On 2/4/2010 9:35 AM, TUKA wrote:
On 2010-02-04, Rob wrote:

wrote in message
...
On 2010-01-31, Rob wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Jan 30, 6:50 pm, wrote:
On 2010-01-30, Rolland wrote:

Eric Gisin wrote

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/b...chive/2010/01/...

January 30, 2010, 07:00:00 | NP Editor

A little (a very little) global warming humour:

And you're just a goof.

Where's your evidence that it's a lie, where are your peer reviewed
documents?

Hey Sparky, you forgot one thing. The burden of proof lies with
you. You are a proponent of Catastrophic Anthropomorphic Global Warming.

In order to prove that, you need to prove:

1. There is warming.
2. It is primarily caused by man.
3. That the warming caused by man will be catastrophic.

Good luck. It ain't been done yet.

--
Alas for those who never sing, but die with all their music in them.
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr.

I believe that, yes, since about 1850 we've warmed almost 1 degree C.


Good start, this is consistent with scientific findings.

I believe that the warming is natural. (After all we came out of the
Little Ice Age somewhere around 1850)


This is not consistent with scientific findings.

Oh yeah? Then tell us how. No one has.

Red herring noted.

Red herring? What would that be? Calling you out on your unqualified
dismissal?


Suppose I tell you that the moon is made of cheese, and that the
Apollo landing did not happen. Suppose you then claim that that is not
consistent with the bulk of evidence to the contrary.

As I would.

Then what would
you do if I would ask you to tell how ?

And I would be able to point to videos, testimony from witnesses,
ballistic data, telescope observations, radio reception, etc.
All easily-confirmed and not-easily-refutable evidence.

and that noone has ?

Now you point to what your evidence is, bud. You can't do it.

Here is global paleoclimate data covering the past 2000 years. Notice
the sharp recent increase in temperature. How do you explain it?

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/...7/fig6-10b.png

"Unum" wrote in message
...
On 2/4/2010 9:35 AM, TUKA wrote:
On 2010-02-04, Rob wrote:

wrote in message
...
On 2010-01-31, Rob wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Jan 30, 6:50 pm, wrote:
On 2010-01-30, Rolland wrote:

Eric Gisin wrote

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/b...chive/2010/01/...

January 30, 2010, 07:00:00 | NP Editor

A little (a very little) global warming humour:

And you're just a goof.

Where's your evidence that it's a lie, where are your peer reviewed
documents?

Hey Sparky, you forgot one thing. The burden of proof lies with
you. You are a proponent of Catastrophic Anthropomorphic Global
Warming.

In order to prove that, you need to prove:

1. There is warming.
2. It is primarily caused by man.
3. That the warming caused by man will be catastrophic.

Good luck. It ain't been done yet.

--
Alas for those who never sing, but die with all their music in them.
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr.

I believe that, yes, since about 1850 we've warmed almost 1 degree C.


Good start, this is consistent with scientific findings.

I believe that the warming is natural. (After all we came out of
the
Little Ice Age somewhere around 1850)


This is not consistent with scientific findings.

Oh yeah? Then tell us how. No one has.

Red herring noted.

Red herring? What would that be? Calling you out on your unqualified
dismissal?


Suppose I tell you that the moon is made of cheese, and that the
Apollo landing did not happen. Suppose you then claim that that is not
consistent with the bulk of evidence to the contrary.

As I would.

Then what would
you do if I would ask you to tell how ?

And I would be able to point to videos, testimony from witnesses,
ballistic data, telescope observations, radio reception, etc.
All easily-confirmed and not-easily-refutable evidence.

and that noone has ?

Now you point to what your evidence is, bud. You can't do it.

Here is global paleoclimate data covering the past 2000 years. Notice
the sharp recent increase in temperature. How do you explain it?

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/...7/fig6-10b.png

All kinds of errors and manipulations in the data used and sometimes fudged
For example, many of the data collection points are surrounded by urban
environements which distort the actual temperatures.

You'll notice also that there were 2 major temperature increases during that
time as well as a mini ice age
That tells us that the variations in temeprature of the planet are far
larger than the decimal value which has sent the AGW crowd running in
circles crying "The sky is falling !" like good little Chickent Littles.

On 2/5/2010 4:18 PM, SaPeIsMa wrote:

"Unum" wrote in message
...
On 2/4/2010 9:35 AM, TUKA wrote:
On 2010-02-04, Rob wrote:

wrote in message
...
On 2010-01-31, Rob wrote:

wrote in message
...

On Jan 30, 6:50 pm, wrote:
On 2010-01-30, Rolland wrote:

Eric Gisin wrote

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/b...chive/2010/01/...


January 30, 2010, 07:00:00 | NP Editor

A little (a very little) global warming humour:

And you're just a goof.

Where's your evidence that it's a lie, where are your peer reviewed
documents?

Hey Sparky, you forgot one thing. The burden of proof lies with
you. You are a proponent of Catastrophic Anthropomorphic Global
Warming.

In order to prove that, you need to prove:

1. There is warming.
2. It is primarily caused by man.
3. That the warming caused by man will be catastrophic.

Good luck. It ain't been done yet.

