z wrote:
On Dec 26, 12:37 pm, Art wrote:
z wrote:
On Dec 19, 9:47 am, "Ryan P."
wrote:
That's half false. Obviously, global warming occurs. However,
nothing approaching a majority of scientists agree that HUMANS are the
*main* factor.
Well, as long as we're talking SCIENCE here, I assume you have
quantitative data. So, what estimated percentage of "scientists agree
that HUMANS are the *main* factor"? (of course, you can just point us
towards the reference for the study which determined the number.)
Just about the same percentage that are getting gov't money to research it.

Yep, just exactly the "rightwing scientific" answer I was looking for.
So, moving on in this direction of rightwing "facts", I'd love to hear
how the grant process goes. I mean, nobody "researches global
warming"; they just research CO2 levels in ice cores, etc. So, how do
you apply for a grant to show global warming? The grant applications
just say you're going to measure CO2 levels in ice cores, they don't
say which direction you're going to find things, do you have to put
that in a separate cover letter? Then, is that legally binding, so
that they sue you to give them money back if you publish results that
don't show global warming? It's important that the public know these
things, don't you think? So you should let us in on the secrets,
rather than keep them to yourself.

Common sense says it's crap. I've been around a while and in just my
lifetime - Nuclear war was gonna destroy the planet; then the ozone hole
was gonna kill us all; now it's global warming. 10 years from now there
will be a new doomsday theory.

There have been people that claim "the end is near" as far back as
recorded history and they all have one thing in common. They were wrong.
Many people just don't believe them anymore and I'm one of them. Has
nothing to do with right or left wing.

Even if man is causing an "unnatural" rise in CO2, nature has an
incredible ability to bring things back into balance. There is little if
anything that man can do to this planet that nature hasn't done on a
much larger scale.

--
Art

On Dec 26, 9:48*pm, Art wrote:
z wrote:
On Dec 26, 12:37 pm, Art wrote:
z wrote:
On Dec 19, 9:47 am, "Ryan P."
wrote:
* That's half false. *Obviously, global warming occurs. *However,
nothing approaching a majority of scientists agree that HUMANS are the
*main* factor.
Well, as long as we're talking SCIENCE here, I assume you have
quantitative data. So, what estimated percentage of "scientists agree
that HUMANS are the *main* factor"? (of course, you can just point us
towards the reference for the study which determined the number.)
Just about the same percentage that are getting gov't money to research it.

Yep, just exactly the "rightwing scientific" answer I was looking for.
So, moving on in this direction of rightwing "facts", I'd love to hear
how the grant process goes. I mean, nobody "researches global
warming"; they just research CO2 levels in ice cores, etc. So, how do
you apply for a grant to show global warming? The grant applications
just say you're going to measure CO2 levels in ice cores, they don't
say which direction you're going to find things, do you have to put
that in a separate cover letter? Then, is that legally binding, so
that they sue you to give them money back if you publish results that
don't show global warming? It's important that the public know these
things, don't you think? So you should let us in on the secrets,
rather than keep them to yourself.

Common sense says it's crap. I've been around a while and in just my
lifetime - Nuclear war was gonna destroy the planet; then the ozone hole
was gonna kill us all; now it's global warming. 10 years from now there
will be a new doomsday theory.

There have been people that claim "the end is near" as far back as
recorded history and they all have one thing in common. They were wrong.
Many people just don't believe them anymore and I'm one of them. Has
nothing to do with right or left wing.

Even if man is causing an "unnatural" rise in CO2, nature has an
incredible ability to bring things back into balance. There is little if
anything that man can do to this planet that nature hasn't done on a
much larger scale.

Oh, I'm not worried about the planet. I'm worried about my kids.
They're not nearly as sturdy as the planet.

On Dec 26, 4:49 pm, "Ryan P."
wrote:
z wrote:

Oh that's easy. Whatever climate happens as a random byproduct of big
companies doing stuff to maximize profit without having to deal with
the end/waste products, is perfect. Otherwise, you're a socialist and
want to destroy the US.

.
.
The difference is that you, as a "left wing" person (this is an
assumption, as you love using the term "right wing" in a negative
manner), seem much more willing to accuse anybody who disagrees with you
of being involved in some sort of "pro business, only money matters"
conspiracy.

