Global Warming Skeptics Target NASA

oh my god who'd a thunk it.
congressional investigations and everything...
I'll make a prediction here...nasa will be caught with fudge melting in
their hands.

defination:
global warming believer.... a hockey puck running and screaming from an
imaginary hockey stick.

Not to worry, global warming is the biggest scam of the 21st century. Those
who stand to make huge profits will continue to do so until the so-called
"scientific community" finally realizes they've been swindled.

"David Staup" wrote in message
...
oh my god who'd a thunk it.
congressional investigations and everything...
I'll make a prediction here...nasa will be caught with fudge melting in
their hands.

defination:
global warming believer.... a hockey puck running and screaming from an
imaginary hockey stick.

On Fri, 4 Dec 2009 08:23:59 -0600, "David Staup"
wrote:

global warming believer.... a hockey puck running and screaming from an
imaginary hockey stick.

In case you're unaware of it, the "hockey stick" shaped temperature
reconstruction for the last 1000 year has largely been validated. There
were reservations about the original statistical methods used, and (as
is usual) the scientific approach quite correctly identified these
problems. However, after correction for methodology, the general shape
remains the same- most especially the rapid increase since about 1850.

Global warming denier: a fool who allows himself to be beaten on the
head with a real hockey stick, while blithely stating that it doesn't
hurt because it's imaginary. And with every hit, a few more brain cells
bite the dust...
_________________________________________________

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

"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 4 Dec 2009 08:23:59 -0600, "David Staup"
wrote:

global warming believer.... a hockey puck running and screaming from an
imaginary hockey stick.

In case you're unaware of it, the "hockey stick" shaped temperature
reconstruction for the last 1000 year has largely been validated. There
were reservations about the original statistical methods used, and (as
is usual) the scientific approach quite correctly identified these
problems. However, after correction for methodology, the general shape
remains the same- most especially the rapid increase since about 1850.

Global warming denier: a fool who allows himself to be beaten on the
head with a real hockey stick, while blithely stating that it doesn't
hurt because it's imaginary. And with every hit, a few more brain cells
bite the dust...
_________________________________________________

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

I have denied the possibility of nothing...have stated repeatedly that only
when all real data is validated will we know anything for sure...
I suspect that when all data from improperly placed monitoring stations and
all data fudged is thrown out we will see a totally different picture....
I've never denied global warming, it is of course a natural cycle and the
globe has been warming for much longer that your 1000 years. all I deny is
that the science promoting this frenzy of fear is valid....only a fool would
deny that. in view of the comming revelations we shall see who are the
fools.

David Staup..STOP ! **** disturber....



"David Staup" wrote in message
...

"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 4 Dec 2009 08:23:59 -0600, "David Staup"
wrote:

global warming believer.... a hockey puck running and screaming from an
imaginary hockey stick.

In case you're unaware of it, the "hockey stick" shaped temperature
reconstruction for the last 1000 year has largely been validated. There
were reservations about the original statistical methods used, and (as
is usual) the scientific approach quite correctly identified these
problems. However, after correction for methodology, the general shape
remains the same- most especially the rapid increase since about 1850.

Global warming denier: a fool who allows himself to be beaten on the
head with a real hockey stick, while blithely stating that it doesn't
hurt because it's imaginary. And with every hit, a few more brain cells
bite the dust...
_________________________________________________

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

I have denied the possibility of nothing...have stated repeatedly that
only when all real data is validated will we know anything for sure...
I suspect that when all data from improperly placed monitoring stations
and all data fudged is thrown out we will see a totally different
picture....
I've never denied global warming, it is of course a natural cycle and the
globe has been warming for much longer that your 1000 years. all I deny is
that the science promoting this frenzy of fear is valid....only a fool
would deny that. in view of the comming revelations we shall see who are
the fools.

On Dec 4, 10:45*am, "David Staup" wrote:
all I deny is
that the science promoting this frenzy of fear is valid

But that means you're denying some very basic science.

In summer, people wear light-colored clothes to be cooler, and in
winter, dark-colored clothes to be warmer. Light carries heat energy,
and objects that absorb light (like dark clothing) get warm, while
objects that just reflect it (like light clothing) or that let it go
through without hindrance (like glass) don't get as warm.

The Sun shines in light that goes right through our atmosphere; carbon
dioxide doesn't change that. Sunlight heats the ground.

The Earth is not as warm as the Sun, but it also radiates heat - in
the form of long-wave infrared light.

Carbon dioxide changes how our atmosphere behaves with that light. So
it will take a little bit longer for every place to cool off at night,
because now the heat radiating from the ground, instead of diappearing
into space, will warm up the air to a greater extent. This will cause
the world to get warmer and warmer, until it is so warm that it emits
so much heat that everything balances under the new conditions; this
is called equilibrium.

There may be natural cycles doing things to the temperature too. But
the fuel we burn adds to the degree of warming, and it doesn't take
detailed climate models to see that the contribution is significant,
or that problems are already developing. Whether the threat to the
Great Barrier Reef from ocean acidity, or the threat to the polar
bears of Canada's Arctic, problems are visible even now.

John Savard

"David Staup" wrote in message
...

"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 4 Dec 2009 08:23:59 -0600, "David Staup"
wrote:

global warming believer.... a hockey puck running and screaming from an
imaginary hockey stick.

In case you're unaware of it, the "hockey stick" shaped temperature
reconstruction for the last 1000 year has largely been validated. There
were reservations about the original statistical methods used, and (as
is usual) the scientific approach quite correctly identified these
problems. However, after correction for methodology, the general shape
remains the same- most especially the rapid increase since about 1850.

Global warming denier: a fool who allows himself to be beaten on the
head with a real hockey stick, while blithely stating that it doesn't
hurt because it's imaginary. And with every hit, a few more brain cells
bite the dust...
_________________________________________________

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

I have denied the possibility of nothing...have stated repeatedly that
only when all real data is validated will we know anything for sure...

If you have a fire in your yard do you wait to see where the 'real world'
experience takes the flames before deciding whether or nor to tackle the
fire?

I suspect that when all data from improperly placed monitoring stations
and all data fudged is thrown out we will see a totally different
picture....

What data are you talking about?
CO2's greenhouse gas status?
The measured increase in atmospheric CO2 levels?
The directly measured increase in surface temperatures?
The indirectly measured increase in surface temperatures?


I've never denied global warming, it is of course a natural cycle and the
globe has been warming for much longer that your 1000 years.

Really? How do you justify that statement? And if you can justify that
statement (which appears to imply that you you accept data based on
interpretation of historic data more readily than you accept actual data
measured in the modern era), do you think that the rate of increase has
remained steady over that period?

all I deny is that the science promoting this frenzy of fear is
valid....only a fool would deny that. in view of the comming revelations
we shall see who are the fools.

Sorry, can you explain again what exactly you are denying?
- You accept the science, but you deny the science?
- You accept the science but you deny the frenzy?
- You accept the science but you deny the fear?

And when you end the sentence with the phrase "only a fool would deny that"
are you not directly stating that you are a fool?

OG wrote:

If you have a fire in your yard do you wait to see where the 'real world'
experience takes the flames before deciding whether or nor to tackle the
fire?


No.


You just don't rush into what one *thinks* is the cure


We really need to step back and work at it on a
GLOBAL scale, not just seriously hurt our economy
and let others continue with business as usual.
There are a lot of countries that will do nothing
no matter what the UN or others say. We need to get those
countries onboard before we start down this path IMHO.

And I firmly believe that there is no way that with
6 billion people on the planet we are not affecting
the climate.

I just don't want the cure to be worse than
the disease..........