Science and Technology news... :: View topic

Kurt Lochner · Guest

"catatonic canuck" <catoni@dsl.bell.ca> deleted and bleated because:
[quote]
Kurt Lochner restored the original text/context:

"gangrene, tit-hole" deleted and bleated impotently because:

Kurt Lochner restored the following text/context:

"gangrene, tit-hole" vented, like a right-wing parrot:

Roger Coppock wrote, originally:

The Sunspot Scapegoat

Fossil fools, in their never ending search for something
other than their master>s oil and coal products that is
the major cause of global warming, often blame sunspots.
They produce cherry picked proxy series and collections
of anecdotes to try to support this. However, directly
observed data tell a different story. Actual sunspot
count data barely show any correlation with the global
land and sea surface temperature from 1880 to 2007.

Even when you autocorrelate out 12 years, looking for an
effect of today>s sunspots on tomorrow>s temperature,
there is no strong relationship between sunspots and
global mean surface temperature, R^2<0.1. Sunspots
are for all practical purposes irrelevant to the global
warming debate.
[..]

This is just becoming stupider everyday.

Yes, what with your comments..

There>s a number of really good studies that show a correlation
between the sun and temperature changes on the earth.

And I>m certain that YouTube isn>t a peer-reviewed scientific
journal, last I checked..

(funding and participants include Government of British Columbia,
McMaster University, Carleton University, Queens University,
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmosphere sciences

Yes, I know some of the right-wing "global warming denier" crowd
has managed to wander to groves of academia, but that doesn>t
equate to verified, peer-reviewed science journalism..

Wow, so the university and the Canadian government ...

How about I start with questioning the veracity of your reference
to "McMaster University". You wouldn>t be thinking of any papers
published by Tom Harris, the Executive Director of International
Climate Science Coalition would you?

Remember, you>re the one that>s used a YouTube video for a reference..

It>s not upon me to prove you assertion, and no amount of bluster and
spittle-flecked tantrums will change that fact, m>kay?

These people were not doing a study on global warming

Then, why would that be relevant to the discussion of global warming?

I find your attitude of trying to pin this

I find your opinion of something you could barely know for a fact
to be nothing more than the flimsy rationalizations of a 'straw
man' pseudo-argument after having your credentials/cites questioned
as being utterly without scientific merit..

The really funny part is the government is already using the above
information to manage fishery and fish stocks.

That explains the mismanagement of these resources then, doesn>t it?

So changes in the suns output is very important.

Yet, you>ve not posted any numbers regarding that. As with
most right-wing "denier" nonsense, the substance of your 'glittering
generalities' is somewhat lacking, despite how much you try to
talk up about your provably false insinuations and exclamations.

And what peered review you talking about

It>s called "peer-review", and it doesn>t include YouTube videos
nor false 'absolutes' that you>ve pretended cannot be questioned..

Example follows..

It certainly cannot be the documents from the IPCC,

Your lack of understand and experience with those studies doesn>t
invalidate the individual studies, nor the conclusions draws from
that body of scientific evidence. The hypothesis for global warming
being caused by man-made gases produced by industries, automobiles
and the energy production facilities across the planet has been
rigorously tested and reviewed, and continues to be reviewed with
new data at had to be proven successfully..

reeked with scandals each week of corruption and dishonesty.

You shouldn>t talk about the W. Bush administration like that,
they might send the black helicopters to visit you any day now..

It is a ridiculous myth that there>s thousands of scientists

Nope, you>re simply lying now..

If there>s a correlation between the suns output and sunspots then so be it

Not enough to change our current man-made global warming..

As shown in the video,

I do not accept Youtube videos as 'scientific evidence'..

Maybe you shouldn>t either..

--Repeating your stupid lie isn>t going to change the facts..

Actually even just last week it looks like

Looks like, seems to be, glittering generalities both..

--And both equally false..

Yep! All those countless AGW Alarmist videos
[/quote]
That would be another false generalization..

--Starting with the "all those countless" part.. *>LOL!<*

Kurt Lochner · Guest

"gangrene, tit-hole" cowardly deleted and bleated impotently again:
[quote]
Kurt Lochner restored the text/context deleted and avoided by:

"gangrene, tit-hole" deleted and bleated impotently because:

Kurt Lochner restored the following text/context:

"gangrene, tit-hole" vented, like a right-wing parrot:

Roger Coppock wrote, originally:

The Sunspot Scapegoat

Fossil fools, in their never ending search for something
other than their master>s oil and coal products that is
the major cause of global warming, often blame sunspots.
They produce cherry picked proxy series and collections
of anecdotes to try to support this. However, directly
observed data tell a different story. Actual sunspot
count data barely show any correlation with the global
land and sea surface temperature from 1880 to 2007.

Even when you autocorrelate out 12 years, looking for an
effect of today>s sunspots on tomorrow>s temperature,
there is no strong relationship between sunspots and
global mean surface temperature, R^2<0.1. Sunspots
are for all practical purposes irrelevant to the global
warming debate.
[..]

This is just becoming stupider everyday.

Yes, what with your comments..

There>s a number of really good studies that show a correlation
between the sun and temperature changes on the earth.

And I>m certain that YouTube isn>t a peer-reviewed scientific
journal, last I checked..

(funding and participants include Government of British Columbia,
McMaster University, Carleton University, Queens University,
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmosphere sciences

Yes, I know some of the right-wing "global warming denier" crowd
has managed to wander to groves of academia, but that doesn>t
equate to verified, peer-reviewed science journalism..

Wow, so the university and the Canadian government ...

How about I start with questioning the veracity of your reference
to "McMaster University". You wouldn>t be thinking of any papers
published by Tom Harris, the Executive Director of International
Climate Science Coalition would you?

Hum, not really, I metioned the particpaonts in the study:
[/quote]
What about the published papers and authors, if you don>t mind..

