Smoke one for the Wilkins Ice Shelf

Re: Smoke one for the Wilkins Ice Shelf


"Tom S." <t.m.s.work@cox,net > wrote in message
news:9XbIj.21470$KJ1.9695@newsfe19.lga...
>
> "Miss Elaine Eos" <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked,com > wrote in message
> news:Misc-3DC10D.08184031032008@news.sf.sbcglobal,net ...
>> In article <w27Ij.9710$p97.1287@trnddc03>,
>> "Paul M. Cook" <pmcook@gte,net > wrote:
>>
>>> Hmmm .. check this list out:
>>>
>>> American Astronomical Society
>>> American Quaternary Association
>>> American Chemical Society
>>> Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)
>>>
>>> All of them are in consensus which means all of your sources would get
>>> their
>>> ass handed to them on a plate if they cared to take on those names.
>>
>> I believe it was you who said the engineers, specifically, don't get to
>> play in this game. Yes, I recall you specifically lambasting someone
>> for being an engineer and, hence, they couldn't possibly know anything
>> about the climate.
>>
>> I'm not sure what you think about astronomers, groups of four or
>> chemists, but I can't imagine you cut them much more slack than the
>> engineers...
>>
> Societal epistomology (i.e., group think - where have we heard THAT
> before?)

Keep flailing, I love to watch you suffer. Using thoroughly discredited and
inappropriate sources of your "proof" - talk about desperation.

Hey don't worry, Tommie, momma Misc will be along soon to make it all better
for you. One giant boob for you to suck on. It really is just how you look
at it, after all. One person's historian is another persons savior.

Paul

-- deleted messages --

-- deleted messages --

Re: Smoke one for the Wilkins Ice Shelf

In article <BjQHj.7975$QW6.5696@trnddc07>,
"Paul M. Cook" <pmcook@gte,net > wrote:

> > Apparently this happened in the 1980s as well. I don't decry global
> > warming...just about how much we're truly contributing towards it.
> > CigarBaron

> Well consider that the ice in question, 250 square miles in area and 1 mile
> thick, is estimated to be more than a million years old and it is just now
> melting, that says a lot about what has been happening in the last 30 years.

I think the point, actually, is to question just what, exactly, it says
about what has been happening in the last 30 years!

> That would be an unprecedented even. Nowhere in the geologic history has
> such instability been recorded in as little as 30 years, it usually has been
> in the order of tens of thousands of years.

* Geologic history is RIFE with incidents on a far bigger scale in much
shorter time frames. The Earth is a rather unstable planet.

* 250 cubic miles of ice over 10s of 1000s of years isn't "instability",
it's just "ice melting."

* Try not to get too impressed with big numbers. If the Earth were the
size of a decent apple (like a big red delicious, let's say), the
amounts by which you're so impressed are smaller than the hole you would
make with a shirt pin. No, it's not "nothing", but neither has the
apple been peeled...

--
Please take off your pants or I won't read your e-mail.
I will not, no matter how "good" the deal, patronise any business which sends
unsolicited commercial e-mail or that advertises in discussion newsgroups.

Re: Smoke one for the Wilkins Ice Shelf


"Miss Elaine Eos" <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked,com > wrote in message
news:Misc-DB3555.14523630032008@news.sf.sbcglobal,net ...
> In article <BjQHj.7975$QW6.5696@trnddc07>,
> "Paul M. Cook" <pmcook@gte,net > wrote:
>
>> > Apparently this happened in the 1980s as well. I don't decry global
>> > warming...just about how much we're truly contributing towards it.
>> > CigarBaron
>
>> Well consider that the ice in question, 250 square miles in area and 1
>> mile
>> thick, is estimated to be more than a million years old and it is just
>> now
>> melting, that says a lot about what has been happening in the last 30
>> years.
>
> I think the point, actually, is to question just what, exactly, it says
> about what has been happening in the last 30 years!
>
>> That would be an unprecedented even. Nowhere in the geologic history has
>> such instability been recorded in as little as 30 years, it usually has
>> been
>> in the order of tens of thousands of years.
>
> * Geologic history is RIFE with incidents on a far bigger scale in much
> shorter time frames. The Earth is a rather unstable planet.
>
> * 250 cubic miles of ice over 10s of 1000s of years isn't "instability",
> it's just "ice melting."

And it's not even melting (it never gets over 0C) - it's CALVING, then it
drifts into warmer waters.
>
> * Try not to get too impressed with big numbers. If the Earth were the
> size of a decent apple (like a big red delicious, let's say), the
> amounts by which you're so impressed are smaller than the hole you would
> make with a shirt pin. No, it's not "nothing", but neither has the
> apple been peeled...

“The shattered part of the Wilkins ice sheet was 160 square miles in area,
which is just 0.01% of the total current Antarctic icecover (just 0.003% of
the extent last September), like an icicle falling from a snow and ice
covered roof. And this winter is coming on quickly. The latest satellite
images and reports suggest the ice has already refrozen around the broken
pieces. In fact the ice is returning so fast, it is running an amazing 60%
ahead (4.0 vs 2.5 million square km extent) of last year when it set a new
record. The total ice extent is already approaching the second highest level
for extent since the measurements began by satellite in 1979 and just a few
days into the Southern Hemisphere fall season and 6 months ahead of the
peak. We are very likely going to exceed last year’s record [for Southern
Hemisphere ice extent]. Yet the world is left with the false impression
Antarctica’s ice sheet is also starting to disappear,” - Meteorologist
Joseph D'Aleo

(Aleo served as the first Director of Meteorology at The Weather Channel,was
the Chief Meteorologist at Weather Services International Corporation and
served as chairman of the American Meteorological Society's (AMS) Committee
on Weather Analysis and Forecasting.)

Re: Smoke one for the Wilkins Ice Shelf


"Tom S." <t.m.s.work@cox,net > wrote in message
news:X1VHj.52699$yk5.13975@newsfe18.lga...
>
> "Miss Elaine Eos" <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked,com > wrote in message
> news:Misc-DB3555.14523630032008@news.sf.sbcglobal,net ...
>> In article <BjQHj.7975$QW6.5696@trnddc07>,
>> "Paul M. Cook" <pmcook@gte,net > wrote:
>>
>>> > Apparently this happened in the 1980s as well. I don't decry global
>>> > warming...just about how much we're truly contributing towards it.
>>> > CigarBaron
>>
>>> Well consider that the ice in question, 250 square miles in area and 1
>>> mile
>>> thick, is estimated to be more than a million years old and it is just
>>> now
>>> melting, that says a lot about what has been happening in the last 30
>>> years.
>>
>> I think the point, actually, is to question just what, exactly, it says
>> about what has been happening in the last 30 years!
>>
>>> That would be an unprecedented even. Nowhere in the geologic history
>>> has
>>> such instability been recorded in as little as 30 years, it usually has
>>> been
>>> in the order of tens of thousands of years.
>>
>> * Geologic history is RIFE with incidents on a far bigger scale in much
>> shorter time frames. The Earth is a rather unstable planet.
>>
>> * 250 cubic miles of ice over 10s of 1000s of years isn't "instability",
>> it's just "ice melting."
>
> And it's not even melting (it never gets over 0C) - it's CALVING, then it
> drifts into warmer waters.
>>
>> * Try not to get too impressed with big numbers. If the Earth were the
>> size of a decent apple (like a big red delicious, let's say), the
>> amounts by which you're so impressed are smaller than the hole you would
>> make with a shirt pin. No, it's not "nothing", but neither has the
>> apple been peeled...
>
> "The shattered part of the Wilkins ice sheet was 160 square miles in area,
> which is just 0.01% of the total current Antarctic icecover (just 0.003%
> of the extent last September), like an icicle falling from a snow and ice
> covered roof. And this winter is coming on quickly. The latest satellite
> images and reports suggest the ice has already refrozen around the broken
> pieces. In fact the ice is returning so fast, it is running an amazing 60%
> ahead (4.0 vs 2.5 million square km extent) of last year when it set a new
> record. The total ice extent is already approaching the second highest
> level for extent since the measurements began by satellite in 1979 and
> just a few days into the Southern Hemisphere fall season and 6 months
> ahead of the peak. We are very likely going to exceed last year's record
> [for Southern Hemisphere ice extent]. Yet the world is left with the false
> impression Antarctica's ice sheet is also starting to disappear," -
> Meteorologist Joseph D'Aleo
>
> (Aleo served as the first Director of Meteorology at The Weather
> Channel,was the Chief Meteorologist at Weather Services International
> Corporation and served as chairman of the American Meteorological
> Society's (AMS) Committee on Weather Analysis and Forecasting.)
>

