[Bill Sornson[_2_]]

flipper wrote:
On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 10:01:41 -0800, "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)


These problems aren't 'new' to those in the field, it's only 'news'
because of the 'hacked' data.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/29/yamal_scandal/

"Hokey hockey sticks
Mann too used dendrochronology to chill temperatures, and rebuffed
attempts to publish his measurement data. Initially he said he had
forgotten where he put it, then declined to disclosed it. (Some of
Mann's data was eventually discovered, by accident, on his ftp server
in a directory entitled 'BACKTO_1400-CENSORED'.)

Tree data was secondary in importance to Mann's statistical technique,
which would produce a dramatic modern upturn in temperatures - which
became nicknamed the "Hockey Stick" - even using red noise.
.
.
.
All the papers come from a small but closely knit of scientists who
mutually support each other's work. All use Yamal data. And without
the Yamal data, the temperature record shows a very different shape.
.
.
.
The scandal has serious implications for public trust in science. The
IPCC's mission is to reflect the science, not create it.

As the panel states, its duty is "assessing the scientific, technical
and socioeconomic information relevant for the understanding of the
risk of human-induced climate change. It does not carry out new
research nor does it monitor climate-related data." But as lead
author, Briffa was a key contributor in shaping (no pun intended) the
assessment. A small group was able to rewrite history.

When the IPCC was alerted to peer-reviewed research that refuted the
idea, it declined to include it. This leads to the more general, and
more serious issue: what happens when peer-review fails - as it did
here?

The scandal has only come to light because of the dogged persistence
of a Canadian mathematician who attempted to reproduce the results.
Steve McIntyre has written dozens of letters requesting the data and
methodology, and over 7,000 blog posts. Yet Yamal has remained elusive
for almost a decade. "

Indeed. The hacked e-mails and other recent disclosures weren't
/revelations/ of global warming hoaxism, they were /affirmations/ of what
any honest, objective person already knew (or strongly suspected). Ostrich
Alarmist Nuts excluded, of course.

BS

[adminattubezone.net]

On Nov 24, 4:39*pm, Lord Valve wrote:

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

I think you're getting alchemists, theologians and barber-surgeons
confused with
"scientists", Willie. Twas the scientists and adoption of scientific
methods that disproved
the conventional wisdom of which you speak, not ranting luddites and
teabaggers.

[Bill Sornson[_2_]]

flipper wrote:
On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 20:14:55 -0800, "Bill Sornson"
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 10:01:41 -0800, "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)


These problems aren't 'new' to those in the field, it's only 'news'
because of the 'hacked' data.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/29/yamal_scandal/

"Hokey hockey sticks
Mann too used dendrochronology to chill temperatures, and rebuffed
attempts to publish his measurement data. Initially he said he had
forgotten where he put it, then declined to disclosed it. (Some of
Mann's data was eventually discovered, by accident, on his ftp
server in a directory entitled 'BACKTO_1400-CENSORED'.)

Tree data was secondary in importance to Mann's statistical
technique, which would produce a dramatic modern upturn in
temperatures - which became nicknamed the "Hockey Stick" - even
using red noise. .
.
.
All the papers come from a small but closely knit of scientists who
mutually support each other's work. All use Yamal data. And without
the Yamal data, the temperature record shows a very different shape.
.
.
.
The scandal has serious implications for public trust in science.
The IPCC's mission is to reflect the science, not create it.

As the panel states, its duty is "assessing the scientific,
technical and socioeconomic information relevant for the
understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change. It does
not carry out new research nor does it monitor climate-related
data." But as lead author, Briffa was a key contributor in shaping
(no pun intended) the assessment. A small group was able to rewrite
history.

When the IPCC was alerted to peer-reviewed research that refuted the
idea, it declined to include it. This leads to the more general, and
more serious issue: what happens when peer-review fails - as it did
here?

The scandal has only come to light because of the dogged persistence
of a Canadian mathematician who attempted to reproduce the results.
Steve McIntyre has written dozens of letters requesting the data and
methodology, and over 7,000 blog posts. Yet Yamal has remained
elusive for almost a decade. "

Indeed. The hacked e-mails and other recent disclosures weren't
/revelations/ of global warming hoaxism, they were /affirmations/ of
what any honest, objective person already knew (or strongly
suspected). Ostrich Alarmist Nuts excluded, of course.

BS


Further to the point, and as I've mentioned before, the 'hacked'
emails comprise less than 5% of the total byte count with the rest
being 'documents', 'code', and 'data' for... guess what...
reconstructing the temperature series... including Yamal. That, and
the no so hard to decode file name FOIA is why I say there's a lot
more to this than what's bubbling around on the surface.

I find it strange that a 'hacker' would be so interested in tree ring
data sets.

On another note, here's an interesting included pdf: "RulesOfTheGame."

It opens by explaining: "The game is communicating
climate change; the rules will help us win it."

This from what is supposedly a group of scientists interested only in
'where the science takes us' no matter what that might be.

