Discussion:
Al Gore takes aim
(too old to reply)
Cliff
2010-03-01 12:13:43 UTC
Permalink
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6200OE20100301?type=politicsNews
"Al Gore takes aim at climate change skeptics"
[
Former Vice President Al Gore on took aim at skeptics who doubt the reality of
human-caused climate change, saying he wished it were an illusion but that the
problem is real and urgent.
....
]
Doug Miller
2010-03-01 12:40:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cliff
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6200OE20100301?type=politicsNews
"Al Gore takes aim at climate change skeptics"
[
Former Vice President Al Gore on took aim at skeptics who doubt the reality of
human-caused climate change, saying he wished it were an illusion but that the
problem is real and urgent.
.....
]
And we should all do exactly what Al says, because everyone knows he is an
eminent climate scientist.
hal
2010-03-01 13:38:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doug Miller
Post by Cliff
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6200OE20100301?type=politicsNews
"Al Gore takes aim at climate change skeptics"
[
Former Vice President Al Gore on took aim at skeptics who doubt the reality of
human-caused climate change, saying he wished it were an illusion but that the
problem is real and urgent.
.....
]
And we should all do exactly what Al says, because everyone knows he is an
eminent climate scientist.
He is the spokesman for hundreds if not thousands of climate
scientists all whom agree that this problem is real and urgent.
Doug Miller
2010-03-01 13:45:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by hal
Post by Doug Miller
Post by Cliff
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6200OE20100301?type=politicsNews
"Al Gore takes aim at climate change skeptics"
[
Former Vice President Al Gore on took aim at skeptics who doubt the reality
of
Post by Doug Miller
Post by Cliff
human-caused climate change, saying he wished it were an illusion but that
the
Post by Doug Miller
Post by Cliff
problem is real and urgent.
.....
]
And we should all do exactly what Al says, because everyone knows he is an
eminent climate scientist.
He is the spokesman for hundreds if not thousands of climate
scientists all whom agree that this problem is real and urgent.
The idea that "all scientists" agree that the problem is real and urgent is
simply a lie. There is considerable disagreement among scientists about the
nature and extent of the problem, and indeed if there even *is* a problem.
hal
2010-03-01 14:04:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doug Miller
Post by hal
Post by Doug Miller
Post by Cliff
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6200OE20100301?type=politicsNews
"Al Gore takes aim at climate change skeptics"
[
Former Vice President Al Gore on took aim at skeptics who doubt the reality
of
Post by Doug Miller
Post by Cliff
human-caused climate change, saying he wished it were an illusion but that
the
Post by Doug Miller
Post by Cliff
problem is real and urgent.
.....
]
And we should all do exactly what Al says, because everyone knows he is an
eminent climate scientist.
He is the spokesman for hundreds if not thousands of climate
scientists all whom agree that this problem is real and urgent.
The idea that "all scientists" agree that the problem is real and urgent is
simply a lie. There is considerable disagreement among scientists about the
nature and extent of the problem, and indeed if there even *is* a problem.
Reading for comprehension isn't your thing, I see. I didn't say "all
scientists agree". I said hundreds if not thousands of climates
scientists, "all whom agree". There is a huge difference. And
amongst qualified scientists who have been studying climate data for
decades those who do NOT think climate change is a real problem are in
an extreme minority. In other words, since reading ain't your thing,
by far MOST climate scientists agree this a huge problem.
tunderbar
2010-03-01 14:45:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doug Miller
Post by hal
Post by Doug Miller
 http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6200OE20100301?type=politicsNews
 "Al Gore takes aim at climate change skeptics"
[
Former Vice President Al Gore on took aim at skeptics who doubt the reality
of
Post by Doug Miller
human-caused climate change, saying he wished it were an illusion but that
the
Post by Doug Miller
problem is real and urgent.
.....
]
And we should all do exactly what Al says, because everyone knows he is an
eminent climate scientist.
He is the spokesman for hundreds if not thousands of climate
scientists all whom agree that this problem is real and urgent.
