This below normal temps point only to one thing:Global Warming

We may already be entering a mini-ice age and not know it.

perhaps the computer models missed a variable or 100?

The NWS is LUCKY to get a 3-day forecast correct for a geographical
area the size of a small city. Why am I so worried about people
claiming a 3C rise in "global" temps from some of the same computer
modeling?

Computer models are great when you have fewer than a dozen variables,
with half being very static. Make the model try to predict something
with tens-of-thousands of variables, none having staticity, and your
error rate for a 100 year period goes to nearly 100%.

Political polls even have a margin of error and those only have 2
variables, maybe 3 if you consider that people will LIE to the
pollster.

Bob Brown pisze:
This below normal temps point only to one thing:Global Warming

We may already be entering a mini-ice age and not know it.

perhaps the computer models missed a variable or 100?

The NWS is LUCKY to get a 3-day forecast correct for a geographical
area the size of a small city. Why am I so worried about people
claiming a 3C rise in "global" temps from some of the same computer
modeling?

Computer models are great when you have fewer than a dozen variables,
with half being very static. Make the model try to predict something
with tens-of-thousands of variables, none having staticity, and your
error rate for a 100 year period goes to nearly 100%.

Political polls even have a margin of error and those only have 2
variables, maybe 3 if you consider that people will LIE to the
pollster.



In Central Europe April 2006 - March 2007 period was warmest on record.

1) July 2006 - warmest on record (6C above normal)
2) August 2006 - cool, in some regions wettest on record
3) September 2006 - almost warmest on record
4) October 2006 - very warm
3) November 2006 - second warmest
4) Autumn 2006 - warmest on record (3C above normal)
5) December 2006 - warmest on record (4-5C above normal)
6) July - December 2006 - warmest on record
7) January 2007 - warmest on record (5-7C above normal)
8) February 2007 - very warm in western Poland, cool in east.
9) Winter 2006/7 - warmest on record
10) March 2007 - very warm. In eastern Poland warmest on record.
11) April 2007 - very warm.

On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 18:35:12 +0200, PiotrD wrote:

Bob Brown pisze:
This below normal temps point only to one thing:Global Warming

We may already be entering a mini-ice age and not know it.

perhaps the computer models missed a variable or 100?

The NWS is LUCKY to get a 3-day forecast correct for a geographical
area the size of a small city. Why am I so worried about people
claiming a 3C rise in "global" temps from some of the same computer
modeling?

Computer models are great when you have fewer than a dozen variables,
with half being very static. Make the model try to predict something
with tens-of-thousands of variables, none having staticity, and your
error rate for a 100 year period goes to nearly 100%.

Political polls even have a margin of error and those only have 2
variables, maybe 3 if you consider that people will LIE to the
pollster.



In Central Europe April 2006 - March 2007 period was warmest on record.

1) July 2006 - warmest on record (6C above normal)
2) August 2006 - cool, in some regions wettest on record
3) September 2006 - almost warmest on record
4) October 2006 - very warm
3) November 2006 - second warmest
4) Autumn 2006 - warmest on record (3C above normal)
5) December 2006 - warmest on record (4-5C above normal)
6) July - December 2006 - warmest on record
7) January 2007 - warmest on record (5-7C above normal)
8) February 2007 - very warm in western Poland, cool in east.
9) Winter 2006/7 - warmest on record
10) March 2007 - very warm. In eastern Poland warmest on record.
11) April 2007 - very warm.

I could likely find a "short period" of time anywhere on the globe and
declare it the lowest/highest on record. In a 5 billion year record it
means nothing.

Do you remember the first full word you spoke as a child? Now tell me
how that ONE WORD at that ONE MOMENT compares to the remainder of your
life?

How about a FART? Your first ever fart, how does it stack up against
say a man living to be 80 yrs old? A fart lasts under 2.5 seconds
compared to 80 years of life.

1 year of temp records compared to 5 billion years?

In article , Bob Brown . wrote:
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 18:35:12 +0200, PiotrD wrote:

Bob Brown pisze:
This below normal temps point only to one thing:Global Warming

We may already be entering a mini-ice age and not know it.

perhaps the computer models missed a variable or 100?