Ya know Tom, you really should start the lecture circuit. Invite all those
lame scientists who are just so worked up over nothing. You could do a lot
to straighten this whole controversy out. Your talents are just wasted with
this crowd.

Paul

Re: Smoke one for the Wilkins Ice Shelf

"Paul M. Cook" <pmcook@gte,net > wrote:

>
>"Tom S." <t.m.s.work@cox,net > wrote in message
>news:X1VHj.52699$yk5.13975@newsfe18.lga...
>>
>> "Miss Elaine Eos" <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked,com > wrote in message
>> news:Misc-DB3555.14523630032008@news.sf.sbcglobal,net ...
>>> In article <BjQHj.7975$QW6.5696@trnddc07>,
>>> "Paul M. Cook" <pmcook@gte,net > wrote:
>>>
>>>> > Apparently this happened in the 1980s as well. I don't decry global
>>>> > warming...just about how much we're truly contributing towards it.
>>>> > CigarBaron
>>>
>>>> Well consider that the ice in question, 250 square miles in area and 1
>>>> mile
>>>> thick, is estimated to be more than a million years old and it is just
>>>> now
>>>> melting, that says a lot about what has been happening in the last 30
>>>> years.
>>>
>>> I think the point, actually, is to question just what, exactly, it says
>>> about what has been happening in the last 30 years!
>>>
>>>> That would be an unprecedented even. Nowhere in the geologic history
>>>> has
>>>> such instability been recorded in as little as 30 years, it usually has
>>>> been
>>>> in the order of tens of thousands of years.
>>>
>>> * Geologic history is RIFE with incidents on a far bigger scale in much
>>> shorter time frames. The Earth is a rather unstable planet.
>>>
>>> * 250 cubic miles of ice over 10s of 1000s of years isn't "instability",
>>> it's just "ice melting."
>>
>> And it's not even melting (it never gets over 0C) - it's CALVING, then it
>> drifts into warmer waters.
>>>
>>> * Try not to get too impressed with big numbers. If the Earth were the
>>> size of a decent apple (like a big red delicious, let's say), the
>>> amounts by which you're so impressed are smaller than the hole you would
>>> make with a shirt pin. No, it's not "nothing", but neither has the
>>> apple been peeled...
>>
>> "The shattered part of the Wilkins ice sheet was 160 square miles in area,
>> which is just 0.01% of the total current Antarctic icecover (just 0.003%
>> of the extent last September), like an icicle falling from a snow and ice
>> covered roof. And this winter is coming on quickly. The latest satellite
>> images and reports suggest the ice has already refrozen around the broken
>> pieces. In fact the ice is returning so fast, it is running an amazing 60%
>> ahead (4.0 vs 2.5 million square km extent) of last year when it set a new
>> record. The total ice extent is already approaching the second highest
>> level for extent since the measurements began by satellite in 1979 and
>> just a few days into the Southern Hemisphere fall season and 6 months
>> ahead of the peak. We are very likely going to exceed last year's record
>> [for Southern Hemisphere ice extent]. Yet the world is left with the false
>> impression Antarctica's ice sheet is also starting to disappear," -
>> Meteorologist Joseph D'Aleo
>>
>> (Aleo served as the first Director of Meteorology at The Weather
>> Channel,was the Chief Meteorologist at Weather Services International
>> Corporation and served as chairman of the American Meteorological
>> Society's (AMS) Committee on Weather Analysis and Forecasting.)
>>
>
>Ya know Tom, you really should start the lecture circuit. Invite all those
>lame scientists who are just so worked up over nothing. You could do a lot
>to straighten this whole controversy out. Your talents are just wasted with
>this crowd.
>
>Paul
>

You see, Paul, this is where the credibility of the Anthropological
Global Warming people gets called into question. The above are facts
that fly in the face of their preconceived idea.

Then you add in these verified scientific facts:

Water vapor is responsible for 95% of the greenhouse effect.
Of the remaining 5%, CO2 is 3.6%
Of that 3.6%, man's contribution is only 3.2%, or 0.12% of the total.
Man's contribution to atmospheric CO2 is only 0.12% of the greenhouse
effect.
Additionally, adding CO2 to the air provides rapidly diminishing
returns. While CO2 warming is pronounced at low concentrations, the
higher the concentration gets, the less and less effective CO2 is as a
greenhouse gas. The relationship is non-linear.
Human activity has grown exponentially over the past century, yet the
consensus model of global warming is approximately linear-going
backward as well as forward. This is completely nonsensical.

Plus the recently verified fact that the Earths overall temperature
has dropped over the last 10 years

With all of this evidence against them, they refuse to debate the
issue, insisting that we take it as a matter of faith.

The "scientists" you speak of are not "worked up over nothing". Quite
to the contrary, they are all worked up over FUNDING.

