Prev: Serpent Mound. Ohio. Part 2.
Next: Wave function of macroscopic objects
From: Double-A on 11 Jun 2010 12:40
On Jun 11, 1:44 am, "Painius" <starswirlern...(a)maol.com> wrote:
> <night...(a)home.ffni.com> wrote in message...
>
> news:0034410a-e83c-45fb-974e-d018a349fbc3(a)a30g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 10, 6:01 pm, Double-A <double...(a)hush.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 9, 4:40 pm, Leon <trot...(a)hushmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Legal verdict: Manmade global warming science doesn t withstand
> > > scrutiny
>
> > > By Lawrence Solomon June 6, 2010 10:47 pm
>
> > > A cross examination of global warming science conducted by the
> > > University of Pennsylvania s Institute for Law and Economics has
> > > concluded that virtually every claim advanced by global warming
> > > proponents fail to stand up to scrutiny.
>
> > > The cross-examination, carried out by Jason Scott Johnston, Professor
> > > and Director of the Program on Law, Environment and Economy at the
> > > University of Pennsylvania Law School, found that on virtually every
> > > major issue in climate change science, the [reports of the UN s
> > > Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] and other summarizing work
> > > by leading climate establishment scientists have adopted various
> > > rhetorical strategies that seem to systematically conceal or minimize
> > > what appear to be fundamental scientific uncertainties or even
> > > disagreements.
>
> > > Professor Johnson, who expressed surprise that the case for global
> > > warming was so weak, systematically examined the claims made in IPCC
> > > publications and other similar work by leading climate establishment
> > > scientists and compared them with what is found in the peer-edited
> > > climate science literature. He found that the climate establishment
> > > does not follow the scientific method. Instead, it seems overall to
> > > comprise an effort to marshal evidence in favor of a predetermined
> > > policy preference.
>
> > > The 79-page document, which effectively eviscerates the case for man-
> > > made global warming, can be found
> > > here,http://www.probeinternational.org/UPennCross.pdf
>
> > > Financial Post
> > > LawrenceSolo...(a)nextcity.com
> > > Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Energy Probe the author of
> > > The Deniers.
>
> > Forwarded to alt.astronomy
>
> > Double-A-
>
> nightbat
>
>            Thank you Commander Double A for your report and pointing
> to the sad paper which forgot to take into account the actual real
> world evidence. While this "Law Professor" Johnson takes note of the
> opposition to climate change and or global warming premise findings he
> fails to achnowledge the rising sea levels, bulk melting of ice and
> snow cover via satellite evidence, increasing mega storms, breaching
> of levees, and total rising rainfuls resulting in huge losses of life
> around the world.
>
>             keep up your good work,
>             the nightbat
>
>        $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
>
> Let's keep in mind that there is a need for separation here.
> There are two issues here that often get lumped together
> as one issue.  There's the issue of global warming, which
> runs in cycles upon cycles upon cycles, and then there's the
> issue of whether or not global warming or cooling is caused
> by mankind, whether or not it is "manmade".
>
> The professor, i believe, is addressing the second issue.
> And whether global warming is a natural state of things or
> the result of our industrial efforts to improve our living
> standards.  I think he is saying that the present effort to
> assign blame for global climate changes to mankind is not
> being studied nor reported at the level of science, but is
> instead being compromised by the political ambitions of a
> few morally challenged idjits.
>
> And the professor does appear to be correct.
>
> happy days and...
>    starry starry nights!
>
> --
> Indelibly yours,
> Paine Ellsworth


Certainly sea levels have risen a lot during the history of mankind.
Obviously seas were a lot lower when the American Indians crossed the
Bering land bridge from Asia into North America. But during most of
that time of rising seas, what it humans have to do with it? Did over
hunting the woolly mammoth have something to do with it? I rather
doubt it. But natural cycles run their courses.

