Global Warming The debbil made me do it

On Mar 9, 12:25 pm, "Dan Luke" wrote:
"Dan" wrote:
In every model I've seen, Iowa comes out a big winner in any global
warming
scenario.

Really? Name two.

Can't speak for Iowa, but perhaps wading through 19,000 signatures
will dampen your anti-denier zeal?

http://www.oism.org/pproject/index.htm

HAW-HAW-HAW!

At last--The Oregon Petition!

I *knew* one of you dupes would drag that in here. Gotcha!

The OP is a fraud. Deniers cite it to claim there are19,000 (or 17,000 or
21,000) scientists who doubt that AGW is real. There aren't, but guys like
you will believe it without checking because you desperately want to. Just
like you believe the "they were predicting global cooling in 1970" lie, the
"CO2 is a tiny part of the atmosphere so it can't cause warming" lie and a
dozen others.

You should be noticing by now that the sources you get this stuff from are
bull****ting you. How many lemon used cars do you have to buy before you
realize the dealer is screwing you? A bunch, apparently, since you bought the
Oregon Petition, too.

Skeptics have already waded through the OP: "Scientific American took a
sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a
climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various
databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition -- one was an active
climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based
on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today,
three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not
answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters
include a core of about 200 climate researchers - a respectable number, though
rather a small fraction of the climatological community"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition

So, only 1,400 signatories even *claimed* to have anything to do with climate
science. And out of that 1,400, two hundred were climate researchers.

That's a long way from 19,000 scientists who doubt that AGW is real, isn't it?

You won't listen to "climate researchers" unless they abide by your
hysteria.

I gotta go shovel the snow caused by all this global warming.

Dan

Dan wrote in
:

On Mar 9, 12:25 pm, "Dan Luke" wrote:
"Dan" wrote:
In every model I've seen, Iowa comes out a big winner in any
global warming
scenario.

Really? Name two.

Can't speak for Iowa, but perhaps wading through 19,000 signatures
will dampen your anti-denier zeal?

http://www.oism.org/pproject/index.htm

HAW-HAW-HAW!

At last--The Oregon Petition!

I *knew* one of you dupes would drag that in here. Gotcha!

The OP is a fraud. Deniers cite it to claim there are19,000 (or
17,000 or 21,000) scientists who doubt that AGW is real. There
aren't, but guys like you will believe it without checking because
you desperately want to. Just like you believe the "they were
predicting global cooling in 1970" lie, the "CO2 is a tiny part of
the atmosphere so it can't cause warming" lie and a dozen others.

You should be noticing by now that the sources you get this stuff
from are bull****ting you. How many lemon used cars do you have to
buy before you realize the dealer is screwing you? A bunch,
apparently, since you bought the Oregon Petition, too.

Skeptics have already waded through the OP: "Scientific American
took a sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D.
in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in
various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition -- one
was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise,
and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would
not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such
petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages.
Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of
about 200 climate researchers - a respectable number, though rather a
small fraction of the climatological community"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition

So, only 1,400 signatories even *claimed* to have anything to do with
climate science. And out of that 1,400, two hundred were climate
researchers.

That's a long way from 19,000 scientists who doubt that AGW is real,
isn't it?

You won't listen to "climate researchers" unless they abide by your
hysteria.

I gotta go shovel the snow caused by all this global warming.


You're going to be shoveling a lot more of it due to global warming.


Bertie

On Mar 9, 12:56 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dan wrote :



On Mar 9, 12:25 pm, "Dan Luke" wrote:
"Dan" wrote:
In every model I've seen, Iowa comes out a big winner in any
global warming
scenario.

Really? Name two.

Can't speak for Iowa, but perhaps wading through 19,000 signatures
will dampen your anti-denier zeal?

http://www.oism.org/pproject/index.htm

HAW-HAW-HAW!

At last--The Oregon Petition!

I *knew* one of you dupes would drag that in here. Gotcha!

The OP is a fraud. Deniers cite it to claim there are19,000 (or
17,000 or 21,000) scientists who doubt that AGW is real. There
aren't, but guys like you will believe it without checking because
you desperately want to. Just like you believe the "they were
predicting global cooling in 1970" lie, the "CO2 is a tiny part of
the atmosphere so it can't cause warming" lie and a dozen others.

You should be noticing by now that the sources you get this stuff
from are bull****ting you. How many lemon used cars do you have to
buy before you realize the dealer is screwing you? A bunch,
apparently, since you bought the Oregon Petition, too.

Skeptics have already waded through the OP: "Scientific American
took a sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D.
in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in
various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition -- one
was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise,
and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would
not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such
petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages.
Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of
about 200 climate researchers - a respectable number, though rather a
small fraction of the climatological community"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition

So, only 1,400 signatories even *claimed* to have anything to do with
climate science. And out of that 1,400, two hundred were climate
researchers.

