Todd writes:
Have I mentioned lately that the oceans are not warming?

You've made that assertion multiple times.
Who to believe, some random RWer on the internet or someone that
uses thermometers?

Anyway, melt ice, what do you think happens to the water?

I don't have a model, and I haven't taken the measurements.
So I'm not making any claims.
But then I don't go around making contrary claims either.

Who to believe, a scientist or big business and their political party.
Hmm, I have to think about it.

--
Dan Espen

Fran Farmer wrote:
....
He probably dines out on what you say.

*chuckles* that's a great one! and very
likely true in this case, you can't just make
stuff up any better than this.

unfortunately, it can be pretty divisive in
some families and not just when trying to
talk about gardening.


songbird

Todd writes:

And throw a huge red flag at anyone who tried to use
mind control to stop criticism of their work.

Mind control?

That sounds, well, how can I put this...nuts.

--
Dan Espen

Todd writes:

On 03/11/2014 06:07 PM, Dan Espen wrote:
Todd writes:

And throw a huge red flag at anyone who tried to use
mind control to stop criticism of their work.

Mind control?

That sounds, well, how can I put this...nuts.


Hi Dan,

Political Correctness is a form of mind control.
The intention is to keep you from listening to
others of different viewpoints.

It is easy to spot. Folks practicing this will
insult you if they don't like what you have to say,
instead of engaging as gentleman in a functioning
democratic society. I would go to say that
since a democratic society required this kind of
function and interchange of ideas, that
Political Correctness is anti-democratic,
not to mention really, really closed minded.

Ah, the old PC bugaboo.

Uhh, no. That's not mind control.
How is disagreeing with someone mind control.

I doubt all of my opinions are politically correct and I feel no
pressure at all.

To call that mind control is, what's that word again?

Maybe you, being a "GW denier" (can't see how that's an insult) feel some
pressure, but what do you expect? You have no evidence of your own
yet you feel you can spread your opinions as if they are fact.
You know you are not a scientist, you have no models, I doubt you have
any idea how much warming a given quantity of CO2 might induce,
but you go around saying you've done research.
Reading a bunch of web sites is nothing like
research.

--
Dan Espen

On 12/03/2014 5:28 AM, Todd wrote:
On 03/11/2014 12:54 AM, Fran Farmer wrote:
I long ago looked at both sides both on the Web and in newsgroup and
quite obviously since I've read the drivel you have posted and the cites
you've given, I still continue to read both sides. I hope I never lose
my marbles sufficiently that I will be so uncritical as to accept what
is said by deniers.

I long ago concluded that deniers were either engaged in duping others
or were the subject of the duping. Deniers invariably selectively cite
and choose opinion over fact. That applied equally to Web based sites
or in newsgroups. No doubt it's all about money and following the money
trail would reveal who is putting up the money for the dupers to do
their peddling.

Hmmmm. "Deniers." Other name calling. Interesting religious you have
there. Do you tithe?

When forms ask for religion, I tick the 'none' box.

On 12/03/2014 5:40 AM, Todd wrote:

And, there a a lot of "climate scientists" that don't
agree with global warming.

Cite?

Todd writes:

And everything we
burn, except hydrogen, give of water vapor.

Hydrogen plus Oxygen doesn't produce water vapor?

I think you must have meant CO2.

--
Dan Espen

Fran Farmer wrote:
Todd wrote:

And, there a a lot of "climate scientists" that don't
agree with global warming.

Cite?

http://www.bnl.gov/search/results.php

Todd writes:

On 03/11/2014 11:10 PM, Fran Farmer wrote:
On 12/03/2014 5:40 AM, Todd wrote:

And, there a a lot of "climate scientists" that don't
agree with global warming.

Cite?

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=climate%20...rming&kl=us-en

That's a cite?

I forget, was your statement "a minuscule number of scientists don't
agree with global warming"?

Oh, I recognized Freeman Dyson, so I looked him up:

Dyson agrees that anthropogenic global warming exists, and has written
that "[one] of the main causes of warming is the increase of carbon
dioxide in the atmosphere resulting from our burning of fossil fuels
such as oil and coal and natural gas."[41] However, he believes that
existing simulation models of climate fail to account for some
important factors, and hence the results will contain too much error
to reliably predict future trends:

Geez, research my a**.

