Re: Global warming is now a weapon of mass destruction

In alt.alien.visitors Michael Davis <mdavis19@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
: Notorious net kook and utter ignoramus Garrrry "Always Wrong" 
: Bryan wrote:

:  > In alt.alien.visitors Michael Davis <mdavis19@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
:   > : Notorious net kook and utter ignoramus Garrrry "Always Wrong"
:  > : Bryan wrote:
:   >
:  > :> In alt.alien.visitors Michael Davis <mdavis19@ix.netcom.com> 
: wrote:
:   > :> : Notorious net kook and utter ignoramus Garrrry "Always 
: Wrong"
:  > :> : Bryan wrote:
:   > :>
:  > :> :> 
: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2003/07/25/state2018EDT0172.DTL
:   > :> :>
:  > :> :> from the site:
:   > :> :>
:  > :> :> One leading researcher at the weeklong conference said it 
: was "ludicrous" that the Bush administration has refused to 
: acknowledge the increasing dangers of greenhouse gases.
:  > :> :>
:  > :> :> "The voluntary measures the administration is proposing 
: are going to get us nowhere," Raymond Bradley said Friday. Bradley 
: is the director of the University of Massachusetts' Climate System 
: Research Center at Amherst, Mass.
:  > :> :>
:  > :> :> "Right now, we have good, strong scientific evidence 
: supported by the vast majority of scientists who studied the 
: problem to say we are facing a serious problem," he told The 
: Associated Press on Friday.
:  > :> :>
:  > :> :> end of quote
:   > :> :>
:  > :> :> . . .but it isn't real, just ask Mikey
:   > :>
:  > :> : Wrong again, Garrrrry!
:   > :>
:  > :> : Global warming is very real. The part we don't know is 
: real is
:  > :> : whether humans are playing any significant role in it, and 
: whether
:  > :> : cutting back on fossil fuel use would make any difference.
:   > :>
:  > :> : You see, the whole global warming scenario is predicated on a
:  > :> : false premise. The enviro-kooks who rant and rave about 
: global
:  > :> : warming are living under the delusion that the Earth's 
: climate is
:  > :> : a constant except for any changes caused by man. That's 
: just plain
:  > :> : wrong. The Earth's climate is quite variable and often swings
:  > :> : between temperature extremes. The climate has been warming
:  > :> : steadily since the end of the last ice age. The warming 
: started
:  > :> : before humans began burning fossil fuels, and if it 
: follows the
:  > :> : trends of the past, then it is going to get a lot hotter 
: on Earth
:  > :> : in the future, even if we completely stopped burning 
: fossil fuels
:  > :> : today.
:   > :>
:  > :> Funny how the ice core project shows that there were wild 
: swings in climate
:   > :> temperature until about 10,000 years ago when it became 
: more stable than
:  > :> anytime previous. . .
:   >
:  > : Where the fuck do you get that lie from?
:   >
:  > Funny how you snipped the link. . hmmmm. . .

: I didn't snip it, moron. It's right there, further down, where you 
: pasted it. Damn, you are one stupid MOFO.

:  > http://www.secretsoftheice.org/icecore/studies.html
:   >
:  > From a climatologist speaking on a special on the ice core 
: project. . .

: And he *still* isn't saying anything that backs up your claim.

:  >
:  > Where do you get the
:  > : "more stable than any time previous" bullshit from?i
:   >
:  > The graph I linked to. ..

: It only goes back 40000 years. The Earth is 4.3 Billion years old, 
: idiot. That graph doesn't even go back past the last ice age. So 
: your claim is utter bullshit, as usual.

Nope, your just obsessed with naysaying anything that someone who isn't your
butt buddy posts. . .try this one back over 140,000 years:
http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap01/icecore.html

the fluctuations continue as far back as they have looked. . .the zone of 
stability in the last 1000 years is a phenomenon that has them curious. . .

:  > the swings in temperature were far more radical then
:   > in the last 10,000 years . . .

: So? Did you miss the plenty radical swings of the last 10000 
: years? Any human caused warming would be swamped by the natural 
: swings of temperature. The enviro-kooks whine about fractions of a 
: degree when natural process can cause swings of five degrees over 
: very short periods. That's sheer madness.

I wasn't whining, just showing that we are in a zone of temperature stability 
that has allowed us to have reasonable agriculture and seasonal predicitons.
the point isn't the large swings from year to year, but the over all mean that
is increasing over the last 200 years. . .HTH

:  > an odd occurance that the climotologist pointed
:  > out. . .

: Your total inability to correctly comprehend what you read is the 
: only "odd occurrence"(note correct spelling) in need of pointing out.

Idiocy noted. . .

:  > the mean temperature is much more stable, but that would mean you ]
:   > would have to agree with me and facts which won't happen. . .

: Not as long as you keep citing "facts" that don't support your 
: bullshit claims.

