Global warming?
in [Design]
|
From: Rich Grise on Google groups on 9 Feb 2010 18:18 On Feb 6, 4:27 pm, "Bob Monsen" <rcmon...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...(a)earthlink.net> wrote in > > > There's one born every minute: A gullible fool who believes whatever > > the media tells them. They never catch on to a scam, till it's way too > > late. Then they scream about being hoodwinked. What really gets me are > > the supposedly intelligent people on the science newsgroups, who fell > > for AGW. :( > > Ah, it is good that iconoclasts like you are around to help us poor saps > out! > > So, what is your evidence that global warming doesn't exist? There is none. Well, at least no more than there is that it does. > Do you done any > research to back this up? "Do you done"? How very articulate of you. > If you have evidence, it would be great to pass it > along to the rest of the world so they don't start interpreting those > melting glaciers and polar caps as the start of a worldwide catastrophe. Nobody's denying that the globe is warming - or cooling, depending on your data set - the climate has been changing, up and down, for about 4,500,000,000 years. The idea that human activity has any impact whatsoever on the natural climatic variations is a totally ludricous claim, based on nothing but a weird morphodite of supreme arrogance and suicidal angst. And you warmingists have never answered the most fundamental quesion of all - why is warmer weather a _bad_ thing? Why are longer growing seasons a bad thing? Why is richer, lusher growth of vegetation a bad thing? Why are milder winters a bad thing? Answer me any of those questions, and maybe you'll get an idea of how abysmally stupid the Church of Warmingism really is. Thanks, Rich
From: Bob Monsen on 9 Feb 2010 18:51 "Raveninghorde" <raveninghorde(a)invalid> wrote in message news:r1m3n55f1l2k3h61ve8kmd8ir4tg7u8j20(a)4ax.com... > On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 19:08:44 -0800, "Bob Monsen" <rcmonsen(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > >> >>Galileo has been blamed by historians of science for overstating his case, >>belittling his competition, etc. This sort of behavior isn't anything new >>to >>science. However, if you throw out all the data here due to a few >>uncensored >>emails, you are you are throwing out the baby with the bathwater. >> >>When you say IPCC 2007 is looking 'dodgy', you mean there are some errors. >>The report is FOUR VOLUMES... it was written by literally hundreds of >>scientists, and reviewed by hundreds more. However, errors are inevitable, >>and are eagerly pounced on by such denizens as the politically motivated >>Global Climate Coalition and the Information Council on the Environment. >> >>The real question is how do you know what _you_ hear is the truth? See >>http://www.newsweek.com/id/32482/page/1 for more information on the >>politics >>behind this. There has been a program by the various affected industries >>to >>'spin' this in such ways as to slow down any action. Their motive has been >>to try to show that there is a divisive dispute in the scientific >>community >>where none exists. I'm not surprised that scientists who have been working >>tirelessly on this issue, because they believe it is a huge looming >>danger, >>think they have a moral imperative to fight 'fire with fire'. That was >>clearly a mistake, both ethically and politically, but one can sympathize >>with them. When you fight with liars and cheaters, taking the high road >>isn't always easy. The real irony is that the stupid, misguided political >>effort to derail any action and to dupe the public has actually induced >>the >>scientific community to ignore data instead of considering any anomalies >>as >>new data to explain. >> >>Regards, >> Bob Monsen >> > > http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/2/9/hansens-colleague-eviscerates-ar4-chapter-9.html > > /quote > > While perusing some of the review comments to the IPCC's Fourth > Assessment Report, I came across the contributions of Andrew Lacis, a > colleague of James Hansen's at GISS. Lacis's is not a name I've come > across before but some of what he has to say about Chapter 9 of the > IPCC's report is simply breathtaking. > > Chapter 9 is possibly the most important one in the whole IPCC report > - it's the one where they decide that global warming is manmade. This > is the one where the headlines are made. > > Remember, this guy is mainstream, not a sceptic, and you may need to > remind yourself of that fact several times as you read through his > comment on the executive summary of the chapter: > > There is no scientific merit to be found in the Executive Summary. > The presentation sounds like something put together by Greenpeace > activists and their legal department. The points being made are made > arbitrarily