[Mr Soul]

Brilliant piece of reasoning! I'm convinced you have now made third
grade.
Don - the right-wingnuts used Mars warming as evidence on why the
Earth might be warming up. This wasn't my reasoning. But I agree
that the right-wingnuts have about a 3rd grade mentality.

Go away for a while and learn how to argue. You reason like a
Christian right now.
I am willing to bet that you are a right-wing, Christian
fundamentalist. Prove me wrong.

Why do you continue to not provide us with the evidence that the Earth
is cooling down?

Mr Soul

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 06:39:24 -0800 (PST), Mr Soul
wrote:

Don - can you please show us the evidence of the Earth cooling down.
Thanks.

Mr Soul

Dunno if I can be bothered to find it again; Google for it. But while
you are looking, here is some stuff from what climatologists consider
key indicators. First the temperature history of central Greenland:

http://westinstenv.org/wp-content/po...rook_graph.jpg

This is part of the Easterbrook projection which seems to backed by
rather better science than most, untainted as it is by political
manoeuvering. You can see an abstract of a paper he

http://westinstenv.org/palbot/2008/1...three-decades/

It only attempts to predict the next thirty years or so, and frankly
anyone trying to go beyond that is talking through his hat.

Also of interest is a graph showing, in some detail, CO2 level and
global temperature since 2002.

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CRUMSUCO2June.jpg

Read the quick facts and follow the links:

http://www.isthereglobalwarming.com/

that'll do for now. You really do need to research more widely. If the
only authorities you consult are those on the Bandwagon of Orthodoxy,
you will learn nothing about the Earth's climate, but plenty about the
political climate. Get yourself out of the morass of green-upmanship
before you sink.

d

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 06:43:42 -0800 (PST), Mr Soul
wrote:

Brilliant piece of reasoning! I'm convinced you have now made third
grade.
Don - the right-wingnuts used Mars warming as evidence on why the
Earth might be warming up. This wasn't my reasoning. But I agree
that the right-wingnuts have about a 3rd grade mentality.

Go away for a while and learn how to argue. You reason like a
Christian right now.
I am willing to bet that you are a right-wing, Christian
fundamentalist. Prove me wrong.


In your world you are right. How could you be otherwise?

Why do you continue to not provide us with the evidence that the Earth
is cooling down?


Done in another post. The only evidence you have to the contrary is
politically tainted beyond credibility.

d

[Dave]

Andre Jute wrote:
Hey, don't sound so pleased. I'm a cyclist. I was looking forward to
all those hi-temp days those lying *******s of the Global Warming
Church promised me. Lying scumbags musta believed the Scientology
overinflation of their intelligence quotients. They sure as hell got
global warming out of a mucky teacup.

I'm not sure if you're a lying-*******-fuel-industry stooge, or a rebel
whose only cause is stroking his own ego with fallacious dissent. What's
funny is your arrogant reference to the "Global Warming Church." The vast
majority of scientists agree that GW IS happening, and that there IS a human
component to it. You're the religious zealot ignoring and twisting science
to suit your agenda, either for personal gain or latent adolescent
nonconformity.

[Bill Sornson[_2_]]

Dave wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
Hey, don't sound so pleased. I'm a cyclist. I was looking forward to
all those hi-temp days those lying *******s of the Global Warming
Church promised me. Lying scumbags musta believed the Scientology
overinflation of their intelligence quotients. They sure as hell got
global warming out of a mucky teacup.

I'm not sure if you're a lying-*******-fuel-industry stooge, or a
rebel whose only cause is stroking his own ego with fallacious
dissent. What's funny is your arrogant reference to the "Global
Warming Church." The vast majority of scientists agree that GW IS
happening, and that there IS a human component to it. You're the
religious zealot ignoring and twisting science to suit your agenda,
either for personal gain or latent adolescent nonconformity.

Just saying it's so doesn't make it so.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...lobal-warming/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...lobal-cooling/

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnal...aspx?id=513195

Face it, losers: the wheels are (finally) coming off the Church of Global
Warming Alarmism bandwagon.

Bill "better late than TOO late" S.

[Ouroboros Rex]

Lord Valve wrote:
Even the New York Slimes can't spin this one away -

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/sc...21climate.html


The Boston Herald weighs in -

http://www.bostonherald.com/business...ition=r ecent




Gosh, this is *ever* so shocking - I mean, who knew?
Oops, I mean, who *didn't* know? Evidently, just the
pack of Green Weenies, Watermelons and Ecotards
who infect these sorry-ass boards...

'Scuse me, I gotta go laugh now...toodle-oo, pip-pip, etc.

OK, commence spinning.

We'll wait for the first actual wrongdoing to be exposed. Day 4 and
counting, IIRC. lol

[Ouroboros Rex]

RickH wrote:
On Nov 23, 9:47 am, Lord Valve wrote:
Even the New York Slimes can't spin this one away -

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/sc...21climate.html

The Boston Herald weighs in -

http://www.bostonherald.com/business...ticleid=121348...

Gosh, this is *ever* so shocking - I mean, who knew?
Oops, I mean, who *didn't* know? Evidently, just the
pack of Green Weenies, Watermelons and Ecotards
who infect these sorry-ass boards...

