* The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global
warming.  The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not
correct.

    * The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2
causes temperature increases over 650,000 years.  The Court found that the film
was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature
rises by 800-2000 years.

    * The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this
has been caused by global warming.  The Government's expert had to accept that
it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming.

    * The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused
by global warming.  The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the
case.

    * The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to
disappearing arctic ice.  It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in
fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent
storm.

    * The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing
Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a scientific
impossibility.

    * The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef
bleaching.  The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.

    * The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the
displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are
expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no
such threat of massive migration.

    * The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of
certain Pacific islands to New Zealand.  The Government are unable to
substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.

http://tinyurl.com/2ezxmp

And this moron wins the Nobel Peace prize?  FFS!!  That prize now has no more
worth then a doorstop or a paperweight...   What a joke!

Ray

-- 
****************************************************************************************
When anyone asks me about the Irish character, I say look at the trees.
Maimed, stark and misshapen, but ferociously tenacious - Edna O'Brien
****************************************************************************************
Email  : rayh(removeSPAM)@iol.ie : Website: http://www.eirefirst.com
****************************************************************************************

In article ,
 "WhiteWolf <rayh<spam>@iol.ie>"  wrote:

>     * The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global
> warming.  The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not
> correct.
> 
>     * The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2
> causes temperature increases over 650,000 years.  The Court found that the 
> film
> was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the 
> temperature
> rises by 800-2000 years.
> 
>     * The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that 
>     this
> has been caused by global warming.  The Government's expert had to accept 
> that
> it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming.
> 
>     * The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was 
>     caused
> by global warming.  The Government's expert had to accept that this was not 
> the
> case.
> 
>     * The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to
> disappearing arctic ice.  It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: 
> in
> fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent
> storm.
> 
>     * The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream 
>     throwing
> Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a 
> scientific
> impossibility.
> 
>     * The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef
> bleaching.  The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
> 
>     * The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the
> displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels 
> are
> expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is 
> no
> such threat of massive migration.
> 
>     * The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of
> certain Pacific islands to New Zealand.  The Government are unable to
> substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false 
> claim.
> 
> http://tinyurl.com/2ezxmp
> 
> And this moron wins the Nobel Peace prize?  FFS!!  That prize now has no more
> worth then a doorstop or a paperweight...   What a joke!
> 
> Ray

And you got all these pearls of wisdom from which necon blog? You 
certainly aren't smart enough to have come up with them yourself.

William Clark

On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 13:53:50 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
 wrote:

>In article ,
> "WhiteWolf <rayh<spam>@iol.ie>"  wrote:
>
>>     * The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global
>> warming.  The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not
>> correct.
>> 
>>     * The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2
>> causes temperature increases over 650,000 years.  The Court found that the 
>> film
>> was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the 
>> temperature
>> rises by 800-2000 years.
>> 
>>     * The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that 
>>     this
>> has been caused by global warming.  The Government's expert had to accept 
>> that
>> it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming.
>> 
>>     * The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was 
>>     caused
>> by global warming.  The Government's expert had to accept that this was not 
>> the
>> case.
>> 
>>     * The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to
>> disappearing arctic ice.  It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: 
>> in
>> fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent
>> storm.
>> 
>>     * The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream 
>>     throwing
>> Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a 
>> scientific
>> impossibility.
>> 
>>     * The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef
>> bleaching.  The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
>> 
>>     * The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the
>> displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels 
>> are
>> expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is 
>> no
>> such threat of massive migration.
>> 
>>     * The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of
>> certain Pacific islands to New Zealand.  The Government are unable to
>> substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false 
>> claim.
>> 
>> http://tinyurl.com/2ezxmp
>> 
>> And this moron wins the Nobel Peace prize?  FFS!!  That prize now has no more
>> worth then a doorstop or a paperweight...   What a joke!
>> 
>> Ray
>
>And you got all these pearls of wisdom from which necon blog? You 
>certainly aren't smart enough to have come up with them yourself.
>
>William Clark

Are you so stupid that you can't read the entire post and see the reference at
the end...?  I know.. being a liberal is being stupid...  But still...  you
shows no brain activity...  

But to give you a clue as to the source...  I'd advise you to look at the link I
provided...   I know... These things hurt a Liberal's brain...  such things as
facts and history...  But try it...  

And better yet...  tell me which position you disagree with?

Ray

-- 
****************************************************************************************
When anyone asks me about the Irish character, I say look at the trees.
Maimed, stark and misshapen, but ferociously tenacious - Edna O'Brien
****************************************************************************************
Email  : rayh(removeSPAM)@iol.ie : Website: http://www.eirefirst.com
****************************************************************************************

On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 11:17:40 -0400, "WhiteWolf <rayh<spam>@iol.ie>"
 wrote:


>And this moron wins the Nobel Peace prize?  FFS!!  That prize now has no more
>worth then a doorstop or a paperweight...   What a joke!
>
>Ray

Ireland is behind in global warming. We are still suffering from the
legacy of the last ice age. Our tides are getting lower. In ther
meantime anyway.

max.it (the orange cage)

On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 19:30:19 GMT, max.it@teatime (max.it) wrote:

>On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 11:17:40 -0400, "WhiteWolf <rayh<spam>@iol.ie>"
> wrote:
>
>
>>And this moron wins the Nobel Peace prize?  FFS!!  That prize now has no more
>>worth then a doorstop or a paperweight...   What a joke!
>>
>>Ray
>
>Ireland is behind in global warming. We are still suffering from the
>legacy of the last ice age. Our tides are getting lower. In ther
>meantime anyway.
>
>max.it (the orange cage)

All reports I get from my comrades in my homeland would tend to agree with
you...  :)

Ray

-- 
****************************************************************************************
When anyone asks me about the Irish character, I say look at the trees.
Maimed, stark and misshapen, but ferociously tenacious - Edna O'Brien
****************************************************************************************
Email  : rayh(removeSPAM)@iol.ie : Website: http://www.eirefirst.com
****************************************************************************************

On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 15:47:13 -0400, "Il Lupo Bianco (WhiteWolf)
<rayh<spam>@iol.ie>"  wrote:

>On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 19:30:19 GMT, max.it@teatime (max.it) wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 11:17:40 -0400, "WhiteWolf <rayh<spam>@iol.ie>"
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>And this moron wins the Nobel Peace prize?  FFS!!  That prize now has no more
>>>worth then a doorstop or a paperweight...   What a joke!
>>>
>>>Ray
>>
>>Ireland is behind in global warming. We are still suffering from the
>>legacy of the last ice age. Our tides are getting lower. In ther
>>meantime anyway.
>>
>>max.it (the orange cage)
>
>All reports I get from my comrades in my homeland would tend to agree with
>you...  :)
>
>Ray

Saving sorry asses seems to be the Irish way.

max.it (the orange cage)
>
>-- 
>****************************************************************************************
>When anyone asks me about the Irish character, I say look at the trees.
>Maimed, stark and misshapen, but ferociously tenacious - Edna O'Brien
>****************************************************************************************
>Email  : rayh(removeSPAM)@iol.ie : Website: http://www.eirefirst.com
>****************************************************************************************

"William A. T. Clark"  wrote in
news:clark.31-732F6E.13535012102007@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu: 

> In article ,
>  "WhiteWolf <rayh<spam>@iol.ie>"  wrote:
> 
>>     * The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro
>>     evidence global 
>> warming.  The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is
>> not correct.
>> 
>>     * The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that
>>     rising CO2 
>> causes temperature increases over 650,000 years.  The Court found
>> that the film
>> was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the 
>> temperature
>> rises by 800-2000 years.
>> 
>>     * The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests
>>     that this
>> has been caused by global warming.  The Government's expert had to
>> accept that
>> it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming.
>> 
>>     * The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this
>>     was caused
>> by global warming.  The Government's expert had to accept that this
>> was not the
>> case.
>> 
>>     * The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had
>>     drowned due to 
>> disappearing arctic ice.  It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the
>> study: in
>> fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly
>> violent storm.
>> 
>>     * The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf
>>     Stream throwing
>> Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a 
>> scientific
>> impossibility.
>> 
>>     * The film blames global warming for species losses including
>>     coral reef 
>> bleaching.  The Government could not find any evidence to support
>> this claim. 
>> 
>>     * The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the
>> displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea
>> levels are
>> expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that
>> there is no
>> such threat of massive migration.
>> 
>>     * The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the
>>     evacuation of 
>> certain Pacific islands to New Zealand.  The Government are unable to
>> substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a
>> false claim.
>> 
>> http://tinyurl.com/2ezxmp
>> 
>> And this moron wins the Nobel Peace prize?  FFS!!  That prize now has
>> no more worth then a doorstop or a paperweight...   What a joke!
>> 
>> Ray
> 
> And you got all these pearls of wisdom from which necon blog? You 
> certainly aren't smart enough to have come up with them yourself.
> 
> William Clark

Actually what is quoted is part of the finding of a British Court.  How 
Horrigan ran across it is beyond anyone's guess.

-- 
Saint Séimí mac Liam 
Carriagemaker to the  court of Queen Maeve 
Prophet of The Great Tagger 
Canonized December '99

On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 20:10:08 GMT, max.it@teatime (max.it) wrote:

>On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 15:47:13 -0400, "Il Lupo Bianco (WhiteWolf)
><rayh<spam>@iol.ie>"  wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 19:30:19 GMT, max.it@teatime (max.it) wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 11:17:40 -0400, "WhiteWolf <rayh<spam>@iol.ie>"
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>And this moron wins the Nobel Peace prize?  FFS!!  That prize now has no more
>>>>worth then a doorstop or a paperweight...   What a joke!
>>>>
>>>>Ray
>>>
>>>Ireland is behind in global warming. We are still suffering from the
>>>legacy of the last ice age. Our tides are getting lower. In ther
>>>meantime anyway.
>>>
>>>max.it (the orange cage)
>>
>>All reports I get from my comrades in my homeland would tend to agree with
>>you...  :)
>>
>>Ray
>
>Saving sorry asses seems to be the Irish way.
>
>max.it (the orange cage)

WTF?

Ray

-- 
****************************************************************************************
When anyone asks me about the Irish character, I say look at the trees.
Maimed, stark and misshapen, but ferociously tenacious - Edna O'Brien
****************************************************************************************
Email  : rayh(removeSPAM)@iol.ie : Website: http://www.eirefirst.com
****************************************************************************************

On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 15:24:32 -0500, "Séimí mac Liam"
 wrote:

>"William A. T. Clark"  wrote in
>news:clark.31-732F6E.13535012102007@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu: 
>
>> In article ,
>>  "WhiteWolf <rayh<spam>@iol.ie>"  wrote:
>> 
>>>     * The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro
>>>     evidence global 
>>> warming.  The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is
>>> not correct.
>>> 
>>>     * The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that
>>>     rising CO2 
>>> causes temperature increases over 650,000 years.  The Court found
>>> that the film
>>> was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the 
>>> temperature
>>> rises by 800-2000 years.
>>> 
>>>     * The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests
>>>     that this
>>> has been caused by global warming.  The Government's expert had to
>>> accept that
>>> it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming.
>>> 
>>>     * The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this
>>>     was caused
>>> by global warming.  The Government's expert had to accept that this
>>> was not the
>>> case.
>>> 
>>>     * The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had
>>>     drowned due to 
>>> disappearing arctic ice.  It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the
>>> study: in
>>> fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly
>>> violent storm.
>>> 
>>>     * The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf
>>>     Stream throwing
>>> Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a 
>>> scientific
>>> impossibility.
>>> 
>>>     * The film blames global warming for species losses including
>>>     coral reef 
>>> bleaching.  The Government could not find any evidence to support
>>> this claim. 
>>> 
>>>     * The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the
>>> displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea
>>> levels are
>>> expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that
>>> there is no
>>> such threat of massive migration.
>>> 
>>>     * The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the
>>>     evacuation of 
>>> certain Pacific islands to New Zealand.  The Government are unable to
>>> substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a
>>> false claim.
>>> 
>>> http://tinyurl.com/2ezxmp
>>> 
>>> And this moron wins the Nobel Peace prize?  FFS!!  That prize now has
>>> no more worth then a doorstop or a paperweight...   What a joke!
>>> 
>>> Ray
>> 
>> And you got all these pearls of wisdom from which necon blog? You 
>> certainly aren't smart enough to have come up with them yourself.
>> 
>> William Clark
>
>Actually what is quoted is part of the finding of a British Court.  How 
>Horrigan ran across it is beyond anyone's guess.

Research my dear fellow!  You should try it some time!  You might educate
yourself!

Ray

-- 
****************************************************************************************
When anyone asks me about the Irish character, I say look at the trees.
Maimed, stark and misshapen, but ferociously tenacious - Edna O'Brien
****************************************************************************************
Email  : rayh(removeSPAM)@iol.ie : Website: http://www.eirefirst.com
****************************************************************************************

"WhiteWolf <rayh<spam>@iol.ie>"  wrote in message 
news:pq3vg3hmh93hurvb1ku4rfqb9k8c8q3e4d@4ax.com...

> And this moron wins the Nobel Peace prize?  FFS!!  That prize now has no 
> more
> worth then a doorstop or a paperweight...   What a joke!

Despite finding nine significant errors the judge said many of the claims 
made by the film were fully backed up by the weight of science. He 
identified “four main scientific hypotheses, each of which is very well 
supported by research published in respected, peer-reviewed journals and 
accords with the latest conclusions of the IPCC”.

In particular, he agreed with the main thrust of Mr Gore’s arguments: “That 
climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of carbon 
dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide (‘greenhouse gases’).”

The other three main points accepted by the judge were that global 
temperatures are rising and are likely to continue to rise, that climate 
change will cause serious damage if left unchecked, and that it is entirely 
possible for governments and individuals to reduce its impacts.

"Il Lupo Bianco (WhiteWolf) <rayh<spam>@iol.ie>"  wrote in 
news:ljmvg3hugvf9phfidao06q1c0520a6no4s@4ax.com:

> You might educate
> yourself!
> 

This is irony, right?

-- 
Saint Séimí mac Liam 
Carriagemaker to the  court of Queen Maeve 
Prophet of The Great Tagger 
Canonized December '99

On Oct 12, 8:17 am, "WhiteWolf <rayh<spam>@iol.ie>" 
wrote:
>     * The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global
> warming.  The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not
> correct.
>

They are melting. Why remains unproven but global warming seems like a
very plausible explanation.


>     * The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2
> causes temperature increases over 650,000 years.  The Court found that the film
> was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature
> rises by 800-2000 years.

I don't know enough about this - but I can say when one event
consistently precedes another in a proportional fashion, it is not
unreasonable to suggest a relationship of some sort

>
>     * The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this
> has been caused by global warming.  The Government's expert had to accept that
> it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming.

Again not proven. Different from no relationship.



>
>     * The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused
> by global warming.  The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the
> case.

I don't think so. Multiple factors are at work, INCLUDING global
warming.

>
>     * The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to
> disappearing arctic ice.  It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in
> fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent
> storm.

Again what happened to 4 bears does not invalidate the whole argument.
Polar bears drown every year because they cannot get to ice in time.
Actually some of them starve when they cannot find pack ice.

An added wrinkle that has just been found is that grizzly bears are
now at risk of falling through the ice because global warming has
enabled them to extend their range into the Arctic.

Some polar bear populations are increasing and some are declining but
the long term outcome is not in doubt - if the Arctic continues to
warm, polar bears will gradually disappear unless they can rapidly
change their behaviour.



>
>     * The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing
> Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a scientific
> impossibility.

Not true.


>
>     * The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef
> bleaching.  The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.

Again I think there IS evidence of this. Reefs are under threat all
over the world.


>
>     * The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the
> displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are
> expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no
> such threat of massive migration.

This is hard to model for.

>
>     * The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of
> certain Pacific islands to New Zealand.  The Government are unable to
> substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.
>

I don't know. This may be the strongest claim you have made, if true.

It is refreshing to see neo-cons embracing the judicial findings of a
foreign court. I hope this continues.

