Global Warming is about giving your government more regulatory powerand your eventual enslavment.

On Oct 19, 2:19 am, oriel36 wrote:

You don't even know what causes the basic seasonal variations in
daylight/darkness and that makes you stupid and dangerous when
commenting on climate studies.

Since your theory, which claims an absence of seasonal variations in
weather at the Equator (yes, day and night remain at 12 hours each
there, but the Sun is not always directly overhead at noon except at
the equinoxes) requires the Earth to bend each year like a rubber ball
or one of clay, or at least is in direct contradiction with
observation, I doubt your comments would be better.

John Savard

On Oct 19, 1:28*pm, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 11:16:51 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:
Give me the name of your lawyer who is going to sue me for libel and
I'll be pleased to talk to him ( of course though, your threat I'm
sure was empty BS ).

Your remarkable inability to correctly interpret _anything_ that is said
to you demonstrates that if you actually were a lawyer, you'd be
slaughtered in court. It is impossible to argue against a position you
are incapable of understanding, and a lawyer who can't argue against a
position is worse than useless.
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatoryhttp://www.cloudbait.com

Direct quote from you dipstick:

"You should study up on law a little, too. You are committing libel
here,
by accusing me of saying something that I did not say. Your action is
subject to legal action if I were so inclined; Decisions, decisions. "

You have me shaking--not! Are you practicing law without a license?
Is it truly your "legal opinion" that I have "committed libel"? What a
dumb ass. I invite you to make a "decision" to sue me. Put up or shut
up twerp.

On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 16:50:28 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

Direct quote from you dipstick:

"You should study up on law a little, too. You are committing libel
here,
by accusing me of saying something that I did not say. Your action is
subject to legal action if I were so inclined; Decisions, decisions. "

You have me shaking--not! Are you practicing law without a license?
Is it truly your "legal opinion" that I have "committed libel"? What a
dumb ass. I invite you to make a "decision" to sue me. Put up or shut
up twerp.

Geez, you really think that I was saying I plan on suing you for that?
I've got better things to do with my time. People libel other people on
Usenet all the time, it comes with the territory. The point, which would
have been obvious to a real lawyer, was that a lawyer should be smart
enough to know better. Yes, it is libel if you attribute (especially
with malice) something to me that I did not say. That's something you've
done multiple times in this discussion and in discussions past.

And if I wanted to sue you, I suppose I'd also have to subpoena ISP
records to try and find you, since you don't have the cojones to simply
use your name around here. Like I said, I've got better things to do
with my time. Your misrepresentations don't cause me any grief, they
simply help me understand what kind of person you are. I only take
personally insults from people I have respect for; no danger of that
here.
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

On Oct 19, 9:49 am, "
wrote:
On Oct 19, 6:45 am, Thomas Womack
wrote:

In article ,

Quadibloc wrote:
On Oct 17, 7:44 am, "
wrote:

Mass starvation? BS. The temperate climate regions best suited for
crops will simply move North to Canada and Siberia.

But there's bugger-all good soil in those parts of Canada and Siberia,
since it's been scraped off the bedrock by glaciers and redeposited in
what are currently the prime agricultural areas further south.

Tom

Bad history--the ice caps went well into the US breadbasket farming
areas during past ice ages. BTW, what caused those ices to retreat?
Cars? How stupid can folks be??

You really need to sit down with some basic science textbooks and
learn a few facts before you start spouting nonsense. A little
orbital mechanics, geology and meteorology/climatology would be
useful. No serious climate scientist has ever claimed that natural
climate cycles don't exist. The natural climate cycles are best
explained by the Milankovitch cycle combined with continental drift.
These cycles have periods in excess of 10,000 years. The earth moved
passed into a different part of its orbital cycle and the glaciers
retreated. The last major glaciation scrapped a large portion of the
fertile top soil that was in Canada and dropped it at the leading edge
of the glaciation; the breadbasket of the US. On the other
observations over the last 150 years show a sharp increase in the
slope of global mean temperatures over the last 30 years.

From an American scientist with more than 30 years experience, a fan
of Solaris and Linux hater

On Oct 18, 9:46 am, "
wrote:
On Oct 18, 3:16 am, (Paul Schlyter) wrote:



In article ,

wrote:

Wrong! Don't be so ignorant.... ocean ice melting won't raise the
sea level at all - because that ice already is in the water. Therefore
the ice cap around the North Pole melting won't raise the ocean. What
will raise the sea level is when glaciers on land melts. The biggest
glacier on land is of course the ices of Antarctica. The second biggest
is Greenland, although that one is much smaller than the one in Antarctica.

In fact, the ocean water level rise was hardly measurable--what
happened? Did the Southern ice cap grow by a similar or larger amount
possibly?

If a "scientific theory" can't be empirically tested or it can't make
measurable predictions, it is sort of worthless, isn't it?

If this was just a "scientific theory" it would be easy, although
somewhat time consuming, to test empirically: just continue as before,
and see and measure what happens!

