Global Warming The debbil made me do it

On Mar 7, 11:58 am, "Dan Luke" wrote:
"Denny" wrote:

Try this
http://tinurl.us/a8b68b

Typical denier cherry picking. Take an unusually warm January, compare it
to an unusually cold January and declare that a century of warming has been
wiped out. Meanwhile, ignore the rest of graph that shows both the extreme
annual variability of the climate and the long term trend.

What will they say if January '08 is warmer, that global warming has started
again? I doubt it.

Meanwhile, back in the real world of science:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2007/...sen_etal_2.pdf

--
Dan
T-182T at 4R4

Oh brother...

Unless you haven't notice, there is no stasis in the Earth's climate,
just as there is no statis in geology, the sun, the planets, or
anything else.

There never has been and there never will be.

Anyone who says otherwise is lying, with the motivations varying from
power grab to increased research funding to old boy networking.

Humans adapt, period.

That's why the Inuit survived as well as the Masi. Hot or cold, dry or
wet, humans have adapted.

And thank God for indoor heating and air conditioning.

Global warming/climate change/the sky is falling is another load of
crap brought to you by Chicken Little and his/her cohorts.

And you cans end me all the NASA links you want -- because the only
thing they've not changed their collective bureaucratic minds on is
spin recovery and that icing is bad and killing astronauts is bad.

Dan

"Dan" wrote:

Oh brother...

Brilliant response. Bodes well for the rest of your post.


Unless you haven't notice, there is no stasis in the Earth's climate,
just as there is no statis in geology, the sun, the planets, or
anything else.

Uh, I have noticed. So?


There never has been and there never will be.

Well, so far you've mastered the obvious.


Anyone who says otherwise is lying, with the motivations varying from
power grab to increased research funding to old boy networking.

Who's saying otherwise besides your strawman?


Humans adapt, period.

So a 20-foot sea level rise over a couple hundred years would be just an
inconvenience. Right.


That's why the Inuit survived as well as the Masi. Hot or cold, dry or
wet, humans have adapted.

And thank God for indoor heating and air conditioning.

Global warming/climate change/the sky is falling is another load of
crap brought to you by Chicken Little and his/her cohorts.

Wow; that's right up there with your "oh brother..." comment. Is it unfair
of me to suspect that you haven't the faintest idea what you are talking
about?


And you cans end me all the NASA links you want -- because the only
thing they've not changed their collective bureaucratic minds on is
spin recovery and that icing is bad and killing astronauts is bad.

IOW, don't confuse you with facts. Fine.

--
Dan

"Did you just have a stroke and not tell me?"
- Jiminy Glick

On Mar 7, 2:05 pm, "Dan Luke" wrote:

IOW, don't confuse you with facts. Fine.

--
Dan


Ok.. facts. 20 foot sea level rise based on which incontrovertible
evidence?

Will we have a 10 foot rise in 50 years?

5 feet in 25?

Sorry, I'm not buying the sleight of hand that is the "Climate Change"
crisis of the moment.

We had far warmer temperatures earlier in our history, and far colder.

But true believers in a religious cause can't be "convinced."

Dan

Dan wrote in news:50479332-f8aa-444e-b004-
:

On Mar 7, 2:05 pm, "Dan Luke" wrote:

IOW, don't confuse you with facts. Fine.

--
Dan


Ok.. facts. 20 foot sea level rise based on which incontrovertible
evidence?


There's no such thing as incotrovetible evidence.


Will we have a 10 foot rise in 50 years?

5 feet in 25?

Sorry, I'm not buying the sleight of hand that is the "Climate Change"
crisis of the moment.

Great, stick a gun in your nmouth and play russian roullette, bjust
don't expect to try snd take me with you without a fight.




We had far warmer temperatures earlier in our history, and far colder.

But true believers in a religious cause can't be "convinced."

I know.

Bertie

On Mar 7, 3:39 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dan wrote in news:50479332-f8aa-444e-b004-
:

On Mar 7, 2:05 pm, "Dan Luke" wrote:

IOW, don't confuse you with facts. Fine.

--
Dan

Ok.. facts. 20 foot sea level rise based on which incontrovertible
evidence?

There's no such thing as incotrovetible evidence.

Will we have a 10 foot rise in 50 years?

5 feet in 25?

Sorry, I'm not buying the sleight of hand that is the "Climate Change"
crisis of the moment.

Great, stick a gun in your nmouth and play russian roullette, bjust
don't expect to try snd take me with you without a fight.



We had far warmer temperatures earlier in our history, and far colder.

But true believers in a religious cause can't be "convinced."

I know.

Bertie

You seriously believe all the alarmist noise?

Seriously -- what are you expecting to happen?

Even the True Believers have downplayed Al Gore's outrageous
predictions (such as sea level rise of 20 feet in 100 years).

"When Michael Crichton said that 'Historically, the claim of consensus
has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate
by claiming that the matter is already settled,' he was right. When it
comes to the natural sciences consensus is not science, and science is
not consensus."

http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story....9-3004159a2185

Dan wrote in
:

On Mar 7, 3:39 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dan wrote in news:50479332-f8aa-444e-b004-
:

On Mar 7, 2:05 pm, "Dan Luke" wrote:

IOW, don't confuse you with facts. Fine.

--
Dan

Ok.. facts. 20 foot sea level rise based on which incontrovertible
evidence?