'Scuse me, I gotta go laugh now...toodle-oo, pip-pip, etc.

OK, commence spinning.

Lord Valve
Globally Cool


http://newsbusters.org/

Sorry, right wing lie site.

[Ouroboros Rex]

Don Pearce wrote:
On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 13:34:28 -0800 (PST), Mr Soul
wrote:

These emails are unimportant. Global warming exists and only a fool
would say that it doesn't.

Mr Soul

Cooling, not warming. The global temperature has been dropping for the
last ten years.

Ridiculous lie.

[Ouroboros Rex]

Don Pearce wrote:
On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 09:48:59 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:
On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 13:34:28 -0800 (PST), Mr Soul
wrote:

These emails are unimportant. Global warming exists and only a
fool would say that it doesn't.

Mr Soul

Cooling, not warming. The global temperature has been dropping for
the last ten years.

**Tsk, tsk. Regurgitating a lie does not make it the truth. Repeat
after me:

* 1998 was an unusually warm, El Nino year.
* The temperature TREND is the important thing, not individual,
yearly variations.
* 13 of the last 14 years have been the warmest on record.
* The TREND of rising temperature levels is clear (to scientists).
* Do not listen to the religious nutters. Pay attention to the
scientists.

Still got those stars going on, wrecking the threading. Please drop
them. Use the protocol.

Heard the latest from here? A load of leaked emails detailing massaged
figures, hidden embarrassing data etc. The **** has hit the fan for
the global warming lobby.

Sorry, still no wrongdoing shown. lol

[Ouroboros Rex]

flipper wrote:
On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 00:00:27 GMT, (Don Pearce) wrote:

On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 09:48:59 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:
On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 13:34:28 -0800 (PST), Mr Soul
wrote:

These emails are unimportant. Global warming exists and only a
fool would say that it doesn't.

Mr Soul

Cooling, not warming. The global temperature has been dropping for
the last ten years.

**Tsk, tsk. Regurgitating a lie does not make it the truth. Repeat
after me:

* 1998 was an unusually warm, El Nino year.
* The temperature TREND is the important thing, not individual,
yearly variations.
* 13 of the last 14 years have been the warmest on record.
* The TREND of rising temperature levels is clear (to scientists).
* Do not listen to the religious nutters. Pay attention to the
scientists.

Still got those stars going on, wrecking the threading. Please drop
them. Use the protocol.

Heard the latest from here? A load of leaked emails detailing
massaged figures, hidden embarrassing data etc. The **** has hit the
fan for the global warming lobby.


That presumes the media actually do anything with it.

Btw, for all the concentration on emails, when unzipped the emails
comprise less than 5% of the data.

And I have yet to see a media source ponder why the file was labeled
FOI2009.zip that decompresses to FOIA.

Go to http://www.climateaudit.org/ if you want some clues about what's
really going on. They'll also explain what "Mike's nature trick" is.

McIntyre and McKitrick are also who exposed the Mann hockey stick
fraud.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?page_id=354
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/trc.html

Sorry, denailist lie sites.


Back on FOIA, take a gander here

http://www.climateaudit.org/?cat=53

Sorry, denialist lie sites.


http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6825

The 'hacked' (leaked?) data appeared almost synchronously with their
(and others) 'rejected' FOIA requests.

ClimateAudit are not the only ones CRU has been withholding data from

Why shouldn't data be withheld from bought and paid for liars?

[landotter]

On Nov 24, 11:02*am, "Bill Sornson" wrote:
Dave wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
Hey, don't sound so pleased. I'm a cyclist. I was looking forward to
all those hi-temp days those lying *******s of the Global Warming
Church promised me. Lying scumbags musta believed the Scientology
overinflation of their intelligence quotients. They sure as hell got
global warming out of a mucky teacup.

I'm not sure if you're a lying-*******-fuel-industry stooge, or a
rebel whose only cause is stroking his own ego with fallacious
dissent. *What's funny is your arrogant reference to the "Global
Warming Church." *The vast majority of scientists agree that GW IS
happening, and that there IS a human component to it. *You're the
religious zealot ignoring and twisting science to suit your agenda,
either for personal gain or latent adolescent nonconformity.

Just saying it's so doesn't make it so.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...7393/climatega...

A blog claims that there is a smoking gun, but doesn't provide any
sort of evidence. FAIL.


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...evidence-of-gl...

An unsigned editorial from the Moonie owned Times is also hysterical
without presenting any shred of damning evidence of a conspiracy.


http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnal...aspx?id=513195

OK, a third opinion piece that's also unsigned foments further right
wing authoritarian hysteria...again with no evidence.


Face it, losers: *the wheels are (finally) coming off the Church of Global
Warming Alarmism bandwagon.


But you've provided no evidence, simply links to hysterical op/eds.

[Ouroboros Rex]

Don Pearce wrote:
On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 05:04:36 -0800 (PST), Mr Soul
wrote:

Heard the latest from here? A load of leaked emails detailing
massaged figures, hidden embarrassing data etc. The **** has hit
the fan for the global warming lobby.
Those emails weren't from every scientist and some of them are over
10 years old. You right-wing-nuts find some old emails & you think
you've found some kind of smokin' gun.

