global warming hoax

"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 19:05:02 -0600, "David Staup"
wrote:

I knew enough to expect this from you. also enough education and
intelligence to have worked at Oak ridge national labs, Sandia national
labs, and Argonne national labs. had a top secret clearance and more than
enough intelligence to be a much sought after contractor. I was the first
to describe the proceedure for creating excellant lunar, solar, and
planetary images by taking and stacking thousands of frames. wrote an
article about it for sky and telescope in '03 even after I could no longer
image myself due to a disability caused by statin drugs....just what have
you done with your vast intelligence Chris?

If that's true, I'm sorry for your loss. It's terrible when people lose
their intelligence.

(BTW, myself, and many others, were using lucky imaging techniques-
stacking thousands of frames- well before 2003. I'm guessing from your
mental decline that you perhaps meant 1903?)

Regardless of what you dud in the past, your recent posts here
demonstrate that you are not competent in the area of science. The fact
that you don't believe in AGW is proof-positive of this, as much as not
believing in evolution, or not believing the Earth is a sphere.
_________________________________________________

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

Chris I didn't say I started lucky imaging in '03 I said I was the first to
describe and use it for planetary imaging using hundreds then thousands of
frames for stacking. I started manually stacking up to 64 frames in '97 and
switched to astrostack and hundreds and then thousands of frames in '99
when I first started publishing my images online and describing my methods
also online. while it's true stacking was being done the use of webcams and
"many" frame stacking was not. the article was published in '03 by myself
and another who had the contacts at S&T. I taught him the method in '99.

I notice you didn't mention any of your vast occomplishments. what's up with
that?

and yes unfortunately there are cognitave and memory adverse effects
potentially from statin use. I suspect you are probably taking a drug to
lower cholesterol yourself from your retorts and sugest you see the
following links for some of the truth concerning another bad science
situation (the lipid hypothosis and artificial cholesterol lowering is good
for you) half are writtin by a former NASA astronaut who is also former
doctor and space medicine researcher and who is also a victim.

http://www.spacedoc.net/cause_statin_side_effects


see this concerning the bad science :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8WA5wcaHp4

and this for unadulterated data:

http://www.spacedoc.net/great_cholesterol_con

I sincerely hope I'm wrong about you taking a statin but if you or anyone
you know is taking a statin please inform yourself and them. the
non-remitting side effects appear in as many as 5% of statin users and make
life a true horror.

On Nov 21, 11:45*pm, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 19:58:30 -0800, spud wrote:
No warming for the next 10 years:

I expect you'll be proven quite wrong. The evidence to the contrary is
pretty overwhelming.

Arguing with those who don't believe we are currently experiencing a
long term global warming trend, largely human produced, is like arguing
with Oriel. Pointless, because they selectively filter the evidence to
support their ideology.

You know, you've often seemed a sanctimonious jerk, with an
extraordinary inability to understand human nature, but you're hitting
new lows with this latest mantra.

Of all the crap that's come out of the hacked files, this is the one I
find most revealing:

“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not
publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a
solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I
think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate
peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in
the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers
in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or
request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the
editorial board…What do others think?”

“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more
to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome
editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The
responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a
few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words
with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to
discuss in Nice !”

If you don't realize how ****ed up this is, and how common in academe,
then you miss the problem of groupthink. Skepticism is HEALTHY for
science. And that means occasionally saying, "I wonder if there might
be a better explanation than gravity."

You'd have us all on our knees on an altar somewhere.

Of all the crap that's come out of the hacked files, this is the one I
find most revealing:

“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not
publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a
solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I
...
If you don't realize how ****ed up this is, and how common in academe,
then you miss the problem of groupthink. Skepticism is HEALTHY for
science. And that means occasionally saying, "I wonder if there might
be a better explanation than gravity."

You'd have us all on our knees on an altar somewhere.

I find it hard to believe that you or anyone agrees with the overblown way
in which this stuff has been portrayed. Is it flattering? No, it isn't. Is
it evidence of how all, or most, or even many scientists involved in climate
research think? There is absolutely no evidence that it is. Is it evidence
of any kind of a conspiracy? Only in the minds of folks who are severely
paranoiic. I think that to most folks who have a relatively realistic world
view this stuff is just not that "****ed up", or even "****ed up" at all.
Sorry - your freak out over this leads me to conclude that you are not
hitting on all cylinders. However, I realize that you must think the same
thing of me, so let's accept that and lighten up! Had any good observing
lately?

