And when you do you'll get a face-full of reality. You are too easy.

Bonzo wrote:
> And when you do you'll get a face-full of reality. You are too easy.
when humans start dropping like flies you'll see it is to late for 
planet earth

M  wrote:

>Bonzo wrote:
>> And when you do you'll get a face-full of reality. You are too easy.
>
>when humans start dropping like flies you'll see it is to late for 
>planet earth

          Please learn to use the ENTER key to move to a new line
and insert a blank line.

          If you wrote what I moved down a line, then you must be 
really kooky, humans dropping from what, the heat?

          Unfortunately the local news reported the death of a runner
in a race where the temperature was above average without the
mention of the fact the person had a faulty heart valve and should
not have been running in a race at all.

           The race had been run in the last week of October, but
was moved up two weeks so it would not be so cold.

           There will be mass die-offs, but more likely due to disease,
tsunamis, asteroid or comet impacts.

On Oct 8, 8:40 pm, Martin Barr-David  wrote:
> Bonzo wrote:
> > And when you do you'll get a face-full of reality. You are too easy.
>
> when humans start dropping like flies you'll see it is to late for
> planet earth

Martin - Why "too late for planet earth" ?

 ?????

I don't think any of the mainstream AGW researchers are saying this.
They seem to assume that "planet earth" will keep on existing.

But if AGW generates severe floods, droughts, hurricanes and other
"extreme weather events" that cause massive destruction to coastal
areas and also disrupt global agriculture, hundreds of millions of
human beings may be really badly hurt by it.

Similarly for the polar bears, the arctic seals, and many other
endangered plant and animal species which would see their habitats
wiped out by climate change.

And if human civilization lets AGW proceed far enough to melt the
Greenland ice cap or the Antarctic ice cap, or both, thus releasing
enough melted ice water into the oceans to raise their level by up to
200 feet, our grandchildren and their grandchildren could see
enormously destructive flooding of heavily populated coastal regions
around the world.

That would be an incredible, worldwide disaster unfolding in slow
motion -- it would result in horrendous numbers of premature human
deaths and great destruction of wildlife -- but it wouldn't end
"planet earth."

At least as far as what the mainstream AGW scientists seem to be
saying, the planet would survive, and some of the living things on it,
too, and probably even a fair number of human beings.  But the total
destruction done by a runaway greenhouse effect could be considerable.

"john fernbach"  wrote in message
news:1191893044.582912.212440@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 8, 8:40 pm, Martin Barr-David  wrote:
> > Bonzo wrote:
> > > And when you do you'll get a face-full of reality. You are
too easy.
> > when humans start dropping like flies you'll see it is to
late for
> > planet earth
> Martin - Why "too late for planet earth" ?
>  ?????
> I don't think any of the mainstream AGW researchers are saying
this.
> They seem to assume that "planet earth" will keep on existing.
> But if AGW generates severe floods, droughts, hurricanes and
other
> "extreme weather events" that cause massive destruction to
coastal
> areas and also disrupt global agriculture, hundreds of millions
of
> human beings may be really badly hurt by it.

There have been severe floods, droughts, hurricanes and other
"extreme weather events" for eons.
What's your point?

> Similarly for the polar bears, the arctic seals, and many other
> endangered plant and animal species which would see their
habitats
> wiped out by climate change.

They survived the big melt of the thirties OK.
What's your point?

> And if human civilization lets AGW proceed far enough to melt
the
> Greenland ice cap or the Antarctic ice cap, or both, thus
releasing
> enough melted ice water into the oceans to raise their level by
up to
> 200 feet,

It won't happen. Greenland is melting at 0.14% per century and
slowing. Antarctica, along with the whole southern hemsiphere is
cooling.
What's your point?

> our grandchildren and their grandchildren could see
> enormously destructive flooding of heavily populated coastal
regions
> around the world.
> That would be an incredible, worldwide disaster unfolding in
slow
> motion --
-- 
Oh Puhleeeeeeeze!
Cut the crap!


Regards

Bonzo

"There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and
Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact,
when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now,
about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the
absolute coldest period in the last half billion years. . On the
basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the
recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major
cause of the past century's modest warming?" Professor Tim
Patterson, aleoclimatologist, Carleton University, Appearing
before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable
Development

"Bonzo"  wrote
> And when you do you'll get a face-full of reality. You are too easy.


