Global Warming

[Tom Kunich]

"William Asher" <gcnp58@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9A86B1DCCD49BFkldeltaC@130.133.1.4...
>
> 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.

[Kyle Legate]

William Asher wrote:
>
> 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?
>

http://tinyurl.com/6dwrg2 (LA Times)

[Jack Hollis]

On 21 Apr 2008 00:29:02 GMT, William Asher <gcnp58@yahoo.com> wrote:

>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.

There is absolutely no scientific proof that humans are cause any
change in global temperature. None, nada zip.

[Tom Kunich]

"William Asher" <gcnp58@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9A86B2C075D63FkldeltaC@130.133.1.4...
>
> 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.

Can you provide a peer reviewed paper published in the 60's or 70's the
WOULD make such insane statements? Scientsts THEN were scientists. What we
have now are people desiring large grants to put together trememdous teams
of semi-scientists so that they can pat each other on the back and make HUGE
wages. Since I've just left a company doing just that I have a pretty good
idea of what's happening.

> I'm off to hate mankind some more.

No surprise to me.

[Jack Hollis]

On 21 Apr 2008 00:34:17 GMT, William Asher <gcnp58@yahoo.com> wrote:

>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?


Didn't you read the article you yourself quoted. In fact the authors
said there were seven articles in the review they carried out. My
guess is that they missed a few for obvious reasons.

[Donald Munro]

Kyle Legate wrote:
>> 30 years!?!? We have to wait for 30 years for RBR to become inhabitable?

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

Only the bots and the cockroaches will remain.

[Fabrizio Mazzoleni]

On Apr 20, 5:39*pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:

>
> You want a doomsday scenario
>

And here it is:

http://tech.msn.com/guides/green/articlecnet.aspx?cp-documentid=6815394

[Howard Kveck]

In article <68GdnXGeJeyOdJbVnZ2dnUVZ_rqlnZ2d@earthlink.com>,
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:

> "William Asher" <gcnp58@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9A86B2C075D63FkldeltaC@130.133.1.4...
> >
> > 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.
>
> Can you provide a peer reviewed paper published in the 60's or 70's the
> WOULD make such insane statements? Scientsts THEN were scientists.

In other words, you can't provide a link to such a study. Business as usual with
Tom.


> What we have now are people desiring large grants to put together trememdous teams
> of semi-scientists so that they can pat each other on the back and make HUGE
> wages. Since I've just left a company doing just that I have a pretty good
> idea of what's happening.

"Since I left" = "I was asked to get the **** out."

--
tanx,
Howard

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

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

[William Asher]

"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in
news:68GdnXGeJeyOdJbVnZ2dnUVZ_rqlnZ2d@earthlink.co m:

> "William Asher" <gcnp58@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9A86B2C075D63FkldeltaC@130.133.1.4...
>>
>> 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.
>
> Can you provide a peer reviewed paper published in the 60's or 70's
> the WOULD make such insane statements? Scientsts THEN were scientists.
> What we have now are people desiring large grants to put together
> trememdous teams of semi-scientists so that they can pat each other on
> the back and make HUGE wages. Since I've just left a company doing
> just that I have a pretty good idea of what's happening.

So then you think Jack is wrong too, and that there is no way he could
remember there being lots of papers claiming an ice age was coming
because there weren't any such papers. Thank you for your support.

I'm sorry you had to leave another company.

--
Bill Asher

[Donald Munro]

William Asher wrote:
>> 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? it.

Tom Kunich wrote:
> Can you provide a peer reviewed paper published in the 60's or 70's the
> WOULD make such insane statements? Scientsts THEN were scientists.

ANSWER THE QUESTION. DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND ENGLISH ?
**** OR GET OFF THE POT.....................

[Tom Kunich]

"Fabrizio Mazzoleni" <edward_whitebone@stream.com> wrote in message
news:d9876023-a598-4265-825c-760f5efb70f8@x19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 20, 5:39 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> >
> > You want a doomsday scenario
> >
>
> And here it is:
>
> http://tech.msn.com/guides/green/articlecnet.aspx?cp-documentid=6815394

I have to hand it to you Fabrizio, at least YOU have a head on your
shoulders and realize the real importance of global warming.

[Donald Munro]

Fabrizio Mazzoleni wrote:
>> You want a doomsday scenario
> And here it is:
> http://tech.msn.com/guides/green/articlecnet.aspx?cp-documentid=6815394

LIVEDRUNK will need to change its wicked ways.