Dennis

David Staup wrote:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ibd/20091120...091120issues01

as has been clear to a casual HONEST observer global warming is junk science
and fraud perpetuated by certain people for thier own profit and advocated
by others who know nothing of the truth and human nature.

what say you now?

I treat their bogus claims with all the opprobium they deserve.

IBD are the same bunch of lying Neocon shiesters that claimed Stephen
Hawking would not be alive today if he was a Brit. They are pathologial
liars and cannot be trusted at all. More fool anyone that subscribes.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2...ot-from-uk.php

Fooled by the fact that his voice synthesiser has a US accent.

They cannot even bring themselves to apologise for their scurrilous
claims about Hawking and his NHS treatment in the UK. Funny really that
they did not know he was Lucasian professor of mathematics at Cambridge,
England. He retired from that position this October aged 66.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/6247...essorship.html

Regards,
Martin Brown

Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 21:28:36 -0800, spud wrote:

So it's time to tell me I'm uneducated, unread, unshaven, my intellect
can't possibly compare with your's and I spelled something wrong.

You said it, not me.

All I'll say is that you are wasting bandwidth on a science forum,
someplace you have no business posting.


Chris,


Given that you yourself are guilty of exactly this same offense from
time to time I find it curious that you choose to paint him with the
same brush.

And I would also add that he has the same right to post here as you do.
Even as OT as AGW crap is on s.a.a.

Thanks

Bill


--

William R. Mattil

http://www.celestial-images.com

Is it evidence of any kind of a conspiracy? Only in the minds of folks who
are severely paranoiic.

On reading my post, I regret the "severely paranoiic" and I want to
apologize. I know many folks who share the same level of paranoia on other
issues who I would never label as "severely paranoiic". Paranoiic for sure,
but only obviously so when discussing certain topics. The previous
president/administration brought out the worst in them, and they are now
largely in some kind of remission. Of course they love Obama et. al. but
this doesn't change the fact that they believe that the military industrial
complex, the health care system, the financial system, etc. are all run by
evil gnomes who are working in concert to turn everyone into wealth-creating
zombies. You and they must think of folks like me as happy idiots, who don't
see these more subtle (or not so subtle) threats!

Dennis

On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 08:32:02 -0600, "William R. Mattil"
wrote:

The offense I'm referring to isn't discussing something non-topical on
the forum (which I personally don't consider an "offense" at all), but
talking about non-science (i.e. pseudoscience or bad science) on a
science forum. That's what is out of place.
_________________________________________________

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

On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 05:16:49 -0800 (PST), starburst
wrote:

If you don't realize how ****ed up this is, and how common in academe,
then you miss the problem of groupthink.

There is no "groupthink" problem. Skepticism is alive and well in
science (and in climate science in particular). Of course, there's no
real skepticism any more that AGW is real, because virtually everybody
has been convinced by the overwhelming evidence. Read some papers, and
you'll see all sorts of varying opinion about all sorts of major issues
in climate science, however.

All these released emails demonstrate is that scientists are human
beings like everyone else. This kind of discussion is normal everywhere,
and it is normal in science as well- people just don't usually see it.
It has nothing to do with the science itself.
_________________________________________________

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

On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 06:56:12 -0600, "David Staup"
wrote:

Chris I didn't say I started lucky imaging in '03 I said I was the first to
describe and use it for planetary imaging using hundreds then thousands of
frames for stacking.

Okay.

I notice you didn't mention any of your vast occomplishments. what's up with
that?

I wasn't particularly impressed by yours, and I have no interest in
having a "mine is bigger than yours" contest here.
_________________________________________________

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

On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 23:58:54 -0800, Thad Floryan
wrote:

And volcanos emit a LOT of CO2 (among other things).

The Earth operates under a carbon cycle- there are CO2 sources and there
are CO2 sinks. Normally the system is stable, with sources and sinks in
balance. The system as a whole shows negative feedback (which is why it
is stable). There is no evidence that volcanic activity worldwide has
changed in the last few million years, and certainly not in the last few
hundred years. In recent history, all that has changed in the carbon
cycle is the addition of CO2 from human sources. It doesn't matter at
all what natural sources of CO2 exist, because these are fixed inputs to
the system. It is humans who have simultaneously increased the CO2 input
while creating changes that reduce the capacity of CO2 sinks (to the
point that the feedback system is showing saturation, and therefore
failing).

The result is, of course, obvious in the data.
_________________________________________________

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