Mr Soul

The ones that are out of date, or say nothing can be ignored. There
are plenty enough that are current, from environmental scientists, and
suggesting ways of hiding data, doing "tricks" on the maths etc to be
damning.

Nope, not yet. So far, they haven't found any wrongdoing whatsoever.

[Ouroboros Rex]

Don Pearce wrote:
On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 05:16:19 -0800 (PST), Mr Soul
wrote:

The ones that are out of date, or say nothing can be ignored. There
are plenty enough that are current, from environmental scientists,
and suggesting ways of hiding data, doing "tricks" on the maths etc
to be damning. And fyi, I am not of the right wing.
Well if you aren't, you are preaching the same thing that they preach
(except I don't recall any of them saying the Earth is cooling).

Perhaps you should read this - it's from the EPA -
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/fq/science.html#q6

Mr Soul

Truth has nothing to do with political leanings - there are liars and
personal interests on both sides of that fence. And it is a fact that
the earth is currently in a cooling cycle. That is a part of what
these emails are seeking to conceal.

The method goes thus. First deny totally. Then when the facts emerge,
claim that the readings are anomalies, and normal warming will be
resumed. Anything, in fact, apart from admitting the data.

This all a travesty of science. Real scientists put their data and
theories out there, and seek refutation by other scientists. They even
include methods of refutation alongside their theories to make life
easier. This called a falsifiable theory, and it is the only kind that
carries any scientific weight or credibility. What we have in AGW is a
situation where there is a quasi-religious position that may not be
denied on pain of loss of tenure, job, livelihood. This is NOT
science, it is pure totalitarian politics.

Made-up crazyassed crap.

[Ouroboros Rex]

Don Pearce wrote:
On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 05:51:01 -0800 (PST), Mr Soul
wrote:

Truth has nothing to do with political leanings - there are liars
and personal interests on both sides of that fence. And it is a
fact that the earth is currently in a cooling cycle. That is a part
of what these emails are seeking to conceal.
No - it is NOT fact. You continue not to back up your claims. And
you continue to confuse politics with science.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091026/...global_cooling

AP IMPACT: Statisticians reject global cooling

"WASHINGTON - Have you heard that the world is now cooling instead of
warming? You may have seen some news reports on the Internet or heard
about it from a provocative new book. Only one problem: It's not
true, according to an analysis of the numbers done by several
independent statisticians for The Associated Press.

..."

No, you don't see analysis by independent statisticians.

That's it, right above. Who do you think you're fooling? lol


They are not
part of the Club of the Orthodoxy. And think about that word -
"analyse". You take some raw data that shows a fall, then subject it
to "analysis" by people who toe the Line of the Orthodoxy, and as if
by magic the numbers are all headed upwards. Makes you want to spit.

Made-up crazyassed crap.



This all a travesty of science. Real scientists put their data and
theories out there, and seek refutation by other scientists. They
even include methods of refutation alongside their theories to make
life easier. This called a falsifiable theory, and it is the only
kind that carries any scientific weight or credibility. What we
have in AGW is a situation where there is a quasi-religious
position that may not be denied on pain of loss of tenure, job,
livelihood. This is NOT science, it is pure totalitarian politics.
Prove this statement. The scientists who study global climate change
are for the most part, non-political.


The ones who are allowed to be heard are those who toe the Line of the
Orthodoxy. Those who say otherwise are marginalized and silenced. This
is NOT how science is supposed to work.

Sorry, lies from liars don'tget published. The liars may scream, but the
world is full of journals, and they are rejected by them all.

[Neil Brooks]

On Nov 24, 10:26*am, landotter wrote:
On Nov 24, 11:02*am, "Bill Sornson" wrote:



Dave wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
Hey, don't sound so pleased. I'm a cyclist. I was looking forward to
all those hi-temp days those lying *******s of the Global Warming
Church promised me. Lying scumbags musta believed the Scientology
overinflation of their intelligence quotients. They sure as hell got
global warming out of a mucky teacup.

I'm not sure if you're a lying-*******-fuel-industry stooge, or a
rebel whose only cause is stroking his own ego with fallacious
dissent. *What's funny is your arrogant reference to the "Global
Warming Church." *The vast majority of scientists agree that GW IS
happening, and that there IS a human component to it. *You're the
religious zealot ignoring and twisting science to suit your agenda,
either for personal gain or latent adolescent nonconformity.

Just saying it's so doesn't make it so.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...7393/climatega...

A blog claims that there is a smoking gun, but doesn't provide any
sort of evidence. FAIL.



http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...evidence-of-gl...

An unsigned editorial from the Moonie owned Times is also hysterical
without presenting any shred of damning evidence of a conspiracy.



http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnal...aspx?id=513195

OK, a third opinion piece that's also unsigned foments further right
wing authoritarian hysteria...again with no evidence.



Face it, losers: *the wheels are (finally) coming off the Church of Global
Warming Alarmism bandwagon.

But you've provided no evidence, simply links to hysterical op/eds.

Please don't (further) confuse Bill.

[Ouroboros Rex]

Don Pearce wrote:
On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 06:39:24 -0800 (PST), Mr Soul
wrote:

Don - can you please show us the evidence of the Earth cooling down.
Thanks.