Re: Smoke one for the Wilkins Ice Shelf


"Mickey" <Mickey@NOSPAMFatHounds,com > wrote in message
news:ck90v3p6np1ttnn0fpb0cjls7vujgl8okb@4ax,com ...
> "Paul M. Cook" <pmcook@gte,net > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Tom S." <t.m.s.work@cox,net > wrote in message
>>news:X1VHj.52699$yk5.13975@newsfe18.lga...
>>>
>>> "Miss Elaine Eos" <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked,com > wrote in message
>>> news:Misc-DB3555.14523630032008@news.sf.sbcglobal,net ...
>>>> In article <BjQHj.7975$QW6.5696@trnddc07>,
>>>> "Paul M. Cook" <pmcook@gte,net > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> > Apparently this happened in the 1980s as well. I don't decry global
>>>>> > warming...just about how much we're truly contributing towards it.
>>>>> > CigarBaron
>>>>
>>>>> Well consider that the ice in question, 250 square miles in area and 1
>>>>> mile
>>>>> thick, is estimated to be more than a million years old and it is just
>>>>> now
>>>>> melting, that says a lot about what has been happening in the last 30
>>>>> years.
>>>>
>>>> I think the point, actually, is to question just what, exactly, it says
>>>> about what has been happening in the last 30 years!
>>>>
>>>>> That would be an unprecedented even. Nowhere in the geologic history
>>>>> has
>>>>> such instability been recorded in as little as 30 years, it usually
>>>>> has
>>>>> been
>>>>> in the order of tens of thousands of years.
>>>>
>>>> * Geologic history is RIFE with incidents on a far bigger scale in much
>>>> shorter time frames. The Earth is a rather unstable planet.
>>>>
>>>> * 250 cubic miles of ice over 10s of 1000s of years isn't
>>>> "instability",
>>>> it's just "ice melting."
>>>
>>> And it's not even melting (it never gets over 0C) - it's CALVING, then
>>> it
>>> drifts into warmer waters.
>>>>
>>>> * Try not to get too impressed with big numbers. If the Earth were the
>>>> size of a decent apple (like a big red delicious, let's say), the
>>>> amounts by which you're so impressed are smaller than the hole you
>>>> would
>>>> make with a shirt pin. No, it's not "nothing", but neither has the
>>>> apple been peeled...
>>>
>>> "The shattered part of the Wilkins ice sheet was 160 square miles in
>>> area,
>>> which is just 0.01% of the total current Antarctic icecover (just 0.003%
>>> of the extent last September), like an icicle falling from a snow and
>>> ice
>>> covered roof. And this winter is coming on quickly. The latest satellite
>>> images and reports suggest the ice has already refrozen around the
>>> broken
>>> pieces. In fact the ice is returning so fast, it is running an amazing
>>> 60%
>>> ahead (4.0 vs 2.5 million square km extent) of last year when it set a
>>> new
>>> record. The total ice extent is already approaching the second highest
>>> level for extent since the measurements began by satellite in 1979 and
>>> just a few days into the Southern Hemisphere fall season and 6 months
>>> ahead of the peak. We are very likely going to exceed last year's record
>>> [for Southern Hemisphere ice extent]. Yet the world is left with the
>>> false
>>> impression Antarctica's ice sheet is also starting to disappear," -
>>> Meteorologist Joseph D'Aleo
>>>
>>> (Aleo served as the first Director of Meteorology at The Weather
>>> Channel,was the Chief Meteorologist at Weather Services International
>>> Corporation and served as chairman of the American Meteorological
>>> Society's (AMS) Committee on Weather Analysis and Forecasting.)
>>>
>>
>>Ya know Tom, you really should start the lecture circuit. Invite all
>>those
>>lame scientists who are just so worked up over nothing. You could do a
>>lot
>>to straighten this whole controversy out. Your talents are just wasted
>>with
>>this crowd.
>>
>>Paul
>>
>
> You see, Paul, this is where the credibility of the Anthropological
> Global Warming people gets called into question. The above are facts
> that fly in the face of their preconceived idea.
>
> Then you add in these verified scientific facts:
>
> Water vapor is responsible for 95% of the greenhouse effect.
> Of the remaining 5%, CO2 is 3.6%
> Of that 3.6%, man's contribution is only 3.2%, or 0.12% of the total.
> Man's contribution to atmospheric CO2 is only 0.12% of the greenhouse
> effect.
> Additionally, adding CO2 to the air provides rapidly diminishing
> returns. While CO2 warming is pronounced at low concentrations, the
> higher the concentration gets, the less and less effective CO2 is as a
> greenhouse gas. The relationship is non-linear.
> Human activity has grown exponentially over the past century, yet the
> consensus model of global warming is approximately linear-going
> backward as well as forward. This is completely nonsensical.
>
> Plus the recently verified fact that the Earths overall temperature
> has dropped over the last 10 years

Not true at all. It has been rising steadily for more than 30 years. IN
fact it is .9F higher now than it was 10 years ago. Think about it, Mickey,
.9F does not sound like a lot but you are talking the entire planet and you
must think how much energy that requires. Plus atmospheric instability is a
rising problem and that is a direct cause of warming. You don;'t need huge
jumps in temperature for very serious changes in climate to occur.

> With all of this evidence against them, they refuse to debate the
> issue, insisting that we take it as a matter of faith.

The science is out there and available - but since you categorically reject
it before you even know what or where it is you *assume* they want you to
just accept it.

> The "scientists" you speak of are not "worked up over nothing". Quite
> to the contrary, they are all worked up over FUNDING.

Yawn. Yeah, you have said that before. In fact that is your presumed
motivation of everyone you do not agree with. And the non-peer reviewed
work you repeat that was published by oil company scientists, many of whom
are not climatologists (one was a lawyer), has absolutely nothing to do with
their rather vast compensation. Exxon has made more than a few millionaires
out of scientists who remarkably manage to come to the same conclusions that
the CEO does regarding GW. Imagine that!!

So until you show me your PhD and your published research, I am afraid I'll
just have to listen to the experts on this one.

Paul

Re: Smoke one for the Wilkins Ice Shelf

"Paul M. Cook" <pmcook@gte,net > wrote:

>
>"Mickey" <Mickey@NOSPAMFatHounds,com > wrote in message
>news:ck90v3p6np1ttnn0fpb0cjls7vujgl8okb@4ax,com ...
>> "Paul M. Cook" <pmcook@gte,net > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Tom S." <t.m.s.work@cox,net > wrote in message
>>>news:X1VHj.52699$yk5.13975@newsfe18.lga...
>>>>
>>>> "Miss Elaine Eos" <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked,com > wrote in message
>>>> news:Misc-DB3555.14523630032008@news.sf.sbcglobal,net ...
>>>>> In article <BjQHj.7975$QW6.5696@trnddc07>,
>>>>> "Paul M. Cook" <pmcook@gte,net > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> > Apparently this happened in the 1980s as well. I don't decry global
>>>>>> > warming...just about how much we're truly contributing towards it.
>>>>>> > CigarBaron
>>>>>
>>>>>> Well consider that the ice in question, 250 square miles in area and 1
>>>>>> mile
>>>>>> thick, is estimated to be more than a million years old and it is just
>>>>>> now
>>>>>> melting, that says a lot about what has been happening in the last 30
>>>>>> years.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think the point, actually, is to question just what, exactly, it says
>>>>> about what has been happening in the last 30 years!
>>>>>
>>>>>> That would be an unprecedented even. Nowhere in the geologic history
>>>>>> has
>>>>>> such instability been recorded in as little as 30 years, it usually
>>>>>> has
>>>>>> been
>>>>>> in the order of tens of thousands of years.
>>>>>
>>>>> * Geologic history is RIFE with incidents on a far bigger scale in much
>>>>> shorter time frames. The Earth is a rather unstable planet.
>>>>>
>>>>> * 250 cubic miles of ice over 10s of 1000s of years isn't
>>>>> "instability",
>>>>> it's just "ice melting."
>>>>
>>>> And it's not even melting (it never gets over 0C) - it's CALVING, then
>>>> it
>>>> drifts into warmer waters.
>>>>>
>>>>> * Try not to get too impressed with big numbers. If the Earth were the
>>>>> size of a decent apple (like a big red delicious, let's say), the
>>>>> amounts by which you're so impressed are smaller than the hole you
>>>>> would
>>>>> make with a shirt pin. No, it's not "nothing", but neither has the
>>>>> apple been peeled...
>>>>
>>>> "The shattered part of the Wilkins ice sheet was 160 square miles in
>>>> area,
>>>> which is just 0.01% of the total current Antarctic icecover (just 0.003%
>>>> of the extent last September), like an icicle falling from a snow and
>>>> ice
>>>> covered roof. And this winter is coming on quickly. The latest satellite
>>>> images and reports suggest the ice has already refrozen around the
>>>> broken
>>>> pieces. In fact the ice is returning so fast, it is running an amazing
>>>> 60%
>>>> ahead (4.0 vs 2.5 million square km extent) of last year when it set a
>>>> new
>>>> record. The total ice extent is already approaching the second highest
>>>> level for extent since the measurements began by satellite in 1979 and
>>>> just a few days into the Southern Hemisphere fall season and 6 months
>>>> ahead of the peak. We are very likely going to exceed last year's record
>>>> [for Southern Hemisphere ice extent]. Yet the world is left with the
>>>> false
>>>> impression Antarctica's ice sheet is also starting to disappear," -
>>>> Meteorologist Joseph D'Aleo
>>>>
>>>> (Aleo served as the first Director of Meteorology at The Weather
>>>> Channel,was the Chief Meteorologist at Weather Services International
>>>> Corporation and served as chairman of the American Meteorological
>>>> Society's (AMS) Committee on Weather Analysis and Forecasting.)
>>>>
>>>
>>>Ya know Tom, you really should start the lecture circuit. Invite all
>>>those
>>>lame scientists who are just so worked up over nothing. You could do a
>>>lot
>>>to straighten this whole controversy out. Your talents are just wasted
>>>with
>>>this crowd.
>>>
>>>Paul
>>>
>>
>> You see, Paul, this is where the credibility of the Anthropological
>> Global Warming people gets called into question. The above are facts
>> that fly in the face of their preconceived idea.
>>
>> Then you add in these verified scientific facts:
>>
>> Water vapor is responsible for 95% of the greenhouse effect.
>> Of the remaining 5%, CO2 is 3.6%
>> Of that 3.6%, man's contribution is only 3.2%, or 0.12% of the total.
>> Man's contribution to atmospheric CO2 is only 0.12% of the greenhouse
>> effect.
>> Additionally, adding CO2 to the air provides rapidly diminishing
>> returns. While CO2 warming is pronounced at low concentrations, the
>> higher the concentration gets, the less and less effective CO2 is as a
>> greenhouse gas. The relationship is non-linear.
>> Human activity has grown exponentially over the past century, yet the
>> consensus model of global warming is approximately linear-going
>> backward as well as forward. This is completely nonsensical.
>>
>> Plus the recently verified fact that the Earths overall temperature
>> has dropped over the last 10 years
>
>Not true at all. It has been rising steadily for more than 30 years. IN
>fact it is .9F higher now than it was 10 years ago. Think about it, Mickey,
>.9F does not sound like a lot but you are talking the entire planet and you
>must think how much energy that requires. Plus atmospheric instability is a
>rising problem and that is a direct cause of warming. You don;'t need huge
>jumps in temperature for very serious changes in climate to occur.