with legal sounding caveats without having established any > foundation or basis in fact. The Executive Summary seems to be a > political statement that is only designed to annoy greenhouse > skeptics. Wasn't the IPCC Assessment Report intended to be a > scientific document that would merit solid backing from the climate > science community - instead of forcing many climate scientists into > having to agree with greenhouse skeptic criticisms that this is indeed > a report with a clear and obvious political agenda. Attribution can > not happen until understanding has been clearly demonstrated. Once the > facts of climate change have been established and understood, > attribution will become self-evident to all. The Executive Summary as > it stands is beyond redemption and should simply be deleted. > > I'm speechless. The chapter authors, however weren't. This was their > reply (all of it): > > Rejected. [Executive Summary] summarizes Ch 9, which is based on > the peer reviewed literature. > > Simply astonishing. This is a consensus? > > /end quote You should send an email to that guy, and see what he says now. Ask him if he agrees with the general drift of the report. I'm guessing that he will. His email address is on the nasa site. Just google his name. If he doesn't agree with it, ask him if you can post his response, and then post it here (if he agrees). Regards, Bob Monsen
From: Don Klipstein on 9 Feb 2010 22:19 In <20b093c1-4b50-4f8e-a92d-995759014703(a)e19g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, Rich Grise on Google groups wrote in part: >And you warmingists have never answered the most fundamental quesion >of all - why is warmer weather a _bad_ thing? Why are longer growing >seasons a bad thing? Why is richer, lusher growth of vegetation a bad >thing? Why are milder winters a bad thing? > >Answer me any of those questions, and maybe you'll get an idea of how >abysmally stupid the Church of Warmingism really is. If Philadelphia's summers get any hotter than the semi-hellacious ones that I already have to work through in my 99.8%-non-electronics "day job", that gets to be a big deal for me. A "somewhat minor" heatwave in Philadelphia is usually enough to roast me enough to cause my brain to make its own drugs (endorphins). A merely slightly severe heatwave in August 2007 motivated me to put some mental energy into use when cycling through less-traffic-intense situations to mentally design a few "sundresses" for men. I would trade a .5 degree C hotter Philadelphia summer in for the following winter being a degree or two C colder with 15 or 20 cm more snow. And, who benefits if uptick of richer lusher vegetaqtion occurs in northern 75-80% of Canada (or part thereof becomingallowed for such), western and SE Russia and the "Sahel" "southern edge of Sahara" region of Africa? - Don Klipstein (don(a)misty.com)
From: JosephKK on 9 Feb 2010 22:32 On Tue, 09 Feb 2010 13:03:50 -0800, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 12:15:55 -0800, "Bob Monsen" <rcmonsen(a)gmail.com> >wrote: > >>"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message >>news:s2i1n59m2netf9i7at1v6decv1mkn3mndp(a)4ax.com... >>> After I typed the paragraph above, my wife just walked in and said >>> "It's raining. The weather forecasts are useless." Really. >>> >>> John >>> >> >>Actually, I've heard that the best, most reliable way to predict the weather >>is to ask what it was like yesterday. Assuming that today will be like >>yesterday is true more often than the sophisticated models... >> >>Regards, >> Bob Monsen >> > >If I predict that it will be cool and foggy in San Francisco on the >next 4th of July, I'll probably be right. Or if I see a cold front >marching into western Wisconsin, I can probably predict that it will >hit Madison soon. But past obvious stuff like that, the computer >simluations are terrible. > >The warmingists say that nobody can model weather very well, but they >can model climate. The distinction between "weather" and "climate" is >one of timebase: if the timebase is short enough that the models can >be checked against reality, it's weather. If the timebase is so long >that the models can't be validated, that's climate. ^^^^^^^^^ INvalidated Wasn't this a typo? > >John Nor is it science as i was taught. UNtestable models ain't science. Get the picture BobM?
From: John Larkin on 13 Feb 2010 18:06
On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 05:58:42 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > >No damn way! > >It's 21 degrees in Ocala right now and expected to get colder. They are >forecasting some snow, and this may become one of the longest cold >spells on record with another cold front headed this way. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7026317.ece http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/surface_temp.pdf John |