Mr Soul

Dunno if I can be bothered to find it again; Google for it. But while
you are looking, here is some stuff from what climatologists consider
key indicators. First the temperature history of central Greenland:

http://westinstenv.org/wp-content/po...rook_graph.jpg

This is part of the Easterbrook projection which seems to backed by
rather better science than most, untainted as it is by political
manoeuvering. You can see an abstract of a paper he

Sorry, Easterbrook is an already-busted denialist liar.

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/20...morano-jokers/

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...on_Easterbrook



http://westinstenv.org/palbot/2008/1...three-decades/

It only attempts to predict the next thirty years or so, and frankly
anyone trying to go beyond that is talking through his hat.

Also of interest is a graph showing, in some detail, CO2 level and
global temperature since 2002.

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CRUMSUCO2June.jpg

Sorry, special purpose denialist lie site.



Read the quick facts and follow the links:

http://www.isthereglobalwarming.com/

And still more made-up crazyassed crap. lol

[Ouroboros Rex]

flipper wrote:
On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 09:48:59 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:
On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 13:34:28 -0800 (PST), Mr Soul
wrote:

These emails are unimportant. Global warming exists and only a
fool would say that it doesn't.

Mr Soul

Cooling, not warming. The global temperature has been dropping for
the last ten years.

**Tsk, tsk. Regurgitating a lie does not make it the truth. Repeat
after me:

* 1998 was an unusually warm, El Nino year.
* The temperature TREND is the important thing, not individual,
yearly variations.
* 13 of the last 14 years have been the warmest on record.
* The TREND of rising temperature levels is clear (to scientists).
* Do not listen to the religious nutters. Pay attention to the
scientists.

You should have read the emails. THEY note the inability to explain
there is no recent warming is "a travesty."

Sounds odd, for people who are supposed to be running a scam. lol

[Ouroboros Rex]

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in
message
Don Pearce wrote:
On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 13:34:28 -0800 (PST), Mr Soul
wrote:

These emails are unimportant. Global warming exists
and only a fool would say that it doesn't.

Mr Soul

Cooling, not warming. The global temperature has been
dropping for the last ten years.

Well, around here temperature has probably been rising. About 30
years ago I bought a pair of cross-country skis and used them for
about 10 years in nearby places. There hasn't been enough snow around
here for at least 15 years to make them worthwhile, even to
enthusiasts. But that's all short term noise in the cosmic scheme of
things.
When you start talking about making changes involving thousands of
billions of dollars, you need more evidence than just some short-term
variations.
**Tsk, tsk. Regurgitating a lie does not make it the
truth.

Many of us know that you've apparently unknowingly done that many
times in the past, Trevor.

Repeat after me:

* 1998 was an unusually warm, El Nino year.
* The temperature TREND is the important thing, not
individual, yearly variations.
* 13 of the last 14 years have been the warmest on record.
* The TREND of rising temperature levels is clear (to
scientists).

Given that something simple, well-known, gross, and relevant like
sunspots has an 22 year cycle - what sort of conclusion can
reasonably be formed with 14 years worth of data?

Do you mean 1400 years, or 14,000?

[TPS]

On Nov 24, 5:31*am, (Don Pearce) wrote:
On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 05:16:19 -0800 (PST), Mr Soul
wrote:

The ones that are out of date, or say nothing can be ignored. There
are plenty enough that are current, from environmental scientists, and
suggesting ways of hiding data, doing "tricks" on the maths etc to be
damning. And fyi, I am not of the right wing.
Well if you aren't, you are preaching the same thing that they preach
(except I don't recall any of them saying the Earth is cooling).

Perhaps you should read this - it's from the EPA -
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/fq/science.html#q6

Mr Soul

Truth has nothing to do with political leanings - there are liars and
personal interests on both sides of that fence. And it is a fact that
the earth is currently in a cooling cycle. That is a part of what
these emails are seeking to conceal.

The method goes thus. First deny totally. Then when the facts emerge,
claim that the readings are anomalies, and normal warming will be
resumed. Anything, in fact, apart from admitting the data.

This all a travesty of science. Real scientists put their data and
theories out there, and seek refutation by other scientists. They even
include methods of refutation alongside their theories to make life
easier. This called a falsifiable theory, and it is the only kind that
carries any scientific weight or credibility. What we have in AGW is a
situation where there is a quasi-religious position that may not be
denied on pain of loss of tenure, job, livelihood. This is NOT
science, it is pure totalitarian politics.

d

I haven't read all of the emails. Have you read something that
indicates that a person with hiring/firing power threatened the tenure
of subordinate because that subordinate questioned theories of global
warming? I mean, sure, some bitter egghead scientists would
undoubtedly bitch about the people with whom they disagree - much like
people do here - but that's a far cry from "pure totalitarian
politics". Some few might even get into personal ****ing matches and
try to prevent a rival from being published, but they, like the fringe
jobs arguing on the other side, lose their impact amid the larger
community.

[Ouroboros Rex]

flipper wrote:
On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 13:34:28 -0800 (PST), Mr Soul
wrote:

These emails are unimportant. Global warming exists and only a fool
would say that it doesn't.

Mr Soul

And that, my friends, is what AGW loons call 'scientific debate'.

