Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#7231
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?
In article <newscache$bdh0rh$d1a1$1@news.ipinc.net>, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>
> "Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
>> > However, weather change in and of itself, does not prove that global warming
>> > is happening and is causing weather change. While the general public - like you
>> > - seems to have made this cyclical connection the scientists prove that the
>> > globe is warming by the act of actually measuring it's temperature change
>> > with a thermometor over time. They also prove (or attempt to prove) that weather
>> > change is happening by actually measuring that over time too.
>>
>> Don't put words into my mouth, I gave no indication of anything of the
>> sort.
> Ah, yes you did.
Then you should have no trouble quoting it and pointing to relevant
post in your favorite usenet archive, so do so.
>> Global warming, true or not, is part of the new religion
> If you believed the globe was warming up you would never say "true or not"
> much less equate it as a religion.
I am not a true believer. Others however are, and will defend the *entire*
religon from temps are going up to it's due to evil american corporations
to their last breath.
> "global warming" as the general public puts it - and as your putting it
> here - is not only the _observation_ that global temps are on the rise, but
> the _assumption_ that it's man-made.
Depends on which scientific papers one reads. The religon has not surpressed
all other thought on the matter.
> "global warming" as the scientists put it is pretty much restricted to the
> observational part.
"global warming" refers to much more than that and you know it. And don't
forget the mixing of science and religon that we see here on usenet. There
is a new religon and it masks itself within science.
> You may not believe the assumption that the globe is warming up because of
> man-made things. That I can understand, and so far it is still a somewhat
> defensible position. But your foolish if you don't believe that the globe is
> getting warmer.
Warmer than what? We have maybe 50 years of good *global* data. Maybe a
century of much of the world. The rest gets pretty spotty and the remaining
is from proxy data that has to be interpeted correctly. Throw into that
the proper use of statistics etc, and this warming trend does become
questionable. However the religon demands that any analysis of the data
that doesn't agree with the tenet that the globe is getting warmer is
blasphemy.
> It is. Whether we are causing it or can do anything about it is a different
> kettle of fish.
The leaders of the religon have already decided upon the path to salvation.
>
> "Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
>> > However, weather change in and of itself, does not prove that global warming
>> > is happening and is causing weather change. While the general public - like you
>> > - seems to have made this cyclical connection the scientists prove that the
>> > globe is warming by the act of actually measuring it's temperature change
>> > with a thermometor over time. They also prove (or attempt to prove) that weather
>> > change is happening by actually measuring that over time too.
>>
>> Don't put words into my mouth, I gave no indication of anything of the
>> sort.
> Ah, yes you did.
Then you should have no trouble quoting it and pointing to relevant
post in your favorite usenet archive, so do so.
>> Global warming, true or not, is part of the new religion
> If you believed the globe was warming up you would never say "true or not"
> much less equate it as a religion.
I am not a true believer. Others however are, and will defend the *entire*
religon from temps are going up to it's due to evil american corporations
to their last breath.
> "global warming" as the general public puts it - and as your putting it
> here - is not only the _observation_ that global temps are on the rise, but
> the _assumption_ that it's man-made.
Depends on which scientific papers one reads. The religon has not surpressed
all other thought on the matter.
> "global warming" as the scientists put it is pretty much restricted to the
> observational part.
"global warming" refers to much more than that and you know it. And don't
forget the mixing of science and religon that we see here on usenet. There
is a new religon and it masks itself within science.
> You may not believe the assumption that the globe is warming up because of
> man-made things. That I can understand, and so far it is still a somewhat
> defensible position. But your foolish if you don't believe that the globe is
> getting warmer.
Warmer than what? We have maybe 50 years of good *global* data. Maybe a
century of much of the world. The rest gets pretty spotty and the remaining
is from proxy data that has to be interpeted correctly. Throw into that
the proper use of statistics etc, and this warming trend does become
questionable. However the religon demands that any analysis of the data
that doesn't agree with the tenet that the globe is getting warmer is
blasphemy.
> It is. Whether we are causing it or can do anything about it is a different
> kettle of fish.
The leaders of the religon have already decided upon the path to salvation.
#7232
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?
"rnf2" <rnf2@NOSPAMwaikato.ac.nz> wrote in message
news:3ff72a19@news.iconz.co.nz...
>
> "Stroyer" <stroyer@cableone.net> wrote in message
> news:vvdtb78hdq3g69@corp.supernews.com...
