jo4hn wrote:
Mark & Juanita wrote:
jo4hn wrote:

problem?

Indeed. There are no long term (paleo)climatological models that
operate on 40 years worth of data. Tree rings, earth cores, sea
cores, and even the written descriptions of various weather
phenomena go back hundreds, if not thousands of years. New Vostok
data have extended the historical record of temperature variations
and atmospheric concentrations of CO2, methane and other greenhouse
trace gases (GTG) back to 420,000 years before present.


The warmist religion is attempting to predict disaster with average
temperature increases on the order of 0.6 deg C (~1.2 deg F). In
order for the models to be believable to that degree of precision,
then the records going back in time must be accurate on the order of
0.1 deg C. Do you seriously believe that tree rings, driven by
multiple confounding factors, average temperature being much smaller
in contribution than rainfall, or ice core samples, again driven by
multiple confounding factors can be relied upon to that degree of
precision? That isn't science, that's reading goat entrails.


This is all science that won't go away just because you will it so.
Perhaps nothing will come of it or even the massive amounts of fresh
water that are entering the oceans will alter the thermohaline
circulation patterns resulting in colder temperatures. Research in
these areas should not be curtailed despite the anti-science
popularity in certain political arenas.


Mark is mixing micro- with macro-climatology here. Models of this
type deal with long term trends. I will sign off now. Good night
and good grief.

Geez, even uses the same patter as the creationist loons.

wrote:

.... snip

So in theory they could move the population around the planet to
control the orbit around the sun and control the climate. 8-)
Mike M


NASA Proposed an idea not to far from that. They suggested moving the
planet away from the sun to mitigate global warming.

What could go wrong?

--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
...
wrote:

... snip

So in theory they could move the population around the planet to
control the orbit around the sun and control the climate. 8-)
Mike M


NASA Proposed an idea not to far from that. They suggested moving the
planet away from the sun to mitigate global warming.

What could go wrong?

LOL

On Dec 7, 7:16 pm, Swingman wrote:

But Robert, Robert, it's true!!

I see them every day, even on TV. I tell Linda I can spot'em a mile
away. Their eyes are close together, on either side of big noses; and
you can see all their front teeth, with even the whisp of a smile. Sorta
like the ballon boys father, or Jerry Seinfeld!

I tell ... it's true!!!

HAH!

I knew it wasn't just me. I see them, too.

But the ones that really trouble me are the ones that come in the
quiet of the night. They wait until I have a few bourbons under my
belt, a good cigar, and my defenses are down.

By the time I am half way down a fifth, they are trying to enlighten
me, but I don't understand. Too much information.

And the next morning when I wake up, the powerful drugs they have
given me make my head ache and my memory blurry... sometimes a little
nauseous as well.

I can't make heads or tails out of their visit the next day, but I
notice they always manage to kill what I leave in the bottle as it is
always empty the next morning. *******s.

At this rate I won't be any smarter than the rest of the guys around
here. All I will be stuck with is the notion that whatever pieces of
information that I have read and believe are the actual and only
truth.

Damn those aliens.

*******s.

Robert)

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Follow the money. Gore and his ilk stand to "make" hundreds of
millions, if not billions, at the hand of government interference in
markets.
This is now, and has always been, a movement about money and power,
not a conservation activity.

But not all. People get involved in politics for one of three reasons:

* Pride - there are those who sincerely believe they are doing good for the
planet
* Power - there are those who just know that minding other people's business
is a Good Thing(tm)
* Profit - as you said

Often, a single person is motivated by more than one reason.

Chris Friesen wrote:
On 12/07/2009 09:42 AM, HeyBub wrote:
Bob Martin wrote:

I lurk in a lot of newsgroups but I've never seen so much downright
ignorance re global warming as there is in this one.
Hint - it is NOTHING to do with the weather in your neck of the
woods. Have at it!

Heh! If that's so, then why do climatologists use weather as a proxy
for climate change? They record temperature, precipitation, etc.,
and from that deduce "climate."

Climate is basically the average weather over a long period of time,
typically 30 years or so.

You need to record the weather to determine the climate.

What was the "weather" in what was to become Berlin or London 2,000 years
ago?

The "trick" the CRU played was to use "proxy" data for about 2,000 years
(tree rings, ice cores, etc.), then switch over to "real" data in 1981.
Presto, a significant uptick. They had to do this because the proxy data
they were using 1981 onward did NOT show any warming. In fact, it showed
continued cooling.

The conundrum could be easily solved by assuming the 2,000 years of proxy
data was wrongly determined. That is, a tree ring of 0.25" really
represented 60° instead of 55°.

J. Clarke wrote:

Not really. If there is a problem it is the result of suddenly
releasing a lot of carbon that was sequestered over millions of
years. Trees are short term--burn them and plant new ones where the
old ones were and the new ones store the same amount of carbon as the
old ones released while being burned.


How do you figure?

Thusly:

CO2 accounts for 0.0038% of the earth's atmosphere. If the total atmosphere
can be compared to a football field (57,000 sq ft), the amount of CO2 in the
air is roughly equivalent to the prostrate body of an official stabbed six
times by irate fans because of three consecutive bad calls and the increase
in CO2 is roughly the growing stain said official is leaving on the
Astroturf as he bleeds out (23 sq ft).