What you mean is, you can't disprove a word of it. lol

[Ouroboros Rex]

Bill Sornson wrote:
Dave wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
Hey, don't sound so pleased. I'm a cyclist. I was looking forward to
all those hi-temp days those lying *******s of the Global Warming
Church promised me. Lying scumbags musta believed the Scientology
overinflation of their intelligence quotients. They sure as hell got
global warming out of a mucky teacup.

I'm not sure if you're a lying-*******-fuel-industry stooge, or a
rebel whose only cause is stroking his own ego with fallacious
dissent. What's funny is your arrogant reference to the "Global
Warming Church." The vast majority of scientists agree that GW IS
happening, and that there IS a human component to it. You're the
religious zealot ignoring and twisting science to suit your agenda,
either for personal gain or latent adolescent nonconformity.

Just saying it's so doesn't make it so.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...lobal-warming/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...lobal-cooling/

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnal...aspx?id=513195

Face it, losers: the wheels are (finally) coming off the Church of
Global Warming Alarmism bandwagon.

Bill "better late than TOO late" S.

Nice series of right wing lie articles. Now, where is the actual
wrongdoing?

[Ouroboros Rex]

Don Pearce wrote:
On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 06:01:40 -0800 (PST), Mr Soul
wrote:

Lord Valve
Globally Cool
Hate to disapoint you Slick, but the Earth is warming up -

http://climateprogress.org/2009/11/2...-keep-warming/.

And if the Earth is really cooling down, as you right-wingnuts claim,
then what happen to your big argument about Mars warming up? Is
argument that now out the door?


Brilliant piece of reasoning! I'm convinced you have now made third
grade.

There's SO much evidence to support global warming. Even where I
live in NH, it's well documented that the seasonal length of certain
plants is several weeks longer than it used to be. Some of Thoreau's
botanical work has been used to verify this.

Sorry guys - you are wrong this time!


Well, where I live it is 2 degrees colder today than it was yesterday.
So that means in just over four months the temperature here will hit
absolute zero. Right? Your reasoning in this paragraph is no better
than that in your first.

Go away for a while and learn how to argue. You reason like a
Christian right now.

Hey, post some more crazyassed denialist lie sites for us, that was
entertaining.

[Ouroboros Rex]

Don Pearce wrote:
On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 06:43:42 -0800 (PST), Mr Soul
wrote:

Brilliant piece of reasoning! I'm convinced you have now made third
grade.
Don - the right-wingnuts used Mars warming as evidence on why the
Earth might be warming up. This wasn't my reasoning. But I agree
that the right-wingnuts have about a 3rd grade mentality.

Go away for a while and learn how to argue. You reason like a
Christian right now.
I am willing to bet that you are a right-wing, Christian
fundamentalist. Prove me wrong.


In your world you are right. How could you be otherwise?

Why do you continue to not provide us with the evidence that the
Earth is cooling down?


Done in another post.

You have no such evidence.

[Bill Sornson[_2_]]

Ouroboros Rex wrote:
Bill Sornson wrote:
Dave wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
Hey, don't sound so pleased. I'm a cyclist. I was looking forward
to all those hi-temp days those lying *******s of the Global
Warming Church promised me. Lying scumbags musta believed the
Scientology overinflation of their intelligence quotients. They
sure as hell got global warming out of a mucky teacup.

I'm not sure if you're a lying-*******-fuel-industry stooge, or a
rebel whose only cause is stroking his own ego with fallacious
dissent. What's funny is your arrogant reference to the "Global
Warming Church." The vast majority of scientists agree that GW IS
happening, and that there IS a human component to it. You're the
religious zealot ignoring and twisting science to suit your agenda,
either for personal gain or latent adolescent nonconformity.

Just saying it's so doesn't make it so.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...lobal-warming/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...lobal-cooling/

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnal...aspx?id=513195

Face it, losers: the wheels are (finally) coming off the Church of
Global Warming Alarmism bandwagon.

Bill "better late than TOO late" S.

Nice series of right wing lie articles. Now, where is the actual
wrongdoing?

LOL Just keep sticking your head in the (now cooling) earth, Anonymous
Ostrich.

Saying "the vast majority of scientists agree that GW IS happening" is like
saying that the vast majority of doctors are in favor of ObamaCare.
Dressing 'em up and putting them in the Rose Garden doesn't make it true.

Funny how the NYT and WP aren't reporting the /content/ of the smoking gun
e-mails, just that they were hacked.

Enjoy your ideological delusion while it lasts. The wheels are coming off
and it's going to get /really/ bumpy down the road.

BS (really)

[Mr Soul]

Done in another post. The only evidence you have to the contrary is
politically tainted beyond credibility.
Please provide a link to that post, because the data is false. It is
in agreement that the data shows the Earth is warming up, so you are
in error to say that it is cooling.

Mr Soul

[Bill Sornson[_2_]]

Bill Sornson wrote:
Ouroboros Rex wrote:
Bill Sornson wrote:
Dave wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
Hey, don't sound so pleased. I'm a cyclist. I was looking forward
to all those hi-temp days those lying *******s of the Global
Warming Church promised me. Lying scumbags musta believed the
Scientology overinflation of their intelligence quotients. They
sure as hell got global warming out of a mucky teacup.

