Han wrote:


Mike, there is an important difference between global climate and
local weather. What the people you call alarmists are saying is that
the global climate is warming. You're right, it has happened before,
but generally on geological time scales - thousands of years. Of
course there have been ups and downs, and what you describe in your
driveway's snow accumulations may be like that. Little ice ages and
warm periods, the little ice ages sometimes due to volcanic eruptions
such as Krakatao. The "alarmists" are saying this is different, and
the science backs them up.

That's a part of my point Han - at this time there seems to be no real
consensus - there are credible scientific voices on each side claiming
opposite things, with science to back them up. One side has to be right -
or more right than the other, but at this point there is no way to tell.

Recently a scientist who very much
doubted the theories went on a project to disprove the alarmists, and
came back being convinced. More recently, in at least some places in
Antarctica and Greenland, it appears that the ice is melting faster,
and sliding towards the sea faster, than most people had been
predicting. Read this kitchen counter experiment you can do yourself
(sorry if it wraps) http://tinyurl.com/auxqx7a
http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...-science-home-
sealevel-rise


I understand that, but I have seen similar reports of where reported
observations were perhaps not discredited, but were at the very least
countered by other observations that we exactly the opposite. Like I say -
I don't really have a stand on the matter because too much of this goes back
and forth between each side with what appears to be nothing more than claims
from each.

BTW - as for alarmists... I do not consider that to be a bad word. I
believe alarmists serve a very real and useful role in things.

--

-Mike-

Swingman wrote:
On 1/14/2013 8:47 AM, Han wrote:

Mike, there is an important difference between global climate and
local

Don't look now, Han, but your button just got purposely pushed by
those who could give a **** about the woodworking part of
rec.woodworking.
Wise up ...

Don't look now Han but you just got egged on by those who... well, just
consider why he felt the need to post that.

--

-Mike-

Dave wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 06:58:52 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
appropriate to adapt to it rather than to try to stop what may be
completely natural and unavoidable?

Well, people like Al Gore notwithstanding, I am of the opinion that
man makes a significant contribution to this warming of the earth.

Now, if you want to argue the existence of man makes it inevitable
that warming will occur, then there's not much I can offer in
rebuttal.

Like the other creatures on this planet, man is simply a creation of
nature. However, unlike the other creatures on this planet, we have
the realization of what we're doing and quite possibly the knowledge
to change what we're doing.

Whether we let our dominant species attitude get in the way of
changing our global warming actions or not is something else entirely.
Personally, as species, I think we're too arrogant for most of us to
make a constructive change in how we treat this planet.

Go back and read my entire post Dave. You snipped one small part of a
larger statement and I think you lost the context. If after doing so you
still think I'm disagreeing that man has contributed, then let me know and
I'll take another swing at and see if I can say it better.

--

-Mike-

In article , Mike Marlow
wrote:

I understand that, but I have seen similar reports of where reported
observations were perhaps not discredited, but were at the very least
countered by other observations that we exactly the opposite. Like I say -
I don't really have a stand on the matter because too much of this goes back
and forth between each side with what appears to be nothing more than claims
from each.

NASA , the Met and the IPCC seem to be backing away pretty quickly from
claims of warming... As in, none since 1997.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/...st_reports_wer
e_junk.html

http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow...arming-alarmis
m-192334971.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...rming-stopped-
16-years-ago-Met-Office-report-reveals-MoS-got-right-warming--deniers-no
w.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

--
Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside a dog, it's too dark to
read. - Groucho Marx

On 14 Jan 2013 14:47:42 GMT, Han wrote:

"Mike Marlow" wrote in
:

Han wrote:


Having read some of the reputable research, I do believe that not
only there is a global increase in temperatures, but that it is
happening because of "greenhouse effects" from human activities.
Yes, indeed, climate is always changing - so what? The reason for
concern is that we arecausing it this time.

So Han... if climate is always changing, how can it be that we are
causing it this time? You are a scientist - does that conclusion even
make sense from the standpoint of scientific observation?

And it may be a vicious cycle that once
started will be difficult to stop. Maybe a few degrees F doesn't
make that much difference to you or even to your food crops, but if
all the water in the oceans is going to warm up, that will increase
the volume.

True, but that is irrelevant to the topic at hand which is whether
this is a normal event that may (or may not be...) exacerbated by
humankind.

Bingo!


Pretty soon, that may mean Houston will be under water,
as will just about every port city in the world, unless we build sea
defenses that are 20 feet or more in height greater than what (if
anything) is there now. Not this decade perhaps, or even this
century, but it will happen, according to reliable predictions.

Again - that is alarmist talk that is not relevant to the point at
hand.

Yet they REbuilt Nawlins under sea level. Go figure.


It
may be coincidence, but hereabouts (North Jersey) we have had 3 or 4
"100-year storms" in the last few years, including Sandy, the worst
of all. It seems that Sandy was "helped" by abnormally warm ocean
waters ... So the question is how many Sandys does it take to make
you guys believers?

It takes more evidence than the alarmists attempt to throw on the
table, and it takes more consesus than currently exists between
equally qualified scientific voices. Your fears are fine for you to
feel comftable with, but they aren't much more than that - your fears.

When I built my house 30-ish years ago, we commonly woke up to 3'-4'
of fresh snow in the driveway. It was just life here in this area.
We have not seen winters like that in over 10 years. Over the past
few years our winters have been unusually mild with last year being a
record (or near record) low in snowfall. This year is shaping up to
be similar so far.
So - 30 years ago we were all in a wad about global cooling and if we
had
rushed off with the fears and anxieties of the moment, picking and
chosing the scientific theories we wanted to subscribe to, we would
have charged off doing something. Well - here we are a short time in
history later, and we are facing the exact opposite conditions.

I prefer to let the alarmist voices that draw premature conclusions
based on no consensus at all within the expert community, such as
yours, content themselves with wringing their hands and crying that
the sky is falling. As for me - I just don't know, and that's because
brighter minds than my own in this whole matter, don't know.