Have you ever stopped to think that maybe there are people that doubt
that the world is going to become a wasteland in 20 years because a good
portion of the environmentalist propaganda had been proven to be lies?

We've already discussed the disappearing polar bear fiasco. We've
also seen links to independent studies that show rapid temperature
change (14 degrees F in less than 100 years) has happened in the past.

Not to mention the media seems to love trotting out Al Gore's movie as
documented proof of Global Warming, but its already legally been shown
to contain MANY half-truths and outright lies.

So maybe when you can point to INDEPENDENT studies (those not funded
by the oil companies, and those not funded by conservation
organizations), people will be less suspicious.

The rightwing in general is a morass of lies and falsehoods. They
dont' even deny it; did you forget the "reality-based community"
remark? The rightwing weren't claiming to be part of it, they were
stating they had transcended it. See; you think "a good portion of the
environmentalist propaganda had been proven to be lies" then post a
bunch of points to prove it, that are all themselves "lies".

1) "disappearing polar bear fiasco"
Polar Bear Survival Rate Falls as Climate Warms
By Yereth Rosen
Reuters
Thursday 16 November 2006
Anchorage - Polar bear cubs in Alaska's Beaufort Sea are much less
likely to survive compared to about 20 years ago, probably due to
melting sea ice caused by global warming, a study released Wednesday
said.
The study, published by the US Geological Survey, estimated that
only 43 percent of polar bear cubs in the southern Beaufort Sea
survived their first year during the past five years, compared to a 65
percent survival rate in the late 1980s and early 1990s.
"The changes in survival of cubs are very dramatic," said the
study's author Steven Amstrup, polar bear project leader for the USGS
Alaska Science Center.
The falling survival rate comes as a warming climate has melted
much of the sea ice off Alaska's northern coast, limiting polar bears
from hunting for food at the ice's edge, Amstrup said.
"The things we're observing are consistent with a population that
is undergoing nutritional stress," said Amstrup. "We can't say
definitively it's because of changes in the sea ice, but we don't know
what else it would be."
The study also found that adult male polar bears captured after
1990 were smaller than those captured before then.

Canadian researchers have been studying the western Hudson Bay polar
bear population for more than 30 years and have seen the condition of
the bears decline. "Condition" is quantified with a formula that
includes the bears' length and weight--it's very similar to the body
mass index (BMI) used for humans. ... From the early 1980s to the
early 2000s, Lunn says, the condition of female polar bears in western
Hudson Bay has declined by 15 to 20 percent.
"The bears come ashore in poor condition because they haven't had as
much opportunity to feed, and we're asking them to turn around and go
into their fasting state earlier," Derocher says. "It's a double-edged
sword; they're being cut on both sides."
http://nationalzoo.si.edu/Publicatio...polarbears.cfm

Future Retreat of Arctic Sea Ice Will Lower Polar Bear Populations and
Limit Their Distribution
Released: 9/7/2007 2:48:28 PM
U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey
Office of Communication
Future reduction of sea ice in the Arctic could result in a loss of
2/3 of the world's polar bear population within 50 years according to
a series of studies released today by the U.S. Geological Survey.

The scientists concluded that, while the bears were not likely to be
driven to extinction, they would be largely relegated to the Arctic
archipelago of Canada and spots off the northern Greenland coast,
where summer sea ice tends to persist even in warm summers like this
one, a shrinking that could be enough to reduce the bear population by
two-thirds.
The bears would disappear entirely from Alaska, the study said.
"As the sea ice goes, so goes the polar bear," said Steven Amstrup,
lead biologist for the survey team.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/08/sc...ce&oref=slogin

Newly-released USGS information from 9 recent studies presents
relationships of polar bears to present and future sea ice
environments.
http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/special/polar%5Fbears/

But.... you have political science professor Bjorn Lomborg telling you
that polar bears are actually thriving, and anyway they can evolve
back into brown bears... therefore all the above are "proven [no less]
to be lies".