--
Alas for those who never sing, but die with all their music in them.
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr.

I believe that, yes, since about 1850 we've warmed almost 1
degree C.


Good start, this is consistent with scientific findings.

I believe that the warming is natural. (After all we came out of the
Little Ice Age somewhere around 1850)


This is not consistent with scientific findings.

Oh yeah? Then tell us how. No one has.

Red herring noted.

Red herring? What would that be? Calling you out on your unqualified
dismissal?


Suppose I tell you that the moon is made of cheese, and that the
Apollo landing did not happen. Suppose you then claim that that is not
consistent with the bulk of evidence to the contrary.

As I would.

Then what would
you do if I would ask you to tell how ?

And I would be able to point to videos, testimony from witnesses,
ballistic data, telescope observations, radio reception, etc.
All easily-confirmed and not-easily-refutable evidence.

and that noone has ?

Now you point to what your evidence is, bud. You can't do it.

Here is global paleoclimate data covering the past 2000 years. Notice
the sharp recent increase in temperature. How do you explain it?

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/...7/fig6-10b.png

All kinds of errors and manipulations in the data used and sometimes fudged
For example, many of the data collection points are surrounded by urban
environements which distort the actual temperatures.

Sorry but you don't know WTF you are talking about. Paleoclimate data is
drawn from sediment and ice cores, tree growth rings, and isotope ratios
in fossils. All of which are collected throughout the globe.
http://serc.carleton.edu/microbelife...eoclimate.html

You'll notice also that there were 2 major temperature increases during
that time as well as a mini ice age
That tells us that the variations in temeprature of the planet are far
larger than the decimal value which has sent the AGW crowd running in
circles crying "The sky is falling !" like good little Chickent Littles.

If you actually looked at the chart you will see that recent temperatures
are in fact higher than any in the past 2000 years and there is no evidence
of a "mini ice age". Also please learn to spell.

On Feb 5, 8:12*pm, Unum wrote:
On 2/5/2010 4:18 PM, SaPeIsMa wrote:





"Unum" wrote in message
...
On 2/4/2010 9:35 AM, TUKA wrote:
On 2010-02-04, Rob wrote:

wrote in message
...
On 2010-01-31, Rob wrote:

wrote in message
...

On Jan 30, 6:50 pm, wrote:
On 2010-01-30, Rolland wrote:

Eric Gisin wrote

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/b...chive/2010/01/...

January 30, 2010, 07:00:00 | NP Editor

A little (a very little) global warming humour:

And you're just a goof.

Where's your evidence that it's a lie, where are your peer reviewed
documents?

Hey Sparky, you forgot one thing. The burden of proof lies with
you. You are a proponent of Catastrophic Anthropomorphic Global
Warming.

In order to prove that, you need to prove:

1. There is warming.
2. It is primarily caused by man.
3. That the warming caused by man will be catastrophic.

Good luck. It ain't been done yet.

--
Alas for those who never sing, but die with all their music in them.
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr.

I believe that, yes, since about 1850 we've warmed almost 1
degree C.

Good start, this is consistent with scientific findings.

I believe that the warming is natural. (After all we came out of the
Little Ice Age somewhere around 1850)

This is not consistent with scientific findings.

Oh yeah? Then tell us how. No one has.

Red herring noted.

Red herring? What would that be? Calling you out on your unqualified
dismissal?

Suppose I tell you that the moon is made of cheese, and that the
Apollo landing did not happen. Suppose you then claim that that is not
consistent with the bulk of evidence to the contrary.

As I would.

Then what would
you do if I would ask you to tell how ?

And I would be able to point to videos, testimony from witnesses,
ballistic data, telescope observations, radio reception, etc.
All easily-confirmed and not-easily-refutable evidence.

and that noone has ?

Now you point to what your evidence is, bud. You can't do it.

Here is global paleoclimate data covering the past 2000 years. Notice
the sharp recent increase in temperature. How do you explain it?

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/...7/fig6-10b.png

All kinds of errors and manipulations in the data used and sometimes fudged
For example, many of the data collection points are surrounded by urban
environements which distort the actual temperatures.

Sorry but you don't know WTF you are talking about. Paleoclimate data is
drawn from sediment and ice cores, tree growth rings, and isotope ratios
in fossils. All of which are collected throughout the globe.http://serc.carleton.edu/microbelife...eoclimate.html

You'll notice also that there were 2 major temperature increases during
that time as well as a mini ice age
That tells us that the variations in temeprature of the planet are far
larger than the decimal value which has sent the AGW crowd running in
circles crying "The sky is falling !" like good little Chickent Littles..

If you actually looked at the chart you will see that recent temperatures
are in fact higher than any in the past 2000 years and there is no evidence
of a "mini ice age". Also please learn to spell.


What gets me is how when the generally warm UK gets nailed by massive
snow storms or when areas in the USA get hit by absurdly unusual cold
weather, idiots who say it defies the consequences of global warming
start to spout.

Don't they understand what makes Manchester UK warmer than Edmonton
Alberta, when they share the same latitude?

It's the ocean currents, the Gulf Stream. And what also implicates
cold weather is how the Jet Stream, something that didn't exist
according to meteorologists during WW2, has moved more south this year
and impacted arctic airflow.