[quote]They are
Government of British Columbia,
McMaster University, Carleton University, Queens University,
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmosphere sciences (CFCAS),
Ottawa-Carleton Geosciences center, University of Victoria, and
several more I failed to list.
[/quote]
I remain unimpressed with your evasions. Authors, abstracts
and the publications will be your next task. Name-dropping
doesn>t count, in case you haven>t been told that yet..

[quote]Remember, you>re the one that>s used a YouTube video for a reference..

Why are you now attacking the medium being used here?
[/quote]
I>m, telling you that a video you watched on YouTube is hardly
a scientific journalistic piece of work. You didn>t catch that,
or were you just trying to deflect attention from your paucity
of published cites?

And speaking of attacking the messenger, here>s your next
false, and deliberately negative claim..

[quote]If you don>t have a intellectually intelligent response,
then I guess all you can do is resort to throwing mud and criticize
[/quote]
You "guessed" all that about me, eh? I>m delighted to bring
it to your immediate attention that you "guessed" wrongly,
for the sake of a very poorly constructed rhetorical question..

Example follows..

[quote]Are you telling me that Usenet is more valuable Youtube?
Based in your reason and logic ...
[/quote]
I see that you>re again trying to deflect attention from the fact
that you haven>t provided one valid counter-argument, or cite
regarding how you think sunspots affect the current global
warming hypothesis..

[quote]It>s not upon me to prove you assertion, and no amount of bluster and
spittle-flecked tantrums will change that fact, m>kay?

These people were not doing a study on global warming

Then, why would that be relevant to the discussion of global warming?

Wow! Folks now we have an admission of an inability to think
[/quote]
On your lame behalf, yes.. Let>s see you back-pedal some more..

[quote]The reason why this is important is becuase the study found a link
between the sun>s energy output and that the temperature changes on
earth
[/quote]
Which you haven>t been able to provide a single cite for, past a
video you found useful to your poorly thought-out pseudoreasoning
that was on YouTube.. Then you recited some of the universities
that supposedly came up with your 'cite', but you left out the
locations of the actual studies, the background science and data
and how (or who, for that matter) it was peer-reviewed and published..

You don>t see where this is going yet, do you?

[quote]So, the fact that the study was NOT looking for this link about
the sun does not "all of a sudden" invalidate what they found!
[/quote]
Nope, it just invalidates what you think it said, that>s all..

To review, we live near a class G variable star. Yes, the sun>s
influence upon our ecosphere is critical to our well-being, but
sunspots aren>t going to invalidate the global warming hypothesis..

Nice try, but your sophistry is glaringly ignorant..

And using a YouTube as a 'cite' makes all the more laughable..

[quote]Are you going to tell me that the organizations like the IPCC will
hire scientists with a different view of their preconceived notion
[/quote]
Your first mistake was assuming that scientists will let their
"preconceived notion" affect their research and studies..

Science doesn>t work like that.. Your failed political ideologies
require a "preconceived notion", but science doesn>t, which speaks
more about how you>ve "preconceived" science, to begin with..

[quote]The really funny part is the government is already using the above
information to manage fishery and fish stocks.

That explains the mismanagement of these resources then, doesn>t it?

So changes in the suns output is very important.

Yet, you>ve not posted any numbers regarding that. As with
most right-wing "denier" nonsense, the substance of your 'glittering
generalities' is somewhat lacking, despite how much you try to
talk up about your provably false insinuations and exclamations.

And what peered review you talking about

It>s called "peer-review", and it doesn>t include YouTube videos
nor false 'absolutes' that you>ve pretended cannot be questioned..

Example follows..

It certainly cannot be the documents from the IPCC,

Your lack of understand and experience with those studies doesn>t
invalidate the individual studies, nor the conclusions draws from
that body of scientific evidence. The hypothesis for global warming
being caused by man-made gases produced by industries, automobiles
and the energy production facilities across the planet has been
rigorously tested and reviewed, and continues to be reviewed with
new data at had to be proven successfully..

Bull crap!
[/quote]
Nope, just where did you graduate with a degree in science then?

[quote]The more we study This, the more we have scientists breaking
ranks on this issue.
[/quote]
In your rather overly optimistic estimates of the situation.

I doubt that you>ll be able to honestly accept the facts that
run counter to your delusional "guesses" and "preconceived
notion" regarding the global warming hypothesis..

[quote]Why is it that the more scientists study AGW the worse the case gets?
[/quote]
Oh, something to do with the 27-28 billion tons of CO2 being
thoughtlessly belched into the troposphere every years seems a
likely cause, just for starters..

[quote]Here is a **recent** recantation by a major Australian scientist
[/quote]
He>s and electrical engineer and a programmer.. Scientist?
Well, to hear him toot his horn about it, he>s a "rocket scientist"..

www.sciencespeak.com/DavidEvans.doc

[quote]The above is telling because you see a scientist after scientists
[/quote]
No, and as a "scientist" I don>t see that at all..

[quote]Here>s another one and again the sciences started out as believing
[/quote]
Another YouTube 'cite", eh? How is it that you can>t cite an
actual paper, past a newspaper article, that is..

[quote]reeked with scandals each week of corruption and dishonesty.

You shouldn>t talk about the W. Bush administration like that,
they might send the black helicopters to visit you any day now..

It is a ridiculous myth that there>s thousands of scientists

Nope, you>re simply lying now..

If there>s a correlation between the suns output and sunspots then so be it

Not enough to change our current man-made global warming..

As shown in the video,

I do not accept Youtube videos as 'scientific evidence'..

Maybe you shouldn>t either..

--Repeating your stupid lie isn>t going to change the facts..

Actually even just last week it looks like

Looks like, seems to be, glittering generalities both..

--And both equally false..

Hold up a mirror buddy.
[/quote]
You first, put it on YouTube. Your 15 minutes awaits you..

[quote]All that doublespeak is what people like Al Gore and the idiots
on your side are.
[/quote]
*>LOL!<* Now you>re speaking/writing like ignorant trailer trash..