CO2 in the atmosphere is part of a giant feedback loop. Plants are capturing
it (principally ocean plants) and sequestering it naturally.

HeyBub wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
Not really. If there is a problem it is the result of suddenly
releasing a lot of carbon that was sequestered over millions of
years. Trees are short term--burn them and plant new ones where the
old ones were and the new ones store the same amount of carbon as the
old ones released while being burned.


How do you figure?

Thusly:

CO2 accounts for 0.0038% of the earth's atmosphere. If the total atmosphere
can be compared to a football field (57,000 sq ft), the amount of CO2 in the
air is roughly equivalent to the prostrate body of an official stabbed six
times by irate fans because of three consecutive bad calls and the increase
in CO2 is roughly the growing stain said official is leaving on the
Astroturf as he bleeds out (23 sq ft).

CO2 in the atmosphere is part of a giant feedback loop. Plants are capturing
it (principally ocean plants) and sequestering it naturally.

That's exactly the scenario I had come up with when I did the math! Wow, great minds...

--
"Even if your wife is happy but you're unhappy, you're still happier
than you'd be if you were happy and your wife was unhappy." - Red Green
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/

jo4hn wrote:

Take a look at climate.nasa.gov. Study it at some length with as little
prejudice as possible. Report back in a week. Do not cite wingnut
blogs as rebuttal - only refereed scientific papers.

You really must have your head buried deeply in the sand!

Refereed scientific papers indeed....

It was bull**** before the "scientists" were caught with their pants
down, and it's bull**** now...

--
Jack
Got Change: Global Warming ===== Global Fraud!
http://jbstein.com

On Sun, 06 Dec 2009 11:47:13 -0600, the infamous Swingman
scrawled the following:

Bob Martin wrote:


However, to those maintaining that global warming is a myth, please read
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-re...4-wg1-faqs.pdf
and come back with your informed rebuttals.
"It's all lies" and "it's a scam" is just not good enough.
BTW : almost everything that's been said about the CRU in the media is wrong.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8397265.stm

As long as you're throwing internet/media **** on the wall, the
following report, and its burying because it did not fit in with the
current political agenda, is neither ... and irrefutable evidence that
you are being misguided:

http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0/DOC062509-004.pdf


HEY WEEGEE! READ THIS ONE ABOVE, please. I just finished the Exec
Summary and am starting on the main text, but it's telling.


http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10274412-38.html

This is the actual report, not media supposition, and what happened to
it is undeniable fact, not the result of agenda driven media "spin".

This entire issue is simply too rife with examples of same for it to be
viewed as pure innocence personified, which you seem to be doing.

Regardless of which side of the fence you're on, anyone, government or
otherwise, advocating basing action on computer climate modeling done
with even the suspicion of tainted data is being irresponsible ... GIGO
is an irrefutable, _scientific_ fact, which can't be spun to suit any
agenda.

Nice try ...

Amen to that. While I support the effort to reduce mankind's
footpring on Earth, I'm totally against going ahead with -any- action
based on faulty data.

--
Follow the path of the unsafe, independent thinker. Expose your ideas
to the dangers of controversy. Speak your mind and fear less the label
of 'crackpot' than the stigma of conformity. And on issues that seem
important to you, stand up and be counted at any cost.
-- Thomas J. Watson

On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 07:42:39 GMT, the infamous Bob Martin
scrawled the following:

in 124738 20091206 174713 Swingman wrote:
Bob Martin wrote:


However, to those maintaining that global warming is a myth, please read
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-re...4-wg1-faqs.pdf
and come back with your informed rebuttals.
"It's all lies" and "it's a scam" is just not good enough.
BTW : almost everything that's been said about the CRU in the media is wrong.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8397265.stm

As long as you're throwing internet/media **** on the wall, the
following report, and its burying because it did not fit in with the
current political agenda, is neither ... and irrefutable evidence that
you are being misguided:

http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0/DOC062509-004.pdf
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10274412-38.html

This is the actual report, not media supposition, and what happened to
it is undeniable fact, not the result of agenda driven media "spin".

This entire issue is simply too rife with examples of same for it to be
viewed as pure innocence personified, which you seem to be doing.

Regardless of which side of the fence you're on, anyone, government or
otherwise, advocating basing action on computer climate modeling done
with even the suspicion of tainted data is being irresponsible ... GIGO
is an irrefutable, _scientific_ fact, which can't be spun to suit any
agenda.

Nice try ...

See what's happening to the glaciers, the coral reefs, bird migration.
The signs are all around for those who will open their eyes and their minds.

What you're failing to see is that as one glacier recedes here,
another grows somewhere else on this planet. Please look into it and
stop overreacting. What you see locally isn't "global".

--
Follow the path of the unsafe, independent thinker. Expose your ideas
to the dangers of controversy. Speak your mind and fear less the label
of 'crackpot' than the stigma of conformity. And on issues that seem
important to you, stand up and be counted at any cost.
-- Thomas J. Watson

On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 09:57:29 -0800, the infamous jo4hn
scrawled the following:

Leon wrote:
"Bob Martin" wrote in message
om...

There ain't none so blind as those that don't want to see!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8376286.stm


And you know that seems to be the problem.

What have you personally seen with your own eyes that has become a world
problem in this situation.

What have you read?



