in message I'm willing to bet that a quality buffalo fart could keep a Coleman lantern going for a while. But never mind those buffalo- and volcanic gasses. 4 TacoBell MexiMelts and we're talking Krakatoa. Actually, reminds me of a lead singer or two I've known. When the band bus stops at a TacoBell, whoever has to stand behind a lead singer during the next show automatically gets flatulent duty pay. ... and all along you thought the drum riser was invented to give the drummer better beaver shots in the front row! I would think the drummer would prefer to be lower -- doesn't gas rise? It does on this newsgroup. |
If this is global warming...
Robatoy wrote:
| On Feb 16, 5:49 am, "Morris Dovey" wrote: | || || Roasted on a spit, it tastes somewhat like alaskan curlew - stewed || with vegetables, it tastes just like chicken (and not at all like a || spotted owl) || || -- | | alaskan curlew is more like platypus, imho. | | With a hint of mint-sauce, panda is nice eating too, especially the | white meat. g To borrow a line from Bob "Bobcat" Goldwaite (sp?): I think there's more dark meat on a hamster... Hmm - I wonder how a well-aged woolly mammoth steak tastes... -- Morris Dovey DeSoto Solar DeSoto, Iowa USA http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto |
If this is global warming...
Doug Miller wrote:
In article . com, "Robatoy" wrote: On Feb 15, 9:17 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote: I'm smart enough to know that the internet existed before Gore was elected to Congress. You may be unaware of that fact -- but that doesn't make it any less a fact. Is English your second language, Doug? No -- but it often appears that it *is* yours... This kind of personal attack is exactly why I dropped off this NG a while back. Is it no longer possible to have a vigorous debate without these ad hominem banalities? |
If this is global warming...
"Bob Schmall" wrote in message
I would think the drummer would prefer to be lower -- doesn't gas rise? It does on this newsgroup. Along with the stink of gullibility. -- www.e-woodshop.net Last update: 2/07/07 |
If this is global warming...
George wrote:
"Swingman" wrote in message ... "Bob Schmall" wrote in message Swingman wrote: "Bob Schmall" wrote in message Every single argument against global warming that I've seen here lacks one thing: hard evidence. If the average temperature is rising, which it is over the period examined, then it's warming. What's so difficult to comprehend? Don't even have to debate over "what _is_ is," to figure this out. Cause? Could be coincidence, could be the carbon. It's the only thing most people will research, lest they fall afoul of the current religion. So far we only have two rising. Effect? When the models can predict the next day's weather, or even agree between NOAA and the European model, I'll regard the "predictions" as more than the hot air they predict. Now go out and take some carbon out of the cycle and make it into furniture. The tree you cut will make room for another to grow. Ooops, that's not PC either.... But it's nice. Why should this whole debate be defined by a couple of dichotomies: 1. Global warming is. Global warming isn't. 2. If it is, it's the fault of human beings. No, it's a natural phenomenon. 1. It is--that's beyond doubt. Even the stupidest president in our history got it through his wooden head. 2. Why should it be one or the other, separated by our political convictions? It may be both, or maybe there are undiscovered causes. I'll supply four: a. The solar system in its journey around the center of the Milky Way galaxy occasionally passes through clouds of gas and dust that block a bit of the Sun's heat. b. The Earth's orbit is not perfectly stable and occasionally becomes more eccentric, i.e., a longer ellipse. c. The Earth's poles don't maintain their 23.5 degree orientation to the plane of the ecliptic. d. Rec. Woodworking did not produce hot air until about 15 years ago. Scientists have proposed the first three, but I'll go with (d) Bob |
If this is global warming...
Doug Miller wrote:
In article , Bob Schmall wrote: On the greater scale of time, the ice ages are a recent phenomenon. They're not proof of the cyclical nature of climate. Cyclical changes in climate are not proof of the cyclical nature of climate. Right. I got it. Nope--the Ice ages were a comparatively recent phenomenon, geologically speaking. Phooey. Dinosaurs didn't need "at least a temperate climate" any more than mammals and birds do -- because, like mammals and birds, they were warm-blooded. Read "The Dinosaur Heresies," by Robert Bakker, for an excellent exposition, by a PhD paleontologist, of the overwhelming evidence of this. You're on pretty shaky ground if you're inferring that from the longevity of the dinos. Hell, I'm on shaky ground in my shop, too, so I'm used to it. You oughtta see what I did to that last chair. I'll read the Bakker book--he's The Man in paleontology. I'll withdraw that argument, but not the rest of my discourse. GW exists, and we are responsible for at least a part of it. Bob |
OT: If this is global warming...
