"socialist" when describing Hillary Clinton

On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 13:32:44 -0700, "Matt W. Barrow"
wrote:


"Roger (K8RI)" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 20:26:35 -0600, "Dan Luke"
wrote:


"Matt Whiting" wrote:

And CO2 is a by-product of a warming ocean. Please refute the following
point by point. :-)

http://www.john-daly.com/oceanco2/oceanco2.htm


What's to refute?

"The sensitivity calculation, however, may be very reliable. It shows that
natural temperature increase cannot be the whole reason for the increase
of
atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration of about 80 ppm during this
century.
But the question of the `Chicken and the Egg' *for the ice core
measurements*
seems quite clear: First comes the warming, then comes the CO2. "

That has been historically true, but not this time. Now it's the CO2
leading the temp.

No, it's not - sorry. Try understanding CO2 forcing action.

I understand it quite well, which is why I'm emphasizing the CO2 is
leading. It's the opposite of what you'd expect. IOW we are not seeing
the CO2 forcing. What we are seeing is an *unnatural* rise in CO2 that
is not due to nature.

If you take a look at the legitimate scientific studies you will see
that at present the CO2 rise is ahead of the temperature. Where did
the CO2 come from?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...an-activities/

Roger

On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 01:26:18 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
wrote:

"Matt W. Barrow" wrote in
:


"Roger (K8RI)" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 20:26:35 -0600, "Dan Luke"
wrote:


"Matt Whiting" wrote:

And CO2 is a by-product of a warming ocean. Please refute the
following point by point. :-)

http://www.john-daly.com/oceanco2/oceanco2.htm


What's to refute?

"The sensitivity calculation, however, may be very reliable. It shows
that natural temperature increase cannot be the whole reason for the
increase of
atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration of about 80 ppm during this
century.
But the question of the `Chicken and the Egg' *for the ice core
measurements*
seems quite clear: First comes the warming, then comes the CO2. "

That has been historically true, but not this time. Now it's the CO2
leading the temp.

No, it's not - sorry. Try understanding CO2 forcing action.





A bit lke arguing how big the SPLAT is going to be as you're falling
through space, isn't it?

Or who kicked the ladder our from under you while dangeling from the
rope.

Roger

Bertie

"Roger (K8RI)" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 13:32:44 -0700, "Matt W. Barrow"
wrote:


"Roger (K8RI)" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 20:26:35 -0600, "Dan Luke"
wrote:


"Matt Whiting" wrote:

And CO2 is a by-product of a warming ocean. Please refute the
following
point by point. :-)

http://www.john-daly.com/oceanco2/oceanco2.htm


What's to refute?

"The sensitivity calculation, however, may be very reliable. It shows
that
natural temperature increase cannot be the whole reason for the increase
of
atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration of about 80 ppm during this
century.
But the question of the `Chicken and the Egg' *for the ice core
measurements*
seems quite clear: First comes the warming, then comes the CO2. "

That has been historically true, but not this time. Now it's the CO2
leading the temp.

No, it's not - sorry. Try understanding CO2 forcing action.

I understand it quite well, which is why I'm emphasizing the CO2 is
leading. It's the opposite of what you'd expect. IOW we are not seeing
the CO2 forcing. What we are seeing is an *unnatural* rise in CO2 that
is not due to nature.

No, it is not un-natural...otherwise it what would explain the 4000ppm

If you take a look at the legitimate scientific studies you will see
that at present the CO2 rise is ahead of the temperature. Where did
the CO2 come from?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...an-activities/

I'd believe realclimate.org about as much as I'd believe NationalEnquirer.
RC, in case you missed it, is the home of the overt fraud and charlatan
Michael Mann.

Gullibility doesn't suit someone your age.

"Matt W. Barrow" wrote in
:

I'd believe realclimate.org about as much as I'd believe
NationalEnquirer. RC, in case you missed it, is the home of the
overt fraud and charlatan Michael Mann.

.... and Betsy Ensley.

--

Rich Ahrens wrote in news:478ea27e$0$27493$804603d3
@auth.newsreader.iphouse.com:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"Matt W. Barrow" wrote in
:

"Roger (K8RI)" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 20:26:35 -0600, "Dan Luke"
wrote:

"Matt Whiting" wrote:

And CO2 is a by-product of a warming ocean. Please refute the
following point by point. :-)

http://www.john-daly.com/oceanco2/oceanco2.htm

What's to refute?

"The sensitivity calculation, however, may be very reliable. It
shows
that natural temperature increase cannot be the whole reason for
the
increase of
atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration of about 80 ppm during
this
century.
But the question of the `Chicken and the Egg' *for the ice core
measurements*
seems quite clear: First comes the warming, then comes the CO2. "
That has been historically true, but not this time. Now it's the
CO2
leading the temp.
No, it's not - sorry. Try understanding CO2 forcing action.


A bit lke arguing how big the SPLAT is going to be as you're falling
through space, isn't it?

"I wonder if it will be friends with me?"


Funny you should say that.. I just saw that episode last night.

Sppoky!

