|
|
|||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
July 29th 09, 06:50 PM
posted to rec.bicycles.tech
|
|||
|
|||
So what good are “climate scientists”?
A FEW INNOCENT QUESTIONS ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING FROM THE COMMON MAN
Q: Is there global warming? A: No. The earth is cooler now than at any time since the middle ages. Here are the official figures from the US NCDC drawn into a graph from 1880. http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/NCDCabs1880.html We're still recovering from the Little Ice Age, which will be shown lower down. Q: But climate scientists claim that there was no medieval warm period outside Europe. A: They lie. Here is the evidence from other sciences that both the medieval warm period and the little ice age were worldwide. http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm http://www.worldclimatereport.com/in...rature-record/ Q: But then they say that it is sudden warming that is dangerous. A: They saw a short term increase of temperature in the 1990s and panicked. Temperature has settled down again. http://www.factsandarts.com/articles...ng-since-1995/ Q: Is CO2 responsible for global warming? A: Anyone who says that is speculating against the evidence. CO2 is a beneficial gas; the earth depends on it. It is true that CO2 is increasing but, as the graph shows, there is no link between increase in CO2 and temperature. http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/NCDCabs1880.html It isn’t even certain that CO2 increases come before temperature increases! Q: So when will it be time to worry? A: When the earth again reaches the temperatures, much higher than today, which were common in the Middle Ages, agriculture will become much easier. When we have fed all the earth’s hungry, there may be a population explosion as death rates fall. That will be a worry. But that is generations away and may never happen, among other reasons because the recent beneficial rate of increase in temperature has proven to be a shortterm phenomenon, and the rate of increase has already levelled off. Q: Then why are the global warning wolf-criers still going on about it? A: Climate scientists, bureaucrats and politicians have gambled their careers on “global warming”; it is their livelihood going down the tubes with the downturn in global temperature rates. They’re fighting to keep their little corner in wolf-crying, claiming that Global Warming is Dead, Long Live Sudden Climate Change (Up or Down). Q: Will they be able to forecast hurricanes like Katrina? A: You’re joking, aren’t you? Those clowns can’t forecast the local weather today week, never mind global weather a century ahead, or even next year’s hurricanes. Q: So what good are “climate scientists”? A: That’s what everyone wants to know. Andre Jute Definitely not a “climate scientist” Copyright 2009 Andre Jute 
|
| Ads |
|
#2
July 29th 09, 07:06 PM
posted to rec.bicycles.tech
|
|||
|
|||
|
So what good are "climate scientists"?
Andre Jute wrote in
: snip Andre Jute Definitely not a "climate scientist" And Thanks for pointing that out, but you didn't need to belabor the obvious. -- Bill Asher
|
|
#3
July 29th 09, 07:58 PM
posted to rec.bicycles.tech
|
|||
|
|||
|
So what good are "climate scientists"?
On Jul 29, 7:06*pm, William Asher wrote:
Andre Jute wrote : snip Andre Jute Definitely not a "climate scientist" And Thanks for pointing that out, but you didn't need to belabor the obvious. Oh, I wouldn't want to join a bunch of clowns who cannot even catch out one of their own who tells big whoppers, like Michael Mann did with his Hockey Stick. That entire branch of "science" discredited itself when it tried to set itself up as policy-makers and spenders of the public purse, when it continued to take the IPCC's shilling after it became clear that their honest original opinions were rewritten to the diametric opposite by bureaucrats, when it failed to pull up Mann, when it failed to protest the continued use by the IPCC of Hockey Stick graphs, when it asked us to take on faith matters for which the entire community knew there is not and will not in the foreseeable future be proof, and on and on, a depressing catalogue of crimes against real science. Those people traded in their integrity, and science itself, for a few minutes of television exposure and a few dollars from the IPCC. I wouldn't be surprised to discover that whores as a profession have a higher moral standard than climate "scientists". Got any *proof* to the contrary of these points, Billy-boy? A FEW INNOCENT QUESTIONS ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING FROM THE COMMON MAN Q: Is there global warming? A: No. The earth is cooler now than at any time since the middle ages. Here are the official figures from the US NCDC drawn into a graph from 1880. http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/NCDCabs1880.html We're still recovering from the Little Ice Age, which will be shown lower down. Q: But climate scientists claim that there was no medieval warm period outside Europe. A: They lie. Here is the evidence from other sciences that both the medieval warm period and the little ice