Of course not, It would conflict with your dogma, and threaten your
The hottest year was 1998. Warming peaked in 2004 according to hadcrutOn Thu, 12 Mar 2009 10:09:40 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 15:04:55 -0700, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 21:16:59 GMT, Jon Kirwan
jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:
[snip]
Isn't it nice how Raving's ignorance makes all challenges seem
reasonable in his mind?
Jon
As a leftist weenie spewing gloom and doom, don't you think it
appropriate for you to set your affairs in order, write your will,
etc., for the sky is indeed falling... CHICKEN LITTLE
...Jim Thompson
Jim, you're wrong
The sky is falling. That's one of the factors NASA want to
investigate. Jon won't believe it because it's a sign of global
cooling.
I see you still aren't capable of even checking out your own ideas.
As I said, people who don't really have the knowledge to know any
better bring up all manner of possible explanations, trying to say
that climate scientists haven't got it right. Not much different than
bringing up witches or Loki as an explanation. To them, it sounds
just fine. Better informed, they would change their minds.
Need to bone up on elementary math, to start, and maybe also do some
study. It won't necessarily solve any of your problems, but it may
help you do a sanity check on your conjurations.
Jon
But I have spent some years doing so. Problem for you is, I tend to
Mere claims by fiat. Nothing more.
Which draconian measures have I suggested? Or is this just another
Not to repeat myself, but I still see you still aren't capable of evenOn Thu, 12 Mar 2009 18:08:14 GMT, Jon Kirwan
jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 10:09:40 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 15:04:55 -0700, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 21:16:59 GMT, Jon Kirwan
jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:
[snip]
Isn't it nice how Raving's ignorance makes all challenges seem
reasonable in his mind?
Jon
As a leftist weenie spewing gloom and doom, don't you think it
appropriate for you to set your affairs in order, write your will,
etc., for the sky is indeed falling... CHICKEN LITTLE
...Jim Thompson
Jim, you're wrong
The sky is falling. That's one of the factors NASA want to
investigate. Jon won't believe it because it's a sign of global
cooling.
I see you still aren't capable of even checking out your own ideas.
As I said, people who don't really have the knowledge to know any
better bring up all manner of possible explanations, trying to say
that climate scientists haven't got it right. Not much different than
bringing up witches or Loki as an explanation. To them, it sounds
just fine. Better informed, they would change their minds.
Need to bone up on elementary math, to start, and maybe also do some
study. It won't necessarily solve any of your problems, but it may
help you do a sanity check on your conjurations.
Jon
The hottest year was 1998. Warming peaked in 2004 according to hadcrut
and we are on a cooling trend. Check.
Conclusion, CO2 does not overide other causes of temperature change as
claimed. Check.
So which bit of my logic can't you follow? I'll try and make it
simpler for you to understand.
AGW is a faith-based social society.On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 18:08:14 GMT, Jon Kirwan
jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 10:09:40 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 15:04:55 -0700, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 21:16:59 GMT, Jon Kirwan
jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:
[snip]
Isn't it nice how Raving's ignorance makes all challenges seem
reasonable in his mind?
Jon
As a leftist weenie spewing gloom and doom, don't you think it
appropriate for you to set your affairs in order, write your will,
etc., for the sky is indeed falling... CHICKEN LITTLE
...Jim Thompson
Jim, you're wrong
The sky is falling. That's one of the factors NASA want to
investigate. Jon won't believe it because it's a sign of global
cooling.
I see you still aren't capable of even checking out your own ideas.
As I said, people who don't really have the knowledge to know any
better bring up all manner of possible explanations, trying to say
that climate scientists haven't got it right. Not much different than
bringing up witches or Loki as an explanation. To them, it sounds
just fine. Better informed, they would change their minds.
Need to bone up on elementary math, to start, and maybe also do some
study. It won't necessarily solve any of your problems, but it may
help you do a sanity check on your conjurations.
Jon
The hottest year was 1998. Warming peaked in 2004 according to hadcrut
and we are on a cooling trend. Check.
Conclusion, CO2 does not overide other causes of temperature change as
claimed. Check.
So which bit of my logic can't you follow? I'll try and make it
simpler for you to understand.