I'm not sure if you're a lying-*******-fuel-industry stooge, or a
rebel whose only cause is stroking his own ego with fallacious
dissent. What's funny is your arrogant reference to the "Global
Warming Church." The vast majority of scientists agree that GW IS
happening, and that there IS a human component to it. You're the
religious zealot ignoring and twisting science to suit your agenda,
either for personal gain or latent adolescent nonconformity.

Just saying it's so doesn't make it so.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...lobal-warming/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...lobal-cooling/

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnal...aspx?id=513195

Face it, losers: the wheels are (finally) coming off the Church of
Global Warming Alarmism bandwagon.

Bill "better late than TOO late" S.

Nice series of right wing lie articles. Now, where is the actual
wrongdoing?

LOL Just keep sticking your head in the (now cooling) earth,
Anonymous Ostrich.

Saying "the vast majority of scientists agree that GW IS happening"
is like saying that the vast majority of doctors are in favor of
ObamaCare. Dressing 'em up and putting them in the Rose Garden
doesn't make it true.
Funny how the NYT and WP aren't reporting the /content/ of the
smoking gun e-mails, just that they were hacked.

Enjoy your ideological delusion while it lasts. The wheels are
coming off and it's going to get /really/ bumpy down the road.

BS (really)

PS: Here are two more fer ya:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art..._in_99280.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...758682774.html

Bill "by all means, attack the SOURCES and not their SUBSTANCE" S.

[Mr Soul]

that'll do for now. You really do need to research more widely. If the
only authorities you consult are those on the Bandwagon of Orthodoxy,
you will learn nothing about the Earth's climate, but plenty about the
political climate. Get yourself out of the morass of green-upmanship
before you sink.

I really don't know why I bother having this conversation. You really
can't argue with someone who says the stuff you say because you
redefine the rules, i.e., you dismiss what you want to dismiss.

It is a FACT and it is scientifically agreed that the Earth is warming
up. There is TONS of evidence supporting it. Even Thoreau's early
botanical work has given input.

Why is it that your "scientific" evidence is better than the climate
scientists who have been researching this issue for sometime? Where
is the critical review of these so-called studies.

Mr Soul

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 10:20:06 -0800 (PST), Mr Soul
wrote:

that'll do for now. You really do need to research more widely. If the
only authorities you consult are those on the Bandwagon of Orthodoxy,
you will learn nothing about the Earth's climate, but plenty about the
political climate. Get yourself out of the morass of green-upmanship
before you sink.

I really don't know why I bother having this conversation. You really
can't argue with someone who says the stuff you say because you
redefine the rules, i.e., you dismiss what you want to dismiss.

It is a FACT and it is scientifically agreed that the Earth is warming
up. There is TONS of evidence supporting it. Even Thoreau's early
botanical work has given input.

Why is it that your "scientific" evidence is better than the climate
scientists who have been researching this issue for sometime? Where
is the critical review of these so-called studies.

Mr Soul


The earth is doing what it is doing. Change is the normal condition
for Earth's climate. Temperature goes up and temperature goes down.
There is nothing political about it - it happens. At the moment the
temperature is going down, and your capitalization of the word FACT
doesn't make it any more true.

The argument is over anthropogenic global warming, and there is no -
and I do mean zero - evidence supporting it. The models have been
discredited, and now we learn that the scientists supporting it are
baffled and telling each other to fudge data to hide the fact that
their models can't even manage a couple of years of prediction.

d

[Mr Soul]

The earth is doing what it is doing. Change is the normal condition
for Earth's climate. Temperature goes up and temperature goes down.
There is nothing political about it - it happens.
No disagreement here.

At the moment the
temperature is going down, and your capitalization of the word FACT
doesn't make it any more true.
No - it's NOT. You have not cited any evidence to show that it is
currently going down. You've shown some predictions that it might but
it is in FACT going up. And yes capitalization does imply that it is
true, because it is.

You've cited one scientifist (Easterbrook) who have been a critic.
Where is the critical review of his work?

I'll cited again the FACTS:

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007
Main article: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
In February 2007, the IPCC released a summary of the forthcoming
Fourth Assessment Report. According to this summary, the Fourth
Assessment Report finds that human actions are "very likely" the cause
of global warming, meaning a 90% or greater probability. Global
warming in this case is indicated by an increase of 0.75 degrees in
average global temperatures over the last 100 years.[3]

The New York Times reported:

The world's leading climate scientists said global warming has begun,
is very likely caused by man, and will be unstoppable for
centuries.... The phrase very likely translates to a more than 90
percent certainty that global warming is caused by man's burning of
fossil fuels. That was the strongest conclusion to date, making it
nearly impossible to say natural forces are to blame.[4]
The report said that an increase in hurricane and tropical cyclone
strength since 1970 more likely than not can be attributed to man-made
global warming. The scientists said global warming's connection varies
with storms in different parts of the world, but that the storms that
strike the Americas are global warming-influenced.[5]

The Associated Press summarized the position on sea level rise:

On sea levels, the report projects rises of 7-23 inches by the end of
the century. That could be augmented by an additional 4-8 inches if
recent polar ice sheet melt continues.[6]
[edit] U.S. Global Change Research Program
formerly the Climate Change Science Program

The U.S. Global Change Research Program reported in June, 2009[7]
that:

Observations show that warming of the climate is unequivocal. The
global warming observed over the past 50 years is due primarily to
human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases. These emissions come
mainly from the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and gas), with
important contributions from the clearing of forests, agricultural
practices, and other activities.