> > Hey guys, I think we're missing the overal point, if we're talking
Global
> > Warming. As far as environmental controls go, you guys are correct in
> that
> > we can't implement world environmental policy when the bigger developing
> > countries like China refuse to play.
>
> You mean Developed countries like America? They decided to ratiy the
treaty
> then Bush said no...
> So much dfor democracy, thats a dictatorship.
Nope... I mean DEVELOPING countries like China. By actually checking out
the Kioto treaty verbiage, you might also discover that the treaty had
absolutely no teeth.... that the price would be paid by the US, but with
essentially no real effect. These other countries would have to do
essentially nothing per the treaty, but the US would have to place
significant restrictions on the already strict emissions standards,
resulting in huge costs and essentially no positive benefit.
>
> >
> > I'm a snow skier.... and I don't quite understand why, if the climate is
> > warming at such an alarming rate, why Mount Baker got their all-time
> record
> > of 1100 inches of snow in '98, well into the "warming period" and why
> we've
> > seen so many epic snow years in the Rockies AND out east.... Targhee in
> > Wyoming has received over 200 inches so far this year.... shouldn't
these
> > things happen during global "cooling" and not global "warming"?
>
> Extra heat means more evaporation leading to more water in the air than
upon
> hitting cold areas precipate out as heavier than normal rain or snow.
Hmmm.... so the 1 or 2 degrees of additional temperature (based on an
arbitrary "baseline" that fits the argument) would then result in snow falls
in the range of 30% or more over average? Interesting. When I was studying
for my physics degree, I don't recall the evaporation rates rising at
exponential rates with respect to the temperature. For that matter, it
would only make sense that there must have been a major global cooling trend
in the 30s that caused the dust bowl, eh?
The real problem is that there is a significant difference between CLIMATE
and WEATHER. The measured temperatures in a specific area, whether that be
a small area, or even the entire plant, over a small number of years
(a.k.a., less that a few hundred) can't substantiate a scientifically-based
conclusion that there is a CLIMATE change. Have average temperatures been
on the rise the last few years? yes..... have we yet caught up with the
average temperatures from around 50 years ago? ... NO!... Sounds like Global
cooling to me... (if we're going to define it that way). The average
temperatures started down in the late 50s, then started an upward trend in
the 70s.... the "warming" we've experienced is the upward cycling nature of
the climate. It will likely reverse in nature in the next 10 years, and
some liberal will take credit for it.... like inventing the internet.
OH, I understand how snow is made. Made some myself a couple of weekends
ago.
One thing we DON'T want to do is confuse those few "scientists" out there
that are looking for the next buck, regardless of how the data has to be
skewed, or how a statistically insignificant quantity of data can suddenly
become "conclusive" to meet the political agenda of their clients with the
real scientists that live by a code of professional ethics.
Bottom line..... I'm not a meteorologist. I'm a physicist. However, in my
work in atmospheric transport / dispersion over the past 15 years, I have
learned one thing with almost painful clarity. If you can make such a broad
statement such as claiming major climate changes based on single parameter
measurements over a statistically insignificant amount of time, then why
can't the Whether Channel or the Clinton News Network tell me if it's REALLY
going to rain tomorrow? Or maybe what time it will rain? Anybody that can
claim to perform such a miracle isn't a scientist.....
ST
2000 Cherokee Classic
>
> For some
> > reason, I don't see any reason to worry about Northern Alabama becoming
> the
> > next Mojave Desert soon....
> >
> > But really don't have a strong opinion on this....
> >
> > :-)
> >
> > Steve
> >
> > 2000 Cherokee Classic
>
> Rhys.
>
> 1988 Isuzu Bighorn, (Trooper in the states)
>
>
#7233
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?
"rnf2" <rnf2@NOSPAMwaikato.ac.nz> wrote in message
news:3ff72a19@news.iconz.co.nz...
>
> "Stroyer" <stroyer@cableone.net> wrote in message
> news:vvdtb78hdq3g69@corp.supernews.com...
> > Hey guys, I think we're missing the overal point, if we're talking
Global
> > Warming. As far as environmental controls go, you guys are correct in
> that
> > we can't implement world environmental policy when the bigger developing
> > countries like China refuse to play.
>
> You mean Developed countries like America? They decided to ratiy the
treaty
> then Bush said no...
> So much dfor democracy, thats a dictatorship.
