Smoke one for the Wilkins Ice Shelf

Re: Smoke one for the Wilkins Ice Shelf


"Ken Dixon" <nsvmiami@bellsouth,net > wrote in message
news:kwZHj.12096$9O.9737@bignews3.bellsouth,net ...
> 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.


OK, I will. I won't use Al Gore in my next "diatribe." That's a promise.

Paul

Re: Smoke one for the Wilkins Ice Shelf

In article <35m0v31tns5vpqg08i1f7o6gli3fnbrto2@4ax,com >,
Mickey <Mickey@NOSPAMFatHounds,com > wrote:

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

Ah, but only the conclusions that can be drawn using he principles you
were taught! Imagine if you'd been taught an entirely DIFFERENT set of
principles, THEN what might you conclude...?!

;)

--
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

In article <mve0v3thjs1aqjgbls4jgp0o6rppsgvfds@4ax,com >,
Mickey <Mickey@NOSPAMFatHounds,com > wrote:
[ > 100 lines, snip]

Y'all need to learn to edit. (not just you, Mickey, I mean all-y'all!)

I have my browser set to show 120+ lines before the scroll bar. If
there's no new text on the 1st page, I tend not to read it. And THAT is
ineffectual communication!

If you want your thoughts to be heard -- EDIT!

Misc "cuz I tend not to read top-posts, either. I'm pretty sure I'm not
the only one..."

--
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-D60314.19312330032008@news.sf.sbcglobal,net ...
> In article <mve0v3thjs1aqjgbls4jgp0o6rppsgvfds@4ax,com >,
> Mickey <Mickey@NOSPAMFatHounds,com > wrote:
> [ > 100 lines, snip]
>
> Y'all need to learn to edit. (not just you, Mickey, I mean all-y'all!)
>
> I have my browser set to show 120+ lines before the scroll bar. If
> there's no new text on the 1st page, I tend not to read it. And THAT is
> ineffectual communication!
>
> If you want your thoughts to be heard -- EDIT!
>
> Misc "cuz I tend not to read top-posts, either. I'm pretty sure I'm not
> the only one..."

Cite?

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:
>
> 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.

Quite - from the same person that says he just accepts what the experts tell
him.

Where have we heard THAT in history?

"To arrive at the truth in all things, we ought always to be ready to
believe that what seems to us white is black, if the hierarchical Church so
defines it." -- Ignatius of Loyola (founder of the Jesuits) in his Spiritual
Exercises

Paul must look really natty in those long robes!

Re: Smoke one for the Wilkins Ice Shelf

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

>
>You have presented no facts whatsoever.

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.



>You have provided unquoted,
>unverifiable information cut and pasted from authors of unknown origin.

No, I know the author. It was me. I gathered these facts from
disparate sources.

>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.

If you disagree with my facts, bring it.

>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.

Re: Smoke one for the Wilkins Ice Shelf


"Mickey" <Mickey@NOSPAMFatHounds,com > wrote in message
news:n8f0v39uofoo8m4piv6mfkpsvq8fg5u8db@4ax,com ...
> "Paul M. Cook" <pmcook@gte,net > wrote:
>
>>
>>You have presented no facts whatsoever.
>
> 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.
>

Here is how easy it is to destroy your arguments: one cannot plot a linear
graph without data. One needs linear data. So if you have a clump of data
from 65 million years ago, a smattering of data from 100,000 years ago and
then real data starting in the 1850s, you simply cannot plot any kind of a
meaningful linear graph.

Can't be done.

However you can look at the geological record and see what the climate was
like during those times when you have matching atmospheric data, say from
ice core samples. That you can extrapolate meaningful information. You can
actually examine geologic deposits an see what was going on say 250,000
years ago and compare that to actual air samples you have from that period.
But to claim any kind of a linear correlation from millions of years ago,
you'd need many more samples than they have or probably ever will have.

And if you visit the NOAA site you will see graphs that are anything but
linear, they show a direct correlation between atmospheric warming and the
onset of the Industrial Revolution.

Paul

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:
>>
>>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."

>
>>
>>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.

http :// skepticwiki.org/index.php/Argument_from_Authority

>>
>>Paul

I guess a PhD precludes someone from mistakes or, even worse, dishonesty.

Thing is, most people realize this by the time they're ten years old.


>>
>
> 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.

That's all he can do to hold on to his delusion.

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

http :// youtube,com /watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI (Pay particular attention to the
period from 2 min 40 to around 9 min mark).