In article ,
 "Il Lupo Bianco (WhiteWolf) <rayh<spam>@iol.ie>"  wrote:

> On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 15:24:32 -0500, "Séimí mac Liam"
>  wrote:
> 
> >"William A. T. Clark"  wrote in
> >news:clark.31-732F6E.13535012102007@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu: 
> >
> >> In article ,
> >>  "WhiteWolf <rayh<spam>@iol.ie>"  wrote:
> >> 
> >>>     * The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro
> >>>     evidence global 
> >>> warming.  The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is
> >>> not correct.
> >>> 
> >>>     * The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that
> >>>     rising CO2 
> >>> causes temperature increases over 650,000 years.  The Court found
> >>> that the film
> >>> was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the 
> >>> temperature
> >>> rises by 800-2000 years.
> >>> 
> >>>     * The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests
> >>>     that this
> >>> has been caused by global warming.  The Government's expert had to
> >>> accept that
> >>> it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming.
> >>> 
> >>>     * The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this
> >>>     was caused
> >>> by global warming.  The Government's expert had to accept that this
> >>> was not the
> >>> case.
> >>> 
> >>>     * The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had
> >>>     drowned due to 
> >>> disappearing arctic ice.  It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the
> >>> study: in
> >>> fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly
> >>> violent storm.
> >>> 
> >>>     * The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf
> >>>     Stream throwing
> >>> Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a 
> >>> scientific
> >>> impossibility.
> >>> 
> >>>     * The film blames global warming for species losses including
> >>>     coral reef 
> >>> bleaching.  The Government could not find any evidence to support
> >>> this claim. 
> >>> 
> >>>     * The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the
> >>> displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea
> >>> levels are
> >>> expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that
> >>> there is no
> >>> such threat of massive migration.
> >>> 
> >>>     * The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the
> >>>     evacuation of 
> >>> certain Pacific islands to New Zealand.  The Government are unable to
> >>> substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a
> >>> false claim.
> >>> 
> >>> http://tinyurl.com/2ezxmp
> >>> 
> >>> And this moron wins the Nobel Peace prize?  FFS!!  That prize now has
> >>> no more worth then a doorstop or a paperweight...   What a joke!
> >>> 
> >>> Ray
> >> 
> >> And you got all these pearls of wisdom from which necon blog? You 
> >> certainly aren't smart enough to have come up with them yourself.
> >> 
> >> William Clark
> >
> >Actually what is quoted is part of the finding of a British Court.  How 
> >Horrigan ran across it is beyond anyone's guess.
> 
> Research my dear fellow!  You should try it some time!  You might educate
> yourself!
> 
> Ray

Quoting a BRITISH court? Oh, my, goodness, whatever happened to our 
crown-hating plastic paddy Republican, that he now has to rely on a 
BRITISH court for his opinions?

And the joke os that no one would go to a court for opinions on global 
warming, anyway.

What a buffoon.

William Clark

In article ,
 "Il Lupo Bianco (WhiteWolf) <rayh<spam>@iol.ie>"  wrote:

> On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 13:53:50 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
>  wrote:
> 
> >In article ,
> > "WhiteWolf <rayh<spam>@iol.ie>"  wrote:
> >
> >>     * The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence 
> >>     global
> >> warming.  The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not
> >> correct.
> >> 
> >>     * The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising 
> >>     CO2
> >> causes temperature increases over 650,000 years.  The Court found that the 
> >> film
> >> was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the 
> >> temperature
> >> rises by 800-2000 years.
> >> 
> >>     * The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that 
> >>     this
> >> has been caused by global warming.  The Government's expert had to accept 
> >> that
> >> it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming.
> >> 
> >>     * The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was 
> >>     caused
> >> by global warming.  The Government's expert had to accept that this was 
> >> not 
> >> the
> >> case.
> >> 
> >>     * The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due 
> >>     to
> >> disappearing arctic ice.  It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the 
> >> study: 
> >> in
> >> fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly 
> >> violent
> >> storm.
> >> 
> >>     * The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream 
> >>     throwing
> >> Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a 
> >> scientific
> >> impossibility.
> >> 
> >>     * The film blames global warming for species losses including coral 
> >>     reef
> >> bleaching.  The Government could not find any evidence to support this 
> >> claim.
> >> 
> >>     * The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the
> >> displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea 
> >> levels 
> >> are
> >> expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there 
> >> is 
> >> no
> >> such threat of massive migration.
> >> 
> >>     * The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of
> >> certain Pacific islands to New Zealand.  The Government are unable to
> >> substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false 
> >> claim.
> >> 
> >> http://tinyurl.com/2ezxmp
> >> 
> >> And this moron wins the Nobel Peace prize?  FFS!!  That prize now has no 
> >> more
> >> worth then a doorstop or a paperweight...   What a joke!
> >> 
> >> Ray
> >
> >And you got all these pearls of wisdom from which necon blog? You 
> >certainly aren't smart enough to have come up with them yourself.
> >
> >William Clark
> 
> Are you so stupid that you can't read the entire post and see the reference 
> at
> the end...?  I know.. being a liberal is being stupid...  But still...  you
> shows no brain activity...  
> 
> But to give you a clue as to the source...  I'd advise you to look at the 
> link I
> provided...   I know... These things hurt a Liberal's brain...  such things 
> as
> facts and history...  But try it...  
> 
> And better yet...  tell me which position you disagree with?
> 
> Ray

I don't have either the time or interest to follow up on the neocon 
drivel you post, but a BRITISH court? Tut, tut, you'll get drummed out 
of the Republican Brownies for that.

William Clark

On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 22:35:18 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
 wrote:

>In article ,
> "Il Lupo Bianco (WhiteWolf) <rayh<spam>@iol.ie>"  wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 13:53:50 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> >In article ,
>> > "WhiteWolf <rayh<spam>@iol.ie>"  wrote:
>> >
>> >>     * The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence 
>> >>     global
>> >> warming.  The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not
>> >> correct.
>> >> 
>> >>     * The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising 
>> >>     CO2
>> >> causes temperature increases over 650,000 years.  The Court found that the 
>> >> film
>> >> was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the 
>> >> temperature
>> >> rises by 800-2000 years.
>> >> 
>> >>     * The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that 
>> >>     this
>> >> has been caused by global warming.  The Government's expert had to accept 
>> >> that
>> >> it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming.
>> >> 
>> >>     * The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was 
>> >>     caused
>> >> by global warming.  The Government's expert had to accept that this was 
>> >> not 
>> >> the
>> >> case.
>> >> 
>> >>     * The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due 
>> >>     to
>> >> disappearing arctic ice.  It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the 
>> >> study: 
>> >> in
>> >> fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly 
>> >> violent
>> >> storm.
>> >> 
>> >>     * The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream 
>> >>     throwing
>> >> Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a 
>> >> scientific
>> >> impossibility.
>> >> 
>> >>     * The film blames global warming for species losses including coral 
>> >>     reef
>> >> bleaching.  The Government could not find any evidence to support this 
>> >> claim.
>> >> 
>> >>     * The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the
>> >> displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea 
>> >> levels 
>> >> are
>> >> expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there 
>> >> is 
>> >> no
>> >> such threat of massive migration.
>> >> 
>> >>     * The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of
>> >> certain Pacific islands to New Zealand.  The Government are unable to
>> >> substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false 
>> >> claim.
>> >> 
>> >> http://tinyurl.com/2ezxmp
>> >> 
>> >> And this moron wins the Nobel Peace prize?  FFS!!  That prize now has no 
>> >> more
>> >> worth then a doorstop or a paperweight...   What a joke!
>> >> 
>> >> Ray
>> >
>> >And you got all these pearls of wisdom from which necon blog? You 
>> >certainly aren't smart enough to have come up with them yourself.
>> >
>> >William Clark
>> 
>> Are you so stupid that you can't read the entire post and see the reference 
>> at
>> the end...?  I know.. being a liberal is being stupid...  But still...  you
>> shows no brain activity...  
>> 
>> But to give you a clue as to the source...  I'd advise you to look at the 
>> link I
>> provided...   I know... These things hurt a Liberal's brain...  such things 
>> as
>> facts and history...  But try it...  
>> 
>> And better yet...  tell me which position you disagree with?
>> 
>> Ray
>
>I don't have either the time or interest to follow up on the neocon 
>drivel you post, but a BRITISH court? Tut, tut, you'll get drummed out 
>of the Republican Brownies for that.
>
>William Clark

Facts are facts boy!  Regardless of the source...  A fact remains a fact...

Ray

-- 
****************************************************************************************
When anyone asks me about the Irish character, I say look at the trees.
Maimed, stark and misshapen, but ferociously tenacious - Edna O'Brien
****************************************************************************************
Email  : rayh(removeSPAM)@iol.ie : Website: http://www.eirefirst.com
****************************************************************************************

On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 23:16:09 +0100, "Ramalamadingdong"  wrote:

>
>"WhiteWolf <rayh<spam>@iol.ie>"  wrote in message 
>news:pq3vg3hmh93hurvb1ku4rfqb9k8c8q3e4d@4ax.com...
>
>> And this moron wins the Nobel Peace prize?  FFS!!  That prize now has no 
>> more
>> worth then a doorstop or a paperweight...   What a joke!
>
>Despite finding nine significant errors the judge said many of the claims 
>made by the film were fully backed up by the weight of science. He 
>identified “four main scientific hypotheses, each of which is very well 
>supported by research published in respected, peer-reviewed journals and 
>accords with the latest conclusions of the IPCC”.
>
>In particular, he agreed with the main thrust of Mr Gore’s arguments: “That 
>climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of carbon 
>dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide (‘greenhouse gases’).”
>
>The other three main points accepted by the judge were that global 
>temperatures are rising and are likely to continue to rise, that climate 
>change will cause serious damage if left unchecked, and that it is entirely 
>possible for governments and individuals to reduce its impacts.


The nine points prove that the Gore fantasy is just that... nonsense
propaganda...  

Ray

-- 
****************************************************************************************
When anyone asks me about the Irish character, I say look at the trees.
Maimed, stark and misshapen, but ferociously tenacious - Edna O'Brien
****************************************************************************************
Email  : rayh(removeSPAM)@iol.ie : Website: http://www.eirefirst.com
****************************************************************************************

In article ,
 "Il Lupo Bianco (WhiteWolf) <rayh<spam>@iol.ie>"  wrote:

> On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 22:35:18 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
>  wrote:
> 
> >In article ,
> > "Il Lupo Bianco (WhiteWolf) <rayh<spam>@iol.ie>"  wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 13:53:50 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
> >>  wrote:
> >> 
> >> >In article ,
> >> > "WhiteWolf <rayh<spam>@iol.ie>"  wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>     * The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence 
> >> >>     global
> >> >> warming.  The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is 
> >> >> not
> >> >> correct.
> >> >> 
> >> >>     * The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising 
> >> >>     CO2
> >> >> causes temperature increases over 650,000 years.  The Court found that 
> >> >> the 
> >> >> film
> >> >> was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the 
> >> >> temperature
> >> >> rises by 800-2000 years.
> >> >> 
> >> >>     * The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests 
> >> >>     that 
> >> >>     this
> >> >> has been caused by global warming.  The Government's expert had to 
> >> >> accept 
> >> >> that
> >> >> it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming.
> >> >> 
> >> >>     * The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this 
> >> >>     was 
> >> >>     caused
> >> >> by global warming.  The Government's expert had to accept that this was 
> >> >> not 
> >> >> the
> >> >> case.
> >> >> 
> >> >>     * The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned 
> >> >>     due 
> >> >>     to
> >> >> disappearing arctic ice.  It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the 
> >> >> study: 
> >> >> in
> >> >> fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly 
> >> >> violent
> >> >> storm.
> >> >> 
> >> >>     * The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream 
> >> >>     throwing
> >> >> Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a 
> >> >> scientific
> >> >> impossibility.
> >> >> 
> >> >>     * The film blames global warming for species losses including coral 
> >> >>     reef
> >> >> bleaching.  The Government could not find any evidence to support this 
> >> >> claim.
> >> >> 
> >> >>     * The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the
> >> >> displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea 
> >> >> levels 
> >> >> are
> >> >> expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that 
> >> >> there 
> >> >> is 
> >> >> no
> >> >> such threat of massive migration.
> >> >> 
> >> >>     * The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation 
> >> >>     of
> >> >> certain Pacific islands to New Zealand.  The Government are unable to
> >> >> substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a 
> >> >> false 
> >> >> claim.
> >> >> 
> >> >> http://tinyurl.com/2ezxmp
> >> >> 
> >> >> And this moron wins the Nobel Peace prize?  FFS!!  That prize now has 
> >> >> no 
> >> >> more
> >> >> worth then a doorstop or a paperweight...   What a joke!
> >> >> 
> >> >> Ray
> >> >
> >> >And you got all these pearls of wisdom from which necon blog? You 
> >> >certainly aren't smart enough to have come up with them yourself.
> >> >
> >> >William Clark
> >> 
> >> Are you so stupid that you can't read the entire post and see the 
> >> reference 
> >> at
> >> the end...?  I know.. being a liberal is being stupid...  But still...  
> >> you
> >> shows no brain activity...  
> >> 
> >> But to give you a clue as to the source...  I'd advise you to look at the 
> >> link I
> >> provided...   I know... These things hurt a Liberal's brain...  such 
> >> things 
> >> as
> >> facts and history...  But try it...  
> >> 
> >> And better yet...  tell me which position you disagree with?
> >> 
> >> Ray
> >
> >I don't have either the time or interest to follow up on the neocon 
> >drivel you post, but a BRITISH court? Tut, tut, you'll get drummed out 
> >of the Republican Brownies for that.
> >
> >William Clark
> 
> Facts are facts boy!  Regardless of the source...  A fact remains a fact...
> 
> Ray

No, it remains the opinion of a court, and a British one at that. Sorry, 
but I don't go to a plumber when I have a toothache, and I certainly 
don't go near a bunch of superannuated lawyers when I want an opinion on 
science.

More fool you if you so. But I am not surprised.

William Clark

"Il Lupo Bianco (WhiteWolf) <rayh<spam>@iol.ie>"  wrote in 
message news:h0n7h3pja30u62ketreiu7ms3c5nruks3g@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 23:16:09 +0100, "Ramalamadingdong"  
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"WhiteWolf <rayh<spam>@iol.ie>"  wrote in message
>>news:pq3vg3hmh93hurvb1ku4rfqb9k8c8q3e4d@4ax.com...
>>
>>> And this moron wins the Nobel Peace prize?  FFS!!  That prize now has no
>>> more
>>> worth then a doorstop or a paperweight...   What a joke!
>>
>>Despite finding nine significant errors the judge said many of the claims
>>made by the film were fully backed up by the weight of science. He
>>identified “four main scientific hypotheses, each of which is very well
>>supported by research published in respected, peer-reviewed journals and
>>accords with the latest conclusions of the IPCC”.
>>
>>In particular, he agreed with the main thrust of Mr Gore’s arguments: 
>>“That
>>climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of carbon
>>dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide (‘greenhouse gases’).”
>>
>>The other three main points accepted by the judge were that global
>>temperatures are rising and are likely to continue to rise, that climate
>>change will cause serious damage if left unchecked, and that it is 
>>entirely
>>possible for governments and individuals to reduce its impacts.
>
>
> The nine points prove that the Gore fantasy is just that... nonsense
> propaganda...

The other three *main* points accepted by the judge, and the rest?  Oh, and 
the Nobel prize too.
BIT UNCOMFORTABLE THAT.

William A. T. Clark wrote:

> In article ,
> "Il Lupo Bianco (WhiteWolf) <rayh<spam>@iol.ie>"  wrote:
[...]
>> Facts are facts boy!  Regardless of the source...  A fact remains a
>> fact...
>>
>> Ray
>
> No, it remains the opinion of a court, and a British one at that. Sorry,
> but I don't go to a plumber when I have a toothache, and I certainly
> don't go near a bunch of superannuated lawyers when I want an opinion on
> science.
>
> More fool you if you so. But I am not surprised.

Ray can only see things in black and white. I'm as cynical as the next man, 
but Ray seems to have overlooked another Inconvenient Truth. Al's Nobel 
prize was shared with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I 
wonder if he can explain how that fits with "the facts"?

-- 
Falcon:
fide, sed cui vide. (L)
Sectarian attacker gets 22 years
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7045107.stm

In article <ff0qgk$cmk$1@aioe.org>, "Falcon"  
wrote:

> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> 
> > In article ,
> > "Il Lupo Bianco (WhiteWolf) <rayh<spam>@iol.ie>"  wrote:
> [...]
> >> Facts are facts boy!  Regardless of the source...  A fact remains a
> >> fact...
> >>
> >> Ray
> >
> > No, it remains the opinion of a court, and a British one at that. Sorry,
> > but I don't go to a plumber when I have a toothache, and I certainly
> > don't go near a bunch of superannuated lawyers when I want an opinion on
> > science.
> >
> > More fool you if you so. But I am not surprised.
> 
> Ray can only see things in black and white. I'm as cynical as the next man, 
> but Ray seems to have overlooked another Inconvenient Truth. Al's Nobel 
> prize was shared with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I 
> wonder if he can explain how that fits with "the facts"?

