Global warming anyone?

On Aug 31, 12:21*pm, Martin Brown
wrote:
On 31/08/2011 16:54, Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Wed, 31 Aug 2011 08:32:32 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

Doesn't matter who writes it, what is the source, that is the
important thing.

It does matter who writes it. In this case, the writer clearly doesn't
understand the subject matter, and clearly misunderstands the CERN
data and its implications. He therefore becomes part of the problem of
public ignorance and misinformation.

The author should be fired by the Telegraph because he is not
competent.

The Telegraph *only* employ incompetent science writers.

Regards,
Martin Brown

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...AXE7uJVE.email

No comment....

On Aug 31, 9:25*pm, Ben wrote:
On Aug 31, 12:21*pm, Martin Brown
wrote:









On 31/08/2011 16:54, Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Wed, 31 Aug 2011 08:32:32 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

Doesn't matter who writes it, what is the source, that is the
important thing.

It does matter who writes it. In this case, the writer clearly doesn't
understand the subject matter, and clearly misunderstands the CERN
data and its implications. He therefore becomes part of the problem of
public ignorance and misinformation.

The author should be fired by the Telegraph because he is not
competent.

The Telegraph *only* employ incompetent science writers.

Regards,
Martin Brown

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...outlook-for-gl...

No comment....

What you see is merely a symptom,the real issue is front and center
and always has been,the wider world only sees the effects of the
'scientific method' whereas readers here have watched the whole thing
unfold for bad and for good.

Whether you are employed in the area of terrestrial or astronomical
sciences,you wake up to literally a new dawn and if you go about your
business waiting for the stars to come out,1461 times over 4 years
balanced with the motions of the Earth,then enjoy the spectacle as men
for a change.Astronomy is still an active pursuit and not one to be
nailed down on paper and although its language is geometry,at its
heart is the curiosity born of that intense satisfaction which our
true nature always seeks and all the obstacles put in our way only
serve to make that journey all the more enjoyable.

The ideology of human control over global temperatures is from the
backward looking creatures who have hate everything our planet has to
offer for what person could imagine that the Earth does not turn in 1
day and then make a meaningful comment but perhaps you just did as a
reflection of all others here.

How great humanity is !

"oriel36" wrote in message
...
On Aug 31, 9:25 pm, Ben wrote:
On Aug 31, 12:21 pm, Martin Brown
wrote:









On 31/08/2011 16:54, Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Wed, 31 Aug 2011 08:32:32 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

Doesn't matter who writes it, what is the source, that is the
important thing.

It does matter who writes it. In this case, the writer clearly doesn't
understand the subject matter, and clearly misunderstands the CERN
data and its implications. He therefore becomes part of the problem of
public ignorance and misinformation.

The author should be fired by the Telegraph because he is not
competent.

The Telegraph *only* employ incompetent science writers.

Regards,
Martin Brown

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...outlook-for-gl...

No comment....

What you see is merely a symptom,the real issue is front and center
and always has been,the wider world only sees the effects of the
'scientific method' whereas readers here have watched the whole thing
unfold for bad and for good.

Whether you are employed in the area of terrestrial or astronomical
sciences,you wake up to literally a new dawn and if you go about your
business waiting for the stars to come out,1461 times over 4 years
============================================

Undershoot: 8 leaps every 32 years.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...lstice.svg.png

Overshoot: 8 leaps every 33 years.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...alaalileap.gif

Take your pick or create your own, Kelleher, but quit your miserable
****ing whining. Nobody can force the Earth to make one more or one
less turn each year. Make your own calendar, you stupid ****.

On Aug 31, 6:35*am, Rob wrote:
On 30/08/2011 20:32, Ben wrote:

Sour grapes anyone?
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...2296/sun-cause...

No comment.....

So?
If the Sun kicks out a little extra heat it, in combination with
anthropomorphic global warming (caused by greenhouse gasses) will
make the planet heat up slightly faster.
If the Sun kicks out a little less heat it, in combination with
anthropomorphic global warming (caused by greenhouse gasses) will
make the planet heat up slightly slower.
This has always been known (it is blindingly obvious to anyone
but a journalist or other moron.)