Re: Smoke one for the Wilkins Ice Shelf


"Tom S." <t.m.s.work@cox,net > wrote in message
news:GMXHj.44033$QC.1494@newsfe20.lga...
>
> "Mickey" <Mickey@NOSPAMFatHounds,com > wrote in message
> news:68c0v3p54ae3gkn8o4f4u17toidc8pa3t3@4ax,com ...
>> "Paul M. Cook" <pmcook@gte,net > wrote:
>>>
>>>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."
>
>>
>>>
>>>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.
>
> http :// skepticwiki.org/index.php/Argument_from_Authority
>
>>>
>>>Paul
>
> I guess a PhD precludes someone from mistakes or, even worse, dishonesty.
>
> Thing is, most people realize this by the time they're ten years old.

And just what are the credentials of your sources? I'm seeing a strong
anti-intellectual bias here. I guess all those scientists and engineer just
guess when they design airplanes? Not like they have any real knowledge,
no. They just make it all up.

You wouldn't last a week in a college physics 101a class. And I'm the first
to tell anyone that what sunk my career in biology was chemistry. I just
never could understand it and work with it. But I learned an enormous
respect for those that could.

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.
>
> That's all he can do to hold on to his delusion.
>
>>
>> Unless you have something factual to contribute, give it up. AGW is a
>> religion, and Al Gore is it's High Priest.
>
> http :// youtube,com /watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI (Pay particular attention to the
> period from 2 min 40 to around 9 min mark).
>
>
>

Re: Smoke one for the Wilkins Ice Shelf

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

>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.

Yawn!

Ya know, Paul, you should really get psychiatric help. Lots of it.

As well, when you get your ass handed to you, time and time again, for lying
and misrepresentation, not to mention stupidity beyond belief, you should be
mature enough to admit you were duped.

Re: Smoke one for the Wilkins Ice Shelf


"Tom S." <t.m.s.work@cox,net > wrote in message
news:LkWHj.1755$3N1.998@newsfe17.lga...
>> "Paul M. Cook" <pmcook@gte,net > wrote:
>
>>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.
>
> Yawn!
>
> Ya know, Paul, you should really get psychiatric help. Lots of it.
>
> As well, when you get your ass handed to you, time and time again, for
> lying and misrepresentation, not to mention stupidity beyond belief, you
> should be mature enough to admit you were duped.
>

Yeah, right. Keep on quoting crackpots like a dubious anthropologist
working for Exxon. That'll make your case. I ma at least aware of where my
ass is, you could not find yours with both hands and a road map.

Paul

Re: Smoke one for the Wilkins Ice Shelf

On 2008-03-30, Paul M. Cook <pmcook@gte,net > wrote:
>
> 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.

Tom is obviously prepared to take his time over this. He's working on
one fool at a time.

Justin.

--
Justin C, by the sea.

Re: Smoke one for the Wilkins Ice Shelf


"Justin C" <justin.0803@purestblue,com > wrote in message
news:slrnfv0bbd.po8.justin.0803@stigmata.purestblue,com ...
> On 2008-03-30, Paul M. Cook <pmcook@gte,net > wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
> Tom is obviously prepared to take his time over this. He's working on
> one fool at a time.
>
Been working on Paul for ten years.

Conclusion: Either mental illness, or he's funnin' us big time!

Re: Smoke one for the Wilkins Ice Shelf

http :// news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6218333.stm
http :// www .sciencedaily,com /releases/2007/10/071019102619.htm
http :// www .cbsnews,com /stories/2006/12/29/tech/main2309430.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME 2309430
http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayles Ice Shelf
http :// www .usatoday,com /weather/resources/coldscience/2005-01-20-berg-5-12-2002 x.htm

Re: Smoke one for the Wilkins Ice Shelf

Coincidence?

There's been a little less publicity, or should I say no publicity about an
earthquake on the Pacific-Antarctic ridge 3930 km (2440 miles) SE of
Wellington, New Zealand on 17 March 08.
http :// neic.usgs.gov/neis/bulletin/neic_pscf.html

http :// neic.usgs.gov/neis/bulletin/neic_pscf_l.html


http :// www .iceagenow,com /Did_earthquake_trigger_Antarctic_ice_collapse.htm
Well, maybe....

Or maybe it was Exxon engaged in a conspiracy.

(Sounds hauntingly like the scenario in Crichton's "State of Fear")