2) "independent studies that show rapid temperature change (14 degrees
F in less than 100 years) has happened in the past. "

Right....
"1. ~15,000 yrs ago, sudden climatic warming (~12° C; ~21° F) caused
dramatic melting of large Ice Age ice sheets
2. A few centuries later, temperatures plummeted (~11° ; ~20° F).
3. ~14,000 yrs ago, global temperatures increased (~4.5°C; ~8° F).
4. ~13,400 yrs ago, global temperatures plunged (~8°C; ~14° F)
5. ~13,200 yrs ago, global temperatures rose rapidly (~5°C; ~9° F)
6. 12,700 yrs ago global temperatures plunged sharply (~8°C; ~14°) F)
at the start of the Younger Dryas.
7. 11,500 yrs ago, global temperatures rose sharply (~12° C; ~21°F)
marking the end of the Younger Dryas.
8. 8,200 yrs ago, a sudden global cooling (~4° C; ~7° F) lasted a few
centuries.
9. ~1000 AD, global temperatures rose several degrees to begin the
Medieval Warm Period, which lasted a few centuries, then ~1230 AD
dropped ~4°C (~7° F) in ~20 years.
10. ~1600 AD, global temperatures cooled several degrees at the
beginning of the Little Ice Age"

which is then summarized as.....
"10 times in the past 15,000 years, sudden warming of ~8-12° C
(~14-21° F) occurred in less than 100 years and could not have been
caused by anthropogenic CO2. "
http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/viewHandout.cgi?uploadid=215

And yet, just because a "sudden global cooling" of 7 degrees is being
counted as "sudden warming of 14-21 degrees", we silly leftwingers
view this as a "lie". Go figure. I count a grand total of 5 warmings,
of which a grand total of ***2*** are "14-21 degrees". See, a lot of
people would consider stating that 2=10 is a lie. Well, warming,
cooling, what's the diff, eh? 7 degrees is pretty close to 14-21
degrees, right? It's not like we're talking science or something here,
where stuff like that matters.

But that's just lying about the strength of your case; this is all
aside from the question of how, logically, evidence that event X in
the past was not caused by Y can be considered evidence that a similar
event Z now is therefore not caused by Y, without actually
demonstrating that X and Z have the same cause. Nobody's saying that
past warmings were anthropogenic; they're saying that what we see now
is, and that therefore we ought to think about where it will lead.

"Was the Younger Dryas Triggered by a Flood?
Wallace S. Broecker
Draining of a huge lake into the Northern Atlantic may have triggered
a cold period ~12,900 years ago."
Science 26 May 2006:
Vol. 312. no. 5777, pp. 1146 - 1148
DOI: 10.1126/science.1123253

Are you postulating that somehow, this explains the current warming?
If not, then why is the onset of the Younger Dryas cited as
"evidence" (of "sudden warming of ~8-12° C, no less)", in number 6
above (and note that the "sudden onset" can't even be pinpointed
within 200 years; 12,700 years ago, or 12,900 years ago)? And how can
it all have occurred **globally** "within 100 years", when in the
Antarctic, the cooling began 14,500 years ago and stayed cold through
the beginning of the Younger Dryas, then warmed up while the Younger
Dryas was still in progress, cooling? ("Phase lag of Antarctic and
Greenland temperature in the last glacial and link between CO2
variations and Heinrich Events", Blunier, T., T. F. Stocker, J.
Chappellaz, D. Raynaud, in "Reconstructing Ocean History: A Window
into the Future", Fatima Abrantes and Alan C. Mix, eds, Kluwer
Academic/Plenum Publishers, 1999)

Let alone the difficulty of determining, not just that an event 15,000
years ago happened within a short period; but that it happened
globally within the same short period.

For instance, the evidence for the globally synchronous nature of the
MWP is absent; "Our review indicates that for some areas of the
globe ... temperatures, particularly in summer, appear to have been
higher during some parts of this period than those that were to
prevail until the most recent decades of the twentieth century. These
warmer regional episodes were not strongly synchronous. Evidence from
other regions ... indicates that the climate during that time was
little different to that of later times, or that warming, if it
occurred, was recorded at a later time than has been assumed." ("Was
there a 'medieval warm period', and if so, where and when?", Malcolm
K. Hughes and Henry F. Diaz, Climatic Change Volume 26 March, 1994)
The same kind of telescoping of time scales from the distant past,
that makes people believe that cavemen hunted dinosaurs, because they
were both a long time ago.

