Climate movement drops mask admits communist agenda:
http://pjmedia.com/zombie/2014/09/23/climate-movement-drops-mask-admits-communist-agenda/
.
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 1:03 PM, Sam wrote:
> LA LA Times is even questioning the overlords:
> http://www.latimes.com/science/la-sci-pacific-warming-2
LA LA Times is even questioning the overlords:
http://www.latimes.com/science/la-sci-pacific-warming-20140923-story.html
Pure heresy
.
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 12:57 PM, Sam wrote:
> They've been influencing politics all along. Now they're influencing
> the scientific process. We all know if a
They've been influencing politics all along. Now they're influencing
the scientific process. We all know if a CEO says the earth is warming
then it is despite what the science says.
.
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 11:49 AM, Vivec wrote:
>
> It's about time that tech companies start influencing the di
s-funding-from-alec-conservative-group-for-climate-change-stance
>
~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion
Archive:
http://www.houseoffus
http://www.theverge.com/2014/9/22/6831217/google-pulls-funding-from-alec-conservative-group-for-climate-change-stance
...
~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp
*snerk*
-Original Message-
From: Zaphod Beeblebrox [mailto:zaph0d.b33bl3b...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2014 1:24 PM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: Climate Change Settled
Or maybe we should poll the ones that wear diapers and attempt to kidnap
people. I bet they'd have
Or maybe we should poll the ones that wear diapers and attempt to kidnap
people. I bet they'd have some good theories too.
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 1:03 PM, Maureen wrote:
>
> If we're going get our science from the Apollo Astronauts, I'm going
> with the ones who saw UFOs.
> http://www.syti.n
He's Hansen's replacement at NASA. He does climate modeling and all
the models are always wrong. On a good note, Hansen is now making big
bucks ans so will he.
.
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 5:18 PM, Vivec wrote:
>
> Good education on the climate change models.
>
> Sam, you
Hail Eris!
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 4:03 PM, C. Hatton Humphrey wrote:
>
> Were we closer I'd be looking for golden apples to throw. Might do it
> anyway... just for the ceremony of it.
~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology n
This one:
http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/screenhunter_13-jan-05-07-45.jpg
.
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 5:03 PM, GMoney wrote:
>
> Cooling throughout much of the country? I thought we were talking about
> GLOBAL warming, not American warming. Google "global temperatures by year",
Good education on the climate change models.
Sam, you should take a look at this.
http://www.ted.com/talks/gavin_schmidt_the_emergent_patterns_of_climate_change
á§
~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
http
Cooling throughout much of the country? I thought we were talking about
GLOBAL warming, not American warming. Google "global temperatures by year",
and then pick your chart.
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 3:54 PM, Sam wrote:
>
> Who's your scientist? Is it Hanson? Remember the temperature has been
>
Who's your scientist? Is it Hanson? Remember the temperature has been
flat for the last 17-1/2 years:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/
Whither U.S. Climate?
By James Hansen, Reto Ruedy, Jay Glascoe and Makiko Sato â August 1999
Empirical evidence does not lend much support
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 3:41 PM, Sam wrote:
>
> Everything about the planet heating up has been faked.
>
EVERYTHING?
Really?
you believe that?
You truly believe that not only are humans not responsible for global
warming, but that world actually is not warming at all
~~
peer review scandal. NASA
recently changed the temperature numbers showing 1930's was hotter
than the 90's. Everything about the planet heating up has been faked.
.
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 4:21 PM, Vivec wrote:
>
> Sam, there is scientific consensus on climate change.
> To say that
What well respected climatologist do you believe?
.
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 4:11 PM, GMoney wrote:
>
> I've said i don't understand ALL of the science. if i did, i'd be a well
> respected climatologist. Are you claiming to fully understand all of the
> science behind global warming? Answer
Sam, there is scientific consensus on climate change.
To say that it is a fraud is being ridiculous.