However, this is more than just a test of a scientific theory. It is
also a likely catastrophy. Which means the price to test this
scientific theory is too high. Or would you be willing to probably have
your home flooded, just to test this theory? If not, why do you demand
millions and millions of others living in many coastal cities around the
world to take that risk?

--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at stjarnhimlen dot se
WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/

You can't be unaware of the FACT that the Southern ice cap has been
GROWING in recent years. Are you simply dishonest?

And the notion that any sea level rise will occur virtually overnight
producing coastal flooding" is laughable and pathetic--you can't be
that dumb, can you?

Seems that the latest round of NASA show a steady rise in sea levels.
Bangladesh is already loosing coastal areas. Seems that over the last
100 years sea levels have risen 18cm (Gornitz, 1995; Warrick et al.,
1996). Typical lawyer bull****, act like you know what you are talking
tell really big lies and pray that somebody believes you

On Oct 20, 5:45*am, wrote:
Typical lawyer bull****, act like you know what you are talking
tell really big lies and pray that somebody believes you

104 has a scratchy long playing record of talking bull**** and then
attacking anyone who publicly questions his nonsense. His attention
seeking always gets him into trouble but he never tires of the chance
to describe intelligent, highly qualified people as idiots. An
aggressive and predatory sado-masochist with a highly inflated sense
of self-worth he has a level of ignorance which would embarrass many a
science-interested schoolchild. He trolls endlessly in the hope of
finding a series of superior victims for his petty, bullying, posting
style from within his dull, ironclad suit of ignorance. His empty
arguments have been repeatedly trashed by the real experts whom he
attacks so mercilessly. Yet, like scum, he always rises to the surface
again whenever he sees a new opportunity to expose himself to further
public ridicule. His obvious distaste for qualifications and expertise
suggests a failure to match parental expectations. With the inevitable
loss of the beneficial career opportunities which would have followed
success. His abrasive style would deny him opportunity almost
anywhere. Except, perhaps, as a minor supervisor where he could
endlessly practice his bullying skills on his hapless victims at the
very bottom of the social scale.

On Oct 19, 7:56*pm, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 16:50:28 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:
Direct quote from you dipstick:

"You should study up on law a little, too. You are committing libel
here,
by accusing me of saying something that I did not say. Your action is
subject to legal action if I were so inclined; Decisions, decisions. "

You have me shaking--not! Are you practicing law without a license?
Is it truly your "legal opinion" that I have "committed libel"? What a
dumb ass. I invite you to make a "decision" to sue me. Put up or shut
up twerp.

Geez, you really think that I was saying I plan on suing you for that?
I've got better things to do with my time. People libel other people on
Usenet all the time, it comes with the territory. The point, which would
have been obvious to a real lawyer, was that a lawyer should be smart
enough to know better. Yes, it is libel if you attribute (especially
with malice) something to me that I did not say. That's something you've
done multiple times in this discussion and in discussions past.

And if I wanted to sue you, I suppose I'd also have to subpoena ISP
records to try and find you, since you don't have the cojones to simply
use your name around here. Like I said, I've got better things to do
with my time. Your misrepresentations don't cause me any grief, they
simply help me understand what kind of person you are. I only take
personally insults from people I have respect for; no danger of that
here.
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatoryhttp://www.cloudbait.com

Go bugger your dog--hereinafter "GBYD"

On Oct 19, 10:39*pm, wrote:
On Oct 19, 9:49 am, "
wrote:



On Oct 19, 6:45 am, Thomas Womack
wrote:

In article ,

Quadibloc wrote:
On Oct 17, 7:44 am, "
wrote:

Mass starvation? BS. The temperate climate regions best suited for
crops will simply move North to Canada and Siberia.

But there's bugger-all good soil in those parts of Canada and Siberia,
since it's been scraped off the bedrock by glaciers and redeposited in
what are currently the prime agricultural areas further south.

Tom

Bad history--the ice caps went well into the US breadbasket farming
areas during past ice ages. BTW, what caused those ices to retreat?
Cars? How stupid can folks be??

You really need to sit down with some basic science textbooks and
learn a few facts before you start spouting nonsense. *A little
orbital mechanics, geology and meteorology/climatology would be
useful. No serious climate scientist has ever claimed that natural
climate cycles don't exist. The natural climate cycles are best
explained by the *Milankovitch cycle combined with continental drift.
These cycles have periods in excess of 10,000 years. The earth moved
passed into a different part of its orbital cycle and the glaciers
retreated. The last major glaciation scrapped a large portion of the
fertile top soil that was in Canada and dropped it at the leading edge
of the glaciation; the breadbasket of the US. On the other
observations over the last 150 years show a sharp increase in the
slope of global mean temperatures over the last 30 years.

From an American scientist with more than 30 years experience, a fan
of Solaris and Linux hater

So it is your claim that we have been able to measure the surface ( I
assume you must mean this as opposed to atmospheric ) temperature,
with consistent measuring devices, all over the world, including the
oceans ( which make up 70% of the earth's surface ), to an accuracy of
1 or 2 degrees C. for the last 150 years??

NONSENSE!

Have you already forgotten the predictions 25 short years ago of the
"coming ice age"? Were those "scientists" just stupid?