3) "Al Gore's movie ... legally been shown to contain MANY half-truths
and outright lies."
Err, Stewart Dimmock sued to have the movie not shown in schools; and
LOST.
Justice Burton wrote:
"Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate
change in the film was **broadly accurate**.
...
Mr Downes produced a long schedule of such alleged errors or
exaggerations and waxed lyrical in that regard. It was obviously
helpful for me to look at the film with his critique in hand. In the
event I was persuaded that only some of them were sufficiently
persuasive to be relevant for the purposes of his argument, and it was
those matters - 9 in all - upon which I invited Mr Chamberlain to
concentrate. It was essential to appreciate that the hearing before me
did not relate to an analysis of the scientific questions, but to an
assessment of whether the 'errors' in question, set out in the context
of a political film, informed the argument on ss406 and 407. All these
9 'errors' that I now address are not put in the context of the
evidence of Professor Carter and the Claimant's case, but by
**reference to the IPCC report** and the evidence of Dr Stott."
So, I guess you are taking the IPCC as gospel, since you rely on the
legal opinion using the IPCC report as the "gold standard" against
which it measures Gore's film?

Note that the judge referred to these as 'errors', complete with the
quote marks, to indicate that they're ***what Downes called errors
(with no quote marks)***. If the judge found that they were actual
errors, there would be no quote marks. But as he says, "the
hearing ... did not relate to an analysis of the scientific
questions", only to "the argument on ss406 and 407". What do these
sections allege? That there is not sufficient "balanced presentation
of opposing views".

So: the actual legal finding that the film is "broadly accurate" but
has 9 'errors' (quotes in the original) in not presenting the opposing
view in a balanced fashion, becomes in your world, "legally been shown
to contain MANY half-truths and outright lies"; and from this you get
"a good portion of the environmentalist propaganda had been proven to
be lies?". Me, I see it as the opposite, regarding environmentalists,
propaganda, and lies.

BTW, climate researchers aren't funded by conservation organizations;
conservation organizations are, however, often funded by donations
from climate researchers, among others. Climate researchers are mostly
funded by government organizations, such as the NSF, NIH, etc. Of
course, we all know how the Bush administration is pushing the concept
of environmentalism, eh?

That's another mental hole in the what-climate-change thinktank; they
don't grasp the difference between "scientists who deny anthropogenic
climate change receive money from organizations who deny anthropogenic
climate change", and "scientists who believe in anthropogenic climate
change donate money to organizations who believe in anthropogenic
climate change". It's really not the same thing.

On Dec 26, 6:32*pm, Lar wrote:

This is how rightwing urban legends are built; piece by piece. Like
the legend that ""experts were equally convinced that the planet faced
a possible mini ice age from a cooling trend."

Here's a story Time Magazine ran in '74 http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...944914,00.html

Lar

If you're quoting Time Magazine as your climate "expert", you've
pretty much shot yourself in the mouth right at the start. Who does
that article quote as "scientists"? Well, Reid A. Bryson and Donald
Oilman, both of whom are now widely quoted AGAINST the concept of
global warming, and Kenneth Hare, who is quoted as saying that if the
drought continues people will go hungry, with no reference to cooling.
In fact, what Hare said re cooling was: "The slow cooling trend in
parts of the northern hemisphere during the last few decades is
similar to others of natural origin in the past, and thus whether it
will continue or not is unknown".

So, your "experts" who were so wrong and can't be believed, consist of
Time magazine, quoting two experts who now have built on their
previous erroneous stance by being widely quoted as saying there is no
global warming. Thanks, that's another point against those two what-
climate-change spokescritters.

See, it's this kind of dumbass logical inability to think straight,
for even the simplest arguments about who said what, demonstrated by
the what-climate-change brain trust again and again, in every single
post, which makes it impossible to take anything you guys say
seriously.

On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 08:41:21 -0800 (PST), z
wrote:

On Dec 18, 6:45*am, "Bob" wrote:

Question: * The surface of Mars is also warming. *Doesn't it seem
odd that mankind is changing the climate on another planet?

Yeah, and I flipped a quarter a dozen times yesterday, and half of
them came up heads! I think that quarter must be rigged.

???

On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 10:32:27 -0800 (PST), z
wrote:

On Dec 26, 6:32*pm, Lar wrote:

This is how rightwing urban legends are built; piece by piece. Like
the legend that ""experts were equally convinced that the planet faced
a possible mini ice age from a cooling trend."

