Global warming anyone?

Sour grapes anyone?
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...-change-shock/

No comment.....

On 30/08/2011 20:32, Ben wrote:
Sour grapes anyone?
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...-change-shock/

No comment.....

It isn't a good idea to rely on the Telegraph for any science news. They
have repeatedly employed morons in that post.

Would you ever trust someone who claimed to be "right about everything"
or would you have them sectioned as a delusional nutter?

Regards,
Martin Brown

On Aug 30, 9:32*pm, Ben wrote:
Sour grapes anyone?http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...2296/sun-cause...

No comment.....

Remember what I showed you -

http://news.bbc.co.uk/weather/forecast/3720?

The massive temperature fluctuations reflect 1461 rotations in 1461
days,of course I would like to discuss the astronomical inputs which
distinguish hemispherical weather patterns from global climate by
introducing a new orbital component however astronomers are in short
supply.

When astronomers can interpret the two separate 360 degree cycles
with respect to the central Sun in the following time lapse
footage,then and only then can people begin to consider climate and
temperature fluctuations in any meaningful way and eventually people
will start earning their doctorates and start giving humanity
something exciting to look at for a change -

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/arc...99/11/video/b/

As the community here insists on 1465 rotations in 1461 days,you can
rest assured that the wider community has little grasp of the major
inputs so let these doctorates run up and down their halls and work
out exactly how they wish to proceed insofar as this is extremely
important but only as important as people wish to consider themselves.

Some folks have profited enormously since the term was first invented by Al
G*** some years ago. Whenever big business is involed, the common man loses
out.

It does not surprise me that the sun may be causing it. Some scientists
have said this for many years before Al and others decided it was a man-made
thing.

I'm surprised some here aren't blaming the recent, unusual earthquakes and
freak NE hurricane on global warming..... give them time.

Global warming is nothing more than money in someone elses' pocket other
than mine. I won't be bought off by it as so many others have. Look out
for "666"!



-
"Ben" wrote in message
...
Sour grapes anyone?
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...-change-shock/

No comment.....

On 8/30/11 2:32 PM, Ben wrote:
Sour grapes anyone?
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...-change-shock/

No comment.....

If you are interested -- Global Climate Change Resources
http://edu-observatory.org/olli/Glob...Resources.html

In particular you might looks at:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-re...r4_syr_spm.pdf

"Martin Brown" wrote in message
...
| On 30/08/2011 20:32, Ben wrote:
| Sour grapes anyone?
|
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...-change-shock/
|
| No comment.....
|
| It isn't a good idea to rely on the Telegraph for any science news. They
| have repeatedly employed morons in that post.
|
| Would you ever trust someone who claimed to be "right about everything"
| or would you have them sectioned as a delusional nutter?
|
| Regards,
| Martin Brown
|
Haven't you been sectioned yet, Brown?
Funny how anyone that disagrees with your crankosity is delusional
nutter while you are not (in your own opinion).
Disregards,
Androcles

On Aug 30, 1:32*pm, Ben wrote:
Sour grapes anyone?

There was indeed a recent finding from CERN that cosmic rays do have
some real effect, but this does not mean we should stop being
concerned about the effect of anthropogenic carbon dioxide - which is
also real, and which is something we can control.

John Savard

On Aug 30, 3:03*pm, Quadibloc wrote:
On Aug 30, 1:32*pm, Ben wrote:

Sour grapes anyone?

There was indeed a recent finding from CERN that cosmic rays do have
some real effect, but this does not mean we should stop being
concerned about the effect of anthropogenic carbon dioxide - which is
also real, and which is something we can control.

John Savard

We can also control how much helium we artificially vent, along with a
number of other artificially vented gasses, including the accelerated
evaporation of hydrocarbons plus the consumption/conversion of h2o
which has to cycle as increased nighttime cloud cover to go along with
our CO2 and NOx acidic rain that's pretty much good for nothing
organic or biologically striving to evolve and thus survive in spite
of us humans.

Our artificial global dimming is also a measurable factor that's
causing our planet to heat up, not to mention all the direct heat from
our hydrocarbon fires and of course all of those nifty rockets are not
exactly spewing ice.

Perhaps "Ben" also doesn't know that land and sea which used to be
fully snow/ice covered and thus reflective, that's becoming
increasingly bare, dark and solar energy absorbing isn't exactly
helping either.

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

On Aug 30, 6:17*pm, Brad Guth wrote:
On Aug 30, 3:03*pm, Quadibloc wrote:

On Aug 30, 1:32*pm, Ben wrote:

Sour grapes anyone?

There was indeed a recent finding from CERN that cosmic rays do have
some real effect, but this does not mean we should stop being
concerned about the effect of anthropogenic carbon dioxide - which is
also real, and which is something we can control.

John Savard

We can also control how much helium we artificially vent, along with a
number of other artificially vented gasses, including the accelerated
evaporation of hydrocarbons plus the consumption/conversion of h2o
which has to cycle as increased nighttime cloud cover to go along with
our CO2 and NOx acidic rain that's pretty much good for nothing
organic or biologically striving to evolve and thus survive in spite
of us humans.

Our artificial global dimming is also a measurable factor that's
causing our planet to heat up, not to mention all the direct heat from
our hydrocarbon fires and of course all of those nifty rockets are not
exactly spewing ice.

Perhaps "Ben" also doesn't know that land and sea which used to be
fully snow/ice covered and thus reflective, that's becoming
increasingly bare, dark and solar energy absorbing isn't exactly
helping either.

*http://translate.google.com/#
*Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

No comment

On Aug 30, 8:13*pm, Ben wrote:
On Aug 30, 6:17*pm, Brad Guth wrote:









On Aug 30, 3:03*pm, Quadibloc wrote:

On Aug 30, 1:32*pm, Ben wrote:

Sour grapes anyone?

There was indeed a recent finding from CERN that cosmic rays do have
some real effect, but this does not mean we should stop being
concerned about the effect of anthropogenic carbon dioxide - which is
also real, and which is something we can control.

John Savard

We can also control how much helium we artificially vent, along with a
number of other artificially vented gasses, including the accelerated
evaporation of hydrocarbons plus the consumption/conversion of h2o
which has to cycle as increased nighttime cloud cover to go along with
our CO2 and NOx acidic rain that's pretty much good for nothing
organic or biologically striving to evolve and thus survive in spite
of us humans.

Our artificial global dimming is also a measurable factor that's
causing our planet to heat up, not to mention all the direct heat from
our hydrocarbon fires and of course all of those nifty rockets are not
exactly spewing ice.

Perhaps "Ben" also doesn't know that land and sea which used to be
fully snow/ice covered and thus reflective, that's becoming
increasingly bare, dark and solar energy absorbing isn't exactly
helping either.

*http://translate.google.com/#
*Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

No comment

That's not playing fair.

Tell us how 7 billion humans exploiting and wasting most everything in
sight, as well as leaking, spilling, venting, evaporating and simply
forcing a multitude of natural and unnatural chemicals plus radiating
and dumping mostly dirty energy into the surface, oceans and
atmospheric environments is not a measurable factor.

The OCO mission would have quantified a number of those elements, but
of course you're just glade that Big Energy foiled that one.

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”