Double-A



From: nightbat on 11 Jun 2010 14:14
On Jun 11, 10:33 am, Last Post <last_p...(a)primus.ca> wrote:
> On Jun 11, 2:50 am, "night...(a)home.ffni.com" <night...(a)home.ffni.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 10, 6:01 pm, Double-A <double...(a)hush.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 9, 4:40 pm, Leon <trot...(a)hushmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Legal verdict: Manmade global warming science doesn’t withstand
> > > > scrutiny
>
> > > > By Lawrence Solomon  June 6, 2010 – 10:47 pm
>
> > > > A cross examination of global warming science conducted by the
> > > > University of Pennsylvania’s Institute for Law and Economics has
> > > > concluded that virtually every claim advanced by global warming
> > > > proponents fail to stand up to scrutiny.
>
> > > > The cross-examination, carried out by Jason Scott Johnston, Professor
> > > > and Director of the Program on Law, Environment and Economy at the
> > > > University of Pennsylvania Law School, found that “on virtually every
> > > > major issue in climate change science, the [reports of the UN’s
> > > > Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] and other summarizing work
> > > > by leading climate establishment scientists have adopted various
> > > > rhetorical strategies that seem to systematically conceal or minimize
> > > > what appear to be fundamental scientific uncertainties or even
> > > > disagreements.”
>
> > > > Professor Johnson, who expressed surprise that the case for global
> > > > warming was so weak, systematically examined the claims made in IPCC
> > > > publications and other similar work by leading climate establishment
> > > > scientists and compared them with what is found in the peer-edited
> > > > climate science literature. He found that the climate establishment
> > > > does not follow the scientific method. Instead, it “seems overall to
> > > > comprise an effort to marshal evidence in favor of a predetermined
> > > > policy preference.”
>
> > > > The 79-page document, which effectively eviscerates the case for man-
> > > > made global warming, can be found here,http://www.probeinternational.org/UPennCross.pdf
>
> > > > Financial Post
> > > > LawrenceSolo...(a)nextcity.com
> > > > Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Energy Probe the author of
> > > > The Deniers.
>
> > > Forwarded to alt.astronomy
>
> > > Double-A- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > nightbat
>
> >            Thank you Commander Double A for your report and pointing
> > to the sad paper which forgot to take into account the actual real
> > world evidence. While this "Law Professor" Johnson takes note of the
> > opposition to climate change and or global warming premise findings he
> > fails to achnowledge the rising sea levels, bulk melting of ice and
> > snow cover via satellite evidence, increasing mega storms, breaching
> > of levees, and total rising rainfuls resulting in huge losses of life
> > around the world.
>
> Ø Well Dingbat, there is no need to "achnowledge
>     [sic] the rising sea levels" since the sea levels
>     are not rising; nor does the satellite evidence
>     show more than seasonal melting. Levees are
>     artificial constructs that must needs be repaired
>     and/or replaced from time to time but are
>     generally neglected. Further, there have been no
>     "rainfalls resulting in huge losses of life around
>     the world".
>
> Ø Do NOT consider a deadly "tsunami" to be a
>     rainstorm. They are tidal waves generated by
>     submarine earthquakes.
>
> Ø Dingbat, to conclude, there has been no climate
>     event in the past 200 years, inconsistent with
>     Nature. Further we are at "the end" of the 1500
>     year trend toward reglaciation. Live with it!
>
> —— ——
> There are three types of people that you
> can_not_talk_into_behaving_well. The
> stupid, the religious fanatic, and the evil.
>
> 1- The stupid aren't smart enough to follow the
>     logic of what you say. You have to tell them
>     what is right in very simple terms. If they do
>     not agree, you will never be able to change
>     their mind.
>
> 2- The religious fanatic: If what you say goes
>     against their religious belief, they will cling to
>     that belief even if it means their death.
>
> 3- There is no way to reform evil- not in a
>     million years. There is no way to convince
>
>     the anthropogenic_global_warming_alarmists,
>
>     the terrorists, serial killers, paedophiles, and
>
>     predators to change their evil ways, They
>     knew what they were doing was wrong, but
>     knowledge didn't stop them. It only made
>     them more careful in how they went about
>     performing their evil deeds.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

nightbat

Silly saul denial is a cruel teacher, learn the ropes least
you hang yourself.

at ease,
the nightbat
From: Benj on 11 Jun 2010 15:28
On Jun 11, 2:47 pm, Desertphile <desertph...(a)invalid-address.net>
wrote:

> > Okay, so you say that it's all true *except* the part
> > about humans having something to do with the rising
> > seas.
>
> Idiot.
>
> > Keep in mind that the initial post where the
> > professor was saying truthfully that the study and the
> > reporting of human's causing global warming can be
> > considered as "unscientific".
>
> Yes; he's an idiot.

So your total contribution here to the "scientific method" is simply
to call everyone an idiot?

Since:
He found that the climate establishment
does not follow the scientific method. Instead, it “seems overall to
comprise an effort to marshal evidence in favor of a predetermined
policy preference.”

That his determination was that the so-called "climate establishment"
was engaged in POLITICS rather than science, I'd call that an
insightful, cogent analysis of the current situation.

So that makes you... Wait for it ...

AN IDIOT!



From: spudnik on 11 Jun 2010 17:18
I read [*] the name of the unindicted co-conspirator
of HDubya in Iran-contra, Oliver "Buck" Revell,
who laid down the law at the NSF meeting,
that "global" cooling would henceforth not be funded. see,
I put that word in scare-quotes, becuase it was the self-
same flat-map miscomprehension of insolation
-- merely the differential from pole to equator --
that presupposes that glaciation requires a lesser temperature,
or that deglaciation'd require a greater one.
*
http://tarpley.net/online-books/george-bush-the-unauthorized-biography/

--Stop BP's and Waxman's arbitrageur's delight,
the cap&trade that the WSUrinal *calls*, Captain Tax (but,
there seems to be no provision for goment revenues )-!...
Fermat's Next Theorem: http://wlym.com
From: Nightcrawler on 11 Jun 2010 18:32

"Benj" <bjacoby(a)iwaynet.net> wrote in message
news:72ed7040-15dc-4734-9eef-db78f4cc7561(a)w12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...

> AN IDIOT!

See how you are? You claim the top prize, and subvert the worthy?


Tsk, tsk, tsk.


If I didn't know better I'd think you were making money off of this...

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: Serpent Mound. Ohio. Part 2.
Next: Wave function of macroscopic objects