[quote]Why do you think Al Gore is respected
[/quote]
Because he>s educated, has served as Vice-President, and recently
started giving presentations about the global warming hypothesis
that drive narrow-minded, ambitiously ignorant right-wingers crazy..

[quote]It is because this exact kind of doublespeak
[/quote]
You need to smell what you>re shoveling there, Mr. Turtle..

[quote]However since your did question this issue about NASA,
[/quote]
*>LOL!<* And you somehow think that you>re going to lecture me
about the solar wind and its effects upon the ionosphere, how exactly?

Try this one, and removed the beam from your own eyes..

http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrsp-2006-1&key=NeugebauerEtal1994

[quote]If NASA don>t come around then they>re going to suffer a bigger loss of
credibility than when some blogger up in Canada was able to correct their
mistakes in tempature data as to the warmest years in the us.
[/quote]
Cite? Your imagination doesn>t count, in this arena..

[quote]This AGW issue is in a tailspin.
[/quote]
Don>t you just wish that were so, because otherwise, your insipid
waste of life and energy will have to change drastically, won>t it?

--Best you keep that in mind from now on, m>kay?

Whata Fool · Guest

Kurt Lochner <kurt_lochner@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote:

[quote]"gangrene, tit-hole" cowardly deleted and bleated impotently again:
[/quote]

Is this the kind of language we can expect if a leftist liberal
ends up in the whitehouse?

Ingo Menger · Guest

On 6 Okt., 00:39, Catoni <caton...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 5, 6:32 pm, Roger Coppock <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote:

On Oct 4, 7:27 am, "Green Turtle" <SuperTur...@greenpiece.com> wrote:

This is just becoming stupider everyday.

There>s a number of really good studies that show a correlation between the
sun and temperature changes on the earth.

Here is such one video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85epBo_EVOI

Canada is not the globe. Our planet is large
enough that one could cherry pick a small area
that would match almost any series of data.
This is a GLOBAL warming newsgroup. Find
a recent long-term (>30 years) relationship
between global mean near surface temperature
and the solar activity. I>m not aware of one.

Right: That why if there is a record warm temperature in Germany or
California the Global Warming Alarmists on here yell it loud and
clear.
[/quote]
Except when such warmth occured in the MWP.
Then, of course, its a regional episode only. Greenland, Europe and
the Near East is but a small region, of course .....

Lloyd · Guest

On Oct 5, 7:32 pm, Catoni <caton...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 5, 6:20 pm, Roger Coppock <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote:

On Oct 4, 1:37 pm, "Green Turtle" <SuperTur...@greenpiece.com> wrote:
[ . . . ]

The scientists were talking about a new ice age 30 years ago, and the funny

Oh, come on. Not that old urban myth.

Not a myth.
[/quote]
Yes it is. www.skepticalscience.com

[quote] Fact is a lot of them were talking about
another Ice Age.
[/quote]
Not scientists.

[quote]If you wish for a large list of magazine, newspaper,
books and even a National Geographic article from the seventies, I can
list them here.

One Example for now:
New York Times, May 21, 1975 : "Scientists Ask Why World
Climate Is Changing; Major Cooling May Be Ahead"

Another:
In the July-August 1975 issue of International Wildlife,
they were asking "In the Grip of a New Ice Age?" in a major article.

Yet another: National Geographic, November 1976, "What>s happening
to our climate?"

Let>s look at some quotes from this one:

p 581: During the last 20 to 30 years, world temperature
has fallen, irregularly at first but more sharply over the last
decade. U.S. National Science Board, 1974.

p 582: Were the cooling trend to reverse... the earth could warm
relatively rapidly, with potentially catastrophic effect. National
Science Foundation, 1975.

p 590: The climates of the earth have always been changing, and they
will doubtless continue to do so in the future. How large these future
chnages will be, and where and how rapidly they will occur, we do not
know. National Academy of Sciences, 1975.

p 595: Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the
present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end...
leading into the next glacial age.... National Science Board, 1972.
[/quote]
could be ... not a scientific prediction.

[quote]
p 600; Will we be able to recognize the first phases of a truely
significant climatic change when it does occur? NAS, 1975.

p 607: We live in an unusual epoch: today the polar regions have large
ice caps, whereas during most of the earth>s history the poles have
been ice-free. NAS, 1975.

p 610: Man may even be able to change the climate of the earth. This
is one of the most important questions of our time. NBS, 1972.

Want more??? There is actually a lot. I>ll certainly try to find
the time to get them all for you Roger if you wish. No it is no myth
that there were serious fears of Global Cooling and a return of an Ice
Age.
[/quote]
Not a one of them was (1) in a scientific journal and (2) an actual
prediction ("if ... then..." statements).

[quote]
And we all know about the famous Newsweek article don>t we???
And there are many many more. The Newsweek one is only the best know.
There are better ones though.

[/quote]
So you think Newsweek is a scientific publication. Explains a lot.

[quote] There were enough concerned scientists that it attracted the
attention of most of the media of the day. I remember our Geography
teacher believing that another Ice Age was going to hit because of
Global Cooling. There were pictures of huge ice sheets moving across
the landscape flattening cities like giant bulldozers scraping the
Earth clean.

"Oh, come on. Not that old urban myth." Really Roger??? Are you
sure?[/quote]

Lloyd · Guest

On Oct 4, 10:27 am, "Green Turtle" <SuperTur...@greenpiece.com> wrote:
[quote]This is just becoming stupider everyday.

There>s a number of really good studies that show a correlation between the
sun and temperature changes on the earth.

Here is such one video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85epBo_EVOI

(funding and participants include Government of British Columbia,
McMaster University, Carleton University, Queens University,
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmosphere sciences (CFCAS),
Ottawa-Carleton Geosciences center, University of Victoria, and
several more I failed to list).