Take a look at climate.nasa.gov. Study it at some length with as little
prejudice as possible. Report back in a week. Do not cite wingnut
blogs as rebuttal - only refereed scientific papers.
TIA,

Are you citing the Nasa site as a totally political arm of the Chicken
Littles, or are you thinking, naively, that it is not?


--
Follow the path of the unsafe, independent thinker. Expose your ideas
to the dangers of controversy. Speak your mind and fear less the label
of 'crackpot' than the stigma of conformity. And on issues that seem
important to you, stand up and be counted at any cost.
-- Thomas J. Watson

On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 18:50:18 -0600, the infamous Swingman
scrawled the following:

jo4hn wrote:

calibration values, and the like. Fraud is very rare (Fox rants
notwithstanding), since it will be found out by ones peers.

Not if you don't allow, or actively discourage, peer review. Proof of
that happening is available, but you just don't seem to be hearing about
it from the AP.

Just call me skeptical/suspicious as to why ... but I'll be glad to
change my mind if someone can refute it beyond doubt and from an
unbiased source.

Overheard, quietly, in the back room of the interview suite of a
Chicken Little AGWK outfit:

"Mr/Ms. (New Scientist), would you rather be outcast and unfunded by
following the truth, or would you rather get funding by skewing it and
going along with those who have deeper agendas? It's up to you."

--
Follow the path of the unsafe, independent thinker. Expose your ideas
to the dangers of controversy. Speak your mind and fear less the label
of 'crackpot' than the stigma of conformity. And on issues that seem
important to you, stand up and be counted at any cost.
-- Thomas J. Watson

On Mon, 7 Dec 2009 16:00:09 -0800 (PST), the infamous
" scrawled the
following:

On Dec 7, 1:29*pm, Swingman wrote:

What should have been an age of enlightenment has demonstrably turned
into and age of skepticism and suspicion.

I couldn't agree more. Especially with the truth hiding in plain
sight.


IOW, I've been right all along ... g

Well...

Karl... I wanted to stay out of this. But actually, blaming Canada
earlier was just a smoke screen on the real truth.

I didn't want to post the REAL truth, since (thinking of Jack
Nicholson here) many couldn't handle the truth. Well, here it is.
And it's been out there for many years, and NO ONE, no matter how they
internet search and quote, can disprove it.

In that vein, since I believe it and it can't be googled away
with foamy blather, doesn't that make it the truth according to the
group definition?

Ah, it is but your truth, Weedhoppa.


I didn't want to play this card as the "experts" are obviously not
finished. But...

http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speec...alwarming.html

It was Michael Crichton who led me further over to the skeptical side.
After reading his 1-page article in the Parade, I picked up his book
_State of Fear_ and really got into it. I ended up reading armfuls of
the books in his 28 page biblio, which led to other skeptic books and
websites. And, of course, the more I read about it and the deeper I
research it, the more skeptical I become. As I researched, I would
find a tidbit on one side which led me one way, then find a tidbit on
the other side which led me another way. I firmly believe that the
CRU Scandal will be only the tip of the large, non-melting iceberg.


I hope this clears things up. Now all of you can go back to being
friends again.... or can you....

Of course. We fine, rational, even-tempered, open-minded skeptics can
always put up with "you idiots." evil grinne

--
Follow the path of the unsafe, independent thinker. Expose your ideas
to the dangers of controversy. Speak your mind and fear less the label
of 'crackpot' than the stigma of conformity. And on issues that seem
important to you, stand up and be counted at any cost.
-- Thomas J. Watson

On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 11:13:25 -0800, the infamous jo4hn
scrawled the following:

Leon wrote:
"jo4hn" wrote in message
m...
Take a look at climate.nasa.gov. Study it at some length with as little
prejudice as possible. Report back in a week. Do not cite wingnut blogs
as rebuttal - only refereed scientific papers.
TIA,


Nope! I want to see it not be told what I am seeing.


Well, if it gets really hot next year, don't come to me.

Oh, it will. My computer climate models predict Globular sWarming
peaking in July, tapering off somewhat in August and September.

--
Follow the path of the unsafe, independent thinker. Expose your ideas
to the dangers of controversy. Speak your mind and fear less the label
of 'crackpot' than the stigma of conformity. And on issues that seem
important to you, stand up and be counted at any cost.
-- Thomas J. Watson

On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 15:58:21 GMT, the infamous Bob Martin
scrawled the following:

in 124809 20091207 153644 "HeyBub" wrote:
Leon wrote:
"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
...

"Leon" wrote:

Global Warming is a myth.

Just curious, what makes you say that?


Being able to look at the world through my own eyes and interpret
what I am seeing rather than being told what I am seeing.

I do not dispute that some places are getting warmer, at least for
this period of time but there are other places that are getting
colder. Take the South Pole for instance, its ice has been growing
for years.

What parts are getting warmer? The average temperature has been steadily
declining since 1996. And even if it IS getting warmer, it's no where near
what it was during the Medieval Warm Period (a time of great prosperity).