[Tom Kunich]

"Kyle Legate" <legatek@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:672k0jF2ltgkgU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> http://tinyurl.com/6dwrg2 (LA Times)

Anyone find it surprising that Kyle thinks that an opinion piece in the LA
Slimes is the equivalent of fact?

[Robert Chung]

On Apr 20, 9:49 pm, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I sat on this post for a few days until I could get my brains in order,
> but here's my best shot.

Ugh. You sat on this for a few days and this is the best you could do?
I'm afraid that you need some help in getting your brains in order and
since this is rbr I ain't going to help you. Instead, I'll point out
that my question to you is quite relevant to the argument you're
trying to make but have been screwing up so I'll take this opportunity
to ask a new but related question: how does the market decide between
Pareto optimal alternatives? Please phrase your answer in the form of
a question.

[SLAVE of THE STATE]

On Apr 20, 9:49*pm, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@gmail.com> wrote:

> One might as well ask what the cost of World War 1 was.

A. WWII

[Howard Kveck]

In article <Xns9A86E51CE56D4FkldeltaC@130.133.1.4>, William Asher <gcnp58@yahoo.com>
wrote:

> "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in
> news:68GdnXGeJeyOdJbVnZ2dnUVZ_rqlnZ2d@earthlink.co m:
>
> > "William Asher" <gcnp58@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:Xns9A86B2C075D63FkldeltaC@130.133.1.4...
> >>
> >> 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.
> >
> > Can you provide a peer reviewed paper published in the 60's or 70's
> > the WOULD make such insane statements? Scientsts THEN were scientists.
> > What we have now are people desiring large grants to put together
> > trememdous teams of semi-scientists so that they can pat each other on
> > the back and make HUGE wages. Since I've just left a company doing
> > just that I have a pretty good idea of what's happening.
>
> So then you think Jack is wrong too, and that there is no way he could
> remember there being lots of papers claiming an ice age was coming
> because there weren't any such papers. Thank you for your support.

"Thanks for playing!"

> I'm sorry you had to leave another company.

Oh, pretense of sympathy - nice. It's sort of along the lines of saying, "I'm
sorry you're such a retard."

--
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 21 Apr 2008 05:31:19 GMT, William Asher <gcnp58@yahoo.com> wrote:

>So then you think Jack is wrong too, and that there is no way he could
>remember there being lots of papers claiming an ice age was coming
>because there weren't any such papers.

Bill, you linked to a paper that said there were seven scientific
articles published that claimed we were heading for an ice age.

[SLAVE of THE STATE]

On Apr 20, 11:14*pm, Robert Chung <rech...@gmail.com> wrote:

> how does the market decide between
> Pareto optimal alternatives?

> Please phrase your answer in the form of
> a question.

Why would the market need to decide if there is no net welfare
change? (Which some would say carries the implication that it is okay
to make such a change.)

But perhaps you assume more than you should.

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article
<3b14a6f0-3e84-44ea-9907-77294bd20bca@r9g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
Robert Chung <rechung@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Apr 20, 9:49 pm, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I sat on this post for a few days until I could get my brains in order,
> > but here's my best shot.
>
> Ugh. You sat on this for a few days and this is the best you could do?
> I'm afraid that you need some help in getting your brains in order and
> since this is rbr I ain't going to help you. Instead, I'll point out
> that my question to you is quite relevant to the argument you're
> trying to make but have been screwing up so I'll take this opportunity
> to ask a new but related question: how does the market decide between
> Pareto optimal alternatives? Please phrase your answer in the form of
> a question.

What makes you believe Bangladesh's economy is Pareto optimal?

--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@gmail.com http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article
<3b14a6f0-3e84-44ea-9907-77294bd20bca@r9g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
Robert Chung <rechung@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Apr 20, 9:49 pm, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I sat on this post for a few days until I could get my brains in order,
> > but here's my best shot.
>
> Ugh. You sat on this for a few days and this is the best you could do?
> I'm afraid that you need some help in getting your brains in order and
> since this is rbr I ain't going to help you. Instead, I'll point out
> that my question to you is quite relevant to the argument you're
> trying to make but have been screwing up so I'll take this opportunity
> to ask a new but related question: how does the market decide between
> Pareto optimal alternatives? Please phrase your answer in the form of
> a question.

Doesn't state control of a key industry in a country with terrible
political stability suggest monstrous agency issues?

As in, even bigger than those in the US managed-fund industry?

--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@gmail.com http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."