It's so refreshing to see "pure science" at work. No politics here, no
sir.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't many hundreds of these documents,
files, data and e-mails subject to Freedom of Information Requests that had
been or are being ignored and worse (destroyed, deleted and altered records,
for example)?

As with all things AlGore-ish, OF WHAT ARE THEY SO AFRAID?

Bill "it's so pathetic it's almost amusing" S.

[Ben C]

On 2009-11-25, flipper wrote:
[...]
On another note, here's an interesting included pdf: "RulesOfTheGame."

It opens by explaining: "The game is communicating
climate change; the rules will help us win it."

This from what is supposedly a group of scientists interested only in
'where the science takes us' no matter what that might be.

It's so refreshing to see "pure science" at work. No politics here, no
sir.

I don't think that "Rules of the Game" leaflet is written by the
so-called scientists-- it's written by the government (or one of their
quangos) and is just the usual kind of bull**** we expect from them.

[Mr Soul]

Er, didn't NASA recently say they made a mistake, 1934 was the warmest
year of the century? -- AJ
No. It's apparent that you rely too much on FOX News:

http://mediamatters.org/research/200708120001

"On Special Report, Jim Angle reported that NASA was forced "to admit
it was wrong when it said that 1998 was the hottest year on record"
and that NASA "now says 1934 was the hottest year, followed by 1998,
then 1921." But Angle did not inform viewers that NASA's revision
affected annual temperature rankings for the United States only; it
had no effect on the annual global temperature rankings. "

NASA recently corrected its climate figures after the discovery of
inconsistencies in its U.S. temperature data. According to Schmidt, a
climate modeler at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and a
contributor to the RealClimate blog (posting as "gavin"), the
correction resulted in a re-ranking of NASA's list of the warmest
years in the United States. For example, whereas 1998 was previously
ranked as the warmest year for the United States, it is now ranked
second, behind 1934. According to Schmidt, the temperature difference
between 1934 and 1998 in the United States -- both before and after
the correction -- is not statistically significant.

....

"

Mr Soul

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

On Nov 25, 6:29*am, flipper wrote:


On another note, here's an interesting included pdf: "RulesOfTheGame."

It opens by explaining: "The game is communicating
climate change; the rules will help us win it."

Apparently in climate sciences "science" means winning the argument,
not proving the hypthesis.

This from what is supposedly a group of scientists interested only in
'where the science takes us' no matter what that might be.

It's so refreshing to see "pure science" at work. No politics here, no
sir.

LOL.

Makes one wonder, if "the science is settled" and "there is a
consensus of scientists" why these guys -- after all, they're the
world's leading global waming "scientists" -- should be so defensive.
What is it they fear? Looks like their fear is inspired by their self
knowledge that they lied, and lied, and lied, that their "science" was
crooked from the beginning.

Ron Bales thinks that some of them may be true believers in the
hypothesis that manmade CO2 causes global warming, and lying for their
faith; certainly some despair has been expressed in the Hadley Hack
about their inability to prove the hypothesis, in the stubborn
resistance of real life to follow their cooked data-based predictions.
If Ron is right, these people must be incredibly stupid as well as
incredibly crooked. One can forgive (and be amused by) undergraduate
idiots like Ben Weiner and Bill Asher for falling for this crap, but
the senior scientists who in the first instance cooked the data *know*
what they've done -- which accounts for their fear of Freedom of
Information disclosure -- and are scientists beside: for them this
sort of self-delusion is also a self-disqualification from their
chosen profession.

Andre Jute
“We must get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.” -- Jonathan Overpeck,
climate "scientist", IPCC writer

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

On Nov 25, 1:11*pm, Mr Soul wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
Er, didn't NASA recently say they made a mistake, 1934 was the warmest
year of the century? -- AJ

No. *It's apparent that you rely too much on FOX News:

For example, whereas 1998 was previously
ranked as the warmest year for the United States, it is now ranked
second, behind 1934. According to Schmidt, the temperature difference
between 1934 and 1998 in the United States -- both before and after
the correction -- is not statistically significant.

Thanks for the clarification Brother Soul. Of course it isn't
statistically significant because there was no global warming in the
1990s, merely statistical legerdemain. The earth's temperature is on
the upslope, with natural variation caused by sunspot cycles, from the
Little Ice Age towards the mild temperatures, but still warmer than
today, which lasted for centuries during the Medieval Warm Period. The
Hockey Stick that attempts to prove that the 1990s was the warmest
decade is an attempt by the most unscientifica statistical trickery,
condemned by two panels of the National Academy of Science, to falsify
temperature history to flatten the LIA and MWP out of existence. The
world is in no danger from global warming, and no link between
temperature increase and manmade (or any other CO2) has ever been
proven. The only manmade global warming is made by crooked "climate
scientists". I hope this helps your understanding.