Yes, true. Cite:
http :// www .telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/25/nbook125.xml

"This carefully ignores the latest US satellite figures showing
temperatures having fallen since 1998, declining in 2007 to a 1983
level - not to mention the newly revised figures for US surface
temperatures showing that the 1930s had four of the 10 warmest years
of the past century, with the hottest year of all being not 1998, as
was previously claimed, but 1934."

>
>> With all of this evidence against them, they refuse to debate the
>> issue, insisting that we take it as a matter of faith.
>
>The science is out there and available - but since you categorically reject
>it before you even know what or where it is you *assume* they want you to
>just accept it.

You are completely wrong. I am open to new facts. Every new verifiable
fact I see, goes against AGW.

>
>> The "scientists" you speak of are not "worked up over nothing". Quite
>> to the contrary, they are all worked up over FUNDING.
>
>Yawn. Yeah, you have said that before. In fact that is your presumed
>motivation of everyone you do not agree with. And the non-peer reviewed
>work you repeat that was published by oil company scientists, many of whom
>are not climatologists

Neither are the majority of "scientists" in the IPCC.

> (one was a lawyer), has absolutely nothing to do with
>their rather vast compensation. Exxon has made more than a few millionaires
>out of scientists who remarkably manage to come to the same conclusions that
>the CEO does regarding GW. Imagine that!!
>
>So until you show me your PhD and your published research, I am afraid I'll
>just have to listen to the experts on this one.
>
>Paul
>

Fine, ignore my conclusions, and simply examine the facts. If you come
to the conclusion that AGW is taking place, then the only conclusion I
can come to is that you are the "drooling twitching moron" I referred
to in my letter to my senators.

I have presented you with fact after fact. Your response is to attack
the messenger.

Unless you have something factual to contribute, give it up. AGW is a
religion, and Al Gore is it's High Priest.

Re: Smoke one for the Wilkins Ice Shelf


"Mickey" <Mickey@NOSPAMFatHounds,com > wrote in message
news:68c0v3p54ae3gkn8o4f4u17toidc8pa3t3@4ax,com ...
> "Paul M. Cook" <pmcook@gte,net > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Mickey" <Mickey@NOSPAMFatHounds,com > wrote in message
>>news:ck90v3p6np1ttnn0fpb0cjls7vujgl8okb@4ax,com ...
>>> "Paul M. Cook" <pmcook@gte,net > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Tom S." <t.m.s.work@cox,net > wrote in message
>>>>news:X1VHj.52699$yk5.13975@newsfe18.lga...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Miss Elaine Eos" <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked,com > wrote in message
>>>>> news:Misc-DB3555.14523630032008@news.sf.sbcglobal,net ...
>>>>>> In article <BjQHj.7975$QW6.5696@trnddc07>,
>>>>>> "Paul M. Cook" <pmcook@gte,net > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> > Apparently this happened in the 1980s as well. I don't decry
>>>>>>> > global
>>>>>>> > warming...just about how much we're truly contributing towards it.
>>>>>>> > CigarBaron
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well consider that the ice in question, 250 square miles in area and
>>>>>>> 1
>>>>>>> mile
>>>>>>> thick, is estimated to be more than a million years old and it is
>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>> now
>>>>>>> melting, that says a lot about what has been happening in the last
>>>>>>> 30
>>>>>>> years.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think the point, actually, is to question just what, exactly, it
>>>>>> says
>>>>>> about what has been happening in the last 30 years!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That would be an unprecedented even. Nowhere in the geologic
>>>>>>> history
>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>> such instability been recorded in as little as 30 years, it usually
>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>> been
>>>>>>> in the order of tens of thousands of years.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * Geologic history is RIFE with incidents on a far bigger scale in
>>>>>> much
>>>>>> shorter time frames. The Earth is a rather unstable planet.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * 250 cubic miles of ice over 10s of 1000s of years isn't
>>>>>> "instability",
>>>>>> it's just "ice melting."
>>>>>
>>>>> And it's not even melting (it never gets over 0C) - it's CALVING, then
>>>>> it
>>>>> drifts into warmer waters.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * Try not to get too impressed with big numbers. If the Earth were
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> size of a decent apple (like a big red delicious, let's say), the
>>>>>> amounts by which you're so impressed are smaller than the hole you
>>>>>> would
>>>>>> make with a shirt pin. No, it's not "nothing", but neither has the
>>>>>> apple been peeled...
>>>>>
>>>>> "The shattered part of the Wilkins ice sheet was 160 square miles in
>>>>> area,
>>>>> which is just 0.01% of the total current Antarctic icecover (just
>>>>> 0.003%
>>>>> of the extent last September), like an icicle falling from a snow and
>>>>> ice
>>>>> covered roof. And this winter is coming on quickly. The latest
>>>>> satellite
>>>>> images and reports suggest the ice has already refrozen around the
>>>>> broken
>>>>> pieces. In fact the ice is returning so fast, it is running an amazing
>>>>> 60%
>>>>> ahead (4.0 vs 2.5 million square km extent) of last year when it set a
>>>>> new
>>>>> record. The total ice extent is already approaching the second highest
>>>>> level for extent since the measurements began by satellite in 1979 and
>>>>> just a few days into the Southern Hemisphere fall season and 6 months
>>>>> ahead of the peak. We are very likely going to exceed last year's
>>>>> record
>>>>> [for Southern Hemisphere ice extent]. Yet the world is left with the
>>>>> false
>>>>> impression Antarctica's ice sheet is also starting to disappear," -
>>>>> Meteorologist Joseph D'Aleo
>>>>>
>>>>> (Aleo served as the first Director of Meteorology at The Weather
>>>>> Channel,was the Chief Meteorologist at Weather Services International
>>>>> Corporation and served as chairman of the American Meteorological
>>>>> Society's (AMS) Committee on Weather Analysis and Forecasting.)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Ya know Tom, you really should start the lecture circuit. Invite all
>>>>those
>>>>lame scientists who are just so worked up over nothing. You could do a
>>>>lot
>>>>to straighten this whole controversy out. Your talents are just wasted
>>>>with
>>>>this crowd.
>>>>
>>>>Paul
>>>>
>>>
>>> You see, Paul, this is where the credibility of the Anthropological
>>> Global Warming people gets called into question. The above are facts
>>> that fly in the face of their preconceived idea.
>>>
>>> Then you add in these verified scientific facts:
>>>
>>> Water vapor is responsible for 95% of the greenhouse effect.
>>> Of the remaining 5%, CO2 is 3.6%
>>> Of that 3.6%, man's contribution is only 3.2%, or 0.12% of the total.
>>> Man's contribution to atmospheric CO2 is only 0.12% of the greenhouse
>>> effect.
>>> Additionally, adding CO2 to the air provides rapidly diminishing
>>> returns. While CO2 warming is pronounced at low concentrations, the
>>> higher the concentration gets, the less and less effective CO2 is as a
>>> greenhouse gas. The relationship is non-linear.
>>> Human activity has grown exponentially over the past century, yet the
>>> consensus model of global warming is approximately linear-going
>>> backward as well as forward. This is completely nonsensical.
>>>
>>> Plus the recently verified fact that the Earths overall temperature
>>> has dropped over the last 10 years
>>
>>Not true at all. It has been rising steadily for more than 30 years. IN
>>fact it is .9F higher now than it was 10 years ago. Think about it,
>>Mickey,
>>.9F does not sound like a lot but you are talking the entire planet and
>>you
>>must think how much energy that requires. Plus atmospheric instability is
>>a
>>rising problem and that is a direct cause of warming. You don;'t need
>>huge
>>jumps in temperature for very serious changes in climate to occur.
>
> Yes, true. Cite:
> http :// www .telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/25/nbook125.xml
>
> "This carefully ignores the latest US satellite figures showing
> temperatures having fallen since 1998, declining in 2007 to a 1983
> level - not to mention the newly revised figures for US surface
> temperatures showing that the 1930s had four of the 10 warmest years
> of the past century, with the hottest year of all being not 1998, as
> was previously claimed, but 1934."
>

