Let's see some "scientific" refutation, please:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/...ut_the_ti.html


http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemans.../81559212.html

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

"Swingman" wrote in message
...

Let's see some "scientific" refutation, please:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/...ut_the_ti.html

Ah yes, The American Thinker, home of Ed Lasky who never met a smear-tactic
he didn't like. Say, there's a real credible source, right up there with
DailyKOS in terms of believability.

DGDevin wrote:


"Swingman" wrote in message
...

Let's see some "scientific" refutation, please:


http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/...ut_the_ti.html

Ah yes, The American Thinker, home of Ed Lasky who never met a
smear-tactic
he didn't like. Say, there's a real credible source, right up there with
DailyKOS in terms of believability.

Yep, to the statist progressive, citing facts is considered a smear
tactic. You just threw in that Daily KOS (a site that does *not* deal in
facts, but rather feelings) statement to lend credibility to your smear.

--

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

Rob Leatham

On Jan 23, 11:14*am, Swingman wrote:
Let's see some "scientific" refutation, please:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/...was_but_the_ti...

http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemans.../81559212.html

--www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

This whole topic has to be looked at from a simplified position.

You can break it into two camps. Those who are willing to believe, and
those who won't.
Those that won't believe any of it, will go to any length to prove
their point, they will argue that the speck of dirt on a thermometer
1000 miles away has skewed the readings. IOW, it doesn't matter what
you serve them up as fact, there is something wrong with it.

Those who are willing to believe that there is a threat from global
warming, will believe that, even if they don't have any evidence. (I'm
not saying that there isn't any evidence, all I am saying is that many
believers do not, themselves, have any evidence.) They just accept it
a gospel. You cannot argue/discuss this topic with people who have
become believers.

Now let's assume that there is a warming trend. How much of it is due
to the influence of man? How much of that influence can be helped?
Some CO2 escapes in each breath when I sleep. Etc.

So... what's in it for those who are willing to spend a wad of money
trying to convert the unbelievers?

Who benefits most from which position? Which research results are
skewed by the writers of the cheques that pay for such research?

I think I will go visit the website of The Onion, and get myself some
facts.

On 1/23/2010 1:50 PM, Robatoy wrote:

Those that won't believe any of it, will go to any length to prove
their point, they will argue that the speck of dirt on a thermometer
1000 miles away has skewed the readings. IOW, it doesn't matter what
you serve them up as fact, there is something wrong with it.

Please note that the _issue_ is AGW, NOT cyclic variations in global
climate.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/research...ural-response/

The original post asked for "scientific" refutation ... nothing but hot
air thus far ... maybe that's the problem, eh?

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On Jan 23, 4:33*pm, Swingman wrote:
On 1/23/2010 1:50 PM, Robatoy wrote:

Those that won't believe any of it, will go to any length to prove
their point, they will argue that the speck of dirt on a thermometer
1000 miles away has skewed the readings. IOW, it doesn't matter what
you serve them up as fact, there is something wrong with it.

Please note that the _issue_ is AGW, NOT cyclic variations in global
climate.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/research...rming-as-a-nat...

The original post asked for "scientific" refutation ... nothing but hot
air thus far ... maybe that's the problem, eh?

--www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

Trying to make any of the science stick is like trying to sew a button
onto a poached egg.
It's like farting in a hurricane.... you KNOW that fart is in there
and you KNOW it HAS TO alter that hurricane in some way...but...

It is all hot air and bull**** feeding on itself. Hoping for real
science is optimistic...IMHO. G

I think that just because there is money to be made at undoing global
warming pretty much tells the tale.

On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 17:10:19 -0600, "Leon"
wrote:
I think that just because there is money to be made at undoing global
warming pretty much tells the tale.

Think that's a little pessismistic. Even if global warming and
polluting the atmosphere with all sorts of stuff is not as rampant as
some would like to believe, there's still people who are having
breathing difficulties because of it. That *has* to have some kind of
negative affect on our planet.