Mike, there is an important difference between global climate and local
weather. What the people you call alarmists are saying is that the
global climate is warming. You're right, it has happened before, but
generally on geological time scales - thousands of years. Of course
there have been ups and downs, and what you describe in your driveway's
snow accumulations may be like that. Little ice ages and warm periods,
the little ice ages sometimes due to volcanic eruptions such as Krakatao.
The "alarmists" are saying this is different, and the science backs them
up. Recently a scientist who very much doubted the theories went on a
project to disprove the alarmists, and came back being convinced. More

Are you referring to Bjorn Lomborg? He came back being a _little_
convinced. Go watch "Cool It" on Netflix to refresh your memory. He
still says we shouldn't be jumping to conclusions or throwing our
money away. It's a 100 year thing, not a 10 year crisis. We're
allowing people to die today because funds are spent on AGWK which
could be saving lives. That's the larger problem.


recently, in at least some places in Antarctica and Greenland, it appears
that the ice is melting faster, and sliding towards the sea faster, than
most people had been predicting. Read this kitchen counter experiment
you can do yourself (sorry if it wraps)
http://tinyurl.com/auxqx7a
http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...-science-home-
sealevel-rise

You know that a whole lot of the ice on the Earth is already floating
on water, don't you? And you know that as something melts here, it
rebuilds over there, don't you? Do the research. It won't be found on
your alarmist sites, though. Seek info further afield, Han. It's out
there for you to find. I know you're already a skeptic. Your skeptical
biorythym is just on its low cycle right now. I'll see if I can dig
up some sites for you from Patrick J. Michaels' _Meltdown: The
Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians,
and the Media_. Here's one:
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/ar...22/feature.htm

Read some of these books, whydoncha?
Tucker, _Terrestrial Energy_
Michaels, _Shattered Concensus_
Huber, _Hard Green_
Bailey, _Earth Report 2000_
Singer, _Unstoppable Global Warming - Every 1500 Years_
Plimer, _Heaven & Earth, Global Warming, the Missing Science_

Then you'll know both sides to help make up your mind.


Obviously this won't happen in antarctica all at once, but even a small
fraction of 60 meters is a lot (60 meters is about 200 feet). I live 15
miles inland from New York City at elevation of ~67 feet.

Did man cause this one, too? g
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul...level-20120712
(I don't buy either scenario.)

IF it warms up a handful of degrees this current century (and I don't
believe it will), man will simply have to move his cities upward, to
higher elevations than the current shorelines. Mother Nature doesn't
bow to our whims.

--
Believe nothing.
No matter where you read it,
Or who said it,
Even if I have said it,
Unless it agrees with your own reason
And your own common sense.
-- Buddha

Dave Balderstone wrote in
news:140120131257471761%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderst one.ca:

In article , Mike Marlow
wrote:

I understand that, but I have seen similar reports of where reported
observations were perhaps not discredited, but were at the very least
countered by other observations that we exactly the opposite. Like I
say - I don't really have a stand on the matter because too much of
this goes back and forth between each side with what appears to be
nothing more than claims from each.

NASA , the Met and the IPCC seem to be backing away pretty quickly
from claims of warming... As in, none since 1997.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/...ast_reports_we
r e_junk.html

http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow...warming-alarmi
s m-192334971.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...arming-stopped
-
16-years-ago-Met-Office-report-reveals-MoS-got-right-warming--deniers-n
o w.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

Selective quoting by everyone. For instance, the IPCC has indeed
committed gross errors, so obvious that a 3 year-old could see them.
That does NOT mean there is no human-caused warming.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Han wrote:

Selective quoting by everyone. For instance, the IPCC has indeed
committed gross errors, so obvious that a 3 year-old could see them.
That does NOT mean there is no human-caused warming.

Correctamundo - but then I don't think anyone suggested that, did they?

--

-Mike-

Larry Jaques wrote in
:

On 14 Jan 2013 14:47:42 GMT, Han wrote:

"Mike Marlow" wrote in
:

Han wrote:


Having read some of the reputable research, I do believe that not
only there is a global increase in temperatures, but that it is
happening because of "greenhouse effects" from human activities.
Yes, indeed, climate is always changing - so what? The reason for
concern is that we arecausing it this time.

So Han... if climate is always changing, how can it be that we are
causing it this time? You are a scientist - does that conclusion
even make sense from the standpoint of scientific observation?

And it may be a vicious cycle that once
started will be difficult to stop. Maybe a few degrees F doesn't
make that much difference to you or even to your food crops, but if
all the water in the oceans is going to warm up, that will increase
the volume.

True, but that is irrelevant to the topic at hand which is whether
this is a normal event that may (or may not be...) exacerbated by
humankind.

Bingo!


Pretty soon, that may mean Houston will be under water,
as will just about every port city in the world, unless we build
sea defenses that are 20 feet or more in height greater than what
(if anything) is there now. Not this decade perhaps, or even this
century, but it will happen, according to reliable predictions.

Again - that is alarmist talk that is not relevant to the point at
hand.

Yet they REbuilt Nawlins under sea level. Go figure.


It
may be coincidence, but hereabouts (North Jersey) we have had 3 or
4 "100-year storms" in the last few years, including Sandy, the
worst of all. It seems that Sandy was "helped" by abnormally warm
ocean waters ... So the question is how many Sandys does it take
to make you guys believers?

It takes more evidence than the alarmists attempt to throw on the
table, and it takes more consesus than currently exists between
equally qualified scientific voices. Your fears are fine for you to
feel comftable with, but they aren't much more than that - your
fears.

When I built my house 30-ish years ago, we commonly woke up to 3'-4'
of fresh snow in the driveway. It was just life here in this area.
We have not seen winters like that in over 10 years. Over the past
few years our winters have been unusually mild with last year being
a record (or near record) low in snowfall. This year is shaping up
to be similar so far.
So - 30 years ago we were all in a wad about global cooling and if
we had
rushed off with the fears and anxieties of the moment, picking and
chosing the scientific theories we wanted to subscribe to, we would
have charged off doing something. Well - here we are a short time
in history later, and we are facing the exact opposite conditions.