Nope... I mean DEVELOPING countries like China. By actually checking out
the Kioto treaty verbiage, you might also discover that the treaty had
absolutely no teeth.... that the price would be paid by the US, but with
essentially no real effect. These other countries would have to do
essentially nothing per the treaty, but the US would have to place
significant restrictions on the already strict emissions standards,
resulting in huge costs and essentially no positive benefit.
>
> >
> > I'm a snow skier.... and I don't quite understand why, if the climate is
> > warming at such an alarming rate, why Mount Baker got their all-time
> record
> > of 1100 inches of snow in '98, well into the "warming period" and why
> we've
> > seen so many epic snow years in the Rockies AND out east.... Targhee in
> > Wyoming has received over 200 inches so far this year.... shouldn't
these
> > things happen during global "cooling" and not global "warming"?
>
> Extra heat means more evaporation leading to more water in the air than
upon
> hitting cold areas precipate out as heavier than normal rain or snow.
Hmmm.... so the 1 or 2 degrees of additional temperature (based on an
arbitrary "baseline" that fits the argument) would then result in snow falls
in the range of 30% or more over average? Interesting. When I was studying
for my physics degree, I don't recall the evaporation rates rising at
exponential rates with respect to the temperature. For that matter, it
would only make sense that there must have been a major global cooling trend
in the 30s that caused the dust bowl, eh?
The real problem is that there is a significant difference between CLIMATE
and WEATHER. The measured temperatures in a specific area, whether that be
a small area, or even the entire plant, over a small number of years
(a.k.a., less that a few hundred) can't substantiate a scientifically-based
conclusion that there is a CLIMATE change. Have average temperatures been
on the rise the last few years? yes..... have we yet caught up with the
average temperatures from around 50 years ago? ... NO!... Sounds like Global
cooling to me... (if we're going to define it that way). The average
temperatures started down in the late 50s, then started an upward trend in
the 70s.... the "warming" we've experienced is the upward cycling nature of
the climate. It will likely reverse in nature in the next 10 years, and
some liberal will take credit for it.... like inventing the internet.
OH, I understand how snow is made. Made some myself a couple of weekends
ago.
One thing we DON'T want to do is confuse those few "scientists" out there
that are looking for the next buck, regardless of how the data has to be
skewed, or how a statistically insignificant quantity of data can suddenly
become "conclusive" to meet the political agenda of their clients with the
real scientists that live by a code of professional ethics.
Bottom line..... I'm not a meteorologist. I'm a physicist. However, in my
work in atmospheric transport / dispersion over the past 15 years, I have
learned one thing with almost painful clarity. If you can make such a broad
statement such as claiming major climate changes based on single parameter
measurements over a statistically insignificant amount of time, then why
can't the Whether Channel or the Clinton News Network tell me if it's REALLY
going to rain tomorrow? Or maybe what time it will rain? Anybody that can
claim to perform such a miracle isn't a scientist.....
ST
2000 Cherokee Classic
>
> For some
> > reason, I don't see any reason to worry about Northern Alabama becoming
> the
> > next Mojave Desert soon....
> >
> > But really don't have a strong opinion on this....
> >
> > :-)
> >
> > Steve
> >
> > 2000 Cherokee Classic
>
> Rhys.
>
> 1988 Isuzu Bighorn, (Trooper in the states)
>
>
#7234
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?
"rnf2" <rnf2@NOSPAMwaikato.ac.nz> wrote in message
news:3ff72a19@news.iconz.co.nz...
>
> "Stroyer" <stroyer@cableone.net> wrote in message
> news:vvdtb78hdq3g69@corp.supernews.com...
> > Hey guys, I think we're missing the overal point, if we're talking
Global
> > Warming. As far as environmental controls go, you guys are correct in
> that
> > we can't implement world environmental policy when the bigger developing
> > countries like China refuse to play.
>
> You mean Developed countries like America? They decided to ratiy the
treaty
> then Bush said no...
> So much dfor democracy, thats a dictatorship.
Nope... I mean DEVELOPING countries like China. By actually checking out
the Kioto treaty verbiage, you might also discover that the treaty had
absolutely no teeth.... that the price would be paid by the US, but with
essentially no real effect. These other countries would have to do
essentially nothing per the treaty, but the US would have to place
significant restrictions on the already strict emissions standards,
resulting in huge costs and essentially no positive benefit.
