Re: Wikipedia Promoting Global Warming Hysteria?

<malcolmkirkpatrick@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:1d8ed277-06b5-46fd-94be-400bffbbd3c4@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Jul 15, 8:56 pm, abelard wrote:
> Cary Kittrell wrote:

> >> > What to choose, what to choose?....
> >> Oh, offhand I'd say you should believe those who say that there is an
> >> 'underlying warming trend' even though there hasn't been any warming 
> >> for
> >> a decade
>
> >Oh, I dunno...this looks pretty trendy for me, over the last decade.
> >And further:
> >
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2007/ann/global-jan-dec...
> > Or, you could look at it this way:
>
> > http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article3045976.ece
>
> >> and we don't yet have access to temperature records for the
> >> next fifty years...
>
> please don't confuse people with facts....
> using facts on moonbats is taking unfair advantage

Snark isn't an argument. There are some problems with the chart. "Mean
global temperature" has never been measured by a valid test. The Earth
started with heat from radioactive decay and from ac***ulated kinetic
energy of celestial impacts. This energy it has been losing since it
formed. In addition, the Earth  receives energy from the sun. The
sun's output varies for reasons which we can only guess. As
meteorologists add weather stations, we get more information but that
also means that new measures cannot be validly compared to old ones.
Unless you want to say that the measures from 1880 and 2000 used the
same instruments (unlikely).

The best measure of Earth's temperature would be from some spot in
space so remote that the entire Earth can be sampled as one point. I
understand that this will soon be done, but then there is no basline.
I have read

===============================================================================
Great stuff!
How can such objective sources be questioned ..... you are so  ...   er
....
  exact with your data.

**** off lunkhead  who do you think you're addressing ?  You are too
stupid 
to realize how you insult sane, resonable people when you present this
kind 
of trash and expect it to be accepted..
You are a wretch and a hapless fool ....... who can use words but is
unable 
to produce a single 'thought'.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

that since 2000, there has been no warming, by the
measures recently used.

I'm a skeptic all around. I don't see why an expanding human
population with increasingly powerful technology --couldn't-- have an
impact on global climate, but I also don't see how people who assert
that anthropogenic global warming has occurred can be so sure. The
Earth's temperature has fluctuated wildly over the last 300 million
years. In the last 5 million, it has been remarkably unstable. It
counts considerably against believers in global warming that they
(many of them, anyway) leap to restrictions on fossil fuels as the
solution when cheaper, effective means to deal with CO2 are available
(sequestering CO2 in ocean sediment or soil, as Freeman Dyson
recommends, for example).  It also counts against them that they
resort to ad hominem and Wikipedia-style dirty tricks. If they had a
good case, why not make it?