Here's a story Time Magazine ran in '74 http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...944914,00.html

Lar

If you're quoting Time Magazine as your climate "expert", you've
pretty much shot yourself in the mouth right at the start. Who does
that article quote as "scientists"? Well, Reid A. Bryson and Donald
Oilman, both of whom are now widely quoted AGAINST the concept of
global warming, and Kenneth Hare, who is quoted as saying that if the
drought continues people will go hungry, with no reference to cooling.
In fact, what Hare said re cooling was: "The slow cooling trend in
parts of the northern hemisphere during the last few decades is
similar to others of natural origin in the past, and thus whether it
will continue or not is unknown".

So, your "experts" who were so wrong and can't be believed, consist of
Time magazine, quoting two experts who now have built on their
previous erroneous stance by being widely quoted as saying there is no
global warming. Thanks, that's another point against those two what-
climate-change spokescritters.

See, it's this kind of dumbass logical inability to think straight,
for even the simplest arguments about who said what, demonstrated by
the what-climate-change brain trust again and again, in every single
post, which makes it impossible to take anything you guys say
seriously.

then don't
and
go home
or
go back to your circle jerk

On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 07:42:51 -0800 (PST), z
wrote:

On Dec 26, 9:48*pm, Art wrote:
z wrote:
On Dec 26, 12:37 pm, Art wrote:
z wrote:
On Dec 19, 9:47 am, "Ryan P."
wrote:
* That's half false. *Obviously, global warming occurs. *However,
nothing approaching a majority of scientists agree that HUMANS are the
*main* factor.
Well, as long as we're talking SCIENCE here, I assume you have
quantitative data. So, what estimated percentage of "scientists agree
that HUMANS are the *main* factor"? (of course, you can just point us
towards the reference for the study which determined the number.)
Just about the same percentage that are getting gov't money to research it.

Yep, just exactly the "rightwing scientific" answer I was looking for.
So, moving on in this direction of rightwing "facts", I'd love to hear
how the grant process goes. I mean, nobody "researches global
warming"; they just research CO2 levels in ice cores, etc. So, how do
you apply for a grant to show global warming? The grant applications
just say you're going to measure CO2 levels in ice cores, they don't
say which direction you're going to find things, do you have to put
that in a separate cover letter? Then, is that legally binding, so
that they sue you to give them money back if you publish results that
don't show global warming? It's important that the public know these
things, don't you think? So you should let us in on the secrets,
rather than keep them to yourself.

Common sense says it's crap. I've been around a while and in just my
lifetime - Nuclear war was gonna destroy the planet; then the ozone hole
was gonna kill us all; now it's global warming. 10 years from now there
will be a new doomsday theory.

There have been people that claim "the end is near" as far back as
recorded history and they all have one thing in common. They were wrong.
Many people just don't believe them anymore and I'm one of them. Has
nothing to do with right or left wing.

Even if man is causing an "unnatural" rise in CO2, nature has an
incredible ability to bring things back into balance. There is little if
anything that man can do to this planet that nature hasn't done on a
much larger scale.

Oh, I'm not worried about the planet. I'm worried about my kids.
They're not nearly as sturdy as the planet.

you brought offspring into this world ?

offspring who will use up more and more resources that can NOT easily
be replaced?

You selfish unthinking *******. Thanks to YOU Earth will overheat
turning into a HELL planet.

On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 09:46:05 -0800 (PST), z
wrote:

On Dec 19, 9:47*am, "Ryan P."
wrote:

* Isn't it funny that all these melting glaciers are revealing ancient
forests? *How can it be possible that only a few hundred years ago
Greenland was a bountiful colony, and within 100 years became too cold
to support pre-industrial civilization? *How was the planet ever warm
enough before humans built their terrible, nasty, electricity-needing
civilizations? *Clearly those ancient forests, tropical plant fossils in
the Antarctic, and sea creature fossils found on the tops of mountains
were put there by George W. Bush and other Republicans JUST so that they
can deny global warming!