age were worldwide. http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm http://www.worldclimatereport.com/in...a-2000-year-gl... Q: But then they say that it is sudden warming that is dangerous. A: They saw a short term increase of temperature in the 1990s and panicked. Temperature has settled down again. http://www.factsandarts.com/articles...bal-warming-si... Q: Is CO2 responsible for global warming? A: Anyone who says that is speculating against the evidence. CO2 is a beneficial gas; the earth depends on it. It is true that CO2 is increasing but, as the graph shows, there is no link between increase in CO2 and temperature. http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/NCDCabs1880.html It isn’t even certain that CO2 increases come before temperature increases! Q: So when will it be time to worry? A: When the earth again reaches the temperatures, much higher than today, which were common in the Middle Ages, agriculture will become much easier. When we have fed all the earth’s hungry, there may be a population explosion as death rates fall. That will be a worry. But that is generations away and may never happen, among other reasons because the recent beneficial rate of increase in temperature has proven to be a shortterm phenomenon, and the rate of increase has already levelled off. Q: Then why are the global warning wolf-criers still going on about it? A: Climate scientists, bureaucrats and politicians have gambled their careers on “global warming”; it is their livelihood going down the tubes with the downturn in global temperature rates. They’re fighting to keep their little corner in wolf-crying, claiming that Global Warming is Dead, Long Live Sudden Climate Change (Up or Down). Q: Will they be able to forecast hurricanes like Katrina? A: You’re joking, aren’t you? Those clowns can’t forecast the local weather today week, never mind global weather a century ahead, or even next year’s hurricanes. Q: So what good are “climate scientists”? A: That’s what everyone wants to know. Andre Jute Definitely not a “climate scientist” Copyright 2009 Andre Jute
|
|
#5
July 30th 09, 09:57 AM
posted to rec.bicycles.tech
|
|||
|
|||
|
So what good are =3Fclimate scientists=3F?
On Jul 30, 1:56*am, mike wrote:
In article f123b85d-d5be-4793-ab05- , says... A FEW INNOCENT QUESTIONS ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING FROM THE COMMON MAN Q: Is there global warming? A: No. The earth is cooler now than at any time since the middle ages. *Here are the official figures from the US NCDC drawn into a graph from 1880. http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/NCDCabs1880.html Did you even look at that graph? What it appears to show is that since 1880, 19 of the 20 years in which teh maximum Global Absolute Monthly Mean Temperature exceeded 16 C occured since 1987. Yah, I know. Those buggers changed their reporting method a few years ago. But one has to work with the published data. I take my method from Bjorn Lomborg, The Skeptical Environmentalist, the Green Troublemaker Himself, and wherever possible use the IPCC data, or when I cite secondary sources, prefer those which use the official data. Q: But climate scientists claim that there was no medieval warm period outside Europe. A: They lie. Here is the evidence from other sciences that both the medieval warm period and the little ice age were worldwide. http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm http://www.worldclimatereport.com/in...a-2000-year-gl... And once again the MWP and the LIA. You find them boring, do you? The real climatologists are so obsessed with the MWP and the LIA that they tried to lie them out of existence, as recounted in two concurrent threads: http://groups.google.ie/group/rec.bi...dda0f151cc4d7d http://groups.google.ie/group/rec.bi...5f3fb1f?hl=en# Lets just assume, for the moment, that the evidence presented here is valid, That's a zero-risk assumption. Wegman condemned only the climatologists for incestuously dependent peer review practices. In almost every other discipline one can expect to find that proper scientific procedure has been observed, that selfsame proper procedure from which the climatologist claim divine exemption. and that the MWP and LIA wer eglobal evemnts. That is proven beyond a doubt. You may take it as an incontrovertible fact of History itself. Further, lets assume that they were in no way caused or influenced by CO2 content in the atmosphere. ... Why do we need to assume? We know there was no man-made CO2, which is what Global Warming is all about. Then, so what? I'm waiting for you lot in the Church of Saint Michael Mann of the Red Noise Hockey Stick to tell me. Until you do, so what? You have provided evidence that other things can also induce climate change - but we already know that. What you haven't proven is that CO2 doesn't affect climate any more than the fact that your living room gets warmer when the sun shines in through the window could disprove the existance of a central heating system in the house (or a fire in the basement for that matter). I don't have to disprove anything, Mike. That is what I mean by a Marxist argument. It goes against