You have claimed you believe in GW just it not being man made. And now you
laim the opposite. If we are cooling you have a lot of explaining to
describe how in such a cool state we are losing million year old ice.

>>
>>> With all of this evidence against them, they refuse to debate the
>>> issue, insisting that we take it as a matter of faith.
>>
>>The science is out there and available - but since you categorically
>>reject
>>it before you even know what or where it is you *assume* they want you to
>>just accept it.
>
> You are completely wrong. I am open to new facts. Every new verifiable
> fact I see, goes against AGW.
>

No, every "fact" that is fed to you because you are not qualified to know
fact from fiction. That's a fact. You aren't a scientist and you've
probably never so much as had a science course in college. I as a bio major
for a couple years and while I am no scientist that little exposure makes it
very easy for me to see where you get your information from.

>>
>>> The "scientists" you speak of are not "worked up over nothing". Quite
>>> to the contrary, they are all worked up over FUNDING.
>>
>>Yawn. Yeah, you have said that before. In fact that is your presumed
>>motivation of everyone you do not agree with. And the non-peer reviewed
>>work you repeat that was published by oil company scientists, many of whom
>>are not climatologists
>
> Neither are the majority of "scientists" in the IPCC.
>
>> (one was a lawyer), has absolutely nothing to do with
>>their rather vast compensation. Exxon has made more than a few
>>millionaires
>>out of scientists who remarkably manage to come to the same conclusions
>>that
>>the CEO does regarding GW. Imagine that!!
>>
>>So until you show me your PhD and your published research, I am afraid
>>I'll
>>just have to listen to the experts on this one.
>>
>>Paul
>>
>
> Fine, ignore my conclusions, and simply examine the facts. If you come
> to the conclusion that AGW is taking place, then the only conclusion I
> can come to is that you are the "drooling twitching moron" I referred
> to in my letter to my senators.

You have presented no facts whatsoever. You have provided unquoted,
unverifiable information cut and pasted from authors of unknown origin.
That's all you've done. I wager very strongly that a very brief review of
the qualifications of your sources will point to the oil industry and their
handsome compensation for those that would go along with the program for
personal riches.

It is rather yourself who would have me accept all you say on faith. The
whole debate has existed quite a long time before you even knew who Al Gore
even is. You show your complete lack of knowledge in your idiotic
insistence on making this all about him. That is proof of your ignorance.

Paul

Re: Smoke one for the Wilkins Ice Shelf

"Paul M. Cook" <pmcook@gte,net > wrote:

