Earth in the Balance? Nope.
in [Toyota]
|
From: Hachiroku ハチロク on 13 Dec 2009 18:51 On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 16:14:35 -0500, tak wrote: > > "Tegger" <invalid(a)invalid.inv> wrote in message > news:Xns9CE05BAC82966tegger(a)208.90.168.18... >> "tak" <jkirch(a)frontiernet.net> wrote in news:AwVUm.61778$Wd1.10832 >> @newsfe15.iad: >> >>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091212/ap_on_sc/climate_e_mails >> >> >> >> Another nice little whitewash. It excuses all sorts of--what in any >> other field of science--would be considered inexcusable behavior. >> >> If you (and AP) knew anything at all about scientific research, you (and >> AP) would realize that release of raw data and of modeling code is >> EXPECTED. >> >> >> > And you do? LOL! > > Gave a url (one of many) to use as counterpoint to the mindless rant on > global warming around here. > > You present yourself as the be all and end all of Science? Cite your > credentials, areas of expertise, articles published and articles > criticized for Science Journals. Here's one that only goes back to the previous warming trend: http://www.chem.hope.edu/~polik/warming/IceCore/dust.gif This one includes dust data and goes back 400,000 years: http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/b/bf/Vostok_Plot.png Here's anopther view: http://www.treehugger.com/vostok-ice-core.jpg Here's one that goes up to the present day: http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b13e99e3cdc6.jpg Hey! What's that at the end? If the trend follows for this period as it did in the past periods, it looks like the warming has ended and the cooling is starting. Uh oh. Never mind Scott swimming in Florida, he may have to take up ice skating. Keep up the denial, though.
From: Hachiroku ハチロク on 13 Dec 2009 19:31 On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 19:03:32 -0500, Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote: > In article <1PcVm.96894$rE5.28256(a)newsfe08.iad>, > "tak" <jkirch(a)frontiernet.net> wrote: > >> > Another nice little whitewash. It excuses all sorts of--what in any >> > other field of science--would be considered inexcusable behavior. >> > >> > If you (and AP) knew anything at all about scientific research, you >> > (and AP) would realize that release of raw data and of modeling code >> > is EXPECTED. >> > >> > >> > >> And you do? LOL! >> >> Gave a url (one of many) to use as counterpoint to the mindless rant on >> global warming around here. > > How about the fact that the CRU refuses to release the raw data for peer > review? > > > > >> You present yourself as the be all and end all of Science? Cite your >> credentials, areas of expertise, articles published and articles >> criticized for Science Journals. > > Nobody here wants anything than the LEGITIMATE process of peer review and > the basic scientific method to take place. "Peer review" is what started all the BS in the first place. Of course, eanyone questioning it was cast off. > > But those in the CRU don't want that to take place. > > Further, they cackle with glee when their "opponents" die--and even talk > about Mafia hit squads to get rid of their "opponents". > > Frankly, the CRU has created this religion about the whole thing that > stinks like creationism. They've made their bed, now let them lie in it. > > They also have the power to unmake their bed and be rational about it, and > let the raw data out and let others investigate it. Why won't they do > that? It doesn't fit the agenda, and might cause an end to the Gravy Train of funding from various governments and social organizations.
