Driver to drive?

On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 00:22:29 +0000, Don Klipstein wrote:
In article <0s0fr4lfbupgbb5p0e5j8eigrf0qults2b@4ax.com>, Raveninghorde wrote:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 03:08:17 +0000 (UTC), don@manx.misty.com (Don
Klipstein) wrote:
SNIP
Now even NASA are stasrting to repsond to the solar minimum:
SNIP

http://nspires.nasaprs.com/external/viewrepositorydocument/cmdocumentid=
178281/B.9%20CCMSC.pdf

I can't find anything about how much this solar activity change is
likely to or estimated to change the global warming trend.
Of course not, It would conflict with your dogma, and threaten your
faith.

Thanks,
Rich
 
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.
 
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 18:30:05 GMT, Rich Grise <rich@example.net> wrote:

On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 01:24:51 +0000, Jon Kirwan wrote:

Another tomato. So? I'll get interested when you actually engage
your brain on this subject and bring up some informed points.

Problem is, when you actually bother to _inform_ yourself of some
_facts_,
But I have spent some years doing so. Problem for you is, I tend to
get my facts from real scientists.

rather than just preaching your dogma, you discover that your
dogma is a load of total purest crap, and that's too hard to face. Not
only are you wrong, but you're exposed as an idiot for insisting that
you're right, even though the facts show the opposite.
Mere claims by fiat. Nothing more.

And even if it were true, the draconian measures you espouse are worse
than any possible consequences of _actual_ warming, even if it _were_
factual.
Which draconian measures have I suggested? Or is this just another
claim by fiat without substance?

Rich, I don't normally respond to you and this is an exception made
only because it's been a little while, not because there is any more
substance here than at other times. In fact, as though it were
possible, there is less here than at some times from you. I won't be
responding to you much on this subject elsewhere, mostly because I
feel getting you to educate yourself on real science is about as
fruitful as an orange grove in Alaska.

And no, don't bother asking me to read OISM or blogs. If you have a
specific, published, ISI JCR papers to suggest then I will probably
take a crack at it. Otherwise, forget it and go find someone else to
pester.

Jon

--
Science is indistinguishable from religion by those sufficiently ignorant.
 
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
 
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.
AGW is a faith-based social society.

You have to keep science out of it.

Fortunately for the AGW followers our educational system is so
fucked-over that getting converts is a trivial exercise :-(

Anyone noticed the latest fill-your-tires-with-nitrogen scam going
around? Even the high school kids don't know about Boyle's Law :-(

Fortunately the BDS-stricken crowd are the most likely ones to get
taken "for the ride" ;-)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine Sometimes I even put it in the food
 
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.
 
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

--
Science is indistinguishable from religion by those sufficiently ignorant.
 
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.
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.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

It's what you learn, after you know it all, that counts.
 
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.
 
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.
 
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 17:12:26 -0500, krw <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

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.
Richard Henry is a high _priestess_ of AGW ;-)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

Lord protect me from queers, fairies and Democrats
 
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?
 
On 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?
When his pecker freezes and falls off. He'll not notice, though, it
was already a useless appendage ;-)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

Labor Unions Cause Global Warming
 
On Mar 12, 7:24 pm, Rich Grise <r...@example.net> wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 01:04:11 +0000, Jon Kirwan wrote:

My point was that when someone is ignorant about a subject, all things
seem possible.  Magic, necromancy, tea leaf reading, etc., all seem to
make sense when ignorant.  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.

Ah, so  you're a True Believer. Warmingism is true, and NO AMOUNT of facts
will shake your faith.
Since his "faith" - as you call it - is based on facts, this is
singularly silly assertion.

Just answer me one question: Howcome none of your "atmospheric models"
even ACKNOWLEDGE THE EXISTENCE OF, let alone ACCOUNT FOR, atmospheric
water vapor?
If you weren't quite so fatuously ignorant about the whole subject,
you'd be aware that water vapour is a more potent greenhouse gas than
carbon dioxide, and all the atmospheric models include it; adding
carbon dioxide to the atmosphere does produce some greenhouse warming
directly, and this warming increases the amount of water vapour in the
atmosphere, which produces additional greenhouse warming. If you don't
figure that in the sums don't come out right.