Oh, dear, now you've sent him back to the Vallium.

William Clark

William A. T. Clark wrote:
> In article <ff0qgk$cmk$1@aioe.org>, "Falcon"  
> wrote:
> 
> 
>>William A. T. Clark wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article ,
>>>"Il Lupo Bianco (WhiteWolf) <rayh<spam>@iol.ie>"  wrote:
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>>>Facts are facts boy!  Regardless of the source...  A fact remains a
>>>>fact...
>>>>
>>>>Ray
>>>
>>>No, it remains the opinion of a court, and a British one at that. Sorry,
>>>but I don't go to a plumber when I have a toothache, and I certainly
>>>don't go near a bunch of superannuated lawyers when I want an opinion on
>>>science.
>>>
>>>More fool you if you so. But I am not surprised.
>>
>>Ray can only see things in black and white. I'm as cynical as the next man, 
>>but Ray seems to have overlooked another Inconvenient Truth. Al's Nobel 
>>prize was shared with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I 
>>wonder if he can explain how that fits with "the facts"?
> 
> 
> Oh, dear, now you've sent him back to the Vallium.
> 
> William Clark


I still think cows farting is right up there. I suspect India of letting 
the world down. It is possibly a cover-up.

The slaughter of millons of Bison by railroad agents etc. could be put 
in a 'good light' if they were portrayed as heroic environmentalists.

On 16 Oct, 13:40, RGLKOIGWLW  wrote:
> William A. T. Clark wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <ff0qgk$cm...@aioe.org>, "Falcon" 
> > wrote:
>
> >>William A. T. Clark wrote:
>
> >>>In article ,
> >>>"Il Lupo Bianco (WhiteWolf) <rayh<spam>@iol.ie>"  wrote:
>
> >>[...]
>
> >>>>Facts are facts boy!  Regardless of the source...  A fact remains a
> >>>>fact...
>
> >>>>Ray
>
> >>>No, it remains the opinion of a court, and a British one at that. Sorry,
> >>>but I don't go to a plumber when I have a toothache, and I certainly
> >>>don't go near a bunch of superannuated lawyers when I want an opinion on
> >>>science.
>
> >>>More fool you if you so. But I am not surprised.
>
> >>Ray can only see things in black and white. I'm as cynical as the next man,
> >>but Ray seems to have overlooked another Inconvenient Truth. Al's Nobel
> >>prize was shared with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I
> >>wonder if he can explain how that fits with "the facts"?
>
> > Oh, dear, now you've sent him back to the Vallium.
>
> > William Clark
>
> I still think cows farting is right up there. I suspect India of letting
> the world down. It is possibly a cover-up.
>
> The slaughter of millons of Bison by railroad agents etc. could be put
> in a 'good light' if they were portrayed as heroic environmentalists.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

This is ludicrous, nobody has ever denied climate change is happening
however there is no evidence as far as I can see that would convince
any right thinking person of anything else. Climate change is what
planet earth does I am afraid. Its funding by the government because
they have seen an yet another ideal stealth tax. Carbon dioxide makes
up a small proportion of the atmosphere and attracts much less heat
than water vapour.

I always ask a few questions and as of yet no climate change guru has
ever really answered them.

1 What tempature should the planet be?
2 Why is greenland actually called greenland?
3 What observations lead them to believe the planet is heating up on
anything other than natural causes?
4. Why is the Antarctic cooling while all computer modals show effects
of global warming heaviest on the poles?
5. How do we expect to believe computer models of an eco system so
complex we only understand a small portion of it? Remember these same
models cannot predict the weather with any accuracy in Ireland over a
week!


"Science, in the public arena, is commonly used as a source of
authority with which to bludgeon political opponents and propagandize
uninformed citizens"

freeireland wrote:

[...]
> I always ask a few questions and as of yet no climate change guru has
> ever really answered them.
>
> 1 What tempature should the planet be?
> 2 Why is greenland actually called greenland?
> 3 What observations lead them to believe the planet is heating up on
> anything other than natural causes?
> 4. Why is the Antarctic cooling while all computer modals show effects
> of global warming heaviest on the poles?
> 5. How do we expect to believe computer models of an eco system so
> complex we only understand a small portion of it? Remember these same
> models cannot predict the weather with any accuracy in Ireland over a
> week!

Which climate change gurus have you been asking?

-- 
Falcon:
fide, sed cui vide. (L)
Sectarian attacker gets 22 years
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7045107.stm

freeireland wrote:

> 1 What tempature should the planet be?

Depends who you ask.
Some would say no more than 2 degrees warmer than it is now.

Zero emissions needed to avert 'dangerous' warming
http://environment.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn12775

-- 
Falcon:
fide, sed cui vide. (L)
Sectarian attacker gets 22 years
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7045107.stm

On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 23:42:48 +0100, "Falcon"  wrote:

>
>William A. T. Clark wrote:
>
>> In article ,
>> "Il Lupo Bianco (WhiteWolf) <rayh<spam>@iol.ie>"  wrote:
>[...]
>>> Facts are facts boy!  Regardless of the source...  A fact remains a
>>> fact...
>>>
>>> Ray
>>
>> No, it remains the opinion of a court, and a British one at that. Sorry,
>> but I don't go to a plumber when I have a toothache, and I certainly
>> don't go near a bunch of superannuated lawyers when I want an opinion on
>> science.
>>
>> More fool you if you so. But I am not surprised.
>
>Ray can only see things in black and white. I'm as cynical as the next man, 
>but Ray seems to have overlooked another Inconvenient Truth. Al's Nobel 
>prize was shared with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I 
>wonder if he can explain how that fits with "the facts"?

In the '70's the same sort of nuts were warning us about global freezing and the
imminent arrival of the next Ice Age...  FFS!!!

Ray

-- 
****************************************************************************************
When anyone asks me about the Irish character, I say look at the trees.
Maimed, stark and misshapen, but ferociously tenacious - Edna O'Brien
****************************************************************************************
Email  : rayh(removeSPAM)@iol.ie : Website: http://www.eirefirst.com
****************************************************************************************

On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 23:36:03 +0100, "Ramalamadingdong"  wrote:

>
>"Il Lupo Bianco (WhiteWolf) <rayh<spam>@iol.ie>"  wrote in 
>message news:h0n7h3pja30u62ketreiu7ms3c5nruks3g@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 23:16:09 +0100, "Ramalamadingdong"  
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"WhiteWolf <rayh<spam>@iol.ie>"  wrote in message
>>>news:pq3vg3hmh93hurvb1ku4rfqb9k8c8q3e4d@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>> And this moron wins the Nobel Peace prize?  FFS!!  That prize now has no
>>>> more
>>>> worth then a doorstop or a paperweight...   What a joke!
>>>
>>>Despite finding nine significant errors the judge said many of the claims
>>>made by the film were fully backed up by the weight of science. He
>>>identified “four main scientific hypotheses, each of which is very well
>>>supported by research published in respected, peer-reviewed journals and
>>>accords with the latest conclusions of the IPCC”.
>>>
>>>In particular, he agreed with the main thrust of Mr Gore’s arguments: 
>>>“That
>>>climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of carbon
>>>dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide (‘greenhouse gases’).”
>>>
>>>The other three main points accepted by the judge were that global
>>>temperatures are rising and are likely to continue to rise, that climate
>>>change will cause serious damage if left unchecked, and that it is 
>>>entirely
>>>possible for governments and individuals to reduce its impacts.
>>
>>
>> The nine points prove that the Gore fantasy is just that... nonsense
>> propaganda...
>
>The other three *main* points accepted by the judge, and the rest?  Oh, and 
>the Nobel prize too.
>BIT UNCOMFORTABLE THAT. 

The Nobel prize is a purely political prize appointed by liberal elites to other
liberal elites...

Ray

-- 
****************************************************************************************
When anyone asks me about the Irish character, I say look at the trees.
Maimed, stark and misshapen, but ferociously tenacious - Edna O'Brien
****************************************************************************************
Email  : rayh(removeSPAM)@iol.ie : Website: http://www.eirefirst.com
****************************************************************************************

On 16 Oct, 18:27, "Falcon"  wrote:
> freeireland wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > I always ask a few questions and as of yet no climate change guru has
> > ever really answered them.
>
> > 1 What tempature should the planet be?
> > 2 Why is greenland actually called greenland?
> > 3 What observations lead them to believe the planet is heating up on
> > anything other than natural causes?
> > 4. Why is the Antarctic cooling while all computer modals show effects
> > of global warming heaviest on the poles?
> > 5. How do we expect to believe computer models of an eco system so
> > complex we only understand a small portion of it? Remember these same
> > models cannot predict the weather with any accuracy in Ireland over a
> > week!
>
> Which climate change gurus have you been asking?
>
> --
> Falcon:
> fide, sed cui vide. (L)
> Sectarian attacker gets 22 yearshttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7045107.stm

a few even less convincing answers.

On 16 Oct, 21:03, "Falcon"  wrote:
> freeireland wrote:
> > 1 What tempature should the planet be?
>
> Depends who you ask.
> Some would say no more than 2 degrees warmer than it is now.

Really then how can the Arctic be cooler now than it was in 1940?

Have you really read this, from a computer modal it makes nothing more
than assumptions for example, "The end result will be dramatic
ecological changes, including widespread coastal flooding, reduced
food production, and widespread species extinction." or "Anything
above this target has been identified as "dangerous" by some
scientists,"

You see heres the problem I have with the idea of climate change being
man made on this type of evidence, they use the word suggests, some
and may. Not terms you use when dealing in scientific facts.

History shows that the earths climate is constantly changing.

>
> Zero emissions needed to avert 'dangerous' warminghttp://environment.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn12775

There is not one shred of evidence in this link at all and shows the
fundamental flaw in the evidence of man made climate change and that
is its based on a computer model that cannot be anywhere near complete
as the eco system and planet earth is so complex we struggle to
understand or predict it in one weeks time.

What observations made by the scientific world have been made to show
global warming is a man made event.

Lets for example look at the 1996 IPCC 's "Summary for Policy Makers".
The Bush administration cited a "new" study, revisited its position on
global warming. Though it was base on and largely the same as the one
mentioned.

In general all these reports come to three basic conclusions

1) Based on historical weather data, average global temperatures have
risen dramatically in the latter half of the 20th Century.

2) Scientific research indicates that the cause of such rising
temperatures is man made.

3) There is a consensus among scientists supporting both claims.

The first claim -- that global temperatures have risen dramatically
since 1940 -- finds its source in the

approximately 100 year-old temperature record of the National Weather
Service. According to the NASA report, Global Climate Monitoring: The
Accuracy of Satellite Data, though, the NWS record is based strictly
on surface temperature readings. When weather balloon and satellite
records are examined one finds temperatures either stayed the same or
actually declined by as much as 1 degree F during that period.

What if we step outside the NWS box?

Data extrapolated from tree ring, ice core and lake sediment indicate
that in the 18th Century the average world sea and surface
temperatures were 71 degrees F. Climatologists refer to this period as
"The Little Ice Age." Such data also show that in 1000 BCE the average
global temperature was over 25 degrees Celsius or 77 degrees F. By
comparison, the average global temperature in 1999 was 73.5 degrees F.
The conclusion to reach about the claim of dramatically rising global
temperatures in the latter half of the 20th Century is clear. First,
it depends on where you stick your thermometer, on the surface, (whose
reading will be highly inaccurate due to urban hot spots) or in the
atmosphere (the most accurate readings). Second, the significance of
the data depend upon the historical climate record of the planet.
Here, as with any kind of scientific data, context and perspective is
everything.


Of the second claim, that the cause of global warming is man-made,
environmental activists point to the correlation between recent global
industrialization and the sweltering summers of 1998 and 1999. A
correlation, though, is not proof of cause. If global
industrialization were the cause of planetary warming, the satellite
and balloon temperature record from 1940 to 1980 -- a period of far
greater worldwide

industrialization -- would show a marked increase in average global
temperatures, which it does not. Indeed, such data show temperatures
declining.

A cause and effect relationship, though, has been discovered between
solar activity and global temperatures. Danish climatologists Friis-
Christensen and K. Lassen (in the 1991 issue of Science) and Douglas
V. Hoyt and Dr. Kenneth H. Schatten (in their book, The Role of the
Sun in Climate Change) found that "global temperature variations
during the past century are virtually all due to the variations in
solar activity."

What about carbon dioxide levels? Scientists have found that past
carbon dioxide levels, based, again, on historical and pre-historical
tree ring, ice core and lake sediment samples, have changed
significantly without human influence. Note, too, that between 1940
and 1980, when man-made levels of CO2 swelled rapidly, there was a
decline in temperatures.

If scientific temperature records belie global warming; if scientists
conclude that global temperatures are minimally affected by man;
where, then, is scientific consensus -- the third claim supporting the
notion of global warming? The answer is: there isn't any.

In 1996 the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- the IPCC
-- released a document titled, "Summary for Policy Makers," which
supported the notion of global warming. Environmentalists crowed that
15,000 scientists had signed the document.

However, the report was doctored without the knowledge of most of
those 15,000 scientists, whose protests became so vocal that the lead
authors backed off their conclusions, disavowing the document as "a
political tract, not a scientific report."

In 1998, 17,000 scientists, six of whom are Nobel Laureates, signed
the Oregon Petition, which declares, in part: "There is no convincing
scientific evidence that human release of greenhouse gasses is causing
or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the
Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. " . While
there are questions about large numbers who signed this petition if
you set it aside you still have 6 Nobel Laureates who signed the
petition.

In 1999 over ten thousand of the world's most renowned climatologists,
astrophysicists, meteorologists, etc., signed an open letter by
Frederick Seitz, NAS Past President, that states, in part: the Kyoto
Accord is "based upon flawed ideas."

"Science, in the public arena, is commonly used as a source of
authority with which to bludgeon political opponents and propagandize
uninformed citizens."

Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
GLOBAL WARMING: The Press Gets It Wrong


So again I ask where are the historical obeservations compared with
today to proof climate change is man made. Because the more I read
about this the more questions I have and the less convinced I am!


>
> --
> Falcon:
> fide, sed cui vide. (L)
> Sectarian attacker gets 22 yearshttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7045107.stm

"Il Lupo Bianco (WhiteWolf) <rayh<spam>@iol.ie>"  wrote in 
message news:al8ah3pmk2jka4qbmqr0ui0oal1v092p4o@4ax.com...
>
> The Nobel prize is a purely political prize appointed by liberal elites to 
> other
> liberal elites...

Mother Teresa?  David Trimble?  Yasser Arafat? Nelson Mandela? Sean 
MacBride? Henry fucking Kissinger?  Betty Williams or Mairead Corrigan?

Go on, see if you can find who the judges are, seeing as you think you 
already know so much about them.  You might realise then what a complete 
fucking idiot you've just made of yourself.  Again.

freeireland wrote:

> On 16 Oct, 21:03, "Falcon"  wrote:
>> freeireland wrote:
>>> 1 What tempature should the planet be?
>>
>> Depends who you ask.
>> Some would say no more than 2 degrees warmer than it is now.
>
> Really then how can the Arctic be cooler now than it was in 1940?
>
> Have you really read this, from a computer modal it makes nothing more
[...]

I seem to have given the misleading impression that I'm willing to engage in 
a lengthy debate with someone who can't spell the words temperature and 
model. I am not. I apologise for any inconvenience.

-- 
Falcon:
fide, sed cui vide. (L)

Falcon wrote:
> freeireland wrote:
> 
> 
>>On 16 Oct, 21:03, "Falcon"  wrote:
>>
>>>freeireland wrote:
>>>
>>>>1 What tempature should the planet be?
>>>
>>>Depends who you ask.
>>>Some would say no more than 2 degrees warmer than it is now.
>>
>>Really then how can the Arctic be cooler now than it was in 1940?
>>
>>Have you really read this, from a computer modal it makes nothing more
> 
> [...]
> 
> I seem to have given the misleading impression that I'm willing to engage in 
> a lengthy debate with someone who can't spell the words temperature and 
> model. I am not. I apologise for any inconvenience.
> 

I think you are being waaaay too lenient with freeireland.

I would advise a more robust approach. Don't get me wrong, I am all for 
reaching out to people, to patting on heads, to forgiving sinners, but a 
few standards must be in place.

Global-warming is a myth put out by those who seek to destroy the United 
States of America and Judeo-Christian culture.

My shed in West Belfast, ..

the one with the bullet-holes, is the coldest place on this planet. Why, 
Weather-theft? possibly, but not global-warming I wager.

