Re: Wikipedia Promoting Global Warming Hysteria?

<malcolmkirkpatrick@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:84642b47-c39d-4013-95dc-0bf0daf524c7@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Gen. Gus Cann" wrote:
> malcolmkirkpatrick wrote:
> > 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...

> > (abelard): please don't confuse people with facts....
> > using facts on moonbats is taking unfair advantage

> (malcolm): "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...
> (Gen. Gus): 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'.
>
If you had an argument, instead of ad hominem, you would use it. I had
the idea of taking the Earth's temperature from a spot remote in space
before I heard from a friend who studies paleoclimatology and
geochemistry that there was a plan to do this, so I did have that
thought on my own. Aren't those of you who accept anthropogenic global
warming (agw) just a bit disturbed by the style of people like Gen.
Gus, here? I mean, doesn't this look like religious fanatacism to

you'all?

=============================================================================

Sniff sniff .....
    Yeah same **** in the same coloured box
Yo is weak boy, just got words nothing that YOU can present.

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

> >...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?