[/quote]
The CFCAS:

"We concur with the climate science assessment of the
Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) in 2001, which has also been supported by the
Royal Society of
Canada and the national academies of science of all G-8 countries, as
well as those of
China, India and Brazil. We endorse the conclusions of the IPCC
assessment that
“There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed
over the last 50
years is attributable to human activities” and of the 2005 Arctic
Climate Impact
Assessment that “Arctic temperatures have risen at almost twice the
rate of those in the
rest of the world over the past few decades”."

[quote]The really funny part is the government is already using the above
information to manage fishery and fish stocks. In other words the above
information is already being put to good practical use. This study is not
the first nor the last in a long line studies that shows correlation between
temperature changes and changes in the suns output.

So changes in the suns output is very important.

The issue of the sun>s output changing temperatures on the earth should be
considered separate from that of changes in sunspot activity.

If there>s a correlation between the suns output and sunspots then so be it.

Super Turtle[/quote]

Kurt Lochner · Guest

"lotta stool" <fool@whatami.nut> was deleting and bleating because:
[quote]
Kurt Lochner <kurt_lochner@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote:

"gangrene, tit-hole" cowardly deleted and bleated impotently again:

Kurt Lochner restored the text/context deleted and avoided by:

"gangrene, tit-hole" deleted and bleated impotently because:

Kurt Lochner restored the following text/context:

"gangrene, tit-hole" vented, like a right-wing parrot:
- - - - - - -
This is just becoming stupider everyday.

Yes, what with your comments..

There>s a number of really good studies that show a correlation
between the sun and temperature changes on the earth.

And I>m certain that YouTube isn>t a peer-reviewed scientific
journal, last I checked..

(funding and participants include Government of British Columbia,
McMaster University, Carleton University, Queens University,
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmosphere sciences

Yes, I know some of the right-wing "global warming denier" crowd
has managed to wander to groves of academia, but that doesn>t
equate to verified, peer-reviewed science journalism..

Wow, so the university and the Canadian government ...

How about I start with questioning the veracity of your reference
to "McMaster University". You wouldn>t be thinking of any papers
published by Tom Harris, the Executive Director of International
Climate Science Coalition would you?

Hum, not really, I metioned the particpaonts in the study:

What about the published papers and authors, if you don>t mind..

They are
Government of British Columbia,
McMaster University, Carleton University, Queens University,
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmosphere sciences (CFCAS),
Ottawa-Carleton Geosciences center, University of Victoria, and
several more I failed to list.

I remain unimpressed with your evasions. Authors, abstracts
and the publications will be your next task. Name-dropping
doesn>t count, in case you haven>t been told that yet..

Remember, you>re the one that>s used a YouTube video for a reference..

Why are you now attacking the medium being used here?

I>m, telling you that a video you watched on YouTube is hardly
a scientific journalistic piece of work. You didn>t catch that,
or were you just trying to deflect attention from your paucity
of published cites?

And speaking of attacking the messenger, here>s your next
false, and deliberately negative claim..

If you don>t have a intellectually intelligent response,
then I guess all you can do is resort to throwing mud and criticize

You "guessed" all that about me, eh? I>m delighted to bring
it to your immediate attention that you "guessed" wrongly,
for the sake of a very poorly constructed rhetorical question..

Example follows..

Are you telling me that Usenet is more valuable Youtube?
Based in your reason and logic ...

I see that you>re again trying to deflect attention from the fact
that you haven>t provided one valid counter-argument, or cite
regarding how you think sunspots affect the current global
warming hypothesis..

It>s not upon me to prove you assertion, and no amount of bluster and
spittle-flecked tantrums will change that fact, m>kay?

These people were not doing a study on global warming

Then, why would that be relevant to the discussion of global warming?

Wow! Folks now we have an admission of an inability to think

On your lame behalf, yes.. Let>s see you back-pedal some more..

The reason why this is important is becuase the study found a link
between the sun>s energy output and that the temperature changes on
earth

Which you haven>t been able to provide a single cite for, past a
video you found useful to your poorly thought-out pseudoreasoning
that was on YouTube.. Then you recited some of the universities
that supposedly came up with your 'cite', but you left out the
locations of the actual studies, the background science and data
and how (or who, for that matter) it was peer-reviewed and published..

You don>t see where this is going yet, do you?

So, the fact that the study was NOT looking for this link about
the sun does not "all of a sudden" invalidate what they found!

Nope, it just invalidates what you think it said, that>s all..

To review, we live near a class G variable star. Yes, the sun>s
influence upon our ecosphere is critical to our well-being, but
sunspots aren>t going to invalidate the global warming hypothesis..

Nice try, but your sophistry is glaringly ignorant..

And using a YouTube as a 'cite' makes all the more laughable..

Are you going to tell me that the organizations like the IPCC will
hire scientists with a different view of their preconceived notion

Your first mistake was assuming that scientists will let their
"preconceived notion" affect their research and studies..

Science doesn>t work like that.. Your failed political ideologies
require a "preconceived notion", but science doesn>t, which speaks
more about how you>ve "preconceived" science, to begin with..

The really funny part is the government is already using the above
information to manage fishery and fish stocks.

That explains the mismanagement of these resources then, doesn>t it?

So changes in the suns output is very important.

Yet, you>ve not posted any numbers regarding that. As with
most right-wing "denier" nonsense, the substance of your 'glittering
generalities' is somewhat lacking, despite how much you try to
talk up about your provably false insinuations and exclamations.

And what peered review you talking about

It>s called "peer-review", and it doesn>t include YouTube videos
nor false 'absolutes' that you>ve pretended cannot be questioned..

Example follows..

It certainly cannot be the documents from the IPCC,

Your lack of understand and experience with those studies doesn>t
invalidate the individual studies, nor the conclusions draws from
that body of scientific evidence. The hypothesis for global warming
being caused by man-made gases produced by industries, automobiles
and the energy production facilities across the planet has been
rigorously tested and reviewed, and continues to be reviewed with
new data at had to be proven successfully..