I can put my G&Ts out with the milk for the sparrows to sip.

I am fed up with gay-warming, global-warming, heated revisionism and 
being asked to vote for pepole who have not spent a day in jail!

Grosspeckaa

On 17 Oct, 08:50, Grosspeckaa  wrote:
> Falcon wrote:
> > freeireland wrote:
>
> >>On 16 Oct, 21:03, "Falcon"  wrote:
>
> >>>freeireland wrote:
>
> >>>>1 What tempature should the planet be?
>
> >>>Depends who you ask.
> >>>Some would say no more than 2 degrees warmer than it is now.
>
> >>Really then how can the Arctic be cooler now than it was in 1940?
>
> >>Have you really read this, from a computer modal it makes nothing more
>
> > [...]
>
> > I seem to have given the misleading impression that I'm willing to engage in
> > a lengthy debate with someone who can't spell the words temperature and
> > model. I am not. I apologise for any inconvenience.
>
> I think you are being waaaay too lenient with freeireland.
>
> I would advise a more robust approach. Don't get me wrong, I am all for
> reaching out to people, to patting on heads, to forgiving sinners, but a
> few standards must be in place.
>
> Global-warming is a myth put out by those who seek to destroy the United
> States of America and Judeo-Christian culture.
>
> My shed in West Belfast, ..
>
> the one with the bullet-holes, is the coldest place on this planet. Why,
> Weather-theft? possibly, but not global-warming I wager.
>
> I can put my G&Ts out with the milk for the sparrows to sip.
>
> I am fed up with gay-warming, global-warming, heated revisionism and
> being asked to vote for pepole who have not spent a day in jail!
>
> Grosspeckaa

The only problem problem with this is if I am to be criticised for
typos then hopefully "pepole" will be lenient with you too,   maybe
you should up your own standards before before being a critique of
others.

freeireland wrote:
> On 17 Oct, 08:50, Grosspeckaa  wrote:
> 
>>Falcon wrote:
>>
>>>freeireland wrote:
>>
>>>>On 16 Oct, 21:03, "Falcon"  wrote:
>>
>>>>>freeireland wrote:
>>
>>>>>>1 What tempature should the planet be?
>>
>>>>>Depends who you ask.
>>>>>Some would say no more than 2 degrees warmer than it is now.
>>
>>>>Really then how can the Arctic be cooler now than it was in 1940?
>>
>>>>Have you really read this, from a computer modal it makes nothing more
>>
>>>[...]
>>
>>>I seem to have given the misleading impression that I'm willing to engage in
>>>a lengthy debate with someone who can't spell the words temperature and
>>>model. I am not. I apologise for any inconvenience.
>>
>>I think you are being waaaay too lenient with freeireland.
>>
>>I would advise a more robust approach. Don't get me wrong, I am all for
>>reaching out to people, to patting on heads, to forgiving sinners, but a
>>few standards must be in place.
>>
>>Global-warming is a myth put out by those who seek to destroy the United
>>States of America and Judeo-Christian culture.
>>
>>My shed in West Belfast, ..
>>
>>the one with the bullet-holes, is the coldest place on this planet. Why,
>>Weather-theft? possibly, but not global-warming I wager.
>>
>>I can put my G&Ts out with the milk for the sparrows to sip.
>>
>>I am fed up with gay-warming, global-warming, heated revisionism and
>>being asked to vote for pepole who have not spent a day in jail!
>>
>>Grosspeckaa
> 
> 
> The only problem problem with this is if I am to be criticised for
> typos then hopefully "pepole" will be lenient with you too,   maybe
> you should up your own standards before before being a critique of
> others.
> 


Look, Jimmy,

it is like this, that "pepole" typo was a deliberate plant to see if you 
would pick up on it. Pray, desist from using expressions such as 
"critique" in mixed company.

Neill McEwan's use of the word 'cachet' in 98 or 99 almost provoked a 
riot on SCI. KateH  :) excepted, she seemed to think Cachet was some 
girl I picked up in Detroit.

Grosspeckaa

On 17 Oct, 08:11, "Falcon"  wrote:
> freeireland wrote:
> > On 16 Oct, 21:03, "Falcon"  wrote:
> >> freeireland wrote:
> >>> 1 What tempature should the planet be?
>
> >> Depends who you ask.
> >> Some would say no more than 2 degrees warmer than it is now.
>
> > Really then how can the Arctic be cooler now than it was in 1940?
>
> > Have you really read this, from a computer modal it makes nothing more
>
> [...]
>
> I seem to have given the misleading impression that I'm willing to engage in
> a lengthy debate with someone who can't spell the words temperature and
> model. I am not. I apologise for any inconvenience.
>
> --
> Falcon:
> fide, sed cui vide. (L)

Lol, great stuff, talk about shotting the messenger. Funny this
happens a lot when people question climate change.  I wonder if I
should be checking other newsgroups for roque posts making inaccurate
claims about me now.

freeireland wrote:

> On 17 Oct, 08:50, Grosspeckaa  wrote:
>> Falcon wrote:
>>> freeireland wrote:
>>
>>>> On 16 Oct, 21:03, "Falcon"  wrote:
>>
>>>>> freeireland wrote:
>>
>>>>>> 1 What tempature should the planet be?
>>
>>>>> Depends who you ask.
>>>>> Some would say no more than 2 degrees warmer than it is now.
>>
>>>> Really then how can the Arctic be cooler now than it was in 1940?
>>
>>>> Have you really read this, from a computer modal it makes nothing more
>>
>>> [...]
>>
>>> I seem to have given the misleading impression that I'm willing to
>>> engage in a lengthy debate with someone who can't spell the words
>>> temperature and model. I am not. I apologise for any inconvenience.
>>
>> I think you are being waaaay too lenient with freeireland.
>>
>> I would advise a more robust approach. Don't get me wrong, I am all for
>> reaching out to people, to patting on heads, to forgiving sinners, but a
>> few standards must be in place.
>>
>> Global-warming is a myth put out by those who seek to destroy the United
>> States of America and Judeo-Christian culture.
>>
>> My shed in West Belfast, ..
>>
>> the one with the bullet-holes, is the coldest place on this planet. Why,
>> Weather-theft? possibly, but not global-warming I wager.
>>
>> I can put my G&Ts out with the milk for the sparrows to sip.
>>
>> I am fed up with gay-warming, global-warming, heated revisionism and
>> being asked to vote for pepole who have not spent a day in jail!
>>
>> Grosspeckaa
>
> The only problem problem with this is if I am to be criticised for
> typos then hopefully "pepole" will be lenient with you too,   maybe
> you should up your own standards before before being a critique of
> others.

I think you mean 'critic'.

-- 
Falcon:
fide, sed cui vide. (L)

freeireland wrote:
> On 17 Oct, 08:11, "Falcon"  wrote:
> 
>>freeireland wrote:
>>
>>>On 16 Oct, 21:03, "Falcon"  wrote:
>>>
>>>>freeireland wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>1 What tempature should the planet be?
>>
>>>>Depends who you ask.
>>>>Some would say no more than 2 degrees warmer than it is now.
>>
>>>Really then how can the Arctic be cooler now than it was in 1940?
>>
>>>Have you really read this, from a computer modal it makes nothing more
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>I seem to have given the misleading impression that I'm willing to engage in
>>a lengthy debate with someone who can't spell the words temperature and
>>model. I am not. I apologise for any inconvenience.
>>
>>--
>>Falcon:
>>fide, sed cui vide. (L)
> 
> 
> Lol, great stuff, talk about shotting the messenger. Funny this
> happens a lot when people question climate change.  I wonder if I
> should be checking other newsgroups for roque posts making inaccurate
> claims about me now.
> 


"I got given an umbrella plant today.      Group: soc.culture.irish J'ai 
été bu et j'ai mordu une agent de police. Sounds slightly more intellectual
than "I was sloshed and I bit a peeler" doesn't it? Nah. It just doesn't 
have
that intellectual cachet around here, Grieg. Even the rubbies speak French.
Pat Cachet is a word that winds me up. Neill McEwan was using it for 
example.
Aug 5 1999 by Gregory - 120 messages - 30 authors"




Go easy on the "critque" stuff.  I felt re-victimized.

Grosspeckaa

Falcon wrote:
> freeireland wrote:
> 
> 
>>On 17 Oct, 08:50, Grosspeckaa  wrote:
>>
>>>Falcon wrote:
>>>
>>>>freeireland wrote:
>>>
>>>>>On 16 Oct, 21:03, "Falcon"  wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>freeireland wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>1 What tempature should the planet be?
>>>
>>>>>>Depends who you ask.
>>>>>>Some would say no more than 2 degrees warmer than it is now.
>>>
>>>>>Really then how can the Arctic be cooler now than it was in 1940?
>>>
>>>>>Have you really read this, from a computer modal it makes nothing more
>>>
>>>>[...]
>>>
>>>>I seem to have given the misleading impression that I'm willing to
>>>>engage in a lengthy debate with someone who can't spell the words
>>>>temperature and model. I am not. I apologise for any inconvenience.
>>>
>>>I think you are being waaaay too lenient with freeireland.
>>>
>>>I would advise a more robust approach. Don't get me wrong, I am all for
>>>reaching out to people, to patting on heads, to forgiving sinners, but a
>>>few standards must be in place.
>>>
>>>Global-warming is a myth put out by those who seek to destroy the United
>>>States of America and Judeo-Christian culture.
>>>
>>>My shed in West Belfast, ..
>>>
>>>the one with the bullet-holes, is the coldest place on this planet. Why,
>>>Weather-theft? possibly, but not global-warming I wager.
>>>
>>>I can put my G&Ts out with the milk for the sparrows to sip.
>>>
>>>I am fed up with gay-warming, global-warming, heated revisionism and
>>>being asked to vote for pepole who have not spent a day in jail!
>>>
>>>Grosspeckaa
>>
>>The only problem problem with this is if I am to be criticised for
>>typos then hopefully "pepole" will be lenient with you too,   maybe
>>you should up your own standards before before being a critique of
>>others.
> 
> 
> I think you mean 'critic'.

Falcon,
> 

It is doing my head in. I am not a violent person, okay I have shot and 
bayoneted a few people, mostly foreigners, but that was the environment 
I was brought up in, public school, Cambridge, Sandhurst etc.

Grosspeckaa

freeireland wrote:

> On 17 Oct, 08:11, "Falcon"  wrote:
>> freeireland wrote:
>>> On 16 Oct, 21:03, "Falcon"  wrote:
>>>> freeireland wrote:
>>>>> 1 What tempature should the planet be?
>>
>>>> Depends who you ask.
>>>> Some would say no more than 2 degrees warmer than it is now.
>>
>>> Really then how can the Arctic be cooler now than it was in 1940?
>>
>>> Have you really read this, from a computer modal it makes nothing more
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> I seem to have given the misleading impression that I'm willing to
>> engage in a lengthy debate with someone who can't spell the words
>> temperature and model. I am not. I apologise for any inconvenience.
>
> Lol, great stuff, talk about shotting the messenger. [...]

I rest my case.

-- 
Falcon:
fide, sed cui vide. (L)

Falcon wrote:
> freeireland wrote:
> 
> 
>>On 17 Oct, 08:11, "Falcon"  wrote:
>>
>>>freeireland wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 16 Oct, 21:03, "Falcon"  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>freeireland wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>1 What tempature should the planet be?
>>>
>>>>>Depends who you ask.
>>>>>Some would say no more than 2 degrees warmer than it is now.
>>>
>>>>Really then how can the Arctic be cooler now than it was in 1940?
>>>
>>>>Have you really read this, from a computer modal it makes nothing more
>>>
>>>[...]
>>>
>>>I seem to have given the misleading impression that I'm willing to
>>>engage in a lengthy debate with someone who can't spell the words
>>>temperature and model. I am not. I apologise for any inconvenience.
>>
>>Lol, great stuff, talk about shotting the messenger. [...]
> 
> 
> I rest my case.
> 

I am opposed to shotting messengers myself, what with the postal strike 
and NIPSA picket lines.

On 17 Oct, 09:25, "Falcon"  wrote:
> freeireland wrote:
> > On 17 Oct, 08:50, Grosspeckaa  wrote:
> >> Falcon wrote:
> >>> freeireland wrote:
>
> >>>> On 16 Oct, 21:03, "Falcon"  wrote:
>
> >>>>> freeireland wrote:
>
> >>>>>> 1 What tempature should the planet be?
>
> >>>>> Depends who you ask.
> >>>>> Some would say no more than 2 degrees warmer than it is now.
>
> >>>> Really then how can the Arctic be cooler now than it was in 1940?
>
> >>>> Have you really read this, from a computer modal it makes nothing more
>
> >>> [...]
>
> >>> I seem to have given the misleading impression that I'm willing to
> >>> engage in a lengthy debate with someone who can't spell the words
> >>> temperature and model. I am not. I apologise for any inconvenience.
>
> >> I think you are being waaaay too lenient with freeireland.
>
> >> I would advise a more robust approach. Don't get me wrong, I am all for
> >> reaching out to people, to patting on heads, to forgiving sinners, but a
> >> few standards must be in place.
>
> >> Global-warming is a myth put out by those who seek to destroy the United
> >> States of America and Judeo-Christian culture.
>
> >> My shed in West Belfast, ..
>
> >> the one with the bullet-holes, is the coldest place on this planet. Why,
> >> Weather-theft? possibly, but not global-warming I wager.
>
> >> I can put my G&Ts out with the milk for the sparrows to sip.
>
> >> I am fed up with gay-warming, global-warming, heated revisionism and
> >> being asked to vote for pepole who have not spent a day in jail!
>
> >> Grosspeckaa
>
> > The only problem problem with this is if I am to be criticised for
> > typos then hopefully "pepole" will be lenient with you too,   maybe
> > you should up your own standards before before being a critique of
> > others.
>
> I think you mean 'critic'.
>
> --
> Falcon:
> fide, sed cui vide. (L)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Typo-pouncing of the lamest degree. Though at least you have stopped
posting snippets of my text grossly out of context, in order to
"establish" my "irrelevance."

Though their is a peom out there for people like you who have nothing
to contribute but typo pouncing

Falcon was shat into the world,
A ghastly freak sans balls and spine,
He learned to use his mouth's two sides--
When one side libels, the other will whine.

On 17 Oct, 09:17, Grosspeckaa  wrote:
> freeireland wrote:
> > On 17 Oct, 08:50, Grosspeckaa  wrote:
>
> >>Falcon wrote:
>
> >>>freeireland wrote:
>
> >>>>On 16 Oct, 21:03, "Falcon"  wrote:
>
> >>>>>freeireland wrote:
>
> >>>>>>1 What tempature should the planet be?
>
> >>>>>Depends who you ask.
> >>>>>Some would say no more than 2 degrees warmer than it is now.
>
> >>>>Really then how can the Arctic be cooler now than it was in 1940?
>
> >>>>Have you really read this, from a computer modal it makes nothing more
>
> >>>[...]
>
> >>>I seem to have given the misleading impression that I'm willing to engage in
> >>>a lengthy debate with someone who can't spell the words temperature and
> >>>model. I am not. I apologise for any inconvenience.
>
> >>I think you are being waaaay too lenient with freeireland.
>
> >>I would advise a more robust approach. Don't get me wrong, I am all for
> >>reaching out to people, to patting on heads, to forgiving sinners, but a
> >>few standards must be in place.
>
> >>Global-warming is a myth put out by those who seek to destroy the United
> >>States of America and Judeo-Christian culture.
>
> >>My shed in West Belfast, ..
>
> >>the one with the bullet-holes, is the coldest place on this planet. Why,
> >>Weather-theft? possibly, but not global-warming I wager.
>
> >>I can put my G&Ts out with the milk for the sparrows to sip.
>
> >>I am fed up with gay-warming, global-warming, heated revisionism and
> >>being asked to vote for pepole who have not spent a day in jail!
>
> >>Grosspeckaa
>
> > The only problem problem with this is if I am to be criticised for
> > typos then hopefully "pepole" will be lenient with you too,   maybe
> > you should up your own standards before before being a critique of
> > others.
>
> Look, Jimmy,
>
> it is like this, that "pepole" typo was a deliberate plant to see if you
> would pick up on it. Pray, desist from using expressions such as
> "critique" in mixed company.
>
> Neill McEwan's use of the word 'cachet' in 98 or 99 almost provoked a
> riot on SCI. KateH  :) excepted, she seemed to think Cachet was some
> girl I picked up in Detroit.
>
> Grosspeckaa- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

lol yeah right, any typos I made where also plants!