Might I suggest you get your facts from NASA rather than from Fox News or your
childrens' comics?
The 10 warmest years on record have all occurred in the last 12 years.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/

Nasa is to skeptics what Fox News is to liberals, Bawb. sigh

--
Follow the path of the unsafe, independent thinker. Expose your ideas
to the dangers of controversy. Speak your mind and fear less the label
of 'crackpot' than the stigma of conformity. And on issues that seem
important to you, stand up and be counted at any cost.
-- Thomas J. Watson

On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 18:48:59 -0500, the infamous Tom Watson
scrawled the following:

On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 12:53:33 -0500, Tom Watson
wrote:

Beware the Yahoos, Googlectuals, WikiPaederasts and Bloglodytes.


The following is by Joe *******i, senior meteorologist for
Accu-Weather. It is presented for your edification.
--snip--
In any case, a word of advice to NASA, which seems to have some
linkage to all this:

Physician, heal thyself.

God Bless Joe *******i! I love this guy who tells it like it is.

--
Follow the path of the unsafe, independent thinker. Expose your ideas
to the dangers of controversy. Speak your mind and fear less the label
of 'crackpot' than the stigma of conformity. And on issues that seem
important to you, stand up and be counted at any cost.
-- Thomas J. Watson

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
The "global warming" "scientists" are engaging in political activity and
using models that have not been validated to support their politicking.
There is a tendency toward "scientism" in our society--trusting anyone who
claims to be a "scientist" without question. Most sciences are in their
infancy--the only ones with any real maturity are physics and chemistry,
with biology getting there. Climatology is very immature and basing
social
policy on its models is about as wise as basing social policy on the
ravings
of alchemists or astrologers.


Few people will trust the weather service to get a forcast for the next week
right but they believe that weather patterns on a globale scale can be
predicted with accuracy.

On 12/08/2009 03:03 PM, CW wrote:

Few people will trust the weather service to get a forcast for the next week
right but they believe that weather patterns on a globale scale can be
predicted with accuracy.

I can't predict when I'm going to die, but the life insurance companies
can predict with pretty good accuracy how many people will die this year
across the whole country.

Chris

On 12/08/2009 03:03 PM, CW wrote:

Few people will trust the weather service to get a forcast for the next week
right but they believe that weather patterns on a globale scale can be
predicted with accuracy.

I can't predict when I'm going to die, but the life insurance companies
can predict with pretty good accuracy how many people will die this year
across the whole country.

Chris

"CW" wrote in message
m...



Few people will trust the weather service to get a forcast for the next
week right but they believe that weather patterns on a globale scale can
be predicted with accuracy.


Pretty much it in a nut shell CW!

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...


Well, if it gets really hot next year, don't come to me.

Oh, it will. My computer climate models predict Globular sWarming
peaking in July, tapering off somewhat in August and September.


Amateur! My climate models further predict a precise alternation sequence
between darkness and light every 12 hours along the equator.

"Leon" wrote in message
...

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...


Well, if it gets really hot next year, don't come to me.

Oh, it will. My computer climate models predict Globular sWarming
peaking in July, tapering off somewhat in August and September.


Amateur! My climate models further predict a precise alternation sequence
between darkness and light every 12 hours along the equator.
Brings back memories of HeeHaw. "Forcast for tonight, dark".

"CW" wrote in message
m...

"Leon" wrote in message
...

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...


Well, if it gets really hot next year, don't come to me.

Oh, it will. My computer climate models predict Globular sWarming
peaking in July, tapering off somewhat in August and September.


Amateur! My climate models further predict a precise alternation
sequence between darkness and light every 12 hours along the equator.
Brings back memories of HeeHaw. "Forcast for tonight, dark".

I have to admit I got the idea from SNL back in the 70's. We will see
continued day light followed by night fall.

jo4hn wrote:

Mark & Juanita wrote:
jo4hn wrote:

Swingman wrote:
jo4hn wrote:

.... snip

Well, one case in point, if you feed a flat temperature reading into
one
of CRU's models, it returns the infamous "Hockey Stick" result. i.e., it
massages data in a way that appears to have hardcoded in the researcher's
bias.

All of this bleating about peer reviews would be a lot more credible if
the peer review process had not been subverted. *That* is definitely
shown
in the released e-mails. When the only peers who review your work are
those who agree with your conclusions, and the only papers accepted for
peer review in journals are those that agree with AGW, and when journals
that dare publish peer reviewed papers that don't agree with AGW are
threatened
and coerced into stopping that behavior, one no longer has science. One
has
dogma and religion. In this case, the collars and cassocks have been
replaced with white labcoats. Still religion with orthodoxy being
strictly enforced.

OK. You are resorting to snottiness now. Good night.

Snottiness? Me? Nope. The warmists? Definitely. Read the frickin' e-
mails. They contain some of the most petty and base comments that
demonstrate more adherence to orthodoxy than devotion to science. They show
a clear and devoted grasp to a pet theory and the determination to make sure
that nothing which casts any aspersions on that theory will be granted a
hearing in a "peer-reviewed" journal. That's not science.


--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham

I do a lot of it myself and miss some events in longer terms.
Over two or three days they and I are rather close. A lot of times
I win. I don't keep score as it is a non-perfect science and way to
complex for a computer to simply determine.

As one example - I had two front lines pass over us today. Then they
reversed and split further apart the second one passed over us twice again.

I trust and hope both are now done with the retrograde plays.

I've been doing weather prediction for 35 or 40 years. Longer than most
local weather people. I trained under, by watching and listening, Howard
Taft out of Ft. Worth and he was IIRC a U.S. Reserve "General" weather
officer. He gave insight as to why and how. He was a WW vet and I believe
long in passing.