The idea that "all scientists" agree that the problem is real and urgent is
simply a lie. There is considerable disagreement among scientists about the
nature and extent of the problem, and indeed if there even *is* a problem.
Reading for comprehension isn't your thing, I see.  I didn't say "all
scientists agree".  I said hundreds if not thousands of climates
Emphasis on the "if not". Wasn't it at the Bali confab where they
could only find 240 "scientists" to sign a letter to politicians that
was pro-agw?
scientists, "all whom agree".  There is a huge difference.  And
amongst qualified scientists who have been studying climate data for
decades those who do NOT think climate change is a real problem are in
an extreme minority.  In other words, since reading ain't your thing,
by far MOST climate scientists agree this a huge problem.  
Cliff
2010-03-02 23:26:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by tunderbar
Emphasis on the "if not". Wasn't it at the Bali confab where they
could only find 240 "scientists" to sign a letter to politicians that
was pro-agw?
There were only 240 there?
--
Cliff
Doug Miller
2010-03-01 14:58:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by hal
Post by Doug Miller
Post by hal
Post by Doug Miller
Post by Cliff
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6200OE20100301?type=politicsNews
"Al Gore takes aim at climate change skeptics"
[
Former Vice President Al Gore on took aim at skeptics who doubt the reality
of
Post by Doug Miller
Post by Cliff
human-caused climate change, saying he wished it were an illusion but that
the
Post by Doug Miller
Post by Cliff
problem is real and urgent.
.....
]
And we should all do exactly what Al says, because everyone knows he is an
eminent climate scientist.
He is the spokesman for hundreds if not thousands of climate
scientists all whom agree that this problem is real and urgent.
The idea that "all scientists" agree that the problem is real and urgent is
simply a lie. There is considerable disagreement among scientists about the
nature and extent of the problem, and indeed if there even *is* a problem.
Reading for comprehension isn't your thing, I see. I didn't say "all
scientists agree". I said hundreds if not thousands of climates
scientists, "all whom agree". There is a huge difference. And
amongst qualified scientists who have been studying climate data for
decades those who do NOT think climate change is a real problem are in
an extreme minority. In other words, since reading ain't your thing,
by far MOST climate scientists agree this a huge problem.
I can see that science isn't your thing. News flash: science does not operate
by majority vote.

I can see that truth and logic isn't your thing, either. It's simply not true
that those who do not think climate change is a problem are in an extreme
minority. That is a lie that the liberal left is working very hard to push,
and I see you've been completely taken in. But it's still a lie.
hal
2010-03-01 15:45:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doug Miller
Post by hal
Reading for comprehension isn't your thing, I see. I didn't say "all
scientists agree". I said hundreds if not thousands of climates
scientists, "all whom agree". There is a huge difference. And
amongst qualified scientists who have been studying climate data for
decades those who do NOT think climate change is a real problem are in
an extreme minority. In other words, since reading ain't your thing,
by far MOST climate scientists agree this a huge problem.
I can see that science isn't your thing. News flash: science does not operate
by majority vote.
No, shit, asshole. Those are your words not mine. The data is all
there, look it up.
Post by Doug Miller
I can see that truth and logic isn't your thing, either. It's simply not true
that those who do not think climate change is a problem are in an extreme
minority. That is a lie that the liberal left is working very hard to push,
and I see you've been completely taken in. But it's still a lie.
How many climate scientists can you name that think AGW is a hoax? I
bet you can't name more than one.
Doug Miller
2010-03-01 16:44:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by hal
Post by Doug Miller
Post by hal
Reading for comprehension isn't your thing, I see. I didn't say "all
scientists agree". I said hundreds if not thousands of climates
scientists, "all whom agree". There is a huge difference. And
amongst qualified scientists who have been studying climate data for
decades those who do NOT think climate change is a real problem are in
an extreme minority. In other words, since reading ain't your thing,
by far MOST climate scientists agree this a huge problem.
I can see that science isn't your thing. News flash: science does not operate
by majority vote.
No, shit, asshole. Those are your words not mine. The data is all
there, look it up.