[Tom Kunich]

"Donald Munro" <fat-dumbass@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:480c4e8d$0$2854$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.c om...
> William Asher wrote:
>>> 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? it.
>
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>> Can you provide a peer reviewed paper published in the 60's or 70's the
>> WOULD make such insane statements? Scientsts THEN were scientists.
>
> ANSWER THE QUESTION. DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND ENGLISH ?
> **** OR GET OFF THE POT.....................

Really disturbs you when it's pointed out that what we have now are not
scientists but money grubbing bastards who will say anything in order to
gain another grant?

Scientists in the 70's were much too professional to claim that 30 years of
accurate temperature recording would give you a clue to ice ages or global
warming. But of course your position is that if they DIDN'T do that then
today's lying bastards (and I include you in that group of course) must be
correct.

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article <480c4ec0$0$2854$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com>,
Donald Munro <fat-dumbass@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Fabrizio Mazzoleni wrote:
> >> You want a doomsday scenario
> > And here it is:
> > http://tech.msn.com/guides/green/articlecnet.aspx?cp-documentid=6815394
>
> LIVEDRUNK will need to change its wicked ways.

I am . . . newly conflicted.

I guess I had best make myself acquainted with the virtues of fortified
wines. Either that, or start investing in Norwegian breweries.

--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@gmail.com http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."

[Donald Munro]

Tom Kunich wrote:
> Really disturbs you when it's pointed out that what we have now are not
> scientists but money grubbing bastards who will say anything in order to
> gain another grant?

And the so called sceptics getting and conservative "stink tanks" getting
money from Exxon are as pure as a driven ice age glacier.

> Scientists in the 70's were much too professional to claim that 30 years
> of accurate temperature recording would give you a clue to ice ages or
> global warming.

Make up your mini-core CPU. You just wrote:
"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."

[Tom Kunich]

"Jack Hollis" <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote in message
news:oaip04de1t38mvnuekptj0ge0eo06ic5gd@4ax.com...
> On 21 Apr 2008 00:29:02 GMT, William Asher <gcnp58@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>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.
>
> There is absolutely no scientific proof that humans are cause any
> change in global temperature. None, nada zip.

Yet people where who have absolutely NOTHING to do with such things are more
than happy to make these claims despite things like the UN "committee" did -
the MANAGEMENT changed the actual papers and wrote a summary making all
sorts of false claims. They also claimed a lot of scientists "agreed" with
them who later had to post their own papers saying that they greatly
disagreed with these project managers.

Not that it makes the slightest difference to the US haters here.

[William Asher]

Jack Hollis wrote:

> On 21 Apr 2008 00:29:02 GMT, William Asher <gcnp58@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>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.
>
> There is absolutely no scientific proof that humans are cause any
> change in global temperature. None, nada zip.

If I could publish this somewhere as a shining example of the skeptic
mindset, and their complete lack of understanding how science works,
specifically that proof of a theory is impossible, and instead
what is done is to objectively assess data in terms of the predictions from
theories and models, I would. It's simply the quintessential post from a
skeptic.

Thank you.

--
Bill Asher

[William Asher]

Jack Hollis wrote:

> On 21 Apr 2008 05:31:19 GMT, William Asher <gcnp58@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>So then you think Jack is wrong too, and that there is no way he could
>>remember there being lots of papers claiming an ice age was coming
>>because there weren't any such papers.
>
> Bill, you linked to a paper that said there were seven scientific
> articles published that claimed we were heading for an ice age.

And you remember those seven papers and not the 44 others stating that
warming would occur? Can you give me the citations for the seven? Can you
tell me specifically how strident they were about a coming ice age? Look,
the point here is that you, specifically, do not remember being told by the
peer-reviewed literature that an ice age was coming because a) you probably
don't read the peer-reviewed geophysical literature and b) even if you did
there was no general consensus in the literature at the time that there was
an ice age coming. The realclimate.org post shows quite clearly that what
people were saying in the 70's was that given the available knowledge,
climate couldn't be predicted with reasonable certainty. However, most
climate physicists even then were relatively certain that the positive
forcing from CO2 would eventually overwhelm the cooling from sulfate
aerosol.

But my point is that your recollection of history is a bit faulty, and
seems to be easily swayed by what you want to be true. I submit that shows
you are less than objective in your analysis and if that is true, I cannot
trust your objective analysis of physics either.

I know that you want it not to be true that humans are affecting climate,
but that doesn't alter physics. The equations of warming are cold and
hard.

--
Bill Asher

[William Asher]

Jack Hollis wrote:

> On 21 Apr 2008 05:31:19 GMT, William Asher <gcnp58@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>So then you think Jack is wrong too, and that there is no way he could
>>remember there being lots of papers claiming an ice age was coming
>>because there weren't any such papers.
>
> Bill, you linked to a paper that said there were seven scientific
> articles published that claimed we were heading for an ice age.

