An open letter to nob

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

Can you see the difference between meteorologists (whose statements
you seem to base the vast majority, if not all, of your arguments on)
and climatologists (nearly *all* of whom disagree with you) yet? Here,
these letters may help you.

BTW, which of these letter-writers sounds smarter to you, nob? Which
one would you suppose comes across most like you?

************************************************** ********************************
DEBATING GLOBAL WARMING

A bad forecasting record

In the Nov. 13 article "Weather Channel founder calls global warming a
scam," Daniel Weiss, a senior fellow and director of climate strategy
at the Center for American Progress, disagrees, saying, "We are seeing
the impacts of global warming now that were not supposed to occur
until years from now."

Is it surprising to anyone that these same scientists who are
attempting to predict the Earth's temperature years from now are the
same ones who can't predict whether it's going to rain or snow
tomorrow?

http://www.startribune.com/letters/story/1548624.html

************************************************** ********************************

climate vs. weather

A big difference

What the Nov 14 letter writer ("A bad forecasting record") fails to
grasp is the difference between climate and weather.

Weather is the day-to-day state of the atmosphere, and climate is the
statistics on weather data taken over a time range of several years.

Global warming scientists are not trying to predict the weather on
March 13 of the year 2122. Instead they study trends in climate based
on past and current weather measurements, such as temperature and
humidity, over a period of decades and centuries.

Take the stock market as a way of understanding the difference between
weather and climate. If you could predict the day-to-day ups and downs
of the stock market on a consistent basis (think weather here), you
would be a very rich individual. As we all know this is very difficult
task. However, over time the statistics have shown (think climate
here) that the stock market typically increases between 5 percent and
10 percent over a period of decades, which is why individuals find
this a wise investment for their retirements.

Climate and weather are different. Global warming deniers, please
don't use this as an argument anymore to make your case. It's simply
wrong.

http://www.startribune.com/letters/story/1556555.html
************************************************** ***********************
Can you begin to understand why I (and many others) ridicule you and
your ecstatic endorsement of that weatherman from San Diego's
statement?

LOL!

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

Uh-oh. 2pid's about to throw a tantrum. He called me "ssshhhieee" like
he always does when he 'thinks' he's making a 'point' and is on the
verge of (yet another) breakdown. You can tell when the tantrum hits
because that changes to "ssssssshhhhhhhhhhhhhithead". It's only a
matter of time.

PERSONAL NOTE TO 2PID: READ YOUR OWN SOURCES, MORON. OTHERWISE, YOU
'POTENTIALLY' [LOL! ;-)] COME OFF AS REALLY, REALLY STUPID. EVEN
IMBECILIC*.

*imbecilic

adjective

So senseless as to be laughable: absurd, foolish, harebrained,
idiotic, insane, lunatic, mad, moronic, nonsensical, preposterous,
silly, softheaded, tomfool, unearthly, zany. Informal cockeyed, crazy,
loony, loopy. Slang balmy2, dippy, dopey, jerky, sappy, wacky. See
ability/inability, knowledge/ignorance.

http://www.answers.com/topic/imbecilic

On Nov 19, 10:42 am, "ScottW" > wrote:
> http://www.springerlink.com/content/r16r7u0g7w188166/

> and this one is quite revealing of the immaturity of the field.
>
> http://www.aip.org/history/climate/climogy.htm

Did you read any of this, 2pid? I mean, other than the parts about
climatology being a newer field?

"If you compared the upward curve of late-20th-century temperatures
with the curves produced by computer models that calculated the
effects of the upward climb of greenhouse gases (with adjustments for
volcanic eruptions, solar variations and aerosol pollution), the match
was close indeed. Temperatures were soaring just as scientists had
been predicting, with increasing confidence, for decades. Few could
believe any longer that this was mere coincidence. The world's
community of experts finally agreed, with little dissent, that it was
highly likely that the strong global warming since since the 1970s was
in large part the work of humanity. ***In a 2007 consensus report,
they went on to say that human activity had probably contributed to
the increased heat waves and many other changes in weather patterns
that were already seen to be underway... as
predicted.***(50)" (emphasis mine)

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/20ctrend.htm

Did you read his conclusion, 2pid?