Well, you got a fine point there. In fact, for the vast majority of
the earth's history, it was much warmer, like ten degrees fahrenheit,
and had 5 times as much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as it does
now. but, all those ancient forests you mention came along, and pulled
so much CO2 out of the atmosphere that it couldn't decay back as fast
as they converted it to carbohydrates, so vast quantities got buried
during the carboniferous era. Hey, maybe that's why it's called the
carboniferous era? And after a hundred million years, the CO2 in the
air was where it is now (or where it was a hundred years ago,
actually) and so was the temp. So, if we dig all that buried carbon
back up and put it back in the air over the next century, there's no
way it can affect the climate, right?

* Who determines what the "perfect" global climate is? *

Oh that's easy. Whatever climate happens as a random byproduct of big
companies doing stuff to maximize profit without having to deal with
the end/waste products, is perfect. Otherwise, you're a socialist and
want to destroy the US.


you have the readers digest condensed version ? I fell asleep right
after "Well "

z wrote:


Oh, I'm not worried about the planet. I'm worried about my kids.
They're not nearly as sturdy as the planet.

Then teach them the lessons from the fable "Chicken Little".

--
Art

On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 00:53:06 -0600, Bosco wrote:

On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 10:32:27 -0800 (PST), z
wrote:

On Dec 26, 6:32*pm, Lar wrote:

This is how rightwing urban legends are built; piece by piece. Like
the legend that ""experts were equally convinced that the planet faced
a possible mini ice age from a cooling trend."

Here's a story Time Magazine ran in '74 http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...944914,00.html

Lar

If you're quoting Time Magazine as your climate "expert", you've
pretty much shot yourself in the mouth right at the start. Who does
that article quote as "scientists"? Well, Reid A. Bryson and Donald
Oilman, both of whom are now widely quoted AGAINST the concept of
global warming, and Kenneth Hare, who is quoted as saying that if the
drought continues people will go hungry, with no reference to cooling.
In fact, what Hare said re cooling was: "The slow cooling trend in
parts of the northern hemisphere during the last few decades is
similar to others of natural origin in the past, and thus whether it
will continue or not is unknown".

So, your "experts" who were so wrong and can't be believed, consist of
Time magazine, quoting two experts who now have built on their
previous erroneous stance by being widely quoted as saying there is no
global warming. Thanks, that's another point against those two what-
climate-change spokescritters.

See, it's this kind of dumbass logical inability to think straight,
for even the simplest arguments about who said what, demonstrated by
the what-climate-change brain trust again and again, in every single
post, which makes it impossible to take anything you guys say
seriously.

then don't
and
go home
or
go back to your circle jerk


Good rebuttal. That will win some debating points.

Ryan P. wrote:
Art wrote:
z wrote:


Oh, I'm not worried about the planet. I'm worried about my kids.
They're not nearly as sturdy as the planet.

Then teach them the lessons from the fable "Chicken Little".

.
.
Are we allowed to tach fables anymore? I would have thought that they
were considered to violoent by today's Politically Correct educational
system?

The Season 1 box set of "Sesame Street" was labeled "Not Suitable For
Children" afterall...

No one has to "allow" me to teach anything to my children. To pass on
values, morals and common sense is the purpose of fables. You should not
count on today's educational system to teach such. It is the parents'
responsibility to fill in in these areas where the schools fall short.

--
Art

On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 08:06:43 -0500, dgk wrote:

On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 00:53:06 -0600, Bosco wrote:

On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 10:32:27 -0800 (PST), z
wrote:

On Dec 26, 6:32*pm, Lar wrote:

This is how rightwing urban legends are built; piece by piece. Like
the legend that ""experts were equally convinced that the planet faced
a possible mini ice age from a cooling trend."

Here's a story Time Magazine ran in '74 http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...944914,00.html

Lar

If you're quoting Time Magazine as your climate "expert", you've
pretty much shot yourself in the mouth right at the start. Who does
that article quote as "scientists"? Well, Reid A. Bryson and Donald
Oilman, both of whom are now widely quoted AGAINST the concept of
global warming, and Kenneth Hare, who is quoted as saying that if the
drought continues people will go hungry, with no reference to cooling.
In fact, what Hare said re cooling was: "The slow cooling trend in
parts of the northern hemisphere during the last few decades is
similar to others of natural origin in the past, and thus whether it
will continue or not is unknown".