>
>"Mickey" <Mickey@NOSPAMFatHounds,com > wrote in message
>news:68c0v3p54ae3gkn8o4f4u17toidc8pa3t3@4ax,com ...
>> "Paul M. Cook" <pmcook@gte,net > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Mickey" <Mickey@NOSPAMFatHounds,com > wrote in message
>>>news:ck90v3p6np1ttnn0fpb0cjls7vujgl8okb@4ax,com ...
>>>> "Paul M. Cook" <pmcook@gte,net > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"Tom S." <t.m.s.work@cox,net > wrote in message
>>>>>news:X1VHj.52699$yk5.13975@newsfe18.lga...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Miss Elaine Eos" <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked,com > wrote in message
>>>>>> news:Misc-DB3555.14523630032008@news.sf.sbcglobal,net ...
>>>>>>> In article <BjQHj.7975$QW6.5696@trnddc07>,
>>>>>>> "Paul M. Cook" <pmcook@gte,net > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> > Apparently this happened in the 1980s as well. I don't decry
>>>>>>>> > global
>>>>>>>> > warming...just about how much we're truly contributing towards it.
>>>>>>>> > CigarBaron
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Well consider that the ice in question, 250 square miles in area and
>>>>>>>> 1
>>>>>>>> mile
>>>>>>>> thick, is estimated to be more than a million years old and it is
>>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>> now
>>>>>>>> melting, that says a lot about what has been happening in the last
>>>>>>>> 30
>>>>>>>> years.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think the point, actually, is to question just what, exactly, it
>>>>>>> says
>>>>>>> about what has been happening in the last 30 years!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That would be an unprecedented even. Nowhere in the geologic
>>>>>>>> history
>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>> such instability been recorded in as little as 30 years, it usually
>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>> been
>>>>>>>> in the order of tens of thousands of years.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> * Geologic history is RIFE with incidents on a far bigger scale in
>>>>>>> much
>>>>>>> shorter time frames. The Earth is a rather unstable planet.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> * 250 cubic miles of ice over 10s of 1000s of years isn't
>>>>>>> "instability",
>>>>>>> it's just "ice melting."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And it's not even melting (it never gets over 0C) - it's CALVING, then
>>>>>> it
>>>>>> drifts into warmer waters.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> * Try not to get too impressed with big numbers. If the Earth were
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> size of a decent apple (like a big red delicious, let's say), the
>>>>>>> amounts by which you're so impressed are smaller than the hole you
>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>> make with a shirt pin. No, it's not "nothing", but neither has the
>>>>>>> apple been peeled...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "The shattered part of the Wilkins ice sheet was 160 square miles in
>>>>>> area,
>>>>>> which is just 0.01% of the total current Antarctic icecover (just
>>>>>> 0.003%
>>>>>> of the extent last September), like an icicle falling from a snow and
>>>>>> ice
>>>>>> covered roof. And this winter is coming on quickly. The latest
>>>>>> satellite
>>>>>> images and reports suggest the ice has already refrozen around the
>>>>>> broken
>>>>>> pieces. In fact the ice is returning so fast, it is running an amazing
>>>>>> 60%
>>>>>> ahead (4.0 vs 2.5 million square km extent) of last year when it set a
>>>>>> new
>>>>>> record. The total ice extent is already approaching the second highest
>>>>>> level for extent since the measurements began by satellite in 1979 and
>>>>>> just a few days into the Southern Hemisphere fall season and 6 months
>>>>>> ahead of the peak. We are very likely going to exceed last year's
>>>>>> record
>>>>>> [for Southern Hemisphere ice extent]. Yet the world is left with the
>>>>>> false
>>>>>> impression Antarctica's ice sheet is also starting to disappear," -
>>>>>> Meteorologist Joseph D'Aleo
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (Aleo served as the first Director of Meteorology at The Weather
>>>>>> Channel,was the Chief Meteorologist at Weather Services International
>>>>>> Corporation and served as chairman of the American Meteorological
>>>>>> Society's (AMS) Committee on Weather Analysis and Forecasting.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Ya know Tom, you really should start the lecture circuit. Invite all
>>>>>those
>>>>>lame scientists who are just so worked up over nothing. You could do a
>>>>>lot
>>>>>to straighten this whole controversy out. Your talents are just wasted
>>>>>with
>>>>>this crowd.
>>>>>
>>>>>Paul
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You see, Paul, this is where the credibility of the Anthropological
>>>> Global Warming people gets called into question. The above are facts
>>>> that fly in the face of their preconceived idea.
>>>>
>>>> Then you add in these verified scientific facts:
>>>>
>>>> Water vapor is responsible for 95% of the greenhouse effect.
>>>> Of the remaining 5%, CO2 is 3.6%
>>>> Of that 3.6%, man's contribution is only 3.2%, or 0.12% of the total.
>>>> Man's contribution to atmospheric CO2 is only 0.12% of the greenhouse
>>>> effect.
>>>> Additionally, adding CO2 to the air provides rapidly diminishing
>>>> returns. While CO2 warming is pronounced at low concentrations, the
>>>> higher the concentration gets, the less and less effective CO2 is as a
>>>> greenhouse gas. The relationship is non-linear.
>>>> Human activity has grown exponentially over the past century, yet the
>>>> consensus model of global warming is approximately linear-going
>>>> backward as well as forward. This is completely nonsensical.
>>>>
>>>> Plus the recently verified fact that the Earths overall temperature
>>>> has dropped over the last 10 years
>>>
>>>Not true at all. It has been rising steadily for more than 30 years. IN
>>>fact it is .9F higher now than it was 10 years ago. Think about it,
>>>Mickey,
>>>.9F does not sound like a lot but you are talking the entire planet and
>>>you
>>>must think how much energy that requires. Plus atmospheric instability is
>>>a
>>>rising problem and that is a direct cause of warming. You don;'t need
>>>huge
>>>jumps in temperature for very serious changes in climate to occur.
>>
>> Yes, true. Cite:
>> http :// www .telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/25/nbook125.xml
>>
>> "This carefully ignores the latest US satellite figures showing
>> temperatures having fallen since 1998, declining in 2007 to a 1983
>> level - not to mention the newly revised figures for US surface
>> temperatures showing that the 1930s had four of the 10 warmest years
>> of the past century, with the hottest year of all being not 1998, as
>> was previously claimed, but 1934."
>>
>
>You have claimed you believe in GW just it not being man made. And now you
>laim the opposite. If we are cooling you have a lot of explaining to
>describe how in such a cool state we are losing million year old ice.
>
>>>
>>>> With all of this evidence against them, they refuse to debate the
>>>> issue, insisting that we take it as a matter of faith.
>>>
>>>The science is out there and available - but since you categorically
>>>reject
>>>it before you even know what or where it is you *assume* they want you to
>>>just accept it.
>>
>> You are completely wrong. I am open to new facts. Every new verifiable
>> fact I see, goes against AGW.
>>
>
>No, every "fact" that is fed to you because you are not qualified to know
>fact from fiction. That's a fact. You aren't a scientist and you've
>probably never so much as had a science course in college. I as a bio major
>for a couple years and while I am no scientist that little exposure makes it
>very easy for me to see where you get your information from.

Paul, I do not have to have spent time in the conformity factory you
call college to have critical reasoning skills, or the ability to
determine the difference between a fact, an opinion, or
unsubstantiated wish-fulfillment.

So cram your "appeal to authority", bub.


>
>>>
>>>> The "scientists" you speak of are not "worked up over nothing". Quite
>>>> to the contrary, they are all worked up over FUNDING.
>>>
>>>Yawn. Yeah, you have said that before. In fact that is your presumed
>>>motivation of everyone you do not agree with. And the non-peer reviewed
>>>work you repeat that was published by oil company scientists, many of whom
>>>are not climatologists
>>
>> Neither are the majority of "scientists" in the IPCC.
>>
>>> (one was a lawyer), has absolutely nothing to do with
>>>their rather vast compensation. Exxon has made more than a few
>>>millionaires
>>>out of scientists who remarkably manage to come to the same conclusions
>>>that
>>>the CEO does regarding GW. Imagine that!!
>>>
>>>So until you show me your PhD and your published research, I am afraid
>>>I'll
>>>just have to listen to the experts on this one.
>>>
>>>Paul
>>>
>>
>> Fine, ignore my conclusions, and simply examine the facts. If you come
>> to the conclusion that AGW is taking place, then the only conclusion I
>> can come to is that you are the "drooling twitching moron" I referred
>> to in my letter to my senators.
>
>You have presented no facts whatsoever. You have provided unquoted,
>unverifiable information cut and pasted from authors of unknown origin.
>That's all you've done. I wager very strongly that a very brief review of
>the qualifications of your sources will point to the oil industry and their
>handsome compensation for those that would go along with the program for
>personal riches.
>
>It is rather yourself who would have me accept all you say on faith. The
>whole debate has existed quite a long time before you even knew who Al Gore
>even is. You show your complete lack of knowledge in your idiotic
>insistence on making this all about him. That is proof of your ignorance.
>
>Paul
>