If you'd gone to the trouble if reading a little bit about the
scientific basis of global warming, you'd be aware of this and other
facts that show up in the arguments.

Nobody makes much of a fuss about water vapour contribution - with 70%
of the earth's surface being water, the concentration of water vapour
in the atmosphere is a directly controlled by the temperature at the
surface (with a lag of a few weeks), so it's easy to figure into the
climate models, and we can only manipulate it by manipulating the
levels of the other greenhouse gases, which have appreciably longer
residence times in the atmosphere.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
 
On 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
 
On Fri, 13 Mar 2009 05:13:30 GMT, Jon Kirwan
<jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On 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
It is a religion with you:(

If it's not in the bible (ISI JCR) then it's not true.

If you won't look at the facts then there is no hope for you.
 
On Fri, 13 Mar 2009 03:00:25 -0700 (PDT), bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:

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.
I note you are using an out of date secondary source.

For a more up to date picture try:

http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/comparison.html

Which has seen the anomoly cut from 0.5C to 0.3C.

Add to this the guy from NOAA predicting cooling for another 30 years.
That'll be 40 years of cooling. Which is consistent with moving from a
grand solar maximum to a minimum.


SNIP
 
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.

Fortunately for the AGW followers our educational system is so
fucked-over that getting converts is a trivial exercise :-(
And Jim is a prize example of an MIT graduate who can't understand the
simple physics behind AGW.

Anyone noticed the latest fill-your-tires-with-nitrogen scam going
around?  Even the high school kids don't know about Boyle's Law :-(
The only valid argument for filling you tires with nitrogen is that
the rubber in the tires will last longer.
Polybutadiene includes carbon-carbon double bonds, and if these react
with oxygen, the polymer falls apart.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polybutadiene

Ozone does the same job a lot faster. Even if you fill the inside of
the tyre with nitrogen, the outside is still exposed to both oxygen
and (at a much lower concentration) ozone, so you won't win much.

Fortunately the BDS-stricken crowd are the most likely ones to get
taken "for the ride" ;-)
Ironic, considering how reliably Jim fall for right-wing political
lies, like weapons of mass destruction in Irak.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
 
On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 22:50:06 -0700 (PDT), bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:

On Mar 10, 3:24 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 06:52:12 -0700 (PDT), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
On Mar 10, 2:26 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 16:31:20 -0700 (PDT), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
It is not as if you need my good opinion, not that
you seem to be in any way equipped to earn it.

---
???

Perhaps you'd like to rephrase that in comprehensible English?

Perhaps you'd like to find someone who has mastered English to
interpret it for you?

---
Actually, I'd need to find someone who has mastered gibberish.

I confess to have exploited my wife's expertise to set a trap for the
linguistically crippled. It was unkind of me, but the temptation was
overwhelming.
---
If:

"It is not as if you need my good opinion, not that you seem to be in
any way equipped to earn it."

was penned by your wife as an attempt of a trap of some kind, then, poor
dear, she's as linguistically challenged as you are.

JF
 
John Fields wrote:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 22:50:06 -0700 (PDT), bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:

On Mar 10, 3:24 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 06:52:12 -0700 (PDT), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
On Mar 10, 2:26 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 16:31:20 -0700 (PDT), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
It is not as if you need my good opinion, not that
you seem to be in any way equipped to earn it.

---
???

Perhaps you'd like to rephrase that in comprehensible English?

Perhaps you'd like to find someone who has mastered English to
interpret it for you?

---
Actually, I'd need to find someone who has mastered gibberish.

I confess to have exploited my wife's expertise to set a trap for the
linguistically crippled. It was unkind of me, but the temptation was
overwhelming.

---
If:

"It is not as if you need my good opinion, not that you seem to be in
any way equipped to earn it."

was penned by your wife as an attempt of a trap of some kind, then, poor
dear, she's as linguistically challenged as you are.

As always, Sloman has to blame someone else for his failings. On the
other hand, no one could accept all of his failings without going
insane.


--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

Goggle Groups, and Web TV users must request to be white listed, or I
will not see your messages.

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm
 

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top