"My training as a physicist and historian of science has given me some
feeling for where scientific claims are reliable and where they are
shaky. Of course climate science is full of uncertainties, and nobody
claims to know exactly what the climate will do. That very uncertainty
is part of what, I am confident, is known beyond doubt -- our planet's
climate can change, tremendously and unpredictably. Beyond that we can
conclude (with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in its
2007 report) that it is very likely that significant global warming is
coming in our lifetimes. This surely brings a likelihood of harm,
widespread and grave (see this summary of expected impacts). ****The
few who contest these facts are either ignorant, or so committed to
their viewpoint that they will seize on any excuse to deny the
danger.****" (emphasis mine)

"Many things can be done right now that are not only cheap and
effective, but will actually pay for themselves through benefits
entirely aside from acting against global warming. Americans in
particular -- the world's most promiscuous emitters of greenhouse gases
and the ones best placed to do something about it -- can set an
example." [i.e. getting our own house in order, 2pid, as someone said
to you very recently several times. You've made that person, whoever
it is, look very smart, at least compared to you and nob. But you
always insist on worrying about what other nations do.]

"The first practical steps, the really cheap and easy ones, will not
have a big impact on future global warming. But starting off will give
the world experience in developing and negotiating the right
technologies and policies. We will need this experience if, as is
likely, climate change becomes so harmful that it compels us to make
greater efforts." [i.e. Someone said "You have to start somewhere" to
you recently. That person should have used this article as backup for
their, as it turns out, really, really smart position. I'm sure that
person, whoever it was, would want to thank you for providing it.] ;-)

"Like many threats, global warming calls for greater government
activity, and that rightly worries people. But in the 21st century the
alternative to government action is not individual liberty: it is
corporate power. And the role of large corporations in this story
until very recently has been negative, a tale of self-interested
obfuscation and short-sighted delay. The atmosphere is a classic case
of a "commons" -- like the old shared English meadows, where any given
individual could only gain by adding more of his own cows, although
everyone lost from the overgrazing. In such cases only public rules
can protect the public interest." [i.e. business only worries about
business, another thing some smart guy said to you recently.]

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/SWnote.htm

So there is a scientific consensus (which I already knew) and there is
a large man-made component to GW (which I also already knew) and
business or market forces will not be the answer, which I already
knew, and we should quit delaying and get our house in order NOW,
which I already knew. So what's new?

You've proven my point for me...again. That must just really fry you,
eh, 2pid? I hope our other resident 'genius' nob reads this too,
although it's unlikely he'll understand it any better than you
apparently do.

I'll grant you that climatology is a newer field. Who really cares
about that, and what difference does that make? I'll give you that
'point' without argument.

Look! You 'won' again!

LOL!

Imbecile.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Nov 19, 7:00 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in

> > "If you compared the upward curve of late-20th-century temperatures
> > with the curves produced by computer models that calculated the
> > effects of the upward climb of greenhouse gases (with adjustments for
> > volcanic eruptions, solar variations and aerosol pollution),
>
> It's funny how the models were way off....until these adjustments
> were made and the data and proof on the adjustments remains
> rather lacking. Still no accepted explanation for CO2 being
> a lagging historical indicator. Why is that?

Are you still flogging that CO2 institute funded by Exxon/Mobil?

> > Did you read his conclusion, 2pid?

Short answer: no. 2pid posted this without reading or understanding
its content.

> > "Many things can be done right now that are not only cheap and
> > effective, but will actually pay for themselves through benefits
> > entirely aside from acting against global warming.
>
> and these are.....replace all our lightbulbs?

Yes, 2pid. That's what your source meant. There, there, everything
will be OK.

> I'd like see someone come up with the simple, comprehensive,
> and effective plan that pays for itself.

That probably will not happen, but simple things may include higher
cafe standards and so on.

Why would you, when faced with potentially the biggest calamisy that
has ever faced mankind, insist that it be done for free?

Let's use that 'logic' on the military, 2pid. Yes, you can have a next-
generation fighter, but only if it doesn't cost anything.

So what you are saying is that you are not only stupid, but cheap.

