C. E. White

z wrote:

> But that's what corporations do. Particularly for-profit. What is your
> impression, that people go into climatology research because they
> hunger for power and money, and that corporations plan their actions
> based on what would best improve the lives of the 6 billion humans
> plodding around on the planet?

If you think individuals doing academic research are all sweetness and nice, I think you are naive. Ask yourself this, how
much grant money is flowing to scientist who say everything is OK? What is more likely to generate grant money, a Chicken
Little like performance, or a calm reasoned presentation that says climate is a subject to long term trends that are the
result of many factors which are not well understood?

I'd rather take my chances with global warming rather than turn control over to the wackos who have grabbed onto the global
warming scenario as a way to force the implementation of their ideas of how I should live. If global warming wasn't
available, the wackos would have to create it, or something else like it so they can have an excuse for forcing the
implementation of their ideas.

Ed

MacIntosh

fact: cow's "fermenting" their dinner, and burping is one of the major
sources of CO2 emissions....

gotta ban the bloody cows!




"Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:vs514a9607ev84@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> news:bpt48s$h0v$2@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> > In article <vrvbrp3s87ief3@corp.supernews.com>,
> > "Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >"z" <gzuckier@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > >news:b5b4685f.0311220808.37daf112@posting.google. com...
> > >> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> > >news:<3FBD08A4.14331320@mindspring.com>...
> > >> > Lloyd Parker wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > > >Fact: we don't *know* why there were warming periods in the
past.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Irrelevant. We know why there's one now.
> > >> >
> > >> > No we don't!
> > >> >
> > >> > Some scientist believe the reason is an increase in the atmospheric
> > >concentration
> > >> > of CO2. They may be right or not. Your agreement with their belief
> does
> > >not prove
> > >> > it. Citing papers, even peer reviewed papers, still doesn't prove
> > >anything. The
> > >> > global climate is a very complicated system with lots of inputs.
> Looking
> > >at one
> > >> > input and one change and declaring they are cause and effect is BS.
> As a
> > >> > scientist you should know this. The scientist doing climate
research
> > >don't even
> > >> > have really good data on the solar constant for more than the last
> few
> > >years.
> > >> > They are estimating historic temperatures from sketchy data or
trying
> to
> > >infere
> > >> > it from effects that they believe are related to the temperature.
The
> > >errors
> > >> > associated with these measurement are much greater than the changes
> they
> > >are
> > >> > claiming. It is junk science. They decided on the conclusion and
then
> > >groomed the
> > >> > data to fit it. Anyone that doesn't agree with the establishment is
> > >treated as a
> > >> > loon.
> > >>
> > >> The IPCC model of climate change is hardly "Looking at one input and
> > >> one change and declaring they are cause and effect". In fact, all
> > >> inputs we currently know of as affecting climate are considered, and
> > >> the best estimate of their effects are calculated, complete with
> > >> confidence limits. What makes you think otherwise? What are you
> > >> reading that says it was "Looking at one input and one change and
> > >> declaring they are cause and effect"? What makes you say they
"decided
> > >> on the conclusion and then groomed the data to fit it"? Was there
some
> > >> kind of big meeting where environmentalists or liberals or the
> > >> climatology establishment or somebody decided that we should screw
the
> > >> economy and the best way to do so was to pretend there was global
> > >> warming? Isn't it a bit more likely that the energy industries et al
> > >> have an axe to grind regarding preventing any restrictions on their
> > >> operation?
> > >> And there are plenty of scientists who disagree with the
establishment
> > >> who are no treated as loons, in addition to the actual loons.
> > >
> > >I believe they are wrong.
> >
> > And your data is where?
>
>
> Hiya LP. Now you know it would be a waste of my time to tell you, because
> you don't have the brains to understand it anyway, if you did you wouldn't
> ask such a stupid question, you would have already read all the Data, not
> just what your left wing wackos say.
>
>
> >
> >
> > >They discount solar influence when IMHO it is a
> > >far more likely cause.
> >
> > No, they've studied it and found it cannot explain all the current
> warming.
>
> Who is this mysterious 'we" that pops up in every post you make. Don't
> bother answering, it would just be another of your lies.
>
> >
> >
> > > WE know solar output is variable, we know how great a
> > >temperature change can result from moderate changes in solar heating
> (think
> > >seasons), and anyone who dismisses Solar influence as a major force
> behind
> > >global warming (Hi LP) is, IMHO, in denial.
> > >
> > >
>
>

MacIntosh

fact: cow's "fermenting" their dinner, and burping is one of the major
sources of CO2 emissions....

gotta ban the bloody cows!




"Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:vs514a9607ev84@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> news:bpt48s$h0v$2@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> > In article <vrvbrp3s87ief3@corp.supernews.com>,
> > "Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >"z" <gzuckier@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > >news:b5b4685f.0311220808.37daf112@posting.google. com...
> > >> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> > >news:<3FBD08A4.14331320@mindspring.com>...
> > >> > Lloyd Parker wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > > >Fact: we don't *know* why there were warming periods in the
past.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Irrelevant. We know why there's one now.
> > >> >
> > >> > No we don't!
> > >> >
> > >> > Some scientist believe the reason is an increase in the atmospheric
> > >concentration
> > >> > of CO2. They may be right or not. Your agreement with their belief
> does
> > >not prove
> > >> > it. Citing papers, even peer reviewed papers, still doesn't prove
> > >anything. The
> > >> > global climate is a very complicated system with lots of inputs.
> Looking
> > >at one
> > >> > input and one change and declaring they are cause and effect is BS.
> As a
> > >> > scientist you should know this. The scientist doing climate
research
> > >don't even
> > >> > have really good data on the solar constant for more than the last
> few
> > >years.
> > >> > They are estimating historic temperatures from sketchy data or
trying
> to
> > >infere
> > >> > it from effects that they believe are related to the temperature.
The
> > >errors
> > >> > associated with these measurement are much greater than the changes
> they
> > >are
> > >> > claiming. It is junk science. They decided on the conclusion and
then
> > >groomed the
> > >> > data to fit it. Anyone that doesn't agree with the establishment is
> > >treated as a
> > >> > loon.
> > >>
> > >> The IPCC model of climate change is hardly "Looking at one input and
> > >> one change and declaring they are cause and effect". In fact, all
> > >> inputs we currently know of as affecting climate are considered, and
> > >> the best estimate of their effects are calculated, complete with
> > >> confidence limits. What makes you think otherwise? What are you
> > >> reading that says it was "Looking at one input and one change and
> > >> declaring they are cause and effect"? What makes you say they
"decided
> > >> on the conclusion and then groomed the data to fit it"? Was there
some
> > >> kind of big meeting where environmentalists or liberals or the
> > >> climatology establishment or somebody decided that we should screw
the
> > >> economy and the best way to do so was to pretend there was global
> > >> warming? Isn't it a bit more likely that the energy industries et al
> > >> have an axe to grind regarding preventing any restrictions on their
> > >> operation?
> > >> And there are plenty of scientists who disagree with the
establishment
> > >> who are no treated as loons, in addition to the actual loons.
> > >
> > >I believe they are wrong.
> >
> > And your data is where?
>
>
> Hiya LP. Now you know it would be a waste of my time to tell you, because
> you don't have the brains to understand it anyway, if you did you wouldn't
> ask such a stupid question, you would have already read all the Data, not
> just what your left wing wackos say.
>
>
> >
> >
> > >They discount solar influence when IMHO it is a
> > >far more likely cause.
> >
> > No, they've studied it and found it cannot explain all the current
> warming.
>
> Who is this mysterious 'we" that pops up in every post you make. Don't
> bother answering, it would just be another of your lies.
>
> >
> >
> > > WE know solar output is variable, we know how great a
> > >temperature change can result from moderate changes in solar heating
> (think
> > >seasons), and anyone who dismisses Solar influence as a major force
> behind
> > >global warming (Hi LP) is, IMHO, in denial.
> > >
> > >
>
>

MacIntosh

fact: cow's "fermenting" their dinner, and burping is one of the major
sources of CO2 emissions....

gotta ban the bloody cows!




"Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:vs514a9607ev84@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> news:bpt48s$h0v$2@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> > In article <vrvbrp3s87ief3@corp.supernews.com>,
> > "Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >"z" <gzuckier@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > >news:b5b4685f.0311220808.37daf112@posting.google. com...
> > >> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> > >news:<3FBD08A4.14331320@mindspring.com>...
> > >> > Lloyd Parker wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > > >Fact: we don't *know* why there were warming periods in the
past.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Irrelevant. We know why there's one now.
> > >> >
> > >> > No we don't!
> > >> >
> > >> > Some scientist believe the reason is an increase in the atmospheric
> > >concentration
> > >> > of CO2. They may be right or not. Your agreement with their belief
> does
> > >not prove
> > >> > it. Citing papers, even peer reviewed papers, still doesn't prove
> > >anything. The
> > >> > global climate is a very complicated system with lots of inputs.
> Looking
> > >at one
> > >> > input and one change and declaring they are cause and effect is BS.
> As a
> > >> > scientist you should know this. The scientist doing climate
research
> > >don't even
> > >> > have really good data on the solar constant for more than the last
> few
> > >years.
> > >> > They are estimating historic temperatures from sketchy data or
trying
> to
> > >infere
> > >> > it from effects that they believe are related to the temperature.
The
> > >errors
> > >> > associated with these measurement are much greater than the changes
> they
> > >are
> > >> > claiming. It is junk science. They decided on the conclusion and
then
> > >groomed the
> > >> > data to fit it. Anyone that doesn't agree with the establishment is
> > >treated as a
> > >> > loon.
> > >>
> > >> The IPCC model of climate change is hardly "Looking at one input and
> > >> one change and declaring they are cause and effect". In fact, all
> > >> inputs we currently know of as affecting climate are considered, and
> > >> the best estimate of their effects are calculated, complete with
> > >> confidence limits. What makes you think otherwise? What are you
> > >> reading that says it was "Looking at one input and one change and
> > >> declaring they are cause and effect"? What makes you say they
"decided
> > >> on the conclusion and then groomed the data to fit it"? Was there
some
> > >> kind of big meeting where environmentalists or liberals or the
> > >> climatology establishment or somebody decided that we should screw
the
> > >> economy and the best way to do so was to pretend there was global
> > >> warming? Isn't it a bit more likely that the energy industries et al
> > >> have an axe to grind regarding preventing any restrictions on their
> > >> operation?
> > >> And there are plenty of scientists who disagree with the
establishment
> > >> who are no treated as loons, in addition to the actual loons.
> > >
> > >I believe they are wrong.
> >
> > And your data is where?
>
>
> Hiya LP. Now you know it would be a waste of my time to tell you, because
> you don't have the brains to understand it anyway, if you did you wouldn't
> ask such a stupid question, you would have already read all the Data, not
> just what your left wing wackos say.
>
>
> >
> >
> > >They discount solar influence when IMHO it is a
> > >far more likely cause.
> >
> > No, they've studied it and found it cannot explain all the current
> warming.
>
> Who is this mysterious 'we" that pops up in every post you make. Don't
> bother answering, it would just be another of your lies.
>
> >
> >
> > > WE know solar output is variable, we know how great a
> > >temperature change can result from moderate changes in solar heating
> (think
> > >seasons), and anyone who dismisses Solar influence as a major force
> behind
> > >global warming (Hi LP) is, IMHO, in denial.
> > >
> > >
>
>

C. E. White

MacIntosh wrote:
>
> fact: cow's "fermenting" their dinner, and burping is one of the major
> sources of CO2 emissions....
>
> gotta ban the bloody cows!

Actually the methane coming out the other end is a much worse greenhouse
gas than CO2.

Ed

C. E. White

MacIntosh wrote:
>
> fact: cow's "fermenting" their dinner, and burping is one of the major
> sources of CO2 emissions....
>
> gotta ban the bloody cows!

Actually the methane coming out the other end is a much worse greenhouse
gas than CO2.

Ed

C. E. White

MacIntosh wrote:
>
> fact: cow's "fermenting" their dinner, and burping is one of the major
> sources of CO2 emissions....
>
> gotta ban the bloody cows!

Actually the methane coming out the other end is a much worse greenhouse
gas than CO2.

Ed

Brent P

In article <ov5yb.14855$MW4.124972269@news-text.cableinet.net>, Dave Milne wrote:
> If the "Atlantic Conveyor" stops due to the salinity change, then places
> like Scotland which are kept warm by it, will experience a lot more ice (we
> have the same latitude as Moscow), but I haven't heard anyone claim that
> constitutes an ice age.

I don't remember the whole theory off hand, googling it may turn it up.
But the jist of it is that the ice melts, this changes weather patterns,
which in turn makes much of the world colder, building ice sending climate
into an ice age. I am not arguing it's correct or anything, it's just one
I find interesting.

Brent P

In article <ov5yb.14855$MW4.124972269@news-text.cableinet.net>, Dave Milne wrote:
> If the "Atlantic Conveyor" stops due to the salinity change, then places
> like Scotland which are kept warm by it, will experience a lot more ice (we
> have the same latitude as Moscow), but I haven't heard anyone claim that
> constitutes an ice age.

I don't remember the whole theory off hand, googling it may turn it up.
But the jist of it is that the ice melts, this changes weather patterns,
which in turn makes much of the world colder, building ice sending climate
into an ice age. I am not arguing it's correct or anything, it's just one
I find interesting.

Brent P

In article <ov5yb.14855$MW4.124972269@news-text.cableinet.net>, Dave Milne wrote:
> If the "Atlantic Conveyor" stops due to the salinity change, then places
> like Scotland which are kept warm by it, will experience a lot more ice (we
> have the same latitude as Moscow), but I haven't heard anyone claim that
> constitutes an ice age.

I don't remember the whole theory off hand, googling it may turn it up.
But the jist of it is that the ice melts, this changes weather patterns,
which in turn makes much of the world colder, building ice sending climate
into an ice age. I am not arguing it's correct or anything, it's just one
I find interesting.