480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |As you repeated yourself despite saying you wouldn't and did notOn Thu, 12 Mar 2009 18:53:15 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 18:08:14 GMT, Jon Kirwan
jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 10:09:40 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 15:04:55 -0700, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 21:16:59 GMT, Jon Kirwan
jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:
[snip]
Isn't it nice how Raving's ignorance makes all challenges seem
reasonable in his mind?
Jon
As a leftist weenie spewing gloom and doom, don't you think it
appropriate for you to set your affairs in order, write your will,
etc., for the sky is indeed falling... CHICKEN LITTLE
...Jim Thompson
Jim, you're wrong
The sky is falling. That's one of the factors NASA want to
investigate. Jon won't believe it because it's a sign of global
cooling.
I see you still aren't capable of even checking out your own ideas.
As I said, people who don't really have the knowledge to know any
better bring up all manner of possible explanations, trying to say
that climate scientists haven't got it right. Not much different than
bringing up witches or Loki as an explanation. To them, it sounds
just fine. Better informed, they would change their minds.
Need to bone up on elementary math, to start, and maybe also do some
study. It won't necessarily solve any of your problems, but it may
help you do a sanity check on your conjurations.
Jon
The hottest year was 1998. Warming peaked in 2004 according to hadcrut
and we are on a cooling trend. Check.
Conclusion, CO2 does not overide other causes of temperature change as
claimed. Check.
So which bit of my logic can't you follow? I'll try and make it
simpler for you to understand.
Not to repeat myself, but I still see you still aren't capable of even
checking out your own ideas.
As I said, people who don't really have the knowledge to know any
better bring up all manner of possible explanations, trying to say
that climate scientists haven't got it right. Not much different than
bringing up witches or Loki as an explanation. To them, it sounds
just fine. Better informed, they would change their minds.
Need to bone up on elementary math, to start, and maybe also do some
study. It won't necessarily solve any of your problems, but it may
help you do a sanity check on your conjurations.
Jon
Why should I bother responding to any of your _new_ logic if you can'tOn Thu, 12 Mar 2009 18:56:01 GMT, Jon Kirwan
jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 18:53:15 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 18:08:14 GMT, Jon Kirwan
jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 10:09:40 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 15:04:55 -0700, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 21:16:59 GMT, Jon Kirwan
jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:
[snip]
Isn't it nice how Raving's ignorance makes all challenges seem
reasonable in his mind?
Jon
As a leftist weenie spewing gloom and doom, don't you think it
appropriate for you to set your affairs in order, write your will,
etc., for the sky is indeed falling... CHICKEN LITTLE
...Jim Thompson
Jim, you're wrong
The sky is falling. That's one of the factors NASA want to
investigate. Jon won't believe it because it's a sign of global
cooling.
I see you still aren't capable of even checking out your own ideas.
As I said, people who don't really have the knowledge to know any
better bring up all manner of possible explanations, trying to say
that climate scientists haven't got it right. Not much different than
bringing up witches or Loki as an explanation. To them, it sounds
just fine. Better informed, they would change their minds.
Need to bone up on elementary math, to start, and maybe also do some
study. It won't necessarily solve any of your problems, but it may
help you do a sanity check on your conjurations.
Jon
The hottest year was 1998. Warming peaked in 2004 according to hadcrut
and we are on a cooling trend. Check.
Conclusion, CO2 does not overide other causes of temperature change as
claimed. Check.
So which bit of my logic can't you follow? I'll try and make it
simpler for you to understand.
Not to repeat myself, but I still see you still aren't capable of even
checking out your own ideas.
As I said, people who don't really have the knowledge to know any
better bring up all manner of possible explanations, trying to say
that climate scientists haven't got it right. Not much different than
bringing up witches or Loki as an explanation. To them, it sounds
just fine. Better informed, they would change their minds.
Need to bone up on elementary math, to start, and maybe also do some
study. It won't necessarily solve any of your problems, but it may
help you do a sanity check on your conjurations.
Jon
As you repeated yourself despite saying you wouldn't and did not
respond to the substance of my post I conclude you could not fault my
logic.