Bull crap!

Nope, just where did you graduate with a degree in science then?

The more we study This, the more we have scientists breaking
ranks on this issue.

In your rather overly optimistic estimates of the situation.

I doubt that you>ll be able to honestly accept the facts that
run counter to your delusional "guesses" and "preconceived
notion" regarding the global warming hypothesis..

Why is it that the more scientists study AGW the worse the case gets?

Oh, something to do with the 27-28 billion tons of CO2 being
thoughtlessly belched into the troposphere every years seems a
likely cause, just for starters..

Here is a **recent** recantation by a major Australian scientist

He>s and electrical engineer and a programmer.. Scientist?
Well, to hear him toot his horn about it, he>s a "rocket scientist"..

www.sciencespeak.com/DavidEvans.doc

The above is telling because you see a scientist after scientists

No, and as a "scientist" I don>t see that at all..

Here>s another one and again the sciences started out as believing

Another YouTube 'cite", eh? How is it that you can>t cite an
actual paper, past a newspaper article, that is..

reeked with scandals each week of corruption and dishonesty.

You shouldn>t talk about the W. Bush administration like that,
they might send the black helicopters to visit you any day now..

It is a ridiculous myth that there>s thousands of scientists

Nope, you>re simply lying now..

If there>s a correlation between the suns output and sunspots then so be it

Not enough to change our current man-made global warming..

As shown in the video,

I do not accept Youtube videos as 'scientific evidence'..

Maybe you shouldn>t either..

--Repeating your stupid lie isn>t going to change the facts..

Actually even just last week it looks like

Looks like, seems to be, glittering generalities both..

--And both equally false..

Hold up a mirror buddy.

You first, put it on YouTube. Your 15 minutes awaits you..

All that doublespeak is what people like Al Gore and the idiots
on your side are.

*>LOL!<* Now you>re speaking/writing like ignorant trailer trash..

Why do you think Al Gore is respected

Because he>s educated, has served as Vice-President, and recently
started giving presentations about the global warming hypothesis
that drive narrow-minded, ambitiously ignorant right-wingers crazy..

It is because this exact kind of doublespeak

You need to smell what you>re shoveling there, Mr. Turtle..

However since your did question this issue about NASA,

*>LOL!<* And you somehow think that you>re going to lecture me
about the solar wind and its effects upon the ionosphere, how exactly?

Try this one, and removed the beam from your own eyes..

http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrsp-2006-1&key=NeugebauerEtal1994

If NASA don>t come around then they>re going to suffer a bigger loss of
credibility than when some blogger up in Canada was able to correct their
mistakes in tempature data as to the warmest years in the us.

Cite? Your imagination doesn>t count, in this arena..

This AGW issue is in a tailspin.

Don>t you just wish that were so, because otherwise, your insipid
waste of life and energy will have to change drastically, won>t it?

--Best you keep that in mind from now on, m>kay?

Is this the kind of language we can expect if a leftist liberal
[/quote]
Is this the kind of evasion we can expect of right-wing <l>users
if Obama is elected President and the Democratic Party wins 60
seats in the Senate?

--I see that you couldn>t address the issues again, stool..

Jean Ludovicy · Guest

"Kurt Lochner" <kurt_lochner@NOSPAMhotmail.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:48E8238E.AC691F94@NOSPAMhotmail.com...
[quote]"gangrene, tit-hole" deleted and bleated impotently because:

I do not accept Youtube videos as 'scientific evidence'..

Maybe you shouldn>t either..

[/quote]

You are correct! Fore example those here below are particulary misleading.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7mQnZ__GaI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdPcwwK5DII&feature=related

Jean Ludovicy · Guest

"Catoni" <catoni52@sympatico.ca> a écrit dans le message de
news:a282d03d-0ae8-44e9-9ff4-aa0ed1517e69@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 5, 6:20 pm, Roger Coppock <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 4, 1:37 pm, "Green Turtle" <SuperTur...@greenpiece.com> wrote:
[ . . . ]

The scientists were talking about a new ice age 30 years ago, and the
funny

Oh, come on. Not that old urban myth.
[/quote]
Not a myth.
Fact is a lot of them were talking about
another Ice Age. If you wish for a large list of magazine, newspaper,
books and even a National Geographic article from the seventies, I can
list them here.

One Example for now:
New York Times, May 21, 1975 : "Scientists Ask Why World
Climate Is Changing; Major Cooling May Be Ahead"

Another:
In the July-August 1975 issue of International Wildlife,
they were asking "In the Grip of a New Ice Age?" in a major article.

Yet another: National Geographic, November 1976, "What>s happening
to our climate?"

Let>s look at some quotes from this one:

p 581: During the last 20 to 30 years, world temperature
has fallen, irregularly at first but more sharply over the last
decade. U.S. National Science Board, 1974.

p 582: Were the cooling trend to reverse... the earth could warm
relatively rapidly, with potentially catastrophic effect. National
Science Foundation, 1975.

p 590: The climates of the earth have always been changing, and they
will doubtless continue to do so in the future. How large these future
chnages will be, and where and how rapidly they will occur, we do not
know. National Academy of Sciences, 1975.

p 595: Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the
present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end...
leading into the next glacial age.... National Science Board, 1972.

p 600; Will we be able to recognize the first phases of a truely
significant climatic change when it does occur? NAS, 1975.

p 607: We live in an unusual epoch: today the polar regions have large
ice caps, whereas during most of the earth>s history the poles have
been ice-free. NAS, 1975.

p 610: Man may even be able to change the climate of the earth. This
is one of the most important questions of our time. NBS, 1972.

Want more??? There is actually a lot. I>ll certainly try to find
the time to get them all for you Roger if you wish. No it is no myth
that there were serious fears of Global Cooling and a return of an Ice
Age.

And we all know about the famous Newsweek article don>t we???
And there are many many more. The Newsweek one is only the best know.
There are better ones though.