> Please point me to it! I'm all ready to jump on board.
> A free cure. Stop hiding it....out with it!

Who ever said one would exist? I'm all for infrastructure
inprovements, too. Those are not free either.

> Hansen, the great leader on this topic, got that question
> straight on and couldn't answer.

Um, because it's an incredibly dumb question and he's a smart guy?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Nov 20, 1:24 am, "KMM" > wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in ...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Can you see the difference between meteorologists (whose statements
> > you seem to base the vast majority, if not all, of your arguments on)
> > and climatologists (nearly *all* of whom disagree with you) yet? Here,
> > these letters may help you.
>
> > BTW, which of these letter-writers sounds smarter to you, nob? Which
> > one would you suppose comes across most like you?
>
> > ************************************************** *************************-*******
> > DEBATING GLOBAL WARMING
>
> > A bad forecasting record
>
> > In the Nov. 13 article "Weather Channel founder calls global warming a
> > scam," Daniel Weiss, a senior fellow and director of climate strategy
> > at the Center for American Progress, disagrees, saying, "We are seeing
> > the impacts of global warming now that were not supposed to occur
> > until years from now."
>
> > Is it surprising to anyone that these same scientists who are
> > attempting to predict the Earth's temperature years from now are the
> > same ones who can't predict whether it's going to rain or snow
> > tomorrow?
>
> >http://www.startribune.com/letters/story/1548624.html
>
> > ************************************************** *************************-*******
>
> > climate vs. weather
>
> > A big difference
>
> > What the Nov 14 letter writer ("A bad forecasting record") fails to
> > grasp is the difference between climate and weather.
>
> > Weather is the day-to-day state of the atmosphere, and climate is the
> > statistics on weather data taken over a time range of several years.
>
> > Global warming scientists are not trying to predict the weather on
> > March 13 of the year 2122. Instead they study trends in climate based
> > on past and current weather measurements, such as temperature and
> > humidity, over a period of decades and centuries.
>
> > Take the stock market as a way of understanding the difference between
> > weather and climate. If you could predict the day-to-day ups and downs
> > of the stock market on a consistent basis (think weather here), you
> > would be a very rich individual. As we all know this is very difficult
> > task. However, over time the statistics have shown (think climate
> > here) that the stock market typically increases between 5 percent and
> > 10 percent over a period of decades, which is why individuals find
> > this a wise investment for their retirements.
>
> > Climate and weather are different. Global warming deniers, please
> > don't use this as an argument anymore to make your case. It's simply
> > wrong.
>
> >http://www.startribune.com/letters/story/1556555.html
> > ************************************************** ***********************
> > Can you begin to understand why I (and many others) ridicule you and
> > your ecstatic endorsement of that weatherman from San Diego's
> > statement?
>
> > LOL
>
> I can see that you have yet to address the question on how many Phd
> climatologists support the notion of man made GW, and what percentage of the
> total number of PhD Climatologists they represent.

That's funny: I see the same thing in you. I gave you the percentage
of Ph.D Climatologists a couple of days ago, nob: 92%. Go ahead, nob,
show your rebuttal: give us your correct percentage.

Let's agree to not count those who are being paid off by energy
companies (on the contrarian side), like those who are aligned with
Robinson, Robinson and Soon (who are using religion, poor logic,
cooked data AND are being paid off by Big Energy). To be fair, we'll
also disallow those on the other side who are being paid off by...
by... Hm. Who's paying off the other side again, nob?

BTW, if this is strictly a numbers thing, and you are going to count
"over 31,000" members of the American Association of Petroleum
Geologists, you'll also have to give me the number out of that 31,000
who caused the AAPG to change their position to reflect the fact that
vast numbers of current and prospective members disagree with you. See
the Wiki link I already provided.

