| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
leonard78sp@gmail.com
Guest
|
 Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 6:44 pm Post subject: Wikipedia Promoting Global Warming Hysteria? |
 |
|
Wikipedia Promoting Global Warming Hysteria?
Noel Sheppard, NewsBusters.org
Two weeks ago, a parent-teacher council blamed the
online research source Wikipedia for falling test scores
in Scotland.
On Tuesday, Canadian columnist Lawrence Solomon
blamed Wikipedia for helping to spread global warming
hysteria around the world. The connection? Oftentimes
"inaccurate or deliberately misleading information"
published by Wikipedia being taken as fact by
unsuspecting readers.
In the case of climate change, such inaccurate or
deliberately misleading information acts to solidify the
myth being espoused by Nobel Laureate Al Gore as
millions of people across the globe believe Wikipedia
is a purely factual resource.
[Eco-fascists and islamofascists right or wrong
get preference in every dispute] |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Cary Kittrell
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 6:53 pm Post subject: Re: Wikipedia Promoting Global Warming Hysteria? |
|
|
In article <fae6cffd-9200-4400-9460-7a4abfcc3edb@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com> "leonard78sp@gmail.com" <leonard78sp@gmail.com> writes:
| Quote: |
Wikipedia Promoting Global Warming Hysteria?
Noel Sheppard, NewsBusters.org
Two weeks ago, a parent-teacher council blamed the
online research source Wikipedia for falling test scores
in Scotland.
On Tuesday, Canadian columnist Lawrence Solomon
blamed Wikipedia for helping to spread global warming
hysteria around the world. The connection? Oftentimes
"inaccurate or deliberately misleading information"
published by Wikipedia being taken as fact by
unsuspecting readers.
In the case of climate change, such inaccurate or
deliberately misleading information acts to solidify the
myth being espoused by Nobel Laureate Al Gore as
millions of people across the globe believe Wikipedia
is a purely factual resource.
[Eco-fascists and islamofascists right or wrong
get preference in every dispute]
|
Lessee here, on one hand we've got someone who froths
"Ecofascists", but provides nothing beyond that.
On the other hand, we've got the National Academy
of Sciences, the creme de la creme of scientific
overachievers in this country.
What to choose, what to choose?....
-- cary |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Cary Kittrell
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 8:11 pm Post subject: Re: Wikipedia Promoting Global Warming Hysteria? |
|
|
In article <g5ivfb$9j4$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk> Joe <joe@jretrading.com> writes:
| Quote: |
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <fae6cffd-9200-4400-9460-7a4abfcc3edb@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com> "leonard78sp@gmail.com" <leonard78sp@gmail.com> writes:
Wikipedia Promoting Global Warming Hysteria?
Noel Sheppard, NewsBusters.org
Two weeks ago, a parent-teacher council blamed the
online research source Wikipedia for falling test scores
in Scotland.
On Tuesday, Canadian columnist Lawrence Solomon
blamed Wikipedia for helping to spread global warming
hysteria around the world. The connection? Oftentimes
"inaccurate or deliberately misleading information"
published by Wikipedia being taken as fact by
unsuspecting readers.
In the case of climate change, such inaccurate or
deliberately misleading information acts to solidify the
myth being espoused by Nobel Laureate Al Gore as
millions of people across the globe believe Wikipedia
is a purely factual resource.
[Eco-fascists and islamofascists right or wrong
get preference in every dispute]
Lessee here, on one hand we've got someone who froths
"Ecofascists", but provides nothing beyond that.
On the other hand, we've got the National Academy
of Sciences, the creme de la creme of scientific
overachievers in this country.
What to choose, what to choose?....
-- cary
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-error-bar-pg.gif
Or, you could look at it this way:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article3045976.ece
-- cary
| Quote: |
and we don't yet have access to temperature records for the
next fifty years... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Robert S
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 9:55 pm Post subject: Re: Wikipedia Promoting Global Warming Hysteria? |
|
|
On Jul 15, 7:51 pm, abelard <abela...@abelard.org> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 11:44:38 -0700 (PDT), "leonard7...@gmail.com"
leonard7...@gmail.com> 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 document, 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 proportion, 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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Robert S
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 11:02 pm Post subject: Re: Wikipedia Promoting Global Warming Hysteria? |
|
|
On Jul 15, 11:05 pm, abelard <abela...@abelard.org> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 14:55:30 -0700 (PDT), Robert S
roberts2...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 15, 7:51 pm, abelard <abela...@abelard.org> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 11:44:38 -0700 (PDT), "leonard7...@gmail.com"
leonard7...@gmail.com> 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 document, 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 proportion, 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:
Recent:
http://www.dxlc.com/solar/images/solar.gif
Time scale of hundreds of years, for sunspots:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/28/Sunspot_Numbers.png
...correlation of sunspot activity and irradiance:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/tsi_composite.gif
| Quote: |
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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
abelard
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 11:51 pm Post subject: Re: Wikipedia Promoting Global Warming Hysteria? |
|
|
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 11:44:38 -0700 (PDT), "leonard78sp@gmail.com"
<leonard78sp@gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
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 document, 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...
| Quote: |
Noel Sheppard, NewsBusters.org
Two weeks ago, a parent-teacher council blamed the
online research source Wikipedia for falling test scores
in Scotland.