natural law to demand that I disprove a connection you propose. If you think there was manmade CO2 causing the Medieval Warm Period, prove it. If you think that manmade CO2 somehow caused the LIttle Ice Age, prove it. Until you do, the MWP and the LIA stand as pretty good arguments against any panicky decisions on Global Warming. The MWP and the LIA are ample proof that we have plenty of time for more mature scientists than Mann and that discredited crowd of clowns at the IPCC to find out what is really going on before we have to make any decisions. Global warning is not, repeat not, an anvil falling from the sky. Q: But then they say that it is sudden warming that is dangerous. A: They saw a short term increase of temperature in the 1990s and panicked. Temperature has settled down again. http://www.factsandarts.com/articles...bal-warming-si... Ooh, that one includes a lovely speech from Newt Gingritch. Is this what you would consider a peer-reviewed article? An American politician is subject to daily peer review, and a damn good thing too. But the distinguished gentleman is only in a sidebar or an ad or something, if I remember correctly (I haven't been on that site for years -- I just reposted an old article to keep some of the lesser players occupied on the sidelines, but if you want to take it seriously, fine by me). A couple of graphs showing short-term variation in temperature is hardly a predictor for intermediate-term climate change. Just as a few cold days in spring doesn't mean that summer is off. True. But Mann caused a panic about less than a decade of warm weather. We've been in a cooling phase for as long now as the slightly warmer phase which caused the Mann Panic. Q: Is CO2 responsible for global warming? A: Anyone who says that is speculating against the evidence. CO2 is a beneficial gas; the earth depends on it. It is true that CO2 is increasing but, as the graph shows, there is no link between increase in CO2 and temperature. http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/NCDCabs1880.html It isn?t even certain that CO2 increases come before temperature increases! The same graph as before. You really believe that this proves that there is no link between CO2 and temperature. Do you really expect that the two curves would have to be coincident to prove that there was? Coincident, temporally closely correlated (heh-heh), otherwise correlated with a convincing explanation of any larger lag or lead than say two generations a single lifespan of 70 years. Any longer than that is absolutely useless for policymaking purposes because no one can tell the shape of the world in another two generations. Anyone who claims he knew in 1959 what the world would look like today is a liar. Q: So when will it be time to worry? A: When the earth again reaches the temperatures, much higher than today, which were common in the Middle Ages, agriculture will become much easier. When we have fed all the earth?s hungry, there may be a population explosion as death rates fall. That will be a worry. But that is generations away and may never happen, among other reasons because the recent beneficial rate of increase in temperature has proven to be a shortterm phenomenon, and the rate of increase has already levelled off. Hey why not just wait until you can grow date-palms in Dublin...and think of the benefits for the Icelandic wine industry! Jesus, I wish I thought of that first. Q: Then why are the global warning wolf-criers still going on about it? A: Climate scientists, bureaucrats and politicians have gambled their careers on ?global warming?; it is their livelihood going down the tubes with the downturn in global temperature rates. They?re fighting to keep their little corner in wolf-crying, claiming that Global Warming is Dead, Long Live Sudden Climate Change (Up or Down). Yep - the Royal Society, the AIP, Nature, Science, climatologists, meteorologists, physicists, chemists, mathematicians, even economists and politicians who actually read and can understand research findings - we are all part of a massive global conspiracy to keep you living in a damp, cold place. Eh? I live in beautiful Bandon, gateway to West Cork. It rains often here, but it is neither damp nor cold. You can't conspire against me, anyhow, because I'm too sunny a character. Q: Will they be able to forecast hurricanes like Katrina? A: You?re joking, aren?t you? Those clowns can?t forecast the local weather today week, never mind global weather a century ahead, or even next year?s hurricanes. This is another red herring (and a very weak one at that). Can you predict what the weather will be next weekend? It rains whenever I have a ride planned with several other cyclists. I have one planned for Sunday. I'll let you know how it turns out. Can you predict if it will be warmer or cooler where you live in 6 months time? Of course I can. Six months from now it will be winter. Now it is summer. In the winter it will be cooler than it is in the summer. Ask me a difficult one. Andre Jute You can ride only one bike at a time
|
|
#6
July 30th 09, 04:26 PM
posted to rec.bicycles.tech
|
|||
|
|||
|
So what good are =3Fclimate scientists=3F?