>
> >
> > I'm a snow skier.... and I don't quite understand why, if the climate is
> > warming at such an alarming rate, why Mount Baker got their all-time
> record
> > of 1100 inches of snow in '98, well into the "warming period" and why
> we've
> > seen so many epic snow years in the Rockies AND out east.... Targhee in
> > Wyoming has received over 200 inches so far this year.... shouldn't
these
> > things happen during global "cooling" and not global "warming"?
>
> Extra heat means more evaporation leading to more water in the air than
upon
> hitting cold areas precipate out as heavier than normal rain or snow.
Hmmm.... so the 1 or 2 degrees of additional temperature (based on an
arbitrary "baseline" that fits the argument) would then result in snow falls
in the range of 30% or more over average? Interesting. When I was studying
for my physics degree, I don't recall the evaporation rates rising at
exponential rates with respect to the temperature. For that matter, it
would only make sense that there must have been a major global cooling trend
in the 30s that caused the dust bowl, eh?
The real problem is that there is a significant difference between CLIMATE
and WEATHER. The measured temperatures in a specific area, whether that be
a small area, or even the entire plant, over a small number of years
(a.k.a., less that a few hundred) can't substantiate a scientifically-based
conclusion that there is a CLIMATE change. Have average temperatures been
on the rise the last few years? yes..... have we yet caught up with the
average temperatures from around 50 years ago? ... NO!... Sounds like Global
cooling to me... (if we're going to define it that way). The average
temperatures started down in the late 50s, then started an upward trend in
the 70s.... the "warming" we've experienced is the upward cycling nature of
the climate. It will likely reverse in nature in the next 10 years, and
some liberal will take credit for it.... like inventing the internet.
OH, I understand how snow is made. Made some myself a couple of weekends
ago.
One thing we DON'T want to do is confuse those few "scientists" out there
that are looking for the next buck, regardless of how the data has to be
skewed, or how a statistically insignificant quantity of data can suddenly
become "conclusive" to meet the political agenda of their clients with the
real scientists that live by a code of professional ethics.
Bottom line..... I'm not a meteorologist. I'm a physicist. However, in my
work in atmospheric transport / dispersion over the past 15 years, I have
learned one thing with almost painful clarity. If you can make such a broad
statement such as claiming major climate changes based on single parameter
measurements over a statistically insignificant amount of time, then why
can't the Whether Channel or the Clinton News Network tell me if it's REALLY
going to rain tomorrow? Or maybe what time it will rain? Anybody that can
claim to perform such a miracle isn't a scientist.....
ST
2000 Cherokee Classic
>
> For some
> > reason, I don't see any reason to worry about Northern Alabama becoming
> the
> > next Mojave Desert soon....
> >
> > But really don't have a strong opinion on this....
> >
> > :-)
> >
> > Steve
> >
> > 2000 Cherokee Classic
>
> Rhys.
>
> 1988 Isuzu Bighorn, (Trooper in the states)
>
>
#7235
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?
x-no-archive: yes
"L0nD0t.$t0we11" wrote:
>> Hmmm.... so the 1 or 2 degrees of additional temperature (based on an
>> arbitrary "baseline" that fits the argument) would then result in snow falls
>> in the range of 30% or more over average? Interesting. When I was studying
>> for my physics degree, I don't recall the evaporation rates rising at
>> exponential rates with respect to the temperature. For that matter, it
>> would only make sense that there must have been a major global cooling trend
>> in the 30s that caused the dust bowl, eh?
>>
>> The real problem is that there is a significant difference between CLIMATE
>> and WEATHER. The measured temperatures in a specific area, whether that be
>> a small area, or even the entire plant, over a small number of years
>> (a.k.a., less that a few hundred) can't substantiate a scientifically-based
>> conclusion that there is a CLIMATE change. Have average temperatures been
>> on the rise the last few years? yes..... have we yet caught up with the
>> average temperatures from around 50 years ago? ... NO!... Sounds like Global
>> cooling to me... (if we're going to define it that way). The average
>> temperatures started down in the late 50s, then started an upward trend in
>> the 70s.... the "warming" we've experienced is the upward cycling nature of
>> the climate. It will likely reverse in nature in the next 10 years, and
>> some liberal will take credit for it.... like inventing the internet.
>>
>> OH, I understand how snow is made. Made some myself a couple of weekends
>> ago.