Bertie

"Roger (K8RI)" wrote in
:

On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 01:26:18 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
wrote:

"Matt W. Barrow" wrote in
:


"Roger (K8RI)" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 20:26:35 -0600, "Dan Luke"
wrote:


"Matt Whiting" wrote:

And CO2 is a by-product of a warming ocean. Please refute the
following point by point. :-)

http://www.john-daly.com/oceanco2/oceanco2.htm


What's to refute?

"The sensitivity calculation, however, may be very reliable. It
shows
that natural temperature increase cannot be the whole reason for
the
increase of
atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration of about 80 ppm during
this
century.
But the question of the `Chicken and the Egg' *for the ice core
measurements*
seems quite clear: First comes the warming, then comes the CO2. "

That has been historically true, but not this time. Now it's the
CO2
leading the temp.

No, it's not - sorry. Try understanding CO2 forcing action.





A bit lke arguing how big the SPLAT is going to be as you're falling
through space, isn't it?

Or who kicked the ladder our from under you while dangeling from the
rope.


Better.

Bertie

On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 18:09:12 -0700, "Matt W. Barrow"
wrote:


"Roger (K8RI)" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 13:32:44 -0700, "Matt W. Barrow"
wrote:


"Roger (K8RI)" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 20:26:35 -0600, "Dan Luke"
wrote:


"Matt Whiting" wrote:

And CO2 is a by-product of a warming ocean. Please refute the
following
point by point. :-)

http://www.john-daly.com/oceanco2/oceanco2.htm


What's to refute?

"The sensitivity calculation, however, may be very reliable. It shows
that
natural temperature increase cannot be the whole reason for the increase
of
atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration of about 80 ppm during this
century.
But the question of the `Chicken and the Egg' *for the ice core
measurements*
seems quite clear: First comes the warming, then comes the CO2. "

That has been historically true, but not this time. Now it's the CO2
leading the temp.

No, it's not - sorry. Try understanding CO2 forcing action.

I understand it quite well, which is why I'm emphasizing the CO2 is
leading. It's the opposite of what you'd expect. IOW we are not seeing
the CO2 forcing. What we are seeing is an *unnatural* rise in CO2 that
is not due to nature.

No, it is not un-natural...otherwise it what would explain the 4000ppm

If you take a look at the legitimate scientific studies you will see
that at present the CO2 rise is ahead of the temperature. Where did
the CO2 come from?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...an-activities/

I'd believe realclimate.org about as much as I'd believe NationalEnquirer.

Whichis what the researchers say about John daly. :-)) Neither side
can understand the other.:-))

Roger (K8RI)

RC, in case you missed it, is the home of the overt fraud and charlatan
Michael Mann.

Gullibility doesn't suit someone your age.

"Matt W. Barrow" wrote:


Gullibility doesn't suit someone your age.

Haw!

That's rich, coming from someone who fell for crackpot Prof. Van Zandt's
"proof" that humanity can't possibly be causing the CO2 level to go up.

Did you think no one would remember?

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...
"Matt W. Barrow" wrote:


Gullibility doesn't suit someone your age.

Haw!

That's rich, coming from someone who fell for crackpot Prof. Van Zandt's
"proof" that humanity can't possibly be causing the CO2 level to go up.

Did you think no one would remember?

Oh...as "refuted" by realclimate?

I remember your "refutation".

And he never said humanity was causing it to go up...he said it was not even
a spit in the ocean.

Why don't you trying learning to comprehend rather than just barf back?

I remember, too, that your were quite taken by Michael Mann's glaring fraud.

Get a clue.

"Roger (K8RI)" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 18:09:12 -0700, "Matt W. Barrow"
wrote:


"Roger (K8RI)" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 13:32:44 -0700, "Matt W. Barrow"
wrote:


"Roger (K8RI)" wrote in message
m...
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 20:26:35 -0600, "Dan Luke"
wrote:


"Matt Whiting" wrote:

And CO2 is a by-product of a warming ocean. Please refute the
following
point by point. :-)

http://www.john-daly.com/oceanco2/oceanco2.htm


What's to refute?

"The sensitivity calculation, however, may be very reliable. It shows
that
natural temperature increase cannot be the whole reason for the
increase
of
atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration of about 80 ppm during this
century.
But the question of the `Chicken and the Egg' *for the ice core
measurements*
seems quite clear: First comes the warming, then comes the CO2. "

That has been historically true, but not this time. Now it's the CO2
leading the temp.

No, it's not - sorry. Try understanding CO2 forcing action.

I understand it quite well, which is why I'm emphasizing the CO2 is
leading. It's the opposite of what you'd expect. IOW we are not seeing
the CO2 forcing. What we are seeing is an *unnatural* rise in CO2 that
is not due to nature.

No, it is not un-natural...otherwise it what would explain the 4000ppm

If you take a look at the legitimate scientific studies you will see
that at present the CO2 rise is ahead of the temperature. Where did
the CO2 come from?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...an-activities/

I'd believe realclimate.org about as much as I'd believe NationalEnquirer.

Whichis what the researchers say about John daly. :-)) Neither side
can understand the other.:-))

At least Daly's work is backed by data that has NOT been refuted or found to
be fraudulent.

We're finding out that the greenies are unmitigated liars.