Martin

CW wrote:

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
The "global warming" "scientists" are engaging in political activity and
using models that have not been validated to support their politicking.
There is a tendency toward "scientism" in our society--trusting anyone
who
claims to be a "scientist" without question. Most sciences are in their
infancy--the only ones with any real maturity are physics and chemistry,
with biology getting there. Climatology is very immature and basing
social
policy on its models is about as wise as basing social policy on the
ravings
of alchemists or astrologers.


Few people will trust the weather service to get a forcast for the next
week right but they believe that weather patterns on a globale scale
can be predicted with accuracy.

With the tons (yes tons) of water and rock that falls upon the
earth every year the size and mass increases. This alters our orbit.

When the great planets align that tugs on earth and shifts orbit.
When they are near the sun it can be in the wrong direction!

Martin

CW wrote:
"Mike M" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 7 Dec 2009 16:01:36 -0600, "Dave in Houston"
wrote:

"Robatoy" wrote in message
...

If we take the earth's population at 7 billion, and moved them all
toTexas,

Wouldn't that put the planet out of balance and throw it out of it's
solar orbit? I mean, I can see it wobbling like the washing machine
when the big blanket bunches up on one side of the tub and then hurtling
out into deep space.

Dave in Houston

So in theory they could move the population around the planet to
control the orbit around the sun and control the climate. 8-)
Mike M


NASA Proposed an idea not to far from that. They suggested moving the planet
away from the sun to mitigate global warming.

"Martin H. Eastburn" wrote in
:



I've been doing weather prediction for 35 or 40 years.
Longer than most local weather people. I trained under, by
watching and listening, Howard Taft out of Ft. Worth and
he was IIRC a U.S. Reserve "General" weather officer. He
gave insight as to why and how. He was a WW vet and I
believe long in passing.

Martin


Not going to be sucked into this ****ing contest but...
It was actually Harold Taft.

Larry

Mark & Juanita wrote:

Snottiness? Me? Nope. The warmists? Definitely. Read the frickin'
e- mails. They contain some of the most petty and base comments that
demonstrate more adherence to orthodoxy than devotion to science.
They show a clear and devoted grasp to a pet theory and the
determination to make sure that nothing which casts any aspersions on
that theory will be granted a hearing in a "peer-reviewed" journal.
That's not science.

Not only, but in 1,100 emails there is not a hint of humor, no sly comments,
not even a joke.

One person reported that "... these climate scientists are the most
humorless scolds the earth has ever seen. At one seminar a speaker reported
that 'The National Association of Homebuilders is a bigger threat to
civiliztion than even the NRA.' During the question and answer period I
asked: 'I understand how you can feel that way about homebuilders, but what
do you have against the NRA?' The humor went right above his head."

HeyBub wrote:
Mark & Juanita wrote:

Snottiness? Me? Nope. The warmists? Definitely. Read the frickin'
e- mails. They contain some of the most petty and base comments that
demonstrate more adherence to orthodoxy than devotion to science.
They show a clear and devoted grasp to a pet theory and the
determination to make sure that nothing which casts any aspersions on
that theory will be granted a hearing in a "peer-reviewed" journal.
That's not science.

Not only, but in 1,100 emails there is not a hint of humor, no sly
comments, not even a joke.

One person reported that "... these climate scientists are the most
humorless scolds the earth has ever seen. At one seminar a speaker
reported that 'The National Association of Homebuilders is a bigger
threat to civiliztion than even the NRA.' During the question and
answer period I asked: 'I understand how you can feel that way about
homebuilders, but what do you have against the NRA?' The humor went
right above his head."

On another board I made a comment about "professional do-gooders" and got
two responses, one of them running to two pages, about how horrible I was
for using such offensive language and trying to politicize the discussion
(which was of why a character in a TV series couldn't do simple algebra).

in 125044 20091208 181751 Larry Jaques wrote:
On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 07:42:39 GMT, the infamous Bob Martin
scrawled the following:

in 124738 20091206 174713 Swingman wrote:
Bob Martin wrote:


However, to those maintaining that global warming is a myth, please read
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-re...4-wg1-faqs.pdf
and come back with your informed rebuttals.
"It's all lies" and "it's a scam" is just not good enough.
BTW : almost everything that's been said about the CRU in the media is wrong.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8397265.stm

As long as you're throwing internet/media **** on the wall, the
following report, and its burying because it did not fit in with the
current political agenda, is neither ... and irrefutable evidence that
you are being misguided:

http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0/DOC062509-004.pdf
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10274412-38.html

This is the actual report, not media supposition, and what happened to
it is undeniable fact, not the result of agenda driven media "spin".

This entire issue is simply too rife with examples of same for it to be
viewed as pure innocence personified, which you seem to be doing.

Regardless of which side of the fence you're on, anyone, government or
otherwise, advocating basing action on computer climate modeling done
with even the suspicion of tainted data is being irresponsible ... GIGO
is an irrefutable, _scientific_ fact, which can't be spun to suit any
agenda.

Nice try ...

See what's happening to the glaciers, the coral reefs, bird migration.
The signs are all around for those who will open their eyes and their minds.