Here's the graph -
http://climateprogress.org/2009/11/2...-keep-warming/.

[Lord Valve]

Don Pearce wrote:

On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 10:20:06 -0800 (PST), Mr Soul
wrote:

that'll do for now. You really do need to research more widely. If the
only authorities you consult are those on the Bandwagon of Orthodoxy,
you will learn nothing about the Earth's climate, but plenty about the
political climate. Get yourself out of the morass of green-upmanship
before you sink.

I really don't know why I bother having this conversation. You really
can't argue with someone who says the stuff you say because you
redefine the rules, i.e., you dismiss what you want to dismiss.

It is a FACT and it is scientifically agreed that the Earth is warming
up. There is TONS of evidence supporting it. Even Thoreau's early
botanical work has given input.

Why is it that your "scientific" evidence is better than the climate
scientists who have been researching this issue for sometime? Where
is the critical review of these so-called studies.

Mr Soul


The earth is doing what it is doing. Change is the normal condition
for Earth's climate. Temperature goes up and temperature goes down.
There is nothing political about it - it happens. At the moment the
temperature is going down, and your capitalization of the word FACT
doesn't make it any more true.

The argument is over anthropogenic global warming, and there is no -
and I do mean zero - evidence supporting it. The models have been
discredited, and now we learn that the scientists supporting it are
baffled and telling each other to fudge data to hide the fact that
their models can't even manage a couple of years of prediction.

d

Mr. Pearce -

You fail to understand the true nature of the conflict.
You claim that they are wrong, and you'd like them
to admit it and get busy with correction of flawed or
fudged data. They claim that you are a heretic, and
want you burned.

Galileo, anyone?

Lord Valve
Globally Cool

[Arny Krueger]

"Ouroboros Rex" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Trevor Wilson" wrote
in message
Repeat after me:

* 1998 was an unusually warm, El Nino year.
* The temperature TREND is the important thing, not
individual, yearly variations. * 13 of the last 14 years have been the
warmest on
record.

* The TREND of rising temperature levels is clear (to
scientists).

Given that something simple, well-known, gross, and
relevant like sunspots has an 22 year cycle - what sort
of conclusion can reasonably be formed with 14 years
worth of data?

Do you mean 1400 years, or 14,000?

I mean 14, the number that Trevor mentioned: "* 13 of the last 14 years
have been the warmest on record."

Information about temperatures over the past 1400 or 14,000 years is
inferred, not based on actual measurements.

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 11:46:38 -0700, Lord Valve
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:

On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 10:20:06 -0800 (PST), Mr Soul
wrote:

that'll do for now. You really do need to research more widely. If the
only authorities you consult are those on the Bandwagon of Orthodoxy,
you will learn nothing about the Earth's climate, but plenty about the
political climate. Get yourself out of the morass of green-upmanship
before you sink.

I really don't know why I bother having this conversation. You really
can't argue with someone who says the stuff you say because you
redefine the rules, i.e., you dismiss what you want to dismiss.

It is a FACT and it is scientifically agreed that the Earth is warming
up. There is TONS of evidence supporting it. Even Thoreau's early
botanical work has given input.

Why is it that your "scientific" evidence is better than the climate
scientists who have been researching this issue for sometime? Where
is the critical review of these so-called studies.

Mr Soul


The earth is doing what it is doing. Change is the normal condition
for Earth's climate. Temperature goes up and temperature goes down.
There is nothing political about it - it happens. At the moment the
temperature is going down, and your capitalization of the word FACT
doesn't make it any more true.

The argument is over anthropogenic global warming, and there is no -
and I do mean zero - evidence supporting it. The models have been
discredited, and now we learn that the scientists supporting it are
baffled and telling each other to fudge data to hide the fact that
their models can't even manage a couple of years of prediction.

d

Mr. Pearce -

You fail to understand the true nature of the conflict.
You claim that they are wrong, and you'd like them
to admit it and get busy with correction of flawed or
fudged data. They claim that you are a heretic, and
want you burned.

Galileo, anyone?

Lord Valve
Globally Cool


Eppur si muove.

d

[Mr Soul]

You fail to understand the true nature of the conflict.
You claim that they are wrong, and you'd like them
to admit it and get busy with correction of flawed or
fudged data. *They claim that you are a heretic, and
want you burned.

Galileo, anyone?
Too funny Slick - you got me laughing on that one!! You're
intelligent enough to see the analogy but we're Galileo and you guys
are the Church.

Mr Soul

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 12:04:55 -0800 (PST), Mr Soul
wrote:

You fail to understand the true nature of the conflict.
You claim that they are wrong, and you'd like them
to admit it and get busy with correction of flawed or
fudged data. *They claim that you are a heretic, and
want you burned.

Galileo, anyone?
Too funny Slick - you got me laughing on that one!! You're
intelligent enough to see the analogy but we're Galileo and you guys
are the Church.