No, idiot. *You're* the one talking about majority/minority. That's not
science. That's politics. Science doesn't operate by vote, and scientific
truth is not determined by the number of people that believe or don't believe
a proposition. Scientific truth is determined by evidence. And the "evidence"
supporting AGW has been manufactured. It's bogus.

Or haven't you been watching the news the last three months?
Post by hal
Post by Doug Miller
I can see that truth and logic isn't your thing, either. It's simply not true
that those who do not think climate change is a problem are in an extreme
minority. That is a lie that the liberal left is working very hard to push,
and I see you've been completely taken in. But it's still a lie.
How many climate scientists can you name that think AGW is a hoax? I
bet you can't name more than one.
You lose, fool. Here's over thirty thousand:
http://petitionproject.org
hal
2010-03-01 17:07:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doug Miller
Post by hal
Post by Doug Miller
Post by hal
Reading for comprehension isn't your thing, I see. I didn't say "all
scientists agree". I said hundreds if not thousands of climates
scientists, "all whom agree". There is a huge difference. And
amongst qualified scientists who have been studying climate data for
decades those who do NOT think climate change is a real problem are in
an extreme minority. In other words, since reading ain't your thing,
by far MOST climate scientists agree this a huge problem.
I can see that science isn't your thing. News flash: science does not operate
by majority vote.
No, shit, asshole. Those are your words not mine. The data is all
there, look it up.
No, idiot. *You're* the one talking about majority/minority. That's not
science. That's politics. Science doesn't operate by vote, and scientific
truth is not determined by the number of people that believe or don't believe
a proposition. Scientific truth is determined by evidence. And the "evidence"
supporting AGW has been manufactured. It's bogus.
Or haven't you been watching the news the last three months?
Shit, it's you detractors that are claiming the statements of only one
climate researcher somehow invalidates an entire huge body of data,
that by far most climate scientists agree completely is a very real
and present danger.
Post by Doug Miller
Post by hal
Post by Doug Miller
I can see that truth and logic isn't your thing, either. It's simply not true
that those who do not think climate change is a problem are in an extreme
minority. That is a lie that the liberal left is working very hard to push,
and I see you've been completely taken in. But it's still a lie.
How many climate scientists can you name that think AGW is a hoax? I
bet you can't name more than one.
http://petitionproject.org
LOL ! "Thousands" of "scientists" (but only a small portion of them
actually have PhDs.) Laugh laugh. But nothing about qualifications.
It's easy to put together a big list of names. It proves nothing.
Basically it's signed by anyone against global warming who doesn't
mind calling themselves "scientists". snicker.

On the other hand, you could actually try going to NOAA and looking up
the fucking data yourself, idiot. It's all there. Need the link?
Doug Miller
2010-03-01 19:32:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doug Miller
Post by Doug Miller
Post by hal
Post by Doug Miller
Post by hal
Reading for comprehension isn't your thing, I see. I didn't say "all
scientists agree". I said hundreds if not thousands of climates
scientists, "all whom agree". There is a huge difference. And
amongst qualified scientists who have been studying climate data for
decades those who do NOT think climate change is a real problem are in
an extreme minority. In other words, since reading ain't your thing,
by far MOST climate scientists agree this a huge problem.
I can see that science isn't your thing. News flash: science does not
operate
Post by Doug Miller
Post by hal
Post by Doug Miller
by majority vote.
No, shit, asshole. Those are your words not mine. The data is all
there, look it up.
No, idiot. *You're* the one talking about majority/minority. That's not
science. That's politics. Science doesn't operate by vote, and scientific
truth is not determined by the number of people that believe or don't believe
a proposition. Scientific truth is determined by evidence. And the "evidence"
supporting AGW has been manufactured. It's bogus.
Or haven't you been watching the news the last three months?
Shit, it's you detractors that are claiming the statements of only one
climate researcher somehow invalidates an entire huge body of data,
that by far most climate scientists agree completely is a very real
and present danger.
There ISN'T "an entire huge body of data", you idiot.

There's a huge body of made up, fudged numbers. They won't release the actual
raw data, only the *altered* data.