I prefer to let the alarmist voices that draw premature conclusions
based on no consensus at all within the expert community, such as
yours, content themselves with wringing their hands and crying that
the sky is falling. As for me - I just don't know, and that's
because brighter minds than my own in this whole matter, don't know.

Mike, there is an important difference between global climate and
local weather. What the people you call alarmists are saying is that
the global climate is warming. You're right, it has happened before,
but generally on geological time scales - thousands of years. Of
course there have been ups and downs, and what you describe in your
driveway's snow accumulations may be like that. Little ice ages and
warm periods, the little ice ages sometimes due to volcanic eruptions
such as Krakatao. The "alarmists" are saying this is different, and
the science backs them up. Recently a scientist who very much doubted
the theories went on a project to disprove the alarmists, and came
back being convinced. More

Are you referring to Bjorn Lomborg? He came back being a _little_
convinced. Go watch "Cool It" on Netflix to refresh your memory. He
still says we shouldn't be jumping to conclusions or throwing our
money away. It's a 100 year thing, not a 10 year crisis. We're
allowing people to die today because funds are spent on AGWK which
could be saving lives. That's the larger problem.


recently, in at least some places in Antarctica and Greenland, it
appears that the ice is melting faster, and sliding towards the sea
faster, than most people had been predicting. Read this kitchen
counter experiment you can do yourself (sorry if it wraps)
http://tinyurl.com/auxqx7a
http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...-science-home-
sealevel-rise

You know that a whole lot of the ice on the Earth is already floating
on water, don't you? And you know that as something melts here, it
rebuilds over there, don't you? Do the research. It won't be found on
your alarmist sites, though. Seek info further afield, Han. It's out
there for you to find. I know you're already a skeptic. Your skeptical
biorythym is just on its low cycle right now. I'll see if I can dig
up some sites for you from Patrick J. Michaels' _Meltdown: The
Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians,
and the Media_. Here's one:
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/ar.../vol7/v7n22/fe
ature.htm

Read some of these books, whydoncha?
Tucker, _Terrestrial Energy_
Michaels, _Shattered Concensus_
Huber, _Hard Green_
Bailey, _Earth Report 2000_
Singer, _Unstoppable Global Warming - Every 1500 Years_
Plimer, _Heaven & Earth, Global Warming, the Missing Science_

Then you'll know both sides to help make up your mind.


Obviously this won't happen in antarctica all at once, but even a
small fraction of 60 meters is a lot (60 meters is about 200 feet). I
live 15 miles inland from New York City at elevation of ~67 feet.

Did man cause this one, too? g
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul...-sea-level-201
20712 (I don't buy either scenario.)

IF it warms up a handful of degrees this current century (and I don't
believe it will), man will simply have to move his cities upward, to
higher elevations than the current shorelines. Mother Nature doesn't
bow to our whims.

--
Believe nothing.

If that's your mantra, good luck.

I am selective in what I read and believe. To me, the general consensus
is that global climate is warming, at an accelerating rate, and that it
is due in large part to human causes. You know what a trend line is, I
suppose, so you can do your own extrapolations.

I am not saying we should be panicking, but that we should be a little
wiser than management of NJ Transit, who parked the cars for their
commuter trains in 2 lots that were barely above the most highest
recorded seawater levels (if they were above). As a result millions of
dollars in damage were incurred. I am sure everyone will soon forget
what happened and life will proceed as before. They aren't about to
money for preventive management, such as making sure the next time the
signalling systems and parking areas for the cars and locomotives won't
flood. That track won't be as badly disrupted by storms, as they were
during Irene, and the other storms that preceded Sandy and caused
millions in damage as well, not to speak of the economic damage incurred
by the people who use this mass transit.

I'm just saying, the way the US most often deals with this is to fix up
the damage, rather than improve infrastructure to prevent recurrence. I
guess a few more Sandys and they will start to see the light.

As I mentioned before, there is no objection from me to rebuild NOLA
below sea level. But there is a need to do so and build up and preserve
the defenses against future storms. After all, that is what is being
done all over the world, from Holland to England, Venice and Bangladash
(sp?).

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"Mike Marlow" wrote in
:

Swingman wrote:
On 1/14/2013 8:47 AM, Han wrote:

Mike, there is an important difference between global climate and
local

Don't look now, Han, but your button just got purposely pushed by
those who could give a **** about the woodworking part of
rec.woodworking.
Wise up ...

Don't look now Han but you just got egged on by those who... well,
just consider why he felt the need to post that.

Mike and Karl:

As a Dutchman, who lived close by the river Rhine in Holland, which
regularly overflowed its banks, and who skated often on the flooded plain
when it froze over, and who was aware of events when the 1953 floods
occurred, I feel a necessity to comment here.


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Larry Jaques wrote in
:

On 14 Jan 2013 13:34:11 GMT, Han wrote:

"Mike Marlow" wrote in
:

Unquestionably Confused wrote:


Note also that the preferred term has become "Climate Change" to
avoid confrontation with those nasty folk who point out any flaws
in the "Global Warming" argument.

An equally good point. It seems to me that those with the agenda in
this matter used this tactic (renaming the issue at hand), in order
to continue to advance their agenda by attempting to remove a point
of objection (dodging it), rather than honestly re-evaluating the
facts as they became challenged. People with agendas may serve a
purpose in getting discussions started, but those agendas lose their
value very quickly once discussion begins - at least to me they do.

Having read some of the reputable research, I do believe that not only
there is a global increase in temperatures, but that it is happening
because of "greenhouse effects" from human activities. Yes, indeed,
climate is always changing - so what? The reason for concern is that
we arecausing it this time. And it may be a vicious cycle that once
started will be difficult to stop. Maybe a few degrees F doesn't make
that much difference to you or even to your food crops, but if all the
water in the oceans is going to warm up, that will increase the
volume. Pretty soon, that may mean Houston will be under water, as
will just about every port city in the world, unless we build sea
defenses that are 20 feet or more in height greater than what (if
anything) is there now. Not this decade perhaps, or even this
century, but it will happen, according to reliable predictions.

Oh, my! You'll lose most of Manhattan when all the snow in the world
melts, won't you? What to do, what to do?