There were enough concerned scientists that it attracted the
attention of most of the media of the day. I remember our Geography
teacher believing that another Ice Age was going to hit because of
Global Cooling. There were pictures of huge ice sheets moving across
the landscape flattening cities like giant bulldozers scraping the
Earth clean.

"Oh, come on. Not that old urban myth." Really Roger??? Are you
sure?

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

Did you expect an answer on this?
Most of AGWers were not yet born, or they are using selectif amnesia.

Kurt Lochner · Guest

"seems ludicrous" <sock_puppet@lotta_stool.nut> whined incredulously:
[quote]
Kurt Lochner was refuting the prepubescent rationalizations of:

"stupor, title" deleted and bleated impotently because:

Kurt Lochner restored the following text/context:

"stupor, title" vented, like a right-wing parrot:

Roger Coppock wrote, originally:

The Sunspot Scapegoat

Fossil fools, in their never ending search for something
other than their master>s oil and coal products that is
the major cause of global warming, often blame sunspots.
They produce cherry picked proxy series and collections
of anecdotes to try to support this. However, directly
observed data tell a different story. Actual sunspot
count data barely show any correlation with the global
land and sea surface temperature from 1880 to 2007.

Even when you autocorrelate out 12 years, looking for an
effect of today>s sunspots on tomorrow>s temperature,
there is no strong relationship between sunspots and
global mean surface temperature, R^2<0.1. Sunspots
are for all practical purposes irrelevant to the global
warming debate.
[..]

This is just becoming stupider everyday.

Yes, what with your comments..

There>s a number of really good studies that show a correlation
between the sun and temperature changes on the earth.

And I>m certain that YouTube isn>t a peer-reviewed scientific
journal, last I checked..

(funding and participants include Government of British Columbia,
McMaster University, Carleton University, Queens University,
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmosphere sciences

Yes, I know some of the right-wing "global warming denier" crowd
has managed to wander to groves of academia, but that doesn>t
equate to verified, peer-reviewed science journalism..

Wow, so the university and the Canadian government ...

How about I start with questioning the veracity of your reference
to "McMaster University". You wouldn>t be thinking of any papers
published by Tom Harris, the Executive Director of International
Climate Science Coalition would you?

Remember, you>re the one that>s used a YouTube video for a reference..

It>s not upon me to prove you assertion, and no amount of bluster and
spittle-flecked tantrums will change that fact, m>kay?

These people were not doing a study on global warming

Then, why would that be relevant to the discussion of global warming?

I find your attitude of trying to pin this

I find your opinion of something you could barely know for a fact
to be nothing more than the flimsy rationalizations of a 'straw
man' pseudo-argument after having your credentials/cites questioned
as being utterly without scientific merit..

The really funny part is the government is already using the above
information to manage fishery and fish stocks.

That explains the mismanagement of these resources then, doesn>t it?

So changes in the suns output is very important.

Yet, you>ve not posted any numbers regarding that. As with
most right-wing "denier" nonsense, the substance of your 'glittering
generalities' is somewhat lacking, despite how much you try to
talk up about your provably false insinuations and exclamations.

And what peered review you talking about

It>s called "peer-review", and it doesn>t include YouTube videos
nor false 'absolutes' that you>ve pretended cannot be questioned..

Example follows..

It certainly cannot be the documents from the IPCC,

Your lack of understand and experience with those studies doesn>t
invalidate the individual studies, nor the conclusions draws from
that body of scientific evidence. The hypothesis for global warming
being caused by man-made gases produced by industries, automobiles
and the energy production facilities across the planet has been
rigorously tested and reviewed, and continues to be reviewed with
new data at had to be proven successfully..

reeked with scandals each week of corruption and dishonesty.

You shouldn>t talk about the W. Bush administration like that,
they might send the black helicopters to visit you any day now..

It is a ridiculous myth that there>s thousands of scientists

Nope, you>re simply lying now..

If there>s a correlation between the suns output and sunspots then so be it

Not enough to change our current man-made global warming..

As shown in the video,

I do not accept Youtube videos as 'scientific evidence'..

Maybe you shouldn>t either..

You are correct!
[/quote]
And your pointless remark, followed by another couple of YouTube videos
was?

--Maybe you should find another hobby, you aren>t very good at this..

Roger Coppock · Guest

On Oct 5, 4:32 pm, Catoni <caton...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 5, 6:20 pm, Roger Coppock <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote:

On Oct 4, 1:37 pm, "Green Turtle" <SuperTur...@greenpiece.com> wrote:
[ . . . ]

The scientists were talking about a new ice age 30 years ago, and the funny

Oh, come on. Not that old urban myth.

Not a myth.
Fact is a lot of them were talking about
another Ice Age. If you wish for a large list of magazine, newspaper,
books and even a National Geographic article from the seventies, I can
list them here.

One Example for now:
New York Times, May 21, 1975 : "Scientists Ask Why World
Climate Is Changing; Major Cooling May Be Ahead"

Another:
In the July-August 1975 issue of International Wildlife,
they were asking "In the Grip of a New Ice Age?" in a major article.

Yet another: National Geographic, November 1976, "What>s happening
to our climate?"

Hheelloo . . . ? The New York Times, International Wildlife,[/quote]
and National Geographic do not publish peer-reviewed
science.

Denialist 'Global Cooling' prediction hoax exposed
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/10/global-cooling-...
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/the-global-cool...
http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11643

Some of the links may be old. This myth
was debunked a decade ago.

Lloyd · Guest

On Oct 7, 12:40 pm, "Jean Ludovicy" <jean.ludov...@orange.fr> wrote:
[quote]"Lloyd" <lpar...@emory.edu> a écrit dans le message denews:6e83950d-5203-4080-8824-1fbef3ffcf10@l62g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 5, 7:32 pm, Catoni <caton...@sympatico.ca> wrote:

On Oct 5, 6:20 pm, Roger Coppock <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote:

On Oct 4, 1:37 pm, "Green Turtle" <SuperTur...@greenpiece.com> wrote:
[ . . . ]

The scientists were talking about a new ice age 30 years ago, and the
funny

Oh, come on. Not that old urban myth.