á§
~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 3:05 PM, Sam wrote:
> > This is awesome. The next time an AGW-denying creationist vomits out
> their
> > brain droppings, I'll lay this one on them: "God created humans and
> caused
> > them to contribute to global warming. We need to teach the controversy!"
>
> Wait... a
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 3:49 PM, GMoney wrote:
>
> Most of these right wingers who deny AGW, also support the questioning of
> evolution and the teaching of myths in the science classroom.
Not even close. You're talking about maybe 1% of conservatives
questioning evolution vs all the folks that
Were we closer I'd be looking for golden apples to throw. Might do it
anyway... just for the ceremony of it.
Until Later!
C. Hatton Humphrey
http://www.eastcoastconservative.com
Every cloud does have a silver lining. Sometimes you just have to do some
smelting to find it.
~~
atic position when it
> comes
> > to the truth or falsity of human caused global climate change.
> >
> > However, all of our noodely-appendages politicians seem to have their
> minds
> > made up. Lame brained limp dicks the lot of them.
> >
> >
>
>
~~~
I would guess AGW followers are also FSM followers.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's the case.
.
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 3:39 PM, GMoney wrote:
>
> My noodley-appendaged deity has no official dogmatic position when it comes
> to the truth or falsity of human caused gl
My noodley-appendaged deity has no official dogmatic position when it comes
to the truth or falsity of human caused global climate change.
However, all of our noodely-appendages politicians seem to have their minds
made up. Lame brained limp dicks the lot of them.
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 2:29
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 3:22 PM, GMoney wrote:
> And of course, hidden with your post, is the #1 problem with climate change
> debate...the fact that it's considered a POLITICAL debate.
>
In most cases you can strike the modifier but you do bring up a great
point. In my min
ave to find it again but only rarely has it not
>> been met.
>>
>
> And of course, hidden with your post, is the #1 problem with climate change
> debate...the fact that it's considered a POLITICAL debate.
>
>
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 2:13 PM, C. Hatton Humphrey
wrote:
> Actually I posted the formula for political debate threads on this list
> some years back... I'd have to find it again but only rarely has it not
> been met.
>
And of course, hidden with your post, is the #1 pro
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 3:08 PM, GMoney wrote:
> That's awesome..The Descent Into Madness.
Actually I posted the formula for political debate threads on this list
some years back... I'd have to find it again but only rarely has it not
been met.
Until Later!
C. Hatton Humphrey
http://www.e
That's awesome..The Descent Into Madness.
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 1:47 PM, C. Hatton Humphrey
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Cameron Childress
> wrote:
>
> > "Because uh uh uh uh OBAMA!"
> >
> > https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/5574176000/h40C1115A/
> >
> > We have reache
Try using common sense
Not sure what part your son is laughing at but I'm thinking you should
go with the other guy
.
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 2:51 PM, Maureen wrote:
>
> My son, who is an astrophysicist is laughing at this. Who should I
> believe? Some guy I never heard of, or the one who ha
My son, who is an astrophysicist is laughing at this. Who should I
believe? Some guy I never heard of, or the one who has an education I
funded?
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 2:19 PM, Sam wrote:
>
> "In the media, it was being called a theory. Obviously, they didn't
> know what it means to be a theo
You found one part you disagree with and use it to dismiss all of it?
.
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Vivec wrote:
>
> He is relating the amount of CO2 in his spacecraft , to the effect of CO2
> on the planet?
>
> That is a completely invalid analogy, there is no comparison.
>
And the pigeon dances...
.
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Cameron Childress wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 2:31 PM, Sam wrote:
>
>> They do. I was wondering if you were the guy asking Obama if he wanted
>> to "hit this"
>
>
> Good point and thank you for giving me a way to clearly identif
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Cameron Childress
wrote:
> "Because uh uh uh uh OBAMA!"
>
> https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/5574176000/h40C1115A/
>
> We have reached the end.
>
https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/5982690816/hE88F1BB4/
No, *now* we have reached the end :)
Until Later!
C. Hatton
He is relating the amount of CO2 in his spacecraft , to the effect of CO2
on the planet?
That is a completely invalid analogy, there is no comparison.
