wrote in message
news:1192212751.649026.252820@k35g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> A Nobel Disgrace
> National Review Online: History Will Prove Al Gore's Peace
Prize To Be
> A Mistake
> Oct. 12, 2007
> (National Review Online) This column was written by Steven F.
> Hayward.
>
> Parson Al winning the Nobel Peace Prize was as predictable as
his
> Oscar for Best Documentary, and represents the final debasement
of a
> once-prestigious award. It used to be that the award went to
people of
> genuine humanitarian or diplomatic accomplishment, like Mother
Teresa,
> Albert Schweitzer or Doctors Without Borders. Now it goes to
frauds
> and poseurs like Rigoberta Menchu, Yassir Arafat, the U.N.
(three
> times now, counting Gore's co-winner, the U.N.'s climate change
> panel), and Jimmy Carter. About the only way to top this would
be to
> give the next Peace Prize to Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.
More
> likely the Nobel committee will, one of these days, simply pat
itself
> on the back and give the award to . . . themselves.
>
> The glitter of the Nobel overshadows the inconvenient news
reported
> last week that a British court of law labeled Gore's movie as
partisan
> political propaganda, pointing out 11 different errors of fact
or
> scientific judgment, and prohibiting its screening in British
public
> schools without a disclaimer of these defects. The Nobel will
be one
> more quiver in Gore's arsenal of intransigent moral authority
by which
> he refuses to debate any aspect of the subject and declares the
entire
> matter "settled." It's never a good sign when politicians
declare a
> scientific matter settled; we all remember how well that worked
out
> for the Vatican when they told Galileo 400 years ago that
astronomy
> was settled. It is even more problematic to suggest that
climate
> change is not a political issue, but a moral issue, but then to
demand
> massive political interventions in the economy to fix the
problem.
>
> The adrenaline rush of the Nobel is likely to prove evanescent,
> however, and will probably turn out to be the high water mark
of
> climate hysteria. Increasingly, climate catastrophe is coming
more and
> more to resemble the hysteria over the "population bomb" of the
late
> 1960s and early 1970s. In those days, Paul Ehrlich was a
frequent
> guest on Johnny Carson's Tonight Show, and there were
government
> commissions launched here and abroad to ponder whether we
needed an
> aggressive anti-natalist policy. The effort to develop a
population
> policy in the U.S. collapsed quickly and quietly when someone
pointed
> out that any anti-natalist policy would disproportionately
affect
> racial and ethnic minorities. Oops.
>
> Population pressures were and remain a genuine environmental
concern,
> but it gradually became clear that Ehrlich and other alarmists
had way
> overestimated the problem, and it looks very different today.
(Indeed,
> the great social problem of the end of this century may be
population
> that is falling too rapidly.) And while Ehrlich is still
peddling the
> same Malthusian gloom, he never turns up on the Tonight Show
any more;
> in fact, he doesn't even make it on Hardball or Countdown with
Krazy
> Keith.
>
> Likewise, climate change is a real phenomenon, but the
catastrophic
> scenario of Gore and his fellow climate campaigners is steadily
> fraying around the edges if you follow the scientific
literature
> closely. Has anyone noticed, for example, that global
temperature has
> been flat for the last decade, after two decades of slow and
steady
> increase from 1980 to 1998? Most of the climate models suggest
global
> temperature should be consistently warming with the rise of
greenhouse
> gases, but it has stopped. This increasingly inconvenient truth
will
> eventually become too obvious for even the media to ignore.
Meanwhile,
> the real world economic consequences of Gore's policy agenda
(which
> Obama and Edwards-but not Hillary-have signed up for) are so
extreme
> that no self-governing people will ever submit to it, which is
why a
> few environmentalists have gone so far as to say openly, "down
with
> democracy." Go ahead; make my day; try that out on the American
> people. The Democratic Congress can't even pass a modest
emissions
> trading scheme that would barely begin to enact Gore's agenda,
because
> they are afraid of its cost.
>
> Prediction: In 20 years Gore or his climate alarmist successors
will
> be lucky to appear on cable access TV, and Gore's Peace Prize
will
> take its place alongside Le Duc Tho's 1973 award as a Nobel
> embarrassment.
>
>
>
> By Steven F. Hayward
> Reprinted with permission from National Review Online.
>
We're all going to hell in a handbasket!