On Jul 30, 1:57*am, Andre Jute wrote:
snip If you're really so sure that you're right about Earth's climate situation, why would you wasting so much time and energy arguing about it here on a bicycle newsgroup... unless you're just trolling.
|
|
#7
July 30th 09, 11:00 PM
posted to rec.bicycles.tech
|
|||
|
|||
|
So what good are =3Fclimate scientists=3F?
On Jul 30, 4:26*pm, Dan O wrote:
On Jul 30, 1:57*am, Andre Jute wrote: snip If you're really so sure that you're right about Earth's climate situation, why would you wasting so much time and energy arguing about it here on a bicycle newsgroup... unless you're just trolling. Tell me, Danno, do you ever feel like a hypocrite? Do you know what a hypocrite is? There are global warming threads all the time, so tell us why it is only mine you feel you should condemn as off-topic? Or are you a closet hanger-on of the Global Warmies who thinks that this is his way of making a contribution to saving the Earth? You can tell us. We won't laugh. Promise. Oh, and if I were trolling, I caught and gaffed some really stupid- looking fish, now gasping at my feet. Watching a limp toerag like Asher weaseling and squirming as he goes into denial before the inevitable conclusion (check these spaces!) is an entertainment already. Andre Jute The Earth has a lot of practice looking after itself. it still will long after Man is gone.
|
|
#8
July 31st 09, 01:55 AM
posted to rec.bicycles.tech
|
|||
|
|||
|
So what good are =3Fclimate scientists=3F?
On Jul 30, 1:57*am, Andre Jute wrote:
On Jul 30, 1:56*am, mike wrote: In article f123b85d-d5be-4793-ab05- , says... A FEW INNOCENT QUESTIONS ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING FROM THE COMMON MAN Q: Is there global warming? A: No. The earth is cooler now than at any time since the middle ages. *Here are the official figures from the US NCDC drawn into a graph from 1880. http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/NCDCabs1880.html Did you even look at that graph? What it appears to show is that since 1880, 19 of the 20 years in which teh maximum Global Absolute Monthly Mean Temperature exceeded 16 C occured since 1987. Yah, I know. Those buggers changed their reporting method a few years ago. But one has to work with the published data. I take my method from Bjorn Lomborg, The Skeptical Environmentalist, the Green Troublemaker Himself, and wherever possible use the IPCC data, or when I cite secondary sources, prefer those which use the official data. Q: But climate scientists claim that there was no medieval warm period outside Europe. A: They lie. Here is the evidence from other sciences that both the medieval warm period and the little ice age were worldwide. http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm http://www.worldclimatereport.com/in...a-2000-year-gl.... And once again the MWP and the LIA. You find them boring, do you? The real climatologists are so obsessed with the MWP and the LIA that they tried to lie them out of existence, as recounted in two concurrent threads: *http://groups.google.ie/group/rec.bi...thread/thread/.... *http://groups.google.ie/group/rec.bi...thread/thread/.... Lets just assume, for the moment, that the evidence presented here is valid, That's a zero-risk assumption. Wegman condemned only the climatologists for incestuously dependent peer review practices. In almost every other discipline one can expect to find that proper scientific procedure has been observed, that selfsame proper procedure from which the climatologist claim divine exemption. and that the MWP and LIA wer eglobal evemnts. That is proven beyond a doubt. You may take it as an incontrovertible fact of History itself. Further, lets assume that they were in no way caused or influenced by CO2 content in the atmosphere. ... Why do we need to assume? We know there was no man-made CO2, *which is what Global Warming is all about. Then, so what? I'm waiting for you lot in the Church of Saint Michael Mann of the Red Noise Hockey Stick to tell me. Until you do, so what? You have provided evidence that other things can also induce climate change - but we already know that. What you haven't proven is that CO2 doesn't affect climate any more than the fact that your living room gets warmer when the sun shines in through the window could disprove the existance of a central heating system in the house (or a fire in the basement for that matter). I don't have to disprove anything, Mike. That is what I mean by a Marxist argument. It goes against natural law to demand that I disprove a connection you propose. If you think there was manmade CO2 causing the Medieval Warm Period, prove it. If you think that manmade CO2 somehow caused the LIttle Ice Age, prove it. Until you do, the MWP and the LIA stand as pretty good arguments against any panicky decisions on Global Warming. The MWP and the LIA are ample proof that we have plenty of time for more mature