The NWS is LUCKY to get a 3-day forecast correct for a geographical
area the size of a small city. Why am I so worried about people
claiming a 3C rise in "global" temps from some of the same computer
modeling?

Computer models are great when you have fewer than a dozen variables,
with half being very static. Make the model try to predict something
with tens-of-thousands of variables, none having staticity, and your
error rate for a 100 year period goes to nearly 100%.

Political polls even have a margin of error and those only have 2
variables, maybe 3 if you consider that people will LIE to the
pollster.



In Central Europe April 2006 - March 2007 period was warmest on record.

1) July 2006 - warmest on record (6C above normal)
2) August 2006 - cool, in some regions wettest on record
3) September 2006 - almost warmest on record
4) October 2006 - very warm
3) November 2006 - second warmest
4) Autumn 2006 - warmest on record (3C above normal)
5) December 2006 - warmest on record (4-5C above normal)
6) July - December 2006 - warmest on record
7) January 2007 - warmest on record (5-7C above normal)
8) February 2007 - very warm in western Poland, cool in east.
9) Winter 2006/7 - warmest on record
10) March 2007 - very warm. In eastern Poland warmest on record.
11) April 2007 - very warm.

I could likely find a "short period" of time anywhere on the globe and
declare it the lowest/highest on record. In a 5 billion year record it
means nothing.

Do you remember the first full word you spoke as a child? Now tell me
how that ONE WORD at that ONE MOMENT compares to the remainder of your
life?

How about a FART? Your first ever fart, how does it stack up against
say a man living to be 80 yrs old? A fart lasts under 2.5 seconds
compared to 80 years of life.

1 year of temp records compared to 5 billion years?

In the long run, we are all dead.

Then again, you also don't believe that the earth is 5 billion years
old or anywhere close, so drop the pretense.

In any case, it was you who started talking of current climate
as meaning anything -- your comment about entering a mini ice age.
From the perspective of billions of years (which, actually, you
don't hold anyhow) your entire life span is trivially short -- you
are but a fart, in your example. Everything that happens on and to
the earth during that time is equally trivial -- to you.

It happens that I think that humans are important, unlike you,
so time spans of a few years are also important. 80 years of
outright ice age, or baking, are nothing to the planet, but quite
important to people.

As we look on a human time scale, climate is changing and has
changed significantly.

--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences

On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 15:32:53 -0000, (Robert Grumbine)
wrote:

In article , Bob Brown . wrote:
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 18:35:12 +0200, PiotrD wrote:

Bob Brown pisze:
This below normal temps point only to one thing:Global Warming

We may already be entering a mini-ice age and not know it.

perhaps the computer models missed a variable or 100?

The NWS is LUCKY to get a 3-day forecast correct for a geographical
area the size of a small city. Why am I so worried about people
claiming a 3C rise in "global" temps from some of the same computer
modeling?

Computer models are great when you have fewer than a dozen variables,
with half being very static. Make the model try to predict something
with tens-of-thousands of variables, none having staticity, and your
error rate for a 100 year period goes to nearly 100%.

Political polls even have a margin of error and those only have 2
variables, maybe 3 if you consider that people will LIE to the
pollster.



In Central Europe April 2006 - March 2007 period was warmest on record.

1) July 2006 - warmest on record (6C above normal)
2) August 2006 - cool, in some regions wettest on record
3) September 2006 - almost warmest on record
4) October 2006 - very warm
3) November 2006 - second warmest
4) Autumn 2006 - warmest on record (3C above normal)
5) December 2006 - warmest on record (4-5C above normal)
6) July - December 2006 - warmest on record
7) January 2007 - warmest on record (5-7C above normal)
8) February 2007 - very warm in western Poland, cool in east.
9) Winter 2006/7 - warmest on record
10) March 2007 - very warm. In eastern Poland warmest on record.
11) April 2007 - very warm.

I could likely find a "short period" of time anywhere on the globe and
declare it the lowest/highest on record. In a 5 billion year record it
means nothing.

Do you remember the first full word you spoke as a child? Now tell me
how that ONE WORD at that ONE MOMENT compares to the remainder of your
life?