AGW is a faith-based social society.On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 18:56:01 GMT, Jon Kirwan
jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 18:53:15 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 18:08:14 GMT, Jon Kirwan
jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 10:09:40 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 15:04:55 -0700, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 21:16:59 GMT, Jon Kirwan
jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:
[snip]
Isn't it nice how Raving's ignorance makes all challenges seem
reasonable in his mind?
Jon
As a leftist weenie spewing gloom and doom, don't you think it
appropriate for you to set your affairs in order, write your will,
etc., for the sky is indeed falling... CHICKEN LITTLE
...Jim Thompson
Jim, you're wrong
The sky is falling. That's one of the factors NASA want to
investigate. Jon won't believe it because it's a sign of global
cooling.
I see you still aren't capable of even checking out your own ideas.
As I said, people who don't really have the knowledge to know any
better bring up all manner of possible explanations, trying to say
that climate scientists haven't got it right. Not much different than
bringing up witches or Loki as an explanation. To them, it sounds
just fine. Better informed, they would change their minds.
Need to bone up on elementary math, to start, and maybe also do some
study. It won't necessarily solve any of your problems, but it may
help you do a sanity check on your conjurations.
Jon
The hottest year was 1998. Warming peaked in 2004 according to hadcrut
and we are on a cooling trend. Check.
Conclusion, CO2 does not overide other causes of temperature change as
claimed. Check.
So which bit of my logic can't you follow? I'll try and make it
simpler for you to understand.
Not to repeat myself, but I still see you still aren't capable of even
checking out your own ideas.
As I said, people who don't really have the knowledge to know any
better bring up all manner of possible explanations, trying to say
that climate scientists haven't got it right. Not much different than
bringing up witches or Loki as an explanation. To them, it sounds
just fine. Better informed, they would change their minds.
Need to bone up on elementary math, to start, and maybe also do some
study. It won't necessarily solve any of your problems, but it may
help you do a sanity check on your conjurations.
Jon
As you repeated yourself despite saying you wouldn't and did not
respond to the substance of my post I conclude you could not fault my
logic.
480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |And you won't have to deal with those nasty facts any more.On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 19:20:36 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 18:56:01 GMT, Jon Kirwan
j...@infinitefactors.org> wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 18:53:15 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 18:08:14 GMT, Jon Kirwan
j...@infinitefactors.org> wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 10:09:40 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 15:04:55 -0700, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 21:16:59 GMT, Jon Kirwan
j...@infinitefactors.org> wrote:
[snip]
Isn't it nice how Raving's ignorance makes all challenges seem
reasonable in his mind?
Jon
As a leftist weenie spewing gloom and doom, don't you think it
appropriate for you to set your affairs in order, write your will,
etc., for the sky is indeed falling... CHICKEN LITTLE
...Jim Thompson
Jim, you're wrong
The sky is falling. That's one of the factors NASA want to
investigate. Jon won't believe it because it's a sign of global
cooling.
I see you still aren't capable of even checking out your own ideas.
As I said, people who don't really have the knowledge to know any
better bring up all manner of possible explanations, trying to say
that climate scientists haven't got it right. Not much different than
bringing up witches or Loki as an explanation. To them, it sounds
just fine. Better informed, they would change their minds.
Need to bone up on elementary math, to start, and maybe also do some
study. It won't necessarily solve any of your problems, but it may
help you do a sanity check on your conjurations.
Jon
The hottest year was 1998. Warming peaked in 2004 according to hadcrut
and we are on a cooling trend. Check.
Conclusion, CO2 does not overide other causes of temperature change as
claimed. Check.
So which bit of my logic can't you follow? I'll try and make it
simpler for you to understand.
Not to repeat myself, but I still see you still aren't capable of even
checking out your own ideas.
As I said, people who don't really have the knowledge to know any
better bring up all manner of possible explanations, trying to say
that climate scientists haven't got it right. Not much different than
bringing up witches or Loki as an explanation. To them, it sounds
just fine. Better informed, they would change their minds.
Need to bone up on elementary math, to start, and maybe also do some
study. It won't necessarily solve any of your problems, but it may
help you do a sanity check on your conjurations.