From: tak on 13 Dec 2009 20:49 "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message news:pan.2009.12.14.00.31.29.536204(a)e86.GTS... > On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 19:03:32 -0500, Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote: > >> In article <1PcVm.96894$rE5.28256(a)newsfe08.iad>, >> "tak" <jkirch(a)frontiernet.net> wrote: >> >>> > Another nice little whitewash. It excuses all sorts of--what in any >>> > other field of science--would be considered inexcusable behavior. >>> > >>> > If you (and AP) knew anything at all about scientific research, you >>> > (and AP) would realize that release of raw data and of modeling code >>> > is EXPECTED. >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> And you do? LOL! >>> >>> Gave a url (one of many) to use as counterpoint to the mindless rant on >>> global warming around here. >> >> How about the fact that the CRU refuses to release the raw data for peer >> review? >> >> >> >> >>> You present yourself as the be all and end all of Science? Cite your >>> credentials, areas of expertise, articles published and articles >>> criticized for Science Journals. >> >> Nobody here wants anything than the LEGITIMATE process of peer review and >> the basic scientific method to take place. > > "Peer review" is what started all the BS in the first place. > Of course, eanyone questioning it was cast off. > >> >> But those in the CRU don't want that to take place. >> >> Further, they cackle with glee when their "opponents" die--and even talk >> about Mafia hit squads to get rid of their "opponents". >> >> Frankly, the CRU has created this religion about the whole thing that >> stinks like creationism. They've made their bed, now let them lie in it. >> >> They also have the power to unmake their bed and be rational about it, >> and >> let the raw data out and let others investigate it. Why won't they do >> that? > > > It doesn't fit the agenda, and might cause an end to the Gravy Train of > funding from various governments and social organizations. > http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=global+warming+facts&aq=0&oq=global+warming&aqi=g10 http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=global+warming+debate&aq=8&oq=global+warm&aqi=g10 Just a couple to get started with, nothing wayout in these,
From: Hachiroku ハチロク on 13 Dec 2009 21:34 On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 20:49:47 -0500, tak wrote: > > "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message > news:pan.2009.12.14.00.31.29.536204(a)e86.GTS... >> On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 19:03:32 -0500, Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote: >> >>> In article <1PcVm.96894$rE5.28256(a)newsfe08.iad>, >>> "tak" <jkirch(a)frontiernet.net> wrote: >>> >>>> > Another nice little whitewash. It excuses all sorts of--what in any >>>> > other field of science--would be considered inexcusable behavior. >>>> > >>>> > If you (and AP) knew anything at all about scientific research, you >>>> > (and AP) would realize that release of raw data and of modeling code >>>> > is EXPECTED. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> And you do? LOL! >>>> >>>> Gave a url (one of many) to use as counterpoint to the mindless rant >>>> on global warming around here. >>> >>> How about the fact that the CRU refuses to release the raw data for >>> peer review? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> You present yourself as the be all and end all of Science? Cite your >>>> credentials, areas of expertise, articles published and articles >>>> criticized for Science Journals. >>> >>> Nobody here wants anything than the LEGITIMATE process of peer review >>> and the basic scientific method to take place. >> >> "Peer review" is what started all the BS in the first place. Of course, >> eanyone questioning it was cast off. >> >> >>> But those in the CRU don't want that to take place. >>> >>> Further, they cackle with glee when their "opponents" die--and even >>> talk about Mafia hit squads to get rid of their "opponents". >>> >>> Frankly, the CRU has created this religion about the whole thing that >>> stinks like creationism. They've made their bed, now let them lie in >>> it. >>> >>> They also have the power to unmake their bed and be rational about it, >>> and >>> let the raw data out and let others investigate it. Why won't they do >>> that? >> >> >> It doesn't fit the agenda, and might cause an end to the Gravy Train of >> funding from various governments and social organizations. >> > http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=global+warming+facts&aq=0&oq=global+warming&aqi=g10 He was doing fine until the second page. Evertyhing listen on the first page is absolute FACT. However, on the second page, he says: The report, based on the work of some 2,500 scientists in more than 130 countries, concluded that humans have caused all or most of the current planetary warming. Human-caused global warming is often called anthropogenic climate change. THen explain this, please: http://www.treehugger.com/vostok-ice-core.jpg What caused the rise in CO2, which at times has been higher than it is now, in