On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 17:20:55 -0600, Dave Balderstone
But there are BILLIONS of dollars being made as a result of the AGW
movement, and the path leads back to the UN.

I can't argue with that. That's the way it's always going to be. But,
just like the current movement to go to alternative energy vehicles,
while many are making money on it, there's others who are pursuing the
technology for improvement purposes. Eventually more will follow.

On 1/23/2010 5:15 PM, Upscale wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 17:10:19 -0600,
wrote:
I think that just because there is money to be made at undoing global
warming pretty much tells the tale.

Think that's a little pessismistic. Even if global warming and
polluting the atmosphere with all sorts of stuff is not as rampant as
some would like to believe, there's still people who are having
breathing difficulties because of it. That *has* to have some kind of
negative affect on our planet.

With cleaner air in most of NA now than in almost a century, how does
that equate with us as the culprits in AGW?

So, let's get the UN involved in "pollution", not some AGW scheme to be
used as the basis for taxation, distribution of wealth, and with a
consequent loss of sovereignty.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

Swingman wrote:

On 1/23/2010 5:15 PM, Upscale wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 17:10:19 -0600,
wrote:
I think that just because there is money to be made at undoing global
warming pretty much tells the tale.

Think that's a little pessismistic. Even if global warming and
polluting the atmosphere with all sorts of stuff is not as rampant as
some would like to believe, there's still people who are having
breathing difficulties because of it. That *has* to have some kind of
negative affect on our planet.

With cleaner air in most of NA now than in almost a century, how does
that equate with us as the culprits in AGW?

So, let's get the UN involved in "pollution", not some AGW scheme to be
used as the basis for taxation, distribution of wealth, and with a
consequent loss of sovereignty.


I've made this statement before, the statists in the AGW green community
have come up with a very brilliant ploy. During the early part of the
environmental, anti-pollution movement, particulates, carbon monoxide,
sulfur dioxide, and other real pollutents were addressed. Unfortunately
for the red greens, the free market was able to overcome the barriers being
erected and actually produced lower-polluting approaches that work and are
affordable. The AGW ploy now attacks one of the products of perfect
combustion: Carbon Dioxide. By limiting and regulating this, the red greens
have figured out a means to control and attempt to destroy the
industrialized world. That's brilliant in a twisted diabolical way.


--

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

Rob Leatham

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
...

Ah yes, The American Thinker, home of Ed Lasky who never met a
smear-tactic
he didn't like. Say, there's a real credible source, right up there with
DailyKOS in terms of believability.

Yep, to the statist progressive, citing facts is considered a smear
tactic. You just threw in that Daily KOS (a site that does *not* deal in
facts, but rather feelings) statement to lend credibility to your smear.

To the right-wingnut droid any suggestion that one of his parade marshals
doesn't speak the gospel truth brings forth just this sort of reaction.
Lasky smells like a garbage truck, but you'll happily hold your nose and
believe whatever he says tomorrow anyway. You know what the difference is
between left-wingnuts and right-wingnuts like you? Nothing.

"Leon" wrote in message
...


I think that just because there is money to be made at undoing global
warming pretty much tells the tale.

Given that the small minority of scientists who dispute the scientific
consensus about man-made climate change (Richard Lindzen being a good
example) often have a history of being funded by the petroleum and coal
industries, it would appear that there is plenty of profit motive to go
around.

"Upscale" wrote in message
...

:
I think that just because there is money to be made at undoing global
warming pretty much tells the tale.

Think that's a little pessismistic. Even if global warming and
polluting the atmosphere with all sorts of stuff is not as rampant as
some would like to believe, there's still people who are having
breathing difficulties because of it. That *has* to have some kind of
negative affect on our planet.

Not only that, but continuing to burn a finite resource and continuing to
pour countless billions into the coffers of nations which often don't like
us very much seem like foolish policies in their own right. I'm not a
climate scientist so I don't *know* if man-made climate change is happening
(ditto with everyone else here including especially the ones who think they
do know) but it seems to me there are a bunch of good reasons to move
aggressively on replacing fossil fuels with clean, renewable sources of
energy. However some folks just want to drive their Escalade down to the
corner for a quart of milk and what happens in a decade or two ain't their
damn problem--selfish and stupid, a lovely combination.

