Green 'drivel' exposed by godfather of global warming James Lovelock

On 6/24/2012 2:30 PM, Fredric L. Rice wrote:
Thad wrote:
On 6/23/2012 9:07 PM, Fredric L. Rice wrote:

Yeah, the Sun really could orbit the Earth, huh, you ****ing insane
right wing Christian loon?

It would seem you're the blind ignoramus. I did NOT write the above,

Then why did you quote it, you ****ing right wing cultloon?

It's obvious Rice-a-roni wrote it from the illiterate quality of the
writing. "Real" writers actually have a vocabulary.

On Jun 24, 2:30*pm, (Fredric L. Rice) wrote:
Thad Floryan wrote:
On 6/23/2012 9:07 PM, Fredric L. Rice wrote:
Thad Floryan wrote:
(4) Finally, about claims "the science is settled" on global warming: "One
thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be
certain about anything.
Yeah, the Sun really could orbit the Earth, huh, you ****ing insane
right wing Christian loon?
It would seem you're the blind ignoramus. *I did NOT write the above,

Then why did you quote it, you ****ing right wing cultloon?

Calm down, calm down. Just a couple vallium and you'll be alright.

"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 00:02:21 -0500, Sam Wormley
wrote:

There are some troubling signs coming from climate science, Thad.

You can't argue science with science deniers. They can only be helped
by mental health professionals, and since they don't seek help,
nothing will change.


Chuckle

On Jun 24, 12:07*am, (Fredric L. Rice) wrote:
Thad Floryan wrote:
(4) Finally, about claims "the science is settled" on global warming: "One
thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be
certain about anything.

Yeah, the Sun really could orbit the Earth, huh, you ****ing insane
right wing Christian loon?

http://spaceplace.nasa.gov/barycenter/

Sun-Jupiter barycenter is outside the Sun's surface (not that Lovelock
or Floryan even mentioned planetary orbits in the first place.)

On Jun 24, 12:50*pm, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 00:02:21 -0500, Sam Wormley
wrote:

* There are some troubling signs coming from climate science, Thad.

You can't argue science with science deniers. They can only be helped
by mental health professionals, and since they don't seek help,
nothing will change.

It is far more difficult to argue with hypocrites, especially
warmingistas whose careers, pastimes and lifestyles require so much
fossil fuel to maintain.

On 6/26/2012 2:51 AM, wrote:
On Jun 24, 12:50 pm, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 00:02:21 -0500, Sam Wormley
wrote:

There are some troubling signs coming from climate science, Thad.

You can't argue science with science deniers. They can only be helped
by mental health professionals, and since they don't seek help,
nothing will change.

It is far more difficult to argue with hypocrites, especially
warmingistas whose careers, pastimes and lifestyles require so much
fossil fuel to maintain.


I find this argument both compelling and bothersome. Compelling in its
truth, bothersome in its apparent ideological bias. By using "pet"
terms, one appears to grind their axe on the ideologies of others, and
automatically loses some credibility.

Better to be (or at least appear) neutral, where actual science is
concerned.

The problem with the warming theories, IMO, is the convincing proof may
come too late. It's a gamble to ignore or dismiss _any_ potential
factors over which we have some control.

Steve P.

On 26/06/2012 12:42, SteveP wrote:
On 6/26/2012 2:51 AM, wrote:
On Jun 24, 12:50 pm, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 00:02:21 -0500, Sam Wormley
wrote:

There are some troubling signs coming from climate science, Thad.

You can't argue science with science deniers. They can only be helped
by mental health professionals, and since they don't seek help,
nothing will change.

It is far more difficult to argue with hypocrites, especially
warmingistas whose careers, pastimes and lifestyles require so much
fossil fuel to maintain.

I find this argument both compelling and bothersome. Compelling in its
truth, bothersome in its apparent ideological bias. By using "pet"
terms, one appears to grind their axe on the ideologies of others, and
automatically loses some credibility.

It isn't just an apparent ideological bias. The US right whingers think
that trashing the planet for fun and profit is their birth right.

Only in America does climate change denial split on partisan political
lines. In the UK it was Tory (right wing) Prime Minister Margaret
Thatcher that first put AGW onto the world agenda.

Better to be (or at least appear) neutral, where actual science is
concerned.