scientists than Mann and that discredited crowd of clowns at the IPCC to find out what is really going on before we have to make any decisions. Global warning is not, repeat not, an anvil falling from the sky. Q: But then they say that it is sudden warming that is dangerous. A: They saw a short term increase of temperature in the 1990s and panicked. Temperature has settled down again. http://www.factsandarts.com/articles...bal-warming-si.... Ooh, that one includes a lovely speech from Newt Gingritch. Is this what you would consider a peer-reviewed article? An American politician is subject to daily peer review, and a damn good thing too. But the distinguished gentleman is only in a sidebar or an ad or something, if I remember correctly (I haven't been on that site for years -- I just reposted an old article to keep some of the lesser players occupied on the sidelines, but if you want to take it seriously, fine by me). A couple of graphs showing short-term variation in temperature is hardly a predictor for intermediate-term climate change. Just as a few cold days in spring doesn't mean that summer is off. True. But Mann caused a panic about less than a decade of warm weather. We've been in a cooling phase for as long now as the slightly warmer phase which caused the Mann Panic. Q: Is CO2 responsible for global warming? A: Anyone who says that is speculating against the evidence. CO2 is a beneficial gas; the earth depends on it. It is true that CO2 is increasing but, as the graph shows, there is no link between increase in CO2 and temperature. http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/NCDCabs1880.html It isn?t even certain that CO2 increases come before temperature increases! The same graph as before. You really believe that this proves that there is no link between CO2 and temperature. Do you really expect that the two curves would have to be coincident to prove that there was? Coincident, temporally closely correlated (heh-heh), otherwise correlated with a convincing explanation of any larger lag or lead than say two generations a single lifespan of 70 years. Any longer than that is absolutely useless for policymaking purposes because no one can tell the shape of the world in another two generations. Anyone who claims he knew in 1959 what the world would look like today is a liar. Q: So when will it be time to worry? A: When the earth again reaches the temperatures, much higher than today, which were common in the Middle Ages, agriculture will become much easier. When we have fed all the earth?s hungry, there may be a population explosion as death rates fall. That will be a worry. But that is generations away and may never happen, among other reasons because the recent beneficial rate of increase in temperature has proven to be a shortterm phenomenon, and the rate of increase has already levelled off. Hey why not just wait until you can grow date-palms in Dublin...and think of the benefits for the Icelandic wine industry! Jesus, I wish I thought of that first. Q: Then why are the global warning wolf-criers still going on about it? A: Climate scientists, bureaucrats and politicians have gambled their careers on ?global warming?; it is their livelihood going down the tubes with the downturn in global temperature rates. They?re fighting to keep their little corner in wolf-crying, claiming that Global Warming is Dead, Long Live Sudden Climate Change (Up or Down). Yep - the Royal Society, the AIP, Nature, Science, climatologists, meteorologists, physicists, chemists, mathematicians, even economists and politicians who actually read and can understand research findings - we are all part of a massive global conspiracy to keep you living in a damp, cold place. Eh? I live in beautiful Bandon, gateway to West Cork. It rains often here, but it is neither damp nor cold. You can't conspire against me, anyhow, because I'm too sunny a character. Q: Will they be able to forecast hurricanes like Katrina? A: You?re joking, aren?t you? Those clowns can?t forecast the local weather today week, never mind global weather a century ahead, or even next year?s hurricanes. This is another red herring (and a very weak one at that). Can you predict what the weather will be next weekend? It rains whenever I have a ride planned with several other cyclists. I have one planned for Sunday. I'll let you know how it turns out. Can you predict if it will be warmer or cooler where you live in 6 months time? Of course I can. Six months from now it will be winter. Now it is summer. In the winter it will be cooler than it is in the summer. Ask me a difficult one. You missed the point of his questions. Fluctuations in short term weather are unpredictable but longer term trends in climate change are "less" so. Phil H Global warming skeptic and Jute critic.
|
|
#9
July 31st 09, 02:53 AM
posted to rec.bicycles.tech
|
|||
|
|||
|
So what good are =3Fclimate scientists=3F?