"Dave Balderstone" wrote in message
news:230120101720552720%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderst one.ca...


The people who are questioning AGW aren't making a f*king DIME.

Horsecrap, some of them have been or are continuing to be funded by the
fossil fuel industries, Richard Lindzen being a good example. He's not only
been supported directly by OPEC and energy companies, he works with
organizations that get funding from companies like ExxonMobil. It amazes me
how some people who like to imagine they are informed on this issue somehow
manage to miss that and claim the $$$ motive is all on the other side. Well
it doesn't really amaze me, it's actually quite predictable.

DGDevin wrote:


"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
...

Ah yes, The American Thinker, home of Ed Lasky who never met a
smear-tactic
he didn't like. Say, there's a real credible source, right up there
with DailyKOS in terms of believability.

Yep, to the statist progressive, citing facts is considered a smear
tactic. You just threw in that Daily KOS (a site that does *not* deal in
facts, but rather feelings) statement to lend credibility to your smear.

To the right-wingnut droid any suggestion that one of his parade marshals
doesn't speak the gospel truth brings forth just this sort of reaction.
Lasky smells like a garbage truck, but you'll happily hold your nose and
believe whatever he says tomorrow anyway. You know what the difference is
between left-wingnuts and right-wingnuts like you? Nothing.

Did you read the cited article? If not, then you have no position to make
any kind of statement regarding it. If you did, please cite, where, in that
article there was any sort of smear -- all that were stated were events and
facts that happened along with some conclusions to be drawn. You might not
like the facts, you might not like the conclusions, but that gives you no
place to call those things a smear.

Let me give you a hint:
Right wingnut, left wingnut == smear

Cite of documented cases of historical temperature data records being
manipulated by AGW scientists == fact, not smear. One is certainly welcome
to investigate and question the assumptions or evidence of those facts,
engaging in ad hominem against the person citing those facts however, does
not negate them, nor does it bolster the questioner's case.

In the statist's book, a smear is citing of any facts detrimental to the
statist's arguments. Statist's response to that citing of facts detrimental
is generally an ad hominem attack. e.g. "right-wingnut like you."




--

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

Rob Leatham

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
...

Did you read the cited article? If not, then you have no position to
make
any kind of statement regarding it. If you did, please cite, where, in
that
article there was any sort of smear

Did I say the artice contained smears? No? Then what are you talking
about?

If I posted a link to an article on DailyKOS or some other looney-left
website, would you take it seriously? Of course you wouldn't (neither would
I) because that outlet doesn't do journalism, they do advocacy and they
don't much care how far from the truth they have to stray in doing so. Well
guess what, The American Thinker is cut from the same cloth, and Ed Lasky is
a smear-monger, not a journalist--yet he's in charge of "news" at TAT (which
he co-founded). Publications with that sort of repuation don't get to sit
at the big table and be taken seriously, that's just the way it works.

-- all that were stated were events and
facts that happened along with some conclusions to be drawn. You might
not
like the facts, you might not like the conclusions, but that gives you no
place to call those things a smear.

Let me give you a hint:
Right wingnut, left wingnut == smear

How about "red greens" -- do you seriously have trouble understanding that
equating environmentalism with communism qualifies as a smear, and a
childish one at that?

Pot--kettle --black, buster, don't demand from others what you are not
prepared to do yourself.

On Jan 23, 10:38*am, Dave Balderstone
wrote:
snip
One reporting station being used for everything north of 65 degrees in
Canada's north? A station in Hawaii being used to project data 1200
miles north?

Well, if there's only one station north of 65, this should result in
showing less warming. The temperatures in Canada's north have been
clearly and unequivocally warming.

