Global Warming

[Michael Press]

In article <[email protected]>,
Andrew Price <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 20:21:52 +0200, Donald Munro
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Or we are all Übermensch (apart from the Überbot
> >and the Überape).
>
> Speaking of which, where is the Überape - he seems to have
> disappeared.

Lapped. You will see him next time.

--
Michael Press

 

[Fred Fredburger]

Tom Kunich wrote:
> "Donald Munro" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Tom Kunich wrote:
>>> Thanks for the demonstration that you haven't a single clue what the
>>> hell
>>> is going on around you.
>>
>> Please tell SchwartzSoft to update your insult generator to something
>> less repetive like:
>
> What is humorous is your inability to think outside of your
> narrow-minded job. But that's OK, I do get a laugh out of your slow
> reactions and demonstrable idiocy. Maybe you ought to point to some
> white grapes/wine again and imply that was what they were talking about
> when they talked about vineyards in Great Britain.
>

You're amazing. He posts one link without comments and you've gone nuts
drawing conclusions about what he meant and spinning it into your
imaginary patterns.

In other words, it's business as usual for the Tombot.

 

[Howard Kveck]

In article <[email protected]>,
Donald Munro <[email protected]> wrote:

> Tom Kunich wrote:
> > Thanks for the demonstration that you haven't a single clue what the hell
> > is going on around you.
>
> Please tell SchwartzSoft to update your insult generator to something
> less repetive like:
>
> [Thou art] as fat as butter.
>
> You clueless swamp of incredible pimple pus
>
> Thou venomed dismal-dreaming death-token!
>
> You crude swamp of psychotic ape puke
>
> Thou] hath more hair than wit, and more faults than hairs, and more wealth
> than faults.
>
> Thou cockered unchin-snouted varlot!
>
> Hence, horrible villain, or I'll spurn thine eyes like balls
> before me; I'll unhair thy head, Thou shalt be whipp'd with wire, and
> stew'd'in brine, smarting in lingering pickle.

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/25970

--
tanx,
Howard

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

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

 

[William Asher]

Jack Hollis <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

>
> I'm old enough to remember the climatologists warning that we were
> heading for an ice age in the 1970s, so I'm skeptical of anything they
> say.

I think you are maybe old enough to have forgotten that you don't
remember any such thing, that more likely what you remember is that
someone recently told you this had occurred.

http://tinyurl.com/kaa55

If you can't get basic facts right, then how am I supposed to believe you
really have a handle on more complicated physics?

--
Bill Asher

 

[William Asher]

"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in
news[email protected]:

>
> The earth-is-dying crowd here are perfectly willing to believe
> anything that they think would lead to massive amounts of death. You
> can easily understand why that would be if you meet them in person.
>

Silly rabbit, the Earth isn't dying. And even if it is, what do you
care? You have no children and the planet will hang in there for at
least 30 years so you can live out your life in the luxury and style you
deserve. As far as you're concerned, it's party party party.

As a side note, you don't need climate change to get massive amounts of
death. Those people who are into grand-scale carnage have always been
able to get their kicks just by letting people be people, drought be
drought, famine be famine, and microbes be microbes.

--
Bill Asher

 

[Kyle Legate]

Andrew Price wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 20:21:52 +0200, Donald Munro
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Or we are all Übermensch (apart from the Überbot
>> and the Überape).
>
> Speaking of which, where is the Überape - he seems to have
> disappeared.

He jumped the shark in the asthma thread and since I pointed it out to
him, he seemed to agree and quit.

Hopefully.

 

[Kyle Legate]

William Asher wrote:
> "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in
> news[email protected]:
>
>> The earth-is-dying crowd here are perfectly willing to believe
>> anything that they think would lead to massive amounts of death. You
>> can easily understand why that would be if you meet them in person.
>>
>
> Silly rabbit, the Earth isn't dying. And even if it is, what do you
> care? You have no children and the planet will hang in there for at
> least 30 years so you can live out your life in the luxury and style you
> deserve. As far as you're concerned, it's party party party.
>
30 years!?!? We have to wait for 30 years for RBR to become inhabitable?