Ask yourself why that is.
hal
2010-03-01 20:39:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doug Miller
Post by hal
Shit, it's you detractors that are claiming the statements of only one
climate researcher somehow invalidates an entire huge body of data,
that by far most climate scientists agree completely is a very real
and present danger.
There ISN'T "an entire huge body of data", you idiot.
There's a huge body of made up, fudged numbers. They won't release the actual
raw data, only the *altered* data.
Ask yourself why that is.
It's not. That's why. The data isn't fudged. There's terabytes of
data from literally thousands of climate stations throughout the
world. Data from completely different sources, that all says the same
thing and validates each other through the scientific process of
confirmation. The data has NOT been invalidated or fudged. It's all
there if you want to go research it. It's all part of the public
domain. Look it up, and decide for yourself without simply blindly
accepting lies from people with a motive to deceive.
Doug Miller
2010-03-01 23:11:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by hal
Post by Doug Miller
Post by hal
Shit, it's you detractors that are claiming the statements of only one
climate researcher somehow invalidates an entire huge body of data,
that by far most climate scientists agree completely is a very real
and present danger.
There ISN'T "an entire huge body of data", you idiot.
There's a huge body of made up, fudged numbers. They won't release the actual
raw data, only the *altered* data.
Ask yourself why that is.
It's not. That's why. The data isn't fudged. There's terabytes of
data from literally thousands of climate stations throughout the
world. Data from completely different sources, that all says the same
thing and validates each other through the scientific process of
confirmation. The data has NOT been invalidated or fudged. It's all
there if you want to go research it. It's all part of the public
domain. Look it up, and decide for yourself without simply blindly
accepting lies from people with a motive to deceive.
Obviously you *haven't* been paying attention to the news recently.

No, the raw data is *not* there. All that's publicly available is the
"adjusted" data. Adjusted by people with an axe to grind.
hal
2010-03-02 00:18:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doug Miller
Post by hal
Post by Doug Miller
Post by hal
Shit, it's you detractors that are claiming the statements of only one
climate researcher somehow invalidates an entire huge body of data,
that by far most climate scientists agree completely is a very real
and present danger.
There ISN'T "an entire huge body of data", you idiot.
There's a huge body of made up, fudged numbers. They won't release the actual
raw data, only the *altered* data.
Ask yourself why that is.
It's not. That's why. The data isn't fudged. There's terabytes of
data from literally thousands of climate stations throughout the
world. Data from completely different sources, that all says the same
thing and validates each other through the scientific process of
confirmation. The data has NOT been invalidated or fudged. It's all
there if you want to go research it. It's all part of the public
domain. Look it up, and decide for yourself without simply blindly
accepting lies from people with a motive to deceive.
Obviously you *haven't* been paying attention to the news recently.
No, the raw data is *not* there. All that's publicly available is the
"adjusted" data. Adjusted by people with an axe to grind.
That's nonsense of course. What you are seeing is disinformation.
They've been crunching numbers on the raw data for decades. To
suggest that all the data is somehow lost is ludicrous, of course. You
people really are quite absurd.
Doug Miller
2010-03-02 00:53:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by hal
Post by Doug Miller
Post by hal
Post by Doug Miller
Post by hal
Shit, it's you detractors that are claiming the statements of only one
climate researcher somehow invalidates an entire huge body of data,
that by far most climate scientists agree completely is a very real
and present danger.
There ISN'T "an entire huge body of data", you idiot.
There's a huge body of made up, fudged numbers. They won't release the
actual
Post by Doug Miller
Post by hal
Post by Doug Miller
raw data, only the *altered* data.
Ask yourself why that is.
It's not. That's why. The data isn't fudged. There's terabytes of
data from literally thousands of climate stations throughout the
world. Data from completely different sources, that all says the same
thing and validates each other through the scientific process of
confirmation. The data has NOT been invalidated or fudged. It's all
there if you want to go research it. It's all part of the public
domain. Look it up, and decide for yourself without simply blindly
accepting lies from people with a motive to deceive.
