On Nov 29, 1:18*pm, "Mike Dworetsky"
wrote:
7 wrote:
Mike Dworetsky wrote:

*http://www.channel4.com/programmes/t...ls/4od#2922370

It is a deep insult to politicians to be fed BS by holowarming
pseudo scientists with made up data to take public money and spend
it on fabricating dangerous policies that have no basis in fact.

The landscapes that holowarming pseudo scientists are shaping based
on creating and managing public perceptions are dangerous to public
safety.

Where objective science for dams, flood defenses, and river
management is replaced by pseudo science policies like carbon
trading it does nothing for the public and the constituents of
politicians that are going to get killed to satisfy the lust for
power and attention by holowarmers and their pseudo science.

So are you claiming that archaeologists are wrong to say that the
area now under the North Sea and English Channel was dry land 10,000
years ago? Because that's what the program is about, and the
evidence is very clear on the change of sea levels between 8,000 BC
and today, and the nature of that land and its occupants.

The fact that you seem to have gone off on a tangent indicates that
you didn't even check to see what the program was about before
spouting off.

Are you claiming holowarmers are using real data?
Now there is an inconvenient truth for you!

*Your views are not stated clearly except, apparently, that you think there
is an EvilConspiracy(tm) out there and you are a Caped Crusader fighting
against it. * Presumably, you think that the world is due for an Ice Age

Such was the view of "settled science" in the 1970's. Ask Al Gore.

and
so we better keep pumping out the CO2 and CH4 to prevent it.

The earth can experience significant cooling without an ice age. What
about those pesky volcanoes that keep erutping. What was the climatic
effect of Mt. Pinatubo?

*You had a
knee-jerk reaction to a thread *title*, without even checking that the link
is to a TV archaeology program about sea levels and land use c. 10,000 years
ago in the Neolithic. *It had nothing whatsoever to do with current events
and "Global Warming".

Oh, and yes, they are using real data. *Do you have better data that you
gathered yourself, and can you convince the scientific community that your
data are correct by publishing them in peer-reviewed literature?

Why isn't the Hadley CRU data available to everyone? The problem isn't
the quality of the data, but the interpretation of the data.
Apparently, the computer code for the climate models is so poorly
documented that it is difficult to assess the validity of the output.

*Stealing
e-mails is not the same thing.


--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)