Global Warming

William Asher said:

My point is that you don't and didn't have any
personal recollection of what climate scientists said in the 70's any more
than you know what they are saying today.

Your point is wrong. I remember the media reporting that scientists
were predicting that we were headed for an ice age. These reports
persisted for a few years and were reported in multiple news sources.

I would also be interested to know how you know what I remember or
don't remember.

William Asher said:

You are simply repeating what
you were told today by paid climate skeptics who play people like you like
cheap fiddles. They say, you parrot, and it gives you some measure of
reassurance to continue on with your lifestyle.

Complete rubbish.

"Jack Hollis" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

William Asher said:

My point is that you don't and didn't have any
personal recollection of what climate scientists said in the 70's any more
than you know what they are saying today.

Your point is wrong. I remember the media reporting that scientists
were predicting that we were headed for an ice age. These reports
persisted for a few years and were reported in multiple news sources.

I would also be interested to know how you know what I remember or
don't remember.

Asher knows everything.

"Jack Hollis" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

William Asher said:

You are simply repeating what
you were told today by paid climate skeptics who play people like you like
cheap fiddles. They say, you parrot, and it gives you some measure of
reassurance to continue on with your lifestyle.

Complete rubbish.

What is really funny is this sort of [censored] coming from someone touting
"reports" from the UN in which the "study" directors REWROTE sections of
other scientists reports and made absolutely false claims concerning the
opinions of those other scientists.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Jack Hollis said:

William Asher said:

My point is that you don't and didn't have any
personal recollection of what climate scientists said in the 70's any more
than you know what they are saying today.

Your point is wrong. I remember the media reporting that scientists
were predicting that we were headed for an ice age.

....within 1-2-3 generations or at a geological scale? Aren't you
confusing with scenarios along the line of "if there was a nuclear war
or if Earth was hit by a big meteorite the layer of ashes/dust in the
atmosphere blocking the sun could trigger a small ice age"?

jyh.

Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

You have to be aware that the temperature monitoring stations have gone from
being in clear countryside with farmland or forest around them to being
inside of city limits or suburban areas. This has caused a definite increase
in MONITORED temperatures that hasn't been (and cannot intelligently be)
corrected for. Individual stations all over the world have shown no changes
or even downward trends. What's more, it isn't known if "global temperature
averages" even mean anything at all.

I believe you're referring to #19 on this list:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

At other times, you've also used #1, #6, #11, #15, #18, #23, and #26.
Plus, that "Marco Polo sailed to the North Pole" thing.

Howard Kveck said:

RBR protocol says that should be "tapped" rather than "nailed."
Unless you really did nail this person.

Ok, tapped. I like "nailed" because David Letterman once said a highlight
of a Clinton State of the Union address was when Clinton pointed out all
the women he had nailed in the gallery. It seemed so very presidential.
Of course, "tapping" gets used in "The Usual Suspects" so that has a cool
history as well.

--
Bill Asher

Tom Kunich said:

"Jack Hollis" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

So when it comes to human and global warming, I'm an agnostic. It's
the only sensible way to look at it.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:65_Myr_Climate_Change_Rev_png

Tom:

Are you using that graph to show that paleo climate is really complicated?
If you are, one of the things you should focus on is the Paleocene-Eocene
Thermal Maximum (PETM) section, and the explanation below on that page.
Note how this very large positive temperature excursion is thought to be
due to forcing from methane (a greenhouse gas) due to destabilization of
methane hydrates. Did you know that one predicted effect of global warming
is destabilization of methane hydrates? So yeah, duh, climate is variable,
but even within the "natural" variability there are more than enough signs
that it is rarely a good idea to dumps a lot of excess radiatively active
gas into the atmosphere.

Precisely what were you getting at with this figure? That Jack's "only
sensible way to look at it" is basically an ostrich-like approach to the
problem or are you simply reaffirming my core belief that both you and Jack
know diddly about climate physics?

--
Bill Asher

In article <[email hidden]>,

Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

"Jack Hollis" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

William Asher said:

You are simply repeating what
you were told today by paid climate skeptics who play people like you like
cheap fiddles. They say, you parrot, and it gives you some measure of
reassurance to continue on with your lifestyle.

Complete rubbish.

What is really funny is this sort of [censored] coming from someone touting
"reports" from the UN in which the "study" directors REWROTE sections of
other scientists reports and made absolutely false claims concerning the
opinions of those other scientists.

What is *really* funny is the number of times this assertion has been knocked down
yet you persist in making it.

--
tanx,
Howard

Whatever happened to
Leon Trotsky?
He got an icepick
That made his ears burn.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

William Asher said:

Now I find that instead of you remembering what climatologists said, you
are in fact remembering what the media said climatologists said. That is
very different, and, as has been demonstrated by the climatologists at
RealClimate.org, what the media were reporting was not in fact what the
climatologists were saying.

The media was right that climate scientists were predicting that the
earth was heading for an ice age. That fact has been proven.

I'm not even ready to say that they were wrong, because for all we
know the earth might be heading for an ice age.

This is becoming tedious. The fact that science is unable to prove
how much human are contributing to the current warming trend, if at
all, is undisputable. And anyone who thinks that science can, doesn't
understand science.

I have no more to say on the issue.

Jack Hollis said:

The media was right that climate scientists were predicting that the earth
was heading for an ice age. That fact has been proven.

If you take the view that a small minority represents all climate
scientists then the "fact" is "proven". You might even find a few
biologists who "believe" in intelligent design

Given the fact that there were no super computers able to provide climate
models in the 1970's its hardly surprising that some got it wrong.

Jack Hollis said:

I have no more to say on the issue.

"More?"

Carl Sundquist said:

It's quite likely Jim Bob Dugger from Arkansas.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2005/10/...

Although they're up to 17 kids (currently).

Order up more Tater Tots. No. 18 on the way:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/05/10/MNE710JVDR.DTL