the past? Again, looking at the chart, it can be argued temperature leads CO2. It also appears that, perhaps, it is the rise in CO2 that causes the drastic cooling following the drastic rise in temp. Anyone know? I would venture not, but it makes sense. One the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere reaches a certain level, it causes a lower level of sunlight to reach the surface of the Earth and results in cooling (?) Just as plausible as deciding unrefutably that Humans are causing "Global Warming". Especially in light of the *FACT* there were either NO humans, or NO industrialization the last FOUR times this has happened. Of course, now that I have presented the idea that Man may not be resposible at ALL, I will now be considered the 'k00k'. Kinda hard, though, if you look at and *comprehend* what the chart is telling you. > > http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=global+warming+debate&aq=8&oq=global+warm&aqi=g10 > > Just a couple to get started with, nothing wayout in these,
From: tak on 13 Dec 2009 22:39
"Hachiroku ????" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message news:pan.2009.12.14.02.34.23.475459(a)e86.GTS... > On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 20:49:47 -0500, tak wrote: > >> >> "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message >> news:pan.2009.12.14.00.31.29.536204(a)e86.GTS... >>> On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 19:03:32 -0500, Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote: >>> >>>> In article <1PcVm.96894$rE5.28256(a)newsfe08.iad>, >>>> "tak" <jkirch(a)frontiernet.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> > Another nice little whitewash. It excuses all sorts of--what in any >>>>> > other field of science--would be considered inexcusable behavior. >>>>> > >>>>> > If you (and AP) knew anything at all about scientific research, you >>>>> > (and AP) would realize that release of raw data and of modeling code >>>>> > is EXPECTED. >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> And you do? LOL! >>>>> >>>>> Gave a url (one of many) to use as counterpoint to the mindless rant >>>>> on global warming around here. >>>> >>>> How about the fact that the CRU refuses to release the raw data for >>>> peer review? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> You present yourself as the be all and end all of Science? Cite your >>>>> credentials, areas of expertise, articles published and articles >>>>> criticized for Science Journals. >>>> >>>> Nobody here wants anything than the LEGITIMATE process of peer review >>>> and the basic scientific method to take place. >>> >>> "Peer review" is what started all the BS in the first place. Of course, >>> eanyone questioning it was cast off. >>> >>> >>>> But those in the CRU don't want that to take place. >>>> >>>> Further, they cackle with glee when their "opponents" die--and even >>>> talk about Mafia hit squads to get rid of their "opponents". >>>> >>>> Frankly, the CRU has created this religion about the whole thing that >>>> stinks like creationism. They've made their bed, now let them lie in >>>> it. >>>> >>>> They also have the power to unmake their bed and be rational about it, >>>> and >>>> let the raw data out and let others investigate it. Why won't they do >>>> that? >>> >>> >>> It doesn't fit the agenda, and might cause an end to the Gravy Train of >>> funding from various governments and social organizations. >>> >> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=global+warming+facts&aq=0&oq=global+warming&aqi=g10 > > He was doing fine until the second page. Evertyhing listen on the first > page is absolute FACT. > > However, on the second page, he says: > > The report, based on the work of some 2,500 scientists in more than 130 > countries, concluded that humans have caused all or most of the current > planetary warming. Human-caused global warming is often called > anthropogenic climate change. > > > THen explain this, please: > > http://www.treehugger.com/vostok-ice-core.jpg > > What caused the rise in CO2, which at times has been higher than it is > now, in the past? > > Again, looking at the chart, it can be argued temperature leads CO2. > > It also appears that, perhaps, it is the rise in CO2 that causes the > drastic cooling following the drastic rise in temp. Anyone know? I would > venture not, but it makes sense. One the concentration of CO2 in the > atmosphere reaches a certain level, it causes a lower level of sunlight to > reach the surface of the Earth and results in cooling (?) Just as > plausible as deciding unrefutably that Humans are causing "Global > Warming". > Especially in light of the *FACT* there were either NO humans, or NO > industrialization the last FOUR times this has happened. > > > Of course, now that I have presented the idea that Man may not be > resposible at ALL, I will now be considered the 'k00k'. Kinda hard, > though, if you look at and *comprehend* what the chart is telling you. > ***350 to ya >> >> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=global+warming+debate&aq=8&oq=global+warm&aqi=g10 >> >> Just a couple to get started with, nothing wayout in these, > > |