{BS} I am fearful...
in [Toyota]
|
From: Mike Hunter on 15 Dec 2009 16:21 You mean like the global warming theorist have been manipulating data and people for years? Don't forget it was not too long ago that "those we know best" folks were telling us the world was cooling because of pollution caused by man. I wonder where we would be today if we had listened to them in the seventies and actually covered some of the glaciers in Antarctica with carbon black to help them melt, or if Russia had put in space their giant mirror satellite to reflect and extend the amount of sunlight into Siberia, to melt the glaciers? LOL "tak" <jkirch(a)frontiernet.net> wrote in message news:ErQVm.66436$Wd1.42110(a)newsfe15.iad... > > "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message > news:pan.2009.12.15.06.14.27.327206(a)e86.GTS... >> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 22:55:33 -0500, tak wrote: >> >>> >>> "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message >>> news:pan.2009.12.15.02.27.11.626032(a)e86.GTS... >>>> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 20:38:18 -0500, tak wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message >>>>> news:pan.2009.12.15.00.08.31.230393(a)e86.GTS... >>>>>> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 18:36:38 -0500, tak wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> This is ridiculous. He keeps trying to indoctrinate me that it's >>>>>>>>>> all Our fault, and ignores the evidence presented to him that it >>>>>>>>>> all happened many times before now. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Unbelievable. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Incredible! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Absolutely. I'm still waiting for someone to tell what caused the >>>>>>>> last five climate change cycles, before Man had an impact, if any. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> no, not that >>>>>> >>>>>> I see everybody rushing in with answers. >>>>>> >>>>>> Are you getting ready for the "Christmas Story" marathon? You know >>>>>> the >>>>>> part where the kid says "Ohhhhhh....Fuuuuuuuudge....but I didn't say >>>>>> fudge..." and then the mother gets on the phone and tells his >>>>>> friend's >>>>>> mother what he said, and you hear over the phone..."NO! NOT THAT!!!" >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Nope, I'll stick with incredible!!!! >>>> >>>> I know, isn't it? >>>> >>>> After all that has come out about Global Warming, people still think >>>> it's caused by humans. >>>> >>>> Now that you see that, you should help people to understand that it >>>> happens all the time. Well, Geologically speaking, that is. >>>> >>>> Glad to see you finally understand. >>>> >>> Sorry, it's you who doesn't understand, incredible simply refers to how >>> well your children turned out. >> >> What is it I don't understand? >> >> No one has been able to explain it yet, and I have fully supported my >> position that the "warmers" are so warm because it's squirting out their >> ears. >> >> I expected more of you, but I see you're as closed-minded as the rest of >> the "Global Warming" crowd. >> >> 650,000 years of data does *nothing* to sway you at all? >> That's really sad, considering all the warming crowd has is conjecture. >> Even they are starting to say "...ooops..." >> > YOU'RE disappointed? > > I've read information on both sides of this controversy and find the > "warmers" arguments more compelling than the "deniers". I say More because > the empirical evidence supports the "warmers" not the "deniers". The real > issue for me is if you and yours are correct, no harm done. If, however, > Man's contribution to global warming is just enough to provide that > irreversible tipping point, we don't have a backup planet to flee to, do > we? You didn't like Venus, too hot you said. > > What is really pathetic is how easily the Big Money Folks can manipulate > you (in the plural since) > > Who profits from the status quo in energy? Big Oil (includes Cartel > Countries) > > Who profits from the status quo in health care. Big Insurance Companies. > > Hell, even the tobacco companies put up a good fight against all odds by > manipulating data and people. >
From: Mike Hunter on 15 Dec 2009 16:25 Even more telling is the fact that if the information used to program the warming theorists models is use to look BACK it does not find the little ice age that occurred in the seventeenth century. "Tegger" <invalid(a)invalid.inv> wrote in message news:Xns9CE290DE16101tegger(a)208.90.168.18... > "tak" <jkirch(a)frontiernet.net> wrote in > news:ErQVm.66436$Wd1.42110(a)newsfe15.iad: > > >> >> I've read information on both sides of this controversy and find the >> "warmers" arguments more compelling than the "deniers". > > > > Your standards of proof are very low, then. The "warmers'" information has > been abundantly and emphatically proven to be incomplete, cherry-picked, > distorted, and largely secret. > > This was first shown by Bjorn Lomborg, originally a Believer. He became > the > Skeptical Environmentalist when he discovered, quite to his shock, just > how > bad the Believers' data really was. When he called for better methodology > and more rigorous science, he was vilified by the Believers and is now > considered a near-outcast. > > Then came McIntyre and McKittrick, who