That was Howard. I linked to the realclimate.org article that you didn't
read.

--
Bill Asher

[William Asher]

Tom Kunich wrote:

> "Jack Hollis" <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:oaip04de1t38mvnuekptj0ge0eo06ic5gd@4ax.com...
>> On 21 Apr 2008 00:29:02 GMT, William Asher <gcnp58@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>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.
>>
>> There is absolutely no scientific proof that humans are cause any
>> change in global temperature. None, nada zip.
>
> Yet people where who have absolutely NOTHING to do with such things
> are more than happy to make these claims despite things like the UN
> "committee" did - the MANAGEMENT changed the actual papers and wrote a
> summary making all sorts of false claims. They also claimed a lot of
> scientists "agreed" with them who later had to post their own papers
> saying that they greatly disagreed with these project managers.
>
> Not that it makes the slightest difference to the US haters here.
>

Tom, to say I have nothing to do with the IPCC is unfair. I once nailed a
scientist who was a member of the IPCC TAR. What a night.

--
Bill Asher

[Robert Chung]

On Apr 21, 10:37 am, SLAVE of THE STATE <gwh...@ti.com> wrote:
> On Apr 20, 11:14 pm, Robert Chung <rech...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > how does the market decide between
> > Pareto optimal alternatives?
> > Please phrase your answer in the form of
> > a question.
>
> Why would the market need to decide if there is no net welfare
> change? (Which some would say carries the implication that it is okay
> to make such a change.)
>
> But perhaps you assume more than you should.

Exactly, though
1) you're not Ryan and
2) if you were Ryan you were supposed to answer in the form of a
question, like "what doesn't the market decide?"

So, NotRyan, shall we now let Ryan ponder the meaning of this?

[SLAVE of THE STATE]

On Apr 21, 11:26*am, Robert Chung <rech...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 21, 10:37 am, SLAVE of THE STATE <gwh...@ti.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 20, 11:14 pm, Robert Chung <rech...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > how does the market decide between
> > > Pareto optimal alternatives?
> > > Please phrase your answer in the form of
> > > a question.
>
> > Why would the market need to decide if there is no net welfare
> > change? *(Which some would say carries the implication that it is okay
> > to make such a change.)
>
> > But perhaps you assume more than you should.
>
> Exactly, though
> 1) you're not Ryan and
> 2) if you were Ryan you were supposed to answer in the form of a
> question, like "what doesn't the market decide?"
>
> So, NotRyan, shall we now let Ryan ponder the meaning of this?

Sorry about your party.

Schwartz wrote a haiku:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/msg/84ecde91aa1a6111?

[Donald Munro]

SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
> Schwartz wrote a haiku:
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/msg/84ecde91aa1a6111?

Odd, his bots don't do haiku or even sonnets.

[William Asher]

Donald Munro wrote:

> Tom Kunich wrote:
>> Really disturbs you when it's pointed out that what we have now are
>> not scientists but money grubbing bastards who will say anything in
>> order to gain another grant?
>
> And the so called sceptics getting and conservative "stink tanks"
> getting money from Exxon are as pure as a driven ice age glacier.
>
>> Scientists in the 70's were much too professional to claim that 30
>> years of accurate temperature recording would give you a clue to ice
>> ages or global warming.
>
> Make up your mini-core CPU. You just wrote:
> "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."
>

I think we can just condense the discussion on climate to people saying:

None, nada zip.

to each other. This is going to save me a lot of time.

--
Bill Asher

[Jack Hollis]

On 21 Apr 2008 19:42:59 GMT, William Asher <gcnp58@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> Bill, you linked to a paper that said there were seven scientific
>> articles published that claimed we were heading for an ice age.
>
>And you remember those seven papers and not the 44 others stating that
>warming would occur?


Did you read any of the 44 papers. How many of them specifically said
that global warming was due to human activity? More likely they said
that the forty year cooling trend seen from the 1940s to the 1970s was
not an indication that the warming trend that has lasted 10,000 years
was over.

In any case, you asked for one peer reviewed scientific paper and you
yourself have provided evidence of at least seven.

All this point there are two things that haven't changed. First, the
media always writes about the most sensational material. Second, in
the 1970s, and today, there was/is no scientific consensus on what
causes climate change.

Science isn't about saying that because 44 papers say one thing and 7
say another, then the 44 papers are correct. Science is full of
instances when the prevailing opinion was wrong. Fact is that science
is incapable of determining exactly what effect humans are having on
the climate.