There's no such thing as incotrovetible evidence.

Will we have a 10 foot rise in 50 years?

5 feet in 25?

Sorry, I'm not buying the sleight of hand that is the "Climate
Change" crisis of the moment.

Great, stick a gun in your nmouth and play russian roullette, bjust
don't expect to try snd take me with you without a fight.



We had far warmer temperatures earlier in our history, and far
colder.

But true believers in a religious cause can't be "convinced."

I know.

Bertie

You seriously believe all the alarmist noise?

All the alarmist noise?

Seriously -- what are you expecting to happen?

That people wil continue to pump **** into the atmospehre nad sea until
they break it.


Even the True Believers have downplayed Al Gore's outrageous
predictions (such as sea level rise of 20 feet in 100 years).



"When Michael Crichton said that 'Historically, the claim of consensus
has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate
by claiming that the matter is already settled,' he was right. When it
comes to the natural sciences consensus is not science, and science is
not consensus."


Oh well, if Michael Chrichton said it.

Jesus wept.



Now, about the work "belief" I don't "believe" anything. I can see evidence
and can see the logical result according to the best information available.

Believers generally start with a need and use the belief to fill it.
Religion is the best example of course, and one of the reasons that people
get so riled up about it is investment. And generaly a pretty short sighted
and narrow view of the investment to boot.

So, no, I don't believe it, I just see it as a likely consequence based on
my best understanding of the sciences involved. I have no investment and
I'm not crying about the sky falling.

How about you?


Bertie

On Mar 7, 3:56 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dan wrote :



On Mar 7, 3:39 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dan wrote in news:50479332-f8aa-444e-b004-
:

On Mar 7, 2:05 pm, "Dan Luke" wrote:

IOW, don't confuse you with facts. Fine.

--
Dan

Ok.. facts. 20 foot sea level rise based on which incontrovertible
evidence?

There's no such thing as incotrovetible evidence.

Will we have a 10 foot rise in 50 years?

5 feet in 25?

Sorry, I'm not buying the sleight of hand that is the "Climate
Change" crisis of the moment.

Great, stick a gun in your nmouth and play russian roullette, bjust
don't expect to try snd take me with you without a fight.

We had far warmer temperatures earlier in our history, and far
colder.

But true believers in a religious cause can't be "convinced."

I know.

Bertie

You seriously believe all the alarmist noise?

All the alarmist noise?



Seriously -- what are you expecting to happen?

That people wil continue to pump **** into the atmospehre nad sea until
they break it.



Even the True Believers have downplayed Al Gore's outrageous
predictions (such as sea level rise of 20 feet in 100 years).

"When Michael Crichton said that 'Historically, the claim of consensus
has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate
by claiming that the matter is already settled,' he was right. When it
comes to the natural sciences consensus is not science, and science is
not consensus."

Oh well, if Michael Chrichton said it.

Jesus wept.

Now, about the work "belief" I don't "believe" anything. I can see evidence
and can see the logical result according to the best information available.

Believers generally start with a need and use the belief to fill it.
Religion is the best example of course, and one of the reasons that people
get so riled up about it is investment. And generaly a pretty short sighted
and narrow view of the investment to boot.

So, no, I don't believe it, I just see it as a likely consequence based on
my best understanding of the sciences involved. I have no investment and
I'm not crying about the sky falling.

How about you?

Bertie

I'm gonna be crying if the tax burden increases over 50% to fund more
bureaucracy.

How about you?

Dan

On Mar 7, 2:56*pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

Now, about the work "belief" I don't "believe" anything.

Thats because you don't know anything, fjukktjarjd

"Dan" wrote:

"When Michael Crichton said that 'Historically, the claim of consensus
has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate
by claiming that the matter is already settled,' he was right. When it
comes to the natural sciences consensus is not science, and science is
not consensus."

http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story....9-3004159a2185


LOL.

Let's see; is the science settled? On the "yes" side:

US National Academy of Science
U.S. National Research Council
American Meteorological Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Physics
American Astronomical Society
American Physical Society
American Association for the Advancement of Science
Geological Society of America
American Chemical Society (yes! even the ACS!)

On the "no" side:

A hack novelist.

So naturally, you believe (drum roll)...The Hack Novelist!

Good thinking.

"Dan" wrote:
IOW, don't confuse you with facts. Fine.

--
Dan


Ok.. facts. 20 foot sea level rise based on which incontrovertible
evidence?

There is enough ice on Greenland *alone* to raise msl 20+ feet. That is an
incontrovertible fact.

The rate of ice melt on Greenland is accelerating beyond predictions of only
a few years ago.

http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2007/481.html

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0115102706.htm


Will we have a 10 foot rise in 50 years?

Not according to current models, but ominous things are happening in
Greenland and Antarctica that indicate there are previously unknown
accelerating phenomena at work.

But let me ask you something: Are you 100% sure your house is going to burn
down this year? If not, why are you wasting your money on insurance? Why
don't you just wait until you see flames, then buy a policy?



5 feet in 25?

Sorry, I'm not buying the sleight of hand that is the "Climate Change"
crisis of the moment.

Sorry, you cannot show any sleight of hand. It is quite evident that you
haven't studied any of the science.


We had far warmer temperatures earlier in our history, and far colder.


Far warmer in our history? Says who?



But true believers in a religious cause can't be "convinced."

There goes the old irony meter again.