"HangEveryRepubliKKKan"  wrote
>> 1998 14.57  *********************o*****
>> 1999 14.33  *****************>>>>o
>> 2000 14.33  *****************>>>>>o
>> 2001 14.48  ************************o
>> 2002 14.56  *************************o**
>> 2003 14.55  **************************o*
>> 2004 14.49  *************************>>o
>> 2005 14.63  *****************************o**
>> 2006 14.54  ***************************>>>o
>>
>>   Look at all those "o"'s lined up there.

"Bonzo"  wrote
> The "0"'s are NOT THE DATA!
> They have created a trend which does not exist in the data.
> Voodoo statistics!

  Ahahahahahahahahaha... Stupid KKKonservative KKKlown. A trendline skirts
across the top of the data leaving equal portions of the data above and
below.  In this instane 10 dots above, and 14 below as a result of the crude
nature of ascii graphics.  Nevertheless it represents the best line that can
be fitted to the data based on minimizing the square of the distance between
the line and the real data.  It's called a least squares curve fit.

  You are completely ignorant when it comes to statistics and mathematics in
general aren't you Bonzo.

  Ahahahahahaha.. You don't know what statistics are, where it comes from,
how it is used, or how to use it, and yet in your vast ignorance, you seem
to think that you know more about science than all of the worlds scientists.

  "Voodoo statistics"  Ahahahahahahahah...  You need to go back to public
school and take a refresher course in basic technical literacy.

  Stupid... Stupid.. KKKonservative KKKlown....


"Bonzo"  wrote
> Here is the data which shows NO TREND!
>
> 1998 366.50 2.5721     14.57
> 1999 368.14 2.6148     14.33
> 2000 369.41 2.6399     14.33
> 2001 371.07 2.6672     14.48
> 2002 373.16 2.7032     14.56
> 2003 375.80 2.7487     14.55
> 2004 377.55 NA            14.49
> 2005 379.75 NA            14.63
> 2006 381.90 NA            14.54

  No?  Lets plot the data and find out shall we?  Here it is along with the
best linear fit to the data shown as "o".

1998 14.57  *********************o*****
1999 14.33  *****************>>>>o
2000 14.33  *****************>>>>>o
2001 14.48  ************************o
2002 14.56  *************************o**
2003 14.55  **************************o*
2004 14.49  *************************>>o
2005 14.63  *****************************o**
2006 14.54  ***************************>>>o

Look at all those "o"'s lined up there. The trend is up, Up, UP.

So Bonzo, who is paying you to post lies to this newsgroup?

"HangEveryRepubliKKKan"  wrote
>> 1998 14.57  *********************o*****
>> 1999 14.33  *****************>>>>o
>> 2000 14.33  *****************>>>>>o
>> 2001 14.48  ************************o
>> 2002 14.56  *************************o**
>> 2003 14.55  **************************o*
>> 2004 14.49  *************************>>o
>> 2005 14.63  *****************************o**
>> 2006 14.54  ***************************>>>o
>>
>>   Look at all those "o"'s lined up there.

"Bonzo"  wrote
> The "0"'s are NOT THE DATA!
> They have created a trend which does not exist in the data.
> Voodoo statistics!

  Ahahahahahahahahaha... Stupid KKKonservative KKKlown. A trendline skirts
across the top of the data leaving equal portions of the data above and
below.  In this instane 10 dots above, and 14 below as a result of the crude
nature of ascii graphics.  Nevertheless it represents the best line that can
be fitted to the data based on minimizing the square of the distance between
the line and the real data.  It's called a least squares curve fit.

  You are completely ignorant when it comes to statistics and mathematics in
general aren't you Bonzo.

  Ahahahahahaha.. You don't know what statistics are, where it comes from,
how it is used, or how to use it, and yet in your vast ignorance, you seem
to think that you know more about science than all of the worlds scientists.

  "Voodoo statistics"  Ahahahahahahahah...  You need to go back to public
school and take a refresher course in basic technical literacy.

  Stupid... Stupid.. KKKonservative KKKlown....


"Bonzo"  wrote
> Here is the data which shows NO TREND!
>
> 1998 366.50 2.5721     14.57
> 1999 368.14 2.6148     14.33
> 2000 369.41 2.6399     14.33
> 2001 371.07 2.6672     14.48
> 2002 373.16 2.7032     14.56
> 2003 375.80 2.7487     14.55
> 2004 377.55 NA            14.49
> 2005 379.75 NA            14.63
> 2006 381.90 NA            14.54

  No?  Lets plot the data and find out shall we?  Here it is along with the
best linear fit to the data shown as "o".