Re: Smoke one for the Wilkins Ice Shelf


"Mickey" <Mickey@NOSPAMFatHounds,com > wrote in message
news:mve0v3thjs1aqjgbls4jgp0o6rppsgvfds@4ax,com ...
> "Paul M. Cook" <pmcook@gte,net > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Mickey" <Mickey@NOSPAMFatHounds,com > wrote in message
>>news:68c0v3p54ae3gkn8o4f4u17toidc8pa3t3@4ax,com ...
>>> "Paul M. Cook" <pmcook@gte,net > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Mickey" <Mickey@NOSPAMFatHounds,com > wrote in message
>>>>news:ck90v3p6np1ttnn0fpb0cjls7vujgl8okb@4ax,com ...
>>>>> "Paul M. Cook" <pmcook@gte,net > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"Tom S." <t.m.s.work@cox,net > wrote in message
>>>>>>news:X1VHj.52699$yk5.13975@newsfe18.lga...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Miss Elaine Eos" <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked,com > wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:Misc-DB3555.14523630032008@news.sf.sbcglobal,net ...
>>>>>>>> In article <BjQHj.7975$QW6.5696@trnddc07>,
>>>>>>>> "Paul M. Cook" <pmcook@gte,net > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> > Apparently this happened in the 1980s as well. I don't decry
>>>>>>>>> > global
>>>>>>>>> > warming...just about how much we're truly contributing towards
>>>>>>>>> > it.
>>>>>>>>> > CigarBaron
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Well consider that the ice in question, 250 square miles in area
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> 1
>>>>>>>>> mile
>>>>>>>>> thick, is estimated to be more than a million years old and it is
>>>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>>> now
>>>>>>>>> melting, that says a lot about what has been happening in the last
>>>>>>>>> 30
>>>>>>>>> years.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think the point, actually, is to question just what, exactly, it
>>>>>>>> says
>>>>>>>> about what has been happening in the last 30 years!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That would be an unprecedented even. Nowhere in the geologic
>>>>>>>>> history
>>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>>> such instability been recorded in as little as 30 years, it
>>>>>>>>> usually
>>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>>> been
>>>>>>>>> in the order of tens of thousands of years.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> * Geologic history is RIFE with incidents on a far bigger scale in
>>>>>>>> much
>>>>>>>> shorter time frames. The Earth is a rather unstable planet.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> * 250 cubic miles of ice over 10s of 1000s of years isn't
>>>>>>>> "instability",
>>>>>>>> it's just "ice melting."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And it's not even melting (it never gets over 0C) - it's CALVING,
>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>> drifts into warmer waters.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> * Try not to get too impressed with big numbers. If the Earth were
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> size of a decent apple (like a big red delicious, let's say), the
>>>>>>>> amounts by which you're so impressed are smaller than the hole you
>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>> make with a shirt pin. No, it's not "nothing", but neither has the
>>>>>>>> apple been peeled...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "The shattered part of the Wilkins ice sheet was 160 square miles in
>>>>>>> area,
>>>>>>> which is just 0.01% of the total current Antarctic icecover (just
>>>>>>> 0.003%
>>>>>>> of the extent last September), like an icicle falling from a snow
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> ice
>>>>>>> covered roof. And this winter is coming on quickly. The latest
>>>>>>> satellite
>>>>>>> images and reports suggest the ice has already refrozen around the
>>>>>>> broken
>>>>>>> pieces. In fact the ice is returning so fast, it is running an
>>>>>>> amazing
>>>>>>> 60%
>>>>>>> ahead (4.0 vs 2.5 million square km extent) of last year when it set
>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>> new
>>>>>>> record. The total ice extent is already approaching the second
>>>>>>> highest
>>>>>>> level for extent since the measurements began by satellite in 1979
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> just a few days into the Southern Hemisphere fall season and 6
>>>>>>> months
>>>>>>> ahead of the peak. We are very likely going to exceed last year's
>>>>>>> record
>>>>>>> [for Southern Hemisphere ice extent]. Yet the world is left with the
>>>>>>> false
>>>>>>> impression Antarctica's ice sheet is also starting to disappear," -
>>>>>>> Meteorologist Joseph D'Aleo
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (Aleo served as the first Director of Meteorology at The Weather
>>>>>>> Channel,was the Chief Meteorologist at Weather Services
>>>>>>> International
>>>>>>> Corporation and served as chairman of the American Meteorological
>>>>>>> Society's (AMS) Committee on Weather Analysis and Forecasting.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Ya know Tom, you really should start the lecture circuit. Invite all
>>>>>>those
>>>>>>lame scientists who are just so worked up over nothing. You could do
>>>>>>a
>>>>>>lot
>>>>>>to straighten this whole controversy out. Your talents are just
>>>>>>wasted
>>>>>>with
>>>>>>this crowd.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Paul
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You see, Paul, this is where the credibility of the Anthropological
>>>>> Global Warming people gets called into question. The above are facts
>>>>> that fly in the face of their preconceived idea.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then you add in these verified scientific facts:
>>>>>
>>>>> Water vapor is responsible for 95% of the greenhouse effect.
>>>>> Of the remaining 5%, CO2 is 3.6%
>>>>> Of that 3.6%, man's contribution is only 3.2%, or 0.12% of the total.
>>>>> Man's contribution to atmospheric CO2 is only 0.12% of the greenhouse
>>>>> effect.
>>>>> Additionally, adding CO2 to the air provides rapidly diminishing
>>>>> returns. While CO2 warming is pronounced at low concentrations, the
>>>>> higher the concentration gets, the less and less effective CO2 is as a
>>>>> greenhouse gas. The relationship is non-linear.
>>>>> Human activity has grown exponentially over the past century, yet the
>>>>> consensus model of global warming is approximately linear-going
>>>>> backward as well as forward. This is completely nonsensical.
>>>>>
>>>>> Plus the recently verified fact that the Earths overall temperature
>>>>> has dropped over the last 10 years
>>>>
>>>>Not true at all. It has been rising steadily for more than 30 years.
>>>>IN
>>>>fact it is .9F higher now than it was 10 years ago. Think about it,
>>>>Mickey,
>>>>.9F does not sound like a lot but you are talking the entire planet and
>>>>you
>>>>must think how much energy that requires. Plus atmospheric instability
>>>>is
>>>>a
>>>>rising problem and that is a direct cause of warming. You don;'t need
>>>>huge
>>>>jumps in temperature for very serious changes in climate to occur.
>>>
>>> Yes, true. Cite:
>>> http :// www .telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/25/nbook125.xml
>>>
>>> "This carefully ignores the latest US satellite figures showing
>>> temperatures having fallen since 1998, declining in 2007 to a 1983
>>> level - not to mention the newly revised figures for US surface
>>> temperatures showing that the 1930s had four of the 10 warmest years
>>> of the past century, with the hottest year of all being not 1998, as
>>> was previously claimed, but 1934."
>>>
>>
>>You have claimed you believe in GW just it not being man made. And now
>>you
>>laim the opposite. If we are cooling you have a lot of explaining to
>>describe how in such a cool state we are losing million year old ice.
>>
>>>>
>>>>> With all of this evidence against them, they refuse to debate the
>>>>> issue, insisting that we take it as a matter of faith.
>>>>
>>>>The science is out there and available - but since you categorically
>>>>reject
>>>>it before you even know what or where it is you *assume* they want you
>>>>to
>>>>just accept it.
>>>
>>> You are completely wrong. I am open to new facts. Every new verifiable
>>> fact I see, goes against AGW.
>>>
>>
>>No, every "fact" that is fed to you because you are not qualified to know
>>fact from fiction. That's a fact. You aren't a scientist and you've
>>probably never so much as had a science course in college. I as a bio
>>major
>>for a couple years and while I am no scientist that little exposure makes
>>it
>>very easy for me to see where you get your information from.
>
> Paul, I do not have to have spent time in the conformity factory you
> call college to have critical reasoning skills, or the ability to
> determine the difference between a fact, an opinion, or
> unsubstantiated wish-fulfillment.
>

Can your extreme bias be any more profound? You come back and talk science
when you know what science is and how it works. And I got news for you, you
ain't going to learn about it where you're looking. You go calling colleges
conformity factories and yet you rile against them when they do not conform
to right wing rhetoric. For such a vile institution you have to admit some
mighty fine things have come from them.

> So cram your "appeal to authority", bub.

It's not an appeal to authority. It's a fact. What amazes me is the
intensity and the obstinant insistance that you have it all down, and all
this GW crap is just a load of shit from greedy eggheads.