Jon
As you repeated yourself despite saying you wouldn't and did not
respond to the substance of my post I conclude you could not fault my
logic.
AGW is a faith-based social society.
You have to keep science out of it.
When someone tries to insert science and questioning, this bird-brain
crowd falls back on attacking the competency of the messenger.
Shunning all the members of this AGW social society is the simplest
solution.
Slowman is *not* a fact.On Mar 12, 12:32 pm, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@My-
Web-Site.com> wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 19:20:36 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 18:56:01 GMT, Jon Kirwan
j...@infinitefactors.org> wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 18:53:15 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 18:08:14 GMT, Jon Kirwan
j...@infinitefactors.org> wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 10:09:40 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 15:04:55 -0700, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 21:16:59 GMT, Jon Kirwan
j...@infinitefactors.org> wrote:
[snip]
Isn't it nice how Raving's ignorance makes all challenges seem
reasonable in his mind?
Jon
As a leftist weenie spewing gloom and doom, don't you think it
appropriate for you to set your affairs in order, write your will,
etc., for the sky is indeed falling... CHICKEN LITTLE
...Jim Thompson
Jim, you're wrong
The sky is falling. That's one of the factors NASA want to
investigate. Jon won't believe it because it's a sign of global
cooling.
I see you still aren't capable of even checking out your own ideas.
As I said, people who don't really have the knowledge to know any
better bring up all manner of possible explanations, trying to say
that climate scientists haven't got it right. Not much different than
bringing up witches or Loki as an explanation. To them, it sounds
just fine. Better informed, they would change their minds.
Need to bone up on elementary math, to start, and maybe also do some
study. It won't necessarily solve any of your problems, but it may
help you do a sanity check on your conjurations.
Jon
The hottest year was 1998. Warming peaked in 2004 according to hadcrut
and we are on a cooling trend. Check.
Conclusion, CO2 does not overide other causes of temperature change as
claimed. Check.
So which bit of my logic can't you follow? I'll try and make it
simpler for you to understand.
Not to repeat myself, but I still see you still aren't capable of even
checking out your own ideas.
As I said, people who don't really have the knowledge to know any
better bring up all manner of possible explanations, trying to say
that climate scientists haven't got it right. Not much different than
bringing up witches or Loki as an explanation. To them, it sounds
just fine. Better informed, they would change their minds.
Need to bone up on elementary math, to start, and maybe also do some
study. It won't necessarily solve any of your problems, but it may
help you do a sanity check on your conjurations.
Jon
As you repeated yourself despite saying you wouldn't and did not
respond to the substance of my post I conclude you could not fault my
logic.
AGW is a faith-based social society.
You have to keep science out of it.
When someone tries to insert science and questioning, this bird-brain
crowd falls back on attacking the competency of the messenger.
Shunning all the members of this AGW social society is the simplest
solution.
And you won't have to deal with those nasty facts any more.
Richard Henry is a high _priestess_ of AGW ;-)On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 13:58:43 -0700 (PDT), Richard Henry
pomerado@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mar 12, 12:32 pm, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@My-
Web-Site.com> wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 19:20:36 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 18:56:01 GMT, Jon Kirwan
j...@infinitefactors.org> wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 18:53:15 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 18:08:14 GMT, Jon Kirwan
j...@infinitefactors.org> wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 10:09:40 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 15:04:55 -0700, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 21:16:59 GMT, Jon Kirwan
j...@infinitefactors.org> wrote:
[snip]
Isn't it nice how Raving's ignorance makes all challenges seem
reasonable in his mind?
Jon
As a leftist weenie spewing gloom and doom, don't you think it
appropriate for you to set your affairs in order, write your will,
etc., for the sky is indeed falling... CHICKEN LITTLE
...Jim Thompson
Jim, you're wrong
The sky is falling. That's one of the factors NASA want to
investigate. Jon won't believe it because it's a sign of global
cooling.
I see you still aren't capable of even checking out your own ideas.
As I said, people who don't really have the knowledge to know any
better bring up all manner of possible explanations, trying to say
that climate scientists haven't got it right. Not much different than
bringing up witches or Loki as an explanation. To them, it sounds
just fine. Better informed, they would change their minds.