Remember when the Nobel prize meant something and we could all
look up it with awe and respect?

Now a winning chook raffle ticket has more respectability.

Sadly, it now appears that the loony left wing fringe has taken
over the Nobel committee and awarded the peace prize to a proven
lying and exaggerating hypocrite who won't even practice what he
preaches!

At least he's in good company, with other recipients, inter alia,
being that
murdering terrorist Yassar Arafat and that corrupt UN official
Kofi Anan!



Regards

Bonzo

[Climate change theory became the main focus of extremists after]
"world communism failed, the Wall came down and a lot of
peaceniks and political activists moved into the environmental
movement bringing their neo-Marxism with them and learnt to used
green language in a very clever way to cloak agendas that have
more to do with anti-capitalism and anti-globalisation than ...
ecology or science." Patrick Moore, Co-founder-Greenpeace

"Bonzo"  wrote in message
news:47103301$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>
>  wrote in message
> news:1192212751.649026.252820@k35g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> > A Nobel Disgrace
> > National Review Online: History Will Prove Al Gore's Peace
> Prize To Be
> > A Mistake
> > Oct. 12, 2007
> > (National Review Online) This column was written by Steven F.
> > Hayward.
> >
> > Parson Al winning the Nobel Peace Prize was as predictable as
> his
> > Oscar for Best Documentary, and represents the final
debasement
> of a
> > once-prestigious award. It used to be that the award went to
> people of
> > genuine humanitarian or diplomatic accomplishment, like
Mother
> Teresa,
> > Albert Schweitzer or Doctors Without Borders. Now it goes to
> frauds
> > and poseurs like Rigoberta Menchu, Yassir Arafat, the U.N.
> (three
> > times now, counting Gore's co-winner, the U.N.'s climate
change
> > panel), and Jimmy Carter. About the only way to top this
would
> be to
> > give the next Peace Prize to Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.
> More
> > likely the Nobel committee will, one of these days, simply
pat
> itself
> > on the back and give the award to . . . themselves.
> >
> > The glitter of the Nobel overshadows the inconvenient news
> reported
> > last week that a British court of law labeled Gore's movie as
> partisan
> > political propaganda, pointing out 11 different errors of
fact
> or
> > scientific judgment, and prohibiting its screening in British
> public
> > schools without a disclaimer of these defects. The Nobel will
> be one
> > more quiver in Gore's arsenal of intransigent moral authority
> by which
> > he refuses to debate any aspect of the subject and declares
the
> entire
> > matter "settled." It's never a good sign when politicians
> declare a
> > scientific matter settled; we all remember how well that
worked
> out
> > for the Vatican when they told Galileo 400 years ago that
> astronomy
> > was settled. It is even more problematic to suggest that
> climate
> > change is not a political issue, but a moral issue, but then
to
> demand
> > massive political interventions in the economy to fix the
> problem.
> >
> > The adrenaline rush of the Nobel is likely to prove
evanescent,
> > however, and will probably turn out to be the high water mark
> of
> > climate hysteria. Increasingly, climate catastrophe is coming
> more and
> > more to resemble the hysteria over the "population bomb" of
the
> late
> > 1960s and early 1970s. In those days, Paul Ehrlich was a
> frequent
> > guest on Johnny Carson's Tonight Show, and there were
> government
> > commissions launched here and abroad to ponder whether we
> needed an
> > aggressive anti-natalist policy. The effort to develop a
> population
> > policy in the U.S. collapsed quickly and quietly when someone
> pointed
> > out that any anti-natalist policy would disproportionately
> affect
> > racial and ethnic minorities. Oops.
> >
> > Population pressures were and remain a genuine environmental