á§
~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
http://www.amazon.com/Adob
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 2:31 PM, Sam wrote:
> They do. I was wondering if you were the guy asking Obama if he wanted
> to "hit this"
Good point and thank you for giving me a way to clearly identify the end of
any thread you participate in.
"Because uh uh uh uh OBAMA!"
https://i.chzbgr
They do. I was wondering if you were the guy asking Obama if he wanted
to "hit this"
.
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 2:27 PM, Cameron Childress wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 2:24 PM, Sam wrote:
>
>> Are you in Colorado?
>
>
> The whole state of Colorado doesn't take you seriously anymore eithe
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 2:24 PM, Sam wrote:
> Are you in Colorado?
The whole state of Colorado doesn't take you seriously anymore either huh?
...
~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldf
Are you in Colorado?
.
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 2:21 PM, Cameron Childress wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 2:15 PM, Sam wrote:
>
>> You mean like this?
>
>
> Be careful not to alter your age on your Facebook profile, it might mean
> that you never existed and are merely the result a worldwide
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 2:15 PM, Sam wrote:
> You mean like this?
Be careful not to alter your age on your Facebook profile, it might mean
that you never existed and are merely the result a worldwide conspiracy
where and overwhelming majority of people claimed that you actually existed.
Neverm
"In the media, it was being called a theory. Obviously, they didn't
know what it means to be a theory," says Cunningham who has a B.S. in
Physics (with honors) from University of California at Los Angeles and
an M.S., with distinction; Institute of Geophysics And Planetary
Sciences, with completed
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/06/23/noaanasa-dramatically-altered-us-temperatures-after-the-year-2000/
You mean like this?
.
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 2:01 PM, Cameron Childress wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 1:45 PM, Sam wrote:
>>
>> Sounds like you can't defend your position, so
If we're going get our science from the Apollo Astronauts, I'm going
with the ones who saw UFOs.
http://www.syti.net/UFOSightings.html
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 1:42 PM, Sam wrote:
>
> http://cnsnews.com/mrctv-blog/craig-bannister/apollo-astronaut-climate-alarmism-biggest-fraud-field-science
>
> A
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 1:45 PM, Sam wrote:
>
> Sounds like you can't defend your position, so you just make jokes
> about how stupid the people in the know are.
I am not in the business of defending scientific consensus, but keep
digging up the kooky blog posts. Keep that faith. You are doing w
Sounds like you can't defend your position, so you just make jokes
about how stupid the people in the know are.
Whatever works for you.
.
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 1:39 PM, Zaphod Beeblebrox
wrote:
>
> just need O'Reilly to chime in with, "Shit heats up and cools down...you
> can't explain that"
http://cnsnews.com/mrctv-blog/craig-bannister/apollo-astronaut-climate-alarmism-biggest-fraud-field-science
Apollo Astronaut: Climate Alarmism Is the âBiggest Fraud in the Field
of Scienceâ
"To me, it's almost laughable, it's the biggest fraud in the field of
science,certainly in my lifetime
just need O'Reilly to chime in with, "Shit heats up and cools down...you
can't explain that"
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 12:27 PM, Cameron Childress
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 1:25 PM, Sam wrote:
>
> > I'm guessing he meant to say they have the same variation in
> > temperature.
> >
>
> Gu
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 1:25 PM, Sam wrote:
> I'm guessing he meant to say they have the same variation in
> temperature.
>
Guessing certainly seems like the right way to go if you are anti-science.
Keep the faith Sam.
-Cameron
...
~~~
Such a hater. Why is that?
.
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 1:05 PM, Zaphod Beeblebrox
wrote:
>
> doesn't this sum up the conservative position on global warming...base your
> stance on misinformation.
>
>
~|
Order the Adobe Coldfus
I'm guessing he meant to say they have the same variation in
temperature. But use what ever flub you can to defend your point since
facts won't work.
.
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 12:58 PM, Cameron Childress wrote:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCF_Yy3oFNo
>
>
>
>
>
~~~
I'm shocked.
The temperature on Mars is the same as the earth, so therefore human
activity is not affecting earth climate.
And said with a straight face.
á§
~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
http://www.amazon.com/
doesn't this sum up the conservative position on global warming...base your
stance on misinformation.
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 11:58 AM, Cameron Childress
wrote:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCF_Yy3oFNo
>
>
>
>
>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCF_Yy3oFNo
~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion
Archive:
http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-co
duction?
>
> "The free, on-line course "Climate Change in Four Dimensions" is being
> offered again by one of the top science universities on the planet,
> UCSD, starting July 1. Both denialists and science fans should
> consider learning whatâs known and how we kn
The invitation and course description sounds like it might educational
for all sides. Why discount it out of hand without even reading the
introduction?
"The free, on-line course "Climate Change in Four Dimensions" is being
offered again by one of the top science universitie
Please sign up for this so you can explain the so-called theory of
"climate change". A lot of folks swear by it but nobody has been able
to explain it yet.
.
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>
> https://plus.google.com/u/0/116665417191671711571/p
https://plus.google.com/u/0/116665417191671711571/posts/EHVc1tHTuqD
~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion
Archive:
http://www.houseoffusion
r it's mans
>> doing. When someone presents actual science to back up that theory I
>> will have a look.
>>
>> .
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 3:40 AM, Maureen wrote:
>>>
>>> Just out of curiosity, Sam, on what do you base your rejection of the
>&
the so-called proof that it exists or it's mans
> doing. When someone presents actual science to back up that theory I
> will have a look.
>
> .
>
> On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 3:40 AM, Maureen wrote:
>>
>> Just out of curiosity, Sam, on what do you base
It was appropriate. I'll retire it now.
.
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 4:08 PM, Scott Stroz wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 3:28 PM, Sam wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Arguing with liberals is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter
>> how good I am at chess, the pigeon is just going to knock over all th
It is a good saying though. Just overused.
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 1:08 PM, Scott Stroz wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 3:28 PM, Sam wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Arguing with liberals is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter
> > how good I am at chess, the pigeon is just going to knock over a
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 3:28 PM, Sam wrote:
>
>
> Arguing with liberals is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter
> how good I am at chess, the pigeon is just going to knock over all the
> pieces, crap on the board, and strut around the table looking
> victorious.
>
>
You have used that sayi
Aw, you simpletons are so cute when you're flustered.
Arguing with liberals is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter
how good I am at chess, the pigeon is just going to knock over all the
pieces, crap on the board, and strut around the table looking
victorious.
.
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 3:
e to try? What is the worst thing that can happen? The air we all
> breathe has less pollutants in it? the water we drink is naturally cleaner?
> I am OK with those consequences..even if shows that man had nothing to do
> with the climate change.
As I said, we're ahead of schedule wit
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 3:11 PM, Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote:
> I canât believe you havenât put him in a killfile yet.
I don't really do killfiles. I like to know what the loony tunes are up to.
~|
Order the Adobe Coldfu
I cant believe you havent put him in a killfile yet.
On Jun 6, 2014, at 2:09 PM, Cameron Childress wrote:
>
>
>
> I believe you! You don't have to prove you are a troll to me any longer. I
> totally buy it. Sold!
>
> ...
>
>
>
~
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 3:03 PM, Sam wrote:
> Based on your idiotic claims, you must believe AGW is proven without a
> doubt. But rather than providing scientific evidence to back up your
> theory, you try ridicule. You should really be ashamed.
I believe you! You don't have to prove you are a t
Based on your idiotic claims, you must believe AGW is proven without a
doubt. But rather than providing scientific evidence to back up your
theory, you try ridicule. You should really be ashamed.
.
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 1:48 PM, Cameron Childress wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 1:25 PM, Scot
re you test a theory and if the results don't match the
theory, you take what you learned and adapt the theory (or reject it
outright).
>
> > I would expect our knowledge of the
> > consequences of the rising average temperature to change over time as we
> > get better
eading from DNC TPM.