Sound fair? We'll see if the "Empower" is truly naked or not.;-)

And you also deked this question: do you understand the difference
between a meteorologist and a climatologist yet?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Nov 20, 12:07 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in ...
>
> > On Nov 19, 7:00 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in
>
> >> > "If you compared the upward curve of late-20th-century temperatures
> >> > with the curves produced by computer models that calculated the
> >> > effects of the upward climb of greenhouse gases (with adjustments for
> >> > volcanic eruptions, solar variations and aerosol pollution),
>
> >> It's funny how the models were way off....until these adjustments
> >> were made and the data and proof on the adjustments remains
> >> rather lacking. Still no accepted explanation for CO2 being
> >> a lagging historical indicator. Why is that?
>
> > Are you still flogging that CO2 institute funded by Exxon/Mobil?
>
> Are you still ignoring a troubling piece of data in the
> historical records?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> > Did you read his conclusion, 2pid?
>
> > Short answer: no. 2pid posted this without reading or understanding
> > its content.
>
> >> > "Many things can be done right now that are not only cheap and
> >> > effective, but will actually pay for themselves through benefits
> >> > entirely aside from acting against global warming.
>
> >> and these are.....replace all our lightbulbs?
>
> > Yes, 2pid. That's what your source meant. There, there, everything
> > will be OK.
>
> >> I'd like see someone come up with the simple, comprehensive,
> >> and effective plan that pays for itself.
>
> > That probably will not happen,
>
> What? What do you mean? Are you calling him a liar?

No, I'm basing that on what he said.

> > but simple things may include higher
> > cafe standards and so on.
>
> > Why would you, when faced with potentially the biggest calamisy that
> > has ever faced mankind, insist that it be done for free?
>
> Sounds like some politics of fears being played.
> Can't have a potential calamisy...

Oh, you got me, 2pid. I misspelled a word! (I know that happens so
infrequently that it probably *is* a pretty big deal. Perhaps I should
spell-check all of my posts to catch that, since it occurs about every
150 posts or so when I don't...)

LOL!

> so let's make a very real one with BS fixes like
> Kyoto exemptions and carbon credits and just plain foolishness.

Your "fix" would be everybody else's "start".

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Nov 20, 3:27 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in ...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 20, 12:07 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in
> >> ...
>
> >> > On Nov 19, 7:00 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> >> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in
>
> >> >> > "If you compared the upward curve of late-20th-century temperatures
> >> >> > with the curves produced by computer models that calculated the
> >> >> > effects of the upward climb of greenhouse gases (with adjustments for
> >> >> > volcanic eruptions, solar variations and aerosol pollution),
>
> >> >> It's funny how the models were way off....until these adjustments
> >> >> were made and the data and proof on the adjustments remains
> >> >> rather lacking. Still no accepted explanation for CO2 being
> >> >> a lagging historical indicator. Why is that?
>
> >> > Are you still flogging that CO2 institute funded by Exxon/Mobil?
>
> >> Are you still ignoring a troubling piece of data in the
> >> historical records?
>
> >> >> > Did you read his conclusion, 2pid?
>
> >> > Short answer: no. 2pid posted this without reading or understanding
> >> > its content.
>
> >> >> > "Many things can be done right now that are not only cheap and
> >> >> > effective, but will actually pay for themselves through benefits
> >> >> > entirely aside from acting against global warming.
>
> >> >> and these are.....replace all our lightbulbs?
>
> >> > Yes, 2pid. That's what your source meant. There, there, everything
> >> > will be OK.
>
> >> >> I'd like see someone come up with the simple, comprehensive,
> >> >> and effective plan that pays for itself.
>
> >> > That probably will not happen,
>
> >> What? What do you mean? Are you calling him a liar?
>
> > No, I'm basing that on what he said.
>
> >> > but simple things may include higher
> >> > cafe standards and so on.
>
> >> > Why would you, when faced with potentially the biggest calamisy that
> >> > has ever faced mankind, insist that it be done for free?
>
> >> Sounds like some politics of fears being played.
> >> Can't have a potential calamisy...
>
> > Oh, you got me, 2pid. I misspelled a word! (I know that happens so
> > infrequently
>
> How would you know?
>
> > that it probably *is* a pretty big deal.
>
> The little deal is that you're not as smart as you'd like
> everyone to believe....but I think you actually know that.
>
> > Perhaps I should
> > spell-check all of my posts to catch that, since it occurs about every
> > 150 posts or so when I don't...)
>
> > LOL!
>
> >> so let's make a very real one with BS fixes like
> >> Kyoto exemptions and carbon credits and just plain foolishness.
>
> > Your "fix" would be everybody else's "start".
>
> Kyoto will expire soon. Time to start over.