That's a long way from 19,000 scientists who doubt that AGW is real,
isn't it?

You won't listen to "climate researchers" unless they abide by your
hysteria.

I gotta go shovel the snow caused by all this global warming.

You're going to be shoveling a lot more of it due to global warming.

Bertie


Fine by me.

I'll just move to Iowa where's it gonna be paradise pretty soon!

Dan

Dan wrote in
:

On Mar 9, 12:56 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dan wrote
innews:bd53a4da-10c7-445f-a2ac-bf7ce8b1dabc@
13g2000hsb.googlegroups.co
m:



On Mar 9, 12:25 pm, "Dan Luke" wrote:
"Dan" wrote:
In every model I've seen, Iowa comes out a big winner in any
global warming
scenario.

Really? Name two.

Can't speak for Iowa, but perhaps wading through 19,000
signatures will dampen your anti-denier zeal?

http://www.oism.org/pproject/index.htm

HAW-HAW-HAW!

At last--The Oregon Petition!

I *knew* one of you dupes would drag that in here. Gotcha!

The OP is a fraud. Deniers cite it to claim there are19,000 (or
17,000 or 21,000) scientists who doubt that AGW is real. There
aren't, but guys like you will believe it without checking because
you desperately want to. Just like you believe the "they were
predicting global cooling in 1970" lie, the "CO2 is a tiny part of
the atmosphere so it can't cause warming" lie and a dozen others.

You should be noticing by now that the sources you get this stuff
from are bull****ting you. How many lemon used cars do you have
to buy before you realize the dealer is screwing you? A bunch,
apparently, since you bought the Oregon Petition, too.

Skeptics have already waded through the OP: "Scientific American
took a sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a
Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to
identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the
petition -- one was an active climate researcher, two others had
relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal
evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three
did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not
answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition
supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers - a
respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the
climatological community"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition

So, only 1,400 signatories even *claimed* to have anything to do
with climate science. And out of that 1,400, two hundred were
climate researchers.

That's a long way from 19,000 scientists who doubt that AGW is
real, isn't it?

You won't listen to "climate researchers" unless they abide by your
hysteria.

I gotta go shovel the snow caused by all this global warming.

You're going to be shoveling a lot more of it due to global warming.

Bertie


Fine by me.

I'll just move to Iowa where's it gonna be paradise pretty soon!

Why, is Jay moving?


Seriously, you seem to fail to undersnd what this is all about. it's not
about a slightly balmier climate. It's about a good deal more energy
being involved in the wx. Whatever else may happen, that is certain.


Bertie

On Mar 9, 2:16 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

I'll just move to Iowa where's it gonna be paradise pretty soon!

Why, is Jay moving?

Seriously, you seem to fail to undersnd what this is all about. it's not
about a slightly balmier climate. It's about a good deal more energy
being involved in the wx. Whatever else may happen, that is certain.

Bertie

You're right that I am failing.

I am failing to agree with those who insist that the oceans will rise
20 feet, the 0.6 Degree rise we see is solely due to man made causes,
and that the earth is unable to regulate the temperature through
natural processes.

I'm also failing to agree that when the Climate change apostles
preach, "All the world's scientists agree," but when anyone dares
offer contrary opinion, they are pilloried as "not climate
scientists."

You fly in weather -- when the hell did a "scientist" ever get it
right 50% of the time?

In fact, that's another laughable trait of this latest "crisis" -- it
is the first time in science history that "all scientist agree."

Dan

Dan wrote in news:f50cda79-23cf-46c7-b0f9-
:

On Mar 9, 2:16 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

I'll just move to Iowa where's it gonna be paradise pretty soon!

Why, is Jay moving?

Seriously, you seem to fail to undersnd what this is all about. it's
not
about a slightly balmier climate. It's about a good deal more energy
being involved in the wx. Whatever else may happen, that is certain.

Bertie

You're right that I am failing.

I am failing to agree with those who insist that the oceans will rise
20 feet, the 0.6 Degree rise we see is solely due to man made causes,
and that the earth is unable to regulate the temperature through
natural processes.

I'm also failing to agree that when the Climate change apostles
preach, "All the world's scientists agree," but when anyone dares
offer contrary opinion, they are pilloried as "not climate
scientists."

You fly in weather -- when the hell did a "scientist" ever get it
right 50% of the time?


These days they're getting it right about 90% of the time.

My flight logs come with forecast winds for every waypoint. they are
generaly within 10degrees and 5 knots of forecast hours form when the
forecast was made.
Vis, winds, precip, are all forecast to an accuracy that would have been
thought impossible just a few years ago.


In fact, that's another laughable trait of this latest "crisis" -- it
is the first time in science history that "all scientist agree."


Jesus wept.


Bertie

On Mar 9, 2:41 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

You fly in weather -- when the hell did a "scientist" ever get it
right 50% of the time?

These days they're getting it right about 90% of the time.