I'm not saying that humans are having no effect on the earth's
temperature. I'm just saying that science is unable to determine what
that effect is.

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

[Jack Hollis]

On 21 Apr 2008 19:42:59 GMT, William Asher <gcnp58@yahoo.com> wrote:

>But my point is that your recollection of history is a bit faulty, and
>seems to be easily swayed by what you want to be true.

Complete rubbish. My recollection of history is just fine. It's the
current global orthodoxy that is trying to rewrite history for their
own purposes.

[Howard Kveck]

In article <Xns9A8783279D480FkldeltaC@130.133.1.4>, William Asher <gcnp58@yahoo.com>
wrote:

> Tom Kunich wrote:
>
> > "Jack Hollis" <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:oaip04de1t38mvnuekptj0ge0eo06ic5gd@4ax.com...
> >> On 21 Apr 2008 00:29:02 GMT, William Asher <gcnp58@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>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.
> >>
> >> There is absolutely no scientific proof that humans are cause any
> >> change in global temperature. None, nada zip.
> >
> > Yet people where who have absolutely NOTHING to do with such things
> > are more than happy to make these claims despite things like the UN
> > "committee" did - the MANAGEMENT changed the actual papers and wrote a
> > summary making all sorts of false claims. They also claimed a lot of
> > scientists "agreed" with them who later had to post their own papers
> > saying that they greatly disagreed with these project managers.
> >
> > Not that it makes the slightest difference to the US haters here.
> >
>
> Tom, to say I have nothing to do with the IPCC is unfair. I once nailed a
> scientist who was a member of the IPCC TAR. What a night.

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

--
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 21 Apr 2008 19:53:39 GMT, William Asher <gcnp58@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> There is absolutely no scientific proof that humans are cause any
>> change in global temperature. None, nada zip.
>
>If I could publish this somewhere as a shining example of the skeptic
>mindset, and their complete lack of understanding how science works,
>specifically that proof of a theory is impossible, and instead
>what is done is to objectively assess data in terms of the predictions from
>theories and models, I would. It's simply the quintessential post from a
>skeptic.

I know enough about science to know that it's impossible to prove that
humans are having any significant effect on global temperature.

[Donald Munro]

William Asher wrote:
> I think we can just condense the discussion on climate to people saying:
>
> None, nada zip.
>
> to each other. This is going to save me a lot of time.

Da, Oui rar.

Porn is so much simpler than global warming, perhaps you
can convince a bot that porn exists instead.

Don't expect a grant from SchwartzSoft though.

[William Asher]

Jack Hollis wrote:

> On 21 Apr 2008 19:42:59 GMT, William Asher <gcnp58@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>> Bill, you linked to a paper that said there were seven scientific
>>> articles published that claimed we were heading for an ice age.
>>
>>And you remember those seven papers and not the 44 others stating that
>>warming would occur?
>
>
> Did you read any of the 44 papers. How many of them specifically said
> that global warming was due to human activity? More likely they said
> that the forty year cooling trend seen from the 1940s to the 1970s was
> not an indication that the warming trend that has lasted 10,000 years
> was over.
>
> In any case, you asked for one peer reviewed scientific paper and you
> yourself have provided evidence of at least seven.
>
> All this point there are two things that haven't changed. First, the
> media always writes about the most sensational material. Second, in
> the 1970s, and today, there was/is no scientific consensus on what
> causes climate change.
>
> Science isn't about saying that because 44 papers say one thing and 7
> say another, then the 44 papers are correct. Science is full of
> instances when the prevailing opinion was wrong. Fact is that science
> is incapable of determining exactly what effect humans are having on
> the climate.
>
> I'm not saying that humans are having no effect on the earth's
> temperature. I'm just saying that science is unable to determine what
> that effect is.
>
> So when it comes to human and global warming, I'm an agnostic. It's
> the only sensible way to look at it.
>

Jack, you said you personally remembered when scientists claimed an ice age
was coming and from that recollection, you assumed that climate scientists
still must be wrong. I could go back and look at the exact phrase, but it
was something like that. 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. 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.

So just man up and admit you never read the primary literature, you don't
really know what climate scientists actually said 30 years ago, and that
you are repeating things you read in an op-ed page that make you feel
better. You probably also should admit that your agnosticism is motivated
more by short-term self-interest rather than an objective analysis of the
science and evidence, but I'm not holding out much hope for that.