Obviously you *haven't* been paying attention to the news recently.
No, the raw data is *not* there. All that's publicly available is the
"adjusted" data. Adjusted by people with an axe to grind.
That's nonsense of course. What you are seeing is disinformation.
They've been crunching numbers on the raw data for decades. To
suggest that all the data is somehow lost is ludicrous, of course. You
people really are quite absurd.
No, it wasn't lost, and I didn't suggest that. It was deliberately
*destroyed*.

You really haven't been paying attention, have you? Google "ClimateGate" and
you might learn something.
hal
2010-03-02 01:57:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doug Miller
Post by hal
That's nonsense of course. What you are seeing is disinformation.
They've been crunching numbers on the raw data for decades. To
suggest that all the data is somehow lost is ludicrous, of course. You
people really are quite absurd.
No, it wasn't lost, and I didn't suggest that. It was deliberately
*destroyed*.
You really haven't been paying attention, have you? Google "ClimateGate" and
you might learn something.
Isn't that cute? The right wing comes up with another cut buzzword
they can get their moronic followers to parrot, and manufactures
another hatchet job against something that's going to cut into their
profits. Color me surprised. It's all a pack of lies, moron. Global
warming is real and very well documented. So get a clue.
Cliff
2010-03-02 23:40:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doug Miller
You really haven't been paying attention, have you? Google "ClimateGate" and
you might learn something.
The number of fools, idiots & paid liars one can count?
--
Cliff
Cliff
2010-03-02 23:39:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by hal
Post by Doug Miller
Post by hal
Post by Doug Miller
Post by hal
Shit, it's you detractors that are claiming the statements of only one
climate researcher somehow invalidates an entire huge body of data,
that by far most climate scientists agree completely is a very real
and present danger.
There ISN'T "an entire huge body of data", you idiot.
There's a huge body of made up, fudged numbers. They won't release the actual
raw data, only the *altered* data.
Ask yourself why that is.
It's not. That's why. The data isn't fudged. There's terabytes of
data from literally thousands of climate stations throughout the
world. Data from completely different sources, that all says the same
thing and validates each other through the scientific process of
confirmation. The data has NOT been invalidated or fudged. It's all
there if you want to go research it. It's all part of the public
domain. Look it up, and decide for yourself without simply blindly
accepting lies from people with a motive to deceive.
Obviously you *haven't* been paying attention to the news recently.
No, the raw data is *not* there. All that's publicly available is the
"adjusted" data. Adjusted by people with an axe to grind.
That's nonsense of course. What you are seeing is disinformation.
They've been crunching numbers on the raw data for decades. To
suggest that all the data is somehow lost is ludicrous, of course. You
people really are quite absurd.
Some of the "raw data" probably does get tossed.
Once used for data.

If I want an average of readings every 5 minutes for a year for
one point why save the data after computing the avearge?
Probably a bad examle but at some point the statistics of the data
are denser in information. And that's the needed information, now
raw data once characterized.
--
Cliff
Bill Ward
2010-03-01 23:22:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by hal
Post by Doug Miller
Post by hal
Shit, it's you detractors that are claiming the statements of only one
climate researcher somehow invalidates an entire huge body of data,
that by far most climate scientists agree completely is a very real and
present danger.
There ISN'T "an entire huge body of data", you idiot.
There's a huge body of made up, fudged numbers. They won't release the
actual raw data, only the *altered* data.
Ask yourself why that is.
It's not. That's why. The data isn't fudged. There's terabytes of
data from literally thousands of climate stations throughout the world.
Data from completely different sources, that all says the same thing and
validates each other through the scientific process of confirmation.
The data has NOT been invalidated or fudged. It's all there if you want
to go research it. It's all part of the public domain. Look it up, and
decide for yourself without simply blindly accepting lies from people
with a motive to deceive.
I guess it's time to inject some facts. Apparently you haven't read this:

<http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/climategate_analysis.pdf>
hal
2010-03-02 00:22:40 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 17:22:31 -0600, Bill Ward
Post by Bill Ward
Post by hal
Post by Doug Miller
Post by hal
Shit, it's you detractors that are claiming the statements of only one
climate researcher somehow invalidates an entire huge body of data,
that by far most climate scientists agree completely is a very real and
present danger.
