On Jul 25, 11:44*pm, netvegetable wrote:

Pretty amazing scam, given that it's got about 82% of scientists and
pretty much every reputable scientific organisation on the planet to pay
along with it.

And yes, it IS a pretty amazing scam! I guess you are talking about
the 82% of the scientists who have contacts or get paid by government
or big corporate money who don't want to lose their jobs... And just
which scientific organizations do you consider "reputable"? Let's
take a poll. Just how many of those organizations have actually
surveyed their membership for opinions on AGW and How many have just
stated the opinions of the leadership at the top as if it were the
opinion of all the members? Um. 0% to 100% perhaps?

Spin, spin and more spin.

On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 23:27:15 -0700, Benj wrote:

On Jul 25, 11:44Â*pm, netvegetable wrote:

Pretty amazing scam, given that it's got about 82% of scientists and
pretty much every reputable scientific organisation on the planet to
pay along with it.

And yes, it IS a pretty amazing scam!

Excellent! A conspiracy theorist who's out the closet (unlike most
climate change deniers).

I guess you are talking about the
82% of the scientists who have contacts or get paid by government or big
corporate money who don't want to lose their jobs...

I'm sure some of them might well have contacts in government. So what?

And just which
scientific organizations do you consider "reputable"?

Can you name a single reputable scientific organisation that disputes the
theory of anthropogenic climate change? If you can I will edit the wiki
page for you.

http://tinyurl.com/y67qrl

Let's take a
poll. Just how many of those organizations have actually surveyed their
membership for opinions on AGW and How many have just stated the
opinions of the leadership at the top as if it were the opinion of all
the members? Um. 0% to 100% perhaps?

Yeah. So what?

--
"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are
conservatives."- John Stuart Mill

http://regruntled.wordpress.com/

On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 23:22:57 -0700, Benj wrote:

On Jul 25, 11:41Â*pm, netvegetable wrote:

Now you've shifted your ground to conceding that it's real, but that
it's some kind of natural phenomenon that you can't explain. And also,
that it's mysteriously disappeared (which you also can't explain).

Obviously we are all in luck that you CAN explain it all.

Sure. Modern global warming is not a natural phenomenon at all, but the
result of a build up in the atmosphere of man made greenhouse gases,
which has enhanced the greenhouse effect.

This is according to the science, as well as the overwhelming majority of
scientists.


It's simple:
There is not enough money being taken out of everyone's electric bill to
properly stop AGW. Simple. Plausible. and lies.


--
"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are
conservatives."- John Stuart Mill

http://regruntled.wordpress.com/

Climate change "science" has never predicted anything correctly.

Its not "science" until it has been tested.


"netvegetable" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 23:27:15 -0700, Benj wrote:

On Jul 25, 11:44 pm, netvegetable wrote:

Pretty amazing scam, given that it's got about 82% of scientists and
pretty much every reputable scientific organisation on the planet to
pay along with it.

And yes, it IS a pretty amazing scam!

Excellent! A conspiracy theorist who's out the closet (unlike most
climate change deniers).

I guess you are talking about the
82% of the scientists who have contacts or get paid by government or big
corporate money who don't want to lose their jobs...

I'm sure some of them might well have contacts in government. So what?

And just which
scientific organizations do you consider "reputable"?

Can you name a single reputable scientific organisation that disputes the
theory of anthropogenic climate change? If you can I will edit the wiki
page for you.

http://tinyurl.com/y67qrl

Let's take a
poll. Just how many of those organizations have actually surveyed their
membership for opinions on AGW and How many have just stated the
opinions of the leadership at the top as if it were the opinion of all
the members? Um. 0% to 100% perhaps?

Yeah. So what?

--
"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are
conservatives."- John Stuart Mill

http://regruntled.wordpress.com/

On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 20:54:36 +1000, Peter Webb wrote:

Climate change "science" has never predicted anything correctly.

Its not "science" until it has been tested.