--
Dan Espen

Todd writes:

On 03/12/2014 09:57 AM, Dan.Espen wrote:
Todd writes:

On 03/11/2014 11:10 PM, Fran Farmer wrote:
On 12/03/2014 5:40 AM, Todd wrote:

And, there a a lot of "climate scientists" that don't
agree with global warming.

Cite?

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=climate%20...rming&kl=us-en

That's a cite?

I forget, was your statement "a minuscule number of scientists don't
agree with global warming"?

Oh, I recognized Freeman Dyson, so I looked him up:

Dyson agrees that anthropogenic global warming exists, and has written
that "[one] of the main causes of warming is the increase of carbon
dioxide in the atmosphere resulting from our burning of fossil fuels
such as oil and coal and natural gas."[41] However, he believes that
existing simulation models of climate fail to account for some
important factors, and hence the results will contain too much error
to reliably predict future trends:

Geez, research my a**.


Dan,

There were a lot of hits for you to choose from.
Stop looking at Global Warming as an Axiom. Look at
it from a scientific standpoint. Question everything.

Here is John Coleman (founder of the cable TV's Weather Channel):

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-b...lobal_warming/

"It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled
and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM.
Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political
motives manipulated long term scientific data to create an
illusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the
same environmental whacko type jumped into the circle to
support and broaden the “research� to further enhance the
totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends
in government steered huge research grants their way to
keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.

And John Coleman is not along.

You keep sinking lower and lower.
You think this clowns journalism degree makes him a qualified
scientist?

And while your are questioning authority: follow the money.
What do you think caused all the fraud I noted earlier:
lots of money for research grants.

If you don't start questioning, if you every get high cholesterol
or Diabetes, you are going to be in real trouble.

Sorry, but this is just idiotic.

Follow the money indeed.
These scientists are forced to do peer reviewed science.
The oil companies? Not so much.

--
Dan Espen

Fran Farmer wrote:
....
I'd have thought that you wouldn't bother to continue with him because
he cites 'newsbusters' and its inaccurate report of '11 inaccuracies'
and making statements like 'There is no vast consensus. Just a lot of
sloppy research.'


here is a recent link with much useful information:

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/cloudy-forecast

i love the part about the 20 climate model research
groups and trying to find a negative feedback from
cloud cover.


songbird

Todd wrote:
Brooklyn1 wrote:
Fran Farmer wrote:
Todd wrote:

And, there a a lot of "climate scientists" that don't
agree with global warming.

Cite?

http://www.bnl.gov/search/results.php


"No pages were found containing ""."
I think you left something off

Put "global warming" into the seach box and enter.

On 13/03/2014 3:36 AM, Todd wrote:
On 03/11/2014 11:10 PM, Fran Farmer wrote:
On 12/03/2014 5:40 AM, Todd wrote:

And, there a a lot of "climate scientists" that don't
agree with global warming.

Cite?

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=climate%20...rming&kl=us-en

LOL. I asked that you provide a cite to support your claim that a lot
of climate scientists DON'T agree on global warming. You can't have
even bothered to look at what came up or you'd have realised that that
sitelists lots of cites which kills your claim stone dead.

I'm not going to read anything else you post from now on as you have
simply got to be trolling.

On 13/03/2014 5:33 AM, songbird wrote:
Fran Farmer wrote:
...
I'd have thought that you wouldn't bother to continue with him because
he cites 'newsbusters' and its inaccurate report of '11 inaccuracies'
and making statements like 'There is no vast consensus. Just a lot of
sloppy research.'


here is a recent link with much useful information:

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/cloudy-forecast

i love the part about the 20 climate model research
groups and trying to find a negative feedback from
cloud cover.
Thanks 'bird. I've bookmarked it to read later tonight. It looks like
and interesting site.

Fran Farmer wrote:
On 13/03/2014 3:36 AM, Todd wrote:
On 03/11/2014 11:10 PM, Fran Farmer wrote:
On 12/03/2014 5:40 AM, Todd wrote:

And, there a a lot of "climate scientists" that don't
agree with global warming.

Cite?

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=climate%20...rming&kl=us-en

LOL. I asked that you provide a cite to support your claim that a lot
of climate scientists DON'T agree on global warming. You can't have
even bothered to look at what came up or you'd have realised that that
sitelists lots of cites which kills your claim stone dead.

I'm not going to read anything else you post from now on as you have
simply got to be trolling.

Not necessarily, he could be genuine. Crazy as it may seem to you and I
seeing nothing at all wrong with cherry-picking data is characteristic of
deniers. But you are right saying there is no point in going on.

D