Need to bone up on elementary math, to start, and maybe also do some
study. It won't necessarily solve any of your problems, but it may
help you do a sanity check on your conjurations.
Jon
The hottest year was 1998. Warming peaked in 2004 according to hadcrut
and we are on a cooling trend. Check.
Conclusion, CO2 does not overide other causes of temperature change as
claimed. Check.
So which bit of my logic can't you follow? I'll try and make it
simpler for you to understand.
Not to repeat myself, but I still see you still aren't capable of even
checking out your own ideas.
As I said, people who don't really have the knowledge to know any
better bring up all manner of possible explanations, trying to say
that climate scientists haven't got it right. Not much different than
bringing up witches or Loki as an explanation. To them, it sounds
just fine. Better informed, they would change their minds.
Need to bone up on elementary math, to start, and maybe also do some
study. It won't necessarily solve any of your problems, but it may
help you do a sanity check on your conjurations.
Jon
As you repeated yourself despite saying you wouldn't and did not
respond to the substance of my post I conclude you could not fault my
logic.
AGW is a faith-based social society.
You have to keep science out of it.
When someone tries to insert science and questioning, this bird-brain
crowd falls back on attacking the competency of the messenger.
Shunning all the members of this AGW social society is the simplest
solution.
And you won't have to deal with those nasty facts any more.
Slowman is *not* a fact.
480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |So you can't cope with the fact that the peak annual globalOn Thu, 12 Mar 2009 19:20:36 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 18:56:01 GMT, Jon Kirwan
jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 18:53:15 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 18:08:14 GMT, Jon Kirwan
jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 10:09:40 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 15:04:55 -0700, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 21:16:59 GMT, Jon Kirwan
jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:
[snip]
Isn't it nice how Raving's ignorance makes all challenges seem
reasonable in his mind?
Jon
As a leftist weenie spewing gloom and doom, don't you think it
appropriate for you to set your affairs in order, write your will,
etc., for the sky is indeed falling... CHICKEN LITTLE
...Jim Thompson
Jim, you're wrong
The sky is falling. That's one of the factors NASA want to
investigate. Jon won't believe it because it's a sign of global
cooling.
I see you still aren't capable of even checking out your own ideas.
As I said, people who don't really have the knowledge to know any
better bring up all manner of possible explanations, trying to say
that climate scientists haven't got it right. Not much different than
bringing up witches or Loki as an explanation. To them, it sounds
just fine. Better informed, they would change their minds.
Need to bone up on elementary math, to start, and maybe also do some
study. It won't necessarily solve any of your problems, but it may
help you do a sanity check on your conjurations.
Jon
The hottest year was 1998. Warming peaked in 2004 according to hadcrut
and we are on a cooling trend. Check.
Conclusion, CO2 does not overide other causes of temperature change as
claimed. Check.
So which bit of my logic can't you follow? I'll try and make it
simpler for you to understand.
Not to repeat myself, but I still see you still aren't capable of even
checking out your own ideas.
As I said, people who don't really have the knowledge to know any
better bring up all manner of possible explanations, trying to say
that climate scientists haven't got it right. Not much different than
bringing up witches or Loki as an explanation. To them, it sounds
just fine. Better informed, they would change their minds.
Need to bone up on elementary math, to start, and maybe also do some
study. It won't necessarily solve any of your problems, but it may
help you do a sanity check on your conjurations.
Jon
As you repeated yourself despite saying you wouldn't and did not
respond to the substance of my post I conclude you could not fault my
logic.
Why should I bother responding to any of your _new_ logic if you can't
even deal with your own _old_ logic?
Take a crack at your own comments and see how they hold up, for once.
Otherwise, I'm afraid you might even allow yourself to believe in the
easter bunny.
Jon
When his pecker freezes and falls off. He'll not notice, though, itOn Thu, 12 Mar 2009 19:28:00 GMT, Jon Kirwan
jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 19:20:36 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 18:56:01 GMT, Jon Kirwan
jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 18:53:15 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 18:08:14 GMT, Jon Kirwan
jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 10:09:40 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 15:04:55 -0700, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 21:16:59 GMT, Jon Kirwan
jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:
[snip]
Isn't it nice how Raving's ignorance makes all challenges seem
reasonable in his mind?
