Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
![]() |
|
sci.geo.meteorology (Meteorology) (sci.geo.meteorology) For the discussion of meteorology and related topics. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 22:33:44 -0800, Last Post wrote:
On Jan 5, 5:19Â*pm, Roving rabbit wrote: The debat is over for me because two totally independent data source are brought into agreement by a factor 0.4. This was claimed in a GRL paper, and I was able to validate this claim. So I'm convinced that the authors have the answer in the right ball-park. • ROTFLMAO The odds are that you are working with fraudulent data • To get it straight read: Message-ID: bc421438-9c9a-420a-8151- • The AGW alarmist pack presume to be able 
 control a climate on a planet, spun off from the Sun and still in the solar system and in 
 the Sun's control. So I ask them and you 3 questions: 1- Can you make the wind to blow? Surely. You appear even more skilled than I. 2- Can you make the rain to fall? Aye. Just stand downwind from me after a few pints. 3- Can you stop a hurricane? Might just figure out how to add to the spin at a crucial moment, enough to send some rain to the Marquesas or Bonaparte's grave ![]() • If the answer to these are no then get the hell 
 We are currently generating enough power to put anthropogenic sources into the same order of magnitude as the energy we receive from Sol. Whether or not we can do anything about climate change is the only meaningful question. It is here and now and we are a significant part of the equation. My own take on this is that we need to address first and foremost the toxic effects of our industrial society upon the biology of the planet. The planet's biota, of which we are part, has survived temperature and CO2 fluctuations b4 but has no experience with buckyballs or nanobots. Dhu out of town before the lynch mob comes —Â*— | In real science the burden of proof is always | on the proposer, never on the sceptics. So far | neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one | iota of valid data for global warming nor have | they provided data that climate change is being | effected by commerce and industry, and not by | natural phenomena -- Duncan Patton a Campbell is Dhu |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 13:58:44 -0500, T. Keating wrote:
Only one person created that article and he is a rabid environmentalist who rewrote 5300 climate related articles to IPCC specs. Wikipedia hjas been degrad from sloppy to dreadful. and your proof is... NON-EXISTANT... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?...action=history Most recent 500 edits for that page.. Does that look like a Single author made all those changes??? Answer.. NO... And you're complaining about a fairly accurate graph attached to that page... Lenny you are dumber than steaming pile of ****.. Wiki's partisans are widely known for the employment of numerous sock puppies. The more contentious an article's subject the less likely it is to reflect a coherent picture. Dhu -- Duncan Patton a Campbell is Dhu |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Professor Murry Salby argues that observations of CO2 increase are aproduct of temperature increase | sci.geo.meteorology (Meteorology) | |||
Last of the global series in for May: Hadley second warmest May in 160 years. | sci.geo.meteorology (Meteorology) | |||
5th and last of the global temperature series for May: Hadley showsMay was the second warmest (to 1998) in 160 years. | uk.sci.weather (UK Weather) | |||
C02 increase from last 160 years not much! | sci.geo.meteorology (Meteorology) | |||
For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global | sci.geo.meteorology (Meteorology) |