What you're failing to see is that as one glacier recedes here,
another grows somewhere else on this planet. Please look into it and
stop overreacting. What you see locally isn't "global".

I'm failing to see? ROFL
Glaciers are retreating in North America, South America, the Alps, the Himalayas,
Africa, Greenland, West Antarctica and New Zealand. Name one glacier that is growing.
Your idea of global is different to mine.

"Bob Martin" wrote in message
om...
in 125044 20091208 181751 Larry Jaques
wrote:
On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 07:42:39 GMT, the infamous Bob Martin
scrawled the following:

in 124738 20091206 174713 Swingman wrote:
Bob Martin wrote:


However, to those maintaining that global warming is a myth, please
read
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-re...4-wg1-faqs.pdf
and come back with your informed rebuttals.
"It's all lies" and "it's a scam" is just not good enough.
BTW : almost everything that's been said about the CRU in the media is
wrong.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8397265.stm

As long as you're throwing internet/media **** on the wall, the
following report, and its burying because it did not fit in with the
current political agenda, is neither ... and irrefutable evidence that
you are being misguided:

http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0/DOC062509-004.pdf
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10274412-38.html

This is the actual report, not media supposition, and what happened to
it is undeniable fact, not the result of agenda driven media "spin".

This entire issue is simply too rife with examples of same for it to be
viewed as pure innocence personified, which you seem to be doing.

Regardless of which side of the fence you're on, anyone, government or
otherwise, advocating basing action on computer climate modeling done
with even the suspicion of tainted data is being irresponsible ... GIGO
is an irrefutable, _scientific_ fact, which can't be spun to suit any
agenda.

Nice try ...

See what's happening to the glaciers, the coral reefs, bird migration.
The signs are all around for those who will open their eyes and their
minds.

What you're failing to see is that as one glacier recedes here,
another grows somewhere else on this planet. Please look into it and
stop overreacting. What you see locally isn't "global".

I'm failing to see? ROFL
Glaciers are retreating in North America, South America, the Alps, the
Himalayas,
Africa, Greenland, West Antarctica and New Zealand. Name one glacier that
is growing.



How about a BUNCH?

[NEW YORK
, May 5 (UPI) -- U.S. scientists say that while the majority of the world's
glaciers are retreating as the planet becomes warmer, glaciers south of the
equator are growing.

The researchers at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory
said they discovered glaciers in South America and New Zealand are inching
forward, pointing to strong regional variations in climate.]

http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2009/05/05/Glacier-growth-differs-between-hemispheres/UPI-70561241550410/

in 125137 20091209 093617 "LDosser" wrote:
"Bob Martin" wrote in message
. com...
in 125044 20091208 181751 Larry Jaques
wrote:
On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 07:42:39 GMT, the infamous Bob Martin
scrawled the following:

in 124738 20091206 174713 Swingman wrote:
Bob Martin wrote:


However, to those maintaining that global warming is a myth, please
read
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-re...4-wg1-faqs.pdf
and come back with your informed rebuttals.
"It's all lies" and "it's a scam" is just not good enough.
BTW : almost everything that's been said about the CRU in the media is
wrong.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8397265.stm

As long as you're throwing internet/media **** on the wall, the
following report, and its burying because it did not fit in with the
current political agenda, is neither ... and irrefutable evidence that
you are being misguided:

http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0/DOC062509-004.pdf
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10274412-38.html

This is the actual report, not media supposition, and what happened to
it is undeniable fact, not the result of agenda driven media "spin".

This entire issue is simply too rife with examples of same for it to be
viewed as pure innocence personified, which you seem to be doing.

Regardless of which side of the fence you're on, anyone, government or
otherwise, advocating basing action on computer climate modeling done
with even the suspicion of tainted data is being irresponsible ... GIGO
is an irrefutable, _scientific_ fact, which can't be spun to suit any
agenda.

Nice try ...

See what's happening to the glaciers, the coral reefs, bird migration.
The signs are all around for those who will open their eyes and their
minds.

What you're failing to see is that as one glacier recedes here,
another grows somewhere else on this planet. Please look into it and
stop overreacting. What you see locally isn't "global".

I'm failing to see? ROFL
Glaciers are retreating in North America, South America, the Alps, the
Himalayas,
Africa, Greenland, West Antarctica and New Zealand. Name one glacier that
is growing.



How about a BUNCH?

[NEW YORK
, May 5 (UPI) -- U.S. scientists say that while the majority of the world's
glaciers are retreating as the planet becomes warmer, glaciers south of the
equator are growing.

The researchers at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory
said they discovered glaciers in South America and New Zealand are inching
forward, pointing to strong regional variations in climate.]

http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2009/05/05/Glacier-growth-differs-between-hemispheres/UPI-70561241550410/

Even that article says "U.S. scientists say that while the majority of the world's glaciers
are retreating as the planet becomes warmer ..."
thus contradicting Larry, but
http://www.global-greenhouse-warming...n-Bolivia.html
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_J...th_and_retreat
say that you are cherry-picking. Individual glaciers, like Franz Josef in NZ, may
grow because of local weather conditions, but the fact remains that the majority
are shrinking fast.

On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 21:42:07 -0600, Swingman wrote:

Tom Watson wrote:

You know he's an Aggies fan, right?

Probably the cause his apparently built in skepticism ...