Well, aren't you lucky?

LOL!

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Nov 20, 12:07 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in ...
>
> > On Nov 19, 7:00 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in
>
> >> > "If you compared the upward curve of late-20th-century temperatures
> >> > with the curves produced by computer models that calculated the
> >> > effects of the upward climb of greenhouse gases (with adjustments for
> >> > volcanic eruptions, solar variations and aerosol pollution),
>
> >> It's funny how the models were way off....until these adjustments
> >> were made and the data and proof on the adjustments remains
> >> rather lacking. Still no accepted explanation for CO2 being
> >> a lagging historical indicator. Why is that?
>
> > Are you still flogging that CO2 institute funded by Exxon/Mobil?
>
> Are you still ignoring a troubling piece of data in the
> historical records?

It seems that it's really only troubling to you. There's no surprise
there, as so much in this world is...

Very well, 2pid, since your're too lazy to look for yourself:

http://icebubbles.ucsd.edu/Publications/CaillonTermIII.pdf

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/

Once you have 'peer' (LOL!) reviewed these, why don't you get back to
us with your undoubtedly incisive analysis and commentary?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Nov 20, 4:36 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in ...

> > On Nov 20, 12:07 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in
> >> ...
>
> >> > On Nov 19, 7:00 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> >> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in
>
> >> >> > "If you compared the upward curve of late-20th-century temperatures
> >> >> > with the curves produced by computer models that calculated the
> >> >> > effects of the upward climb of greenhouse gases (with adjustments for
> >> >> > volcanic eruptions, solar variations and aerosol pollution),
>
> >> >> It's funny how the models were way off....until these adjustments
> >> >> were made and the data and proof on the adjustments remains
> >> >> rather lacking. Still no accepted explanation for CO2 being
> >> >> a lagging historical indicator. Why is that?
>
> >> > Are you still flogging that CO2 institute funded by Exxon/Mobil?
>
> >> Are you still ignoring a troubling piece of data in the
> >> historical records?
>
> > It seems that it's really only troubling to you. There's no surprise
> > there, as so much in this world is...
>
> > Very well, 2pid, since your're too lazy to look for yourself:
>
> >http://icebubbles.ucsd.edu/Publications/CaillonTermIII.pdf
>
> Which says
> "This confirms that CO2 is
> not the forcing that initially drives the climatic
> system during a deglaciation. Rather, deglaciation
> is probably initiated by some insolation
> forcing (1, 31, 32), which influences first the
> temperature change in Antarctica (and possibly
> in part of the Southern Hemisphere) and then the
> CO2."
>
> Hmmmm.

Yup, you ponder that one, 2pid. I have other questions that are far
more interesting to me later. Perhaps you can help me with them.

But then again, I found learning my own language fascinating. I didn't
have "better things to do".

> >http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/
>
> "All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of
> warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in
> fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data. "
>
> So something that warms the planet for 800 years suddenly stops
> and lets CO2 take over. I guess that "could inf fact" happen
> or maybe the rise in C02 is from the lowering of solubility in
> rising temp sea waters and doesn't drive the temps at all.
> Could in fact that happen?

Could the Pope secretly be Jewish? Sure.

> Could in fact is an interesting phrase which seems to imply,
> the facts are not known.

What deglaciation event is the CO2 lagging behind right now, 2pid?
What happened 800-1200 years ago to release the record-level of CO2
that's currently in the atmosphere? Are we now in the 800th year of a
deglaciation warming cycle? Wrap up that little mystery and win
yourself a Nobel!

"Temperature is believed to have been relatively stable over the one
or two thousand years before 1850, with possibly regional fluctuations
such as the Medieval Warm Period or the Little Ice Age."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#Recent

Uh-oh. That's not it. We'll have to dig up something else to try to
create doubt.