Jon
As a leftist weenie spewing gloom and doom, don't you think it
appropriate for you to set your affairs in order, write your will,
etc., for the sky is indeed falling... CHICKEN LITTLE
...Jim Thompson
Jim, you're wrong
The sky is falling. That's one of the factors NASA want to
investigate. Jon won't believe it because it's a sign of global
cooling.
I see you still aren't capable of even checking out your own ideas.
As I said, people who don't really have the knowledge to know any
better bring up all manner of possible explanations, trying to say
that climate scientists haven't got it right. Not much different than
bringing up witches or Loki as an explanation. To them, it sounds
just fine. Better informed, they would change their minds.
Need to bone up on elementary math, to start, and maybe also do some
study. It won't necessarily solve any of your problems, but it may
help you do a sanity check on your conjurations.
Jon
The hottest year was 1998. Warming peaked in 2004 according to hadcrut
and we are on a cooling trend. Check.
Conclusion, CO2 does not overide other causes of temperature change as
claimed. Check.
So which bit of my logic can't you follow? I'll try and make it
simpler for you to understand.
Not to repeat myself, but I still see you still aren't capable of even
checking out your own ideas.
As I said, people who don't really have the knowledge to know any
better bring up all manner of possible explanations, trying to say
that climate scientists haven't got it right. Not much different than
bringing up witches or Loki as an explanation. To them, it sounds
just fine. Better informed, they would change their minds.
Need to bone up on elementary math, to start, and maybe also do some
study. It won't necessarily solve any of your problems, but it may
help you do a sanity check on your conjurations.
Jon
As you repeated yourself despite saying you wouldn't and did not
respond to the substance of my post I conclude you could not fault my
logic.
Why should I bother responding to any of your _new_ logic if you can't
even deal with your own _old_ logic?
Take a crack at your own comments and see how they hold up, for once.
Otherwise, I'm afraid you might even allow yourself to believe in the
easter bunny.
Jon
So you can't cope with the fact that the peak annual global
temperature was 11 years ago with a +0.5C anomaly.
This has almost halved to +0.3C since then despite CO2 rising from 368
ppmv to 384ppmv.
Data from the Hadley Centre:
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/annual
How many more years of falling temperature will it take to convince
you the science is wrong?
480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |Since his "faith" - as you call it - is based on facts, this is
If you weren't quite so fatuously ignorant about the whole subject,
I use ISI JCR journal articles, not you or your opinions. Why shouldOn Thu, 12 Mar 2009 19:28:00 GMT, Jon Kirwan
jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 19:20:36 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 18:56:01 GMT, Jon Kirwan
jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 18:53:15 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 18:08:14 GMT, Jon Kirwan
jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 10:09:40 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 15:04:55 -0700, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 21:16:59 GMT, Jon Kirwan
jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:
[snip]
Isn't it nice how Raving's ignorance makes all challenges seem
reasonable in his mind?
Jon
As a leftist weenie spewing gloom and doom, don't you think it
appropriate for you to set your affairs in order, write your will,
etc., for the sky is indeed falling... CHICKEN LITTLE
...Jim Thompson
Jim, you're wrong
The sky is falling. That's one of the factors NASA want to
investigate. Jon won't believe it because it's a sign of global
cooling.
I see you still aren't capable of even checking out your own ideas.
As I said, people who don't really have the knowledge to know any
better bring up all manner of possible explanations, trying to say
that climate scientists haven't got it right. Not much different than
bringing up witches or Loki as an explanation. To them, it sounds
just fine. Better informed, they would change their minds.
Need to bone up on elementary math, to start, and maybe also do some
study. It won't necessarily solve any of your problems, but it may
help you do a sanity check on your conjurations.
Jon
The hottest year was 1998. Warming peaked in 2004 according to hadcrut
and we are on a cooling trend. Check.
Conclusion, CO2 does not overide other causes of temperature change as
claimed. Check.
So which bit of my logic can't you follow? I'll try and make it
simpler for you to understand.