Andre Jute
Visit Andre's books at
http://www.audio-talk.co.uk/fiultra/THE%20WRITER'S%20HOUSE.html

PS I don't get Fox News. I live in the country in Ireland. I get my
information from the original sources published by the IPCC, the
archives of the United States Senate, other official bodies, the
original articles of both the global warmers and the sceptics, and so
on, not from the media.

[landotter]

On Nov 25, 12:42*am, "Bill Sornson" wrote:
flipper wrote:
On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 20:14:55 -0800, "Bill Sornson"
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 10:01:41 -0800, "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)

These problems aren't 'new' to those in the field, it's only 'news'
because of the 'hacked' data.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/29/yamal_scandal/

"Hokey hockey sticks
Mann too used dendrochronology to chill temperatures, and rebuffed
attempts to publish his measurement data. Initially he said he had
forgotten where he put it, then declined to disclosed it. (Some of
Mann's data was eventually discovered, by accident, on his ftp
server in a directory entitled 'BACKTO_1400-CENSORED'.)

Tree data was secondary in importance to Mann's statistical
technique, which would produce a dramatic modern upturn in
temperatures - which became nicknamed the "Hockey Stick" - even
using red noise. .
.
.
All the papers come from a small but closely knit of scientists who
mutually support each other's work. All use Yamal data. And without
the Yamal data, the temperature record shows a very different shape.
.
.
.
The scandal has serious implications for public trust in science.
The IPCC's mission is to reflect the science, not create it.

As the panel states, its duty is "assessing the scientific,
technical and socioeconomic information relevant for the
understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change. It does
not carry out new research nor does it monitor climate-related
data." But as lead author, Briffa was a key contributor in shaping
(no pun intended) the assessment. A small group was able to rewrite
history.

When the IPCC was alerted to peer-reviewed research that refuted the
idea, it declined to include it. This leads to the more general, and
more serious issue: what happens when peer-review fails - as it did
here?

The scandal has only come to light because of the dogged persistence
of a Canadian mathematician who attempted to reproduce the results.
Steve McIntyre has written dozens of letters requesting the data and
methodology, and over 7,000 blog posts. Yet Yamal has remained
elusive for almost a decade. "

Indeed. *The hacked e-mails and other recent disclosures weren't
/revelations/ of global warming hoaxism, they were /affirmations/ of
what any honest, objective person already knew (or strongly
suspected). *Ostrich Alarmist Nuts excluded, of course.

BS

Further to the point, and as I've mentioned before, the 'hacked'
emails comprise less than 5% of the total byte count with the rest
being 'documents', 'code', and 'data' for... guess what...
reconstructing the temperature series... including Yamal. That, and
the no so hard to decode file name FOIA is why I say there's a lot
more to this than what's bubbling around on the surface.

I find it strange that a 'hacker' would be so interested in tree ring
data sets.

On another note, here's an interesting included pdf: "RulesOfTheGame."

It opens by explaining: "The game is communicating
climate change; the rules will help us win it."

This from what is supposedly a group of scientists interested only in
'where the science takes us' no matter what that might be.

It's so refreshing to see "pure science" at work. No politics here, no
sir.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't many hundreds of these documents,
files, data and e-mails subject to Freedom of Information Requests that had
been or are being ignored and worse (destroyed, deleted and altered records,
for example)?

No. You are wrong. It's typical of conspiracists like yourself to just
make **** up, though.


As with all things AlGore-ish, OF WHAT ARE THEY SO AFRAID?


I think they're afraid of irrational right wing authoritarian goons
like you, if they're afraid of anything. It wasn't scientists and
rational thinkers that committed the crime of breaking into their
server--it was nuts like you. Of course--you don't see crime if it's
your faction that's guilty. That's typical for those that score off
the chart on the authoritarian retard scale.

Would you care to cement my opinion of you by lying some more? Perhaps
you want to talk about fear and just punishment or some other
stereotypical thing that people with your personality disorder usually
fall back on.

[Lord Valve]

"adminattubezone.net" wrote:

On Nov 24, 4:39 pm, Lord Valve wrote:

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

I think you're getting alchemists, theologians and barber-surgeons
confused with
"scientists", Willie. Twas the scientists and adoption of scientific
methods that disproved
the conventional wisdom of which you speak, not ranting luddites and
teabaggers.

You Warmie assholes have been OWNED, publicly outed.

Watching you squirm will be entertaining. Watching
you scream bloody murder when your socialist
horse-**** comes crashing down around your ears
in 2010 will be exquisite.

Lord Valve
American

[Bill Sornson[_2_]]

Andre Jute wrote:
On Nov 25, 6:29 am, flipper wrote:


On another note, here's an interesting included pdf:
"RulesOfTheGame."

It opens by explaining: "The game is communicating
climate change; the rules will help us win it."

Apparently in climate sciences "science" means winning the argument,
not proving the hypthesis.

This from what is supposedly a group of scientists interested only in
'where the science takes us' no matter what that might be.

It's so refreshing to see "pure science" at work. No politics here,
no sir.