My flight logs come with forecast winds for every waypoint. they are
generaly within 10degrees and 5 knots of forecast hours form when the
forecast was made.
Vis, winds, precip, are all forecast to an accuracy that would have been
thought impossible just a few years ago.


Bertie

From which source?

I've yet to see winds aloft match the forecast except when very strong
(40 Knots @ 3000) or very light.

That said, I think the effect of the local topography is not factored
in or perhaps ignored (The Alleghenies).

Dan

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
.. .
Dan wrote in
:

On Mar 9, 12:25 pm, "Dan Luke" wrote:
"Dan" wrote:
In every model I've seen, Iowa comes out a big winner in any
global warming
scenario.

Really? Name two.

Can't speak for Iowa, but perhaps wading through 19,000 signatures
will dampen your anti-denier zeal?

http://www.oism.org/pproject/index.htm

HAW-HAW-HAW!

At last--The Oregon Petition!

I *knew* one of you dupes would drag that in here. Gotcha!

The OP is a fraud. Deniers cite it to claim there are19,000 (or
17,000 or 21,000) scientists who doubt that AGW is real. There
aren't, but guys like you will believe it without checking because
you desperately want to. Just like you believe the "they were
predicting global cooling in 1970" lie, the "CO2 is a tiny part of
the atmosphere so it can't cause warming" lie and a dozen others.

You should be noticing by now that the sources you get this stuff
from are bull****ting you. How many lemon used cars do you have to
buy before you realize the dealer is screwing you? A bunch,
apparently, since you bought the Oregon Petition, too.

Skeptics have already waded through the OP: "Scientific American
took a sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D.
in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in
various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition -- one
was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise,
and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would
not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such
petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages.
Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of
about 200 climate researchers - a respectable number, though rather a
small fraction of the climatological community"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition

So, only 1,400 signatories even *claimed* to have anything to do with
climate science. And out of that 1,400, two hundred were climate
researchers.

That's a long way from 19,000 scientists who doubt that AGW is real,
isn't it?

You won't listen to "climate researchers" unless they abide by your
hysteria.

I gotta go shovel the snow caused by all this global warming.


You're going to be shoveling a lot more of it due to global warming.


Bertie

LOL you probably believe that. I think there is a cooling trend. I was
wondering if anybody wanted to give me a grant for a few Mill so I can prove
it. You know I will.

"aluckyguess" wrote in :


"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
.. .
Dan wrote in
news:bd53a4da-10c7-445f-a2ac-bf7ce8b1dabc@
13g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:

On Mar 9, 12:25 pm, "Dan Luke" wrote:
"Dan" wrote:
In every model I've seen, Iowa comes out a big winner in any
global warming
scenario.

Really? Name two.

Can't speak for Iowa, but perhaps wading through 19,000
signatures will dampen your anti-denier zeal?

http://www.oism.org/pproject/index.htm

HAW-HAW-HAW!

At last--The Oregon Petition!

I *knew* one of you dupes would drag that in here. Gotcha!

The OP is a fraud. Deniers cite it to claim there are19,000 (or
17,000 or 21,000) scientists who doubt that AGW is real. There
aren't, but guys like you will believe it without checking because
you desperately want to. Just like you believe the "they were
predicting global cooling in 1970" lie, the "CO2 is a tiny part of
the atmosphere so it can't cause warming" lie and a dozen others.

You should be noticing by now that the sources you get this stuff
from are bull****ting you. How many lemon used cars do you have to
buy before you realize the dealer is screwing you? A bunch,
apparently, since you bought the Oregon Petition, too.

Skeptics have already waded through the OP: "Scientific American
took a sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a
Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to
identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the
petition -- one was an active climate researcher, two others had
relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal
evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three
did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not
answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition
supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers - a
respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the
climatological community"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition

So, only 1,400 signatories even *claimed* to have anything to do
with climate science. And out of that 1,400, two hundred were
climate researchers.

That's a long way from 19,000 scientists who doubt that AGW is
real, isn't it?

You won't listen to "climate researchers" unless they abide by your
hysteria.

I gotta go shovel the snow caused by all this global warming.


You're going to be shoveling a lot more of it due to global warming.


Bertie

LOL you probably believe that. I think there is a cooling trend. I was
wondering if anybody wanted to give me a grant for a few Mill so I can
prove it. You know I will.

What, you haven't already?


Shouldn't cost you much.


Bertie

"Dan" wrote:

So, only 1,400 signatories even *claimed* to have anything to do with
climate
science. And out of that 1,400, two hundred were climate researchers.

That's a long way from 19,000 scientists who doubt that AGW is real, isn't
it?

You won't listen to "climate researchers" unless they abide by your
hysteria.

You haven't got any climate researchers. If you did, you could post links to
their peer-reviewed research.

You got suckered by a bogus petition. Because you wanted to


I gotta go shovel the snow caused by all this global warming.

You don't even know what it means.

Don't strain your back.