Let's all watch "Waterworld" so we'll know how to live ATM!
(After The Melt)


It may be coincidence, but hereabouts (North Jersey) we
have had 3 or 4 "100-year storms" in the last few years, including
Sandy, the worst of all. It seems that Sandy was "helped" by
abnormally warm ocean waters ... So the question is how many Sandys
does it take to make you guys believers?

Y'mean the guys who say "Hey, we can live in flood zones as long as
insurance bails us out every year."

LJ--still not A True Believer in AGWK.

Larry, I believe in global warming. And yes, it is quite possible that
much of Manhattan (much more than with Sandy) will flood again at some
point in the future. When, and to what extent, I don't know.

I helped carry stuff from the subbasement of the Manhattan VA when it
started to flood in the 80's. Cars in the lot behind the building were
up to the door windows in seawater. Of course management (spit!) decided
it was fine to build the new emergency generator system in the basement
afer this had happened. Same for Bellevue, and NYU medical buildings
along that stretch of First Avenue. They are still out except for some
minimal service at NYU, I believe. Untold effort in samples etc have
been irretrievably lost (I collected some of those).

I read that some (especially new) buildings in flood-prone areas are
being outfitted to withstand flooding. Emergency equipment on higher
levels, flood-doors, etc, etc. Probably far too little, but we will
indeed find out next time.

Unless the Canary Islands explode with an enormous volcanic blast,
sending a tsunami accross the Atlantic before I croak, I think I am safe
from flooding where I am (15 miles or so inland, elevation 67 or so
feet). Eventually this will be under water, or at the shore.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 1/14/2013 2:59 PM, Han wrote:

snip

For at least ten years now it has been tacitly agreed upon, and
practiced by the more considerate of the participants hereabouts, to
mark 'off topic' posts in a thread "OT" in the Subject text box.

Simply out of consideration for folks who don't care to wade through
political BS to get to the rare "on topic" woodworking post in an
obvious "on topic" thread, you might want to reconsider the concept.

Just saying ...

--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://plus.google.com/114902129577517371552/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)

(Scott Lurndal) wrote in
:

Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet writes:
On 1/14/2013 4:22 AM, Dave wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 03:34:45 -0600, Leon
wrote:
And those that believe that are actually gullible enough to believe
that the earth should not be warming. Since when is global cooling
better for food production? Think the farmers care when their
crops freeze?

It's not that global warming exists, it's the rate that it's
happening and the rate of increase caused by humanity.



So what brought us out of the "ice age"

Milankovitch cycles.

There's little doubt that the planet has warmed in the past
100 years. It is the magnitude of the warming and the cause of
the warming that disputed. There is little reliable data prior
to 1900 for surface and sea-surface temperatures. There is little
data prior to 1970 regarding sea-ice extent and area.

As for Han's 20-foot seawalls in Houston, one must realize that even
were 100% of the sea ice (e.g. arctic ice) to melt, sea-level wouldn't
change. For sea-level to rise substantially, glacial ice and
landborne ice (e.g. the Greenland and Antarctica ice caps) would need
to melt. The best estimates are that the Antarctica ice cap would
take several thousand years to melt completely at a much higher
temperature that even the IPCC predicts for the next hundred years or
so (and their predictions have been much higher than has actually been
observed since the first and second IPCC reports).

Sea level is a function of the temperature of the water (water expands
as it warms), isostatic rebound (much shoreline is still rebounding
from the ice cover in the last ice age), wind/currents (sea level is
higher on windward side than leeward side), fresh-water influx,
glacial melting et alia.

That is all correct, but no one knows whether warming will reach an
equilibrium, whether it will continue to warm at the present rate, or
whether the rate of warming will keep increasing. There are good reasons
to believe the latter (temp going up faster and faster) if we don't do
something. In fact there is likely something we could do to cool things,
but that is without precedent, and affecting weather globally by a single
or a few national (?) entities will really rile up people. I am
referring to proposed attempts to cool the atmosphere by injecting
screens of some sort into the stratosphere, as mother nature has done
with volcanic eruptions (look up little ice age and Krakatao).

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"Mike Marlow" wrote in news:kd1ruk$9hf$1
@dont-email.me:

Han wrote:

Selective quoting by everyone. For instance, the IPCC has indeed
committed gross errors, so obvious that a 3 year-old could see them.
That does NOT mean there is no human-caused warming.

Correctamundo - but then I don't think anyone suggested that, did they?

well, Mike, in the past people have "suggested" that if there such
egregious errors in a report, the whole thing must be hogwash. SO it is
important to look at everything.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 15:25:17 -0600, Swingman wrote:

On 1/14/2013 2:59 PM, Han wrote:

snip

For at least ten years now it has been tacitly agreed upon, and
practiced by the more considerate of the participants hereabouts, to
mark 'off topic' posts in a thread "OT" in the Subject text box.

Simply out of consideration for folks who don't care to wade through
political BS to get to the rare "on topic" woodworking post in an
obvious "on topic" thread, you might want to reconsider the concept.

Just saying ...

Considering how two sentences in my post caused that thread to totally
go of course and under threat of Gorilla Glue & other tortures I'm
just going to stay the hell away from those topics that cause things
to go sideways.

Mike M
8-)

"Swingman" wrote:

snip

For at least ten years now it has been tacitly agreed upon, and
practiced by the more considerate of the participants hereabouts, to
mark 'off topic' posts in a thread "OT" in the Subject text box.

Simply out of consideration for folks who don't care to wade through
political BS to get to the rare "on topic" woodworking post in an
obvious "on topic" thread, you might want to reconsider the concept.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
OE6 is not always your friend in these matters.

A post that starts life as an O/T post seems to get the "O/T"
amputated
and replaced with an "" from time to time.

Lew

On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 12:57:47 -0600, Dave Balderstone
wrote:

In article , Mike Marlow
wrote:

I understand that, but I have seen similar reports of where reported
observations were perhaps not discredited, but were at the very least
countered by other observations that we exactly the opposite. Like I say -
I don't really have a stand on the matter because too much of this goes back
and forth between each side with what appears to be nothing more than claims
from each.