LOL.

Makes one wonder, if "the science is settled" and "there is a
consensus of scientists" why these guys -- after all, they're the
world's leading global waming "scientists" -- should be so defensive.
What is it they fear? Looks like their fear is inspired by their self
knowledge that they lied, and lied, and lied, that their "science" was
crooked from the beginning.

Ron Bales thinks that some of them may be true believers in the
hypothesis that manmade CO2 causes global warming, and lying for their
faith; certainly some despair has been expressed in the Hadley Hack
about their inability to prove the hypothesis, in the stubborn
resistance of real life to follow their cooked data-based predictions.
If Ron is right, these people must be incredibly stupid as well as
incredibly crooked. One can forgive (and be amused by) undergraduate
idiots like Ben Weiner and Bill Asher for falling for this crap, but
the senior scientists who in the first instance cooked the data *know*
what they've done -- which accounts for their fear of Freedom of
Information disclosure -- and are scientists beside: for them this
sort of self-delusion is also a self-disqualification from their
chosen profession.

Andre Jute
“We must get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.” -- Jonathan Overpeck,
climate "scientist", IPCC writer

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEiLgbBGKVk

Bill "trippy, but makes its point" S.

[Rick N. Backer]

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
...
On Nov 25, 1:11 pm, Mr Soul wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
Er, didn't NASA recently say they made a mistake, 1934 was the warmest
year of the century? -- AJ

No. It's apparent that you rely too much on FOX News:

For example, whereas 1998 was previously
ranked as the warmest year for the United States, it is now ranked
second, behind 1934. According to Schmidt, the temperature difference
between 1934 and 1998 in the United States -- both before and after
the correction -- is not statistically significant.

Thanks for the clarification Brother Soul. Of course it isn't
statistically significant because there was no global warming in the
1990s, merely statistical legerdemain. The earth's temperature is on
the upslope, with natural variation caused by sunspot cycles, from the
Little Ice Age towards the mild temperatures, but still warmer than
today, which lasted for centuries during the Medieval Warm Period. The
Hockey Stick that attempts to prove that the 1990s was the warmest
decade is an attempt by the most unscientifica statistical trickery,
condemned by two panels of the National Academy of Science, to falsify
temperature history to flatten the LIA and MWP out of existence. The
world is in no danger from global warming, and no link between
temperature increase and manmade (or any other CO2) has ever been
proven. The only manmade global warming is made by crooked "climate
scientists". I hope this helps your understanding.

Andre Jute
Visit Andre's books at
http://www.audio-talk.co.uk/fiultra/THE%20WRITER'S%20HOUSE.html

PS I don't get Fox News. I live in the country in Ireland. I get my
information from the original sources published by the IPCC, the
archives of the United States Senate, other official bodies, the
original articles of both the global warmers and the sceptics, and so
on, not from the media.

It's too bad you've probably got a head full of Guinness or Tullamore Dew
all the time or you might actually get what you read through your besotted
brain pan. Who the **** let a Boer into Ireland anyway. ****in' stupid sot
he was. I guess my granddad didn't kill enough of you when he was there.

[$am booka]

Lord Valve tapped the mic and amongst other
things, said, "Is this on?" :

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...cleid=1213483&
srvc=business&position=recent




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



Didya see the Brit-ard uber-climate-pseudoscientist "Dr. Kevin" digging
himself a deeper hole on Fox this morning? "So, you admit you have no
honor, and now you show you have no shame." His career is done. Same
thing last night on CNBC where the libs were barfing all over the carpet
trying to spin it. This one is going to take them all out forever.

I've been saying this crap was a proven fraud since canucklehead liberazi
Maurice Strong, the actual goof that dreamed it up, admitted it was a
cash grab back in '96 in Rio.

--
All the perplexities, confusion, and distress in America arise,
not from defects in their Constitution or confederation, not
from want of honor or virtue, so much as from downright ignorance
of the nature of coin, credit, and circulation,
John Adams

[$am booka]

"Ouroboros Rex" tapped the mic and amongst other
things, said, "Is this on?" :

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...icleid=1213483
&srvc=business&position=recent




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

The scientists themselves are copping to the authenticity of the emails.
Scientists cooking their books and fudging data is the definition of
wrongdoing. Glad to see you joining their club so readily, because they
are all as good as fired, their work has to be stricken from the record
from hench forth, and their careers are destroyed.

Watch Al Gore throw them under the bus to save his own sorry azz. They
are the basis of his entire thesis, so he's done too.

--
All the perplexities, confusion, and distress in America arise,
not from defects in their Constitution or confederation, not
from want of honor or virtue, so much as from downright ignorance
of the nature of coin, credit, and circulation,
John Adams

[Norman[_9_]]

On Nov 25, 2:21*pm, landotter wrote:
On Nov 25, 12:42*am, "Bill Sornson" wrote:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't many hundreds of these documents,
files, data and e-mails subject to Freedom of Information Requests that had
been or are being ignored and worse (destroyed, deleted and altered records,
for example)?