>>
>> One thing we DON'T want to do is confuse those few "scientists" out there
>> that are looking for the next buck, regardless of how the data has to be
>> skewed, or how a statistically insignificant quantity of data can suddenly
>> become "conclusive" to meet the political agenda of their clients with the
>> real scientists that live by a code of professional ethics.
>>
>> Bottom line..... I'm not a meteorologist. I'm a physicist. However, in my
>> work in atmospheric transport / dispersion over the past 15 years, I have
>> learned one thing with almost painful clarity. If you can make such a broad
>> statement such as claiming major climate changes based on single parameter
>> measurements over a statistically insignificant amount of time, then why
>> can't the Whether Channel or the Clinton News Network tell me if it's REALLY
>> going to rain tomorrow? Or maybe what time it will rain? Anybody that can
>> claim to perform such a miracle isn't a scientist.....
>>
>> ST
>> 2000 Cherokee Classic
>>
> Roughly 1/5/04 18:36, Stroyer continued mutilation of the dead horse.
>
> [Totally disinterested groups trimmed...]
What is your point?
"L0nD0t.$t0we11" wrote:
>> Hmmm.... so the 1 or 2 degrees of additional temperature (based on an
>> arbitrary "baseline" that fits the argument) would then result in snow falls
>> in the range of 30% or more over average? Interesting. When I was studying
>> for my physics degree, I don't recall the evaporation rates rising at
>> exponential rates with respect to the temperature. For that matter, it
>> would only make sense that there must have been a major global cooling trend
>> in the 30s that caused the dust bowl, eh?
>>
>> The real problem is that there is a significant difference between CLIMATE
>> and WEATHER. The measured temperatures in a specific area, whether that be
>> a small area, or even the entire plant, over a small number of years
>> (a.k.a., less that a few hundred) can't substantiate a scientifically-based
>> conclusion that there is a CLIMATE change. Have average temperatures been
>> on the rise the last few years? yes..... have we yet caught up with the
>> average temperatures from around 50 years ago? ... NO!... Sounds like Global
>> cooling to me... (if we're going to define it that way). The average
>> temperatures started down in the late 50s, then started an upward trend in
>> the 70s.... the "warming" we've experienced is the upward cycling nature of
>> the climate. It will likely reverse in nature in the next 10 years, and
>> some liberal will take credit for it.... like inventing the internet.
>>
>> OH, I understand how snow is made. Made some myself a couple of weekends
>> ago.
>>
>> One thing we DON'T want to do is confuse those few "scientists" out there
>> that are looking for the next buck, regardless of how the data has to be
>> skewed, or how a statistically insignificant quantity of data can suddenly
>> become "conclusive" to meet the political agenda of their clients with the
>> real scientists that live by a code of professional ethics.
>>
>> Bottom line..... I'm not a meteorologist. I'm a physicist. However, in my
>> work in atmospheric transport / dispersion over the past 15 years, I have
>> learned one thing with almost painful clarity. If you can make such a broad
>> statement such as claiming major climate changes based on single parameter
>> measurements over a statistically insignificant amount of time, then why
>> can't the Whether Channel or the Clinton News Network tell me if it's REALLY
>> going to rain tomorrow? Or maybe what time it will rain? Anybody that can
>> claim to perform such a miracle isn't a scientist.....
>>
>> ST
>> 2000 Cherokee Classic
>>
> Roughly 1/5/04 18:36, Stroyer continued mutilation of the dead horse.
>
> [Totally disinterested groups trimmed...]
What is your point?
#7236
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?
x-no-archive: yes
"L0nD0t.$t0we11" wrote:
>> Hmmm.... so the 1 or 2 degrees of additional temperature (based on an
>> arbitrary "baseline" that fits the argument) would then result in snow falls
>> in the range of 30% or more over average? Interesting. When I was studying
>> for my physics degree, I don't recall the evaporation rates rising at
>> exponential rates with respect to the temperature. For that matter, it
>> would only make sense that there must have been a major global cooling trend
>> in the 30s that caused the dust bowl, eh?
>>
>> The real problem is that there is a significant difference between CLIMATE
>> and WEATHER. The measured temperatures in a specific area, whether that be
>> a small area, or even the entire plant, over a small number of years
>> (a.k.a., less that a few hundred) can't substantiate a scientifically-based
>> conclusion that there is a CLIMATE change. Have average temperatures been
>> on the rise the last few years? yes..... have we yet caught up with the
>> average temperatures from around 50 years ago? ... NO!... Sounds like Global
>> cooling to me... (if we're going to define it that way). The average
>> temperatures started down in the late 50s, then started an upward trend in
>> the 70s.... the "warming" we've experienced is the upward cycling nature of
>> the climate. It will likely reverse in nature in the next 10 years, and
>> some liberal will take credit for it.... like inventing the internet.