The smarter thing to do is round up every ground hog, slap them around
until they start talking, and get their prediction. That is about as scientific as as the political morons looking for votes. And if their 'consensus' is correct, vote them in to office. At least we'll get intelligent government 50% of the time. And just to show them who's boss, wear a morning suit, white gloves and top hat. Pete |
If this is global warming...
2. Why should it be one or the other, separated by our political convictions? It may be both, or maybe there are undiscovered causes. I'll supply four: a. The solar system in its journey around the center of the Milky Way galaxy occasionally passes through clouds of gas and dust that block a bit of the Sun's heat. b. The Earth's orbit is not perfectly stable and occasionally becomes more eccentric, i.e., a longer ellipse. c. The Earth's poles don't maintain their 23.5 degree orientation to the plane of the ecliptic. d. Rec. Woodworking did not produce hot air until about 15 years ago. Scientists have proposed the first three, but I'll go with (d) Bob As a sawdust producer, I'd like to agree on choice D, but the current rational is to get a 'consensus'. You need more people on board with this. And the question should read " Is choice D the answer?". And the answer must surely be "yes". Pete |
If this is global warming...
In article , "Leon" wrote:
Correct, however the period examined has been picked. I pick the period from March to August in the southern hemisphere. The result of those temperatures shows global cooling. Or take the period from the ice age until now. Global warming. You can make any thing look the way you want it to with the right time frame and figures. BINGO. Give that man a cigar. Mark Twain said that there are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again. |
If this is global warming...
In article , Bob Schmall wrote:
Doug Miller wrote: In article , Bob Schmall wrote: On the greater scale of time, the ice ages are a recent phenomenon. They're not proof of the cyclical nature of climate. Cyclical changes in climate are not proof of the cyclical nature of climate. Right. I got it. Nope--the Ice ages were a comparatively recent phenomenon, geologically speaking. The fact that they're a *recent* (geologically speaking) cyclical phenomenon does not alter their cyclical nature. Phooey. Dinosaurs didn't need "at least a temperate climate" any more than mammals and birds do -- because, like mammals and birds, they were warm-blooded. Read "The Dinosaur Heresies," by Robert Bakker, for an excellent exposition, by a PhD paleontologist, of the overwhelming evidence of this. You're on pretty shaky ground if you're inferring that from the longevity of the dinos. Hell, I'm on shaky ground in my shop, too, so I'm used to it. You oughtta see what I did to that last chair. I'll read the Bakker book--he's The Man in paleontology. Enjoy it. It's fascinating. He uses arguments from all over the spectrum: predator to prey ratios, microscopic examination of bone structure, fossil trackways, and a host of other data, showing how it all points in the same direction -- to warm-blooded dinos. He even argues, near the end of the book, that his conclusions imply that dinosaurs are *not* extinct; it's just that we call them birds now. I'll withdraw that argument, but not the rest of my discourse. Too bad -- you were off to a good start. GW exists, You have very little evidence for that statement... and we are responsible for at least a part of it. ... and absolutely none for that one. Inference, yes. Evidence, emphatically not. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again. |
If this is global warming...
..000005%? I'll go along with that.
"Bob Schmall" wrote in message ... I'll withdraw that argument, but not the rest of my discourse. GW exists, and we are responsible for at least a part of it. |
If this is global warming...
On Feb 16, 10:16 am, Bob Schmall wrote:
a. The solar system in its journey around the center of the Milky Way galaxy occasionally passes through clouds of gas and dust that block a bit of the Sun's heat. b. The Earth's orbit is not perfectly stable and occasionally becomes more eccentric, i.e., a longer ellipse. c. The Earth's poles don't maintain their 23.5 degree orientation to the plane of the ecliptic. d. Rec. Woodworking did not produce hot air until about 15 years ago. Scientists have proposed the first three, but I'll go with (d) Banalities? |
If this is global warming...
Mark & Juanita wrote:
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 21:16:58 GMT, Lobby Dosser wrote: Bob Schmall wrote: The point is that global warming is a fact--even Shrub acknowledges it--and regardless of its causes there is great potential danger for millions of people and billions of dollars in property. But will it warm us tomorrow? So, it's a good theory because Bush acknowledges it? Or we are supposed to believe it because Bush acknowledges it? Bush doesn't get everything right and has been known to do some things for political expediency -- this appears to be one of them. Who are you and what have you done with the real Mark? |
If this is global warming...
[massive snippage]
Again: Science in the service of ideology is prostitution. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- You are giving prostitutes a bad name. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:59 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter