Re: Wikipedia Promoting Global Warming Hysteria?

On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 16:02:50 -0700 (PDT), Robert S
<roberts218e@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

>On Jul 15, 11:05 pm, abelard <abela...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 14:55:30 -0700 (PDT), Robert S

>> <roberts2...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> >On Jul 15, 7:51 pm, abelard <abela...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 11:44:38 -0700 (PDT), "leonard7...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"
>>
>> >> <leonard7...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>> >> > Wikipedia Promoting Global Warming Hysteria?
>>
>> >> you're a double idiot my boy.....
>>
>> >> 1)to expect to trust wikipedia....
>> >> 2)as a moonbat in denial over agw.....
>>
>> >>http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/49370/story.htm
>> >> "The US Environmental Protection Agency said on Monday that
greenhouse
>> >> gas emissions endanger human health, a critical finding that has
>> >> languished in bureaucratic limbo since last December.
>>
>> >> In a 149-page do***ent, the agency's scientists said that "warming
of
>> >> the climate system is unequivocal" and that potential health risks
>> >> include more heat waves, floods and droughts, insect outbreaks and
>> >> wildfires, along with crop failure and decline in livestock and
>> >> fisheries productivity."
>>
>> >> still keep it up and eventually you could be unique....
>> >> a bit like the last person on earth to still believe in
phlogiston...
>>
>> >Slight warming is unequivocal. The pro****tion, or lack thereof, caused
>> >by man is very much equivocal.
>>
>> >How's the Sun doing now? We might be in for a new mini ice age.
>>
>> 1)there is no evidence of serious variation in sun input...
>
>Output, and no, we do:

i said input...i meant input....

>Recent:
>
>http://www.dxlc.com/solar/images/solar.gif
>
>Time scale of hundreds of years, for sunspots:

and what is that meant to indicate or what does it indicate to you...

lower scale unclear....

>http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/28/Sunspot_Numbers.png
>
>...correlation of sunspot activity and irradiance:

why do you believe numbers so far back...and why do you care

>http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/tsi_composite.gif

ah, right...a claimed difference of ~2 watts per meter2 with a cycle
     of around 10 years...
at the top of the atmosphere?
without much correlation with the long term upward trend....

why do you imagine these differences aren't smoothed by the planet
     over a ten year period...

>> 2)we may well *have been* on course for a real ice age
>>      prior to agw....although the timing is outside current knowledge
>>
>> as for 'mini ice-age' the consensus is that it is already
>>     approximately understood...probably local and related to the
>>     atlantic
>
>Or related to the variably outputting source of Earth's energy.

i see no evidence...i've seen no evidence....
i've seen such claims...and i've seen rebuttals....

why not try a correlation with the number of domestic pigs kept by
     humanity over centuries....

-- 
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics 
 energy, education, politics, etc 1,552,396 do***ent calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  all that is necessary for       []     walk quietly and carry
  the triumph of evil is that      []           a big stick.
  good people do nothing     []   trust actions not words
                    only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------