I'm'a go pluck out my eyes.

 

[Donald Munro]

Andrew Price wrote:
>> Speaking of which, where is the Ãœberape - he seems to have disappeared.

Michael Press wrote:
> Lapped. You will see him next time.

He needs to work on his cornering technique.

 

[Tom Kunich]

"William Asher" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in
> news[email protected]:
>> The earth-is-dying crowd here are perfectly willing to believe
>> anything that they think would lead to massive amounts of death. You
>> can easily understand why that would be if you meet them in person.
>
> Silly rabbit, the Earth isn't dying.

Maybe you ought to tell that to your pal Ted Turner who on national
television said that by 2018 the earth would be 8 degrees average warmer and
that people in the United States would be eating each other.

That's the sort of people with whom you aligned yourself.

 

[Tom Kunich]

"William Asher" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Jack Hollis <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>>
>> I'm old enough to remember the climatologists warning that we were
>> heading for an ice age in the 1970s, so I'm skeptical of anything they
>> say.
>
> I think you are maybe old enough to have forgotten that you don't
> remember any such thing, that more likely what you remember is that
> someone recently told you this had occurred.

Sorry Charley - it happened and most people were aware of it. But you and
the others can pretend that it never happened. Oh, that's right - it was
ONLY in the popular press. Of course they quoted serious scientists. But it
doesn't count without a published paper by a high school student.

 

[Howard Kveck]

In article <[email protected]>,
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:

> "William Asher" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Jack Hollis <[email protected]> wrote in
> > news:[email protected]:
> >>
> >> I'm old enough to remember the climatologists warning that we were
> >> heading for an ice age in the 1970s, so I'm skeptical of anything they
> >> say.
> >
> > I think you are maybe old enough to have forgotten that you don't
> > remember any such thing, that more likely what you remember is that
> > someone recently told you this had occurred.
>
> Sorry Charley - it happened and most people were aware of it. But you and
> the others can pretend that it never happened. Oh, that's right - it was
> ONLY in the popular press. Of course they quoted serious scientists. But it
> doesn't count without a published paper by a high school student.

Tom, you are wrong again. This was posted just a few days ago;
_________________________
   The supposed "global cooling" consensus among scientists in the 1970s frequently
offered by global-warming skeptics as proof that climatologists can't make up their
minds is a myth, according to a survey of the scientific literature of the era.

   The '70s was an unusually cold decade. Newsweek, Time, The New York Times and
National Geographic published articles at the time speculating on the causes of the
unusual cold and about the possibility of a new ice age.

   But Thomas Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center surveyed dozens of
peer-reviewed scientific articles from 1965 to 1979 and found that only seven
supported global cooling, while 44 predicted warming. Peterson says 20 others were
neutral in their assessments of climate trends.

   The study reports, "There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth
was headed into an imminent ice age.

   "A review of the literature suggests that, to the contrary, greenhouse warming
even then dominated scientists' thinking about the most important forces shaping
Earth's climate on human time scales."
_________________________

http://tinyurl.com/2lvdxo

--
tanx,
Howard

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

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

 

[Jack Hollis]

On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 17:27:44 -0700, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo.
com> wrote:

>"Jack Hollis" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> I'm old enough to remember the climatologists warning that we were
>> heading for an ice age in the 1970s, so I'm skeptical of anything they
>> say.
>
>The earth-is-dying crowd here are perfectly willing to believe anything that
>they think would lead to massive amounts of death. You can easily understand
>why that would be if you meet them in person.

Actually, warming periods are not nearly as bad for life on earth than
ice ages. Unless the temperature goes to extreme heights, the human
race will survive easily. A world almost covered in glaciers is a
much more devastating scenario.