>>
>> OH, I understand how snow is made. Made some myself a couple of weekends
>> ago.
>>
>> One thing we DON'T want to do is confuse those few "scientists" out there
>> that are looking for the next buck, regardless of how the data has to be
>> skewed, or how a statistically insignificant quantity of data can suddenly
>> become "conclusive" to meet the political agenda of their clients with the
>> real scientists that live by a code of professional ethics.
>>
>> Bottom line..... I'm not a meteorologist. I'm a physicist. However, in my
>> work in atmospheric transport / dispersion over the past 15 years, I have
>> learned one thing with almost painful clarity. If you can make such a broad
>> statement such as claiming major climate changes based on single parameter
>> measurements over a statistically insignificant amount of time, then why
>> can't the Whether Channel or the Clinton News Network tell me if it's REALLY
>> going to rain tomorrow? Or maybe what time it will rain? Anybody that can
>> claim to perform such a miracle isn't a scientist.....
>>
>> ST
>> 2000 Cherokee Classic
>>
> Roughly 1/5/04 18:36, Stroyer continued mutilation of the dead horse.
>
> [Totally disinterested groups trimmed...]
What is your point?
"L0nD0t.$t0we11" wrote:
>> Hmmm.... so the 1 or 2 degrees of additional temperature (based on an
>> arbitrary "baseline" that fits the argument) would then result in snow falls
>> in the range of 30% or more over average? Interesting. When I was studying
>> for my physics degree, I don't recall the evaporation rates rising at
>> exponential rates with respect to the temperature. For that matter, it
>> would only make sense that there must have been a major global cooling trend
>> in the 30s that caused the dust bowl, eh?
>>
>> The real problem is that there is a significant difference between CLIMATE
>> and WEATHER. The measured temperatures in a specific area, whether that be
>> a small area, or even the entire plant, over a small number of years
>> (a.k.a., less that a few hundred) can't substantiate a scientifically-based
>> conclusion that there is a CLIMATE change. Have average temperatures been
>> on the rise the last few years? yes..... have we yet caught up with the
>> average temperatures from around 50 years ago? ... NO!... Sounds like Global
>> cooling to me... (if we're going to define it that way). The average
>> temperatures started down in the late 50s, then started an upward trend in
>> the 70s.... the "warming" we've experienced is the upward cycling nature of
>> the climate. It will likely reverse in nature in the next 10 years, and
>> some liberal will take credit for it.... like inventing the internet.
>>
>> OH, I understand how snow is made. Made some myself a couple of weekends
>> ago.
>>
>> One thing we DON'T want to do is confuse those few "scientists" out there
>> that are looking for the next buck, regardless of how the data has to be
>> skewed, or how a statistically insignificant quantity of data can suddenly
>> become "conclusive" to meet the political agenda of their clients with the
>> real scientists that live by a code of professional ethics.
>>
>> Bottom line..... I'm not a meteorologist. I'm a physicist. However, in my
>> work in atmospheric transport / dispersion over the past 15 years, I have
>> learned one thing with almost painful clarity. If you can make such a broad
>> statement such as claiming major climate changes based on single parameter
>> measurements over a statistically insignificant amount of time, then why
>> can't the Whether Channel or the Clinton News Network tell me if it's REALLY
>> going to rain tomorrow? Or maybe what time it will rain? Anybody that can
>> claim to perform such a miracle isn't a scientist.....
>>
>> ST
>> 2000 Cherokee Classic
>>
> Roughly 1/5/04 18:36, Stroyer continued mutilation of the dead horse.
>
> [Totally disinterested groups trimmed...]
What is your point?
#7237
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?
x-no-archive: yes
"L0nD0t.$t0we11" wrote:
>> Hmmm.... so the 1 or 2 degrees of additional temperature (based on an
>> arbitrary "baseline" that fits the argument) would then result in snow falls
>> in the range of 30% or more over average? Interesting. When I was studying
>> for my physics degree, I don't recall the evaporation rates rising at
>> exponential rates with respect to the temperature. For that matter, it
>> would only make sense that there must have been a major global cooling trend
>> in the 30s that caused the dust bowl, eh?