How about a FART? Your first ever fart, how does it stack up against
say a man living to be 80 yrs old? A fart lasts under 2.5 seconds
compared to 80 years of life.

1 year of temp records compared to 5 billion years?

In the long run, we are all dead.

Then again, you also don't believe that the earth is 5 billion years
old or anywhere close, so drop the pretense.

Pretense? I've already explained that I do indeed believe the Earth to
be 4 to 5 Billion years old due to what I have read in science
articles. I believe those articles to be true.

The mere fact that I believe in God doesn't distort my view of
science.
Since you are not willing to believe me and seem to be willing to
dismiss my questions outright, I don't see how you and I could have a
question and answer discussion?

I have learned some things in this newsgroup, and I appreciate the
time people have took to explain things to me.

Believe me their is not some game I am trying to play.

My belief in God shouldn't exclude me from being taken seriously
especially when I am trying to ask questions that are meaningful with
regard to the topic.

thanks, and I hope you change your mind about me.

In article , Bob Brown . wrote:
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 15:32:53 -0000, (Robert Grumbine)
wrote:

In article , Bob Brown . wrote:
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 18:35:12 +0200, PiotrD wrote:

Bob Brown pisze:
This below normal temps point only to one thing:Global Warming

We may already be entering a mini-ice age and not know it.

perhaps the computer models missed a variable or 100?

The NWS is LUCKY to get a 3-day forecast correct for a geographical
area the size of a small city. Why am I so worried about people
claiming a 3C rise in "global" temps from some of the same computer
modeling?

Computer models are great when you have fewer than a dozen variables,
with half being very static. Make the model try to predict something
with tens-of-thousands of variables, none having staticity, and your
error rate for a 100 year period goes to nearly 100%.

Political polls even have a margin of error and those only have 2
variables, maybe 3 if you consider that people will LIE to the
pollster.



In Central Europe April 2006 - March 2007 period was warmest on record.

1) July 2006 - warmest on record (6C above normal)
2) August 2006 - cool, in some regions wettest on record
3) September 2006 - almost warmest on record
4) October 2006 - very warm
3) November 2006 - second warmest
4) Autumn 2006 - warmest on record (3C above normal)
5) December 2006 - warmest on record (4-5C above normal)
6) July - December 2006 - warmest on record
7) January 2007 - warmest on record (5-7C above normal)
8) February 2007 - very warm in western Poland, cool in east.
9) Winter 2006/7 - warmest on record
10) March 2007 - very warm. In eastern Poland warmest on record.
11) April 2007 - very warm.

I could likely find a "short period" of time anywhere on the globe and
declare it the lowest/highest on record. In a 5 billion year record it
means nothing.

Do you remember the first full word you spoke as a child? Now tell me
how that ONE WORD at that ONE MOMENT compares to the remainder of your
life?

How about a FART? Your first ever fart, how does it stack up against
say a man living to be 80 yrs old? A fart lasts under 2.5 seconds
compared to 80 years of life.

1 year of temp records compared to 5 billion years?

In the long run, we are all dead.

Then again, you also don't believe that the earth is 5 billion years
old or anywhere close, so drop the pretense.

Pretense? I've already explained that I do indeed believe the Earth to
be 4 to 5 Billion years old due to what I have read in science
articles. I believe those articles to be true.

Well, no. Your claim then was that you believed the earth to
be 1 billion years old, with uncertainty of 100 million years,
versus what the science had (has) to say of 4.55 billion years,
and 10 million years, respectively. You never answered why
your figures were different than science's.

The mere fact that I believe in God doesn't distort my view of
science.

Your theology is yours and of no interest for the science.

I notice that you entirely ignored, and deleted without response,
the matter of what time scales are of concern for talking about
climate.


Since you are not willing to believe me and seem to be willing to
dismiss my questions outright, I don't see how you and I could have a
question and answer discussion?

I have learned some things in this newsgroup, and I appreciate the
time people have took to explain things to me.

Believe me their is not some game I am trying to play.

My belief in God shouldn't exclude me from being taken seriously
especially when I am trying to ask questions that are meaningful with
regard to the topic.

thanks, and I hope you change your mind about me.