> I would expect our knowledge of the
> consequences of the rising average temperature to change over time as we
> get better technology to model the events, and, when we actually get data
> when stuff happens. Just because a t
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 1:25 PM, Scott Stroz wrote:
> What the hell are you talking about? Seriously. What are you talking about?
I am amazed these conversations are still going on. Don't get me wrong I
like to see the list with a little life in it... but "anonymous person Sam"
is and always has
on you. I would expect our knowledge of the
consequences of the rising average temperature to change over time as we
get better technology to model the events, and, when we actually get data
when stuff happens. Just because a theory of the consequences of climate
change did not pan out, does not mean
So you've realized you're argument is flawed and need a graceful way to bow out?
How much do you think it went up since the 80's or 200 years ago?
More than a bit?
.
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 1:00 PM, Scott Stroz wrote:
>
> 'Went up a bit in the 80's'?
>
> When you say stuff like this, it makes me
I dunno, does common core apply to physical science classes too? :)
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 11:56 AM, Judah McAuley wrote:
>
> Sam lacks an understanding of thermodynamics. His daughter should be
> getting to physical sciences in school soon, though, so maybe he'll have a
> better understanding
Too cute.
When scientist pondered if the oceans oscillation patterns added to
warmer temperatures the left laughed historically. Now some scientists
made a model that failed and they're using the failure as an
explanation. Please.
.
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 12:56 PM, Judah McAuley wrote:
>
> Sam
The most likely explanation for the lack of significant warming at the
Earthâs surface in the past decade or so is that natural climate
cyclesâa series of La Niña events and a negative phase of the
lesser-known Pacific Decadal Oscillationâcaused shifts in ocean
circulation patterns that mov
30 years ago they were worried about global cooling, now it's warming
or disruptions. You need to pick a range and stick with it.
.
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 12:41 PM, Scott Stroz wrote:
>
> From the article Jonah posted:
>
> 'The long-term trendâchange over the course of a century or moreâis
'Went up a bit in the 80's'?
When you say stuff like this, it makes me think you really have no
clue...about anything other than what you conservative overlords have told
you.
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 12:45 PM, Sam wrote:
>
> Temperature went up a little in the 80's and then leveled out. Is the
Sam lacks an understanding of thermodynamics. His daughter should be
getting to physical sciences in school soon, though, so maybe he'll have a
better understanding once she gets there and they go over 4 laws of
thermodynamics and Boyle's Law.
Cheers,
Judah
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 9:44 AM, Scott
Temperature went up a little in the 80's and then leveled out. Is the
fact that the temperature didn't go down that makes your point valid?
Because it hasn't risen in half of those years.
.
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 12:33 PM, Scott Stroz wrote:
>
> It has been more than a 'few warm year' and my ar
'Wild guess'? A bit hyperbolic, no?
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 12:20 PM, Sam wrote:
>
> That's not science, it's a wild guess. Must be hiding in the oceans. Too
> funny.
>
> .
>
> --
Scott Stroz
---
You can make things happen, you can watch things happen or you can wonder
what the f*&k
>From the article Jonah posted:
'The long-term trendâchange over the course of a century or moreâis what
defines âglobal warming,â not the change from year to year or even decade
to decade.'
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 12:16 PM, Sam wrote:
>
> But isn't that your argument? A few warm years
I understand that , I was simply trying to show that when you are dealing
with a cycle - and it does appear to be cyclical - that takes tens of
thousands of years, 10 years is really nothing.
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 12:13 PM, Judah McAuley wrote:
>
> Scott, we used to think that it took thous
It has been more than a 'few warm year' and my argument has never been that
man 'caused' it, rather that man has contributed to it.
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 12:16 PM, Sam wrote:
>
> But isn't that your argument? A few warm years proves man has caused
> the planet to heat up?
>
> .
>
> On Fri, Ju
e answers. I tend to think a lot
>> has already been done. I tend not to share the alarmist view of even some
>> scientists who seem to think their conclusions are destined to bear out 100
>> years from now.