I know, I live here. When I first moved to the Yukon in 1989, we used
to have at least 2-3 weeks of 40 below temperatures. Not any more. We
actually got a couple of days last year after a few years of the
temperatures staying above -35. And we had record hot temperatures
last summer. (As did Larry's Oregon)

Luigi

"Dave Balderstone" wrote in message
news:230120102230357526%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderst one.ca...

The people who are questioning AGW aren't making a f*king DIME.

Horsecrap, some of them have been or are continuing to be funded by the
fossil fuel industries, Richard Lindzen being a good example. He's not
only
been supported directly by OPEC and energy companies, he works with
organizations that get funding from companies like ExxonMobil. It amazes
me
how some people who like to imagine they are informed on this issue
somehow
manage to miss that and claim the $$$ motive is all on the other side.
Well
it doesn't really amaze me, it's actually quite predictable.

Um, it may be disturbing for you to admit, but Big Oil and Wall Street
are heavily into the carbon credit trading market.

They're making big money from the AGW hysteria.

So first you claim people questioning man-made climate change aren't making
a ****ing dime doing so (we're all grownups here, aren't we--we don't have
to half-swear by using f*king asterisks, do we?), but now you point out the
oil industry (which has questioned climate change tooth and nail) is making
big money off carbon credits. Well, which is it? Is your position
Statement No. 1, or the contradictory Statement No. 2?

And then there is the issue of whether some of the people questioning
climate change are on the payroll of industries that profit from doing
little or nothing about reducing fossil fuel use, and thus are very much
making a ****ing dime questioning climate change. If you believe that it's
just a coincidence that the George C. Marshall Institute (which has
vigorously disputed the scientific consensus about climate change) has been
funded by ExxonMobil and headed by a former exec of the American Petroleum
Institute, well then you're a very trusting soul. They dispute the link
between smoking tobacco and cancer too--I don't know where that falls in the
spectrum of science-denial currently so popular with the political
right-wing.

On 1/23/2010 11:37 PM, Luigi Zanasi wrote:
On Jan 23, 10:38 am, Dave Balderstone
wrote:
snip
One reporting station being used for everything north of 65 degrees in
Canada's north? A station in Hawaii being used to project data 1200
miles north?

Well, if there's only one station north of 65, this should result in
showing less warming. The temperatures in Canada's north have been
clearly and unequivocally warming.

I know, I live here. When I first moved to the Yukon in 1989, we used
to have at least 2-3 weeks of 40 below temperatures. Not any more. We
actually got a couple of days last year after a few years of the
temperatures staying above -35. And we had record hot temperatures
last summer. (As did Larry's Oregon)

As the AGW folks are fond of saying, methinks you're "mistaking weather
for climate" ...

Hey, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

"Dave Balderstone" wrote in message
news:230120102230357526%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderst one.ca...
In article , DGDevin
wrote:

"Dave Balderstone" wrote in message
news:230120101720552720%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderst one.ca...


The people who are questioning AGW aren't making a f*king DIME.

Horsecrap, some of them have been or are continuing to be funded by the
fossil fuel industries, Richard Lindzen being a good example. He's not
only
been supported directly by OPEC and energy companies, he works with
organizations that get funding from companies like ExxonMobil. It amazes
me
how some people who like to imagine they are informed on this issue
somehow
manage to miss that and claim the $$$ motive is all on the other side.
Well
it doesn't really amaze me, it's actually quite predictable.

Um, it may be disturbing for you to admit, but Big Oil and Wall Street
are heavily into the carbon credit trading market.

They're making big money from the AGW hysteria.


They OWN it!

In article , Luigi Zanasi wrote:
On Jan 23, 10:38=A0am, Dave Balderstone
wrote:
snip
One reporting station being used for everything north of 65 degrees in
Canada's north? A station in Hawaii being used to project data 1200
miles north?

Well, if there's only one station north of 65, this should result in
showing less warming. The temperatures in Canada's north have been
clearly and unequivocally warming.

You miss the point, and thus draw a completely incorrect conclusion:
temperatures at latitudes of, say, 70 degrees are generally quite a bit lower
than at latitudes of, say, 40 degrees. Removing temperature stations at high
latitudes necessarily skews the average temperature of the remaining stations
upward, even if their individual temperatures don't change at all.