No. You are wrong. It's typical of conspiracists like yourself to just
make **** up, though.


from file mail/1107454306.txt

At 09:41 AM 2/2/2005, Phil Jones wrote:

Mike,
I presume congratulations are in order - so congrats etc !
Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he
documents everything better
this time ! And don't leave stuff lying around on ftp sites -
you never know who is
trawling
them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for
years. If they ever hear
there
is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll
delete the file rather than
send
to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond
to enquiries within
20 days? - our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first
request will test it.
We also
have a data protection act, which I will hide behind.


As with all things AlGore-ish, OF WHAT ARE THEY SO AFRAID?

I think they're afraid of irrational right wing authoritarian goons
like you, if they're afraid of anything. It wasn't scientists and
rational thinkers that committed the crime of breaking into their
server--it was nuts like you. Of course--you don't see crime if it's
your faction that's guilty. That's typical for those that score off
the chart on the authoritarian retard scale.


The files were released to the BBC nearly a full week before
they appeared on the Russian server. The documents in
question are all subject to the various Freedom of Information
Acts of the countries in which they originated, the countries and
other jurisditions which funded these men, &/or the countries in
which the physical data resided. So perhaps you can explain
what crime was commited.

[datakoll]

no doubt yawl have the time for reading thru

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/20...arming-basics/

[RichL]

Lord Valve wrote:
"adminattubezone.net" wrote:

On Nov 24, 4:39 pm, Lord Valve wrote:

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

I think you're getting alchemists, theologians and barber-surgeons
confused with
"scientists", Willie. Twas the scientists and adoption of scientific
methods that disproved
the conventional wisdom of which you speak, not ranting luddites and
teabaggers.

You Warmie assholes have been OWNED, publicly outed.

Only in your wet dreams.

[Bill Sornson[_2_]]

Norman wrote:
On Nov 25, 2:21 pm, landotter wrote:
On Nov 25, 12:42 am, "Bill Sornson" wrote:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't many hundreds of these
documents, files, data and e-mails subject to Freedom of
Information Requests that had been or are being ignored and worse
(destroyed, deleted and altered records, for example)?

No. You are wrong. It's typical of conspiracists like yourself to
just make **** up, though.


from file mail/1107454306.txt

At 09:41 AM 2/2/2005, Phil Jones wrote:

Mike,
I presume congratulations are in order - so congrats etc !
Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he
documents everything better
this time ! And don't leave stuff lying around on ftp sites -
you never know who is
trawling
them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for
years. If they ever hear
there
is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll
delete the file rather than
send
to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond
to enquiries within
20 days? - our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first
request will test it.
We also
have a data protection act, which I will hide behind.

D'oh! LOL

As with all things AlGore-ish, OF WHAT ARE THEY SO AFRAID?

I think they're afraid of irrational right wing authoritarian goons
like you, if they're afraid of anything. It wasn't scientists and
rational thinkers that committed the crime of breaking into their
server--it was nuts like you. Of course--you don't see crime if it's
your faction that's guilty. That's typical for those that score off
the chart on the authoritarian retard scale.


The files were released to the BBC nearly a full week before
they appeared on the Russian server. The documents in
question are all subject to the various Freedom of Information
Acts of the countries in which they originated, the countries and
other jurisditions which funded these men, &/or the countries in
which the physical data resided. So perhaps you can explain
what crime was commited.

D'oh! LOL

Bill "earth's so hot little ground rat gonna freeze his toesies off" S.

[datakoll]

RATS SEEN CROSSING CANADIAN BORDER

[$am booka]

"RichL" tapped the mic and amongst other things,
said, "Is this on?" m:

Lord Valve wrote:
"adminattubezone.net" wrote:

On Nov 24, 4:39 pm, Lord Valve wrote:

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

I think you're getting alchemists, theologians and barber-surgeons
confused with
"scientists", Willie. Twas the scientists and adoption of scientific
methods that disproved
the conventional wisdom of which you speak, not ranting luddites and
teabaggers.

You Warmie assholes have been OWNED, publicly outed.

Only in your wet dreams.

Well, he better get a mop because the reality is so much wetter. You
dolts are so fzcked now that kids will be laughing at you for centuries.


--
All the perplexities, confusion, and distress in America arise,
not from defects in their Constitution or confederation, not
from want of honor or virtue, so much as from downright ignorance
of the nature of coin, credit, and circulation,
John Adams

[Trevor Wilson]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"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.

**Of course. Which is why I have CONSISTENTLY and REPEATEDLY referred to
historical data streching back hundreds of thousands of years:

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Pre...ning/New_Data/

Note the relationship between temperature levels and CO2 levels.


**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.

**Sorry, you got it wrong. I have been very consistent in my remarks
concerning those with religious beliefs. The supernatural is complete bunk.
There is no such thing as a God, miracles, life after death and a whole host
of gobbledegook promoted by liars and charalatans throughout the millenia.
I'm sorry if the truth is uncomfortable for you. That I speak the truth, is
no reason to call me a liar.