And, yeah I have read some (not all) of those papers, along with the 1975
and 1983 NAS climate change reports along with a lot of the skeptic chatter
on the internet and all four IPCC assessments (I even have a glossy-bound
paper copy of the first assessment report, which is odd considering my
line of work). Have you read even the IPCC AR4?

--
Bill Asher

[Tom Kunich]

"Jack Hollis" <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ue1q04525fa9tj5tc6fcced0qjand8tan5@4ax.com...
>
> 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

[bjw@mambo.ucolick.org]

On Apr 21, 4:47 pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com> wrote:
> On 21 Apr 2008 19:53:39 GMT, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> There is absolutely no scientific proof that humans are cause any
> >> change in global temperature. None, nada zip.
>
> >If I could publish this somewhere as a shining example of the skeptic
> >mindset, and their complete lack of understanding how science works,
> >specifically that proof of a theory is impossible, and instead
> >what is done is to objectively assess data in terms of the predictions from
> >theories and models, I would. It's simply the quintessential post from a
> >skeptic.
>
> I know enough about science to know that it's impossible to prove that
> humans are having any significant effect on global temperature.

That was Asher's point. It's generally impossible to
prove a scientific theory correct. In Karl Popper's view,
all you can do is falsify predictions. I don't think Popper's
entire picture is quite right (I prefer Kuhn) but it's a start.

If all you are saying is that it is and always will be
impossible to establish that humans are having any
effect on temperature, no matter what evidence we have
now or collect in the future, then you aren't a skeptic,
you're a denialist. This is sort of like Kunich's position,
or rather Kunich's positions, since he has several of them.
If that's not your position, then you should be able to
outline what evidence would convince you.

Ben

P.S. The existence of 7 papers on cooling in the literature
in the 70s proves little. After all, some fraction of papers
are speculative, mediocre, or crap. I'm sure I could find
more than 7 papers every year in the astronomy literature that
are flat-out wrong, if I looked enough, and a larger number that
will turn out to be wrong or off in their predictions, but were
intended to be speculative. That's OK. Some speculation
is how creative new ideas are generated, and some wrong stuff
gets into the literature, but 20 years later it's easy to figure
out which was which.

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article <Xns9A87AED1BCFE7FkldeltaC@130.133.1.4>,
William Asher <gcnp58@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Jack Hollis wrote:
>
> > On 21 Apr 2008 19:42:59 GMT, William Asher <gcnp58@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > All this point there are two things that haven't changed. First, the
> > media always writes about the most sensational material. Second, in
> > the 1970s, and today, there was/is no scientific consensus on what
> > causes climate change.

> Jack, you said you personally remembered when scientists claimed an ice age
> was coming and from that recollection, you assumed that climate scientists
> still must be wrong. I could go back and look at the exact phrase, but it
> was something like that. 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.

This whole argument is making me glad that I have the excellent defense
of not having learned to read until 1978.

ObBike: I'm training again! Only a little. And my knees hurt. Which
sucks.

But I'm training!

--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@gmail.com http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."

[Jack Hollis]

On 22 Apr 2008 00:11:06 GMT, William Asher <gcnp58@yahoo.com> wrote:

>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.

[Jack Hollis]

On 22 Apr 2008 00:11:06 GMT, William Asher <gcnp58@yahoo.com> wrote:

>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.

[Tom Kunich]

<bjw@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote in message
news:8f09d8f2-f318-4e9e-a835-9c7198e1945a@s33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>
> If all you are saying is that it is and always will be
> impossible to establish that humans are having any
> effect on temperature, no matter what evidence we have
> now or collect in the future, then you aren't a skeptic,
> you're a denialist. This is sort of like Kunich's position,
> or rather Kunich's positions, since he has several of them.

You're a real comedian aren't you? I'm still waiting for you to explain how
CO2 is estimated to be less than 5% of the greenhouse effect and human
additions to CO2 are less than 5% of the CO2 and you telling us that it is
human contributions that are causing "global warming" at a time when we are
reaching the natural end of a warm period when ice ages tend to come on and
at those points weather becomes more variable.

[William Asher]

Tom Kunich wrote:

> "Jack Hollis" <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:ue1q04525fa9tj5tc6fcced0qjand8tan5@4ax.com...
>>
>> 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

[bjw@mambo.ucolick.org]

On Apr 21, 5:58 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> <b...@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote in message
>
> > This is sort of like Kunich's position,
> > or rather Kunich's positions, since he has several of them.
>
> You're a real comedian aren't you? I'm still waiting for you to explain how
> CO2 is estimated to be less than 5% of the greenhouse effect and human
> additions to CO2 are less than 5% of the CO2 and you telling us that it is
> human contributions that are causing "global warming" at a time when we are
> reaching the natural end of a warm period when ice ages tend to come on and
> at those points weather becomes more variable.