There ISN'T "an entire huge body of data", you idiot.
There's a huge body of made up, fudged numbers. They won't release the
actual raw data, only the *altered* data.
Ask yourself why that is.
It's not. That's why. The data isn't fudged. There's terabytes of
data from literally thousands of climate stations throughout the world.
Data from completely different sources, that all says the same thing and
validates each other through the scientific process of confirmation.
The data has NOT been invalidated or fudged. It's all there if you want
to go research it. It's all part of the public domain. Look it up, and
decide for yourself without simply blindly accepting lies from people
with a motive to deceive.
<http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/climategate_analysis.pdf>
What a bunch of crap. First of all, the guy is not a climatologist.
And he's only one person. Will you guys stop listening to fanatics.
The planet is warming, obviously. All the numbers are there. All the
evidence is occurring right before our very eyes. You people are
incredibly stupid.
Doug Miller
2010-03-02 00:57:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by hal
On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 17:22:31 -0600, Bill Ward
Post by Bill Ward
Post by hal
Post by Doug Miller
Post by hal
Shit, it's you detractors that are claiming the statements of only one
climate researcher somehow invalidates an entire huge body of data,
that by far most climate scientists agree completely is a very real and
present danger.
There ISN'T "an entire huge body of data", you idiot.
There's a huge body of made up, fudged numbers. They won't release the
actual raw data, only the *altered* data.
Ask yourself why that is.
It's not. That's why. The data isn't fudged. There's terabytes of
data from literally thousands of climate stations throughout the world.
Data from completely different sources, that all says the same thing and
validates each other through the scientific process of confirmation.
The data has NOT been invalidated or fudged. It's all there if you want
to go research it. It's all part of the public domain. Look it up, and
decide for yourself without simply blindly accepting lies from people
with a motive to deceive.
<http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/climategate_a
nalysis.pdf>
What a bunch of crap. First of all, the guy is not a climatologist.
And he's only one person. Will you guys stop listening to fanatics.
Make you a deal: I'll stop listening to fanatics if you will too.
Post by hal
The planet is warming, obviously.
That's actually far from obvious.
Post by hal
All the numbers are there.
That's just not true. The numbers that are there are bogus. They are
"adjusted" numbers. The raw data was discarded, and is not available.
Post by hal
All the
evidence is occurring right before our very eyes. You people are
incredibly stupid.
The evidence that's right before my eyes is the eight inches of "global
warming" that I had to shovel off of my driveway a couple weeks ago.

The *fact* is that even the head of the CRC admits that the planet hasn't
gotten any warmer at all SINCE NINETEEN NINETY FIVE.

And yet you insist that the planet is getting warmer. Seems to me that you're
the stupid one here, not me.

Anyway, I'm done. You're obviously unwilling to look at the evidence when it
contradicts your preconceived notions, so there's no point in continuing to
talk to you.
hal
2010-03-02 02:41:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doug Miller
Post by Bill Ward
Post by Bill Ward
<http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/climategate_a
nalysis.pdf>
What a bunch of crap. First of all, the guy is not a climatologist.
And he's only one person. Will you guys stop listening to fanatics.
Make you a deal: I'll stop listening to fanatics if you will too.
Post by Bill Ward
The planet is warming, obviously.
That's actually far from obvious.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
Post by Doug Miller
Post by Bill Ward
All the numbers are there.
That's just not true. The numbers that are there are bogus. They are
"adjusted" numbers. The raw data was discarded, and is not available.
No, the "raw data" was not discarded, idiot. The raw data consists of
millions of terabytes of climate data collected from literally
thousands of weather stations throughout the world for decades.
They've been crunching numbers on this data with the world's greatest
supercomputers for decades. No such data was "lost". That is a
complete pack of lies meant to confuse idiots. Works too
unfortunately.