On Tuesday, Canadian columnist Lawrence Solomon
blamed Wikipedia for helping to spread global warming
hysteria around the world. The connection? Oftentimes
"inaccurate or deliberately misleading information"
published by Wikipedia being taken as fact by
unsuspecting readers.
In the case of climate change, such inaccurate or
deliberately misleading information acts to solidify the
myth being espoused by Nobel Laureate Al Gore as
millions of people across the globe believe Wikipedia
is a purely factual resource.
[Eco-fascists and islamofascists right or wrong
get preference in every dispute]
|
--
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics
energy, education, politics, etc 1,552,396 document 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
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Joe
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 12:57 am Post subject: Re: Wikipedia Promoting Global Warming Hysteria? |
|
|
Cary Kittrell wrote:
| Quote: |
In article <fae6cffd-9200-4400-9460-7a4abfcc3edb@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com> "leonard78sp@gmail.com" <leonard78sp@gmail.com> writes:
Wikipedia Promoting Global Warming Hysteria?
Noel Sheppard, NewsBusters.org
Two weeks ago, a parent-teacher council blamed the
online research source Wikipedia for falling test scores
in Scotland.
On Tuesday, Canadian columnist Lawrence Solomon
blamed Wikipedia for helping to spread global warming
hysteria around the world. The connection? Oftentimes
"inaccurate or deliberately misleading information"
published by Wikipedia being taken as fact by
unsuspecting readers.
In the case of climate change, such inaccurate or
deliberately misleading information acts to solidify the
myth being espoused by Nobel Laureate Al Gore as
millions of people across the globe believe Wikipedia
is a purely factual resource.
[Eco-fascists and islamofascists right or wrong
get preference in every dispute]
Lessee here, on one hand we've got someone who froths
"Ecofascists", but provides nothing beyond that.
On the other hand, we've got the National Academy
of Sciences, the creme de la creme of scientific
overachievers in this country.
What to choose, what to choose?....
-- cary
|
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 and we don't yet have access to temperature records for the
next fifty years... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
abelard
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 1:56 am Post subject: Re: Wikipedia Promoting Global Warming Hysteria? |
|
|
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 20:11:07 +0000 (UTC), cary@afone.as.arizona.edu
(Cary Kittrell) wrote:
| Quote: |
In article <g5ivfb$9j4$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk> Joe <joe@jretrading.com> writes:
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <fae6cffd-9200-4400-9460-7a4abfcc3edb@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com> "leonard78sp@gmail.com" <leonard78sp@gmail.com> writes:
Wikipedia Promoting Global Warming Hysteria?
Noel Sheppard, NewsBusters.org
Two weeks ago, a parent-teacher council blamed the
online research source Wikipedia for falling test scores
in Scotland.
On Tuesday, Canadian columnist Lawrence Solomon
blamed Wikipedia for helping to spread global warming
hysteria around the world. The connection? Oftentimes
"inaccurate or deliberately misleading information"
published by Wikipedia being taken as fact by
unsuspecting readers.
In the case of climate change, such inaccurate or
deliberately misleading information acts to solidify the
myth being espoused by Nobel Laureate Al Gore as
millions of people across the globe believe Wikipedia
is a purely factual resource.
[Eco-fascists and islamofascists right or wrong
get preference in every dispute]
Lessee here, on one hand we've got someone who froths
"Ecofascists", but provides nothing beyond that.
On the other hand, we've got the National Academy
of Sciences, the creme de la creme of scientific
overachievers in this country.
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-error-bar-pg.gif
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
regards
--
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics
energy, education, politics, etc 1,552,396 document 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
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
abelard
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 3:05 am Post subject: Re: Wikipedia Promoting Global Warming Hysteria? |
|
|
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 14:55:30 -0700 (PDT), Robert S
<roberts218e@gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 15, 7:51 pm, abelard <abela...@abelard.org> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 11:44:38 -0700 (PDT), "leonard7...@gmail.com"
leonard7...@gmail.com> 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 document, 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 proportion, 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...
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 conveyor
http://www.abelard.org/briefings/anthropogenic_global_warming.php
--
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics
energy, education, politics, etc 1,552,396 document 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
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
abelard
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 4:23 am Post subject: Re: Wikipedia Promoting Global Warming Hysteria? |
|
|
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 16:02:50 -0700 (PDT), Robert S
<roberts218e@gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 15, 11:05 pm, abelard <abela...@abelard.org> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 14:55:30 -0700 (PDT), Robert S
roberts2...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 15, 7:51 pm, abelard <abela...@abelard.org> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 11:44:38 -0700 (PDT), "leonard7...@gmail.com"
leonard7...@gmail.com> 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 document, 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 proportion, 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....
and what is that meant to indicate or what does it indicate to you...
lower scale unclear....
