{BS} I am fearful...
in [Toyota]
|
From: Hachiroku ハチロク on 15 Dec 2009 14:20 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: JoeSpareBedroom on 15 Dec 2009 14:43 "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? Keep going. I love it. By the way, thanks for explaining away cancer, many forms of which cannot be adequately explained yet.
From: JoeSpareBedroom on 15 Dec 2009 14:45 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_system
From: tak on 15 Dec 2009 14:59 "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message news:pan.2009.12.15.19.19.17.831008(a)e86.GTS... > On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 13:20:16 -0500, tak wrote: > >> >> "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. > > However, I have NEVER said we should not try to reduce the amount of CO2 > *WE ARE* spewing into the atmosphere! > > Here's an interesting juxtaposition for you: ~40 years ago, Earth > scientists were saying if we did not reduce the amount of pollution, we > whoudl be facing Global Cooling. I remember this from when I was a kid, > coupled with a picture of the LA skyline immersed in smog. OK, so we > reduced the amount of pollutants, particularly in cars. We have a PCV in > place of an 'oil breather', that released the smoke produced by whatever > oil burns back into the intake, rather than allowed to vent into the > atmosphere (I also remember, for some reason, the Ford Falcon was a > particular offender. I used to see those belching clouds of oil smoke when > they were NEW!) > > Now all of a sudden it's warming? In light of the evidence presented, > geologically, it is TIME for a warming period! Perhaps man added a little > to it, but the long-term empirical data suggest that these periods of > warming are immediately followed by cooling, in fact, much colder than the > warming. Why *this* data is being ignored escapes me. > >> >> What is really pathetic is how easily the Big Money Folks can manipulate >> you (in the plural since) > > Not at all. I wrote a paper for a High School geology class, based upon > evidenced gathered by *myself*, from various publications such as > Scientific American and others, that the Earth was experiencing a mid-term > temperate period and that the next phase of the cycle, a cooling phase, > would begin within 5-10,000 years. This was before the Vostok Ice Core > sample had been taken; indeed, the Vostok data merely strengthens a > position I had taken when I was 18. We didn't have that data in 1975. > > I was saying we were in for a term of glaciation similar to what happened > 12,000 years ago. According to the data gathered from the Vostok ice core, > I underestimated how COLD it's going to get. Vastly underestimated. If the > cycle repeats as it has every 100,000 years, > > http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c2/Vostok-ice-core-petit.png > > So far, the temperature has only risen +2 (comparative) degrees C. The > average drop is -7 degrees C, and that is enough to cover about 1/3 to 1/2 > of the globe in ice. > > The only data that was available in 1975 was for the past 60,000 years. > > Also, the warmers are pointing to the amount of dust in the atmosphere as > proof it's going to get warmer. The chart shows quite the opposite: the > more dust, the COLDER it gets. > > *I* don't need the Big Money folks. And, besides that, the Big Money is > being shifted to the warmers. > >> >> Who profits from the status quo in energy? Big Oil (includes Cartel >> Countries) > > If the timing of the Vostok sample is accurate, Big Oil is going to profit > quite nicely, that is, if there is any oil left to burn by the time it > gets *really* cold. > > These periods are also accompanied by major snowfalls and clouding. That > lets Solar power out of the equation. However, they are accompanied by > strong winds, as the warm sections try to stay warm. Wind power is one way > to go, if the developers can get past the Small Minds inhabiting the area > where I live. > >> >> 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. > > > What's 'tobacco'? > > http://imagehost.vendio.com/a/35024990/aview/Big_510.jpg > Right, What's 'tobacco'? Certainly not what you're smoking. Well, I hope you're right, but I'm not counting on it, so "back to Copenhagen for breaking news".
From: tak on 15 Dec 2009 16:20
"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 > 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. |