1998 14.57  *********************o*****
1999 14.33  *****************>>>>o
2000 14.33  *****************>>>>>o
2001 14.48  ************************o
2002 14.56  *************************o**
2003 14.55  **************************o*
2004 14.49  *************************>>o
2005 14.63  *****************************o**
2006 14.54  ***************************>>>o

Look at all those "o"'s lined up there. The trend is up, Up, UP.

So Bonzo, who is paying you to post lies to this newsgroup?

"HangEveryRepubliKKKan"  wrote
in message news:6fBOi.5089$9F1.2797@read1.cgocable.net...
>

So how do I collect?

Looks like a horizontal line to me!

Look at how global temperatures have plateaued since 1998!

1998 14.57    IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
1999 14.33    IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
2000 14.33    IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
2001 14.48    IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
2002 14.56    IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
2003 14.55    IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
2004 14.49    IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
2005 14.63    IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
2006 14.54    IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII


Regards

Bonzo

In a 1996 report by the UN on global warming, two statements were
deleted from the final draft. Here they are:
1. "None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that
we can attribute  the observed climate changes to increases in
greenhouse gases."
2. "No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the
climate change to man-made causes"

"HangEveryRepubliKKKan"  wrote
in message news:zhBOi.5093$9F1.1948@read1.cgocable.net...
>
> "HangEveryRepubliKKKan" 
wrote
> >> 1998 14.57  *********************o*****
> >> 1999 14.33  *****************>>>>o
> >> 2000 14.33  *****************>>>>>o
> >> 2001 14.48  ************************o
> >> 2002 14.56  *************************o**
> >> 2003 14.55  **************************o*
> >> 2004 14.49  *************************>>o
> >> 2005 14.63  *****************************o**
> >> 2006 14.54  ***************************>>>o
> >>
> >>   Look at all those "o"'s lined up there.
>
Looks like a horizontal line to me!

1998 14.57    IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
1999 14.33    IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
2000 14.33    IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
2001 14.48    IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
2002 14.56    IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
2003 14.55    IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
2004 14.49    IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
2005 14.63    IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
2006 14.54    IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII


Regards

Bonzo

In a 1996 report by the UN on global warming, two statements were
deleted from the final draft. Here they are:
1. "None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that
we can attribute  the observed climate changes to increases in
greenhouse gases."
2. "No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the
climate change to man-made causes"

john fernbach wrote:

> On Oct 8, 8:40 pm, Martin Barr-David
>  wrote:
>> Bonzo wrote:
>> > And when you do you'll get a face-full of
>> > reality. You are too easy.
>>
>> when humans start dropping like flies you'll
>> see it is to late for planet earth
> 
> Martin - Why "too late for planet earth" ?
> 
>  ?????
> 
> I don't think any of the mainstream AGW
> researchers are saying this. They seem to assume
> that "planet earth" will keep on existing.
> 
> But if AGW generates severe floods, droughts,
> hurricanes and other "extreme weather events"
> that cause massive destruction to coastal areas
> and also disrupt global agriculture, hundreds of
> millions of human beings may be really badly
> hurt by it.
> 
> Similarly for the polar bears, the arctic seals,
> and many other endangered plant and animal
> species which would see their habitats wiped out
> by climate change.
> 
> And if human civilization lets AGW proceed far
> enough to melt the Greenland ice cap or the
> Antarctic ice cap, or both, thus releasing
> enough melted ice water into the oceans to raise
> their level by up to 200 feet, our grandchildren
> and their grandchildren could see enormously
> destructive flooding of heavily populated
> coastal regions around the world.
> 
> That would be an incredible, worldwide disaster
> unfolding in slow motion -- it would result in
> horrendous numbers of premature human deaths and
> great destruction of wildlife -- but it wouldn't
> end "planet earth."
> 
> At least as far as what the mainstream AGW
> scientists seem to be saying, the planet would
> survive, and some of the living things on it,
> too, and probably even a fair number of human
> beings.  But the total destruction done by a
> runaway greenhouse effect could be considerable.

It's all mute.  George W. Bush believes he is
god's instrument in bringing about Armageddon. 
The end is going to be a mere 15 months from now
- or less.

"HangEveryRepubliKKKan"  wrote
>> 1998 14.57  *********************o*****
>> 1999 14.33  *****************>>>>o
>> 2000 14.33  *****************>>>>>o
>> 2001 14.48  ************************o
>> 2002 14.56  *************************o**
>> 2003 14.55  **************************o*
>> 2004 14.49  *************************>>o
>> 2005 14.63  *****************************o**
>> 2006 14.54  ***************************>>>o
>>
>>   Look at all those "o"'s lined up there.