> concern,
> > but it gradually became clear that Ehrlich and other
alarmists
> had way
> > overestimated the problem, and it looks very different today.
> (Indeed,
> > the great social problem of the end of this century may be
> population
> > that is falling too rapidly.) And while Ehrlich is still
> peddling the
> > same Malthusian gloom, he never turns up on the Tonight Show
> any more;
> > in fact, he doesn't even make it on Hardball or Countdown
with
> Krazy
> > Keith.
> >
> > Likewise, climate change is a real phenomenon, but the
> catastrophic
> > scenario of Gore and his fellow climate campaigners is
steadily
> > fraying around the edges if you follow the scientific
> literature
> > closely. Has anyone noticed, for example, that global
> temperature has
> > been flat for the last decade, after two decades of slow and
> steady
> > increase from 1980 to 1998? Most of the climate models
suggest
> global
> > temperature should be consistently warming with the rise of
> greenhouse
> > gases, but it has stopped. This increasingly inconvenient
truth
> will
> > eventually become too obvious for even the media to ignore.
> Meanwhile,
> > the real world economic consequences of Gore's policy agenda
> (which
> > Obama and Edwards-but not Hillary-have signed up for) are so
> extreme
> > that no self-governing people will ever submit to it, which
is
> why a
> > few environmentalists have gone so far as to say openly,
"down
> with
> > democracy." Go ahead; make my day; try that out on the
American
> > people. The Democratic Congress can't even pass a modest
> emissions
> > trading scheme that would barely begin to enact Gore's
agenda,
> because
> > they are afraid of its cost.
> >
> > Prediction: In 20 years Gore or his climate alarmist
successors
> will
> > be lucky to appear on cable access TV, and Gore's Peace Prize
> will
> > take its place alongside Le Duc Tho's 1973 award as a Nobel
> > embarrassment.
> >
> >
> >
> > By Steven F. Hayward
> > Reprinted with permission from National Review Online.
> >
> We're all going to hell in a handbasket!
>
> Remember when the Nobel prize meant something and we could all
> look up it with awe and respect?
>
> Now a winning chook raffle ticket has more respectability.
>
> Sadly, it now appears that the loony left wing fringe has taken
> over the Nobel committee and awarded the peace prize to a
proven
> lying and exaggerating hypocrite who won't even practice what
he
> preaches!
>
> At least he's in good company, with other recipients, inter
alia,
> being that
> murdering terrorist Yassar Arafat and that corrupt UN official
> Kofi Anan!
>
>
>
> Regards
>
> Bonzo
>
> [Climate change theory became the main focus of extremists
after]
> "world communism failed, the Wall came down and a lot of
> peaceniks and political activists moved into the environmental
> movement bringing their neo-Marxism with them and learnt to
used
> green language in a very clever way to cloak agendas that have
> more to do with anti-capitalism and anti-globalisation than ...
> ecology or science." Patrick Moore, Co-founder-Greenpeace
>

On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 20:02:06 -0700, The Nerk 
wrote:

>On Oct 13, 12:52 pm, "Bonzo"  wrote:
>
>
>Congrats to the world's scientists and to Mr Gore for blowing the
>whistle on a serious problem.

That global temperatures MAY be increasing ever so slightly and that
it may be due to man-made carbon emissions?  Oh yeah  ... real serious
that one.   

Today in Sydney it's 3C BELOW the long-term average for this time of
year ... so remind me again when I should start to get worried "global
warming" and, more importantly, why?

Thirty years ago they awarded a Nobel peace prize to a genocidal
Marxist  ... I suppose you could say their standards have improved ...
barely ;-)

"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?

AL WINS!
Media-shunning unsafe-for-children ecodunce Al Gore wins the
Nobel Peace Prize.

