Five Small Problems with AGW science.

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
...

Marvin the Martian wrote:
I know AGW to be false. I know this because there is a stronger
correlation between solar cycle and climate change than there is between
CO2 and climate change. I know this because simple chemistry dictates
that we didn't put the CO2 there, that the CO2 is an effect and not a
cause of warming, that CO2 causes very little warming, and even if there
is warming, it's not a bad thing! I know because other planets, including
my home planet Mars, is warming.



"Sam Wormley" wrote:
Doesn't sound like science!

hanson wrote:
Sam, as long as you preface your 1 liner with
====== AGW/GW doesn't sound like science! ========
you are a man of Science.
But if not then you are a class 3 enviro who follows the Green Bible..
(~ 1970) in http://tinyurl.com/yfp47wh which declares that:
4::: "A lot of environmental [sci/soc/pol] messages are simply not
accurate. We use hype." -- Jerry Franklin, Ecologist, UoW, and...
1 ::: "It doesn't matter what is true ... it only matters what people
believe is true. -- Paul Watson, Sea Shepard/ex-Greenpeace.

Environmentalism is the politics of Hysteria, Misanthropy & True lies.
===== There is nothing filthier than an environmentalist ====

So, Sam, look at it scientifically and watch the "cap N trade" crap
being capped N crapped on, shortly. Thanks for the laughs...
ahahaha... ahahahahanson







--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 05:30:29 -0500, Dave Typinski
wrote:

As an anthropogenic global warming skeptic, I'd like to point out why
I--and possibly others--haven't seen fit to buy into global climate
change...

Hi Dave-

While I disagree with your conclusion, and with a few of your basic
assumptions (for instance, the majority of the raw data _is_ publicly
available), I appreciate that you approach this using a rational
methodology. Your post should provide a good lesson to the idiots who
blindly state "that there is zero evidence for GW", and have no further
analysis.

It is possible to have a reasoned, scientifically sound discussion when
a skeptic provides actual points to discuss!

Yep, it can still happen--even on usenet.
--
Dave

"David Staup" wrote:

"Dave Typinski" wrote in message
.. .

As an anthropogenic global warming skeptic, I'd like to point out why
I--and possibly others--haven't seen fit to buy into global climate
change.
snip

I would add only this..evidence that this has happened (global warming)
before is indisputable and evidence that the planet has generally been
warmer or colder than it is now is also indisputable (although probably more
on the warmer side) maybe we should be doing as much as possible to skew
towards warmer...

Maybe.

The issue isn't warm or cold. The real issue is change. People fear
change because they fear the unknown because evolution has said that's
the best way to survive.

as a side note you will never convince the AGW environmental activitists
that they might be wrong in any respect THEY are never wrong and know that
better than anything..

True; but, activists aren't to be taken too seriously. I'm more
concerned about educating the rational, intelligent person. They're
the ones who make the big decisions.
--
Dave

On Feb 23, 7:52*am, Dave Typinski wrote:
"David Staup" wrote:

"Dave Typinski" wrote in message
.. .

As an anthropogenic global warming skeptic, I'd like to point out why
I--and possibly others--haven't seen fit to buy into global climate
change.
snip

I would add only this..evidence that this has happened (global warming)
before is indisputable and evidence that the planet has generally been
warmer or colder than it is now is also indisputable (although probably more
on the warmer side) maybe we should be doing as much as possible to skew
towards warmer...

Maybe. *

The issue isn't warm or cold. *The real issue is change. *People fear
change because they fear the unknown because evolution has said that's
the best way to survive.



Epicycle Dave,there is no issue,there are a bunch of people who
believe they can control the global temperature level using a minor
atmospheric gas and I find it hilarious.People are too lazy to delve
into the matter in any meaningful way hence they deserve what they get
but what is not funny is that the same ridiculous numbskulls teach
kids in schools and this turns into into a holocaust.

On 2/22/2010 12:00 AM, Chris L Peterson wrote:

The world economy is likely to be totally destroyed by the changes in
climate that will occur over the next 50 years.

Bwahaha.

I'm sure the Brits will hate having the opportunity to grow
grapes again.