showed that Mike Mann's famous > "hockey stick graph" was created by a computer model that was fatally > flawed and produced a "hockey stick" pretty much no matter what raw data > was actually fed into it. > > Then came Vincent Courtillot, who showed that averaging weather station > data daily rather than monthly, and using real-world measurements only > instead of guesses, produced a completely different result from the > official IPCC graphs. > > The Believers' computer models do not work when they try to predict past > weather events, even when fed actual observed data. > > The Believers' computer models ignore clouds and water vapor, which are > well-known to have an effect on weather as great as (or greater than) > carbon dioxide or other "greenhouse gases". > > The Believers are not very compelling given all that and more, frankly. > > > > -- > Tegger >
From: Mike Hunter on 15 Dec 2009 16:50 Global warning theorists neglect to mention that the CO2 level in the atmosphere was half again as great as it is today for the 160 millions of years the dinosaurs roamed the earth. It was the higher level of CO2 that produced the massive vegetation that made their lives possible and produced the higher level of oxygen they needed to breath without a diaphragm. The dinosaurs died out when the CO2 and the oxygen levels dropped and the big mammals came into prominence because they had a diaphragm the helped them breath the lower oxygen. Do a search that information is out there. "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message news:pan.2009.12.15.19.20.36.656415(a)e86.GTS... > On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 08:22:26 -0500, JoeSpareBedroom wrote: > >>>> Sorry, it's you who doesn't understand, incredible simply refers to how >>>> well your children turned out. >>> >>> What is it I don't understand? >>> >>> No one has been able to explain it yet, and I have fully supported my >>> position that the "warmers" are so warm because it's squirting out their >>> ears. >>> >>> I expected more of you, but I see you're as closed-minded as the rest of >>> the "Global Warming" crowd. >>> >>> 650,000 years of data does *nothing* to sway you at all? That's really >>> sad, considering all the warming crowd has is conjecture. Even they are >>> starting to say "...ooops..." >> >> >> Anything that cannot be explained does not exist. You're a genius. >> Really. >> You make complex things so easy to understand. > > Gee, thanks! Are you now beginning to understand, or do I have to dumb it > down further? > > >
From: Tegger on 15 Dec 2009 17:26 "tak" <jkirch(a)frontiernet.net> wrote in news:k4TVm.43162$kY2.12427(a)newsfe01.iad: > > "Tegger" <invalid(a)invalid.inv> wrote in message > news:Xns9CE290DE16101tegger(a)208.90.168.18... >> >> The Believers' computer models do not work when they try to predict >> past weather events, even when fed actual observed data. >> >> The Believers' computer models ignore clouds and water vapor, which >> are well-known to have an effect on weather as great as (or greater >> than) carbon dioxide or other "greenhouse gases". >> >> The Believers are not very compelling given all that and more, >> frankly. >> >> > Given that these are theoretical models that then have to be compared > to actual data for best fit leaves your favored conclusion a poor fit. > But since you already seem to have a conclusion in search of an > explanation, happy hunting. > But those "theoretical" models are precisely the evidence the Believers are using to predict future doom and gloom! All the sea-level rises, all the temperature increases, all the ice-cap melting, are all based on those models. Without those models, the Believers have absolutely nothing to support their predictions of doom, and nothing to support their insistent calls for urgent action to "save the planet". -- Tegger
From: tak on 15 Dec 2009 19:34
"Tegger" <invalid(a)invalid.inv> wrote in message news:Xns9CE2B169D8636tegger(a)208.90.168.18... > "tak" <jkirch(a)frontiernet.net> wrote in > news:k4TVm.43162$kY2.12427(a)newsfe01.iad: > >> >> "Tegger" <invalid(a)invalid.inv> wrote in message >> news:Xns9CE290DE16101tegger(a)208.90.168.18... > >>> >>> The Believers' computer models do not work when they try to predict >>> past weather events, even when fed actual observed data. >>> >>> The Believers' computer models ignore clouds and water vapor, which >>> are well-known to have an effect on weather as great as (or greater >>> than) carbon dioxide or other "greenhouse gases". >>> >>> The Believers are not very compelling given all that and more, >>> frankly. >>> > >>> >> Given that these are theoretical models that then have to be compared >> to actual data for best fit leaves your favored conclusion a poor fit. >> But since you already seem to have a conclusion in search of an >> explanation, happy hunting. >> > > > But those "theoretical" models are precisely the evidence the Believers > are > using to predict future doom and gloom! > > All the sea-level rises, all the temperature increases, all the ice-cap > melting, are all based on those models. > > Without those models, the Believers have absolutely nothing to support > their predictions of doom, and nothing to support their insistent calls > for > urgent action to "save the planet". > > > > -- > Tegger > Did you miss the polar icecap meltdown? Just one example. |