If you'd answered the part you instead deleted unmarked, it might
have given a reason to think you're not playing a game or otherwise
uninterested in the science. That, instead, you lie about your
earlier answer about the age of the earth, try to wrap yourself in
a mantle of being persecuted for your religion, and delete the
part of the post on the scientific part that _you_ raised ... well,
not favorable.

If you want to be taken as interested in the science, you have
to respond to the science. It wouldn't hurt, either, if you didn't
make fart jokes about the people.

--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences

On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 11:30:25 -0000, (Robert Grumbine)
wrote:

In article , Bob Brown . wrote:
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 15:32:53 -0000, (Robert Grumbine)
wrote:

In article , Bob Brown . wrote:
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 18:35:12 +0200, PiotrD wrote:

Bob Brown pisze:
This below normal temps point only to one thing:Global Warming

We may already be entering a mini-ice age and not know it.

perhaps the computer models missed a variable or 100?

The NWS is LUCKY to get a 3-day forecast correct for a geographical
area the size of a small city. Why am I so worried about people
claiming a 3C rise in "global" temps from some of the same computer
modeling?

Computer models are great when you have fewer than a dozen variables,
with half being very static. Make the model try to predict something
with tens-of-thousands of variables, none having staticity, and your
error rate for a 100 year period goes to nearly 100%.

Political polls even have a margin of error and those only have 2
variables, maybe 3 if you consider that people will LIE to the
pollster.



In Central Europe April 2006 - March 2007 period was warmest on record.

1) July 2006 - warmest on record (6C above normal)
2) August 2006 - cool, in some regions wettest on record
3) September 2006 - almost warmest on record
4) October 2006 - very warm
3) November 2006 - second warmest
4) Autumn 2006 - warmest on record (3C above normal)
5) December 2006 - warmest on record (4-5C above normal)
6) July - December 2006 - warmest on record
7) January 2007 - warmest on record (5-7C above normal)
8) February 2007 - very warm in western Poland, cool in east.
9) Winter 2006/7 - warmest on record
10) March 2007 - very warm. In eastern Poland warmest on record.
11) April 2007 - very warm.

I could likely find a "short period" of time anywhere on the globe and
declare it the lowest/highest on record. In a 5 billion year record it
means nothing.

Do you remember the first full word you spoke as a child? Now tell me
how that ONE WORD at that ONE MOMENT compares to the remainder of your
life?

How about a FART? Your first ever fart, how does it stack up against
say a man living to be 80 yrs old? A fart lasts under 2.5 seconds
compared to 80 years of life.

1 year of temp records compared to 5 billion years?

In the long run, we are all dead.

Then again, you also don't believe that the earth is 5 billion years
old or anywhere close, so drop the pretense.

Pretense? I've already explained that I do indeed believe the Earth to
be 4 to 5 Billion years old due to what I have read in science
articles. I believe those articles to be true.

Well, no. Your claim then was that you believed the earth to
be 1 billion years old, with uncertainty of 100 million years,
versus what the science had (has) to say of 4.55 billion years,
and 10 million years, respectively. You never answered why
your figures were different than science's.

The mere fact that I believe in God doesn't distort my view of
science.

Your theology is yours and of no interest for the science.

I notice that you entirely ignored, and deleted without response,
the matter of what time scales are of concern for talking about
climate.


Since you are not willing to believe me and seem to be willing to
dismiss my questions outright, I don't see how you and I could have a
question and answer discussion?

I have learned some things in this newsgroup, and I appreciate the
time people have took to explain things to me.

Believe me their is not some game I am trying to play.

My belief in God shouldn't exclude me from being taken seriously
especially when I am trying to ask questions that are meaningful with
regard to the topic.

thanks, and I hope you change your mind about me.


If you'd answered the part you instead deleted unmarked, it might
have given a reason to think you're not playing a game or otherwise
uninterested in the science. That, instead, you lie about your
earlier answer about the age of the earth, try to wrap yourself in
a mantle of being persecuted for your religion, and delete the
part of the post on the scientific part that _you_ raised ... well,
not favorable.