For a concrete (although admittedly simplistic) example, suppose we're going
to determine the average temperature of North America by averaging the
temperatures today at Point Barrow AK; Whitehorse YK; Duluth MN; Houston TX;
San Diego CA; and Miami FL. Now, for tomorrow's reading, eliminate Point
Barrow and Whitehorse from that list. How do you suppose tomorrow's average
will compare to today's?

On 1/24/2010 8:28 AM, Dave Balderstone wrote:
In , LDosser
wrote:

"Dave wrote in message
news:230120102230357526%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderst one.ca...
In articleqfednUzbYdO4VcbWnZ2dnUVZ_qGdnZ2d@earthlink .com, DGDevin
wrote:

"Dave wrote in message
news:230120101720552720%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderst one.ca...


The people who are questioning AGW aren't making a f*king DIME.

Horsecrap, some of them have been or are continuing to be funded by the
fossil fuel industries, Richard Lindzen being a good example. He's not
only
been supported directly by OPEC and energy companies, he works with
organizations that get funding from companies like ExxonMobil. It amazes
me
how some people who like to imagine they are informed on this issue
somehow
manage to miss that and claim the $$$ motive is all on the other side.
Well
it doesn't really amaze me, it's actually quite predictable.

Um, it may be disturbing for you to admit, but Big Oil and Wall Street
are heavily into the carbon credit trading market.

They're making big money from the AGW hysteria.


They OWN it!

Much in the same way that Enron made millions off of the acid rain
scare in the late 20th century.

One of the infamous leaked e-mails from CRU angling for financing for A
"new building" by Shell:

http://assassinationscience.com/clim...0962818260.txt

Still looking for refutation that the three links in my first two posts
are false, made up, and wrong ... thus far nothing but smear tactics and
shooting at the messengers.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On 1/23/2010 10:14 AM, Swingman wrote:
Let's see some "scientific" refutation, please:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/...ut_the_ti.html


http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemans.../81559212.html

You forgot the "OT:" in your subject line.

--
See Nad. See Nad go. Go Nad!
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/

On 1/24/2010 9:14 AM, Steve Turner wrote:
On 1/23/2010 10:14 AM, Swingman wrote:
Let's see some "scientific" refutation, please:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/...ut_the_ti.html



http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemans.../81559212.html

You forgot the "OT:" in your subject line.

If it bothers you that much, put it in your reply!

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On 1/24/2010 9:31 AM, Dave Balderstone wrote:
In articleQKadnaRCEurIxsHWnZ2dnUVZ_gCdnZ2d@giganews. com, Swingman
wrote:

Still looking for refutation that the three links in my first two posts
are false, made up, and wrong ... thus far nothing but smear tactics and
shooting at the messengers.

A few more links:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ientists-says-
knew-data-verified.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6999975.ece

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7000063.ece

The bull**** from the IPCC just keeps getting deeper...


Although practical by nature and wise to the ways of the world after
almost 70 years of living in it, I am indeed guilty of cherishing some
idealistic principles when in comes to empirical science and its
principle of observation.

An endeavor with even the appearance of being based on lies and/or
distortion, no matter how slight, will do NOTHING to advance humankind
toward a goal of living in harmony on this planet.

I really would like some convincing evidence that the "scientific
methods" I learned many years ago in college, said methods having
brought indisputable advancement for human good, are NOT being subverted
to the extent suspected in this religiopolitical AGW issue by greed and
political agendizing!

We, as humans, and in order to move forward, have a desperate need to
get to the bottom of the appearance of impropriety in ANY application of
"science" toward the human condition.

IMO, there should be _NOTHING BUT_ *skepticism* until this issue is laid
to rest, one way or the other.

End of story ...