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? Normally that would be a rhetorical
question, but given the circumstance I feel obliged to answer it with a
resounding "NONE!".

**Idiot. You SHOULD know that the Sunspot cycle is approximately 11 years in
duration, NOT 14! This is basic stuff we all learned in electronics way
back. Your education is sadly lacking.

That is, notwithstanding, the fact that I live with a scientist. She studies
the Sun and it's effects on the ionosphere. Every (week)day of the week.
Sometimes on weekends too. She has done so for more than 20 years. She has
forgotten more than I and (very obviously, you) will ever know about the Sun
and it's influence on the planet. The department she works for monitors the
Sun's output 24/7 (they have sensors all over the planet) and can tell with
considerable accuracy not only what the Sun's output is at any one time, but
they issue predictions for the next 24 hours. We have, at great length,
discussed the influence of the Sun on the planet's climate. She has shown me
the data and explained to me that variations in planetary warming due to
Solar influence can explain around 20% of the warming we have noted. That
leaves around 80% unexplained (to everyone but real scientists, anyway). The
reality is quite prosaic: CO2 is the only factor that can explain the other
80%.


* Do not listen to the religious nutters. Pay attention
to the scientists.

Good advice that Trevor has a poor track record for following when the
"religious nutters" hide under a cloak of pseudo-science.

**Nope. Religious nutters hide under a cloak of religion. They, like you,
reject science at every opportunity. OTOH, I do not reject science.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Trevor Wilson]

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
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.

**Perhaps.

And it is a fact that
the earth is currently in a cooling cycle.

**Nope. YOU have falied to prove this claim. The present TREND is to a
warming planet.

That is a part of what
these emails are seeking to conceal.

**Really?


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.

**That is how the deniers operate. They deny totally that the planet is
warming. The facts support a warming.


This all a travesty of science.

**Indeed. That the deniers have any traction is an obscenity. They present
no science.

Real scientists put their data and
theories out there, and seek refutation by other scientists.

**Indeed. It is a pity that idiots like Plimer fail to do this. Guys like
Plimer just aim for the popular press, completely bypassing the normal
scientific rigors.

They even
include methods of refutation alongside their theories to make life
easier.

**The deniers certianly do just that. Fortunately, the facts can be used to
demolish their bull****.

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.

**Really? Prove it. In your proof, consider the following facts and explain
these facts in light of your unsupported claim:

* Throughout the Presidency of George W Bush (who is a well-known climate
change denier) the US EPA consistently took the line that the planet is
warming and that it's warming is likely due to anthropogenic activities.
* That Prof. Lindzen (a well-known climate change denier) was paid more than
US$2,500.00/day by fossil fuel interests.
* Please present evidence which shows any research scientist is being paid
more than US$2,500.00/day as a global warming supporter.

This is NOT
science, it is pure totalitarian politics.

**Nope. It's just the facts, you idiot.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 13:46:37 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
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.

**Perhaps.

And it is a fact that
the earth is currently in a cooling cycle.

**Nope. YOU have falied to prove this claim. The present TREND is to a
warming planet.

That is a part of what
these emails are seeking to conceal.

**Really?


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.

**That is how the deniers operate. They deny totally that the planet is
warming. The facts support a warming.


This all a travesty of science.

**Indeed. That the deniers have any traction is an obscenity. They present
no science.

Real scientists put their data and
theories out there, and seek refutation by other scientists.

**Indeed. It is a pity that idiots like Plimer fail to do this. Guys like
Plimer just aim for the popular press, completely bypassing the normal
scientific rigors.

They even
include methods of refutation alongside their theories to make life
easier.

**The deniers certianly do just that. Fortunately, the facts can be used to
demolish their bull****.

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.

**Really? Prove it. In your proof, consider the following facts and explain
these facts in light of your unsupported claim:

* Throughout the Presidency of George W Bush (who is a well-known climate
change denier) the US EPA consistently took the line that the planet is
warming and that it's warming is likely due to anthropogenic activities.
* That Prof. Lindzen (a well-known climate change denier) was paid more than
US$2,500.00/day by fossil fuel interests.
* Please present evidence which shows any research scientist is being paid
more than US$2,500.00/day as a global warming supporter.

This is NOT
science, it is pure totalitarian politics.

**Nope. It's just the facts, you idiot.

Still the stars Trevor. Do they make you feel important? Do you have
stars on your bedroom door too? They certainly don't lend any cogency
to your "argument".

d

[Trevor Wilson]

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 13:46:37 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
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.

**Perhaps.

And it is a fact that
the earth is currently in a cooling cycle.

**Nope. YOU have falied to prove this claim. The present TREND is to a
warming planet.

That is a part of what
these emails are seeking to conceal.

**Really?


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.

**That is how the deniers operate. They deny totally that the planet is
warming. The facts support a warming.


This all a travesty of science.