I sympathize with the fact that he was wrong on Rita.

I was wrong once.

What a day.







From Joe *******i's Weather Blog 12/9/09

You gotta love these guys. Warmest decade on record? The warmest you
have ever measured with the way you measured it. perhaps.

But it doesnt hide the fact that since the peak in 1998, the earth has
cooled a bit, when the models said it would be warming. The satellite
data is only a 30 year old addition to this. Thermometers world wide
are biased warm since they are mainly in URBAN SETTINGS There are many
more close to a place that would have them read warmer than outlying
areas. In addition, getting rid of 2/3 of the thermometers in russia,
mostly in outlying areas, is going to have a bit effect on temps..
Besides,just how were you measuring temps in previous warm periods.
Just how are you calibrating thermometers. Just what are you throwing
out and keeping in.

Look, this global warming situation is not much different than what
led to the banking crisis here in this country, or if I really want to
get both sides of the political sides mad, what happened in Iraq, no
matter how you feel. People are playing with info to suit their needs.
My only need here is to be right, because if I am, who are you going
to trust in 10 years, or if my son does this, 40 years, someone who
was in search of the right answer in this to get the overall forecast
right, or people who have a vested interest in making sure that they
are not questioned. My point is my search allows for the room to be
wrong.. their search has no room, for if they are wrong, they are
discredited to a point where no one will listen again to a thing they
say.

You know its funny, these people talk of future generations and how
they want to save them. By doing what, limiting them first? And over
what. One says co2 pollutes the air. CO2 IS PART OF THE AIR. Its not
something foreign to it. Its like saying water vapor, the number one
greenhouse gas, pollutes the air.

And by the way, just what is the "normal" temp of the earth. Will one
of these geniuses tell us that. What is the best temp to sustain life
on the planet in the most optimum way. I will tell you this. If it
does get 1 degree colder like I am forecasting by 2030, there will be
alot more unhappy people about that than if its warmer.

But the point is, what did you expect. These people arent dumb..they
know that its a matter of time before the average person wakes up (
they already are) and right or wrong swings the other way. They know
how much cold is coming the next 3 weeks into major population centers
of the northern hemisphere, though a couple of months ago they had no
idea ( since we had cold winters forecasted from July, we certainly
had some idea) And they know the same kind of any way the wind blows
mentality will take over if it does get cold. So they better darn well
make sure no matter how cold you are getting, you think its getting
warmer.

Look here is what I am asking, exactly opposite of what comes out of
Al Gore and the rest. Dont believe me, go look for yourself. People
are getting so used to having things handed to them, including now
"science" they wont fend for themselves. That makes you a puppet. Why
when you were blessed with a life, would you simply become that? So I
dont want you to believe me, but go back and study this. spend 30
minutes a week. The information is out there. I would look at sites
such as ICECAP and get my hands on the book Climate Change
Reconsidered. Its not like weapons of mass destruction where only a
few people saw what was there, or the banking crisis. This is
something that average person can do.

If you want this to be about the science, then let it be about the
science. Go look back through all the data, and understand that you
cant measure at the time of Rome, or the Vikings or the Great
Depression the way you measure things now. And the fact that the
people measuring it would be discredited and CAN NOT TURN BACK no
matter what from the ones with the scientific reputations on the
lines, to the ones that are trying to jam a forced solution down the
throat of the world, should speak volumes as to who the people after
the right answer are.

Al Gore, who doesnt have the guts to debate anyone on this issue, a
man who may soon be a carbon billionaire, claiming people who are
fighting him are in the pockets of polluters. You do the math.
Regards,

Tom Watson
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/

On Sun, 6 Dec 2009 12:05:38 -0600, the infamous "Leon"
scrawled the following:


"Dave Balderstone" wrote in message
news:051220091913388196%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalders tone.ca...
Snip


This is all irrelevant to whether or not the climate is changing (hint,
it is).

And climate change is not the issue. We are talking global warming. Whe
have climate change seasonally.

After they oversold the Globular sWarming scare, the alarmists found
that they got better mileage with "Climate Change". Nobody can dispute
that it changes and they can still put their extreme spins on it.

--
Follow the path of the unsafe, independent thinker. Expose your ideas
to the dangers of controversy. Speak your mind and fear less the label
of 'crackpot' than the stigma of conformity. And on issues that seem
important to you, stand up and be counted at any cost.
-- Thomas J. Watson

On Sun, 06 Dec 2009 15:22:19 -0600, the infamous Dave Balderstone
scrawled the following:

In article , Leon
wrote:

"Dave Balderstone" wrote in message
news:061220091414446238%

This is all irrelevant to whether or not the climate is changing (hint,
it is).

And climate change is not the issue. We are talking global warming. Whe
have climate change seasonally.


That was my point. Global warming is not happening, and the leaked
documents (not just the email) from the CRU demonstrate that the
"scientists" screaming that the earth is warming KNOW that it's not
happening.

Some of these same "scientists" were screaming that we were going to
enter an ice age, back in the 1970s.

This is a classic "follow the money" scenario.


Sorry Dave, I misunderstood you comments. I apologize. Totally agree with
your last comment about the money.

No worries, Leon. Sometimes *I* misunderstand my comments. g

You old fartes with Somesheimers are sooooo cute! (And I meant that
in a completely hetero way, lest you take it wrong.)