"Bonzo"  wrote
> The "0"'s are NOT THE DATA!
> They have created a trend which does not exist in the data.
> Voodoo statistics!

  Ahahahahahahahahaha... Stupid KKKonservative KKKlown. A trendline skirts
across the top of the data leaving equal portions of the data above and
below.  In this instane 10 dots above, and 14 below as a result of the crude
nature of ascii graphics.  Nevertheless it represents the best line that can
be fitted to the data based on minimizing the square of the distance between
the line and the real data.  It's called a least squares curve fit.

  You are completely ignorant when it comes to statistics and mathematics in
general aren't you Bonzo.

  Ahahahahahaha.. You don't know what statistics are, where it comes from,
how it is used, or how to use it, and yet in your vast ignorance, you seem
to think that you know more about science than all of the worlds scientists.

  "Voodoo statistics"  Ahahahahahahahah...  You need to go back to public
school and take a refresher course in basic technical literacy.

  Stupid... Stupid.. KKKonservative KKKlown....


"Bonzo"  wrote
> Here is the data which shows NO TREND!
>
> 1998 366.50 2.5721     14.57
> 1999 368.14 2.6148     14.33
> 2000 369.41 2.6399     14.33
> 2001 371.07 2.6672     14.48
> 2002 373.16 2.7032     14.56
> 2003 375.80 2.7487     14.55
> 2004 377.55 NA            14.49
> 2005 379.75 NA            14.63
> 2006 381.90 NA            14.54

  No?  Lets plot the data and find out shall we?  Here it is along with the
best linear fit to the data shown as "o".

1998 14.57  *********************o*****
1999 14.33  *****************>>>>o
2000 14.33  *****************>>>>>o
2001 14.48  ************************o
2002 14.56  *************************o**
2003 14.55  **************************o*
2004 14.49  *************************>>o
2005 14.63  *****************************o**
2006 14.54  ***************************>>>o

Look at all those "o"'s lined up there. The trend is up, Up, UP.

So Bonzo, who is paying you to post lies to this newsgroup?

"HangEveryRepubliKKKan"  wrote
>> 1998 14.57  *********************o*****
>> 1999 14.33  *****************>>>>o
>> 2000 14.33  *****************>>>>>o
>> 2001 14.48  ************************o
>> 2002 14.56  *************************o**
>> 2003 14.55  **************************o*
>> 2004 14.49  *************************>>o
>> 2005 14.63  *****************************o**
>> 2006 14.54  ***************************>>>o
>>
>>   Look at all those "o"'s lined up there.

"Bonzo"  wrote
> The "0"'s are NOT THE DATA!
> They have created a trend which does not exist in the data.
> Voodoo statistics!

  Ahahahahahahahahaha... Stupid KKKonservative KKKlown. A trendline skirts
across the top of the data leaving equal portions of the data above and
below.  In this instane 10 dots above, and 14 below as a result of the crude
nature of ascii graphics.  Nevertheless it represents the best line that can
be fitted to the data based on minimizing the square of the distance between
the line and the real data.  It's called a least squares curve fit.

  You are completely ignorant when it comes to statistics and mathematics in
general aren't you Bonzo.

  Ahahahahahaha.. You don't know what statistics are, where it comes from,
how it is used, or how to use it, and yet in your vast ignorance, you seem
to think that you know more about science than all of the worlds scientists.

  "Voodoo statistics"  Ahahahahahahahah...  You need to go back to public
school and take a refresher course in basic technical literacy.

  Stupid... Stupid.. KKKonservative KKKlown....


"Bonzo"  wrote
> Here is the data which shows NO TREND!
>
> 1998 366.50 2.5721     14.57
> 1999 368.14 2.6148     14.33
> 2000 369.41 2.6399     14.33
> 2001 371.07 2.6672     14.48
> 2002 373.16 2.7032     14.56
> 2003 375.80 2.7487     14.55
> 2004 377.55 NA            14.49
> 2005 379.75 NA            14.63
> 2006 381.90 NA            14.54

  No?  Lets plot the data and find out shall we?  Here it is along with the
best linear fit to the data shown as "o".

1998 14.57  *********************o*****
1999 14.33  *****************>>>>o
2000 14.33  *****************>>>>>o
2001 14.48  ************************o
2002 14.56  *************************o**
2003 14.55  **************************o*
2004 14.49  *************************>>o
2005 14.63  *****************************o**
2006 14.54  ***************************>>>o

Look at all those "o"'s lined up there. The trend is up, Up, UP.