**Indeed. That the deniers have any traction is an obscenity. They present
no science.

Real scientists put their data and
theories out there, and seek refutation by other scientists.

**Indeed. It is a pity that idiots like Plimer fail to do this. Guys like
Plimer just aim for the popular press, completely bypassing the normal
scientific rigors.

They even
include methods of refutation alongside their theories to make life
easier.

**The deniers certianly do just that. Fortunately, the facts can be used
to
demolish their bull****.

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.

**Really? Prove it. In your proof, consider the following facts and
explain
these facts in light of your unsupported claim:

* Throughout the Presidency of George W Bush (who is a well-known climate
change denier) the US EPA consistently took the line that the planet is
warming and that it's warming is likely due to anthropogenic activities.
* That Prof. Lindzen (a well-known climate change denier) was paid more
than
US$2,500.00/day by fossil fuel interests.
* Please present evidence which shows any research scientist is being paid
more than US$2,500.00/day as a global warming supporter.

This is NOT
science, it is pure totalitarian politics.

**Nope. It's just the facts, you idiot.

Still the stars Trevor. Do they make you feel important? Do you have
stars on your bedroom door too? They certainly don't lend any cogency
to your "argument".

**Your inability to address my questions and my points is duly noted. I
accept your admission that you have no idea about the matter. I further
acknowledge that you now admit that AGW is a fact.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 20:52:33 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

Still the stars Trevor. Do they make you feel important? Do you have
stars on your bedroom door too? They certainly don't lend any cogency
to your "argument".

**Your inability to address my questions and my points is duly noted. I
accept your admission that you have no idea about the matter. I further
acknowledge that you now admit that AGW is a fact.


Is that really how your brain works? Your ability to produce an
argument is still right up to the expected mark. Incidentally I didn't
answer your previous comments because they were simply repeats of your
blind adherence to the Orthodoxy. They added nothing, and I won't go
round that loop again.

Now lose the stars, or continue looking like a berk to the casual
glance as well as the deeper read.

d

[Trevor Wilson]

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 20:52:33 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

Still the stars Trevor. Do they make you feel important? Do you have
stars on your bedroom door too? They certainly don't lend any cogency
to your "argument".

**Your inability to address my questions and my points is duly noted. I
accept your admission that you have no idea about the matter. I further
acknowledge that you now admit that AGW is a fact.


Is that really how your brain works?

**Let's review the facts:

* You make some wild, unsubstantiated claims. I ask for proof. You fail to
provide the proof. I reject your claim.
* I ask some questions about your position. You fail to answer those
questions. I, therefore, place your position as an untenable one.
* I make some points. You fail to provide any scientific evidence to reject
my points. I, therefore, claim that I am correct, until proven otherwise.

Your ability to produce an
argument is still right up to the expected mark. Incidentally I didn't
answer your previous comments because they were simply repeats of your
blind adherence to the Orthodoxy. They added nothing, and I won't go
round that loop again.

**LOL! You failed to back your own postion!


Now lose the stars, or continue looking like a berk to the casual
glance as well as the deeper read.

**I further accept that you cannot justify your claims.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Trevor Wilson]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news
"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.

**It is based on something you appear to lack familiarity with - science.
The proxy data used to obtain temperature records is based on radioactive
decay and is well known and a mature technology. It has been cross-checked
for accuracy many times.

BTW: The number of years you are grappling for is 450,000. The most recent
data stretches back around 600,000 years. NOT 14,000 years.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Trevor Wilson]

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
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.

**Present your evidence. We won't hold our breaths.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 09:20:03 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
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.

**Present your evidence. We won't hold our breaths.

If you spent more time reading and less typing your pretty little
stars, you wouldn't need to keep asking for repeats.

d

[Trevor Wilson]

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 09:20:03 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
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.

**Present your evidence. We won't hold our breaths.

If you spent more time reading and less typing your pretty little
stars, you wouldn't need to keep asking for repeats.

**Inability to present evidence - claim rejected.

I suggest you learn some science, rather than persist in religious beliefs.
It's how we humans work in the real world, as opposed to your world of
nonsense and gobbledegook.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Joe American]

"Lord Valve" wrote in message
...
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.


Lord Valve
Globally Cool

Fatso,

Here's a free clue - these dumb ****s shop at Walmart.

[Trevor Wilson]

"Mr Soul" wrote in message
...
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.

**Not true. Everyone does not know this. Only those who can think critically
and without resorting to supernatural beliefs realise that the planet is
warming.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Arny Krueger]

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in
message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news
"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.

**It is based on something you appear to lack familiarity
with - science.

You're such a charmer, Trevor.

The proxy data used to obtain temperature
records is based on radioactive decay

IOW, inference.

and is well known and a mature technology.

So is radiocarbon dating. Doesn't mean that radiocarbon dating is 100%
accurate.

It has been cross-checked for accuracy many times.