--
Follow the path of the unsafe, independent thinker. Expose your ideas
to the dangers of controversy. Speak your mind and fear less the label
of 'crackpot' than the stigma of conformity. And on issues that seem
important to you, stand up and be counted at any cost.
-- Thomas J. Watson

On Sun, 06 Dec 2009 16:58:34 -0600, the infamous Swingman
scrawled the following:

Larry Jaques wrote:

I've been on the environmental bandwagon for nearly 40 years, but I no
longer call myself an environmentalist because of what the movement
hath wrought. I think ecoterrorists may outnumber the greenies now.
sigh

As a home builder with a recent, alternative construction, "green"
project under my belt, I can guarantee you that more waste hit the land
fills due to its "green" nature then in any two of my usual traditional
construction projects.

Please expand on that if you will, Swingy. What's the nature of the
new waste? I've found that most of the new "green" products (the few
which are available around here) are about 50% higher in cost than
standard mat'ls, despite the trade mags showing only a 10% increase.
And look what it's done to the cost of finishes. Waterlox has doubled
in price since I last bought it, and their VOC-free finishes are
higher than that: $105 per gallon now!


.... still marveling at the sheer, unconscious ignorance of many of the
misguided folks who have embraced this "movement" ... all warm, fuzzy,
self congratulatory, and without a clue!

Oh, you're talking about Democrats, aren't you? I'm all for the
reduction of our human footprint, but Crikey, not at the cost of
lives. A nasty side-effect of the fracking Green movement is that it
retasks money which had previously been available for poverty. The
movement is _killing_people_!

Both Bjorn Lomborg and Peter Huber cover some of those details in
their books.

It's all that beatch Rachel Carson's fault. Come to think of it, she
was the first large-scale clash of the true scientists with the
emotional wreck "scientists". She may have pushed the very first Bad
Science into mainstream public view, huh?

--
For me, pragmatism is not enough. Nor is that fashionable word "consensus."

To me consensus seems to be the process of abandoning all beliefs,
principles, values and policies in search of something in which no one
believes, but to which no one objects; the process of avoiding the very
issues that have to be solved, merely because you cannot get agreement
on the way ahead. What great cause would have been fought and won under
the banner "I stand for consensus"?
--Margaret Thatcher (in a 1981 speech)

LJ sez: It's a good thing we have concensus on the case of Anthropogenic
Global Warming (kumbaya), isn't it?

On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 12:28:36 -0500, the infamous Tom Watson
scrawled the following:

On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 10:53:41 -0600, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:


Threadjacking Attempt Eliminated.

Just plonk him as the rest of us have, Tawmy. It's good for the soul.

--
Follow the path of the unsafe, independent thinker. Expose your ideas
to the dangers of controversy. Speak your mind and fear less the label
of 'crackpot' than the stigma of conformity. And on issues that seem
important to you, stand up and be counted at any cost.
-- Thomas J. Watson

On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 09:53:46 -0800, the infamous jo4hn
scrawled the following:

So the doomsayers on the right believe that doing nothing besides
reciting mantras such as "there ain't no such thing as global warming",
that the problem will go away. And further that there never was a
problem and that scientists lie for any reason. Wow. Thank you for
clearing that up.

There -ARE- no doomsayers on the right, jo4hn. All you Chicken
Littles are on the left.

And most of us on the right don't say there is -no- global warming,
we're saying that there is no cause for alarm and that man isn't
causing it. It's far mellower than you lefties rant about. Earth is
still coming out of the last ice age on a very slowly warming trend,
not the left's hockey stick.

Go watch _Day After Tomorrow_ again and get your facts straight.

--
Follow the path of the unsafe, independent thinker. Expose your ideas
to the dangers of controversy. Speak your mind and fear less the label
of 'crackpot' than the stigma of conformity. And on issues that seem
important to you, stand up and be counted at any cost.
-- Thomas J. Watson

On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 13:03:08 -0800, the infamous "CW"
scrawled the following:


"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
The "global warming" "scientists" are engaging in political activity and
using models that have not been validated to support their politicking.
There is a tendency toward "scientism" in our society--trusting anyone who
claims to be a "scientist" without question. Most sciences are in their
infancy--the only ones with any real maturity are physics and chemistry,
with biology getting there. Climatology is very immature and basing
social
policy on its models is about as wise as basing social policy on the
ravings
of alchemists or astrologers.


Few people will trust the weather service to get a forcast for the next week
right but they believe that weather patterns on a globale scale can be
predicted with accuracy.

Even though the IPCC has had to make severe downward revisions to all
of its predicted rises in each and every subsequent report over the
years, and even though it is a highly political unit, people hang with
bated breath over their newest reports. Go figure.

Update: IPCC still clings to theory that the CRU didn't provide any
modified or corrupt data so their 4th report stands as released. Go
figure.

Aw, ****. It's 11F (-12C to you Canucks) here this morning and my
pipes are frozen for the very first time since I've been in Oregon.
Damned AGWK!

--
Follow the path of the unsafe, independent thinker. Expose your ideas
to the dangers of controversy. Speak your mind and fear less the label
of 'crackpot' than the stigma of conformity. And on issues that seem
important to you, stand up and be counted at any cost.
-- Thomas J. Watson