On 17 Oct, 09:27, Grosspeckaa  wrote:
> Falcon wrote:
> > freeireland wrote:
>
> >>On 17 Oct, 08:50, Grosspeckaa  wrote:
>
> >>>Falcon wrote:
>
> >>>>freeireland wrote:
>
> >>>>>On 16 Oct, 21:03, "Falcon"  wrote:
>
> >>>>>>freeireland wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>1 What tempature should the planet be?
>
> >>>>>>Depends who you ask.
> >>>>>>Some would say no more than 2 degrees warmer than it is now.
>
> >>>>>Really then how can the Arctic be cooler now than it was in 1940?
>
> >>>>>Have you really read this, from a computer modal it makes nothing more
>
> >>>>[...]
>
> >>>>I seem to have given the misleading impression that I'm willing to
> >>>>engage in a lengthy debate with someone who can't spell the words
> >>>>temperature and model. I am not. I apologise for any inconvenience.
>
> >>>I think you are being waaaay too lenient with freeireland.
>
> >>>I would advise a more robust approach. Don't get me wrong, I am all for
> >>>reaching out to people, to patting on heads, to forgiving sinners, but a
> >>>few standards must be in place.
>
> >>>Global-warming is a myth put out by those who seek to destroy the United
> >>>States of America and Judeo-Christian culture.
>
> >>>My shed in West Belfast, ..
>
> >>>the one with the bullet-holes, is the coldest place on this planet. Why,
> >>>Weather-theft? possibly, but not global-warming I wager.
>
> >>>I can put my G&Ts out with the milk for the sparrows to sip.
>
> >>>I am fed up with gay-warming, global-warming, heated revisionism and
> >>>being asked to vote for pepole who have not spent a day in jail!
>
> >>>Grosspeckaa
>
> >>The only problem problem with this is if I am to be criticised for
> >>typos then hopefully "pepole" will be lenient with you too,   maybe
> >>you should up your own standards before before being a critique of
> >>others.
>
> > I think you mean 'critic'.
>
> Falcon,
>
>
>
> It is doing my head in. I am not a violent person, okay I have shot and
> bayoneted a few people, mostly foreigners, but that was the environment
> I was brought up in, public school, Cambridge, Sandhurst etc.
>
> Grosspeckaa- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


Sandhurst, isn't that the place where women Army cadets get assaulted
in their beds. Where reporters with fake bmobs (yes that is a plant
lol) just walk in and spend the day while prince harry was there. You
must have been the janitor in cambridge or did you just waste an
education when joining the army?

freeireland wrote:
> On 17 Oct, 09:25, "Falcon"  wrote:
> 
>>freeireland wrote:
>>
>>>On 17 Oct, 08:50, Grosspeckaa  wrote:
>>>
>>>>Falcon wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>freeireland wrote:
>>
>>>>>>On 16 Oct, 21:03, "Falcon"  wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>freeireland wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>1 What tempature should the planet be?
>>
>>>>>>>Depends who you ask.
>>>>>>>Some would say no more than 2 degrees warmer than it is now.
>>
>>>>>>Really then how can the Arctic be cooler now than it was in 1940?
>>
>>>>>>Have you really read this, from a computer modal it makes nothing more
>>
>>>>>[...]
>>
>>>>>I seem to have given the misleading impression that I'm willing to
>>>>>engage in a lengthy debate with someone who can't spell the words
>>>>>temperature and model. I am not. I apologise for any inconvenience.
>>
>>>>I think you are being waaaay too lenient with freeireland.
>>
>>>>I would advise a more robust approach. Don't get me wrong, I am all for
>>>>reaching out to people, to patting on heads, to forgiving sinners, but a
>>>>few standards must be in place.
>>
>>>>Global-warming is a myth put out by those who seek to destroy the United
>>>>States of America and Judeo-Christian culture.
>>
>>>>My shed in West Belfast, ..
>>
>>>>the one with the bullet-holes, is the coldest place on this planet. Why,
>>>>Weather-theft? possibly, but not global-warming I wager.
>>
>>>>I can put my G&Ts out with the milk for the sparrows to sip.
>>
>>>>I am fed up with gay-warming, global-warming, heated revisionism and
>>>>being asked to vote for pepole who have not spent a day in jail!
>>
>>>>Grosspeckaa
>>
>>>The only problem problem with this is if I am to be criticised for
>>>typos then hopefully "pepole" will be lenient with you too,   maybe
>>>you should up your own standards before before being a critique of
>>>others.
>>
>>I think you mean 'critic'.
>>
>>--
>>Falcon:
>>fide, sed cui vide. (L)- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>- Show quoted text -
> 
> 
> Typo-pouncing of the lamest degree. Though at least you have stopped
> posting snippets of my text grossly out of context, in order to
> "establish" my "irrelevance."
> 
> Though their is a peom out there for people like you who have nothing
> to contribute but typo pouncing
> 
> Falcon was shat into the world,
> A ghastly freak sans balls and spine,
> He learned to use his mouth's two sides--
> When one side libels, the other will whine.
> 
> 


That is a great peom.

freeireland wrote:
> On 17 Oct, 09:27, Grosspeckaa  wrote:
> 
>>Falcon wrote:
>>
>>>freeireland wrote:
>>
>>>>On 17 Oct, 08:50, Grosspeckaa  wrote:
>>
>>>>>Falcon wrote:
>>
>>>>>>freeireland wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>On 16 Oct, 21:03, "Falcon"  wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>freeireland wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>1 What tempature should the planet be?
>>
>>>>>>>>Depends who you ask.
>>>>>>>>Some would say no more than 2 degrees warmer than it is now.
>>
>>>>>>>Really then how can the Arctic be cooler now than it was in 1940?
>>
>>>>>>>Have you really read this, from a computer modal it makes nothing more
>>
>>>>>>[...]
>>
>>>>>>I seem to have given the misleading impression that I'm willing to
>>>>>>engage in a lengthy debate with someone who can't spell the words
>>>>>>temperature and model. I am not. I apologise for any inconvenience.
>>
>>>>>I think you are being waaaay too lenient with freeireland.
>>
>>>>>I would advise a more robust approach. Don't get me wrong, I am all for
>>>>>reaching out to people, to patting on heads, to forgiving sinners, but a
>>>>>few standards must be in place.
>>
>>>>>Global-warming is a myth put out by those who seek to destroy the United
>>>>>States of America and Judeo-Christian culture.
>>
>>>>>My shed in West Belfast, ..
>>
>>>>>the one with the bullet-holes, is the coldest place on this planet. Why,
>>>>>Weather-theft? possibly, but not global-warming I wager.
>>
>>>>>I can put my G&Ts out with the milk for the sparrows to sip.
>>
>>>>>I am fed up with gay-warming, global-warming, heated revisionism and
>>>>>being asked to vote for pepole who have not spent a day in jail!
>>
>>>>>Grosspeckaa
>>
>>>>The only problem problem with this is if I am to be criticised for
>>>>typos then hopefully "pepole" will be lenient with you too,   maybe
>>>>you should up your own standards before before being a critique of
>>>>others.
>>
>>>I think you mean 'critic'.
>>
>>Falcon,
>>
>>
>>
>>It is doing my head in. I am not a violent person, okay I have shot and
>>bayoneted a few people, mostly foreigners, but that was the environment
>>I was brought up in, public school, Cambridge, Sandhurst etc.
>>
>>Grosspeckaa- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>- Show quoted text -
> 
> 
> 
> Sandhurst, isn't that the place where women Army cadets get assaulted
> in their beds. Where reporters with fake bmobs (yes that is a plant
> lol) just walk in and spend the day while prince harry was there. You
> must have been the janitor in cambridge or did you just waste an
> education when joining the army?
> 

I was kicked out of Cambridge (the entire town) for junk janitoring and 
moved up the road to Huntingdon, Cambs. Colorless green ideas sleep 
furiously there.

I was promptly arrested, for painting Oliver Cromwell's statue, I will 
allow you to guess the color. I thought the only girls at Sandhurst were 
from the Spearmint Rhino in Colnbrook,

On 17 Oct, 10:21, Grosspeckaa  wrote:
> freeireland wrote:
> > On 17 Oct, 09:25, "Falcon"  wrote:
>
> >>freeireland wrote:
>
> >>>On 17 Oct, 08:50, Grosspeckaa  wrote:
>
> >>>>Falcon wrote:
>
> >>>>>freeireland wrote:
>
> >>>>>>On 16 Oct, 21:03, "Falcon"  wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>freeireland wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>1 What tempature should the planet be?
>
> >>>>>>>Depends who you ask.
> >>>>>>>Some would say no more than 2 degrees warmer than it is now.
>
> >>>>>>Really then how can the Arctic be cooler now than it was in 1940?
>
> >>>>>>Have you really read this, from a computer modal it makes nothing more
>
> >>>>>[...]
>
> >>>>>I seem to have given the misleading impression that I'm willing to
> >>>>>engage in a lengthy debate with someone who can't spell the words
> >>>>>temperature and model. I am not. I apologise for any inconvenience.
>
> >>>>I think you are being waaaay too lenient with freeireland.
>
> >>>>I would advise a more robust approach. Don't get me wrong, I am all for
> >>>>reaching out to people, to patting on heads, to forgiving sinners, but a
> >>>>few standards must be in place.
>
> >>>>Global-warming is a myth put out by those who seek to destroy the United
> >>>>States of America and Judeo-Christian culture.
>
> >>>>My shed in West Belfast, ..
>
> >>>>the one with the bullet-holes, is the coldest place on this planet. Why,
> >>>>Weather-theft? possibly, but not global-warming I wager.
>
> >>>>I can put my G&Ts out with the milk for the sparrows to sip.
>
> >>>>I am fed up with gay-warming, global-warming, heated revisionism and
> >>>>being asked to vote for pepole who have not spent a day in jail!
>
> >>>>Grosspeckaa
>
> >>>The only problem problem with this is if I am to be criticised for
> >>>typos then hopefully "pepole" will be lenient with you too,   maybe
> >>>you should up your own standards before before being a critique of
> >>>others.
>
> >>I think you mean 'critic'.
>
> >>--
> >>Falcon:
> >>fide, sed cui vide. (L)- Hide quoted text -
>
> >>- Show quoted text -
>
> > Typo-pouncing of the lamest degree. Though at least you have stopped
> > posting snippets of my text grossly out of context, in order to
> > "establish" my "irrelevance."
>
> > Though their is a peom out there for people like you who have nothing
> > to contribute but typo pouncing
>
> > Falcon was shat into the world,
> > A ghastly freak sans balls and spine,
> > He learned to use his mouth's two sides--
> > When one side libels, the other will whine.
>
> That is a great peom.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I know though I cannot claim to be the author or a modern day Pushkin
though it is entertaining and accurate I may add. I am considering
however putting a tyop in very post I make.  Can you spot it.

On 17 Oct, 09:29, "Falcon"  wrote:
> freeireland wrote:
> > On 17 Oct, 08:11, "Falcon"  wrote:
> >> freeireland wrote:
> >>> On 16 Oct, 21:03, "Falcon"  wrote:
> >>>> freeireland wrote:
> >>>>> 1 What tempature should the planet be?
>
> >>>> Depends who you ask.
> >>>> Some would say no more than 2 degrees warmer than it is now.
>
> >>> Really then how can the Arctic be cooler now than it was in 1940?
>
> >>> Have you really read this, from a computer modal it makes nothing more
>
> >> [...]
>
> >> I seem to have given the misleading impression that I'm willing to
> >> engage in a lengthy debate with someone who can't spell the words
> >> temperature and model. I am not. I apologise for any inconvenience.
>
> > Lol, great stuff, talk about shotting the messenger. [...]
>
> I rest my case.
>
> --
> Falcon:
> fide, sed cui vide. (L)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

What case? Have you made it on another thread again! Can't you even
admitt the poem is amusing even a little bit. Can you spot the tyops
Falcon!

On 17 Oct, 10:21, Grosspeckaa  wrote:
> freeireland wrote:
> > On 17 Oct, 09:25, "Falcon"  wrote:
>
> >>freeireland wrote:
>
> >>>On 17 Oct, 08:50, Grosspeckaa  wrote:
>
> >>>>Falcon wrote:
>
> >>>>>freeireland wrote:
>
> >>>>>>On 16 Oct, 21:03, "Falcon"  wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>freeireland wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>1 What tempature should the planet be?
>
> >>>>>>>Depends who you ask.
> >>>>>>>Some would say no more than 2 degrees warmer than it is now.
>
> >>>>>>Really then how can the Arctic be cooler now than it was in 1940?
>
> >>>>>>Have you really read this, from a computer modal it makes nothing more
>
> >>>>>[...]
>
> >>>>>I seem to have given the misleading impression that I'm willing to
> >>>>>engage in a lengthy debate with someone who can't spell the words
> >>>>>temperature and model. I am not. I apologise for any inconvenience.
>
> >>>>I think you are being waaaay too lenient with freeireland.
>
> >>>>I would advise a more robust approach. Don't get me wrong, I am all for
> >>>>reaching out to people, to patting on heads, to forgiving sinners, but a
> >>>>few standards must be in place.
>
> >>>>Global-warming is a myth put out by those who seek to destroy the United
> >>>>States of America and Judeo-Christian culture.
>
> >>>>My shed in West Belfast, ..
>
> >>>>the one with the bullet-holes, is the coldest place on this planet. Why,
> >>>>Weather-theft? possibly, but not global-warming I wager.
>
> >>>>I can put my G&Ts out with the milk for the sparrows to sip.
>
> >>>>I am fed up with gay-warming, global-warming, heated revisionism and
> >>>>being asked to vote for pepole who have not spent a day in jail!
>
> >>>>Grosspeckaa
>
> >>>The only problem problem with this is if I am to be criticised for
> >>>typos then hopefully "pepole" will be lenient with you too,   maybe
> >>>you should up your own standards before before being a critique of
> >>>others.
>
> >>I think you mean 'critic'.
>
> >>--
> >>Falcon:
> >>fide, sed cui vide. (L)- Hide quoted text -
>
> >>- Show quoted text -
>
> > Typo-pouncing of the lamest degree. Though at least you have stopped
> > posting snippets of my text grossly out of context, in order to
> > "establish" my "irrelevance."
>
> > Though their is a peom out there for people like you who have nothing
> > to contribute but typo pouncing
>
> > Falcon was shat into the world,
> > A ghastly freak sans balls and spine,
> > He learned to use his mouth's two sides--
> > When one side libels, the other will whine.
>
> That is a great peom.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Glad to see everyone is now planting tyops, though you didn't pick up
on the planted grammitcal errors. Looks like that education was wasted.

freeireland wrote:

[...]
> Glad to see everyone is now planting tyops, though you didn't pick up
> on the planted grammitcal errors. Looks like that education was wasted.

Oh, somebody stop me.

-- 
Falcon:
fide, sed cui vide. (L)
Armed Forces Memorial. Alrewas, Staffordshire.
http://xrl.us/AFMemorial (Link to news.bbc.co.uk)

freeireland wrote:

[...]
>
> What case? Have you made it on another thread again! Can't you even
> admitt the poem is amusing even a little bit. Can you spot the tyops
> Falcon!

I know you're damaged ego demands light hearted obfuscation, even a little 
self-deprication, but repeatedly using "where" instead of "were" isn't an 
example of a simple typo. It's poor spelling and bad education. I'm afraid 
you're a thick as a brick, and therefore irrelevant. You are the weakest 
link. Goodbye.

-- 
Falcon:
fide, sed cui vide. (L)
Police could not have prevented Greysteel
http://www.policeombudsman.org/press.cfm?Press_ID=169&action=detail&year=2007

On 17 Oct, 09:30, Grosspeckaa  wrote:
> Falcon wrote:
> > freeireland wrote:
>
> >>On 17 Oct, 08:11, "Falcon"  wrote:
>
> >>>freeireland wrote:
>
> >>>>On 16 Oct, 21:03, "Falcon"  wrote:
>
> >>>>>freeireland wrote:
>
> >>>>>>1 What tempature should the planet be?
>
> >>>>>Depends who you ask.
> >>>>>Some would say no more than 2 degrees warmer than it is now.
>
> >>>>Really then how can the Arctic be cooler now than it was in 1940?
>
> >>>>Have you really read this, from a computer modal it makes nothing more
>
> >>>[...]
>
> >>>I seem to have given the misleading impression that I'm willing to
> >>>engage in a lengthy debate with someone who can't spell the words
> >>>temperature and model. I am not. I apologise for any inconvenience.
>
> >>Lol, great stuff, talk about shotting the messenger. [...]
>
> > I rest my case.
>
> I am opposed to shotting messengers myself, what with the postal strike
> and NIPSA picket lines.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

You made a tyop there.