Not to repeat myself, but I still see you still aren't capable of even
checking out your own ideas.
As I said, people who don't really have the knowledge to know any
better bring up all manner of possible explanations, trying to say
that climate scientists haven't got it right. Not much different than
bringing up witches or Loki as an explanation. To them, it sounds
just fine. Better informed, they would change their minds.
Need to bone up on elementary math, to start, and maybe also do some
study. It won't necessarily solve any of your problems, but it may
help you do a sanity check on your conjurations.
Jon
As you repeated yourself despite saying you wouldn't and did not
respond to the substance of my post I conclude you could not fault my
logic.
Why should I bother responding to any of your _new_ logic if you can't
even deal with your own _old_ logic?
Take a crack at your own comments and see how they hold up, for once.
Otherwise, I'm afraid you might even allow yourself to believe in the
easter bunny.
Jon
So you can't cope with the fact that the peak annual global
temperature was 11 years ago with a +0.5C anomaly.
This has almost halved to +0.3C since then despite CO2 rising from 368
ppmv to 384ppmv.
Data from the Hadley Centre:
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/annual
How many more years of falling temperature will it take to convince
you the science is wrong?
It is a religion with youOn Thu, 12 Mar 2009 22:22:52 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 19:28:00 GMT, Jon Kirwan
jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 19:20:36 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 18:56:01 GMT, Jon Kirwan
jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 18:53:15 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 18:08:14 GMT, Jon Kirwan
jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 10:09:40 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 15:04:55 -0700, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 21:16:59 GMT, Jon Kirwan
jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:
[snip]
Isn't it nice how Raving's ignorance makes all challenges seem
reasonable in his mind?
Jon
As a leftist weenie spewing gloom and doom, don't you think it
appropriate for you to set your affairs in order, write your will,
etc., for the sky is indeed falling... CHICKEN LITTLE
...Jim Thompson
Jim, you're wrong
The sky is falling. That's one of the factors NASA want to
investigate. Jon won't believe it because it's a sign of global
cooling.
I see you still aren't capable of even checking out your own ideas.
As I said, people who don't really have the knowledge to know any
better bring up all manner of possible explanations, trying to say
that climate scientists haven't got it right. Not much different than
bringing up witches or Loki as an explanation. To them, it sounds
just fine. Better informed, they would change their minds.
Need to bone up on elementary math, to start, and maybe also do some
study. It won't necessarily solve any of your problems, but it may
help you do a sanity check on your conjurations.
Jon
The hottest year was 1998. Warming peaked in 2004 according to hadcrut
and we are on a cooling trend. Check.
Conclusion, CO2 does not overide other causes of temperature change as
claimed. Check.
So which bit of my logic can't you follow? I'll try and make it
simpler for you to understand.
Not to repeat myself, but I still see you still aren't capable of even
checking out your own ideas.
As I said, people who don't really have the knowledge to know any
better bring up all manner of possible explanations, trying to say
that climate scientists haven't got it right. Not much different than
bringing up witches or Loki as an explanation. To them, it sounds
just fine. Better informed, they would change their minds.
Need to bone up on elementary math, to start, and maybe also do some
study. It won't necessarily solve any of your problems, but it may
help you do a sanity check on your conjurations.
Jon
As you repeated yourself despite saying you wouldn't and did not
respond to the substance of my post I conclude you could not fault my
logic.
Why should I bother responding to any of your _new_ logic if you can't
even deal with your own _old_ logic?
Take a crack at your own comments and see how they hold up, for once.
Otherwise, I'm afraid you might even allow yourself to believe in the
easter bunny.
Jon
So you can't cope with the fact that the peak annual global
temperature was 11 years ago with a +0.5C anomaly.
This has almost halved to +0.3C since then despite CO2 rising from 368
ppmv to 384ppmv.
Data from the Hadley Centre:
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/annual
How many more years of falling temperature will it take to convince
you the science is wrong?
I use ISI JCR journal articles, not you or your opinions. Why should
I care about what you say?
But I insist that before I take a single step in any direction you
point, that you first take a crack at your own earlier comments and
see how they hold up. Do some of your own work. Even you should know
better than to completely walk away from your own statements. In the
meantime, I'll probably just keep reminding you if I bother at all.