Mr Soul

Yours is the Orthodoxy Which May Not Be Challenged. I think we can all
manage the trivial job of working out which is which, particularly now
the lies at its heart are being exposed.

d

[TPS]

On Nov 24, 10:01*am, "Bill Sornson" wrote:
Ouroboros Rex wrote:
Bill Sornson wrote:
Dave wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
Hey, don't sound so pleased. I'm a cyclist. I was looking forward
to all those hi-temp days those lying *******s of the Global
Warming Church promised me. Lying scumbags musta believed the
Scientology overinflation of their intelligence quotients. They
sure as hell got global warming out of a mucky teacup.

I'm not sure if you're a lying-*******-fuel-industry stooge, or a
rebel whose only cause is stroking his own ego with fallacious
dissent. *What's funny is your arrogant reference to the "Global
Warming Church." *The vast majority of scientists agree that GW IS
happening, and that there IS a human component to it. *You're the
religious zealot ignoring and twisting science to suit your agenda,
either for personal gain or latent adolescent nonconformity.

Just saying it's so doesn't make it so.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...7393/climatega....

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...evidence-of-gl....

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnal...aspx?id=513195

Face it, losers: *the wheels are (finally) coming off the Church of
Global Warming Alarmism bandwagon.

Bill "better late than TOO late" S.

*Nice series of right wing lie articles. *Now, where is the actual
wrongdoing?

LOL *Just keep sticking your head in the (now cooling) earth, Anonymous
Ostrich.

Saying "the vast majority of scientists agree that GW IS happening" is like
saying that the vast majority of doctors are in favor of ObamaCare.
Dressing 'em up and putting them in the Rose Garden doesn't make it true.

Funny how the NYT and WP aren't reporting the /content/ of the smoking gun
e-mails, just that they were hacked.

Enjoy your ideological delusion while it lasts. *The wheels are coming off
and it's going to get /really/ bumpy down the road.

BS (really)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The NYT posted a link to the emails, so you can see for yourself.

[Mr Soul]

Yours is the Orthodoxy Which May Not Be Challenged. I think we can all
manage the trivial job of working out which is which, particularly now
the lies at its heart are being exposed.
And you live in a dream world. The Earth is warming up - everybody
knows that.

Mr Soul

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

On Nov 24, 3:49*pm, "Dave" wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
Hey, don't sound so pleased. I'm a cyclist. I was looking forward to
all those hi-temp days those lying *******s of the Global Warming
Church promised me. Lying scumbags musta believed the Scientology
overinflation of their intelligence quotients. They sure as hell got
global warming out of a mucky teacup.

I'm not sure if you're a lying-*******-fuel-industry stooge, or a rebel
whose only cause is stroking his own ego with fallacious dissent. *What's
funny is your arrogant reference to the "Global Warming Church." *The vast
majority of scientists agree that GW IS happening, and that there IS a human
component to it. *You're the religious zealot ignoring and twisting science
to suit your agenda, either for personal gain or latent adolescent
nonconformity.

Gee, I start a dozen threads that between them constitute a
comprehensive condemnation of the fraud of global warming, and you
don't object to a single technical or ethical point, but when I make a
joke with friends, there you are, all abrasive with your silly attempt
at character assassination.

Ever hear of a sense of perspective, sonny?

Andre Jute
Reformed petrol head
Car-free since 1992
Greener than thou!

[Mr Soul]

On Nov 24, 4:57*pm, Mr Soul wrote:
Yours is the Orthodoxy Which May Not Be Challenged. I think we can all
manage the trivial job of working out which is which, particularly now
the lies at its heart are being exposed.

And you live in a dream world. *The Earth is warming up - everybody
knows that.

Mr Soul

Mr. Non-Orthodoxy,

Here are some FACTS for you:

- Over the past 30 years, the Earth has warmed by 0.6° C or 1.08° F.
Over the past 100 years, it has warmed by 0.8° C or 1.44° F.

- "The five warmest years over the last century occurred in the last
eight years," said James Hansen, director of NASA GISS. They stack up
as follows: the warmest was 2005, then 1998, 2002, 2003 and 2004.

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/env...5_warmest.html

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/

I can find lots more but of course, you'll deny them.

Mr Soul

[Lord Valve]

Mr Shoe continued to stumble:

Yours is the Orthodoxy Which May Not Be Challenged. I think we can all
manage the trivial job of working out which is which, particularly now
the lies at its heart are being exposed.
And you live in a dream world. The Earth is warming up - everybody
knows that.

Mr Shoe

Why, yes, quite so, quite so...

And everybody knew that the Earth was flat, that the
Earth was the center of the universe and that the sun,
the moon, all the planets and the stars revolved around
it; not only that, a substance called phlogiston was
contained in all flammable materials and released
by combustion, disease was caused by bad odors,
flight was impossible, and phrenology was the last
word on determining character traits. Not only that,
heavy objects fell faster than lighter ones. Everybody
knew these things, you see, because scientists -
****loads of 'em - said they were true.

Only they weren't.

Lord Valve
Globally Cool

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

On Nov 24, 10:13*pm, Mr Soul wrote:

- "The five warmest years over the last century occurred in the last
eight years," said James Hansen, director of NASA GISS. They stack up
as follows: the warmest was 2005, then 1998, 2002, 2003 and 2004.

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/env...5_warmest.html

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/

Er, didn't NASA recently say they made a mistake, 1934 was the warmest
year of the century? -- AJ