While you're waiting, you might read

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

Happy Earth Day, Tom.

Ben

[Robert Chung]

On Apr 21, 6:28 pm, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Ugh. You sat on this for a few days and this is the best you could do?
> > I'm afraid that you need some help in getting your brains in order and
> > since this is rbr I ain't going to help you. Instead, I'll point out
> > that my question to you is quite relevant to the argument you're
> > trying to make but have been screwing up so I'll take this opportunity
> > to ask a new but related question: how does the market decide between
> > Pareto optimal alternatives? Please phrase your answer in the form of
> > a question.
>
> What makes you believe Bangladesh's economy is Pareto optimal?

NotRyan already gave the answer, though not in the form of a question.
Why does it apply to the argument you've been trying to make but
screwing up?

[William Asher]

Howard Kveck wrote:

>
> 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

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article
<597c7ff5-55eb-4ead-8962-761f4896f869@q27g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Robert Chung <rechung@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Apr 21, 6:28 pm, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Ugh. You sat on this for a few days and this is the best you could do?
> > > I'm afraid that you need some help in getting your brains in order and
> > > since this is rbr I ain't going to help you. Instead, I'll point out
> > > that my question to you is quite relevant to the argument you're
> > > trying to make but have been screwing up so I'll take this opportunity
> > > to ask a new but related question: how does the market decide between
> > > Pareto optimal alternatives? Please phrase your answer in the form of
> > > a question.
> >
> > What makes you believe Bangladesh's economy is Pareto optimal?
>
> NotRyan already gave the answer, though not in the form of a question.
> Why does it apply to the argument you've been trying to make but
> screwing up?

Well, I'm humble enough to admit to befuddlement and, frankly, finding
the prospect of overcoming my own ignorance less attractive than going
out and seeing if the current project bike's stem is unstuck today.

But I think, given the time allotted, that you're asserting that the
Bangladeshi Pareto equilibrium is just one with a tremendously disparate
distribution of available resources.

My gut (perhaps misleading me as badly as when it clamors for peanut
butter and chocolate chip microwaved sandwiches) says that the too much
being assumed is that Bangladesh didn't have a choice. My gut (which
thinks I should drink more beer and not worry so much about training or
fitting my clothes) says that Bangladesh's economic growth was
historically impeded by some astoundingly bad choices which, in essence,
spent what little free capital they had in concentrating the maximum
amount of resources on a shrinking industry in a predictably inefficient
fashion.

That can work if you're Canada propping up Bombardier, if only in the
sense that the country doesn't go into the crapper (though it re-raises
the question: what if we didn't have a semi-competitive Bombardier
sucking up a large amount of cash, and instead spent that cash on
something useful, like more beer?).

I'm probably still failing to understand the question, but I stubbornly
continue to believe that a hundred years is a long time, long enough for
Bangladesh to end up with a much better standard of living, barring any
but the least screwed-up fiscal and political (ie, don't declare war on
India) policies.

At which point, they'll be able to afford Executive-Style luxury stilts
for their waterfront homes, and Gregg Easterbrook III and John Stossel
ver 4.2b will be able to write grumpy (and correct) screeds about the
massive subsidy that Bangladeshi's federal flood insurance provides to
Bangladesh's prosperous waterfront homeowners, and the Dutch consultants
will be hanging around Bangladesh showing them how to build dikes. Well,
hopefully it's Dutch consultants, and not Gulf Coast consultants.

* * *

I like changing the subject! I think even the basic Global Warming issue
is going to end up being moot, because I suspect its primary effect will
be to encourage people to either drive less or to drive cleaner.

If I were to list one incomprehensible behavior in modern society, it
would be commuting by car in an urban rush hour. Maybe I value my time
too highly.

--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@gmail.com http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."

[Robert Chung]

On Apr 21, 11:47 pm, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@gmail.com> wrote:

> But I think, given the time allotted, that you're asserting that [mumbo jumbo]

Nope.

> I'm probably still failing to understand the question

Yup.

As I've said, by all evidence this isn't the place for correcting
misconceptions (this thread in particular but rbr in general) but the
5 second version is that you shouldn't use post hoc GDP, either level
or growth, to rationalize any particular observed difference in
allocation as if that allocation revealed market failure. That's cuz
observed GDP is conditional on initial conditions. A consequence is
that generalized global economic growth won't necessarily be allocated
in a way that will solve Bangladesh's (or any other country's)
localized problems since the market doesn't choose from among net
welfare equivalent alternatives.