UPDATE. Al will lift the world:


  "We face a true planetary emergency," Mr. Gore said in the
statement. "The climate crisis is not a political issue, it is a
moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity. It is also our
greatest opportunity to lift global consciousness to a higher
level."

Good luck with that.

UPDATE II. Al isn't in Oslo, possibly to spare himself the
embarrassment of collecting a prize for raising global warming
awareness while wearing four layers of clothing.

UPDATE III. Al is scary: "He's like a werewolf standing in front
of the moon, only instead he's in front of the earth playing God
again. Or maybe Jack Nicholson. Geez his tie even matches the
earth. They are so going steady."
-- 

Regards

Bonzo

"There is now no doubt that the UN's International Panel on
Climate
Change (IPCC), has a history of sacrificing science for political
agendas. This conclusion is based upon the IPCC being found
revising
the writings of contributing scientists (without their consent),
accepting as valid the findings of the "hockeystick" graph, and
completely unreceptive to valid scientific criticism. Michaels
also
documents a number of other errors and misleading statements by
the
IPCC. This is the stuff of political agendas, not of sound
science." Michael R. Fox Ph.D

This puts Gore and the IPCC in the same league as Yassar Arafat!
How appropriate!
AL WINS!
Media-shunning unsafe-for-children ecodunce Al Gore wins the
Nobel Peace Prize.

UPDATE. Al will lift the world:


  "We face a true planetary emergency," Mr. Gore said in the
statement. "The climate crisis is not a political issue, it is a
moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity. It is also our
greatest opportunity to lift global consciousness to a higher
level."

Good luck with that.

UPDATE II. Al isn't in Oslo, possibly to spare himself the
embarrassment of collecting a prize for raising global warming
awareness while wearing four layers of clothing.



Regards

Bonzo

[The IPCC report released for policymakers February 2007] "was
written by 33 policymakers, not scientists. The scientific report
that will come out in May/June was written by 143 climatologists
and other scientists, reviewed by 27 scientists, and sent out to
about 1700 scientists for comment. That represents fewer than one
percent of the world's scientists, and they surely don't speak
for the entire scientific community. The truth is, there is no
'consensus.'" Don J. Easterbrook, Geologist, Western Washington
University
"I can get 9000 [scientists] who question it," Anon

This puts Gore and the IPCC in the same league as Yassar Arafat!
How appropriate!
AL WINS!
Media-shunning unsafe-for-children ecodunce Al Gore wins the
Nobel Peace Prize.

UPDATE. Al will lift the world:


  "We face a true planetary emergency," Mr. Gore said in the
statement. "The climate crisis is not a political issue, it is a
moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity. It is also our
greatest opportunity to lift global consciousness to a higher
level."

Good luck with that.

UPDATE II. Al isn't in Oslo, possibly to spare himself the
embarrassment of collecting a prize for raising global warming
awareness while wearing four layers of clothing.



Regards

Bonzo

[The IPCC report released for policymakers February 2007] "was
written by 33 policymakers, not scientists. The scientific report
that will come out in May/June was written by 143 climatologists
and other scientists, reviewed by 27 scientists, and sent out to
about 1700 scientists for comment. That represents fewer than one
percent of the world's scientists, and they surely don't speak
for the entire scientific community. The truth is, there is no
'consensus.'" Don J. Easterbrook, Geologist, Western Washington
University
"I can get 9000 [scientists] who question it," Anon

This puts Gore and the IPCC in the same league as Yassar Arafat!
How appropriate!
AL WINS!
Media-shunning unsafe-for-children ecodunce Al Gore wins the
Nobel Peace Prize.

UPDATE. Al will lift the world:


  "We face a true planetary emergency," Mr. Gore said in the
statement. "The climate crisis is not a political issue, it is a
moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity. It is also our
greatest opportunity to lift global consciousness to a higher
level."

Good luck with that.

UPDATE II. Al isn't in Oslo, possibly to spare himself the
embarrassment of collecting a prize for raising global warming
awareness while wearing four layers of clothing.