If you want to be taken as interested in the science, you have
to respond to the science. It wouldn't hurt, either, if you didn't
make fart jokes about the people.

I deleted the rest of the post and only addressed the "pretense" part
because it seemed that you have a built-in bias toward me.

I said 1 billion yrs once I'm sure but this was until someone sent me
to the proper places to understand it was somewhere "near" 5 billion
years.

I understand that carl sagan toward the end of his life expressed a
belief in a "higher power" but didn't drop either science or religion
at the expense of each other.

If I cannot be accepted here as being a believer in both science and
God then what am I suppose to think? Do I go along with most people
who believe in God and dismiss everything science has proven?

If you want to discuss something without making the "pretense"
comments I am all for it.

I will agree to not give you lessons or correct you on phrases in the
Bible if you can look past my not knowing the exact age of a planet.

As for the 6,000 yr old Earth belief. I believe the Bible "covered"
6,000 years but did not exclude all the "other" years Science has
proved to all of us.

I think YOU are intelligent on these subjects or I wouldn't bother
asking you questions like I have in the past.

I'm willing to look past the pretensed "pretense" now and continue on
with a discussion on Global Warming if you'd like.

Any time you wish to stop playing religious martyr and talk
science, just go ahead and do it.

In the mean time, you're making religious judgements (presuming
that I'm an atheist) based on the fact that I'm trying to
talk about science in a science group. At best, you're hypocritical.

The age of the earth is not a religious question (at least,
not according to most relgious practices). I asked about it
at a time when you were denying that there had been ice ages.
Your initial response was that scientists think 5-6 billion years,
so I asked what _you_ thought -- which was 1 billion years give
or take 100 million. That gives the lie to your statement below
about believing the science, once you discovered what it was.
You never gave any reason for the 1 billion as opposed to the
4.55 that science takes, though I did ask.

In the thread at hand, you respond to data on climate, in
a thread on climate, with fart jokes.

If you want to talk science, do so. If not, good bye.


In article , Bob Brown . wrote:
On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 11:30:25 -0000, (Robert Grumbine)
wrote:

In article , Bob Brown . wrote:
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 15:32:53 -0000, (Robert Grumbine)
wrote:

In article , Bob Brown
. wrote:
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 18:35:12 +0200, PiotrD wrote:

[minitrim]

In Central Europe April 2006 - March 2007 period was warmest on record.

1) July 2006 - warmest on record (6C above normal)
2) August 2006 - cool, in some regions wettest on record
3) September 2006 - almost warmest on record
4) October 2006 - very warm
3) November 2006 - second warmest
4) Autumn 2006 - warmest on record (3C above normal)
5) December 2006 - warmest on record (4-5C above normal)
6) July - December 2006 - warmest on record
7) January 2007 - warmest on record (5-7C above normal)
8) February 2007 - very warm in western Poland, cool in east.
9) Winter 2006/7 - warmest on record
10) March 2007 - very warm. In eastern Poland warmest on record.
11) April 2007 - very warm.

I could likely find a "short period" of time anywhere on the globe and
declare it the lowest/highest on record. In a 5 billion year record it
means nothing.

Do you remember the first full word you spoke as a child? Now tell me
how that ONE WORD at that ONE MOMENT compares to the remainder of your
life?

How about a FART? Your first ever fart, how does it stack up against
say a man living to be 80 yrs old? A fart lasts under 2.5 seconds
compared to 80 years of life.

1 year of temp records compared to 5 billion years?

In the long run, we are all dead.

Then again, you also don't believe that the earth is 5 billion years
old or anywhere close, so drop the pretense.

Pretense? I've already explained that I do indeed believe the Earth to
be 4 to 5 Billion years old due to what I have read in science
articles. I believe those articles to be true.

Well, no. Your claim then was that you believed the earth to
be 1 billion years old, with uncertainty of 100 million years,
versus what the science had (has) to say of 4.55 billion years,
and 10 million years, respectively. You never answered why
your figures were different than science's.

The mere fact that I believe in God doesn't distort my view of
science.

Your theology is yours and of no interest for the science.