The science is now pretty clear at least unless you pay heed to the same
types as prostitute their science for big tobacco and fast food. The
canonical denier for hire was the late Fred Seitz and here is what his
paymasters thought of him long before the Oregon petition:

http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2023266534.html

Pity really he was an excellent solid state physicist until he supped
with the devil. He is the role model for all modern deniers for hire.

The problem with the warming theories, IMO, is the convincing proof may
come too late. It's a gamble to ignore or dismiss _any_ potential
factors over which we have some control.

Steve P.

Problem is that we don't have a great deal of control and there is no
political will to do anything even remotely useful. Much of what is
being done is of very limited use. Some of it even counter productive -
like subsidising people to install solar PV in high latitude cloudy
countries like the UK. Nuclear power is the only carbon free game in
town but governments are very nervous about that post Fukushima.

We were doing more useful energy conservation work during the OPEC
induced acute oil shortage in the 1970's with the SaveIt campaign.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 07:42:35 -0400, SteveP
wrote:

The problem with the warming theories, IMO, is the convincing proof may
come too late.

If you don't already find the evidence compelling, it means you don't
understand the science.

There is no reasonable doubt that global warming is being driven by
human activity, and its degree has generally been understated in
reports. There are not many scientific concepts with greater consensus
among experts (the percentage of climate scientists to accept AGW is
probably higher than the percentage of cosmologists who accept LCDM,
for instance).

On Tuesday, June 26, 2012 10:14:13 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 07:42:35 -0400, SteveP
wrote:

The problem with the warming theories, IMO, is the convincing proof may
come too late.

If you don't already find the evidence compelling, it means you don't
understand the science.

There is no reasonable doubt that global warming is being driven by
human activity, and its degree has generally been understated in
reports. There are not many scientific concepts with greater consensus
among experts (the percentage of climate scientists to accept AGW is
probably higher than the percentage of cosmologists who accept LCDM,
for instance).

You're not the guy I'm worried about. You're already convinced. :-)

-Steve
(I don't have to be convinced. I see no downside to taking action.)

On Tuesday, June 26, 2012 10:14:13 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 07:42:35 -0400, SteveP
wrote:

The problem with the warming theories, IMO, is the convincing proof may
come too late.

If you don't already find the evidence compelling, it means you don't
understand the science.

There is no reasonable doubt that global warming is being driven by
human activity, and its degree has generally been understated in
reports. There are not many scientific concepts with greater consensus
among experts (the percentage of climate scientists to accept AGW is
probably higher than the percentage of cosmologists who accept LCDM,
for instance).



On Tuesday, June 26, 2012 10:14:13 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 07:42:35 -0400, SteveP
wrote:

The problem with the warming theories, IMO, is the convincing proof may
come too late.

If you don't already find the evidence compelling, it means you don't
understand the science.

There is no reasonable doubt that global warming is being driven by
human activity, and its degree has generally been understated in
reports. There are not many scientific concepts with greater consensus
among experts (the percentage of climate scientists to accept AGW is
probably higher than the percentage of cosmologists who accept LCDM,
for instance).

On Jun 26, 6:41*pm, Steve P wrote:
On Tuesday, June 26, 2012 10:14:13 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 07:42:35 -0400, SteveP
wrote:

The problem with the warming theories, IMO, is the convincing proof may
come too late.

If you don't already find the evidence compelling, it means you don't
understand the science.

There is no reasonable doubt that global warming is being driven by
human activity, and its degree has generally been understated in
reports. There are not many scientific concepts with greater consensus
among experts (the percentage of climate scientists to accept AGW is
probably higher than the percentage of cosmologists who accept LCDM,
for instance).

You're not the guy I'm worried about. You're already convinced. *:-)

-Steve
(I don't have to be convinced. I see no downside to taking action.)




You poor unfortunate people ! - the Earth turns once in 24 hours and
keeps in step without ever diverging hence the massive daily
temperature fluctuations in response to the daily rotation of the
planet.

The beginning of empirical modeling aka - 'the universal theory of
gravity' is based on 24 hour days and rotations falling out of step by
an astonishing 4 rotations for 4 orbital circuits/4 years.

Humanity has actually something within its control - the arrival of
common sense and astronomers as its is their absence which created
this utter debacle and many more like it.