Jon
I note you are using an out of date secondary source.On Mar 12, 8:05 pm, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@My-
Web-Site.com> wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 18:53:15 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 18:08:14 GMT, Jon Kirwan
j...@infinitefactors.org> wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 10:09:40 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 15:04:55 -0700, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 21:16:59 GMT, Jon Kirwan
j...@infinitefactors.org> wrote:
[snip]
Isn't it nice how Raving's ignorance makes all challenges seem
reasonable in his mind?
Jon
As a leftist weenie spewing gloom and doom, don't you think it
appropriate for you to set your affairs in order, write your will,
etc., for the sky is indeed falling... CHICKEN LITTLE
...Jim Thompson
Jim, you're wrong
The sky is falling. That's one of the factors NASA want to
investigate. Jon won't believe it because it's a sign of global
cooling.
I see you still aren't capable of even checking out your own ideas.
As I said, people who don't really have the knowledge to know any
better bring up all manner of possible explanations, trying to say
that climate scientists haven't got it right. Not much different than
bringing up witches or Loki as an explanation. To them, it sounds
just fine. Better informed, they would change their minds.
Need to bone up on elementary math, to start, and maybe also do some
study. It won't necessarily solve any of your problems, but it may
help you do a sanity check on your conjurations.
Jon
The hottest year was 1998. Warming peaked in 2004 according to hadcrut
and we are on a cooling trend. Check.
Conclusion, CO2 does not overide other causes of temperature change as
claimed. Check.
So which bit of my logic can't you follow? I'll try and make it
simpler for you to understand.
AGW is a faith-based social society.
Jim and Rich Grise both seem to have received this same revelation.
If they had the wit, or the skills to dig into the scientifc case for
anthropogenic global warming, they'd have a different opinion, but
they have the sort of faith in their opinions that can ignore ice-core
data.
You have to keep science out of it.
Raving cherry-picks his scientific "facts". He doesn't seem to notice
that the temperature rise over the last century hasn't been smooth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png
and includes a number of episodes of short term cooling that look very
like the current example, and consequently feels free to claim
"Conclusion, CO2 does not overide other causes of temperature change
as
claimed. Check." Since no climatologist was ever silly enough to claim
that CO2 did overide other causes of (short term) temperature change
he's actually just set up a straw man.
Jim and Rich Grise both seem to have received this same revelation.On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 18:53:15 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 18:08:14 GMT, Jon Kirwan
j...@infinitefactors.org> wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 10:09:40 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 15:04:55 -0700, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 21:16:59 GMT, Jon Kirwan
j...@infinitefactors.org> wrote:
[snip]
Isn't it nice how Raving's ignorance makes all challenges seem
reasonable in his mind?
Jon
As a leftist weenie spewing gloom and doom, don't you think it
appropriate for you to set your affairs in order, write your will,
etc., for the sky is indeed falling... CHICKEN LITTLE
...Jim Thompson
Jim, you're wrong
The sky is falling. That's one of the factors NASA want to
investigate. Jon won't believe it because it's a sign of global
cooling.
I see you still aren't capable of even checking out your own ideas.
As I said, people who don't really have the knowledge to know any
better bring up all manner of possible explanations, trying to say
that climate scientists haven't got it right. Not much different than
bringing up witches or Loki as an explanation. To them, it sounds
just fine. Better informed, they would change their minds.
Need to bone up on elementary math, to start, and maybe also do some
study. It won't necessarily solve any of your problems, but it may
help you do a sanity check on your conjurations.
Jon
The hottest year was 1998. Warming peaked in 2004 according to hadcrut
and we are on a cooling trend. Check.
Conclusion, CO2 does not overide other causes of temperature change as
claimed. Check.
So which bit of my logic can't you follow? I'll try and make it
simpler for you to understand.
AGW is a faith-based social society.
Raving cherry-picks his scientific "facts". He doesn't seem to notice
And Jim is a prize example of an MIT graduate who can't understand the
The only valid argument for filling you tires with nitrogen is that
Ironic, considering how reliably Jim fall for right-wing political
---