 

[Jack Hollis]

On 20 Apr 2008 06:48:03 GMT, William Asher <[email protected]> wrote:

>Jack Hollis <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>>
>> I'm old enough to remember the climatologists warning that we were
>> heading for an ice age in the 1970s, so I'm skeptical of anything they
>> say.
>
>I think you are maybe old enough to have forgotten that you don't
>remember any such thing, that more likely what you remember is that
>someone recently told you this had occurred.
>
>http://tinyurl.com/kaa55
>
>If you can't get basic facts right, then how am I supposed to believe you
>really have a handle on more complicated physics?
>
>--
>Bill Asher

There was a cooling period from the mid 1940s until the early 1970s
and there was predictions by some scientists that the earth was moving
into an ice age.

There is, of course and effort today to minimize this because it hurts
the credibility of the climatologist who are now predicting global
warming. Don't be fooled by this Bill.

BTW, if CO2 is so important in global warming, why did earth's
temperature fall for a 30 year period while CO2 emissions were on the
rise? Puzzling.

 

[Jack Hollis]

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 07:28:15 -0700, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo.
com> wrote:

>> I think you are maybe old enough to have forgotten that you don't
>> remember any such thing, that more likely what you remember is that
>> someone recently told you this had occurred.
>
>Sorry Charley - it happened and most people were aware of it. But you and
>the others can pretend that it never happened. Oh, that's right - it was
>ONLY in the popular press. Of course they quoted serious scientists. But it
>doesn't count without a published paper by a high school student.

You have to understand that the global warming dogmatists are plugged
into a multi-billion dollar industry. Anything that threatens that
money stream has to be discredited.

 

[Tom Kunich]

"Jack Hollis" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 17:27:44 -0700, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo.
> com> wrote:
>
>>"Jack Hollis" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> I'm old enough to remember the climatologists warning that we were
>>> heading for an ice age in the 1970s, so I'm skeptical of anything they
>>> say.
>>
>>The earth-is-dying crowd here are perfectly willing to believe anything
>>that
>>they think would lead to massive amounts of death. You can easily
>>understand
>>why that would be if you meet them in person.
>
> Actually, warming periods are not nearly as bad for life on earth than
> ice ages. Unless the temperature goes to extreme heights, the human
> race will survive easily. A world almost covered in glaciers is a
> much more devastating scenario.

I think that the real point is that the temperature of the earth varies only
a little bit, is almost completely influenced by natural forces and man can
have essentially NO effect on the overall changes.

Yet we're actually hearing people who claim to be "environmentalists"
suggesting things that would cause massive death among the less affluent
nations as if this were a GOOD thing to do.

Their hatred and contempt for the human race couldn't be more clear.

 

[Howard Kveck]

In article <[email protected]>,
Jack Hollis <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 07:28:15 -0700, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo.
> com> wrote:
>
> >> I think you are maybe old enough to have forgotten that you don't
> >> remember any such thing, that more likely what you remember is that
> >> someone recently told you this had occurred.
> >
> >Sorry Charley - it happened and most people were aware of it. But you and
> >the others can pretend that it never happened. Oh, that's right - it was
> >ONLY in the popular press. Of course they quoted serious scientists. But it
> >doesn't count without a published paper by a high school student.
>
> You have to understand that the global warming dogmatists are plugged
> into a multi-billion dollar industry. Anything that threatens that
> money stream has to be discredited.

You have to understand that the anti-global warming dogmatists are plugged into a
multi-trillion dollar industry. Anything that threatens that money stream has to be
discredited.