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

The right to exist and the survival of the State of Israel are of great
importance to us found on there "about us" page
We hate the muzzies lol kind of racist kind of unscientific probably idiots
if you ask me ....just saying
It's a don't let the liberals (be afraid) create laws that don't allow us to
rape and plunder the plant.
Woot Woot log it, burn it, pave it, then I can park my SUV on it.



"Swingman" wrote in message
...
Let's see some "scientific" refutation, please:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/...ut_the_ti.html


http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemans.../81559212.html

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On Jan 24, 5:26*am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , Luigi Zanasi wrote:

On Jan 23, 10:38=A0am, Dave Balderstone
wrote:
snip
One reporting station being used for everything north of 65 degrees in
Canada's north? A station in Hawaii being used to project data 1200
miles north?

Well, if there's only one station north of 65, this should result in
showing less warming. The temperatures in Canada's north have been
clearly and unequivocally warming.

You miss the point, and thus draw a completely incorrect conclusion:
temperatures at latitudes of, say, 70 degrees are generally quite a bit lower
than at latitudes of, say, 40 degrees. Removing temperature stations at high
latitudes necessarily skews the average temperature of the remaining stations
upward, even if their individual temperatures don't change at all.

For a concrete (although admittedly simplistic) example, suppose we're going
to determine the average temperature of North America by averaging the
temperatures today at Point Barrow AK; Whitehorse YK; Duluth MN; Houston TX;
San Diego CA; and Miami FL. Now, for tomorrow's reading, eliminate Point
Barrow and Whitehorse from that list. How do you suppose tomorrow's average
will compare to today's?

Granted that the year (or day, or whatever period) after the northern
stations are eliminated will show a jump in temperature.

However, in subsequent years, assuming that the north is warming up
faster than the south, the measured increase will be less than the
real one. That is the point I was making, maybe not as well as I
should.

Luigi

On 1/24/2010 9:15 AM, Swingman wrote:
On 1/24/2010 9:14 AM, Steve Turner wrote:
On 1/23/2010 10:14 AM, Swingman wrote:
Let's see some "scientific" refutation, please:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/...ut_the_ti.html




http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemans.../81559212.html

You forgot the "OT:" in your subject line.

If it bothers you that much, put it in your reply!

Nah, just bustin' your chops a little. I find I only have about this much time
(holds up thumb and index finger about yay far apart) to keep up with this
group, so I pretty much just skip over the off-topic threads and I need all the
help I can get avoiding the ones I don't plan to follow... :-)

--
See Nad. See Nad go. Go Nad!
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/

On Jan 23, 10:15*pm, Swingman wrote:
On 1/23/2010 11:37 PM, Luigi Zanasi wrote:



On Jan 23, 10:38 am, Dave Balderstone
*wrote:
snip
One reporting station being used for everything north of 65 degrees in
Canada's north? A station in Hawaii being used to project data 1200
miles north?

Well, if there's only one station north of 65, this should result in
showing less warming. The temperatures in Canada's north have been
clearly and unequivocally warming.

I know, I live here. When I first moved to the Yukon in 1989, we used
to have at least 2-3 weeks of 40 below temperatures. Not any more. We
actually got a couple of days last year after a few years of the
temperatures staying above -35. And we had record hot temperatures
last summer. (As did Larry's Oregon)

As the AGW folks are fond of saying, methinks you're "mistaking weather
for climate" ...

Hey, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Yabbut 20 years of weather data shows what the climate is. :-)

Luigi

On 1/23/2010 10:14 AM, Swingman wrote:

Let's see some "scientific" refutation, please:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/...ut_the_ti.html
http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemans.../81559212.html

Instead of posting links to opinions of opinions, why not simply say
that there are too many thumbs on (both sides of) the scales to be able
to arrive at a conclusion you trust?

My question for you is this: If some of the numbers have been fudged, do
you think knowing that is a sufficient basis for a conclusion that there
is no global warming danger?

That would be a bit like saying that knowing someone is paranoid is a
sufficient basis for concluding that no one is out to get him...

Asking people to refute a reporter's opinion is just another way of
saying "Lets you and him fight". No thanks.

