Major analysis confirms global warming is real

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1021144716.htm

On Oct 23, 12:55*am, Mike Collins wrote:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1021144716.htm

"Berkeley Earth is making its preliminary results public, together
with its programs and dataset, in order to invite additional scrutiny"

I'm sure many here felt the chill of night come on as the temperature
dropped due to the rotation of the Earth -

http://news.bbc.co.uk/weather/forecast/104?

Readers are asked to interpret the data and match the number of
rotations with the number of days in a 4 year/4 orbital cycle format
and come up with 1461 rotations in 1461 days.I do not care how they
snap out of the false 1465 rotations for the same period but if the
daily temperature fluctuation index won't do it then nothing will.

The business of modeling future temperature levels using computers or
rather speculating on temperatures using a minor atmospheric gas has
its antecedent in modeling planetary dynamics and solar system
structure using watches and stellar circumpolar motion,the one that is
throwing out a ridiculous 1465 rotations in 4 years.It turns out that
this empirical driven fuss over human control over global temperature
is useful in exposing what went wrong and that fundamentally the
problem is not climate specifically but a very human one.I am not
talking of a muddleheaded form of reasoning but rather a full blown
cult and the answer is a redirection of this issue to where people
think again for themselves and stand back far enough to see the damage
this is causing for our era.

"In all the world, there is nothing quite so impenetrable as a human
mind snapped shut with bliss. No call to reason, no emotional appeal
can get through its armor of self-proclaimed joy." Cult deprogramming
website

I would much rather discuss the technical ins and outs of a proper
link between planetary dynamics ,weather and climate but am left with
the responsibility of standing my ground on basic planetary facts and
why modeling may be fine,without physical considerations and
limitations the thing goes toxic.No matter how many 'major' studies
are presented for and against carbon dioxide inputs,the facts will
always loom large that we live in an era where men are prepared to
ignore the cause of the massive daily temperature fluctuations so they
can dither around at temperature fluctuations over long periods that
can't be challenged within their lifetimes.

Maybe now some readers will appreciate why this material is being kept
front and center insofar as the exposure of fraud a few years ago
doesn't gaurantee that people become honest and make a concerted
effort to correct a tragedy,in fact the opposite has happened by the
appearance of 'denier' for those who oppose the ideology of human
control over global temperature.This is what cults do to protect their
core ideology and all of it was expected,yet it still requires
individuals to recover their thinking skills and return investigation
of the terrestrial and celestial arenas to a stable footing rather
than one for social advocacy.

On Oct 22, 3:55 pm, Mike Collins wrote:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1021144716.htm

Interesting. It does seem to prove govmonk workers are sleeping
in more.
They take the temperature at 8 am in 1950, and by 2000 it's
now at 10 am, where the temperature went up 1.5 F in 2 hours.
We have proven govmonk workers cause global warming.
Solution: Fire all the govmonks.
Ken

Mike Collins wrote in
-
september.org:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1021144716.htm


Done by a group whose leader owns a company that makes money off global
warming.

Which is the bigger tragedy,that two vans ran over a toddler or that
people knowingly walked past the child without helping -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECeC4R-Gjtc

Here is the tragedy I draw attention to day in and day out -

"The Earth spins on its axis about 366 and 1/4 times each year, but
there are only 365 and 1/4 days per year" NASA

Creating an imbalance between 1461 rotations and 1461 days by
proposing 1465 rotations in 1461 days is an intellectual tragedy of
the highest order and that people can casually walk by it is abhorrent
in the extreme as it exposes an unthinking and unfeeling nature to
this world.I would like to believe that people are better than this
behavior shown up to now and would not intentionally remain silence
because of personal inconvenience as in diminishing our intellectual
heritage we end up diminishing ourselves.

The child died a few days later.

nuff said....

"Mike Collins" wrote in message
...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1021144716.htm

Changing your name will make people want to listen to you... not!

*plonk*

"GW Athiest" wrote in message
...
| nuff said....
|
| "Mike Collins" wrote in message
|
...
| http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1021144716.htm
|
|

You're right. I didn't change it properly.... done!

"Androcles" wrote in message
...
Changing your name will make people want to listen to you... not!

*plonk*

"GW Athiest" wrote in message
...
| nuff said....
|
| "Mike Collins" wrote in message
|
...
| http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1021144716.htm
|
|

Top posting will make people want to listen to you... not!
*plonk*


"AGW Athiest" wrote in message
...
| You're right. I didn't change it properly.... done!
|
| "Androcles" wrote in message
| ...
| Changing your name will make people want to listen to you... not!
|
| *plonk*
|
| "GW Athiest" wrote in message
| ...
| | nuff said....
| |
| | "Mike Collins" wrote in message
| |
|
...
| | http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1021144716.htm
| |
| |
|
|
|
|

whatever floats your boat and a tiny one it must be at that

"Androcles" wrote in message
...
Top posting will make people want to listen to you... not!
*plonk*


"AGW Athiest" wrote in message
...
| You're right. I didn't change it properly.... done!
|
| "Androcles" wrote in message
| ...
| Changing your name will make people want to listen to you... not!
|
| *plonk*
|
| "GW Athiest" wrote in message
| ...
| | nuff said....
| |
| | "Mike Collins" wrote in message
| |
|
...
| | http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1021144716.htm
| |
| |
|
|
|
|