Post by Doug Miller
Post by Bill Ward
All the
evidence is occurring right before our very eyes. You people are
incredibly stupid.
The evidence that's right before my eyes is the eight inches of "global
warming" that I had to shovel off of my driveway a couple weeks ago.
Idiot, weather is not climate. More severe weather anomalies was a
predicted part of global warming due to warmer surface water
temperatures adding more moisture and energy to storms cause more
severe weather, including winter storms. They predicted this.
Post by Doug Miller
The *fact* is that even the head of the CRC admits that the planet hasn't
gotten any warmer at all SINCE NINETEEN NINETY FIVE.
That's a lie. The data is all there.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
Post by Doug Miller
And yet you insist that the planet is getting warmer. Seems to me that you're
the stupid one here, not me.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
Post by Doug Miller
Anyway, I'm done. You're obviously unwilling to look at the evidence when it
contradicts your preconceived notions, so there's no point in continuing to
talk to you.
You are the one not looking at the evidence moron. The data IS all
there. In the public domain. Look it up. Research it a little. But
you clearly don't want to know the truth. You just want to assume
liberals must be wrong to fit your prejudices and ignorance.
Cliff
2010-03-03 00:01:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by hal
Post by Doug Miller
Post by hal
All the
evidence is occurring right before our very eyes. You people are
incredibly stupid.
The evidence that's right before my eyes is the eight inches of "global
warming" that I had to shovel off of my driveway a couple weeks ago.
Idiot, weather is not climate. More severe weather anomalies was a
predicted part of global warming due to warmer surface water
temperatures adding more moisture and energy to storms cause more
severe weather, including winter storms. They predicted this.
The Eastern US now gets about twice as much precipitation
as it used to.
Warmer = more water coming down.
--
Cliff
Cliff
2010-03-02 23:53:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doug Miller
Post by hal
All the numbers are there.
That's just not true. The numbers that are there are bogus. They are
"adjusted" numbers. The raw data was discarded, and is not available.
You don't even need any of it.
--
Cliff
Cliff
2010-03-02 23:54:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doug Miller
Post by hal
All the
evidence is occurring right before our very eyes. You people are
incredibly stupid.
The evidence that's right before my eyes is the eight inches of "global
warming" that I had to shovel off of my driveway a couple weeks ago.
That you woud say this is plenty of proof that you ar utterly clueless and a
liar.
--
Cliff
Cliff
2010-03-02 23:57:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doug Miller
The *fact* is that even the head of the CRC admits that the planet hasn't
gotten any warmer at all SINCE NINETEEN NINETY FIVE.
Warmest decade ever recorded, last 10 years.
So you must be lying.
--
Cliff
Cliff
2010-03-02 23:59:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doug Miller
And yet you insist that the planet is getting warmer.
So says NOAA's measurments too.
Post by Doug Miller
Seems to me that you're
the stupid one here, not me.
All the measurements & science are lies, right?
Even the trees & ice got fooled !!!
--
Cliff
Cliff
2010-03-02 23:52:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Ward
<http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/climategate_analysis.pdf>
"John P. Costella" famed self-proclaimed "expert" on the Zapruder film,
right?
--
Cliff
Bill Smith
2010-03-03 20:44:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by hal
It's not. That's why. The data isn't fudged. There's terabytes of
data from literally thousands of climate stations throughout the
world. Data from completely different sources, that all says the same
thing and validates each other through the scientific process of
confirmation. The data has NOT been invalidated or fudged. It's all
there if you want to go research it. It's all part of the public
domain. Look it up, and decide for yourself without simply blindly
accepting lies from people with a motive to deceive.
It wasn't so many years ago that these same scientists were sounding
alarms about global cooling. Can you say "Grant money"?

Heck, the gov't is paying professors to study why drunk co-eds are more
likely to have sex than sober ones.
First Post
2010-03-03 21:51:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Smith
Post by hal
It's not. That's why. The data isn't fudged. There's terabytes of
data from literally thousands of climate stations throughout the
world. Data from completely different sources, that all says the same
thing and validates each other through the scientific process of
confirmation. The data has NOT been invalidated or fudged. It's all
there if you want to go research it. It's all part of the public
domain. Look it up, and decide for yourself without simply blindly
accepting lies from people with a motive to deceive.