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 10:49 AM, Sam wrote
But isn't that your argument? A few warm years proves man has caused
the planet to heat up?
.
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Scott Stroz wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 11:49 AM, Sam wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> The trending warmer stopped over a decade ago.
>>
>>
> In a system (climate) that takes t
Scott, we used to think that it took thousands of years for climate to
change. And that is what happens, as I understand it, in "normal" times. In
very extreme times (asteroid impact, world-wide series of volcanic
eruptions, etc) we've seen that things can change surprisingly quickly,
over the cou
w.
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 10:49 AM, Sam wrote:
>
> >
> > Climate cooling then climate warming then climate change and now it's
> > called climate disruption.
> >
> > The trending warmer stopped over a decade ago.
> >
> > But you are
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 11:49 AM, Sam wrote:
>
>
> The trending warmer stopped over a decade ago.
>
>
In a system (climate) that takes thousands (if not hundred of thousands) or
years to change, 10 years is the equivalent to the blink of an eye, and,
when mapped out relative to the life of the pl
That was awesome
.
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 11:21 AM, Rick Faircloth
wrote:
>
> So, after reading only "half" of "one or two" of the "hundreds upon
> hundreds of studies,
> who's [sic] findings support this conclusion" [ that global warming,
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 10:37 AM, Cameron Childress wrote:
>
>> BTW, I do not reject the possibility that humans can contribute to
>> "climate disruption".
>>
>
> So you accept that there is a bullet in the gun.
Hyperbole?
>
>> What I reject is the so-called proof that it exists or it's mans
>>
wrote:
>
> Climate cooling then climate warming then climate change and now it's
> called climate disruption.
>
> The trending warmer stopped over a decade ago.
>
> But you are correct, what evidence do we have that man is causing the
> climate to change?
> More importantly, w
Climate cooling then climate warming then climate change and now it's
called climate disruption.
The trending warmer stopped over a decade ago.
But you are correct, what evidence do we have that man is causing the
climate to change?
More importantly, what should we do if it is true.
The U
I don't need to. Out of the 3,896 used to form the consensus only 64 endorse AGW
The real questions is what proof did you see that convinced you AGW is
real. Specifically, like CO2 is a greenhouse gas, I'm not even sure
what other theories there are.
.
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 10:33 AM, GMoney w
ere always is in science.
The consensus seems pretty solid, though.
I will also say that I have direct scientific insight into the effects of
climate change. The lab I worked at published on of the first and most
respected papers showing physiological adaptation in the wild of a species
to climate c
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 10:21 AM, Rick Faircloth
wrote:
>
> So, after reading only "half" of "one or two" of the "hundreds upon
> hundreds of studies,
> who's [sic] findings support this conclusion" [ that global warming, now
> called 'cli
So, after reading only "half" of "one or two" of the "hundreds upon
hundreds of studies,
who's [sic] findings support this conclusion" [ that global warming, now
called 'climate change']
is real and is caused by human activity, and only "some
I have not, Rick. Never said I did.
I have read the abstract on a half dozen or so of them, and read maybe half
of one or two of themi was able to grasp some of it, others went a
little over my head.
So to form my own opinion on this, i try to read articles by scientists
that attempt to expl
So, GMoney...
To paraphrase you, when did you "read the hundreds upon hundreds of studies
who's findings support this conclusion, and deem every one of the to be
scientific and credible" ?
Rick
On 6/6/2014 10:33 AM, GMoney wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 8:30 AM, Sam wrote:
>
>> Science, logi
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 10:39 AM, GMoney wrote:
> Not sure i buy that alarmist timeline. Perhaps his great grand kids.
>
Or their kids But yes...
-Cameron
...
~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
http://www.am
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 9:37 AM, Cameron Childress
wrote:
>
> That is because the proof of where the bullet was located comes at the end
> of russian roulette. I get it though - you prefer to wait and see what
> happens. This is probably because the gun is pointed at your kids and not
> you.
>
>
1 - 100 of 572 matches
Mail list logo