On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 02:17:07 +0100, "Ramalamadingdong"  wrote:

>
>"Il Lupo Bianco (WhiteWolf) <rayh<spam>@iol.ie>"  wrote in 
>message news:al8ah3pmk2jka4qbmqr0ui0oal1v092p4o@4ax.com...
>>
>> The Nobel prize is a purely political prize appointed by liberal elites to 
>> other
>> liberal elites...
>
>Mother Teresa?  David Trimble?  Yasser Arafat? Nelson Mandela? Sean 
>MacBride? Henry fucking Kissinger?  Betty Williams or Mairead Corrigan?
>
>Go on, see if you can find who the judges are, seeing as you think you 
>already know so much about them.  You might realise then what a complete 
>fucking idiot you've just made of yourself.  Again.
>

Like I said it's a political appointment... You just provided the proof!
Thanks!

Ray

-- 
****************************************************************************************
When anyone asks me about the Irish character, I say look at the trees.
Maimed, stark and misshapen, but ferociously tenacious - Edna O'Brien
****************************************************************************************
Email  : rayh(removeSPAM)@iol.ie : Website: http://www.eirefirst.com
****************************************************************************************

"freeireland"  wrote in message 
news:1192580293.782708.164640@v29g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> On 16 Oct, 21:03, "Falcon"  wrote:
>> freeireland wrote:

1 What tempature should the planet be?

One that won't change too fast for the currently adapted organisms.

2 Why is greenland actually called greenland?

If you had taken the trouble to find the real reason you wouldn't have asked 
this.  Now that I think of it, why wasn't Iceland called something other 
than Iceland around the same time?

3 What observations lead them to believe the planet is heating up on
anything other than natural causes?

The unprecedented rate, closely coinciding with industrialisation.

4. Why is the Antarctic cooling while all computer modals show effects
of global warming heaviest on the poles?

Why is the Antarctic warming despite your assumption to the contrary?

5. How do we expect to believe computer models of an eco system so
complex we only understand a small portion of it? Remember these same
models cannot predict the weather with any accuracy in Ireland over a
week!

Weather prediction and the study of climate are not the same things.

> Lets for example look at the 1996 IPCC 's "Summary for Policy Makers".

> A cause and effect relationship, though, has been discovered between
> solar activity and global temperatures. Danish climatologists Friis-
> Christensen and K. Lassen (in the 1991 issue of Science)

Note, too, that between 1940
> and 1980, when man-made levels of CO2 swelled rapidly, there was a
> decline in temperatures.
>
> In 1996 the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- the IPCC
> -- released a document

> In 1998, 17,000 scientists, six of whom are Nobel Laureates, signed
> the Oregon Petition,
>
> In 1999 over ten thousand of the world's most renowned climatologists,
> astrophysicists, meteorologists, etc., signed an open letter

Aintcha got anything from this century?

"Der Weiße Wolf <rayh<spam>@iol.ie>"  wrote in message 
news:oqtch3dddb4rq54ufqf7p7r6mc60aha3h6@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 02:17:07 +0100, "Ramalamadingdong"  
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Il Lupo Bianco (WhiteWolf) <rayh<spam>@iol.ie>"  wrote in
>>message news:al8ah3pmk2jka4qbmqr0ui0oal1v092p4o@4ax.com...
>>>
>>> The Nobel prize is a purely political prize appointed by liberal elites 
>>> to
>>> other
>>> liberal elites...
>>
>>Mother Teresa?  David Trimble?  Yasser Arafat? Nelson Mandela? Sean
>>MacBride? Henry fucking Kissinger?  Betty Williams or Mairead Corrigan?
>>
>>Go on, see if you can find who the judges are, seeing as you think you
>>already know so much about them.  You might realise then what a complete
>>fucking idiot you've just made of yourself.  Again.
>>
>
> Like I said it's a political appointment... You just provided the proof!

Of course it's political, that isn't the issue.  Do you just get 'in 
character' here or are you really that stupid?

On 17 Oct, 11:05, "Falcon"  wrote:
> freeireland wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>
>
> > What case? Have you made it on another thread again! Can't you even
> > admitt the poem is amusing even a little bit. Can you spot the tyops
> > Falcon!
>
> I know you're damaged ego demands light hearted obfuscation, even a little
> self-deprication, but repeatedly using "where" instead of "were" isn't an
> example of a simple typo. It's poor spelling and bad education. I'm afraid
> you're a thick as a brick, and therefore irrelevant. You are the weakest
> link. Goodbye.
>
> --
> Falcon:
> fide, sed cui vide. (L)
> Police could not have prevented Greysteelhttp://www.policeombudsman.org/press.cfm?Press_ID=169&action=detail&y...

lol, clearly you have no idea of my education. Though your in no
position to be  pouncing on anyones typos or grammer. You see anything
I type is a large proportion of the time of the cuff, no grammar or
spelling aids and without considering it. Though when the self
appointed grammar or spelling police try do discredit you on
illrelevant misdemeanors I often like to turn the tables. You see if I
was being critical of someones spelling, grammer or typos I would be
very, so very careful not to have any in the very post I am making.
You see does
"little self-deprication, but" actually form a single adjective before
a noun, involve compound numbers, an awkward combination of letters, a
prefix or suffix or a line break in order to justify a hypen. I don't
think so. Or is deprication an actual word or is there a spelling
mistake. Is this a lack of your education Falcon? Do you think this
makes you look a little foolish? Do you think when pouncing on
someones grammar you should at least not have any speeling or
grammatical errors?

As for obfuscation I think you should look back over the thread and so
who was being pedantic in order to discredit my post. hmmm, nothing
new from you though is it.

On 17 Oct, 22:17, "Ramalamadingdong"  wrote:
> "freeireland"  wrote in message
>
> news:1192580293.782708.164640@v29g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On 16 Oct, 21:03, "Falcon"  wrote:
> >> freeireland wrote:
>
> 1 What tempature should the planet be?
>
> One that won't change too fast for the currently adapted organisms.

Ok then what rate should that be?

>
> 2 Why is greenland actually called greenland?
>
> If you had taken the trouble to find the real reason you wouldn't have asked
> this.  Now that I think of it, why wasn't Iceland called something other
> than Iceland around the same time?

Well actually no? The Icelandic Free State and Althing  where founded
in 930 before the discovery of Greenland. As far as I am aware there
is evidence of Viking farming in Greenland.

>
> 3 What observations lead them to believe the planet is heating up on
> anything other than natural causes?
>
> The unprecedented rate, closely coinciding with industrialisation.

Ok provide some proof of this considering below.

"According to the NASA report, Global Climate Monitoring: The
Accuracy of Satellite Data, though, the NWS record is based strictly
on surface temperature readings. When weather balloon and satellite
records are examined one finds temperatures either stayed the same or
actually declined by as much as 1 degree F during that period. ". The
period in question is from 1940.


>
> 4. Why is the Antarctic cooling while all computer modals show effects
> of global warming heaviest on the poles?
>
> Why is the Antarctic warming despite your assumption to the contrary?

The Antarctic Peninsula, which looks on maps like an arm reaching from
the continent to grab South America, has been growing warmer. In fact,
reports in recent years that Antarctica is warming have been based on
data from the Peninsula. This is a mere 2% of the entire antartic.

Heres the data

http://www.john-daly.com/stations/stations.htm#The%20Antarctic%20Scientific%20Bases

Tell me where the temp is actually rising?


>
> 5. How do we expect to believe computer models of an eco system so
> complex we only understand a small portion of it? Remember these same
> models cannot predict the weather with any accuracy in Ireland over a
> week!
>
> Weather prediction and the study of climate are not the same things.

No though they are both extremely complex. Do you really think weather
patterns do not affect regional temp? Weather patterns are some of
millions of variables that effect climate.

Computer modelling, which is simply inadequate to factor in all the --
literally-- millions of variables that make up climate change. If you
put garbage in, you get garbage out.

>
> > Lets for example look at the 1996 IPCC 's "Summary for Policy Makers".
> > A cause and effect relationship, though, has been discovered between
> > solar activity and global temperatures. Danish climatologists Friis-
> > Christensen and K. Lassen (in the 1991 issue of Science)
>
> Note, too, that between 1940
>
> > and 1980, when man-made levels of CO2 swelled rapidly, there was a
> > decline in temperatures.
>
> > In 1996 the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- the IPCC
> > -- released a document
> > In 1998, 17,000 scientists, six of whom are Nobel Laureates, signed
> > the Oregon Petition,
>
> > In 1999 over ten thousand of the world's most renowned climatologists,
> > astrophysicists, meteorologists, etc., signed an open letter
>
> Aintcha got anything from this century?

What are you going to make a strong case for climate change due data
taken from the last 7-8 years?


"Global warming" was invented in 1988, when it replaced two earlier
myths of an imminent plunge into another Ice Age and the threat of a
nuclear winter. The new myth was seen to encapsulate a whole range of
other myths and attitudes that had developed in the 1960s and 1970s,
including "limits to growth," sustainability, neo-Malthusian fears of
a population time bomb, pollution, anticorporate anti-Americanism, and
an Al Gore-like analysis of human greed disturbing the ecological
harmony and balance of the earth."

Professor Philip Stott - Wall Street Journal 2001

"Two research papers were published in Geophysical Research Letters (9
July 2004).

This first paper eliminates one of the main IPCC arguments supporting
an appreciable human contribution to observed warming. The second
paper focused on the difference (models vs obs) in surface temperature
trends vs latitude. We found the major disparity to be in the tropics
and are developing hypotheses to explain this important result.

An additional effort is underway to demonstrate that the claimed
agreement between the observed temperature history of the 20th century
and theoretical climate models is likely the result of "curve-fitting"
through the use of several arbitrarily chosen parameters."

SEPP - 2004


I could post dozens upon dozens of links though the reality is climate
change based on modelling is flawed unless we know and understand all
the variables and parameters. Yet this is the cornerstop that is used
to show and predict global warming. The fact that there are
discrepencies between models and historical observations shows the
models are flawed.

The real scientific evidence is that -- we just don't know; and the
theories so far, linking man, carbon dioxide and climate warming. are
specious. There's some seriously bad science going on in the
environmentalist camp.

In article <ff35io$ovd$1@aioe.org>, "Falcon"  
wrote:

> freeireland wrote:
> 
> > 1 What tempature should the planet be?
> 
> Depends who you ask.
> Some would say no more than 2 degrees warmer than it is now.
> 
> Zero emissions needed to avert 'dangerous' warming
> http://environment.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn12775

Well, judging by my three weeks in Ireland last June-July, I would say 
about 20 degrees warmer would fit the bill.

William Clark

In article ,
 freeireland  wrote:

> On 17 Oct, 08:11, "Falcon"  wrote:
> > freeireland wrote:
> > > On 16 Oct, 21:03, "Falcon"  wrote:
> > >> freeireland wrote:
> > >>> 1 What tempature should the planet be?
> >
> > >> Depends who you ask.
> > >> Some would say no more than 2 degrees warmer than it is now.
> >
> > > Really then how can the Arctic be cooler now than it was in 1940?
> >
> > > Have you really read this, from a computer modal it makes nothing more
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > I seem to have given the misleading impression that I'm willing to engage in
> > a lengthy debate with someone who can't spell the words temperature and
> > model. I am not. I apologise for any inconvenience.
> >
> > --
> > Falcon:
> > fide, sed cui vide. (L)
> 
> Lol, great stuff, talk about shotting the messenger. Funny this
> happens a lot when people question climate change.  I wonder if I
> should be checking other newsgroups for roque posts making inaccurate
> claims about me now.

"Shotting", what is "shotting", and how does it relate to "roque" posts? 
Does "shotting" have to do with the excessive methane production of all 
those sheep in Australia and New Zealand?

William Clark

In article ,
 freeireland  wrote:

> On 17 Oct, 11:05, "Falcon"  wrote:
> > freeireland wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> >
> >
> > > What case? Have you made it on another thread again! Can't you even
> > > admitt the poem is amusing even a little bit. Can you spot the tyops
> > > Falcon!
> >
> > I know you're damaged ego demands light hearted obfuscation, even a little
> > self-deprication, but repeatedly using "where" instead of "were" isn't an
> > example of a simple typo. It's poor spelling and bad education. I'm afraid
> > you're a thick as a brick, and therefore irrelevant. You are the weakest
> > link. Goodbye.
> >
> > --
> > Falcon:
> > fide, sed cui vide. (L)
> > Police could not have prevented 
> > Greysteelhttp://www.policeombudsman.org/press.cfm?Press_ID=169&action=detail
> > &y...
> 
> lol, clearly you have no idea of my education. Though your in no
> position to be  pouncing on anyones typos or grammer. You see anything
> I type is a large proportion of the time of the cuff, no grammar or
> spelling aids and without considering it. Though when the self
> appointed grammar or spelling police try do discredit you on
> illrelevant misdemeanors I often like to turn the tables. You see if I
> was being critical of someones spelling, grammer or typos I would be
> very, so very careful not to have any in the very post I am making.
> You see does
> "little self-deprication, but" actually form a single adjective before
> a noun, involve compound numbers, an awkward combination of letters, a
> prefix or suffix or a line break in order to justify a hypen. I don't
> think so. Or is deprication an actual word or is there a spelling
> mistake. Is this a lack of your education Falcon? Do you think this
> makes you look a little foolish? Do you think when pouncing on
> someones grammar you should at least not have any speeling or
> grammatical errors?
> 
> As for obfuscation I think you should look back over the thread and so
> who was being pedantic in order to discredit my post. hmmm, nothing
> new from you though is it.

"Anyones"? "Grammer"? "Illrelevant"? "Speeling"?

You're not related to George Bush, by any chance, are you?

William Clark

freeireland wrote:
> On 17 Oct, 11:05, "Falcon"  wrote:
> 
>>freeireland wrote:
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>What case? Have you made it on another thread again! Can't you even
>>>admitt the poem is amusing even a little bit. Can you spot the tyops
>>>Falcon!
>>
>>I know you're damaged ego demands light hearted obfuscation, even a little
>>self-deprication, but repeatedly using "where" instead of "were" isn't an
>>example of a simple typo. It's poor spelling and bad education. I'm afraid
>>you're a thick as a brick, and therefore irrelevant. You are the weakest
>>link. Goodbye.
>>
>>--
>>Falcon:
>>fide, sed cui vide. (L)
>>Police could not have prevented Greysteelhttp://www.policeombudsman.org/press.cfm?Press_ID=169&action=detail&y...
> 
> 
> lol, clearly you have no idea of my education. Though your in no
> position to be  pouncing on anyones typos or grammer. You see anything
> I type is a large proportion of the time of the cuff, no grammar or
> spelling aids and without considering it.


I had noticed the last part. You are clearly some sort of radical, 
potentially working with Docaay or other people of interest to The EU 
Secretariat's Usenet Division (EUSUD). I understand the police (EV) in 
Denmark have now become involved re: concerns of criminal environmental 
gas violations.

If you whack EUSUD into a google image search, I fear you might be able 
to download 'illegal' photos of a very graphic nature. Okay, I am 
running the risk of being arrested by Bellaghy PSNI, but I will give you 
the url. SCI colleagues with a weak stomach are advised not to click on 
the very depressing link, it is hard core.

http://images.google.com/images?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2005-01,GGLD:en&q=EUSUD&um=1&sa=N&tab=wi

Grosspeckaa

In article ,
 freeireland  wrote:

> On 17 Oct, 09:25, "Falcon"  wrote:
> > freeireland wrote:
> > > On 17 Oct, 08:50, Grosspeckaa  wrote:
> > >> Falcon wrote:
> > >>> freeireland wrote:
> >
> > >>>> On 16 Oct, 21:03, "Falcon"  wrote:
> >
> > >>>>> freeireland wrote:
> >
> > >>>>>> 1 What tempature should the planet be?
> >
> > >>>>> Depends who you ask.
> > >>>>> Some would say no more than 2 degrees warmer than it is now.
> >
> > >>>> Really then how can the Arctic be cooler now than it was in 1940?
> >
> > >>>> Have you really read this, from a computer modal it makes nothing more
> >
> > >>> [...]
> >
> > >>> I seem to have given the misleading impression that I'm willing to
> > >>> engage in a lengthy debate with someone who can't spell the words
> > >>> temperature and model. I am not. I apologise for any inconvenience.
> >
> > >> I think you are being waaaay too lenient with freeireland.
> >
> > >> I would advise a more robust approach. Don't get me wrong, I am all for
> > >> reaching out to people, to patting on heads, to forgiving sinners, but a
> > >> few standards must be in place.
> >
> > >> Global-warming is a myth put out by those who seek to destroy the United
> > >> States of America and Judeo-Christian culture.
> >
> > >> My shed in West Belfast, ..
> >
> > >> the one with the bullet-holes, is the coldest place on this planet. Why,
> > >> Weather-theft? possibly, but not global-warming I wager.
> >
> > >> I can put my G&Ts out with the milk for the sparrows to sip.
> >
> > >> I am fed up with gay-warming, global-warming, heated revisionism and
> > >> being asked to vote for pepole who have not spent a day in jail!
> >
> > >> Grosspeckaa
> >
> > > The only problem problem with this is if I am to be criticised for
> > > typos then hopefully "pepole" will be lenient with you too,   maybe
> > > you should up your own standards before before being a critique of
> > > others.
> >
> > I think you mean 'critic'.
> >
> > --
> > Falcon:
> > fide, sed cui vide. (L)- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
> 
> Typo-pouncing of the lamest degree. Though at least you have stopped
> posting snippets of my text grossly out of context, in order to
> "establish" my "irrelevance."
> 
> Though their is a peom out there for people like you who have nothing
> to contribute but typo pouncing
> 
> Falcon was shat into the world,
> A ghastly freak sans balls and spine,
> He learned to use his mouth's two sides--
> When one side libels, the other will whine.