NASA , the Met and the IPCC seem to be backing away pretty quickly from
claims of warming... As in, none since 1997.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/...st_reports_wer
e_junk.html

http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow...arming-alarmis
m-192334971.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...rming-stopped-
16-years-ago-Met-Office-report-reveals-MoS-got-right-warming--deniers-no
w.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

And, of course, the mainstream media tucks it tidily away, passing
over the real news because it doesn't fit their neat little
money-making habit of spreading fear and terror. I hope Han and
friends take the time to digest this and start looking into the
skeptic side for more real data.

If Climategate was "just stolen emails", Watergate was "just a prank".

How many more of these scandals will it take to open their eyes?

---

I had some wood-related fun today. I borrowed climbing gear from a
tree guy and was going to take down my birches today. After gearing
up, I started up the tree. 3' later, I came back down. I tightened up
the two straps which went around the tree and started back up. Still
nogo by 4'. The spurs were wedging themselves into the tree tightly
and it took a lot of effort to remove them each time. I tightened the
spurs to my legs and feet and shortened the harness straps again.
Still too far from the tree. OK. I came back down the 5' and again
tightened up the straps to hold me closer to the tree. That's better.
At about 8' up, I was out of breath and my arms/chest were burning. (I
had no idea it took so much upper body strength to climb trees.) I
looked up and the limbs were a good 13' up, so I called it a day. I
just don't have the stamina to climb the tree. Oh, well. It was a
fun try and I didn't kill myself havin' at it.

Gettin' old sucks. Now I see why there aren't a lot of tree climbers
in their '60s. A toast to the tree climbers. That's a helluva job.

--
Believe nothing.
No matter where you read it,
Or who said it,
Even if I have said it,
Unless it agrees with your own reason
And your own common sense.
-- Buddha

On 14 Jan 2013 21:12:45 GMT, Han wrote:

Larry Jaques wrote in
:

--
Believe nothing.

If that's your mantra, good luck.

What? You're going to preempt Buddha's full quote?


I am selective in what I read and believe. To me, the general consensus
is that global climate is warming, at an accelerating rate, and that it
is due in large part to human causes. You know what a trend line is, I
suppose, so you can do your own extrapolations.

You didn't read those links, did you? Zero heat increase in a decade.
(Let it sink in.) OK, got it yet? That's one of the things in
Climategate that you overlooked, too. Their emails discussing how to
hide the nasty little fact that _warming_wasn't_happening_at_all_ at
the time. Not just less, but none.

Oh, for you to be less a True Believer... Look at the skewing (I call
it cheating) they're doing on the temperature readings. Fewer data
points, questionable thermometer placement, more funky "adjusting",
less heat-island averaging. AGWK makes many people lots of money.
Follow the money and you'll see.


I am not saying we should be panicking, but that we should be a little
wiser than management of NJ Transit, who parked the cars for their
commuter trains in 2 lots that were barely above the most highest
recorded seawater levels (if they were above). As a result millions of
dollars in damage were incurred. I am sure everyone will soon forget

Absofreakin'lutely.


what happened and life will proceed as before. They aren't about to
money for preventive management, such as making sure the next time the
signalling systems and parking areas for the cars and locomotives won't
flood. That track won't be as badly disrupted by storms, as they were
during Irene, and the other storms that preceded Sandy and caused
millions in damage as well, not to speak of the economic damage incurred
by the people who use this mass transit.

Governments waste so much money on stupidity, it's criminal. People
force local governments to allow them to build in -known- flood plains
and then whine to them and insurance agencies for money to rebuild
when the predicted flood actually happens. The Feds should have
forced all of New Orleans to be graded 15' -above- sea level before
allowing them ANY funds to rebuild. Additional levees could then help
prevent future flooding problems. That's one bigass river!

We agree that humans truly suck at stewardship of the planet. Let's
get on their butts to do better in a SANE way. No EPA ruling that one
of the most common elements in our air is now illegal, no ruling that
we must remove contaminants down to 0.000000000000000000000000000001

(Read _Hard Green_ and _Cool It_ for sane ideas of where to start
first and how to get a whole lot more bang for the buck. Let's start
making progress instead of simply appeasing The Hanson, GOD of NOAA)


I'm just saying, the way the US most often deals with this is to fix up
the damage, rather than improve infrastructure to prevent recurrence. I
guess a few more Sandys and they will start to see the light.

Let's hope they see the light before then. We're already bankrupt and
when we get any further into debt, our country just may start taking
all our assets to pay for itself, without our consent. If we default
on the debt, that's in the contract, so I hear. (I haven't yet
verified that.)


As I mentioned before, there is no objection from me to rebuild NOLA
below sea level. But there is a need to do so and build up and preserve
the defenses against future storms. After all, that is what is being
done all over the world, from Holland to England, Venice and Bangladash
(sp?).

It's a disaster waiting to happen in most areas. Bangladesh is a
flood plain, not a country. sigh Wait until some idiot tango finds
some Dutch guy to get mad at. They could blow out sections of dyke
wall and flood the entire country before the sea can be stopped. Dutch
troops were in Iraq, so you're probably a marked country. (Perhaps
it's time for a global 'Contract on Radical Muslims + Other Tangoes',
which would be a lot less costly than these stupid wars.

--
Believe nothing.
No matter where you read it,
Or who said it,
Even if I have said it,
Unless it agrees with your own reason
And your own common sense.
-- Buddha

On 14 Jan 2013 21:24:09 GMT, Han wrote:

Larry Jaques wrote in
:

On 14 Jan 2013 13:34:11 GMT, Han wrote:

"Mike Marlow" wrote in
:

Unquestionably Confused wrote:


Note also that the preferred term has become "Climate Change" to
avoid confrontation with those nasty folk who point out any flaws
in the "Global Warming" argument.

An equally good point. It seems to me that those with the agenda in
this matter used this tactic (renaming the issue at hand), in order
to continue to advance their agenda by attempting to remove a point
of objection (dodging it), rather than honestly re-evaluating the
facts as they became challenged. People with agendas may serve a
purpose in getting discussions started, but those agendas lose their
value very quickly once discussion begins - at least to me they do.