"Five hundred million years ago carbon dioxide was 20 times more
prevalent than today, decreasing to 4-5 times during the Jurassic
period and then maintained a slow decline until the industrial
revolution.[14]."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide#In_the_Earth.27s_atmosphere

Damn. We're in trouble, aren't we.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Nov 21, 9:53 am, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in ...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 20, 4:36 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in
> >> ...
>
> >> > On Nov 20, 12:07 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> >> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in
> >> >> ...
>
> >> >> > On Nov 19, 7:00 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> >> >> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in
>
> >> >> >> > "If you compared the upward curve of late-20th-century temperatures
> >> >> >> > with the curves produced by computer models that calculated the
> >> >> >> > effects of the upward climb of greenhouse gases (with adjustments for
> >> >> >> > volcanic eruptions, solar variations and aerosol pollution),
>
> >> >> >> It's funny how the models were way off....until these adjustments
> >> >> >> were made and the data and proof on the adjustments remains
> >> >> >> rather lacking. Still no accepted explanation for CO2 being
> >> >> >> a lagging historical indicator. Why is that?
>
> >> >> > Are you still flogging that CO2 institute funded by Exxon/Mobil?
>
> >> >> Are you still ignoring a troubling piece of data in the
> >> >> historical records?
>
> >> > It seems that it's really only troubling to you. There's no surprise
> >> > there, as so much in this world is...
>
> >> > Very well, 2pid, since your're too lazy to look for yourself:
>
> >> >http://icebubbles.ucsd.edu/Publications/CaillonTermIII.pdf
>
> >> Which says
> >> "This confirms that CO2 is
> >> not the forcing that initially drives the climatic
> >> system during a deglaciation. Rather, deglaciation
> >> is probably initiated by some insolation
> >> forcing (1, 31, 32), which influences first the
> >> temperature change in Antarctica (and possibly
> >> in part of the Southern Hemisphere) and then the
> >> CO2."
>
> >> Hmmmm.
>
> > Yup, you ponder that one, 2pid. I have other questions
>
> Well, you can't seem to answer this one so I suppose
> it's time to move on to other questions you can't answer.

It's odd, isn't it? We're warming.

Let's look at 2pid's 'logic',

> > that are far
> > more interesting to me later. Perhaps you can help me with them.
>
> > But then again, I found learning my own language fascinating. I didn't
> > have "better things to do".
>
> >> >http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/
>
> >> "All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of
> >> warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in
> >> fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data.
> >> "
>
> >> So something that warms the planet for 800 years suddenly stops
> >> and lets CO2 take over. I guess that "could inf fact" happen
> >> or maybe the rise in C02 is from the lowering of solubility in
> >> rising temp sea waters and doesn't drive the temps at all.
> >> Could in fact that happen?
>
> > Could the Pope secretly be Jewish? Sure.
>
> >> Could in fact is an interesting phrase which seems to imply,
> >> the facts are not known.
>
> > What deglaciation event is the CO2 lagging behind right now, 2pid?
>
> Wait 700 years and we'll find out.

No wonder you're a conservative.

You're unable to see beyond the end of your nose.

BTW, 2pid, humans were not around during the Jurrasic period. I
thought you should know that.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Nov 21, 3:29 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote

> > It's odd, isn't it? We're warming.
>
> Not today. Not since 1998 actually. And Glaciers are advancing
> again in some areas.

2005 matched 1998.

Look at the warmest years in the past 100 years and get back to me.

[George M. Middius]

Shhhh! said:

> > And Glaciers are advancing again in some areas.

> 2005 matched 1998.
> Look at the warmest years in the past 100 years and get back to me.

Has Scottie ever revealed why he feels compelled to view GW as a
political issue? Only a moron or a paid shill for Big Energy -- such as
the current Petroleum Puppets Regime in D.C. -- could possibly adopt
that position.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Nov 21, 9:58 pm, George M. Middius <cmndr _ george @ comcast .
net> wrote:
> Shhhh! said:
>
> > > And Glaciers are advancing again in some areas.
> > 2005 matched 1998.
> > Look at the warmest years in the past 100 years and get back to me.
>
> Has Scottie ever revealed why he feels compelled to view GW as a
> political issue? Only a moron or a paid shill for Big Energy -- such as
> the current Petroleum Puppets Regime in D.C. -- could possibly adopt
> that position.