On Jul 31, 1:55*am, Phil H wrote:
On Jul 30, 1:57*am, Andre Jute wrote: On Jul 30, 1:56*am, mike wrote: In article f123b85d-d5be-4793-ab05- , says... A FEW INNOCENT QUESTIONS ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING FROM THE COMMON MAN Q: Is there global warming? A: No. The earth is cooler now than at any time since the middle ages. *Here are the official figures from the US NCDC drawn into a graph from 1880. http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/NCDCabs1880.html Did you even look at that graph? What it appears to show is that since 1880, 19 of the 20 years in which teh maximum Global Absolute Monthly Mean Temperature exceeded 16 C occured since 1987. Yah, I know. Those buggers changed their reporting method a few years ago. But one has to work with the published data. I take my method from Bjorn Lomborg, The Skeptical Environmentalist, the Green Troublemaker Himself, and wherever possible use the IPCC data, or when I cite secondary sources, prefer those which use the official data. Q: But climate scientists claim that there was no medieval warm period outside Europe. A: They lie. Here is the evidence from other sciences that both the medieval warm period and the little ice age were worldwide. http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm http://www.worldclimatereport.com/in...a-2000-year-gl... And once again the MWP and the LIA. You find them boring, do you? The real climatologists are so obsessed with the MWP and the LIA that they tried to lie them out of existence, as recounted in two concurrent threads: *http://groups.google.ie/group/rec.bi...thread/thread/... *http://groups.google.ie/group/rec.bi...thread/thread/... Lets just assume, for the moment, that the evidence presented here is valid, That's a zero-risk assumption. Wegman condemned only the climatologists for incestuously dependent peer review practices. In almost every other discipline one can expect to find that proper scientific procedure has been observed, that selfsame proper procedure from which the climatologist claim divine exemption. and that the MWP and LIA wer eglobal evemnts. That is proven beyond a doubt. You may take it as an incontrovertible fact of History itself. Further, lets assume that they were in no way caused or influenced by CO2 content in the atmosphere. ... Why do we need to assume? We know there was no man-made CO2, *which is what Global Warming is all about. Then, so what? I'm waiting for you lot in the Church of Saint Michael Mann of the Red Noise Hockey Stick to tell me. Until you do, so what? You have provided evidence that other things can also induce climate change - but we already know that. What you haven't proven is that CO2 doesn't affect climate any more than the fact that your living room gets warmer when the sun shines in through the window could disprove the existance of a central heating system in the house (or a fire in the basement for that matter). I don't have to disprove anything, Mike. That is what I mean by a Marxist argument. It goes against natural law to demand that I disprove a connection you propose. If you think there was manmade CO2 causing the Medieval Warm Period, prove it. If you think that manmade CO2 somehow caused the LIttle Ice Age, prove it. Until you do, the MWP and the LIA stand as pretty good arguments against any panicky decisions on Global Warming. The MWP and the LIA are ample proof that we have plenty of time for more mature scientists than Mann and that discredited crowd of clowns at the IPCC to find out what is really going on before we have to make any decisions. Global warning is not, repeat not, an anvil falling from the sky. Q: But then they say that it is sudden warming that is dangerous. A: They saw a short term increase of temperature in the 1990s and panicked. Temperature has settled down again. http://www.factsandarts.com/articles...bal-warming-si... Ooh, that one includes a lovely speech from Newt Gingritch. Is this what you would consider a peer-reviewed article? An American politician is subject to daily peer review, and a damn good thing too. But the distinguished gentleman is only in a sidebar or an ad or something, if I remember correctly (I haven't been on that site for years -- I just reposted an old article to keep some of the lesser players occupied on the sidelines, but if you want to take it seriously, fine by me). A couple of graphs showing short-term variation in temperature is hardly a predictor for intermediate-term climate change. Just as a few cold days in spring doesn't mean that summer is off. True. But Mann caused a panic about less than a decade of warm weather. We've been in a cooling phase for as long now as the slightly warmer phase which caused the Mann Panic. Q: Is CO2 responsible for global warming? A: Anyone who says that is speculating against the evidence. CO2 is a beneficial gas; the earth depends on it. It is true that CO2 is increasing but, as the graph shows, there is no link between increase in CO2 and temperature. http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/NCDCabs1880.html It isn?t even certain that CO2 increases come before temperature increases! The same graph as before. You really believe that this proves that there