Not a myth.

Yes it is. www.skepticalscience.com

Fact is a lot of them were talking about
another Ice Age.

Not scientists.

If you wish for a large list of magazine, newspaper,
books and even a National Geographic article from the seventies, I can
list them here.

One Example for now:
New York Times, May 21, 1975 : "Scientists Ask Why World
Climate Is Changing; Major Cooling May Be Ahead"

Another:
In the July-August 1975 issue of International Wildlife,
they were asking "In the Grip of a New Ice Age?" in a major article.

Yet another: National Geographic, November 1976, "What>s happening
to our climate?"

Let>s look at some quotes from this one:

p 581: During the last 20 to 30 years, world temperature
has fallen, irregularly at first but more sharply over the last
decade. U.S. National Science Board, 1974.

p 582: Were the cooling trend to reverse... the earth could warm
relatively rapidly, with potentially catastrophic effect. National
Science Foundation, 1975.

p 590: The climates of the earth have always been changing, and they
will doubtless continue to do so in the future. How large these future
chnages will be, and where and how rapidly they will occur, we do not
know. National Academy of Sciences, 1975.

p 595: Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the
present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end...
leading into the next glacial age.... National Science Board, 1972.

could be ... not a scientific prediction.

p 600; Will we be able to recognize the first phases of a truely
significant climatic change when it does occur? NAS, 1975.

p 607: We live in an unusual epoch: today the polar regions have large
ice caps, whereas during most of the earth>s history the poles have
been ice-free. NAS, 1975.

p 610: Man may even be able to change the climate of the earth. This
is one of the most important questions of our time. NBS, 1972.

Want more??? There is actually a lot. I>ll certainly try to find
the time to get them all for you Roger if you wish. No it is no myth
that there were serious fears of Global Cooling and a return of an Ice
Age.

Not a one of them was (1) in a scientific journal and (2) an actual
prediction ("if ... then..." statements).

Oh yes so is Al Gore.

And we all know about the famous Newsweek article don>t we???
And there are many many more. The Newsweek one is only the best know.
There are better ones though.

So you think Newsweek is a scientific publication. Explains a lot.

The IPCC also is a scientific institution according to you.
[/quote]
Gee, let>s see ... get together 2500 of the world>s leading climate
scientists into a body ... yep, I>d call that a scientific
institution.

If you got together 2500 of the world>s leading physicians, you>d
have ... a medical body. If you got together 2500 of the world>s
leading engineers, you>d have ... an engineering body.

The pressing question is, why is that a foreign concept to you?

Jean Ludovicy · Guest

"Kurt Lochner" <kurt_lochner@NOSPAMhotmail.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:48EAE2D0.B2F25F8C@NOSPAMhotmail.com...
[quote]"seems ludicrous" <sock_puppet@lotta_stool.nut> whined incredulously:

Kurt Lochner was refuting the prepubescent rationalizations of:

"stupor, title" deleted and bleated impotently because:

Kurt Lochner restored the following text/context:

"stupor, title" vented, like a right-wing parrot:

Roger Coppock wrote, originally:

The Sunspot Scapegoat

Fossil fools, in their never ending search for something
other than their master>s oil and coal products that is
the major cause of global warming, often blame sunspots.
They produce cherry picked proxy series and collections
of anecdotes to try to support this. However, directly
observed data tell a different story. Actual sunspot
count data barely show any correlation with the global
land and sea surface temperature from 1880 to 2007.

Even when you autocorrelate out 12 years, looking for an
effect of today>s sunspots on tomorrow>s temperature,
there is no strong relationship between sunspots and
global mean surface temperature, R^2<0.1. Sunspots
are for all practical purposes irrelevant to the global
warming debate.
[..]

This is just becoming stupider everyday.

Yes, what with your comments..

There>s a number of really good studies that show a correlation
between the sun and temperature changes on the earth.

And I>m certain that YouTube isn>t a peer-reviewed scientific
journal, last I checked..

(funding and participants include Government of British Columbia,
McMaster University, Carleton University, Queens University,
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmosphere sciences

Yes, I know some of the right-wing "global warming denier" crowd
has managed to wander to groves of academia, but that doesn>t
equate to verified, peer-reviewed science journalism..

Wow, so the university and the Canadian government ...

How about I start with questioning the veracity of your reference
to "McMaster University". You wouldn>t be thinking of any papers
published by Tom Harris, the Executive Director of International
Climate Science Coalition would you?

Remember, you>re the one that>s used a YouTube video for a reference..

It>s not upon me to prove you assertion, and no amount of bluster and
spittle-flecked tantrums will change that fact, m>kay?

These people were not doing a study on global warming

Then, why would that be relevant to the discussion of global warming?

I find your attitude of trying to pin this

I find your opinion of something you could barely know for a fact
to be nothing more than the flimsy rationalizations of a 'straw
man' pseudo-argument after having your credentials/cites questioned
as being utterly without scientific merit..

The really funny part is the government is already using the above
information to manage fishery and fish stocks.

That explains the mismanagement of these resources then, doesn>t
it?

So changes in the suns output is very important.

Yet, you>ve not posted any numbers regarding that. As with
most right-wing "denier" nonsense, the substance of your
'glittering
generalities' is somewhat lacking, despite how much you try to
talk up about your provably false insinuations and exclamations.

And what peered review you talking about

It>s called "peer-review", and it doesn>t include YouTube videos
nor false 'absolutes' that you>ve pretended cannot be questioned..

Example follows..

It certainly cannot be the documents from the IPCC,

Your lack of understand and experience with those studies doesn>t
invalidate the individual studies, nor the conclusions draws from
that body of scientific evidence. The hypothesis for global warming
being caused by man-made gases produced by industries, automobiles
and the energy production facilities across the planet has been
rigorously tested and reviewed, and continues to be reviewed with
new data at had to be proven successfully..

reeked with scandals each week of corruption and dishonesty.