It's because the envorinment is seen as a liberal issue, I'm sure. We
can't have them damned liburral tree-hugging envoronmental whackos be
right. Therefore conservatives, like 2pid, want to make sure the
environment is trashed as soon as possible. They 'win' that way.

I wonder how many of the people that 2pid stuffs his head with, like
Limbaugh and Hewitt and Hannity and Beck, are in denial about GW. Is
it 100%? I'll bet it is.

Well, there is one bright spot: as they kill us, they get to die as
well.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Mar 13, 3:35*am, "KMM" > wrote:

So, nob, why are we bringing up threads from four months ago?

Did you finally make your way out of the shelter and to a public
library so you could post again?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Mar 13, 3:41*am, "KMM" > wrote:

> The survey results contradict assertions by environmental activist groups
> that "the debate is over" and that all or virtually all scientists agree
> humans are causing a dramatic and harmful change in the Earth's climate.
>
> Survey Results
>
> According to the survey:
>
> * a.. 34 percent of environmental scientists and practitioners disagree that
> global warming is a serious problem facing the planet.

One third don't think GW is a problem. That's huge! LOL!

> * a.. 33 percent disagree that the U.S. government is not doing enough to
> address global warming.

One third think that the US government is doing enough. That's huge!

With numbers like this it's no wonder you're upset! LOL!

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Mar 13, 3:30*am, "KMM" > wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote

> > Can you see the difference between meteorologists (whose statements
> > you seem to base the vast majority, if not all, of your arguments on)
> > and climatologists (nearly *all* of whom disagree with you) yet? Here,
> > these letters may help you.
>
> > BTW, which of these letter-writers sounds smarter to you, nob? Which
> > one would you suppose comes across most like you?
>
> > ************************************************** *********************************
> > DEBATING GLOBAL WARMING
>
> > A bad forecasting record
>
> > In the Nov. 13 article "Weather Channel founder calls global warming a
> > scam," Daniel Weiss, a senior fellow and director of climate strategy
> > at the Center for American Progress, disagrees, saying, "We are seeing
> > the impacts of global warming now that were not supposed to occur
> > until years from now."
>
> > Is it surprising to anyone that these same scientists who are
> > attempting to predict the Earth's temperature years from now are the
> > same ones who can't predict whether it's going to rain or snow
> > tomorrow?
>
> >http://www.startribune.com/letters/story/1548624.html
>
> > ************************************************** *********************************
>
> > climate vs. weather
>
> > A big difference
>
> > What the Nov 14 letter writer ("A bad forecasting record") fails to
> > grasp is the difference between climate and weather.
>
> > Weather is the day-to-day state of the atmosphere, and climate is the
> > statistics on weather data taken over a time range of several years.
>
> > Global warming scientists are not trying to predict the weather on
> > March 13 of the year 2122. Instead they study trends in climate based
> > on past and current weather measurements, such as temperature and
> > humidity, over a period of decades and centuries.
>
> > Take the stock market as a way of understanding the difference between
> > weather and climate. If you could predict the day-to-day ups and downs
> > of the stock market on a consistent basis (think weather here), you
> > would be a very rich individual. As we all know this is very difficult
> > task. However, over time the statistics have shown (think climate
> > here) that the stock market typically increases between 5 percent and
> > 10 percent over a period of decades, which is why individuals find
> > this a wise investment for their retirements.
>
> > Climate and weather are different. Global warming deniers, please
> > don't use this as an argument anymore to make your case. It's simply
> > wrong.
>
> >http://www.startribune.com/letters/story/1556555.html
> > ************************************************** ***********************
> > Can you begin to understand why I (and many others) ridicule you and
> > your ecstatic endorsement of that weatherman from San Diego's
> > statement?
>
> > LOL!
>
> To even a casual observer it appears that you ridicule everyone who holds a
> different i.e. non-liberal viewpoint on anything.

I ridicule everybody who thinks a one-third "majority" means anything.

I ridicule everybody who puts a massive amount of stock in a
weatherman from San Diego's statements.

Hint: that would be you, nob.

> Have you polled all the Climatologists to see what their thoughts on GW
> might be?

Since you asked, I'm sure that you have. Don't keep us in suspense!
Which one-third agree with you?