>>
>> The real problem is that there is a significant difference between CLIMATE
>> and WEATHER. The measured temperatures in a specific area, whether that be
>> a small area, or even the entire plant, over a small number of years
>> (a.k.a., less that a few hundred) can't substantiate a scientifically-based
>> conclusion that there is a CLIMATE change. Have average temperatures been
>> on the rise the last few years? yes..... have we yet caught up with the
>> average temperatures from around 50 years ago? ... NO!... Sounds like Global
>> cooling to me... (if we're going to define it that way). The average
>> temperatures started down in the late 50s, then started an upward trend in
>> the 70s.... the "warming" we've experienced is the upward cycling nature of
>> the climate. It will likely reverse in nature in the next 10 years, and
>> some liberal will take credit for it.... like inventing the internet.
>>
>> OH, I understand how snow is made. Made some myself a couple of weekends
>> ago.
>>
>> One thing we DON'T want to do is confuse those few "scientists" out there
>> that are looking for the next buck, regardless of how the data has to be
>> skewed, or how a statistically insignificant quantity of data can suddenly
>> become "conclusive" to meet the political agenda of their clients with the
>> real scientists that live by a code of professional ethics.
>>
>> Bottom line..... I'm not a meteorologist. I'm a physicist. However, in my
>> work in atmospheric transport / dispersion over the past 15 years, I have
>> learned one thing with almost painful clarity. If you can make such a broad
>> statement such as claiming major climate changes based on single parameter
>> measurements over a statistically insignificant amount of time, then why
>> can't the Whether Channel or the Clinton News Network tell me if it's REALLY
>> going to rain tomorrow? Or maybe what time it will rain? Anybody that can
>> claim to perform such a miracle isn't a scientist.....
>>
>> ST
>> 2000 Cherokee Classic
>>
> Roughly 1/5/04 18:36, Stroyer continued mutilation of the dead horse.
>
> [Totally disinterested groups trimmed...]
What is your point?
"L0nD0t.$t0we11" wrote:
>> Hmmm.... so the 1 or 2 degrees of additional temperature (based on an
>> arbitrary "baseline" that fits the argument) would then result in snow falls
>> in the range of 30% or more over average? Interesting. When I was studying
>> for my physics degree, I don't recall the evaporation rates rising at
>> exponential rates with respect to the temperature. For that matter, it
>> would only make sense that there must have been a major global cooling trend
>> in the 30s that caused the dust bowl, eh?
>>
>> The real problem is that there is a significant difference between CLIMATE
>> and WEATHER. The measured temperatures in a specific area, whether that be
>> a small area, or even the entire plant, over a small number of years
>> (a.k.a., less that a few hundred) can't substantiate a scientifically-based
>> conclusion that there is a CLIMATE change. Have average temperatures been
>> on the rise the last few years? yes..... have we yet caught up with the
>> average temperatures from around 50 years ago? ... NO!... Sounds like Global
>> cooling to me... (if we're going to define it that way). The average
>> temperatures started down in the late 50s, then started an upward trend in
>> the 70s.... the "warming" we've experienced is the upward cycling nature of
>> the climate. It will likely reverse in nature in the next 10 years, and
>> some liberal will take credit for it.... like inventing the internet.
>>
>> OH, I understand how snow is made. Made some myself a couple of weekends
>> ago.
>>
>> One thing we DON'T want to do is confuse those few "scientists" out there
>> that are looking for the next buck, regardless of how the data has to be
>> skewed, or how a statistically insignificant quantity of data can suddenly
>> become "conclusive" to meet the political agenda of their clients with the
>> real scientists that live by a code of professional ethics.
>>
>> Bottom line..... I'm not a meteorologist. I'm a physicist. However, in my
>> work in atmospheric transport / dispersion over the past 15 years, I have
>> learned one thing with almost painful clarity. If you can make such a broad
>> statement such as claiming major climate changes based on single parameter
>> measurements over a statistically insignificant amount of time, then why
>> can't the Whether Channel or the Clinton News Network tell me if it's REALLY
>> going to rain tomorrow? Or maybe what time it will rain? Anybody that can
>> claim to perform such a miracle isn't a scientist.....
>>
>> ST
>> 2000 Cherokee Classic
>>
> Roughly 1/5/04 18:36, Stroyer continued mutilation of the dead horse.
>
> [Totally disinterested groups trimmed...]
What is your point?