How about the prediction that as CO2 in atmosphere increases, global
temperatures will rise? That seems to have worked out correctly.

http://tinyurl.com/cq9pz8
http://tinyurl.com/nobrwy


--
"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are
conservatives."- John Stuart Mill

http://regruntled.wordpress.com/

"netvegetable" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 20:54:36 +1000, Peter Webb wrote:

Climate change "science" has never predicted anything correctly.

Its not "science" until it has been tested.

How about the prediction that as CO2 in atmosphere increases, global
temperatures will rise? That seems to have worked out correctly.

http://tinyurl.com/cq9pz8
http://tinyurl.com/nobrwy



Unfortunately, it appears the opposite - as temperatures rise, then do CO2
levels do as well.

And this is not a "prediction" of climate science, the changes in earths
atmosphere and climate (and for that matter sea level height) were known
long before the "science" was developed.

Contrary to the Gore's predictions, the sky is not falling in. Please
refrain from panic. Please leave your ETS at the door.

On Jul 24, 2:37*am, addinall wrote:
On Jul 24, 11:47*am, netvegetable wrote:





On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 19:30:10 -0700, addinall wrote:
So what drives the SOI?

--
"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are
conservatives."- John Stuart Mill

http://regruntled.wordpress.com/-Hidequoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Good question. *I'd love to have the money to research the thing. *I
have a curious
'feeling' that it has a lot to do with the convection cycles of magma
(which we know
little about)and the heat exchange from magma to the ocean.

It has **** all to do with CO2 at any rate.

So why the almost perfect correlation between CO2 levels and global
temperature?

http://tinyurl.com/nobrwy

Cherry picking date ranges will do the trick.And everyone is aware
that if this planet gets a little warmer, the sea outgasses some
percentage of CO2. *Shrug. *I have been telling people that this is
(global warming) pure kiddology for two decades. *Perhaps the world is
catching up with me again.

I remember some years ago when I made a rather BOLD statement in here
that went along the lines of 'SADDHAM HUSSEIN HAS NO WEAPONS OF MASS
DESTRUCTION'. *I was taken to task over that because the 'concensus'
amongst the 'analysts' in t' whole wide wurld sed there was. *I read
the volumes of paper published by the UN after Gulf I and couldn't
figure out why 99.999999% of the analysts in the world hadn't figured
out something ****ing glaringly obvious.

Same deal here. *It is getting COLDER again. *That worries me. *I want
to see the planet back up to its comfortable 17C average. *This is
waaaaaaayyyyyy to close to a major ice age event. *And since we don't
have any nukes, it might ge awful nippy in the mornings hey?

If one was to be bothered enough to visit a library, and loiter around
551.x, one may notice that this planet fluctuates between 12C and 22C
at regular intervals. *Pushing a million, trillion, squillion dollars
at the weather is not going to change that one eensy-weeny bit.
Canute demonstrated this to the people of Briton.

Mark Addinall- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

When glaciers stop disappearing and the arctic ices over again to what
it was 20 years ago I'll start believing it is cooling.

Harry K

On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 23:42:26 +1000, Peter Webb wrote:

"netvegetable" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 20:54:36 +1000, Peter Webb wrote:

Climate change "science" has never predicted anything correctly.

Its not "science" until it has been tested.

How about the prediction that as CO2 in atmosphere increases, global
temperatures will rise? That seems to have worked out correctly.

http://tinyurl.com/cq9pz8
http://tinyurl.com/nobrwy



Unfortunately, it appears the opposite - as temperatures rise, then do
CO2 levels do as well.


And who told you that?



--
"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are
conservatives."- John Stuart Mill

http://regruntled.wordpress.com/

On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 07:29:31 -0700, harry k wrote:

When glaciers stop disappearing and the arctic ices over again to what
it was 20 years ago I'll start believing it is cooling.

I'd be open minded if they simply provided some evidence. But selectively
drawing lines from 1998 to 2008, for instance, doesn't really shine a
light on anything except their own bias. Nor does narrowing down the
sample from 2005 to 2008.

--
"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are
conservatives."- John Stuart Mill

http://regruntled.wordpress.com/