So, your "experts" who were so wrong and can't be believed, consist of
Time magazine, quoting two experts who now have built on their
previous erroneous stance by being widely quoted as saying there is no
global warming. Thanks, that's another point against those two what-
climate-change spokescritters.

See, it's this kind of dumbass logical inability to think straight,
for even the simplest arguments about who said what, demonstrated by
the what-climate-change brain trust again and again, in every single
post, which makes it impossible to take anything you guys say
seriously.

then don't
and
go home
or
go back to your circle jerk


Good rebuttal. That will win some debating points.

that's your problem ... winning debating points ... which pretty much
means you lost before you started.

You think it's a "debate" with this guy. It's not. He couldn't care
less about differring views he's only interested in spreading the
gosple according to Algore.

But hay, Thanks for playing.

On Dec 27, 1:48*pm, "Ryan P."
wrote:
z wrote:
On Dec 26, 6:32 pm, Lar wrote:

This is how rightwing urban legends are built; piece by piece. Like
the legend that ""experts were equally convinced that the planet faced
a possible mini ice age from a cooling trend."
Here's a story Time Magazine ran in '74http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html

Lar

If you're quoting Time Magazine as your climate "expert", you've
pretty much shot yourself in the mouth right at the start. Who does
that article quote as "scientists"? Well, Reid A. Bryson and Donald
Oilman, both of whom are now widely quoted AGAINST the concept of
global warming, and Kenneth Hare, who is quoted as saying that if the

.
.
* You are making any argument with you impossible. *I could just as
easily say that anybody you cite is FOR the concept of (man-made) global
warming, and therefore can't be trusted.

Hmm. Have to make this simple.

Your argument seems to be something like this:
1) "experts" in the 70s argued that global cooling is coming
2) they were wrong
3) "experts" now argue global warming is coming
4) so you don't put any faith in it.

Whereas, my argument is
3a) the few "experts" in the 70s who argued that global cooling are
coming, are the ones that are now arguing that global warming is NOT
coming; so you logically ought to not believe them, and believe the
folks who did not say global cooling was coming.

On Dec 28, 8:27*pm, Bosco wrote:

You think it's a "debate" with this guy. *It's not. *He couldn't care
less about differring views he's only interested in spreading the
gosple according to Algore.

What is it with you guys and Al Gore? Do you now believe he claims to
have invented global warming, like you believe he claims to have
invented the Internet?

You know, he's a Christian. You probably better drop that religion, if
you haven't already. And, he's heterosexual. You don't want to be
caught with the same sexual orientation as Al Gore. And he wears
clothes. You don't want people to think you're copying Al Gore in that
regard.

On Dec 28, 2:03*am, Bosco wrote:
On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 09:46:05 -0800 (PST), z
wrote:





On Dec 19, 9:47*am, "Ryan P."
wrote:

* Isn't it funny that all these melting glaciers are revealing ancient
forests? *How can it be possible that only a few hundred years ago
Greenland was a bountiful colony, and within 100 years became too cold
to support pre-industrial civilization? *How was the planet ever warm
enough before humans built their terrible, nasty, electricity-needing
civilizations? *Clearly those ancient forests, tropical plant fossils in
the Antarctic, and sea creature fossils found on the tops of mountains
were put there by George W. Bush and other Republicans JUST so that they
can deny global warming!

Well, you got a fine point there. In fact, for the vast majority of
the earth's history, it was much warmer, like ten degrees fahrenheit,
and had 5 times as much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as it does
now. but, all those ancient forests you mention came along, and pulled
so much CO2 out of the atmosphere that it couldn't decay back as fast
as they converted it to carbohydrates, so vast quantities got buried
during the carboniferous era. Hey, maybe that's why it's called the
carboniferous era? And after a hundred million years, the CO2 in the
air was where it is now (or where it was a hundred years ago,
actually) and so was the temp. So, if we dig all that buried carbon
back up and put it back in the air over the next century, there's no
way it can affect the climate, right?

* Who determines what the "perfect" global climate is? *

Oh that's easy. Whatever climate happens as a random byproduct of big
companies doing stuff to maximize profit without having to deal with
the end/waste products, is perfect. Otherwise, you're a socialist and
want to destroy the US.

you have the readers digest condensed version ? *I fell asleep right
after "Well "-

Hey, don't struggle to stay up and share your fine opinions on this
topic that bores you on my account. Really.