Tell ya what, you define in your own words climate versus weather. No
Googling. Just do it. Then you tell me how many calories it takes to raise
the temperature of 1 gallon of fresh water from 76F to 86F at sea level.
It's a very simple equation but one very important to climatologic and
meteorologists amongst others. And I learned how to work it in a
"conformity factory." Yes. You show me how you can correlate atmospheric
physics with oceanic chemistry when you can't even read the equations. I've
had 3 semesters of calculus and I can't make heads or tails of that stuff.
I rely on that information being explained to me by people who can, and so
do you. You just choose which information you will accept and your
conclusions are entirely predictable.

But I'd settle for the names of those you hold in such high regard. I am
certain they have very clear and obvious industry connections.

And don't forget that it wasn't until the 70s that the "theory" of plate
tectonics was finally settled. Up until then many people qualified to speak
on the subject utterly rejected it as foolishness and the mutterings of
bozos. Until they couldn't any longer that is.

And if you could *ever* express you opinion on this subject without dragging
Al Gore into it and spewing the same right wing lies and innuedo you'd do a
whole lot to increase your respectability as an unbiased scientific
observer. If I had to choose between appealing to authority and appealing
to a lamebrain straw man which do you think I'd choose?

Paul

Re: Smoke one for the Wilkins Ice Shelf

"Paul M. Cook" <pmcook@gte,net > wrote:

>
>"Mickey" <Mickey@NOSPAMFatHounds,com > wrote in message
>news:mve0v3thjs1aqjgbls4jgp0o6rppsgvfds@4ax,com ...
>>
>> Paul, I do not have to have spent time in the conformity factory you
>> call college to have critical reasoning skills, or the ability to
>> determine the difference between a fact, an opinion, or
>> unsubstantiated wish-fulfillment.
>>
>
>Can your extreme bias be any more profound? You come back and talk science
>when you know what science is and how it works. And I got news for you, you
>ain't going to learn about it where you're looking. You go calling colleges
>conformity factories and yet you rile against them when they do not conform
>to right wing rhetoric. For such a vile institution you have to admit some
>mighty fine things have come from them.
>
>> So cram your "appeal to authority", bub.
>
>It's not an appeal to authority. It's a fact. What amazes me is the
>intensity and the obstinant insistance that you have it all down, and all
>this GW crap is just a load of shit from greedy eggheads.

"all this GW crap is just a load of shit from greedy eggheads."
Thanks, that pretty much sums it up, and what the facts demonstrate.

>
>Tell ya what, you define in your own words climate versus weather. No
>Googling. Just do it. Then you tell me how many calories it takes to raise
>the temperature of 1 gallon of fresh water from 76F to 86F at sea level.
>It's a very simple equation but one very important to climatologic and
>meteorologists amongst others. And I learned how to work it in a
>"conformity factory." Yes. You show me how you can correlate atmospheric
>physics with oceanic chemistry when you can't even read the equations. I've
>had 3 semesters of calculus and I can't make heads or tails of that stuff.
>I rely on that information being explained to me by people who can, and so
>do you. You just choose which information you will accept and your
>conclusions are entirely predictable.

I rely on people to teach me the principles, and then I am able to
draw conclusions on my own.

>
>But I'd settle for the names of those you hold in such high regard. I am
>certain they have very clear and obvious industry connections.
>
>And don't forget that it wasn't until the 70s that the "theory" of plate
>tectonics was finally settled. Up until then many people qualified to speak
>on the subject utterly rejected it as foolishness and the mutterings of
>bozos. Until they couldn't any longer that is.
>
>And if you could *ever* express you opinion on this subject without dragging
>Al Gore into it and spewing the same right wing lies and innuedo you'd do a
>whole lot to increase your respectability as an unbiased scientific
>observer. If I had to choose between appealing to authority and appealing
>to a lamebrain straw man which do you think I'd choose?

Al Gore started the popularization of a very old theory when he
figured out how to score big bucks from it, with Generation Investment
Management LLP.

What right wing lies?

>
>Paul
>

Re: Smoke one for the Wilkins Ice Shelf


"Mickey" <Mickey@NOSPAMFatHounds,com > wrote in message
news:35m0v31tns5vpqg08i1f7o6gli3fnbrto2@4ax,com ...
> "Paul M. Cook" <pmcook@gte,net > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Mickey" <Mickey@NOSPAMFatHounds,com > wrote in message
>>news:mve0v3thjs1aqjgbls4jgp0o6rppsgvfds@4ax,com ...
>>>
>>> Paul, I do not have to have spent time in the conformity factory you
>>> call college to have critical reasoning skills, or the ability to
>>> determine the difference between a fact, an opinion, or
>>> unsubstantiated wish-fulfillment.
>>>
>>
>>Can your extreme bias be any more profound? You come back and talk
>>science
>>when you know what science is and how it works. And I got news for you,
>>you
>>ain't going to learn about it where you're looking. You go calling
>>colleges
>>conformity factories and yet you rile against them when they do not
>>conform
>>to right wing rhetoric. For such a vile institution you have to admit
>>some
>>mighty fine things have come from them.
>>
>>> So cram your "appeal to authority", bub.
>>
>>It's not an appeal to authority. It's a fact. What amazes me is the
>>intensity and the obstinant insistance that you have it all down, and all
>>this GW crap is just a load of shit from greedy eggheads.
>
> "all this GW crap is just a load of shit from greedy eggheads."
> Thanks, that pretty much sums it up, and what the facts demonstrate.
>
>>
>>Tell ya what, you define in your own words climate versus weather. No
>>Googling. Just do it. Then you tell me how many calories it takes to
>>raise
>>the temperature of 1 gallon of fresh water from 76F to 86F at sea level.
>>It's a very simple equation but one very important to climatologic and
>>meteorologists amongst others. And I learned how to work it in a
>>"conformity factory." Yes. You show me how you can correlate atmospheric
>>physics with oceanic chemistry when you can't even read the equations.
>>I've
>>had 3 semesters of calculus and I can't make heads or tails of that stuff.
>>I rely on that information being explained to me by people who can, and so
>>do you. You just choose which information you will accept and your
>>conclusions are entirely predictable.
>
> I rely on people to teach me the principles, and then I am able to
> draw conclusions on my own.
>
>>
>>But I'd settle for the names of those you hold in such high regard. I am
>>certain they have very clear and obvious industry connections.
>>
>>And don't forget that it wasn't until the 70s that the "theory" of plate
>>tectonics was finally settled. Up until then many people qualified to
>>speak
>>on the subject utterly rejected it as foolishness and the mutterings of
>>bozos. Until they couldn't any longer that is.
>>
>>And if you could *ever* express you opinion on this subject without
>>dragging
>>Al Gore into it and spewing the same right wing lies and innuedo you'd do
>>a
>>whole lot to increase your respectability as an unbiased scientific
>>observer. If I had to choose between appealing to authority and appealing
>>to a lamebrain straw man which do you think I'd choose?
>
> Al Gore started the popularization of a very old theory when he
> figured out how to score big bucks from it, with Generation Investment
> Management LLP.
>
> What right wing lies?

I suppose if one lived their life in perpetual darkness, explaining to them
what sunlight is all about would be a bit of a challenge. I know you think
I am insulting you and calling you stupid, but I am in fact calling your
method stupid and our thinking hopelessly tied to your irrational hatred.
This whole Al Gore crap just erases instantaneously any semblance of
open-mindedness you may have when you begin the argument by spouting extreme
prejudice. It's kind of like saying you haven't got your mind made up when
you annouce a fair trial before the hanging.

Paul

Re: Smoke one for the Wilkins Ice Shelf

Paul M. Cook wrote:
> This whole Al Gore crap just erases instantaneously any semblance of
> open-mindedness you may have when you begin the argument by spouting extreme
> prejudice.

You should remember this for your next political diatribe.