Having read some of the reputable research, I do believe that not only
there is a global increase in temperatures, but that it is happening
because of "greenhouse effects" from human activities. Yes, indeed,
climate is always changing - so what? The reason for concern is that
we arecausing it this time. And it may be a vicious cycle that once
started will be difficult to stop. Maybe a few degrees F doesn't make
that much difference to you or even to your food crops, but if all the
water in the oceans is going to warm up, that will increase the
volume. Pretty soon, that may mean Houston will be under water, as
will just about every port city in the world, unless we build sea
defenses that are 20 feet or more in height greater than what (if
anything) is there now. Not this decade perhaps, or even this
century, but it will happen, according to reliable predictions.

Oh, my! You'll lose most of Manhattan when all the snow in the world
melts, won't you? What to do, what to do?

Let's all watch "Waterworld" so we'll know how to live ATM!
(After The Melt)


It may be coincidence, but hereabouts (North Jersey) we
have had 3 or 4 "100-year storms" in the last few years, including
Sandy, the worst of all. It seems that Sandy was "helped" by
abnormally warm ocean waters ... So the question is how many Sandys
does it take to make you guys believers?

Y'mean the guys who say "Hey, we can live in flood zones as long as
insurance bails us out every year."

LJ--still not A True Believer in AGWK.

Larry, I believe in global warming.

Then you're probably reading only the alarmist reports, nothing sane.



I helped carry stuff from the subbasement of the Manhattan VA when it
started to flood in the 80's. Cars in the lot behind the building were
up to the door windows in seawater. Of course management (spit!) decided
it was fine to build the new emergency generator system in the basement
afer this had happened. Same for Bellevue, and NYU medical buildings
along that stretch of First Avenue. They are still out except for some
minimal service at NYU, I believe. Untold effort in samples etc have
been irretrievably lost (I collected some of those).

Bummer! I hope that particular managerial type was canned immediately
after it was submerged, after being asked to pay for a new genset.


I read that some (especially new) buildings in flood-prone areas are
being outfitted to withstand flooding. Emergency equipment on higher
levels, flood-doors, etc, etc. Probably far too little, but we will
indeed find out next time.

I wish them luck.


Unless the Canary Islands explode with an enormous volcanic blast,
sending a tsunami accross the Atlantic before I croak, I think I am safe
from flooding where I am (15 miles or so inland, elevation 67 or so
feet). Eventually this will be under water, or at the shore.

g

--
Believe nothing.
No matter where you read it,
Or who said it,
Even if I have said it,
Unless it agrees with your own reason
And your own common sense.
-- Buddha

Larry Jaques wrote in
:

On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 12:57:47 -0600, Dave Balderstone
wrote:

In article , Mike Marlow
wrote:

I understand that, but I have seen similar reports of where reported
observations were perhaps not discredited, but were at the very
least countered by other observations that we exactly the opposite.
Like I say - I don't really have a stand on the matter because too
much of this goes back and forth between each side with what appears
to be nothing more than claims from each.

NASA , the Met and the IPCC seem to be backing away pretty quickly
from claims of warming... As in, none since 1997.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/...ast_reports_we
r e_junk.html

http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow...warming-alarmi
s m-192334971.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...arming-stopped
-
16-years-ago-Met-Office-report-reveals-MoS-got-right-warming--deniers-n
o w.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

And, of course, the mainstream media tucks it tidily away, passing
over the real news because it doesn't fit their neat little
money-making habit of spreading fear and terror. I hope Han and
friends take the time to digest this and start looking into the
skeptic side for more real data.

If Climategate was "just stolen emails", Watergate was "just a prank".

How many more of these scandals will it take to open their eyes?

---

I had some wood-related fun today. I borrowed climbing gear from a
tree guy and was going to take down my birches today. After gearing
up, I started up the tree. 3' later, I came back down. I tightened up
the two straps which went around the tree and started back up. Still
nogo by 4'. The spurs were wedging themselves into the tree tightly
and it took a lot of effort to remove them each time. I tightened the
spurs to my legs and feet and shortened the harness straps again.
Still too far from the tree. OK. I came back down the 5' and again
tightened up the straps to hold me closer to the tree. That's better.
At about 8' up, I was out of breath and my arms/chest were burning. (I
had no idea it took so much upper body strength to climb trees.) I
looked up and the limbs were a good 13' up, so I called it a day. I
just don't have the stamina to climb the tree. Oh, well. It was a
fun try and I didn't kill myself havin' at it.

Gettin' old sucks. Now I see why there aren't a lot of tree climbers
in their '60s. A toast to the tree climbers. That's a helluva job.

--
Believe nothing.
No matter where you read it,
Or who said it,
Even if I have said it,
Unless it agrees with your own reason
And your own common sense.
-- Buddha

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climati...il_controversy
Climategate, bull****.

Around here the tree crews work in teams of 3. The climber goes up on a
rope thrown over a (sturdy) branch and positions himself. Via another
rope a chainsaw gets pulled up. Then away they go. Going up a rope
requires leg power, mostly. That's what I observed, admiring them all
the way.

In my younger days I've cut down a few trees only. Not high enough to
not be able to use ladders.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 1/15/2013 7:52 AM, Han wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climati...il_controversy
Climategate, bull****.

PLONK

--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://plus.google.com/114902129577517371552/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)

On 1/14/2013 6:43 PM, Mike M wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 15:25:17 -0600, Swingman wrote:

On 1/14/2013 2:59 PM, Han wrote:

snip

For at least ten years now it has been tacitly agreed upon, and
practiced by the more considerate of the participants hereabouts, to
mark 'off topic' posts in a thread "OT" in the Subject text box.

Simply out of consideration for folks who don't care to wade through
political BS to get to the rare "on topic" woodworking post in an
obvious "on topic" thread, you might want to reconsider the concept.

Just saying ...

Considering how two sentences in my post caused that thread to totally
go of course and under threat of Gorilla Glue & other tortures I'm
just going to stay the hell away from those topics that cause things
to go sideways.

Not your fault at all, Mike ...