Regards

Bonzo

[The IPCC report released for policymakers February 2007] "was
written by 33 policymakers, not scientists. The scientific report
that will come out in May/June was written by 143 climatologists
and other scientists, reviewed by 27 scientists, and sent out to
about 1700 scientists for comment. That represents fewer than one
percent of the world's scientists, and they surely don't speak
for the entire scientific community. The truth is, there is no
'consensus.'" Don J. Easterbrook, Geologist, Western Washington
University
"I can get 9000 [scientists] who question it," Anon


>

"The Nerk"  wrote in message
news:1192247944.727303.94170@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 13, 1:16 pm, ralph  wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 20:02:06 -0700, The Nerk

> wrote:
>
> >On Oct 13, 12:52 pm, "Bonzo"  wrote:
>
> >Congrats to the world's scientists and to Mr Gore for blowing
the
> >whistle on a serious problem.
> That global temperatures MAY be increasing ever so slightly and
that
> it may be due to man-made carbon emissions?  Oh yeah  ... real
serious
> that one.
> Today in Sydney it's 3C BELOW the long-term average for this
time of
> year ... so remind me again when I should start to get worried
"global
> warming" and, more importantly, why?
> Thirty years ago they awarded a Nobel peace prize to a
genocidal
> Marxist  ... I suppose you could say their standards have
improved ...
> barely ;-)

Bullshit.

Don't forget terrorist Arafat, corrupt official Kofi Anan etc

-- 

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"

"Bonzo"  wrote in message 
news:47103b38@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> AL WINS!
> Media-shunning unsafe-for-children ecodunce Al Gore wins the
> Nobel Peace Prize.
>
> UPDATE. Al will lift the world:
>
>
>  "We face a true planetary emergency," Mr. Gore said in the
> statement. "The climate crisis is not a political issue, it is a
> moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity. It is also our
> greatest opportunity to lift global consciousness to a higher
> level."

"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?

"Bonzo"  wrote in message 
news:47103c3a$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> This puts Gore and the IPCC in the same league as Yassar Arafat!
> How appropriate!
> AL WINS!
> Media-shunning unsafe-for-children ecodunce Al Gore wins the
> Nobel Peace Prize.
>
> UPDATE. Al will lift the world:
>
>
>  "We face a true planetary emergency," Mr. Gore said in the
> statement. "The climate crisis is not a political issue, it is a
> moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity. It is also our
> greatest opportunity to lift global consciousness to a higher
> level."

"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?

"Bonzo"  wrote in message 
news:47103c62$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> This puts Gore and the IPCC in the same league as Yassar Arafat!
> How appropriate!
> AL WINS!
> Media-shunning unsafe-for-children ecodunce Al Gore wins the
> Nobel Peace Prize.
>
> UPDATE. Al will lift the world:
>
>
>  "We face a true planetary emergency," Mr. Gore said in the
> statement. "The climate crisis is not a political issue, it is a
> moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity. It is also our
> greatest opportunity to lift global consciousness to a higher
> level."
>
> Good luck with that.

"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?

"Bonzo"  wrote in message 
news:47103d3f$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> This puts Gore and the IPCC in the same league as Yassar Arafat!
> How appropriate!
> AL WINS!
> Media-shunning unsafe-for-children ecodunce Al Gore wins the
> Nobel Peace Prize.
>
> UPDATE. Al will lift the world:
>
>
>  "We face a true planetary emergency," Mr. Gore said in the
> statement. "The climate crisis is not a political issue, it is a
> moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity. It is also our
> greatest opportunity to lift global consciousness to a higher
> level."

"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?

"The Nerk"  wrote
> How come you don't mention the terrorist Begin? Hmmm He was a
> terrorist before he was PM. I gave you a whole list mostly made up of
> people who weren't terrorists and one was a right wing terrorist. Your
> a lying cunt.

  Yup Bonzo is a lying cunt.  He is paid by the Carbon Industry to post lies 
here.