You may be that bored, but I'm not.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

Morris Dovey wrote:
On 1/23/2010 10:14 AM, Swingman wrote:

Let's see some "scientific" refutation, please:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/...ut_the_ti.html
http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemans.../81559212.html

Instead of posting links to opinions of opinions, why not simply say
that there are too many thumbs on (both sides of) the scales to be
able to arrive at a conclusion you trust?

My question for you is this: If some of the numbers have been fudged,
do you think knowing that is a sufficient basis for a conclusion that
there is no global warming danger?

That would be a bit like saying that knowing someone is paranoid is a
sufficient basis for concluding that no one is out to get him...

Asking people to refute a reporter's opinion is just another way of
saying "Lets you and him fight". No thanks.

You may be that bored, but I'm not.

I think that the real issue is whether it's a "danger". It's clear at this
point that treating it as such is going to result in much government
wheelspinning and redistribution of wealth and no corrective action to speak
of. So rather than treat it as a "danger", why not just assume that it's
going to happen and look for opportunities instead?

In article , Luigi Zanasi wrote:


Sorry, point taken. I should also use actual climate data data, which
I am familiar with as I have done a lot of energy-efficiency related
work as an economist.

How do you propose to do that, when the raw data has been deleted and all
that remains is the "adjusted" data? You *can't* use actual climate data. It
no longer exists.

Actually, actual *climate* data never did exist: we've had reasonably accurate
means of measuring the temperature for approximately 0.00000025 percent of the
age of this planet. Any actual *data* that we ever had is *weather* data, not
climate data -- and the climate figures for 300 or 1000 or 3000 years ago are
estimates, not data.

On 1/24/2010 2:18 PM, Morris Dovey wrote:
On 1/23/2010 10:14 AM, Swingman wrote:

Let's see some "scientific" refutation, please:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/...ut_the_ti.html

http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemans.../81559212.html

Instead of posting links to opinions of opinions, why not simply say
that there are too many thumbs on (both sides of) the scales to be able
to arrive at a conclusion you trust?

Sorry, I don't buy into the "we won't discuss it until you agree to our
fundamentally flawed premise" BS.

If you really mean "posting links" discussing an issue that you don't
agree with because the issues raised don't fit in with your POV, fine?

Tell me then, where else are you going to get the HEALTHY skepticism
that is an absolute necessity in ANY _legitimate_ scientific endeavor?

You damn sure don't see it discussed in the media in this country.

On that note, here is somewhat of a gasp HEALTHY "skeptic" who backs
up his skepticism with scientific research and advances an alternative
theory that could well be as valid as CO2 induced AGW:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/

... go ahead, since it's posting another link, dismiss/ignore him as
OPINION while you're at it.

My question for you is this: If some of the numbers have been fudged, do
you think knowing that is a sufficient basis for a conclusion that there
is no global warming danger?

Bzzzt ... who said there is "no global warming danger"?

And my answer is that that would be sufficient basis to do whatever an
INFORMED citizen can do to make sure that we are not stampeded into
International agreements, and conclusive proof that they are NOT what
they purport to be.

AAMOF, It is part of _your_ responsibility as a citizen ... along with
NOT continually denigrating those who attempt to exercise that
responsibility.

That would be a bit like saying that knowing someone is paranoid is a
sufficient basis for concluding that no one is out to get him...

Say what?

Asking people to refute a reporter's opinion is just another way of
saying "Lets you and him fight". No thanks.

You may be that bored, but I'm not.

Again, _nothing_ germane, whatsoever, to dispelling a necessary and
HEALTHY skepticism of an extremely important scientific endeavor.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

Morris Dovey wrote:

On 1/23/2010 10:14 AM, Swingman wrote:

Let's see some "scientific" refutation, please:


http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/...ut_the_ti.html
http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemans.../81559212.html

Instead of posting links to opinions of opinions, why not simply say
that there are too many thumbs on (both sides of) the scales to be able
to arrive at a conclusion you trust?