Idiot.

On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 19:14:42 -0600, "[SMF]"
wrote:

I'm sure the Brits will hate having the opportunity to grow
grapes again.

Well, since there may be no worldwide distribution infrastructure, and
most societies will have collapsed, I'm sure the ability to locally grow
something will be very beneficial to the poor folks trying to scrape out
an existence.

Assuming that local warlords don't demand the crops as tribute; that
would be pretty consistent with human behavior in times of disorder.
_________________________________________________

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

On Feb 19, 10:35*pm, "I M @ good guy" wrote:
On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 21:15:27 -0600, Sam Wormley
wrote:





On 2/19/10 6:56 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 17:24:17 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote:

NATU Setting the climate record straight

A co-chair of the IPCC's beleaguered second working group discusses
recent criticisms

http://cl.exct.net/?
qs=926acdd1e8d6491ea2e8fb55d81badb5354e09a09f6cce5 b381c56c97d6a7584

The IPCC is not like a political party with a manifesto that it's
preaching and a rapid-rebuttal office. But the IPCC will need to decide
whether it is in the business of simply undertaking its five-year
assessments or being the source of information and being able to
respond, on an ongoing basis, to enquiries.

Is this a "free association moment" for you, Wormley? The issue was
comparison between Venus and Earth and using that to PROVE that ... what?
AGW is caused by CO2? I pointed out how absurd that is, as Venus (and
even my planet, the now frozen rock Mars) has much more CO2 than Earth..

* It doesn't much matter what the thread title is, Marvin--You are
* attempting to disparage the science of climatology without scientific
* justification. This behavior of the "teapot types" was discussed this
* afternoon on NPR's Talk of The Nation Science Friday.

* Why are the likes of you so vehemently railing against thousands of
* climatologist around the world, representing tens of thousands man-
* years studying the changes is weather over long periods of time.
* Long before there was an IPCC.

* * * * * You are really silly, and so is governments and
schools if there are thousands of climatologists,
ten should be enough, good meteorologists are
needed, not climatologists.

* Furthermore, the great quantity of research data spanning many
* decades is rather overwhelming--The earth is warming at rates not
* accounted for by natural causes. We humans continue to pour copious
* quantities of CO2 into the environment and it is driving climate
* change.

* * * * * Speculation at best, BS otherwise,
messages still get deleted.

* Most every thread you have comment in (usually you just attack
* posters, organizations and data sources without scientific scrutiny)
* is easily rebutted by the issues referred to in this document:

http://www.swissre.com/resources/222...b02e99dba1-Fac...

* There are not enough sensors on other planets to explain what is
* happening right here right now.

* Look at the observables, Marvin!

* * * * *We need a good laugh, explain how
Global Warming causes cold and snow again.

Ah Yes all that cold and snow. so cold that the temperature in
Vancouver was 10 deg above average in February and so snowy that that
had to truck in snow for the olympics. Oh cold you mean when Alaska
breaks the old record for high temperatures for January and February.
Give it a rest. Sit down with a basic climatology book before you
prove beyond a shadow you are dumber than a third grader

[SMF] wrote:
On 2/22/2010 12:00 AM, Chris L Peterson wrote:

The world economy is likely to be totally destroyed by the changes in
climate that will occur over the next 50 years.

Bwahaha.

I'm sure the Brits will hate having the opportunity to grow
grapes again.

We already can you ignorant moron.

There are successful commercial vineyards in the UK as far north as in
Roman times near Leeds and longer established at Leventhorpe 1985.

http://www.enjoyengland.com/ideas/fo...-vineyard.aspx

For a long time the most northerly commercial vineyard was at Renishaw
Hall home of the eccentric Edith Sitwell.

http://www.sitwell.co.uk/renishaw_vineyard.htm

And these vineyards are producing high quality wines not some cheap
noxious plonk for homesick centurions to get wasted on.

The Champagne region of France is actually becoming too hot some years
for some of the grape varieties used to make their most famous product.
You can see the effect of climate change in the timing of harvest dates.

Idiot.

Look in the mirror.

Regards,
Martin Brown