On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 20:59:04 -0700, The Nerk 
wrote:

>Bullshit. Thirty years ago it went to Amnesty International, and 29
>years ago it went to Begin and Sadat. No genocidal Marxists in that
>list. Closest I can find is Martin Luther King in 1964, who wasn't
>genocidal and wasn't a Marxist but is often seen as a leftie.  Albert
>Schweitzer got one in 1952. Actually the wordt person in the list is
>probably Teddy Roosevelt, in 1906, but I reckon you can't call him a
>Marxist.
>
>Here's his company since 1971. Lots of people in it hated by lefties:
>
>
>1973:
>
>HENRY A. KISSINGER , Secretary of State, State Department,
>Washington.
>
>LE DUC THO , Democratic Republic of Viet Nam. (Declined the prize.)
>
>for jointly negotiating the Vietnam peace accord in 1973.
>
>As noted, the North Vietnamese guy turned it down.
>

Bingo.

The genocidal Marxist turned it down ... but of course it should NEVER
have been offered.

>Try again moron

Fuck you liar.

Nerk  wrote:

>Congrats to the world's scientists and to Mr Gore for blowing the
>whistle on a serious problem.
>
>Thanks also for annoying the hell out of the majority of rightwing
>looneys and vandals who want to suck the planet dry and leave the rest
>of us to survive on a planet as useful as a squeezed lemon.

           Thanks for a big laugh, I am laying here shivering,
and Al Bore has you worried about 2 degrees warmer and
sea level flooding Manhattan in 1500 years, with the only
advantage being more crops and lower heating bills.

"The Nerk"  wrote in message 
news:1192247944.727303.94170@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
2002
The prize was awarded to:
JIMMY CARTER JR., former President of the United States of America,
(not a leftie at all -- a right wing christian)
2001
The prize was awarded to:
KOFI ANNAN, United Nations Secretary General
(Annan was never shown to be corrupt.)

So much for your credibility!

"Bonzo"  babbled in message

<claptrap snipped>

There ought to be a bloody fine for littering Usenet?

Listen, Bozo, you fucking embarrassing hayseed, *stop* cluttering up this ng
with your mindless drivel.

You're an embarrassment to those of us with functioning neurones.

Now kindly do us all a favour and PISS-OFF!!!

"Serge"  wrote in message 
news:4710c7d4$0$23841$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> "Bonzo"  babbled in message
>
> <claptrap snipped>
>
> There ought to be a bloody fine for littering Usenet?
>
> Listen, Bozo, you fucking embarrassing hayseed, *stop* cluttering up this 
> ng
> with your mindless drivel.
>
> You're an embarrassment to those of us with functioning neurones.
>
> Now kindly do us all a favour and PISS-OFF!!!
>
>
>

instead we have to see your mindless replies to him because most of us have 
had him killfiled, so instead of missing 13 Bozo posts we have to endure 13 
inane replies from you.
you two should be happy together in my killfile now.

-- 
We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed 
in. Some of us just go one god further.
Richard Dawkins (1941 - ), "The Root of All Evil", UK Channel 4, 2006

"Atheist Chaplain"  wrote in message
>
> "Serge"  wrote in message
>
> > "Bonzo"  babbled in message
> >
> > <claptrap snipped>
> >
> > There ought to be a bloody fine for littering Usenet?
> >
> > Listen, Bozo, you fucking embarrassing hayseed, *stop* cluttering
> > up this ng with your mindless drivel.
> >
> > You're an embarrassment to those of us with functioning neurones.
> >
> > Now kindly do us all a favour and PISS-OFF!!!
>
> instead we have to see your mindless replies to him because most of
> us have had him killfiled so instead of missing 13 Bozo posts we have
> to endure 13 inane replies from you.

13?  You mean you actually opened *all* 13 posts?

What a thick bastard. Tell me, when did the penny actually drop?

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahahaha!!!!!!!

Not the sharpest arrow in the quiver are you?