Right, and if we keep helping it out by doing all that we can to
pollute and warm it up, in another century or so only the Rothschilds
and a few dozen other wealthy families that have never worked for
earning a dime will still afford to be living large, while the rest of
us will be working those 10+ hour shifts at minimum wage (that'll
likely be paying less than it does nowadays) and commuting by foot or
bicycle in order to live in what will be uninsurable because of the
unpoliced housing density, nasty weather extremes, flooding,
earthquakes, and our electrical energy will likely cost us only $1/
kwhr if we're lucky, along with truly fresh water costing us $1/liter
(gray water costing us $1/flush).

Btw; the state of Florida now has operational body liquifiers to deal
with the much higher turnover in processing us lower caste humans.
"Florida Funeral Home Now Offers Option to Liquify Bodies"

Search for liquefiers or liquifiers if you need an education as to how
Soylent Green is becoming reality.

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

Is there one sane person who can positively affirm that the Earth
turns once a day and 1461 times in 1461 days from everyday experiences
such as heat/cold,wake/sleep,daylight/darkness and any other effect of
the rotation of the Earth ?.

"oriel36" wrote in message
...
| Is there one sane person who can positively affirm that the Earth
| turns once a day and 1461 times in 1461 days from everyday experiences
| such as heat/cold,wake/sleep,daylight/darkness and any other effect of
| the rotation of the Earth ?.
|
============================================

Undershoot: 8 leaps every 32 years.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...lstice.svg.png

Overshoot: 8 leaps every 33 years.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...alaalileap.gif

Take your pick or create your own, Kelleher, but quit your miserable
****ing whining. Nobody can force the Earth to make one more or one
less turn each year. Make your own calendar, you stupid ****.

On Aug 31, 7:25 am, Bert wrote:

"Ken S. Tucker" wrote:

middle class intelligence and education

Now, that's interesting.

I understand many observatories have - for a few centuies - kept
meticulous records of 'seeing conditions', providing a historical
record of cloud cover at night, which closely approximates
day time cloud cover.
Using that as an emprical data base, we could, within 5% or so,
find a 10% variation in cloud cover over a period of a decade(s),
with good confidence.
Should we find cloud cover is disapating we would expect more
global warming.

St. Paul, MN

CHeers
Ken BC

On 9/1/11 2:26 AM, Ken S. Tucker wrote:
I understand many observatories have - for a few centuies - kept
meticulous records of 'seeing conditions', providing a historical
record of cloud cover at night, which closely approximates
day time cloud cover.

What part of the world? How does that compare to globally?

On Sep 1, 6:22 am, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 9/1/11 2:26 AM, Ken S. Tucker wrote:

I understand many observatories have - for a few centuies - kept
meticulous records of 'seeing conditions', providing a historical
record of cloud cover at night, which closely approximates
day time cloud cover.

What part of the world? How does that compare to globally?

Of course, bounded by latitude, many records have been kept
regarding cloudiness, globally.
Since the 60's are satellite photos of Earths clouds.
Those can be compared to cosmic ray counters, for corelation,
as predicted, giving the Algorites and the CO2 bandwagoners
some actual science to study.
Ken

On 9/1/11 11:29 AM, Ken S. Tucker wrote:
On Sep 1, 6:22 am, Sam wrote:
On 9/1/11 2:26 AM, Ken S. Tucker wrote:

I understand many observatories have - for a few centuies - kept
meticulous records of 'seeing conditions', providing a historical
record of cloud cover at night, which closely approximates
day time cloud cover.

What part of the world? How does that compare to globally?

Of course, bounded by latitude, many records have been kept
regarding cloudiness, globally.
Since the 60's are satellite photos of Earths clouds.
Those can be compared to cosmic ray counters, for corelation,
as predicted, giving the Algorites and the CO2 bandwagoners
some actual science to study.
Ken

I was referring to the "few centuries" of records you were referring
to and if they have global representation. Are the accessible?