[Tom Kunich]

"Jack Hollis" <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote in message
news:fk0s041g1elsru9dm1g3gnk6q0qblefrei@4ax.com...
> On 22 Apr 2008 00:11:06 GMT, William Asher <gcnp58@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>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.

[jean-yves herve]

In article <fk0s041g1elsru9dm1g3gnk6q0qblefrei@4ax.com>,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote:

> On 22 Apr 2008 00:11:06 GMT, William Asher <gcnp58@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >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.

[William Asher]

Jack Hollis wrote:

> On 22 Apr 2008 00:11:06 GMT, William Asher <gcnp58@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>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.

Jack:

Here is what you said:

"Actually Bill, very few people would deny that it has some impact.
However, the question is how much.

Unfortunately, the earth's climate is so complex that science is
unable to prove the point one way or the other.

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."

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. If you had bothered to read the
RealClimate.org article you would understand this. But you didn't, so you
look, well, silly. That you weren't "remembering" what actual
climatologists had said is precisely my point. Your memory of historical
fact is faulty and clearly not objective. Since you have demonstrated your
non-objectivity, as far as I am concerned it casts grave doubts on your
ability to objectively analyze the science associated with climate change.
You ought to be very nervous about your intellectual position when Kunich
is agreeing with you.

--
Bill Asher

[Tom Kunich]

"Jack Hollis" <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3v0s04plkgs0bj0bej2v2tdi9srbuuau9k@4ax.com...
> On 22 Apr 2008 00:11:06 GMT, William Asher <gcnp58@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>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 crap 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.

[Howard Kveck]

In article <otqdnS9f_4h4m5PVnZ2dnUVZ_uednZ2d@earthlink.com>,
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:

> "Jack Hollis" <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:3v0s04plkgs0bj0bej2v2tdi9srbuuau9k@4ax.com...
> > On 22 Apr 2008 00:11:06 GMT, William Asher <gcnp58@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >>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 crap 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?

[Tom Kunich]

"jean-yves herve" <jyh@cs.uri.edu> wrote in message
news:jyh-51B2B0.12244322042008@news.lga.highwinds-media.com...
> In article <fk0s041g1elsru9dm1g3gnk6q0qblefrei@4ax.com>,
> Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> 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"?

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.

As for the CO2 record - they've been using bubbles "trapped" in glacial ice
as a record of CO2. It had been thought that this CO2 record was accurate.
But since that time they've discovered that in fact the CO2 inside of these
bubbles leaches into the surrounding ice and eventually out of the ice into
the atmosphere altogether. So the so-called CO2 increase curves being shown
everywhere are corrupted and cannot be used. Analysis of the plants fossils,
since certain types of plants favor higher CO2 concentrations, don't seem to
show a significant increase in CO2.

We are presently within about 1,500 years of the USUAL end of warming
periods before another ice age occurs. Despite all the crap about ice ages
occurring virtually overnight the fact is that they take centuries to have
any real effects. But when we are approaching another ice age the weather
grows quite unpredictable and some years are warmer and others colder.
Greenland was settled by the Vikings in about 1000 AD and there were great
farming conditions on the south end of the island. Something that certainly
doesn't hold today. And just 600 years later the Little Ice Age occurred.

Just a couple of years ago the environmentalists proclaimed that European
glaciers were disappearing for the first time in history - and yet months
later entire villages started showing up where the glaciers withdrew.

If you look into it, the 20th century could be unique BECAUSE it had such a
moderate temperature profile compared to previous recorded centuries.
Historically the weather variations have been a great deal more than during
the 20th century and man had no effect on the CO2 until the very last score
years of that century. And the effect is miniscule.

Here's the long and the short of it - we're due for an ice age and not
global warming. It is probably this warming trend that caused the start of
the next ice age.

And man has essentially nothing to do with any of this.

Mind you, there's nothing wrong with trying to develop technology that
doesn't change the environment but not like the present day
"environmentalists" are suggesting - methods that will end up in massive
world wide depressions, human lives lost, etc.

[Robert Chung]

On Apr 22, 10:29 am, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
> 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.

[Jack Hollis]

On 22 Apr 2008 19:05:00 GMT, William Asher <gcnp58@yahoo.com> wrote:

>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.

[Donald Munro]

Jack Hollis wrote:
> 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.

[Robert Chung]

On Apr 22, 5:03 pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com> wrote:

> I have no more to say on the issue.

"More?"