My question for you is this: If some of the numbers have been fudged, do
you think knowing that is a sufficient basis for a conclusion that there
is no global warming danger?

That would be a bit like saying that knowing someone is paranoid is a
sufficient basis for concluding that no one is out to get him...


If the cost to me of having to make that conclusion is a significant
portion of my way of life, then the prudent conclusion is to recognize that
the person is paranoid and most likely no one is out to get him. Putting
someone trustworthy to gather more evidence to determine whether or not the
paranoid person is really in danger might be prudent. Destroying the
economy to prevent what is most likely paranoid delusions is not.

Asking people to refute a reporter's opinion is just another way of
saying "Lets you and him fight". No thanks.

You may be that bored, but I'm not.


--

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

Rob Leatham

On 1/24/2010 2:34 PM, J. Clarke wrote:

I think that the real issue is whether it's a "danger". It's clear at this
point that treating it as such is going to result in much government
wheelspinning and redistribution of wealth and no corrective action to speak
of.

I'm inclined to agree - although now that the issue has been raised and
so much noise made, I'd like to see it resolved (but I'm not holding my
breath waiting for that to happen).

So rather than treat it as a "danger", why not just assume that it's
going to happen and look for opportunities instead?

I haven't been able to bring myself to make even that assumption. There
are already enough problems in the world to provide enormous amounts of
opportunity - and the Internet spreads those opportunities around fairly
well.

Did you finish your garage project?

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

Morris Dovey wrote:
On 1/24/2010 2:34 PM, J. Clarke wrote:

I think that the real issue is whether it's a "danger". It's clear
at this point that treating it as such is going to result in much
government wheelspinning and redistribution of wealth and no
corrective action to speak of.

I'm inclined to agree - although now that the issue has been raised
and so much noise made, I'd like to see it resolved (but I'm not
holding my breath waiting for that to happen).

I'd like to see it resolved too, but I don't see it happening.

So rather than treat it as a "danger", why not just assume that it's
going to happen and look for opportunities instead?

I haven't been able to bring myself to make even that assumption.
There are already enough problems in the world to provide enormous
amounts of opportunity - and the Internet spreads those opportunities
around fairly well.

Did you finish your garage project?

Got the roof done but that's as far as ambition went. Maybe this summer
I'll do more.

"Dave Balderstone" wrote in message
news:240120100931269881%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderst one.ca...
In article , Swingman
wrote:

Still looking for refutation that the three links in my first two posts
are false, made up, and wrong ... thus far nothing but smear tactics and
shooting at the messengers.

A few more links:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ientists-says-
knew-data-verified.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6999975.ece

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7000063.ece

The bull**** from the IPCC just keeps getting deeper...


Have they No shame?!

"Morris Dovey" wrote in message
...
On 1/23/2010 10:14 AM, Swingman wrote:

Let's see some "scientific" refutation, please:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/...ut_the_ti.html
http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemans.../81559212.html

Instead of posting links to opinions of opinions, why not simply say that
there are too many thumbs on (both sides of) the scales to be able to
arrive at a conclusion you trust?

My question for you is this: If some of the numbers have been fudged, do
you think knowing that is a sufficient basis for a conclusion that there
is no global warming danger?

It's like health care, there's sufficient evidence of chicanery to warrant
starting from scratch.

On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 16:00:32 -0800, "LDosser"
wrote:

"Morris Dovey" wrote in message
...
On 1/23/2010 10:14 AM, Swingman wrote:

Let's see some "scientific" refutation, please:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/...ut_the_ti.html
http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemans.../81559212.html

Instead of posting links to opinions of opinions, why not simply say that
there are too many thumbs on (both sides of) the scales to be able to
arrive at a conclusion you trust?

My question for you is this: If some of the numbers have been fudged, do
you think knowing that is a sufficient basis for a conclusion that there
is no global warming danger?

It's like health care, there's sufficient evidence of chicanery to warrant
starting from scratch.

....after firing everyone involved in the first round. It would also be
good to make sure none of the participants ever work in the industry
again, in any capacity.