| Quote: |
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
| Quote: |
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...
| Quote: |
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 document 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
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 6:13 am Post subject: Re: Wikipedia Promoting Global Warming Hysteria? |
|
|
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 14:55:30 -0700 (PDT), Robert S
<roberts218e@gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 15, 7:51 pm, abelard <abela...@abelard.org> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 11:44:38 -0700 (PDT), "leonard7...@gmail.com"
leonard7...@gmail.com> 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 document, 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 proportion, 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.
|
That would be kewel!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Robert S
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 9:53 pm Post subject: Re: Wikipedia Promoting Global Warming Hysteria? |
|
|
On 16 Jul, 00:23, abelard <abela...@abelard.org> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 16:02:50 -0700 (PDT), Robert S
roberts2...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 15, 11:05 pm, abelard <abela...@abelard.org> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 14:55:30 -0700 (PDT), Robert S
roberts2...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 15, 7:51 pm, abelard <abela...@abelard.org> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 11:44:38 -0700 (PDT), "leonard7...@gmail.com"
leonard7...@gmail.com> 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 document, 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 proportion, 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....
|
What you mean by "lower scale" is unclear.
The graph, OTOH, is straight forward - x-axis is time, and the traces
are solar flux, sunspot number, and planetary A index (degree of
disturbance of Earth's magnetic field).
| Quote: |
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
|
There have been very accurate scientific astronomers going back to
Tycho Brahe and before. Kepler couldn't have done what he did if this
wasn't the case.
| Quote: |
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...
|
It shows that solar output and sunspot number are intimately linked.
Now look at the 2nd graph again.
| Quote: |
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....
|
There is evidence of variable outputting of solar energy. I've shown
you three graphs that demonstrate this, over different time scales.
It's a fact. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Robert S
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 9:53 pm Post subject: Re: Wikipedia Promoting Global Warming Hysteria? |
|
|
On 16 Jul, 00:23, abelard <abela...@abelard.org> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 16:02:50 -0700 (PDT), Robert S
roberts2...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 15, 11:05 pm, abelard <abela...@abelard.org> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 14:55:30 -0700 (PDT), Robert S
roberts2...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 15, 7:51 pm, abelard <abela...@abelard.org> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 11:44:38 -0700 (PDT), "leonard7...@gmail.com"
leonard7...@gmail.com> 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 document, 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 proportion, 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....
|
What you mean by "lower scale" is unclear.
The graph, OTOH, is straight forward - x-axis is time, and the traces
are solar flux, sunspot number, and planetary A index (degree of
disturbance of Earth's magnetic field).
| Quote: |
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
|
There have been very accurate scientific astronomers going back to
Tycho Brahe and before. Kepler couldn't have done what he did if this
wasn't the case.
| Quote: |
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...
|
It shows that solar output and sunspot number are intimately linked.
Now look at the 2nd graph again.
| Quote: |
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....
|
There is evidence of variable outputting of solar energy. I've shown
you three graphs that demonstrate this, over different time scales.
It's a fact. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Robert S
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 9:57 pm Post subject: Re: Wikipedia Promoting Global Warming Hysteria? |
|
|
On 16 Jul, 02:13, §§ KR„K„T §§@home.com wrote:
| Quote: |
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 14:55:30 -0700 (PDT), Robert S
roberts2...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 15, 7:51 pm, abelard <abela...@abelard.org> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 11:44:38 -0700 (PDT), "leonard7...@gmail.com"
leonard7...@gmail.com> 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 document, 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 proportion, 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.
That would be kewel!
|
Climate is constantly changing, and has been for hundreds of millions
of years empirically. But changing about an equilibrium point.
Yet, miraculously, the present climate is apparently nirvana, and any
deviation from it will be disastrous.
How lucky we are to live in such a time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Cary Kittrell
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 12:19 am Post subject: Re: Wikipedia Promoting Global Warming Hysteria? |
|
|
In article <a29e439b-3f19-408b-aee3-d8cfa8d37bf4@z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com> Robert S <roberts218e@gmail.com> writes:
| Quote: |
On 16 Jul, 02:13, =A7=A7 KR=A5K=A5T =A7=A7@home.com wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 14:55:30 -0700 (PDT), Robert S
roberts2...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 15, 7:51 pm, abelard <abela...@abelard.org> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 11:44:38 -0700 (PDT), "leonard7...@gmail.com"
leonard7...@gmail.com> 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 document, 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 proportion, 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.
That would be kewel! :)
Climate is constantly changing, and has been for hundreds of millions
of years empirically. But changing about an equilibrium point.
Yet, miraculously, the present climate is apparently nirvana,
|
In fact it is, in the sense that both the biota and human cultures
are adapted to the current climate.
| Quote: |
and any deviation from it will be disastrous.
|
And because both the biota and human cultures are
adapted to the current climate, then deviations
do in fact have the potential to be disasterous.
If the current average global temperature were five degrees
warmer -- or cooler -- then the same arguments
would apply.
-- cary
| Quote: |
How lucky we are to live in such a time. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
106 Attacks blocked
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