is no link between CO2 and temperature. Do you really expect that the two curves would have to be coincident to prove that there was? Coincident, temporally closely correlated (heh-heh), otherwise correlated with a convincing explanation of any larger lag or lead than say two generations a single lifespan of 70 years. Any longer than that is absolutely useless for policymaking purposes because no one can tell the shape of the world in another two generations. Anyone who claims he knew in 1959 what the world would look like today is a liar. Q: So when will it be time to worry? A: When the earth again reaches the temperatures, much higher than today, which were common in the Middle Ages, agriculture will become much easier. When we have fed all the earth?s hungry, there may be a population explosion as death rates fall. That will be a worry. But that is generations away and may never happen, among other reasons because the recent beneficial rate of increase in temperature has proven to be a shortterm phenomenon, and the rate of increase has already levelled off. Hey why not just wait until you can grow date-palms in Dublin...and think of the benefits for the Icelandic wine industry! Jesus, I wish I thought of that first. Q: Then why are the global warning wolf-criers still going on about it? A: Climate scientists, bureaucrats and politicians have gambled their careers on ?global warming?; it is their livelihood going down the tubes with the downturn in global temperature rates. They?re fighting to keep their little corner in wolf-crying, claiming that Global Warming is Dead, Long Live Sudden Climate Change (Up or Down). Yep - the Royal Society, the AIP, Nature, Science, climatologists, meteorologists, physicists, chemists, mathematicians, even economists and politicians who actually read and can understand research findings - we are all part of a massive global conspiracy to keep you living in a damp, cold place. Eh? I live in beautiful Bandon, gateway to West Cork. It rains often here, but it is neither damp nor cold. You can't conspire against me, anyhow, because I'm too sunny a character. Q: Will they be able to forecast hurricanes like Katrina? A: You?re joking, aren?t you? Those clowns can?t forecast the local weather today week, never mind global weather a century ahead, or even next year?s hurricanes. This is another red herring (and a very weak one at that). Can you predict what the weather will be next weekend? It rains whenever I have a ride planned with several other cyclists. I have one planned for Sunday. I'll let you know how it turns out. Can you predict if it will be warmer or cooler where you live in 6 months time? Of course I can. Six months from now it will be winter. Now it is summer. In the winter it will be cooler than it is in the summer. Ask me a difficult one. You missed the point of his questions. I know, Phil, but thanks all the same. I've answered the rest of your post in "Hubris runs riot in Global Warmies" at http://groups.google.ie/group/rec.bi...dd8815b?hl=en# Enjoy! Andre Jute "Loonies like Asher will continue to shout 'Global Warming' until they suddenly start shouting 'Global Cooling' as if they'd done that from the beginning." -- Tom Kunich "Oh, I've seen the loonies do that for half a century. Asher's problem is that he has such a poor grasp of history, he thinks the New Apocalypse of Global Warming is brand spanking new and exciting." -- Andre Jute
|
|
#10
July 31st 09, 03:05 AM
posted to rec.bicycles.tech
|
|||
|
|||
|
So what good are =3Fclimate scientists=3F?
On Jul 30, 3:00 pm, Andre Jute wrote:
On Jul 30, 4:26 pm, Dan O wrote: On Jul 30, 1:57 am, Andre Jute wrote: snip If you're really so sure that you're right about Earth's climate situation, why would you wasting so much time and energy arguing about it here on a bicycle newsgroup... unless you're just trolling. Tell me, Danno, do you ever feel like a hypocrite? Do you know what a hypocrite is? There are global warming threads all the time, so tell us why it is only mine you feel you should condemn as off-topic? Or are you a closet hanger-on of the Global Warmies who thinks that this is his way of making a contribution to saving the Earth? You can tell us. We won't laugh. Promise. Oh, and if I were trolling, I caught and gaffed some really stupid- looking fish, now gasping at my feet. Watching a limp toerag like Asher weaseling and squirming as he goes into denial before the inevitable conclusion (check these spaces!) is an entertainment already. So you *are* just trolling. I thought so. The Earth has a lot of practice looking after itself. it still will long after Man is gone. Obviously, but how long can Man live on Earth at this rate?
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| National Climate March.National Climate March Saturday December6th 2008 | Doug[_3_] | UK | 8 | December 11th 08 07:52 AM |
| Al Those Great Scientists Here | [email protected] | Racing | 19 | May 18th 08 04:12 AM |
| Al Those Great Scientists Here | Tom Kunich | Racing | 186 | May 17th 08 07:43 PM |
| Al Those Great Scientists Here | SLAVE of THE STATE | Racing | 2 | May 10th 08 01:42 AM |
| Al Those Great Scientists Here | Tom Kunich | Racing | 2 | May 9th 08 07:54 AM |
Linear Mode
