climate facts anyone?

http://www.kusi.com/home/78477082.html?video=pop&t=a

The Amazing Story Behind the Global Warming Scam:

http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemans.../38574742.html


go for it LWL's and al gore dupes!

On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 13:55:28 -0600, "David Staup"
wrote:

http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemans.../38574742.html

Thanks, but I prefer to read about science in journals, not the ravings
of a scientifically illiterate fool with a website.

BTW, this is a science forum, so you don't belong here, posting your
dogma and demonstrating your own ignorance. Since you know nothing about
climate science, you might consider asking questions and learning
something- there are a few people here who could help educate you. But
if you're not interested in learning, there are plenty of pseudoscience
forums where you can go and spout off.
_________________________________________________

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

In Chris L Peterson
wrote:

BTW, this is a science forum, so you don't belong here,

Well, that's interesting.

--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN

"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 13:55:28 -0600, "David Staup"
wrote:

http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemans.../38574742.html

Thanks, but I prefer to read about science in journals, not the ravings
of a scientifically illiterate fool with a website.

BTW, this is a science forum, so you don't belong here, posting your
dogma and demonstrating your own ignorance. Since you know nothing about
climate science, you might consider asking questions and learning
something- there are a few people here who could help educate you. But
if you're not interested in learning, there are plenty of pseudoscience
forums where you can go and spout off.
_________________________________________________

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

fool,

I knew you would dismiss this, it goes with the cultivated ignorance you
show all the time...
Talk about spouting off, obviously you didn't even look at the material as
it has all been vetted scientifically and the gentleman who wrote the
article is no "fool with a website" That would be you!

I would suggest that YOU consider "learning" to look critically at all sides
of an issue but fanatics like you always find a reason to ignore and/or
belittle any evidence contrary to your "beliefs".

I'll give you a little lattitude as I know the air is thin there in colorado
and clearly it affects ones thinking abilities...

On Jan 11, 2:57*pm, "David Staup" wrote:
"Chris L Peterson" wrote in messagenews:mt0nk5hodb8cup47rv8u4kco0mmdnj37km@4ax .com...



On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 13:55:28 -0600, "David Staup"
wrote:

http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemans.../38574742.html

Thanks, but I prefer to read about science in journals, not the ravings
of a scientifically illiterate fool with a website.

BTW, this is a science forum, so you don't belong here, posting your
dogma and demonstrating your own ignorance. Since you know nothing about
climate science, you might consider asking questions and learning
something- there are a few people here who could help educate you. But
if you're not interested in learning, there are plenty of pseudoscience
forums where you can go and spout off.
_________________________________________________

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

fool,

I knew you would dismiss this, it goes with the cultivated ignorance you
show all the time...
Talk about spouting off, obviously you didn't even look at the material as
it has all been vetted scientifically and the gentleman who wrote the
article is no "fool with a website" *That would be you!

I would suggest that YOU consider "learning" to look critically at all sides
of an issue but fanatics like you always find a reason to ignore and/or
belittle any evidence contrary to your "beliefs".

I'll give you a little lattitude as I know the air is thin there in colorado
and clearly it affects ones thinking abilities...

Do you have a clue? Do you know anything about Coleman? Do you know
just how stupid some of his remarks are/have been? Do you know he has
zero (0) science background? Do you know that he was removed from the
The WeatherChannel for financial malfeasance?

His recent diatribe says that TV "meteorologist" don't believe in
global warming. Considering the TV "meteorologists" aren't
meteorologists, but journalism majors who failed at everything else
they tried why am I not surprised these failures have trouble
understanding something as simple as observed data.

David talk to your physician about getting back on to some statins to
help cure your self stated memory and reasoning problems

"David Staup" wrote in message
...

"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 13:55:28 -0600, "David Staup"
wrote:

http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemans.../38574742.html

Thanks, but I prefer to read about science in journals, not the ravings
of a scientifically illiterate fool with a website.

BTW, this is a science forum, so you don't belong here, posting your
dogma and demonstrating your own ignorance. Since you know nothing about
climate science, you might consider asking questions and learning
something- there are a few people here who could help educate you. But
if you're not interested in learning, there are plenty of pseudoscience
forums where you can go and spout off.
_________________________________________________

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

fool,

I knew you would dismiss this, it goes with the cultivated ignorance you
show all the time...
Talk about spouting off, obviously you didn't even look at the material as
it has all been vetted scientifically and the gentleman who wrote the
article is no "fool with a website" That would be you!

I would suggest that YOU consider "learning" to look critically at all
sides of an issue but fanatics like you always find a reason to ignore
and/or belittle any evidence contrary to your "beliefs".

I'll give you a little lattitude as I know the air is thin there in
colorado and clearly it affects ones thinking abilities...

I did take a look at it. Where has it been "scientifically vetted"? There
is no indication of that or references of any kind. In fact there is a
nearly sentence-by-sentence rebuttal detailing its inaccuracies and
fallacies that can be found he
http://www.uscentrist.org/about/issu...l-warming-scam

John Coleman, who wrote this, is a TV station weatherman and businessman who
happened to found the Weather Channel. He has no formal meteorological
training or any science degree at all (and, yes, this would not matter if
his arguments were based on facts and logic. I bring it up only because he
is being promoted as an expert: the Founder of The Weather Channel.)

