Earth in the Balance? Nope.
in [Toyota]
|
From: Hachiroku ハチロク on 13 Dec 2009 22:51 On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 22:39:46 -0500, tak wrote: >> 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 Yeah, those signs are up ALL OVER the place around here. Like I said, living here I am surrounded by k00ks. From 350.org: When President Mohammed Nasheed gets off *HIS PLANE* from the Maldives today, he's coming straight to the Klimaforium to thank activists for their work, and to describe the fight against a 'suicide pact'. How nice. When he gets off his plane. That's about as stupid as it gets. Looks like the 'activists' need to get more active and get the "President" to use a more socailly acceptable mode of transportation. Hey, thanks for poiniting that out to me! Just shows how invested these people really are. Talk about an oxymoron. Whew. I'd be embarassed to publish something like that. k00ks. Even John Kerry was smart enough to use a commercial arline. It may be just as bad, but inistead of ONE PERSON, an airliner carries up to 500 people, spreading the "carbon footprint" among the passengers. And these idiots are cheering someone flying his own plane to the 'Klimaforium". It doesn't get much dumber than this, folks.
From: Hachiroku ハチロク on 13 Dec 2009 23:09 On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 22:39:46 -0500, tak wrote: > "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, >> >> >> >> DAMN! 350 parts per million is what many scientists, climate experts, and progressive national governments are now saying is the safe upper limit for CO2 in our atmosphere. Accelerating arctic warming and other early climate impacts have led scientists to conclude that we are already above the safe zone at our current 390ppm Then what are we arguing about?!?! WE'RE ALREADY DEAD!!!
From: Tegger on 14 Dec 2009 08:16 "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop(a)nastydesigns.com> wrote in news:elmop-702C49.19033213122009(a)nothing.attdns.com: > > How about the fact that the CRU refuses to release the raw data for > peer review? "Peer review" means less than you think. That a particular piece of work has been "peer reviewed" means nothing more than that somebody looked at it and expressed an opinion of some sort. It tells you NOTHING about the review itself! Here are two examples of "peer reviews" from the IPCC's Assessement Report, Chapter 9, which is the ONLY chapter that specifically deals with the theory of man-made global warming and whether or not it's a bad thing: 1) Reviewer David Sexton: "section # 9.6 I think reads pretty well for the bits I understand". 2) Reviewer Fons Baede: "Chapter 9 SOD has improved considerably and is very readable and informative." Ringing endorsements indeed! > > 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? My sole and exact point all along, in a nutshell. Thank you. When raw data DID finally get out, it tended to contradict the official synthesis. For example, when McIntyre & McKittrick finally got hold of Mann's raw data, Mann's "hockey stick" graph turned out to be wildly wrong. And that's the primary reason Phil Jones refused to give Vincent Courtillot the CRU's weather station raw data. Jones told Courtillot one thing, but the hacked emails revealed that Jones was actually afraid of Steve McIntyre getting hold of the data. -- Tegger
From: Tegger on 14 Dec 2009 08:19 =?iso-2022-jp?q?Hachiroku_=1B$B%O%A%m%=2F=1B=28B?= <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in 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: > >> >> 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. Sort of. "peer review" was used as a trump card to prevent anyone from questioning the official results. Here are two examples of "peer reviews" from the IPCC's Assessement Report, Chapter 9, which is the ONLY chapter that specifically deals with the theory of man-made global warming and whether or not it's a bad thing: 1) Reviewer David Sexton: "section # 9.6 I think reads pretty well for the bits I understand". 2) Reviewer Fons Baede: "Chapter 9 SOD has improved considerably and is very readable and informative." There were quite a few "reviews" that were actually /critical/ of Chapter 9. But they were counted in the arsenal of "peer review" for the purposes of giving credibility to Chapter 9. -- Tegger
From: Tegger on 14 Dec 2009 08:26
"tak" <jkirch(a)frontiernet.net> wrote in news:3RgVm.47431$ZF3.17676(a)newsfe13.iad: >> >> >> 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, > No, just mainstream alarmism again. I see how the very first result starts out: "Global warming, or climate change, is a subject that shows no sign of cooling down". and the second: "Global Warming has many Causes but only One Solution: it's YOU!" No debate. No questions about whether it's happening or not. It's a done deal and all we have to do is decide what to do about it. I'm a bit surprised you can't see the two essential flaws in your assumptions and in those Google Search results. -- Tegger |