--
tanx,
Howard

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

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

 

[William Asher]

Jack Hollis <[email protected]> wrote in
news[email protected]:

> On 20 Apr 2008 06:48:03 GMT, William Asher <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Jack Hollis <[email protected]> wrote in
>>news:[email protected]:
>>
>>>
>>> I'm old enough to remember the climatologists warning that we were
>>> heading for an ice age in the 1970s, so I'm skeptical of anything
>>> they say.
>>
>>I think you are maybe old enough to have forgotten that you don't
>>remember any such thing, that more likely what you remember is that
>>someone recently told you this had occurred.
>>
>>http://tinyurl.com/kaa55
>>
>>If you can't get basic facts right, then how am I supposed to believe
>>you really have a handle on more complicated physics?
>>
>>--
>>Bill Asher
>
> There was a cooling period from the mid 1940s until the early 1970s
> and there was predictions by some scientists that the earth was moving
> into an ice age.
>
> There is, of course and effort today to minimize this because it hurts
> the credibility of the climatologist who are now predicting global
> warming. Don't be fooled by this Bill.
>
> BTW, if CO2 is so important in global warming, why did earth's
> temperature fall for a 30 year period while CO2 emissions were on the
> rise? Puzzling.
>

What I love about you skeptics is that absolutely no amount of objective
evidence, no appeal to logic, no presentation of basic facts, will budge
you one inch from your position. Howard presents a link to a study
showing convincingly that there was no general *scientific* outcry that
the world was entering an ice age. I present you with much the same
information that also goes into detail as to why there was a slight
cooling observed in the 50's and 60's. But you don't even read it, or if
you do, you discard it as having to be false.

All I can say is that if you really read this:

http://tinyurl.com/kaa55

and make the same claims without providing some evidence to counter what
the folks at realclimate say, it doesn't say much about your ability to
assimilate information that doesn't conform to your world view (which is
the hallmark of conservatism).

Again, if you are incapable of assimilating basic historical facts, how
can I begin to trust your understanding of physics?

--
Bill Asher

 

[William Asher]

"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> "William Asher" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Jack Hollis <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>> I'm old enough to remember the climatologists warning that we were
>>> heading for an ice age in the 1970s, so I'm skeptical of anything
>>> they say.
>>
>> I think you are maybe old enough to have forgotten that you don't
>> remember any such thing, that more likely what you remember is that
>> someone recently told you this had occurred.
>
> Sorry Charley - it happened and most people were aware of it. But you
> and the others can pretend that it never happened. Oh, that's right -
> it was ONLY in the popular press. Of course they quoted serious
> scientists. But it doesn't count without a published paper by a high
> school student.
>

Tom:

Could you provide a citation from a paper published in the 60's or 70's
in a major peer-reviewed journal that explicity stated that the cooling
observed in that era was a sign of a coming ice age? You've been
provided two studies showing there were none, but if you have some inside
information, now would be the time to provide it.

I'm off to hate mankind some more.

--
Bill Asher

 

[William Asher]

Kyle Legate <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> 30 years!?!? We have to wait for 30 years for RBR to become
> inhabitable?
>
> I'm'a go pluck out my eyes.

I'm thinking we all will be long dead from AIDS by then so what does it
matter?

--
Bill Asher

 

[Tom Kunich]

"William Asher" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> What I love about you skeptics

Yet you have no skepticism about the earth being effected by CO2 build up
that:
1) Isn't much of a build up at all since the CO2 levels have been
massively misjudged since recent studies show that CO2 levels in air bubbles
in glacier ice have been badly misjudged since they found that CO2 DOES leak
out of these bubbles into the surrounding ice and so shows much lower CO2
content than was actually the case.
2) CO2 from human content is a tiny portion of that put there
naturally and a great deal lower if you count the huge increases put there
in highly volcanic times.
3) CO2 is only a tiny, tiny portion of the greenhouse effect.

But then the only thing you're really interested in is end-of-times idiocy
that you can push on people.

> is that absolutely no amount of objective evidence

What is truly humorous is your stupid attempt to avoid objective evidence
and proclaim other very sketchy studies as "objective evidence".

I could go on but none of that would matter. You want a doomsday scenario
and you'd follow Bozo the Clown if he was spouting one.