He has been saying basically the same thing since 2007. See a rebuttal to an
earlier screed.
http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/200...lobal-heating/

David Staup wrote:
"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 13:55:28 -0600, "David Staup"
wrote:

http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemans.../38574742.html
Thanks, but I prefer to read about science in journals, not the ravings
of a scientifically illiterate fool with a website.

BTW, this is a science forum, so you don't belong here, posting your
dogma and demonstrating your own ignorance. Since you know nothing about
climate science, you might consider asking questions and learning
something- there are a few people here who could help educate you. But
if you're not interested in learning, there are plenty of pseudoscience
forums where you can go and spout off.

I knew you would dismiss this, it goes with the cultivated ignorance you
show all the time...
Talk about spouting off, obviously you didn't even look at the material as
it has all been vetted scientifically and the gentleman who wrote the
article is no "fool with a website" That would be you!

Yes. It is genuine "Dittohead Science" using selected Exxon sponsored
half truths mixed with the usual pathological lies and conspriacy
theories. The guy is a barely literate paranoid righttard. I like the
idea of environmentalists targeting "power planets" (sic). I suppose
that makes it back on topic here.

BTW The solar cycle is not 24 years. And is largely irrelevant - the
solar cycle forcing is measurable but it is small compared to the net
forcing effect of GHG. Even genuine scientific sceptics do not deny this
observable fact. Denialists deny everything.

The guys who spread AGW disinformation to the paranoid right wingnuts in
the USA cut their teeth selling the "tobacco does not cause cancer"
message. Do you really want to trust what they say now for big oil and coal?

I would suggest that YOU consider "learning" to look critically at all sides
of an issue but fanatics like you always find a reason to ignore and/or
belittle any evidence contrary to your "beliefs".

The science is clear. Pig ugly Neocons are proven liars again and again.


I'll give you a little lattitude as I know the air is thin there in colorado
and clearly it affects ones thinking abilities...

It is about time the scientific societies of the world started naming
and shaming the incestuous bunch of prostitutes and sham organisations
that spread this disinformation and paranoia.

It is too bad the US society is so poorly educated in science now.

Regards,
Martin Brown

On 1/11/10 2:57 PM, David Staup wrote:

fool,

I knew you would dismiss this, it goes with the cultivated ignorance you
show all the time...
Talk about spouting off, obviously you didn't even look at the material as
it has all been vetted scientifically and the gentleman who wrote the
article is no "fool with a website" That would be you!

I would suggest that YOU consider "learning" to look critically at all sides
of an issue but fanatics like you always find a reason to ignore and/or
belittle any evidence contrary to your "beliefs".

I'll give you a little lattitude as I know the air is thin there in colorado
and clearly it affects ones thinking abilities...



I can see that in political arguments there can be two or more
sides to and "issue", but in science, the data either supports
the theory or it does not. Global warming is either happening
or it is not. There is a great body of evidence that shows that
it is happening on the global scale. And plenty of evidence that
this one is being driven by human activity.


CO2 increase, Global Temperature increase, Sea Level
increase, are all consistent with each other. Real
impact is showing up in agriculture, ecosystems, weather
patterns, shifting seasons and ice melting.

The global data CLEARLY shows:

Human contributed increase in green house gas CO2
http://www.globalchange.gov/HighResI...obal-pg-13.jpg
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/10/16/0907094106
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1023163513.htm

Global surface (land and sea) temperature increase

http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads...emp-trends.gif

And accompanying Sea Level Rise

http://www.wildwildweather.com/forec...level_rise.png

There are many sources of good data
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/climate-monitoring/index.php

Here's some data from Iowa State University
http://www.meteor.iastate.edu/facult...entations.html

More from University of Iowa

http://www.engineering.uiowa.edu/fac.../schnoor_j.php

Franzen - The Chemistry and Physics of Global Climate Change
http://hfranzen.org/
http://www.hfranzen.org/Global_Warming.pdf

On Jan 11, 12:55*pm, "David Staup" wrote:

go for it LWL's *and al gore dupes!

They measured carbon dioxide, but failed to provide any evidence that
it's a greenhouse gas? Well, maybe they didn't bother because somebody
else proved that 100 years ago.

And the reason why a little bit can make a big difference is because
if you change the balance between incoming heat and outgo, the point
of equilibrium can change a lot.

The article seems to basically be saying that because avoiding global
warming would have bad economic consequences (and, worse yet,
agreements to fight it are designed to spare the world's poor people
their share of them, because they're in a bad enough situation
already) it must be just a hoax.

Now, it _is_ good sense to watch out for a plot by America's enemies
to weaken the U.S. economy while China gets to have a big military
buildup. But while that means skepticism to an extent is warranted,
global warming depends on basic science that is verified. And a cold
winter is in no way a disproof of it, even if it might feel that way
to a naive layperson.

The better way is nuclear power. Address global warming AND keep
America's economy strong at the same time.

John Savard

On Jan 11, 1:57*pm, "David Staup" wrote:

I would suggest that YOU consider "learning" to look critically at all sides
of an issue but fanatics like you always find a reason to ignore and/or
belittle any evidence contrary to your "beliefs".

The way to avoid wasting time is to listen to people who know what
they're talking about - and you lot are just as far from the truth as
some guy who says pi equals 3 2/15, or as far from the truth as
Oriel... but with a heck of a lot less of an excuse than he has.

John Savard