I notice that you entirely ignored, and deleted without response,
the matter of what time scales are of concern for talking about
climate.


Since you are not willing to believe me and seem to be willing to
dismiss my questions outright, I don't see how you and I could have a
question and answer discussion?

I have learned some things in this newsgroup, and I appreciate the
time people have took to explain things to me.

Believe me their is not some game I am trying to play.

My belief in God shouldn't exclude me from being taken seriously
especially when I am trying to ask questions that are meaningful with
regard to the topic.

thanks, and I hope you change your mind about me.


If you'd answered the part you instead deleted unmarked, it might
have given a reason to think you're not playing a game or otherwise
uninterested in the science. That, instead, you lie about your
earlier answer about the age of the earth, try to wrap yourself in
a mantle of being persecuted for your religion, and delete the
part of the post on the scientific part that _you_ raised ... well,
not favorable.

If you want to be taken as interested in the science, you have
to respond to the science. It wouldn't hurt, either, if you didn't
make fart jokes about the people.

I deleted the rest of the post and only addressed the "pretense" part
because it seemed that you have a built-in bias toward me.

I said 1 billion yrs once I'm sure but this was until someone sent me
to the proper places to understand it was somewhere "near" 5 billion
years.

I understand that carl sagan toward the end of his life expressed a
belief in a "higher power" but didn't drop either science or religion
at the expense of each other.

If I cannot be accepted here as being a believer in both science and
God then what am I suppose to think? Do I go along with most people
who believe in God and dismiss everything science has proven?

If you want to discuss something without making the "pretense"
comments I am all for it.

I will agree to not give you lessons or correct you on phrases in the
Bible if you can look past my not knowing the exact age of a planet.

As for the 6,000 yr old Earth belief. I believe the Bible "covered"
6,000 years but did not exclude all the "other" years Science has
proved to all of us.

I think YOU are intelligent on these subjects or I wouldn't bother
asking you questions like I have in the past.

I'm willing to look past the pretensed "pretense" now and continue on
with a discussion on Global Warming if you'd like.


--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences

Please go look up the word PRETENSE in a dictionary.

You don't see any reason why that would cause me to pause and wonder
if anything that followed was sincere?

I tried, I tried as hard as I could to stick to science. What you did
was keep bringing up something I said in the past and just keep on and
on and on reminding me of it. You wouldn't stop. You dangle a nugget
from a previous post that I said and sprinkle it into each following
reply.

Did you think I wasn't going to notice?

It's like you wrote a POEM, every other line was sprinkled with
sarcasm.

The answer to your question is very verbose
But religion is just a hoax
I'll answer you soon
But then you're a bible loon

Like that.

Dude, I know that you probably think you are the smartest person in
the world. I KNOW you think you're superior to me at least.

You keep saying crap about "I'll talk science but drop the religion."

WTF does that even mean? I didn't MENTION religion in my question.

If you want to have some give and take on SCIENCE the by golly I am
right here, waiting and willing to drop the religion that I don't
recall requiring you to talk about.

Let's get on with this, If I can admit I may have been a little wrong
in my approach then I would think you could be man enough to forget it
and continue on.

I'll know your answer if you reply.

Good day.

On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 13:54:37 -0000, (Robert Grumbine)
wrote:

Any time you wish to stop playing religious martyr and talk
science, just go ahead and do it.

In the mean time, you're making religious judgements (presuming
that I'm an atheist) based on the fact that I'm trying to
talk about science in a science group. At best, you're hypocritical.

The age of the earth is not a religious question (at least,
not according to most relgious practices). I asked about it
at a time when you were denying that there had been ice ages.
Your initial response was that scientists think 5-6 billion years,
so I asked what _you_ thought -- which was 1 billion years give
or take 100 million. That gives the lie to your statement below
about believing the science, once you discovered what it was.
You never gave any reason for the 1 billion as opposed to the
4.55 that science takes, though I did ask.

In the thread at hand, you respond to data on climate, in
a thread on climate, with fart jokes.

If you want to talk science, do so. If not, good bye.