So Bonzo, who is paying you to post lies to this newsgroup?

john fernbach wrote:
> On Oct 8, 8:40 pm, Martin Barr-David  wrote:
>> Bonzo wrote:
>>> And when you do you'll get a face-full of reality. You are too easy.
>> when humans start dropping like flies you'll see it is to late for
>> planet earth
> 
> Martin - Why "too late for planet earth" ?
> 
>  ?????
> 
> I don't think any of the mainstream AGW researchers are saying this.

Surely you've heard the term 'tipping point'? I'm pretty sure Al
Gore's not talking about his wife.

> They seem to assume that "planet earth" will keep on existing.

I don't get that impression at all, it's doomsday scenarios all the
way down.

> But if AGW generates severe floods, droughts, hurricanes and other
> "extreme weather events" that cause massive destruction to coastal
> areas and also disrupt global agriculture, hundreds of millions of
> human beings may be really badly hurt by it.

As if these things have not been happening all along.

One big difference is that today we have 6+ billion humans and every
flood plain is heavily populated.

> Similarly for the polar bears, the arctic seals, and many other
> endangered plant and animal species which would see their habitats
> wiped out by climate change.

As will eventually happen anyway, man or not. Think about it John.

> And if human civilization lets AGW proceed far enough to melt the
> Greenland ice cap or the Antarctic ice cap, or both, thus releasing
> enough melted ice water into the oceans to raise their level by up to
> 200 feet, our grandchildren and their grandchildren could see
> enormously destructive flooding of heavily populated coastal regions
> around the world.

So you advocate killing ourselves today because we might die tomorrow?

> That would be an incredible, worldwide disaster unfolding in slow
> motion -- 

I've seen The Day Before Tomorrow, it'll happen in a few weeks.

> it would result in horrendous numbers of premature human deaths

So will destroying their livelihoods and food supply, the only
difference is that destroying their livelihoods and food supply
is certain and much much quicker.

> and great destruction of wildlife -- but it wouldn't end
> "planet earth."

All good things must come to an end John, the sun is scheduled to
go red giant in retirement and the earth is toast, unless the
Vogons build their intergalactic bypass first.

> At least as far as what the mainstream AGW scientists seem to be
> saying, the planet would survive, and some of the living things on it,
> too, and probably even a fair number of human beings.  But the total
> destruction done by a runaway greenhouse effect could be considerable.

The earths climate has always been changing John, and it's affected
man all along. There is one scientist (who's name I forget) who claims
that what brought the Inca empire to an end was not war and decay,
but drought. Imagine that, no water, no food, no civilization. Seems
that things were changing even back then.

Cheers,

Rich

Rich wrote:
> john fernbach wrote:
>> On Oct 8, 8:40 pm, Martin Barr-David  wrote:
>>> Bonzo wrote:

>> and great destruction of wildlife -- but it wouldn't end
>> "planet earth."
> 
> All good things must come to an end John, the sun is scheduled to
> go red giant in retirement and the earth is toast, unless the
> Vogons build their intergalactic bypass first.

I'm working on a shield for that, but don't bet the farm on it.

"Rich"  wrote
> So you advocate killing ourselves today because we might die tomorrow?

  Look at Chicken Little claiming the Economic sky will fall.

IPCC TAR (Synthesis Report) suggested values of $78bn to $1141bn annual 
mitigation costs, amounting to 0.2% to 3.5% of current world GDP (which is 
around $35 trillion), or 0.3% to 4.5% of GDP if borne by the richest nations 
alone. As economic growth is expected to continue, the percentage would 
fall. In terms of cost per tonne of carbon emission avoided, the range (for 
a target of 550ppm) is $18 to $80.

"HangEveryRepubliKKKan"  wrote in message 
news:2efRi.8295$xa2.1723@read2.cgocable.net...
>
> "Rich"  wrote
>> So you advocate killing ourselves today because we might die tomorrow?
>
>  Look at Chicken Little claiming the Economic sky will fall.

  Same ridiculous lie they've all been telling for a year.  lol


>
> IPCC TAR (Synthesis Report) suggested values of $78bn to $1141bn annual 
> mitigation costs, amounting to 0.2% to 3.5% of current world GDP (which is 
> around $35 trillion), or 0.3% to 4.5% of GDP if borne by the richest 
> nations alone. As economic growth is expected to continue, the percentage 
> would fall. In terms of cost per tonne of carbon emission avoided, the 
> range (for a target of 550ppm) is $18 to $80.
>