Step 9
in [Golf]
|
Prev: health care
Next: adams speedline fast 10 driver
From: William Clark on 18 Feb 2010 19:50 In article <MPG.25e7a1f42cfa0318989bfa(a)news.giganews.com>, BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: > In article <cLWdnQFOpOa5SeDWnZ2dnUVZ_gGdnZ2d(a)nventure.com>, > nospam(a)devnull.spam says... > > > > You are about as wrong as it is possible to be. > > > > Far from "Nobody" predicting warming, papers in the scientific literature > > predicting warming outweighed those predicting cooling by 7 to 1. > > > > Here's an reference to an outline of a paper examining the scientific > > literature of the '70s. > > > > http://www.noaaworld.noaa.gov/scitech/sep2008_scitech_4.html > > > > Look especially at item 4. Six times more articles discussing potential > > warming influences than cooling influences. > > > > Or maybe you'd rather go to the article itself, maybe not since it was > > published by the American Meteorological Society. Either way here it is. > > > > http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf > > > > See also the conclusion: > > During the period 1965 through 1979, our literature survey found 7 cooling > > papers, 19 neutral and 42 warming. > > > > If you want to hide behind "late 70's", it's doesn't look any better for > > your contention, because from '75-'79 there were only 2 papers for global > > cooling verus 29 for global warming. > > > > Finally, watch out. Claims that the '70s were a time of belief in globel > > cooling are often supported by quote mined sitations like the following > > used by both Inhofe and former energy secretary Schlesinger > > (from a 1972 National Science Board report) > > 1972 National Science Board report as saying: > > "Judging from the record of the past interglacial > > ages, the present time of high temperatures > > should be drawing to an end...leading into the next > > glacial age" > > > > What they don't mention is that the paper went on to say: > > > > However, it is possible, or even likely, that human interference has > > already altered the environment so much that the climatic pattern of the > > near future will follow a different path. > > > > Quite a different viewpoint than what Inohofe and Schlesinger would have > > you believe. > > > > In any case, your contention that "Nobody was predicting any warming at > > all." is shown to be completely wrong. > > > > As an honorable man, I'm sure that you'll publically retract it. > > All of the news reports on air and in the newspaper were on the subject > of the coming ice age. > > If anything is to blame it is the MSM. See what I mean, Jim?
From: William Clark on 18 Feb 2010 19:51 In article <MPG.25e78f8b4d577ea989bed(a)news.giganews.com>, BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: > In article <7cacc895-61da-42fa-865a-aba9c7065ec4 > @q29g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, johnb505(a)gmail.com says... > > > > 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. > > > > > > ---------------------------- > > > > > > Volcanoes started with the industrial revolution?- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > OK, Mike, anthropogenic GHG emissions started w/the industrial > > revolution. > > > > I would think that methane has been increasing due to the increase in > the production of cattle as a managed food product. Actually that methane is noting compared to the flatulence you are creating on this topic.
From: William Clark on 18 Feb 2010 19:52 In article <MPG.25e7a317e39a1f2989bfb(a)news.giganews.com>, BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: > In article <4b7dc51c$0$4954$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, > nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says... > > > > On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 07:20:49 -0500, BAR wrote: > > > In article <4b7c9759$0$5107$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, > > > nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says... > > >> On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 20:18:46 -0500, BAR wrote: > > >>> In article <jj2pn59q3f32b13lfaj9i0nnjes857c0sh(a)4ax.com>, > > >>> bknight(a)conramp.net says... > > >>>> On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 19:22:56 -0500, BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: > > >>>>>In article <4b7c5bad$0$4878$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, > > >>>>>nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says... > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> 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. > > >>>> > > >>>> Just for kicks, what is his desired outcome, and why? Now show us > > >>>> your mind-reading capabilities Bert. > > >>> > > >>> Control. > > >> > > >> And this is different from the anti-AGW apologists, how exactly? > > > > > > I don't want to tax every breath you exhale! > > > > I see. So you don't know or care about the truth or the potential for > > future devastation if the AGW alarmists turn out to be correct. You just > > want the lowest possible tax rate. Bert, you are a man among men. > > AGW is a theory. > > Yes, I want the lowest taxes. Taxes are legalized theft. So you do send your children to private schools, then? And you will send them to private universities? Great.
From: Jim Lovejoy on 18 Feb 2010 19:54 "John B." <johnb505(a)gmail.com> wrote in news:7cacc895-61da-42fa-865a-aba9c7065ec4(a)q29g2000yqn.googlegroups.com: > On Feb 18, 11:12�am, "MNMikeW" <MNMiik...(a)aol.com> wrote: >> "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:37d80766-7b3e-4ca4-8dd6-f3af2a3e2cd1(a)o3g2000yqb.googlegroups.com. >> .. 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 >> > > >>>>>>> absol > ute >> > > >>>>>>> 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 no > ne >> > > >>>>> 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 >> > > >>> stea > l >> > > >>> 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 ca > n >> > > be so certain about it. >> >> > > By the way, I agree with your last statement: "History didn't >> > > start i > n >> > > 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 >> > precede > d >> > 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. >> >> ---------------------------- >> >> Volcanoes started with the industrial revolution?- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > OK, Mike, anthropogenic GHG emissions started w/the industrial > revolution. There's some evidence the other way, that during the period of widespread adoptation of agriculture human caused CO2 went up either 30 or 60 ppm, I can't remember which, from a combination of deforestation and agriculure, with abouth half attributed to each. There is speculation that the anthrogenic CO2 increase either kept us from going back to another ice age, or made the inter-glacial warmer than it would otherwise have been. This leads to another speculation that the little ice age was caused, at least in part, by the major reduction in human population from the black death in EurAsia, and the population crash from the introduction of European diseases into the Americas. Please note that I used the word speculation for both the "excess" warming over the last several years, and the human cause of the little ice age.
From: Jack Hollis on 18 Feb 2010 19:56
On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 08:02:27 -0800 (PST), "John B." <johnb505(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> There is no compelling evidence that humans are making any significant >> contribution to global warming. =A0There are opinions, but they're not >> evidence. =A0What you have to understand is that science cannot make >> such determinations. =A0The earth's climate is too complex and not well >> enough understood to be able to isolate one specific factor and >> determine exactly what effect it is having on the entire global >> climate. =A0It can't be done. >> >> I see no reason to increase the cost of energy production in order to >> limit the amount of CO2 emissions.- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > >There is a great deal of evidence. I suggest you make an effort to >look for it. I've been looking for it but haven't seen it yet. Where is it? |