But it's indeed sad, in a forum where woodworking content participation
is becoming rarer by the day ... and folks wonder why the hell all the
woodworking oldtimers have left ... WHY anyone would blindly and
blithely continue to crap on some of the few 'on topic' woodworking
threads by NOT being considerate enough to at least CHANGE, or ADD "OT"
to the subject line of their 'off topic' replies so folks at least have
a CHOICE by not having to wade through their off topic BS in an on topic
thread?

I already have a killfile with inconsiderate peabrained assholes to whom
woodworking is nothing more than what they can figure out how to GOOGLE.
I really do hate to add to it, but _inconsiderate_ peabrained ass
behavior is inconsiderate peabrained ass behavior ... so be it.

--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://plus.google.com/114902129577517371552/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)

On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 10:09:13 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
It's not that global warming exists, it's the rate that it's happening
and the rate of increase caused by humanity.

So what brought us out of the "ice age"

I'm not talking about regular cycles of heating and cooling over
thousands of years. I'm talking about the current act ivies of man
that seem to mirror present day global warming.

Sure, you might want to suggest that it's just another global heating
cycle attributable to nature and has little to do with man, but what
if you're wrong?

The trends we're seeing right now are more severe than they have been
in the past. Are you prepared to just sit there and say "Nah, there's
no way man could be causing it."?

I *know* you're smarter than that.

On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 16:43:38 -0800, Mike M
Considering how two sentences in my post caused that thread to totally
go of course and under threat of Gorilla Glue & other tortures I'm
just going to stay the hell away from those topics that cause things
to go sideways.

Factually impossible. The only way you're going to post and not have
any of them go sideways is to not post at all.

On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 20:54:40 -0800, Larry Jaques wrote:

Joseph L. Bast ) is president of The Heartland
Institute and an editor of Climate Change Reconsidered, a series of
reports published by The Heartland Institute for the Nongovernmental
International Panel on Climate Change.

Guess it depends on who you believe, Larry. Looking up Joseph Bast, it
seems he's not the unbiased scientist he would have you believe.


"Founded in the early 1984, Heartland Institute claims to apply "cutting-
edge research to state and local public policy issues." Additionally,
Heartland bills itself as "the marketing arm of the free-market
movement." In February of 2012, internal strategy and funding documents
detailing the Heartland Institutes campaign of global warming denial were
released to DeSmogBlog. The documents included strategies for raising
funds from Koch brothers foundations, as well as a plan to create school
curriculums that cast doubt on global warming science. Documents and
analysis are available at desmogblog.com.

The Heartland Institute created a website in the Spring of 2007,
www.globalwarmingheartland.org, which asserts there is no scientific
consensus on global warming and features a list of experts and a list of
like-minded think tanks, many of whom have received funding from
ExxonMobil and other polluters.

The site goes on to say:

"Heartland Institute has received $676,500 from ExxonMobil since 1998."

Makes his veracity a little questionable, wouldn't you say?

The quotes above are from :

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=41

which gives a very long list of the "independent" organizations funded by
Exxon.

--
When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and
carrying a cross.

On 1/15/2013 11:44 AM, Larry Blanchard wrote:

The Heartland Institute created a website in the Spring of 2007

Mentioning Heartland is like mentioning Fox News or MSNBC to either extreme.

--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://plus.google.com/114902129577517371552/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)

On 1/14/2013 3:24 PM, Han wrote:
....

Larry, I believe in global warming. ...
....

I'll simply point to

http://www.amazon.com/Hockey-Stick-Illusion-Climategate-Independent/dp/1906768358

as a worthwhile read.

--

On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 11:01:15 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 16:43:38 -0800, Mike M
Considering how two sentences in my post caused that thread to totally
go of course and under threat of Gorilla Glue & other tortures I'm
just going to stay the hell away from those topics that cause things
to go sideways.

Factually impossible. The only way you're going to post and not have
any of them go sideways is to not post at all.

Maybe, but I can sure do my part to try to stay on topic.

Mike M

On 15 Jan 2013 13:52:59 GMT, Han wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climati...il_controversy
Climategate, bull****.

There are none so blind...

--
Believe nothing.
No matter where you read it,
Or who said it,
Even if I have said it,
Unless it agrees with your own reason
And your own common sense.
-- Buddha

On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 17:44:37 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
wrote:

"Heartland Institute has received $676,500 from ExxonMobil since 1998."

Makes his veracity a little questionable, wouldn't you say?

One side has the Kochs, the other side has Soros. Parity?


The quotes above are from :

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=41

which gives a very long list of the "independent" organizations funded by
Exxon.

So if it's funded by an oil company, the result is automatically
falsified? Where's your evidence?

C'mon, Larry. Big companies fund myriad small businesses and research
projects every day, many with no expectation of their outcome. They
also donate to both Rep and Dem funds alike, at the same time. Like
it or lump it. shrug

--
Believe nothing.
No matter where you read it,
Or who said it,
Even if I have said it,
Unless it agrees with your own reason
And your own common sense.
-- Buddha

Larry Jaques wrote in
:

On 15 Jan 2013 13:52:59 GMT, Han wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climati...il_controversy
Climategate, bull****.

There are none so blind...

Indeed.
From Science Magazine January 4, 2013, vol 339, page 15:
(I edited out the many carriage returns on the pdf for subscribers)
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6115/14.1.full.pdf
Gauging the Global Greenhouse
The Nobel-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will deliver
its next assessment of the physical science of climate change in
September, but blockbuster developments that could bolster greenhouse gas
mitigation are unlikely, and pronouncements on weather extremes and sea-
level rise won’t be barn burners. Past reports have already answered the
big questions: The world is warming, humans are behind most of that, and
climate is sensitive enough to greenhouse gases that 2100 looks grim.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

In article , Han
wrote:

That does NOT mean there is no human-caused warming.

It means there has been no warming since 1997, human caused or not.

--
Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside a dog, it's too dark to
read. - Groucho Marx

In article , Han
wrote:

I am selective in what I read and believe.

Yes, that is crystal clear.

To me, the general consensus
is that global climate is warming, at an accelerating rate, and that it
is due in large part to human causes. You know what a trend line is, I
suppose, so you can do your own extrapolations.