"Their is a peom"? Good God, this guy is functionally illiterate!

But it's funny.

William Clark

In article <ff4mtn$oh8$1@aioe.org>, "Falcon"  
wrote:

> freeireland wrote:
> 
> [...]
> > Glad to see everyone is now planting tyops, though you didn't pick up
> > on the planted grammitcal errors. Looks like that education was wasted.
> 
> Oh, somebody stop me.

Yup, it's like "shotting" fish in a barrel, isn't it?

William Clark

"freeireland"  wrote in message 
news:1192661481.925290.163120@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On 17 Oct, 22:17, "Ramalamadingdong"  wrote:
>> "freeireland"  wrote in message
>>
>> news:1192580293.782708.164640@v29g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On 16 Oct, 21:03, "Falcon"  wrote:
>> >> freeireland wrote:
>>
>> 1 What tempature should the planet be?
>>
>> One that won't change too fast for the currently adapted organisms.
>
> Ok then what rate should that be?

One that won't change too fast.  Ask a stupid question.

>>
>> 2 Why is greenland actually called greenland?
>>
>> If you had taken the trouble to find the real reason you wouldn't have 
>> asked
>> this.  Now that I think of it, why wasn't Iceland called something other
>> than Iceland around the same time?
>
> Well actually no? The Icelandic Free State and Althing  where founded
> in 930 before the discovery of Greenland. As far as I am aware there
> is evidence of Viking farming in Greenland.

The two written sources on the origin of Greenland as a name for the island, 
in the Íslendingabók, an historical work dealing with early Icelandic 
history from the 12th century, and in the medieval Icelandic saga, The Saga 
of Eric the Red.

Both sources write: "He named the land Greenland, saying that people would 
be eager to go there if it had a good name."

>> 3 What observations lead them to believe the planet is heating up on
>> anything other than natural causes?
>>
>> The unprecedented rate, closely coinciding with industrialisation.
>
> Ok provide some proof of this considering below.

You really are tedious.  You really think there is no proof of increased 
temps?

>>
>> 4. Why is the Antarctic cooling while all computer modals show effects
>> of global warming heaviest on the poles?
>>
>> Why is the Antarctic warming despite your assumption to the contrary?
>
> The Antarctic Peninsula, which looks on maps like an arm reaching from
> the continent to grab South America, has been growing warmer. In fact,
> reports in recent years that Antarctica is warming have been based on
> data from the Peninsula. This is a mere 2% of the entire antartic.
>
> Heres the data
>
> http://www.john-daly.com/stations/stations.htm#The%20Antarctic%20Scientific%20Bases
>
> Tell me where the temp is actually rising?

Look here http://people.aapt.net.au/~johunter/greenhou/home.html and then 
come back to me about John L. Daly.  You're going out on a very shaky limb!

On the very site you obliquely mention below, same year, 2004, at random -

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2004/2004GL021106.shtml

>> 5. How do we expect to believe computer models of an eco system so
>> complex we only understand a small portion of it? Remember these same
>> models cannot predict the weather with any accuracy in Ireland over a
>> week!
>>
>> Weather prediction and the study of climate are not the same things.
>
> No though they are both extremely complex. Do you really think weather
> patterns do not affect regional temp? Weather patterns are some of
> millions of variables that effect climate.
>
> Computer modelling, which is simply inadequate to factor in all the --
> literally-- millions of variables that make up climate change.

Says who?

>> > Lets for example look at the 1996 IPCC 's "Summary for Policy Makers".
>> > A cause and effect relationship, though, has been discovered between
>> > solar activity and global temperatures. Danish climatologists Friis-
>> > Christensen and K. Lassen (in the 1991 issue of Science)
>>
>> Note, too, that between 1940
>>
>> > and 1980, when man-made levels of CO2 swelled rapidly, there was a
>> > decline in temperatures.
>>
>> > In 1996 the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- the IPCC
>> > -- released a document
>> > In 1998, 17,000 scientists, six of whom are Nobel Laureates, signed
>> > the Oregon Petition,
>>
>> > In 1999 over ten thousand of the world's most renowned climatologists,
>> > astrophysicists, meteorologists, etc., signed an open letter
>>
>> Aintcha got anything from this century?
>
> What are you going to make a strong case for climate change due data
> taken from the last 7-8 years?

Not data, research. You're refuting today's findings with 10 year old 
papers, including the discredited solar variances.

> "Global warming" was invented in 1988, when it replaced two earlier
> myths of an imminent plunge into another Ice Age and the threat of a
> nuclear winter. The new myth was seen to encapsulate a whole range of
> other myths and attitudes that had developed in the 1960s and 1970s,
> including "limits to growth," sustainability, neo-Malthusian fears of
> a population time bomb, pollution, anticorporate anti-Americanism, and
> an Al Gore-like analysis of human greed disturbing the ecological
> harmony and balance of the earth."

The new ice age was just that - a piece of sensationalism, it did not 
reflect serious scientific thought even of its time.

>
> Professor Philip Stott - Wall Street Journal 2001
>
> "Two research papers were published in Geophysical Research Letters (9
> July 2004).
>
> This first paper eliminates one of the main IPCC arguments supporting
> an appreciable human contribution to observed warming. The second
> paper focused on the difference (models vs obs) in surface temperature
> trends vs latitude. We found the major disparity to be in the tropics
> and are developing hypotheses to explain this important result.
>
> An additional effort is underway to demonstrate that the claimed
> agreement between the observed temperature history of the 20th century
> and theoretical climate models is likely the result of "curve-fitting"
> through the use of several arbitrarily chosen parameters."
>
> SEPP - 2004

Bit out of date at this stage?

> I could post dozens upon dozens of links though the reality is climate
> change based on modelling is flawed unless we know and understand all
> the variables and parameters. Yet this is the cornerstop that is used
> to show and predict global warming. The fact that there are
> discrepencies between models and historical observations shows the
> models are flawed.
>
> The real scientific evidence is that -- we just don't know; and the
> theories so far, linking man, carbon dioxide and climate warming. are
> specious. There's some seriously bad science going on in the
> environmentalist camp.

You're still wading through all that 10 year old stuff, aren't you?  Was 
Daly your best shot?

There seems to be an assumption that if man-made global warming is real,
then Al Gore's film must be accurate. That's obviously not the case. Science
is quantative, not binary.




J/

SOTW: "When Under Ether" - P.J.Harvey

"Westprog"  wrote in message 
news:ff785s$q1u$1@news.datemas.de...
> There seems to be an assumption that if man-made global warming is real,
> then Al Gore's film must be accurate.

It's just a film.  Why would any intelligent person make this assumption? 
What of all the ones here who have taken it as proof that man made global 
warming is not real just because a film, one fuckin film, is shown to have 
some inaccuracies?

>That's obviously not the case.

What's the word for that - refuting an unmade argument?

On 18 Oct, 03:11, "Ramalamadingdong"  wrote:
> "freeireland"  wrote in message
>
> news:1192661481.925290.163120@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On 17 Oct, 22:17, "Ramalamadingdong"  wrote:
> >> "freeireland"  wrote in message
>
> >>news:1192580293.782708.164640@v29g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > On 16 Oct, 21:03, "Falcon"  wrote:
> >> >> freeireland wrote:
>
> >> 1 What tempature should the planet be?
>
> >> One that won't change too fast for the currently adapted organisms.
>
> > Ok then what rate should that be?
>
> One that won't change too fast.  Ask a stupid question.

Well its not a stupid question at all. How can you tell if something
is changing too fast if you can't even put a figure on what too fast
is? Saying the planet is warming too quickly without this information
is like being stopped by a policeman/woman for speeding when he/she
does not know the speed limit.


>
>
> >> 2 Why is greenland actually called greenland?
>
> >> If you had taken the trouble to find the real reason you wouldn't have
> >> asked
> >> this.  Now that I think of it, why wasn't Iceland called something other
> >> than Iceland around the same time?
>
> > Well actually no? The Icelandic Free State and Althing  where founded
> > in 930 before the discovery of Greenland. As far as I am aware there
> > is evidence of Viking farming in Greenland.
>
> The two written sources on the origin of Greenland as a name for the island,
> in the Íslendingabók, an historical work dealing with early Icelandic
> history from the 12th century, and in the medieval Icelandic saga, The Saga
> of Eric the Red.
>
> Both sources write: "He named the land Greenland, saying that people would
> be eager to go there if it had a good name."

Ok give me a quote and reference.

>
> >> 3 What observations lead them to believe the planet is heating up on
> >> anything other than natural causes?
>
> >> The unprecedented rate, closely coinciding with industrialisation.
>
> > Ok provide some proof of this considering below.
>
> You really are tedious.  You really think there is no proof of increased
> temps?
>

No some areas of the planet have increased though some have actually
cooled? Like the antartic, where I published a link earlier showing
actual temp over a 60 year period. Only one area showed signs of
increased temp (2% of the antartic). Remeber models show temp rises
will be greatest at the poles, so clearly temps at the artictic show
models to be inaccurate.

There is no evidence to suggest the planet is warming as a result of
CO2 or rising at a dangerous or alarming rate (like you nobody can put
a figure on what is an alarming rate),

>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> 4. Why is the Antarctic cooling while all computer modals show effects
> >> of global warming heaviest on the poles?
>
> >> Why is the Antarctic warming despite your assumption to the contrary?
>
> > The Antarctic Peninsula, which looks on maps like an arm reaching from
> > the continent to grab South America, has been growing warmer. In fact,
> > reports in recent years that Antarctica is warming have been based on
> > data from the Peninsula. This is a mere 2% of the entire antartic.
>
> > Heres the data
>
> >http://www.john-daly.com/stations/stations.htm#The%20Antarctic%20Scie...
>
> > Tell me where the temp is actually rising?
>
> Look herehttp://people.aapt.net.au/~johunter/greenhou/home.htmland then
> come back to me about John L. Daly.  You're going out on a very shaky limb!

So then are you going to put Al Gore and the IPCC in the same boat as
Daly. Also this link and I quote "Finally, an excellent site advising
you on ways of assessing a web site for reliability." however the link
does not even work. Infact can you tell me the author of the website.
It even leaves the impression to me at the end it was Hunter. At least
Daly put his name to his work.

>
> On the very site you obliquely mention below, same year, 2004, at random -
>
> http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2004/2004GL021106.shtml
>
> >> 5. How do we expect to believe computer models of an eco system so
> >> complex we only understand a small portion of it? Remember these same
> >> models cannot predict the weather with any accuracy in Ireland over a
> >> week!
>
> >> Weather prediction and the study of climate are not the same things.
>
> > No though they are both extremely complex. Do you really think weather
> > patterns do not affect regional temp? Weather patterns are some of
> > millions of variables that effect climate.
>
> > Computer modelling, which is simply inadequate to factor in all the --
> > literally-- millions of variables that make up climate change.
>
> Says who?
>

"As I said in a presentation I gave in January, at the Science Museum
in Imperial College: Computer modelling for weather forecasting, and
indeed for climate forecasting, has reached its limits.

No amount of improved computer power will get past the really basic
climate inputs. The activity from the Sun, which affects the upper
atmosphere-these things are also modulated by lunar effects for
example. We do take those into account in our forecasts. We have eight
weather periods every month and six or seven out of the eight will be
correct, in any one month."

Piers Corbyn - the originator of the revolutionary solar weather
technique of long-range forecasting and a founder of Weather Action
Long Range Forecasters


"It's completely unsupported by any observation, but it's supported by
computer climate models. In other words, the computer models would
indicate this. The observations do not."

Siegfried Frederick Singer - PHD and Professor Emeritus of
environmental science at the University of Virginia.  Who is the guy
who devised the basic instrument for measuring stratospheric ozone.

So the questions is where does observation prove models are accurate?

>
>
>
>
> >> > Lets for example look at the 1996 IPCC 's "Summary for Policy Makers".
> >> > A cause and effect relationship, though, has been discovered between
> >> > solar activity and global temperatures. Danish climatologists Friis-
> >> > Christensen and K. Lassen (in the 1991 issue of Science)
>
> >> Note, too, that between 1940
>
> >> > and 1980, when man-made levels of CO2 swelled rapidly, there was a
> >> > decline in temperatures.
>
> >> > In 1996 the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- the IPCC
> >> > -- released a document
> >> > In 1998, 17,000 scientists, six of whom are Nobel Laureates, signed
> >> > the Oregon Petition,
>
> >> > In 1999 over ten thousand of the world's most renowned climatologists,
> >> > astrophysicists, meteorologists, etc., signed an open letter
>
> >> Aintcha got anything from this century?
>
> > What are you going to make a strong case for climate change due data
> > taken from the last 7-8 years?
>
> Not data, research. You're refuting today's findings with 10 year old
> papers, including the discredited solar variances.
>
> > "Global warming" was invented in 1988, when it replaced two earlier
> > myths of an imminent plunge into another Ice Age and the threat of a
> > nuclear winter. The new myth was seen to encapsulate a whole range of
> > other myths and attitudes that had developed in the 1960s and 1970s,
> > including "limits to growth," sustainability, neo-Malthusian fears of
> > a population time bomb, pollution, anticorporate anti-Americanism, and
> > an Al Gore-like analysis of human greed disturbing the ecological
> > harmony and balance of the earth."
>
> The new ice age was just that - a piece of sensationalism, it did not
> reflect serious scientific thought even of its time.
>
>

As is global warming, its just todays sensationalism. Plenty of
headlines but very little observational data over a period of time to
form a proof.

Take a look at this video.

http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=172


>
>
>
>
>
> > Professor Philip Stott - Wall Street Journal 2001
>
> > "Two research papers were published in Geophysical Research Letters (9
> > July 2004).
>
> > This first paper eliminates one of the main IPCC arguments supporting
> > an appreciable human contribution to observed warming. The second
> > paper focused on the difference (models vs obs) in surface temperature
> > trends vs latitude. We found the major disparity to be in the tropics
> > and are developing hypotheses to explain this important result.
>
> > An additional effort is underway to demonstrate that the claimed
> > agreement between the observed temperature history of the 20th century
> > and theoretical climate models is likely the result of "curve-fitting"
> > through the use of several arbitrarily chosen parameters."
>
> > SEPP - 2004
>
> Bit out of date at this stage?
>
> > I could post dozens upon dozens of links though the reality is climate
> > change based on modelling is flawed unless we know and understand all
> > the variables and parameters. Yet this is the cornerstop that is used
> > to show and predict global warming. The fact that there are
> > discrepencies between models and historical observations shows the
> > models are flawed.
>
> > The real scientific evidence is that -- we just don't know; and the
> > theories so far, linking man, carbon dioxide and climate warming. are
> > specious. There's some seriously bad science going on in the
> > environmentalist camp.
>
> You're still wading through all that 10 year old stuff, aren't you?  Was
> Daly your best shot?- Hide quoted text -

You have produced no data at all! I used data from the period in
question 1940 - 2000 quite deliberately in direct response to your
claim that temp is related to industrialisation. What period had had
greater industrialistion than 1940 - 2000.

however if you want more recent stuff there is lots of it! take a look
at this,

http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Archibald/climatepastandfuture2.pdf

David Archibald


"Are environmentalists the new imperialists?"