It's very clear revor that you would not know an inference if one bit you in
the nose.

BTW: The number of years you are grappling for is
450,000.

Trevor, you could stop being snotty and realize that it was you who provided
data from just 14 years and inferred a trend based on just it.

The most recent data stretches back around 600,000 years. NOT 14,000
years.

Trevor, if you had the cards you should have played them when you needed to,
not just after you were called up short based on what you said.

[Arny Krueger]

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in
message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"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.

**Of course. Which is why I have CONSISTENTLY and
REPEATEDLY referred to historical data streching back
hundreds of thousands of years:
http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Pre...ning/New_Data/

Note the relationship between temperature levels and CO2
levels.

Here's another news flash for you Trevor: Correlation is not the same as
causality.

[Trevor Wilson]

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in
message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"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.

**Of course. Which is why I have CONSISTENTLY and
REPEATEDLY referred to historical data streching back
hundreds of thousands of years:
http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Pre...ning/New_Data/

Note the relationship between temperature levels and CO2
levels.

Here's another news flash for you Trevor: Correlation is not the same
as causality.

**Here's a newsflash for you: I did not suggest that it was. There is, OTOH,
a great deal of evidence to suggest that the two are RELATED. Evidence. You
know what that is. The sort of thing that is completely lacking in relgion.
Unlike you, I base my opinions on evidence and truth, whilst you base yours
on nothing related to reality.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Trevor Wilson]

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in
message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news
"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.

**It is based on something you appear to lack familiarity
with - science.

You're such a charmer, Trevor.

**Let me remind you of some words you uttered recently:

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

And:

"Good advice that Trevor has a poor track record for following when the
"religious nutters" hide under a cloak of pseudo-science."

It was YOU who chose to 'cast the first stone'. Let me additionally remind
you that I am not a Christian. I do not turn the other cheek. Attempting to
slur me will be repaid many times over. You are a huge and very easy target.
If you wish to keep the discussion civil, I am always ready to comply.



The proxy data used to obtain temperature
records is based on radioactive decay

IOW, inference.

**And one which has been verfiied.


and is well known and a mature technology.

So is radiocarbon dating. Doesn't mean that radiocarbon dating is 100%
accurate.

**Radiocarbon dating has an accuracy which varies with different factors.
OTOH, it is damned good for what it can be used for. As is the proxy data I
cited. It has been verified by different people in different locales. Unlike
supernatural claptrap.


It has been cross-checked for accuracy many times.

It's very clear revor that you would not know an inference if one bit
you in the nose.

BTW: The number of years you are grappling for is
450,000.

Trevor, you could stop being snotty and realize that it was you who
provided data from just 14 years and inferred a trend based on just
it.

**Wrong. I provided data stretching back several hundred thousand years. I
suggest you read ALL my posts in this thread. You may learn something.


The most recent data stretches back around 600,000 years. NOT 14,000
years.

Trevor, if you had the cards you should have played them when you
needed to, not just after you were called up short based on what you
said.

**Like I said: Read the damned thread IN IT'S ENTIRETY, you pompous boob.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Trevor Wilson]

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'.

**Not at all. Here is a short list of scientific organisations (as opposed
to blogs from some farmer in Idaho, that you cite) that employ REAL
scientists (as opposed to religious nutters and fossil fuel apologists) that
fully embrace the facts of global warming:

http://www.ipcc.ch/
http://www.aaas.org/spp/sfrl/projects/stem/index.shtml
http://www.academie-sciences.fr/
http://www.lincei.it/index.php
http://www.agu.org/
http://www.ametsoc.org/
http://www.science.org.au/aashome.htm
http://www.cmos.ca/
http://english.cas.cn/
http://www.royalsociety.org.nz/Site/...e/council.aspx
http://www.insa.ac.in/html/home.asp
http://www.interacademies.net/?id=4278
http://www.kva.se/en/
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/
http://www.nasonline.org/site/PageServer
http://www.noaa.gov/
http://www.akademisains.gov.my/
http://www.ria.ie/
http://www.ras.ru/index.aspx?_Language=en
http://www.scj.go.jp/en/
http://www.aip.org/
http://www.ncar.ucar.edu/
http://royalsociety.org/
http://www.epa.gov/
http://www.rsc.ca/
http://www.csiro.au/
http://www.caswi.org/
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporat...20080923c.html


I suggest you write to each of the above organisations and present your
theories to them. Tell them that the hundreds of scientists employed by
those organisations are wrong and that you have exciting new data (from some
blog you found on the internet) which dispells the thousands of hours of
work done by those scientists.

I look forward to seeing the replies you receive.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Mr Soul]

Dahh Brother - you completely misread the quote I gave. Please learn
to read first.

I'm glad that you are in Ireland because when the polar ice caps melt,
the Gulf Stream may get affected and you'll be mightly cold where you
are! Me, on the other hand, will be quite warm where I am (New
Hampshire). It's one of the warmest falls on record right now - thank
you.

Mr Soul