You shouldn>t talk about the W. Bush administration like that,
they might send the black helicopters to visit you any day now..

It is a ridiculous myth that there>s thousands of scientists

Nope, you>re simply lying now..

If there>s a correlation between the suns output and sunspots then
so be it

Not enough to change our current man-made global warming..

As shown in the video,

I do not accept Youtube videos as 'scientific evidence'..

Maybe you shouldn>t either..

You are correct!

And your pointless remark, followed by another couple of YouTube videos
was?

--Maybe you should find another hobby, you aren>t very good at this..
[/quote]

Keep your lessons for your self!

Jean Ludovicy · Guest

"Lloyd" <lparker@emory.edu> a écrit dans le message de
news:6e83950d-5203-4080-8824-1fbef3ffcf10@l62g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 5, 7:32 pm, Catoni <caton...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 5, 6:20 pm, Roger Coppock <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote:

On Oct 4, 1:37 pm, "Green Turtle" <SuperTur...@greenpiece.com> wrote:
[ . . . ]

The scientists were talking about a new ice age 30 years ago, and the
funny

Oh, come on. Not that old urban myth.

Not a myth.
[/quote]
Yes it is. www.skepticalscience.com

[quote]Fact is a lot of them were talking about
another Ice Age.
[/quote]
Not scientists.

[quote]If you wish for a large list of magazine, newspaper,
books and even a National Geographic article from the seventies, I can
list them here.

One Example for now:
New York Times, May 21, 1975 : "Scientists Ask Why World
Climate Is Changing; Major Cooling May Be Ahead"

Another:
In the July-August 1975 issue of International Wildlife,
they were asking "In the Grip of a New Ice Age?" in a major article.

Yet another: National Geographic, November 1976, "What>s happening
to our climate?"

Let>s look at some quotes from this one:

p 581: During the last 20 to 30 years, world temperature
has fallen, irregularly at first but more sharply over the last
decade. U.S. National Science Board, 1974.

p 582: Were the cooling trend to reverse... the earth could warm
relatively rapidly, with potentially catastrophic effect. National
Science Foundation, 1975.

p 590: The climates of the earth have always been changing, and they
will doubtless continue to do so in the future. How large these future
chnages will be, and where and how rapidly they will occur, we do not
know. National Academy of Sciences, 1975.

p 595: Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the
present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end...
leading into the next glacial age.... National Science Board, 1972.
[/quote]
could be ... not a scientific prediction.

[quote]
p 600; Will we be able to recognize the first phases of a truely
significant climatic change when it does occur? NAS, 1975.

p 607: We live in an unusual epoch: today the polar regions have large
ice caps, whereas during most of the earth>s history the poles have
been ice-free. NAS, 1975.

p 610: Man may even be able to change the climate of the earth. This
is one of the most important questions of our time. NBS, 1972.

Want more??? There is actually a lot. I>ll certainly try to find
the time to get them all for you Roger if you wish. No it is no myth
that there were serious fears of Global Cooling and a return of an Ice
Age.
[/quote]
Not a one of them was (1) in a scientific journal and (2) an actual
prediction ("if ... then..." statements).

Oh yes so is Al Gore.

[quote]
And we all know about the famous Newsweek article don>t we???
And there are many many more. The Newsweek one is only the best know.
There are better ones though.

[/quote]
So you think Newsweek is a scientific publication. Explains a lot.

The IPCC also is a scientific institution according to you.

Catoni · Guest

On Oct 7, 10:48 am, Roger Coppock <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 5, 4:32 pm, Catoni <caton...@sympatico.ca> wrote:

On Oct 5, 6:20 pm, Roger Coppock <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote:

On Oct 4, 1:37 pm, "Green Turtle" <SuperTur...@greenpiece.com> wrote:
[ . . . ]

The scientists were talking about a new ice age 30 years ago, and the funny

Oh, come on. Not that old urban myth.

Not a myth.
Fact is a lot of them were talking about
another Ice Age. If you wish for a large list of magazine, newspaper,
books and even a National Geographic article from the seventies, I can
list them here.

One Example for now:
New York Times, May 21, 1975 : "Scientists Ask Why World
Climate Is Changing; Major Cooling May Be Ahead"

Another:
In the July-August 1975 issue of International Wildlife,
they were asking "In the Grip of a New Ice Age?" in a major article..

Yet another: National Geographic, November 1976, "What>s happening
to our climate?"

Hheelloo . . . ? The New York Times, International Wildlife,
and National Geographic do not publish peer-reviewed
science.

Denialist 'Global Cooling' prediction hoax exposedhttp://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/10/global-cooling-...http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/the-global-cool...http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11643

Some of the links may be old. This myth
was debunked a decade ago.
[/quote]
For God>s sake, the general public do not give a damn about "peer
review" crap. You get a communist to write a paper supporting
communism and get a bunch of his "peers" to review it and endorse it.
It would still be commie shit. Get a bunch of scientists who lean
strongly to the left, and are getting big checks from governments and
foundations and sure they will "peer review" each others papers.

All those newspapers, magazines and books and new on tv back
then quoted scientists, and groups of scientists. That>s all the
public needed to get the idea that we were headed perhaps for Gobal
Cooling and possibly an Ice Age.

You must be a "Denier" if you deny that there was a Global Cooling
scare going on back then.


www.GetXFactor.com Leading Technology, Science, Agriculture News and information	Part of the Identityscape.com network... getxfactor.com jmoodmusic.com smartbusinesschoices.com mintdepot.com lowfaresalways.com evangelicalview.com shoppingpodder.com soproudlywehail.com webnews.ws currenthumor.com

Science and Technology news... Forum Index -> The Big Environment Forum	Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next
Page 2 of 3