From: Moderate on

"William Clark" <wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote in message
news:wclark2-EB1AE8.22003517022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
>
> The overwhelming preponderance of the evidence, which none of you
> wingnuts either can, or bother to, read, is that there is a significant
> contribution from AGW. That's the starting point, so now you can jump up
> and down and stamp your feet again.

Hahaha, you haven't read the IPCC report. That is about the only fact
related to AWG that I would bet on.


From: John B. on
On Feb 18, 7:18 am, BAR <sc...(a)you.com> wrote:
> In article <4b7c9f1b$0$5095$9a6e1...(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>,
> nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 20:21:47 -0500, BAR wrote:
> > > In article <4b7c8dfa$0$5110$9a6e1...(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>,
> > > nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says...
> > >> On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 19:33:52 -0500, BAR wrote:
> > >>> In article <0t7on5lbbttudhhau9iikvt05d3vnou...(a)4ax.com>,
> > >>> bkni...(a)conramp.net says...
> > >>>> On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 09:20:58 -0600, "MNMikeW" <MNMiik...(a)aol.com>
> > >>>> wrote:
> > >>>>> <bkni...(a)conramp.net> wrote in message
> > >>>>>news:7ihmn5lgj229dobctt1r6atpqcq0rurdcu(a)4ax.com...
> > >>>>>> On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 20:16:01 -0500, Jack Hollis <xslee...(a)aol.com>
>
> > >>>>>>> Show me the place in the IPCC report  where it says with absolute
> > >>>>>>> certainty that the current warming trend is being caused by
> > >>>>>>> humans.
>
> > >>>>>> There IS no absolute certainty either way or there wouldn't be any
> > >>>>>> argument.
>
> > >>>>> Exactly Bobby, but the ideologues in the AGW crowd will have none
> > >>>>> of that! The science is settled they spew. But it is far from being
> > >>>>> settled.
>
> > >>>> My point is that the opinions voiced here are by people who don't
> > >>>> have access, nor  understanding of the factors in the argument.
>
> > >>> You are kidding, I hope.
>
> > >>> I know when someone is feeding me a line of BS and trying to steal
> > >>> money out of my wallet. Global Warming/Climate Change is BS and a
> > >>> money grab.
>
> > >> You don't like AGW because you disagree with the politics of many of
> > >> its supporters. You have absolutely no idea what the real truth is.
> > >> You're like a child.
>
> > > I don't like AGW because it doesn't exist. It is a theory and a bad
> > > theory that is not supported by the historic record. History didn't
> > > start in 1850.
>
> > You don't know if AGW exists or not. You don't know to what extent it is
> > supported by the historic record. So it is pretty amazing that you can
> > be so certain about it.
>
> > By the way, I agree with your last statement: "History didn't start in
> > 1850." Congratulations on producing an actual statement of fact.
>
> Please pass along this fact to the IPCC and the "climatologist" who
> believe history started with the industrial revolution and that the
> billions of years of Earth's existence and climatic cycles that preceded
> 1850 should be studied too.
>
> Was CO2 and the Earths temperature ever greater than it is now and why?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

They don't believe history started with the industrial revolution.
They believe GHG emissions started with the industrial revolution.
From: Moderate on

"William Clark" <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message
news:clark-DCE75A.08133518022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
> In article <MPG.25e6fa301803722f989be3(a)news.giganews.com>,
> BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote:
>>
>> Was CO2 and the Earths temperature ever greater than it is now and why?
>
> Which, of course, really hs nothing to do with anything. It is only the
> Sarah Palins of the world that believe the dinosaurs impacted man
> (because they walked on earth together), and the dinosaurs died out. The
> purpose of the contemporary concern with climate is to make sure that
> man doesn't suffer the same fate because of his own ignorance.

Historical levels of CO2 have nothing to do with AGW, but Sarah Palin is
relevant to the issue.

Clark is in rare form today. Good stuff.


From: William Clark on
In article <7u54tbFek0U1(a)mid.individual.net>,
"MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com> wrote:

> "William Clark" <wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:wclark2-AD021F.22044317022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
> > In article <4b7c8fa6$0$5123$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>,
> > Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 19:22:56 -0500, BAR wrote:
> >> > In article <4b7c5bad$0$4878$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>,
> >> > nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says...
> >> >> On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 11:25:47 -0500, Frank Ketchum wrote:
> >> >>> "Carbon" <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
> >> >>> news:4b7c1584$0$5110$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com...
> >> >>>> On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 09:20:58 -0600, MNMikeW wrote:
> >> >>>>> <bknight(a)conramp.net> wrote in message
> >> >>>>> news:7ihmn5lgj229dobctt1r6atpqcq0rurdcu(a)4ax.com...
> >> >>>>>> On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 20:16:01 -0500, Jack Hollis
> >> >>>>>> <xsleeper(a)aol.com> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> Show me the place in the IPCC report where it says with
> >> >>>>>>> absolute certainty that the current warming trend is being
> >> >>>>>>> caused by humans.
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> There IS no absolute certainty either way or there wouldn't be
> >> >>>>>> any argument.
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>> Exactly Bobby, but the ideologues in the AGW crowd will have none
> >> >>>>> of that! The science is settled they spew. But it is far from
> >> >>>>> being settled.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Since it's far from settled, you can't exactly say AGW is wrong,
> >> >>>> now can you?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> You can't say that AGW doesn't occur. You also can't say that AGW
> >> >>> does occur.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> The AGW crowd is wrong in the sense that they have been saying for
> >> >>> years that the science is settled and AGW is happening. It was and
> >> >>> is a lie plain and simple promoted for political reasons
> >> >>> masquerading behind faulty "science".
> >> >>
> >> >> Whereas the anti-AGW crowd is on much firmer ground. Obviously all
> >> >> the non-scientific laymen pontificating here and elsewhere are in the
> >> >> best possible position to understand the issue. Ignore the
> >> >> climatologists! If they say inconvenient things they must be biased!
> >> >
> >> > Have you been living in a cave since November? The "climatologists"
> >> > have not been involved in science, they have been caught advancing
> >> > political views and social engineering. As each new day passes the
> >> > revelations that the WWF, a student's master thesis and other rabid
> >> > environmentalist organizations have been used as references to promote
> >> > the catastrophic warming described in the IPCC reports. But, you can
> >> > ignore all of that and stick to your guns and ignore all of this
> >> > because you it doesn't fit your desired outcome.
> >>
> >> I'll try this one more time. The fact that there are douchebags in a
> >> particular field does not invalidate that entire field of study. It just
> >> doesn't follow. I honestly wonder at the mental capacity of anyone who
> >> would think otherwise.
> >
> > But the fact remains that, for all their huffing and puffing, the
> > denialists have yet to prove any of the IPCC Report conclusions to be
> > wrong.
>
> For instance, since it was revealed two weeks ago that the IPCC had relied
> on speculation by an environmental interest group -- rather than
> peer-reviewed science -- when it made its famous 2007 claim that there was a
> 90% chance all 15,000 glaciers in the Himalayas would be melted by 2035, the
> agency's lead glacier scientist, Murari Lal, has admitted he knew the data
> was faulty when he inserted it in the UN's last official Assessment Report,
> but he did so nonetheless because "we thought that if we can highlight it,
> it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some
> concrete action."
>
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7231386/Africa
> n-crops-yield-another-catastrophe-for-the-IPCC.html

No, this is nonsense. It was shown that this WWF Himalayan data (one
page in 3,000) was incorrect, and from a less than credible source.
Moreover, it contradicted the data and correct predictions contained in
volume 1 of the Report. There you will find a 45 page chapter on
glaciers, snow and ice, etc., using valid data and projections. So the
error was that the Chapter 2 authors, instead of relying on the evidence
on Chapter 1, used this unsubstantiated projection. The error was
unearthed by, who? Gosh the IPCC authors themselves. Can you imagine the
denialists ever calling a fault on themselves? Absolutely not. Anyway,
fixing this error requires no more than the deletion of two sentences in
the 3,000 page Report. But you guys have to grab hold of it in an
attempt to discredit the whole thing. Typical.

The African crop yield nonsense is based on a single reference (Agoumi),
from a report funded by the US Agency for International Development. In
fact, the IPCC Report contains a detailed discussion of his projections
(Chapter 9), including the following caveat: "However, not all changes
in climate and climate variability will be negative, as agriculture and
the growing seasons in certain areas (for example, parts of the
Ethiopian highlands and parts of southern Africa such as Mozambique),
may lengthen under climate change, due to a combination of increased
temperature and rainfall changes (Thornton et al., 2006). Mild climate
scenarios project further benefits across African croplands for
irrigated and, especially, dryland farms". So it is, in fact a balanced
discussion of the crop issue, and not the kind of misguided hysteria
coming from the other side.

You also make the error of assuming that the IPCC Panel is a UN panel.
It is not. And so it goes on.
From: William Clark on
In article <7u55f1FhnnU1(a)mid.individual.net>,
"MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com> wrote:

> "William Clark" <wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:wclark2-5A4756.22020617022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
> > In article <wHUen.74969$RS6.11194(a)newsfe15.iad>,
> > "Frank Ketchum" <nospam(a)thanksanyway.fu> wrote:
> >
> >> "Carbon" <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
> >> news:4b7c1584$0$5110$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com...
> >> > On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 09:20:58 -0600, MNMikeW wrote:
> >> >> <bknight(a)conramp.net> wrote in message
> >> >> news:7ihmn5lgj229dobctt1r6atpqcq0rurdcu(a)4ax.com...
> >> >>> On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 20:16:01 -0500, Jack Hollis <xsleeper(a)aol.com>
> >> >>> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>>Show me the place in the IPCC report where it says with absolute
> >> >>>>certainty that the current warming trend is being caused by humans.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> There IS no absolute certainty either way or there wouldn't be any
> >> >>> argument.
> >> >>>
> >> >> Exactly Bobby, but the ideologues in the AGW crowd will have none of
> >> >> that! The science is settled they spew. But it is far from being
> >> >> settled.
> >> >
> >> > Since it's far from settled, you can't exactly say AGW is wrong, now
> >> > can
> >> > you?
> >>
> >> You can't say that AGW doesn't occur. You also can't say that AGW does
> >> occur.
> >>
> >> The AGW crowd is wrong in the sense that they have been saying for years
> >> that the science is settled and AGW is happening. It was and is a lie
> >> plain
> >> and simple promoted for political reasons masquerading behind faulty
> >> "science".
> >
> > No they have not been saying it is "settled".
>
> You truely are an idiot.

"Truely"? OK. show me where the science is "settled".
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
Prev: health care
Next: adams speedline fast 10 driver