Are you really claiming that Canada does not have a huge arable area
right now that will simply grow if Canada warms up?

Do you really claim that the huge ( much bigger than the Northern ice
cap ) Southern ice cap has not GROWN over the last several years?

Do you really think China, for example, should be exempted from
putting more than one huge coal-fired energy plant a day on line?

Do you really think the world should devote a substantial part of its
available resources to chase a "theory" when we have so many pressing
needs which are killing millions right now? Or do you perhaps also
value dogs more than humans?

Do you really think current climate computer "models" are not subject
to SUBSTANTIAL modifications as our knowledge of the subject
increases?

Do you really think the many PhD climatology scientists who think most
of the current future climate models are seriously flawed are
charlatans?

Don't you think the current modelers who are predicting disaster ought
to open up all the details of their models for debate and discussion?
It is called the "scientific method"

You claim to be a "scientist". In what field, exactly?

On Oct 19, 10:45*pm, wrote:
On Oct 18, 9:46 am, "
wrote:



On Oct 18, 3:16 am, (Paul Schlyter) wrote:

In article ,

wrote:

Wrong! *Don't be so ignorant.... *ocean ice melting won't raise the
sea level at all - because that ice already is in the water. *Therefore
the ice cap around the North Pole melting won't raise the ocean. *What
will raise the sea level is when glaciers on land melts. *The biggest
glacier on land is of course the ices of Antarctica. *The second biggest
is Greenland, although that one is much smaller than the one in Antarctica.

In fact, the ocean water level rise was hardly measurable--what
happened? Did the Southern ice cap grow by a similar or larger amount
possibly?

If a "scientific theory" can't be empirically tested or it can't make
measurable predictions, it is sort of worthless, isn't it?

If this was just a "scientific theory" it would be easy, although
somewhat time consuming, to test empirically: just continue as before,
and see and measure what happens!

However, this is more than just a test of a scientific theory. *It is
also a likely catastrophy. *Which means the price to test this
scientific theory is too high. *Or would you be willing to probably have
your home flooded, just to test this theory? *If not, why do you demand
millions and millions of others living in many coastal cities around the
world to take that risk?

--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, *Grev Turegatan 40, *SE-114 38 Stockholm, *SWEDEN
e-mail: *pausch at stjarnhimlen dot se
WWW: * *http://stjarnhimlen.se/

You can't be unaware of the FACT that the Southern ice cap has been
GROWING in recent years. Are you simply dishonest?

And the notion that any sea level rise will occur virtually overnight
producing coastal flooding" is laughable and pathetic--you can't be
that dumb, can you?

Seems that the latest round of NASA show a steady rise in sea levels.
Bangladesh is already loosing coastal areas. Seems that over the last
100 years sea levels have risen 18cm (Gornitz, 1995; Warrick et al.,
1996). Typical lawyer bull****, act like you know what you are talking
tell really big lies and pray that somebody believes you

So New York has been flooded, right, with your claimed 100 year 7 inch
sea level rise? Or do you claim the sea levels around the world can
change independent of each other? Do you agree with the claims that
sea levels will rise 70 FEET by the end of the century?

Do you seriously claim that technology has no way to cope with sea
levels rising a fraction of an inch per year ( assuming the current
trend continues )?

And you are playing the usual intellectually dishonest game of
equating global warming ( which likely--if it truly with us for the
next 100 years--is part of a natural trend as it always has cycled up
and down in the historical past ) to a jump to the "primary cause
being man-made CO2". The two concepts are very DIFFERENT no matter how
much you would like to equate them or fuzz them together. Ever heard
the term "****ing in the wind"? If we are in the middle of a long term
natural warming cycle, what evidence do you have that slowing the
growth ( which is all we can realistically do thanks to China and
India, etc, etc ) of man-made CO2 will have any significant impact?

No real "scientist" would be that sloppy.

On Oct 20, 3:30*am, "Chris.B" wrote:
On Oct 20, 5:45*am, wrote:
*Typical lawyer bull****, act like you know what you are talking

tell really big lies and pray that somebody believes you

104 has a scratchy long playing record of talking bull**** and then
attacking anyone who publicly questions his nonsense. His attention
seeking always gets him into trouble but he never tires of the chance
to describe intelligent, highly qualified people as idiots. An
aggressive and predatory sado-masochist with a highly inflated sense
of self-worth he has a level of ignorance which would embarrass many a
science-interested schoolchild. He trolls endlessly in the hope of
finding a series of superior victims for his petty, bullying, posting
style from within his dull, ironclad suit of ignorance. *His empty
arguments have been repeatedly trashed by the real experts whom he
attacks so mercilessly. Yet, like scum, he always rises to the surface
again whenever he sees a new opportunity to expose himself to further
public ridicule. His obvious distaste for qualifications and expertise
suggests a failure to match parental expectations. With the inevitable
loss of the beneficial career opportunities which would have followed
success. His abrasive style would deny him opportunity almost
anywhere. Except, perhaps, as a minor supervisor where he could
endlessly practice his bullying skills on his hapless victims at the
very bottom of the social scale.

GBYD