I am being nice enough to do your homework for you so shove it. . .

try this for asmaller slice that has them concerned:
http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/globalwarmA.html

:  >
:  > The page you
:  > : reference below doesn't say that. The graph on that page clearly
:  > : shows the Earth's temperature going up sharply at the end of the
:  > : last Ice Age 10000 years ago. The data though doesn't even go 
: back
:  > : beyond the last ice age. Even so, that graph clearly shows that
:  > : the climate of the Earth is quite unstable *now* and was as much
:  > : as 5 degrees C warmer than it is now only a few thousand years
:  > : ago. Going to try to blame that on humans?
:   >
:  > We're talking averages over time. . .even a child can see a 
: more stable
:  > temperature over the last 10,000 years from the ice core data. . .

: Which is relevant how? Have you compared it to other interglacial 
: periods? That was the thrust of my argument. You are simply 
: looking at too small a slice of data to see meaningful trends. 
: That's the same mistake all the global warming chicken littles make

Try the larger scale or pick one of your own . . .the data is well presented
in many forms:

check the bottom graph for the CO2 concentration data over the last few years
http://chemlinks.llnl.gov/Warming/icecore/

:  >
:  > : Try picking a larger slice of time. Look at previous 
: interglacial
:  > : periods. Look at the fact that Earth has been warmer than it is
:  > : today for most of its history. Look at the real cause of the
:  > : greenhouse effect that keeps Earth from freezing solid, and has
:  > : done so without human intervention for billions of years.
:   >
:  > : You can start here:
:   >
:  > : "The "greenhouse effect" actually is a bit player in global
:  > : climate (although without it's benefits the average 
: temperature of
:  > : the Earth would be minus 18� C). Hamans did not cause the
:  > : greenhouse effect, but critics maintain human additions to
:  > : atmospheric greenhouse gases may cause global temperatures to 
: rise
:  > : too much.
:   >
:  > : Generally understood, but rarely publicized is the fact that 95%
:  > : of the greenhouse effect is due solely to natural water 
: vapor. Of
:  > : the remaining 5%, only 0.2% to 0.3% of the greenhouse effect
:  > : (depending on whose numbers you use) is due to emissions of 
: carbon
:  > : dioxide and other gases from human sources. If we are in fact 
: in a
:  > : global warming crisis, even the most aggressive and costly
:  > : proposals for limiting industrial carbon dioxide emissions would
:  > : have an undetectable effect on global climate."
:   >
:  > : http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/global_warming.html
:   >
:  >
:  > :> something to do with the deep sea transport mechanism
:   > :> . . .
:   >
:  > : Well that's nice and vague.
:   >
:  > Do your own research, idiot. . .here's a start. . .
:   >
:  > http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/brady/deepwater.pdf

: Oh great, another link to a site that has nothing on it that even 
: remotely supports your claim. What do you do, just post random links?

You asked about more detail or at least implied you wanted more, this explains
the transport of deep ocean thermal energy around the planet. . .the cycle
from icecap to warm ocen takes about 2000 years. . .

:  >
:  > :>in fact, the temperature had been in a slight decline,
:   >
:  > : Proof?
:   >
:  > Average the graph and you see a slight decline in mean 
: temperatures. . .

: No, what you are seeing is noise. You could claim half a dozen 
: "slight declines in mean temp" if you pick and choose your data, 
: but that wouldn't be valid. Try averaging the graph on a 5000 year 
: interval and see what you get.

Well, where are your examples? That's right you don't have any to present it
is all based on your staements/disagreements and nothing more. . .

:  >
:  > :> but don't let
:   > :> facts get in the way of your rant,
:   >
:  > : That's the strategy that works for you, is it?
:   >
:  > :> you can't prove anything on the internet.
:   > : > http://www.secretsoftheice.org/icecore/studies.html

: Isn't that the link you claim I snipped? Hmmmmm...

Yep, should have been near where you were responding for comparison

:  >
:  > : Correction: *You* can't prove anything on the internet 
: because you
:  > : are a total loon who is incapable of citing any material that
:  > : actually backs up your claims. When you do cite something, you
:  > : totally misread it.
:   >
:  > Of course, this coming from a guy who doesn't think radar can 
: tell distance

: Um, I never said that, liar. I simply accidentally omitted 
: distance. I later admitted to my omission (I don't ever expect to 
: see a kook like you admit to a mistake). Tell us again what the 
: "D" in RADAR stands for?

"Simply omitted it". .. you are the king of excuses. . .and the "D" refernace
was to see if you were paying attention. . what does the "R" stand for? Didn't
jump on Ugly Bob with his mistake. . .he must have a nice butt for him to be
your friend. . .

:  > and that "massive" only refers to weight. . .

: Well...Yeah. Pardon me for using the English language correctly.

You mean obtusely for your benefit. . .

:  > I guess you have weight on your
:  > mind <and ass> 24/7. . .

: Projecting again, porky?

Nope, Bugs. . .

:  >
:  > : --- Snip science fiction reference ---
:   >
:  > : --- Snip terrorist fiction reference ---
:   >
:  > : Next you'll be parroting that asinine "What would Jesus Drive?"
:  > : crap. Is there any idiotic band wagon you won't jump on, 
: Garrrrry?
:   >
:  > Is there anything you don't knee-jerk oppose?

: Yeah, reality.

Your intepretation of it you mean. . .

Garry