This question was asked by Prof Deepak Lal in his inaugural Julian
Simon Lecture at the Liberty Institute in Delhi

>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Ramalamadingdong wrote:
> "Westprog"  wrote in message
> news:ff785s$q1u$1@news.datemas.de...
>> There seems to be an assumption that if man-made global warming is
>> real, then Al Gore's film must be accurate.
>
> It's just a film.  Why would any intelligent person make this
> assumption?

I don't know that they would, but Gore said pretty much that. He's claiming
that anyone who's denying his film is denying MMGW, and anyone who accepts
MMGW is supportive of his film.

> What of all the ones here who have taken it as proof that
> man made global warming is not real just because a film, one fuckin
> film, is shown to have some inaccuracies?

That's clearly also invalid reasoning. In fact, it's the same invalid
reasoning.


>> That's obviously not the case.

> What's the word for that - refuting an unmade argument?

See title of thread.

If Gore is to get the Nobel prize for the film, that does a lot to associate
the film with the cause.

-- 



J/

SOTW: "When Under Ether" - P.J.Harvey

"freeireland"  wrote in message 
news:1192740491.762182.173780@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On 18 Oct, 03:11, "Ramalamadingdong"  wrote:
> "freeireland"  wrote in message
>
> news:1192661481.925290.163120@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On 17 Oct, 22:17, "Ramalamadingdong"  wrote:
> >> "freeireland"  wrote in message
>
> >>news:1192580293.782708.164640@v29g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > On 16 Oct, 21:03, "Falcon"  wrote:
> >> >> freeireland wrote:
>
> >> 1 What tempature should the planet be?
>
> >> One that won't change too fast for the currently adapted organisms.
>
> > Ok then what rate should that be?
>
> One that won't change too fast.  Ask a stupid question.

Well its not a stupid question at all. How can you tell if something
is changing too fast if you can't even put a figure on what too fast
is? Saying the planet is warming too quickly without this information
is like being stopped by a policeman/woman for speeding when he/she
does not know the speed limit.

Do you have to know the speed limit when you hit a bend that you can't take?

> >> 2 Why is greenland actually called greenland?
>
> >> If you had taken the trouble to find the real reason you wouldn't have
> >> asked
> >> this.  Now that I think of it, why wasn't Iceland called something 
> >> other
> >> than Iceland around the same time?
>
> > Well actually no? The Icelandic Free State and Althing  where founded
> > in 930 before the discovery of Greenland. As far as I am aware there
> > is evidence of Viking farming in Greenland.
>
> The two written sources on the origin of Greenland as a name for the 
> island,
> in the Íslendingabók, an historical work dealing with early Icelandic
> history from the 12th century, and in the medieval Icelandic saga, The 
> Saga
> of Eric the Red.
>
> Both sources write: "He named the land Greenland, saying that people would
> be eager to go there if it had a good name."

Ok give me a quote and reference.

Oh for fuck sake.


> >> 3 What observations lead them to believe the planet is heating up on
> >> anything other than natural causes?
>
> >> The unprecedented rate, closely coinciding with industrialisation.
>
> > Ok provide some proof of this considering below.
>
> You really are tedious.  You really think there is no proof of increased
> temps?
>

OK I don't have time for your tedious outdated twaddlings, let's just go 
straight to one of your sites, 'Friends of Science' - 
http://www.friendsofscience.org/  .

What exactly does the graph at the bottom of the page say to you?  Try to be 
succinct because you're a boring bastard when you get started and I've got a 
pain in the arse wading through your semi-literate ramblings.  Just a 
sentence or two will do.

"Westprog"  wrote in message 
news:ff8mi3$ned$1@news.datemas.de...
> Ramalamadingdong wrote:
>> "Westprog"  wrote in message
>> news:ff785s$q1u$1@news.datemas.de...
>>> There seems to be an assumption that if man-made global warming is
>>> real, then Al Gore's film must be accurate.
>>
>> It's just a film.  Why would any intelligent person make this
>> assumption?
>
> I don't know that they would, but Gore said pretty much that. He's 
> claiming
> that anyone who's denying his film is denying MMGW, and anyone who accepts
> MMGW is supportive of his film.

That's not the same thing at all, and you know it.

>> What of all the ones here who have taken it as proof that
>> man made global warming is not real just because a film, one fuckin
>> film, is shown to have some inaccuracies?
>
> That's clearly also invalid reasoning. In fact, it's the same invalid
> reasoning.

Ex-bleedin-zackly.  The only difference being that posters here ARE actually 
doing it, but I don't see anyone doing what you claim - saying that the film 
must be accurate if GW if real.

>>> That's obviously not the case.
>
>> What's the word for that - refuting an unmade argument?
>
> See title of thread.

The film IS inaccurate - so what.  I've no intention of watching it, I have 
absolutely zero interest in it.  Al Gore is not the IPCC, the IPCC is not Al 
Gore.  If the film predicted fairies will fly out of our arses any day now, 
it still doesn't matter a jot to the reality of global warming one way or 
another.  It's just a fucking film, build that bridge and get over it.

> If Gore is to get the Nobel prize for the film, that does a lot to 
> associate
> the film with the cause.

As opposed to it's previous association with what exactly?

Ramalamadingdong wrote:
...

>>> What of all the ones here who have taken it as proof that
>>> man made global warming is not real just because a film, one fuckin
>>> film, is shown to have some inaccuracies?

>> That's clearly also invalid reasoning. In fact, it's the same invalid
>> reasoning.

> Ex-bleedin-zackly.  The only difference being that posters here ARE
> actually doing it, but I don't see anyone doing what you claim -
> saying that the film must be accurate if GW if real.

Gore is doing it, for a start.

>>>> That's obviously not the case.

>>> What's the word for that - refuting an unmade argument?

>> See title of thread.

> The film IS inaccurate - so what.  I've no intention of watching it,
> I have absolutely zero interest in it.  Al Gore is not the IPCC, the
> IPCC is not Al Gore.

However, Gore got the Nobel. He's been promoted from a self-serving
politician riding on the coattails of a popular cause to the semi-official
spokesman.

> If the film predicted fairies will fly out of
> our arses any day now, it still doesn't matter a jot to the reality
> of global warming one way or another.  It's just a fucking film,
> build that bridge and get over it.

>> If Gore is to get the Nobel prize for the film, that does a lot to
>> associate
>> the film with the cause.

> As opposed to it's previous association with what exactly?

Gore for president.


--




J/

SOTW: "When Under Ether" - P.J.Harvey

On Oct 19, 2:41 am, "Ramalamadingdong"  wrote:
> "freeireland"  wrote in message
>
> news:1192740491.762182.173780@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On 18 Oct, 03:11, "Ramalamadingdong"  wrote:
>
>
>
> > "freeireland"  wrote in message
>
> >news:1192661481.925290.163120@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > On 17 Oct, 22:17, "Ramalamadingdong"  wrote:
> > >> "freeireland"  wrote in message
>
> > >>news:1192580293.782708.164640@v29g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
> > >> > On 16 Oct, 21:03, "Falcon"  wrote:
> > >> >> freeireland wrote:
>
> > >> 1 What tempature should the planet be?
>
> > >> One that won't change too fast for the currently adapted organisms.
>
> > > Ok then what rate should that be?
>
> > One that won't change too fast.  Ask a stupid question.
>
> Well its not a stupid question at all. How can you tell if something
> is changing too fast if you can't even put a figure on what too fast
> is? Saying the planet is warming too quickly without this information
> is like being stopped by a policeman/woman for speeding when he/she
> does not know the speed limit.
>
> Do you have to know the speed limit when you hit a bend that you can't take?
>

I have to know what speed I can take the bend at!

So what your saying is you have no idea what temp the planet should
be, how fast it should be heating up or cooling down at or what level
of CO2 should be in the atmosphere.

>
>
> > >> 2 Why is greenland actually called greenland?
>
> > >> If you had taken the trouble to find the real reason you wouldn't have
> > >> asked
> > >> this.  Now that I think of it, why wasn't Iceland called something
> > >> other
> > >> than Iceland around the same time?
>
> > > Well actually no? The Icelandic Free State and Althing  where founded
> > > in 930 before the discovery of Greenland. As far as I am aware there
> > > is evidence of Viking farming in Greenland.
>
> > The two written sources on the origin of Greenland as a name for the
> > island,
> > in the Íslendingabók, an historical work dealing with early Icelandic
> > history from the 12th century, and in the medieval Icelandic saga, The
> > Saga
> > of Eric the Red.
>
> > Both sources write: "He named the land Greenland, saying that people would
> > be eager to go there if it had a good name."
>
> Ok give me a quote and reference.
>
> Oh for fuck sake.

Core samples show that Greenland then is like today and was actually
farmed and is a theory why it was calle Greenland. Of course only a
theory.

You claim there are two sources of claiming Eric the Red named it for
colonial reasons then why not give me the sources so I can read them.

>
> > >> 3 What observations lead them to believe the planet is heating up on
> > >> anything other than natural causes?
>
> > >> The unprecedented rate, closely coinciding with industrialisation.
>
> > > Ok provide some proof of this considering below.
>
> > You really are tedious.  You really think there is no proof of increased
> > temps?
>
> OK I don't have time for your tedious outdated twaddlings, let's just go
> straight to one of your sites, 'Friends of Science' -http://www.friendsofscience.org/ .
>
> What exactly does the graph at the bottom of the page say to you?  Try to be
> succinct because you're a boring bastard when you get started and I've got a
> pain in the arse wading through your semi-literate ramblings.  Just a
> sentence or two will do.

Its quite simple as it maps temp anomaly due to sunspots not CO2. Its
quite clear really. The map also shows temp drop during constant
rising CO2 totally dispelling the link between that planets temp and
CO2 levels.

Also I have a mother and father so am not a bastard though flaming is
a good way to show global warming is directly linked to man made
CO2!

Though you have demonstrated the emotive nature of of global warming
and climate change and the many wild and misunderstood claims. Heres a
very good paper by Professor deFreitas

http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/deFreitas.pdf


I believe in reducing CO2's however as I believe we should interfere
with the planet as little as possible. However to push the global
warming myth over the massive over use and disposing of non
biodegradable plastics, chemical or radioactive waste is madness.
Global warming is a politicans dream, its a way of getting votes by
increasing taxes.

"freeireland"  wrote in message 
news:1192801377.811895.17040@k35g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 19, 2:41 am, "Ramalamadingdong"  wrote:
>
> > >> 1 What tempature should the planet be?
>
> > >> One that won't change too fast for the currently adapted organisms.
>
> > > Ok then what rate should that be?
>
> > One that won't change too fast.  Ask a stupid question.
>
> Well its not a stupid question at all. How can you tell if something
> is changing too fast if you can't even put a figure on what too fast
> is? Saying the planet is warming too quickly without this information
> is like being stopped by a policeman/woman for speeding when he/she
> does not know the speed limit.
>
> Do you have to know the speed limit when you hit a bend that you can't 
> take?
>

I have to know what speed I can take the bend at!

So what your saying is you have no idea what temp the planet should
be, how fast it should be heating up or cooling down at or what level
of CO2 should be in the atmosphere.

Your words, not mine.  I said nothing of the kind.

> > >> 2 Why is greenland actually called greenland?
>
> > >> If you had taken the trouble to find the real reason you wouldn't 
> > >> have
> > >> asked
> > >> this.  Now that I think of it, why wasn't Iceland called something
> > >> other
> > >> than Iceland around the same time?
>
> > > Well actually no? The Icelandic Free State and Althing  where founded
> > > in 930 before the discovery of Greenland. As far as I am aware there
> > > is evidence of Viking farming in Greenland.
>
> > The two written sources on the origin of Greenland as a name for the
> > island,
> > in the Íslendingabók, an historical work dealing with early Icelandic
> > history from the 12th century, and in the medieval Icelandic saga, The
> > Saga
> > of Eric the Red.
>
> > Both sources write: "He named the land Greenland, saying that people 
> > would
> > be eager to go there if it had a good name."
>
> Ok give me a quote and reference.
>
> Oh for fuck sake.

Core samples show that Greenland then is like today and was actually
farmed and is a theory why it was calle Greenland. Of course only a
theory.

So what?  I know where you think you're going on this, but it's still one 
big so what.

You claim there are two sources of claiming Eric the Red named it for
colonial reasons then why not give me the sources so I can read them.

Try reading back about 15 lines or so, that might be a good start.

> > >> 3 What observations lead them to believe the planet is heating up on
> > >> anything other than natural causes?
>
> > >> The unprecedented rate, closely coinciding with industrialisation.
>
> > > Ok provide some proof of this considering below.
>
> > You really are tedious.  You really think there is no proof of increased
> > temps?
>
> OK I don't have time for your tedious outdated twaddlings, let's just go
> straight to one of your sites, 'Friends of 
> Science' -http://www.friendsofscience.org/ .
>
> What exactly does the graph at the bottom of the page say to you?  Try to 
> be
> succinct because you're a boring bastard when you get started and I've got 
> a
> pain in the arse wading through your semi-literate ramblings.  Just a
> sentence or two will do.

Its quite simple as it maps temp anomaly due to sunspots not CO2. Its
quite clear really. The map also shows temp drop during constant
rising CO2 totally dispelling the link between that planets temp and
CO2 levels.

Does it really?  Have another look, and while you're at it, see if you can 
find why it stops at 1980, and then for fun - find out what happened next.

Also I have a mother and father so am not a bastard though flaming is
a good way to show global warming is directly linked to man made
CO2!

Everyone's got parents - even tedious bastards like you.

Global warming is a politicans dream, its a way of getting votes by
increasing taxes.

Is there a word for compulsive cut and pasting?  There really should be.

"Westprog"  wrote in message 
news:ff9vjr$o5k$1@news.datemas.de...
> Ramalamadingdong wrote:
> ...
>
>>>> What of all the ones here who have taken it as proof that
>>>> man made global warming is not real just because a film, one fuckin
>>>> film, is shown to have some inaccuracies?
>
>>> That's clearly also invalid reasoning. In fact, it's the same invalid
>>> reasoning.
>
>> Ex-bleedin-zackly.  The only difference being that posters here ARE
>> actually doing it, but I don't see anyone doing what you claim -
>> saying that the film must be accurate if GW if real.
>
> Gore is doing it, for a start.

Really, even now?  Not to doubt you, but did he actually say that?  If so 
why didn't you just say that instead of

"There seems to be an assumption that if man-made global warming is real, 
then Al Gore's film must be accurate"?

Is anyone else making this assumption?

>>>>> That's obviously not the case.
>
>>>> What's the word for that - refuting an unmade argument?
>
>>> See title of thread.
>
>> The film IS inaccurate - so what.  I've no intention of watching it,
>> I have absolutely zero interest in it.  Al Gore is not the IPCC, the
>> IPCC is not Al Gore.
>
> However, Gore got the Nobel. He's been promoted from a self-serving
> politician riding on the coattails of a popular cause to the semi-official
> spokesman.

That's hardly fair.  Ex-politician by now, and to give him his due, has been 
banging on about GW long before it was popular or profitable.

>> If the film predicted fairies will fly out of
>> our arses any day now, it still doesn't matter a jot to the reality
>> of global warming one way or another.  It's just a fucking film,
>> build that bridge and get over it.
>
>>> If Gore is to get the Nobel prize for the film, that does a lot to
>>> associate
>>> the film with the cause.
>
>> As opposed to it's previous association with what exactly?
>
> Gore for president.

Yeah, that's really working.

On Oct 19, 1:41 am, "Ramalamadingdong"  wrote:
> "freeireland"  wrote in message
>
> news:1192740491.762182.173780@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On 18 Oct, 03:11, "Ramalamadingdong"  wrote:
>
>
> > >> 2 Why is greenland actually called greenland?
>
> > >> If you had taken the trouble to find the real reason you wouldn't have
> > >> asked
> > >> this.  Now that I think of it, why wasn'tIcelandcalled something
> > >> other
> > >> thanIcelandaround the same time?
>
> > > Well actually no? TheIcelandicFree State and Althing  where founded
> > > in 930 before the discovery of Greenland. As far as I am aware there
> > > is evidence of Viking farming in Greenland.
>
> > The two written sources on the origin of Greenland as a name for the
> > island,
> > in the Íslendingabók, an historical work dealing with earlyIcelandic
> > history from the 12th century, and in the medievalIcelandicsaga, The
> > Saga
> > of Eric the Red.
>
> > Both sources write: "He named the land Greenland, saying that people would
> > be eager to go there if it had a good name."
>
> Ok give me a quote and reference.

Íslendingasögur, fyrra bindi, bls 520: "Það sumar fór Eiríkur að
byggja landið það er hann hafði fundið og það kallaði hann Grænland
því að hann kvað menn það mjög mundu fýsa þangað ef landið héti vel"