The scientific data simply does not back your belief. And there is NO
"general consensus".

Follow the money, Han. Follow the money.

--
Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside a dog, it's too dark to
read. - Groucho Marx

In article , Han
wrote:

whether it will continue to warm at the present rate

You mean, zero?

--
Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside a dog, it's too dark to
read. - Groucho Marx

On 15 Jan 2013 22:35:26 GMT, Han wrote:

Larry Jaques wrote in
:

On 15 Jan 2013 13:52:59 GMT, Han wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climati...il_controversy
Climategate, bull****.

There are none so blind...

Indeed.
From Science Magazine January 4, 2013, vol 339, page 15:
(I edited out the many carriage returns on the pdf for subscribers)
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6115/14.1.full.pdf
Gauging the Global Greenhouse
The Nobel-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will deliver
its next assessment of the physical science of climate change in
September, but blockbuster developments that could bolster greenhouse gas
mitigation are unlikely, and pronouncements on weather extremes and sea-
level rise won’t be barn burners. Past reports have already answered the
big questions: The world is warming, humans are behind most of that, and
climate is sensitive enough to greenhouse gases that 2100 looks grim.

And, of course, you didn't read the article where the IPCC copped to
fast footwork (and bogus "scientists") on a whole lot of its work.
Thee IPCC is a completely -political- entity who has been overrun by
alarmists. With every new report on them, their credibility shrinks
and shrinks, yet they're still -the- main focus for you "believers".
Unreal!

I'm sorry that you've selectively choosen -not- to read the truth in
print, but I do hold hope out for you. You'll come around sooner or
later. (Enjoy the egg.

--
Believe nothing.
No matter where you read it,
Or who said it,
Even if I have said it,
Unless it agrees with your own reason
And your own common sense.
-- Buddha

in 1546679 20130116 045955 Larry Jaques wrote:
On 15 Jan 2013 22:35:26 GMT, Han wrote:

Larry Jaques wrote in
m:

On 15 Jan 2013 13:52:59 GMT, Han wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climati...il_controversy
Climategate, bull****.

There are none so blind...

Indeed.
From Science Magazine January 4, 2013, vol 339, page 15:
(I edited out the many carriage returns on the pdf for subscribers)
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6115/14.1.full.pdf
Gauging the Global Greenhouse
The Nobel-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will deliver
its next assessment of the physical science of climate change in
September, but blockbuster developments that could bolster greenhouse gas
mitigation are unlikely, and pronouncements on weather extremes and sea-
level rise won�t be barn burners. Past reports have already answered the
big questions: The world is warming, humans are behind most of that, and
climate is sensitive enough to greenhouse gases that 2100 looks grim.

And, of course, you didn't read the article where the IPCC copped to
fast footwork (and bogus "scientists") on a whole lot of its work.
Thee IPCC is a completely -political- entity who has been overrun by
alarmists. With every new report on them, their credibility shrinks
and shrinks, yet they're still -the- main focus for you "believers".
Unreal!

I'm sorry that you've selectively choosen -not- to read the truth in
print, but I do hold hope out for you. You'll come around sooner or
later. (Enjoy the egg.

Still in denial then?

Dave Balderstone wrote in
news:150120132122237503%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderst one.ca:

In article , Han
wrote:

That does NOT mean there is no human-caused warming.

It means there has been no warming since 1997, human caused or not.

Probably wrong
http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/...the-offing-on-
climate-change/

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Dave Balderstone wrote in
news:150120132126302326%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderst one.ca:

In article , Han
wrote:

I am selective in what I read and believe.

Yes, that is crystal clear.

To me, the general consensus
is that global climate is warming, at an accelerating rate, and that
it is due in large part to human causes. You know what a trend line
is, I suppose, so you can do your own extrapolations.

The scientific data simply does not back your belief. And there is NO
"general consensus".

Follow the money, Han. Follow the money.

What money, Dave? The deniers' money?

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Bob Martin wrote in
:

in 1546679 20130116 045955 Larry Jaques
wrote:
On 15 Jan 2013 22:35:26 GMT, Han wrote:

Larry Jaques wrote in
:

On 15 Jan 2013 13:52:59 GMT, Han wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climati...ail_controvers
y Climategate, bull****.

There are none so blind...

Indeed.
From Science Magazine January 4, 2013, vol 339, page 15:
(I edited out the many carriage returns on the pdf for subscribers)
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6115/14.1.full.pdf
Gauging the Global Greenhouse
The Nobel-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will
deliver its next assessment of the physical science of climate change
in September, but blockbuster developments that could bolster
greenhouse gas mitigation are unlikely, and pronouncements on weather
extremes and sea- level rise won�t be barn burners. Past reports
have already answered the big questions: The world is warming, humans
are behind most of that, and climate is sensitive enough to
greenhouse gases that 2100 looks grim.

And, of course, you didn't read the article where the IPCC copped to
fast footwork (and bogus "scientists") on a whole lot of its work.
Thee IPCC is a completely -political- entity who has been overrun by
alarmists. With every new report on them, their credibility shrinks
and shrinks, yet they're still -the- main focus for you "believers".
Unreal!

I'm sorry that you've selectively choosen -not- to read the truth in
print, but I do hold hope out for you. You'll come around sooner or
later. (Enjoy the egg.

Still in denial then?

That's LJ ... But then, he doesn't live near any coast ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

In article , Han
wrote:

Dave Balderstone wrote in
news:150120132122237503%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderst one.ca:

In article , Han
wrote:

That does NOT mean there is no human-caused warming.

It means there has been no warming since 1997, human caused or not.

Probably wrong
http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/...the-offing-on-
climate-change/

Let's see... The Met, IPCC, and NASA, or a blogger at the NYT. Who to
believe, who to believe...?

--
"You couldn't get a clue during the clue mating season in a field full
of horny clues if you smeared your body with clue musk and did the
clue mating dance." -- Edward Flaherty

On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 21:26:30 -0600, Dave Balderstone wrote:

he scientific data simply does not back your belief. And there is NO
"general consensus".


http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/fea...012-temps.html


--
When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and
carrying a cross.