Has there been a measured increase in methane? If not then whatever the
cows are producting is being removed somewhere else in equal measure.
This sort of argument by ridicule is effective until one thinks about it for
a bit, then one realizes that one is being propagandized.
Kind of like pointing out that the CO2 is higher than it has been since
humans have been measuring it and faiing to point out it has been a Whole
Lot higher in the past?
No, I was referring specifically to the method of argument. It bugs me when
people who I basically agree with use cliched and misleading arguments
because when people figure out that they've been mislead they tend to shoot
both the messenger and the message.
ummm... do you know how much carbon dioxide we have been pumping into
the atmosphere on an annual basis? It's in the billions of tons.
Tons of a GAS. Billions.
And yet we still pump less than 1% of what is emitted by all other sources
combined.
"Kevin" wrote:
-------------------------------------
I guess we will just have to wait and see what happens! “Prediction
is very difficult – especially if it is about the future.” - Niels
Bohr
----------------------------------------
When you by them books and they eat the covers............
Lew
And therein lies the problem, where "respected" apparently loses its
meaning:
"And the fact is that, in the end, neither they nor the IPCC suppressed
anything: when the assessment report was published in 2007 it referenced
and discussed both papers."
The "facts" are that the modeling data, which was the basis of the above
statement, appears to have been destroyed/"misplaced", making peer
review, if not impossible, too difficult to pursue.
This is very dubious "scientific method", and invites suspicion and doubt.
Are they that sloppy in their scientific method? Or do they have
something to hide?
Come now, if they can't do a better job than this, "respect" does enter
into the discussion.
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 12:08:17 GMT, the infamous Bob Martin
What is the alarmist's new agenda? Perhaps...
"Well, we ran out of luck and they discovered our cheating. Let's keep
the sham going and attack their masculinity. Yeah, that ought to keep
them busy and let us get on with our devious plans until we can find a
new angle to cheat 'em." We'll see, eh?
OMG, I just thought of something. If male skeptics are butch, and all
you guys are alarmist _believers_, does that make you...?
--
Every day above ground is a Good Day(tm).
-----------
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 18:31:25 -0800, the infamous "LDosser"
Don't be calling me that, especially after you're de-closeted, mister.
--
Indifference to evidence: Climate alarmists have become brilliantly
adept at changing their terms to suit their convenience. So it's
"global warming" when there's a heat wave, but it's "climate change"
when there's a cold snap. The earth has registered no discernable
warming in the past 10 years: Very well then, they say, natural
variability must be the cause. But as for the warming that did occur
in the 1980s and 1990s, that plainly was evidence of man-made warming.
Am I missing something here? --Brett Stephens, WSJ Opinion 12/09/09
On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 20:30:02 -0800, the infamous "LDosser"
I never realized he was gay until someone pointed me at the Wiki for
him after his death. He had some nice nekkid girls on his show and he
faked the macho thing well, I guess.
--
Indifference to evidence: Climate alarmists have become brilliantly
adept at changing their terms to suit their convenience. So it's
"global warming" when there's a heat wave, but it's "climate change"
when there's a cold snap. The earth has registered no discernable
warming in the past 10 years: Very well then, they say, natural
variability must be the cause. But as for the warming that did occur
in the 1980s and 1990s, that plainly was evidence of man-made warming.
Am I missing something here? --Brett Stephens, WSJ Opinion 12/09/09
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2009/12/cop15_questions_about_sex.html
Are you a Moron? I was gainfully Employed in Climate Research for three
years. I have seen the tweaking.
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 07:23:32 -0800 (PST), the infamous Kevin
Respected by whom? Perhaps fewer after that editorial.
Ah, neutrality at last! Hmm, or is it? The first paragraph
"The e-mail archives stolen last month from the Climatic Research Unit
at the University of East Anglia (UEA), UK, have been greeted by the
climate-change-denialist fringe as a propaganda windfall (see page
551)."
as well as their denying that anything substantive came from the
leaks, makes it appear that my hope was dashed. Begone, alarmists!
That editorial sure as shit wasn't peer-reviewed, bubba.
Feh!
--
Every day above ground is a Good Day(tm).
-----------
Oh, and Russia now joins New Zealand and Australia for cherry-picked data
to prove AGW::
<http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020126/climategate -
goes-serial-now-the-russians-confirm-that-uk-climate-scientists-manipulated-
data-to-exaggerate-global-warming/>
--
There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.