These are caused periodically by El Ninio and also are likely to be
the result of climate change in the future.

Here's what happened to Europe a long time ago, and it was a simple
ice dam breaking in Canada and leaking into Hudson Bay.

A three-century-long cold spell that chilled Europe 8200 years ago was
probably caused by the bursting of a Canadian ice dam, which released
a colossal flood of glacial mel****er into the Atlantic Ocean.

Two new papers, using different computer models, show that the massive
freshwater flood accounts for evidence of the sudden climate change,
which cooled Greenland by an average of 7.4°C, and Europe by about
1°C. It was the most abrupt and widespread cool spell in the last
10,000 years.

Evidence for the cooling has been found in ice core samples, preserved
pollen, evidence of shifting lake levels and ocean sediment. Some
researchers think the cooling might have been caused by normal
fluctuations in solar radiation.

In 1999 Don Barber, a geologist now at Bryn Mawr College in
Pennsylvania, US, and colleagues suggested that the cooling was caused
by flooding by glacial mel****er. Geological evidence shows that by
about 11,000 years ago, retreating glaciers had left two huge
freshwater lakes sprawling over Central Canada and parts of the
northern US, bigger than all of today's Great Lakes combined.

Eventually, the lakes broke through an ice sheet that served as a dam
and drained into Hudson Bay, and from there into the North Atlantic
(Nature, vol 400, p 344).

Barber's idea was that the influx of fresh water changed salinity
levels in the North Atlantic, and disrupted the thermohaline
circulation - the currents that bring warm southern water north,
helping to warm Europe and the Arctic regions.

"Unum" wrote in message
...
On 2/5/2010 4:18 PM, SaPeIsMa wrote:

"Unum" wrote in message
...
On 2/4/2010 9:35 AM, TUKA wrote:
On 2010-02-04, Rob wrote:

wrote in message
...
On 2010-01-31, Rob wrote:

wrote in message
...

On Jan 30, 6:50 pm, wrote:
On 2010-01-30, Rolland wrote:

Eric Gisin wrote

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/b...chive/2010/01/...


January 30, 2010, 07:00:00 | NP Editor

A little (a very little) global warming humour:

And you're just a goof.

Where's your evidence that it's a lie, where are your peer
reviewed
documents?

Hey Sparky, you forgot one thing. The burden of proof lies with
you. You are a proponent of Catastrophic Anthropomorphic Global
Warming.

In order to prove that, you need to prove:

1. There is warming.
2. It is primarily caused by man.
3. That the warming caused by man will be catastrophic.

Good luck. It ain't been done yet.

--
Alas for those who never sing, but die with all their music in
them.
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr.

I believe that, yes, since about 1850 we've warmed almost 1
degree C.


Good start, this is consistent with scientific findings.

I believe that the warming is natural. (After all we came out of
the
Little Ice Age somewhere around 1850)


This is not consistent with scientific findings.

Oh yeah? Then tell us how. No one has.

Red herring noted.

Red herring? What would that be? Calling you out on your unqualified
dismissal?


Suppose I tell you that the moon is made of cheese, and that the
Apollo landing did not happen. Suppose you then claim that that is not
consistent with the bulk of evidence to the contrary.

As I would.

Then what would
you do if I would ask you to tell how ?

And I would be able to point to videos, testimony from witnesses,
ballistic data, telescope observations, radio reception, etc.
All easily-confirmed and not-easily-refutable evidence.

and that noone has ?

Now you point to what your evidence is, bud. You can't do it.

Here is global paleoclimate data covering the past 2000 years. Notice
the sharp recent increase in temperature. How do you explain it?

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/...7/fig6-10b.png

All kinds of errors and manipulations in the data used and sometimes
fudged
For example, many of the data collection points are surrounded by urban
environements which distort the actual temperatures.

Sorry but you don't know WTF you are talking about. Paleoclimate data is
drawn from sediment and ice cores, tree growth rings, and isotope ratios
in fossils. All of which are collected throughout the globe.
http://serc.carleton.edu/microbelife...eoclimate.html


Like the SELECTIVE cherry-picking of the Siberian tree-ring data ?
How about the ice-core data that shows that CO2 FOLLOWS and not LEADS
planetary warming ?
Any idiot trying to use such data to justify AGW is just that
an idiot



You'll notice also that there were 2 major temperature increases during
that time as well as a mini ice age
That tells us that the variations in temeprature of the planet are far
larger than the decimal value which has sent the AGW crowd running in
circles crying "The sky is falling !" like good little Chickent Littles.

If you actually looked at the chart you will see that recent temperatures
are in fact higher than any in the past 2000 years and there is no
evidence
of a "mini ice age".

Not my problem that you have a problem with the location of your head
getting in the way of understanding the data
Go tell that to the people in Europe who were skating on the Thames and the
Seine
Not to mention the mini warm age, where the Brits where growing vineyars all
around London





Also please learn to spell.

I know how to spell
But I have something similar to dyslexia, where the brain interprets what I
see differently
Ergo spelling errors that I don't always pick up
So **** you, asshat.