In article , Bob Brown . wrote:
On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 11:30:25 -0000, (Robert Grumbine)
wrote:

In article , Bob Brown . wrote:
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 15:32:53 -0000, (Robert Grumbine)
wrote:

In article , Bob Brown
. wrote:
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 18:35:12 +0200, PiotrD wrote:

[minitrim]

In Central Europe April 2006 - March 2007 period was warmest on record.

1) July 2006 - warmest on record (6C above normal)
2) August 2006 - cool, in some regions wettest on record
3) September 2006 - almost warmest on record
4) October 2006 - very warm
3) November 2006 - second warmest
4) Autumn 2006 - warmest on record (3C above normal)
5) December 2006 - warmest on record (4-5C above normal)
6) July - December 2006 - warmest on record
7) January 2007 - warmest on record (5-7C above normal)
8) February 2007 - very warm in western Poland, cool in east.
9) Winter 2006/7 - warmest on record
10) March 2007 - very warm. In eastern Poland warmest on record.
11) April 2007 - very warm.

I could likely find a "short period" of time anywhere on the globe and
declare it the lowest/highest on record. In a 5 billion year record it
means nothing.

Do you remember the first full word you spoke as a child? Now tell me
how that ONE WORD at that ONE MOMENT compares to the remainder of your
life?

How about a FART? Your first ever fart, how does it stack up against
say a man living to be 80 yrs old? A fart lasts under 2.5 seconds
compared to 80 years of life.

1 year of temp records compared to 5 billion years?

In the long run, we are all dead.

Then again, you also don't believe that the earth is 5 billion years
old or anywhere close, so drop the pretense.

Pretense? I've already explained that I do indeed believe the Earth to
be 4 to 5 Billion years old due to what I have read in science
articles. I believe those articles to be true.

Well, no. Your claim then was that you believed the earth to
be 1 billion years old, with uncertainty of 100 million years,
versus what the science had (has) to say of 4.55 billion years,
and 10 million years, respectively. You never answered why
your figures were different than science's.

The mere fact that I believe in God doesn't distort my view of
science.

Your theology is yours and of no interest for the science.

I notice that you entirely ignored, and deleted without response,
the matter of what time scales are of concern for talking about
climate.


Since you are not willing to believe me and seem to be willing to
dismiss my questions outright, I don't see how you and I could have a
question and answer discussion?

I have learned some things in this newsgroup, and I appreciate the
time people have took to explain things to me.

Believe me their is not some game I am trying to play.

My belief in God shouldn't exclude me from being taken seriously
especially when I am trying to ask questions that are meaningful with
regard to the topic.

thanks, and I hope you change your mind about me.


If you'd answered the part you instead deleted unmarked, it might
have given a reason to think you're not playing a game or otherwise
uninterested in the science. That, instead, you lie about your
earlier answer about the age of the earth, try to wrap yourself in
a mantle of being persecuted for your religion, and delete the
part of the post on the scientific part that _you_ raised ... well,
not favorable.

If you want to be taken as interested in the science, you have
to respond to the science. It wouldn't hurt, either, if you didn't
make fart jokes about the people.

I deleted the rest of the post and only addressed the "pretense" part
because it seemed that you have a built-in bias toward me.

I said 1 billion yrs once I'm sure but this was until someone sent me
to the proper places to understand it was somewhere "near" 5 billion
years.

I understand that carl sagan toward the end of his life expressed a
belief in a "higher power" but didn't drop either science or religion
at the expense of each other.

If I cannot be accepted here as being a believer in both science and
God then what am I suppose to think? Do I go along with most people
who believe in God and dismiss everything science has proven?

If you want to discuss something without making the "pretense"
comments I am all for it.

I will agree to not give you lessons or correct you on phrases in the
Bible if you can look past my not knowing the exact age of a planet.

As for the 6,000 yr old Earth belief. I believe the Bible "covered"
6,000 years but did not exclude all the "other" years Science has
proved to all of us.

I think YOU are intelligent on these subjects or I wouldn't bother
asking you questions like I have in the past.

I'm willing to look past the pretensed "pretense" now and continue on
with a discussion on Global Warming if you'd like.

Bob Brown pisze:


I could likely find a "short period" of time anywhere on the globe and

You could, and you did it...