Re: Global Warming - Is There Anything It Can't Do, or...

In article <od5t04pbosq524ou3rlm8t1cb0ahtk42je@xxxxxxx>,
Mayor of R'lyeh <mayor.of.rlyeh@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 11:03:14 -0400, Mayor of R'lyeh
<mayor.of.rlyeh@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 09:51:41 -0500, "Mr. X" <Mr.X@xxxxxxx> wrote:

Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 09:15:23 -0500, "Mr. X" <Mr.X@xxxxxxx> wrote:

Mayor Of R'lyeh wrote:
On Apr 20, 6:47 pm, John <nos...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 10:54:05 -0400, Mayor of R'lyeh
<mayor.of.rl...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 06:45:01 -0700, "John" <nos...@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
"Mayor of R'lyeh" <mayor.of.rl...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:5cgl049jbmlvevbqubjlnc7h92o3qb1tu3@xxxxxxxxxx
On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 09:11:22 -0600, Steve Carroll
<trollkil...@xxxxxx>
wrote:
In article <tbu404dmhg98gfnh1sooe8oh5cb73oa...@xxxxxxx>,
Mayor of R'lyeh <mayor.of.rl...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 13:34:14 -0700, Snit
<use...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Mayor of R'lyeh" <mayor.of.rl...@xxxxxxxxx> stated in post
26r404levat7if4fvvegj74daqhcbtd...@xxxxxxx on 4/13/08 1:28 PM:
On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 13:27:02 -0700, Snit
<use...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Mayor of R'lyeh" <mayor.of.rl...@xxxxxxxxx> stated in post
19q404p5rh5m4ljthf52f6vq3lh22jk...@xxxxxxx on 4/13/08 1:13
PM:
On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 13:10:14 -0700, Snit
<use...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Mayor of R'lyeh" <mayor.of.rl...@xxxxxxxxx> stated in post
dvo4041scanguctrcsb9imfauece7kt...@xxxxxxx on 4/13/08 12:54
PM:
...'Yet Another Reason Why Intelligent People Seeking
Honest
Reporting
Don't Bother With The New York Times'.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/13/opinion/13kristof.html?ex
=1365739200&
en=
1a
a5
5ea9a217cd7a&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
or
http://tinyurl.com/6l7csm
Cuss and discuss.
-----
The point is that climate change will have consequences
that
will be difficult to foresee but will go far beyond
weather
or economics. There is abundant evidence that economic
stress
and crop failures < as climate scientists anticipate in
poor
countries < can lead to violence and upheavals.
-----
What is the problem with that point?
Well for starters it neglects to point out that glbal
warming
(recently renamed 'climate change') hasn't been happening
for ten
years.
How long do you think man has been influencing the weather /
environment?
Never. We don't have the capacity to do more than limited very
localized effects.
Well, if that is your view of course you will not accept what
the
article
was saying. I, along with most of the experts in the area,
disagree
with
you... but to each their own.
Since the notion of a consensus has been exploded many times Its
clear
that you mean 'experts that you agree with'.
Most of the experts you agree with also claim that its been
warming
for the last ten years and that the 1990's were the hottest
years of
the 20th century too. The reality is that the temperature hasn't
risen
for the last decade
This is what bothers me. Why hasn't the ever increasing amount of
emissions that's been released since the beginning of this
century taken
its toll in the better part of the last decade, weather-wise?
Since 2000
we've actually gotten much worse as far as our environmental
actions
go... but the weather data thus far in this century doesn't
support the
claim of a continued trend of warming.
Clearly you were paid by the oil companies to post that. 8)
No. He just really is that stupid and ignorant of science.
The only part of 'science' that tells us global warming is going on
are some computer models that even their acolytes acknowledge are
grossly incomplete and inaccurate. Real world measurements show that
the planet hasn't warmed at all in ten years and has in fact cooled
off. Actual measurements also show that temperature rises preceed CO2
level rises by hundreds of years instead of the other way 'round like
Global Warming Fundamentalists claim. But don't let actual science
get
in the way of your theology, John. We love you just the way you are.
8)
Quit reading Bull*** science from nutjobs like Lindzen and Singer.
Did you know both of those idiots have actually argued that smoking is
safe? Only a fool trusts their quack science.
Unable to counter my points with actual facts, John resorts to insults
and namecalling.
Seems to me he pointed out you take the word of quacks.

So you think NASA is full of quacks? They're the ones who provided the
data.

I don't see any links to NASA data in this post.

And smoking is safe. Like anything else its all in the size of the
dose.
As if people have complete control over addictive substances.

Tobacco is not addictive.

Tell that to someone who's trying to quit smoking.

Tell it to me who regulalry goes months without lighting up. I might
then smoke three bowels a day for two weeks then put it down again for
three months. Why can I do that if its more addictive than herion as
some anti-smoking hysterics claim?

Hmmmm...

Because not all people are the same biochemically.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
.