It wasn't so many years ago that these same scientists were sounding
alarms about global cooling. Can you say "Grant money"?
Heck, the gov't is paying professors to study why drunk co-eds are more
likely to have sex than sober ones.
You got an address or a phone number to contact and sign up for that
study? :-)
Cliff
2010-03-13 21:35:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Smith
Post by hal
It's not. That's why. The data isn't fudged. There's terabytes of
data from literally thousands of climate stations throughout the
world. Data from completely different sources, that all says the same
thing and validates each other through the scientific process of
confirmation. The data has NOT been invalidated or fudged. It's all
there if you want to go research it. It's all part of the public
domain. Look it up, and decide for yourself without simply blindly
accepting lies from people with a motive to deceive.
It wasn't so many years ago that these same scientists were sounding
alarms about global cooling. Can you say "Grant money"?
I can say "lying wingers".
Post by Bill Smith
Heck, the gov't is paying professors to study why drunk co-eds are more
likely to have sex than sober ones.
I can say "lying wingers".
--
Cliff
Cliff
2010-03-13 21:40:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Smith
Heck, the gov't is paying professors to study why drunk co-eds are more
likely to have sex than sober ones.
Illegal abortions in Texas are fine if your name is bush.
--
Cliff
Cliff
2010-03-02 23:34:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doug Miller
Post by Doug Miller
Post by Doug Miller
Post by hal
Post by Doug Miller
Post by hal
Reading for comprehension isn't your thing, I see. I didn't say "all
scientists agree". I said hundreds if not thousands of climates
scientists, "all whom agree". There is a huge difference. And
amongst qualified scientists who have been studying climate data for
decades those who do NOT think climate change is a real problem are in
an extreme minority. In other words, since reading ain't your thing,
by far MOST climate scientists agree this a huge problem.
I can see that science isn't your thing. News flash: science does not
operate
Post by Doug Miller
Post by hal
Post by Doug Miller
by majority vote.
No, shit, asshole. Those are your words not mine. The data is all
there, look it up.
No, idiot. *You're* the one talking about majority/minority. That's not
science. That's politics. Science doesn't operate by vote, and scientific
truth is not determined by the number of people that believe or don't believe
a proposition. Scientific truth is determined by evidence. And the "evidence"
supporting AGW has been manufactured. It's bogus.
Or haven't you been watching the news the last three months?
Shit, it's you detractors that are claiming the statements of only one
climate researcher somehow invalidates an entire huge body of data,
that by far most climate scientists agree completely is a very real
and present danger.
There ISN'T "an entire huge body of data", you idiot.
There's a huge body of made up, fudged numbers. They won't release the actual
raw data, only the *altered* data.
Ask yourself why that is.
If they stuffed your head with binary RF transmissions from the
raw data sources it would fry your last 3 neurons.
--
Cliff
Giga2
2010-03-02 09:49:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by hal
Post by Doug Miller
Post by Doug Miller
Reading for comprehension isn't your thing, I see.  I didn't say "all
scientists agree".  I said hundreds if not thousands of climates
scientists, "all whom agree".  There is a huge difference.  And
amongst qualified scientists who have been studying climate data for
decades those who do NOT think climate change is a real problem are in
an extreme minority.  In other words, since reading ain't your thing,
by far MOST climate scientists agree this a huge problem.  
I can see that science isn't your thing. News flash: science does not operate
by majority vote.
No, shit, asshole.  Those are your words not mine.  The data is all
there, look it up.
No, idiot. *You're* the one talking about majority/minority. That's not
science. That's politics. Science doesn't operate by vote, and scientific
truth is not determined by the number of people that believe or don't believe
a proposition. Scientific truth is determined by evidence. And the "evidence"
supporting AGW has been manufactured. It's bogus.
Or haven't you been watching the news the last three months?
Shit, it's you detractors that are claiming the statements of only one
climate researcher somehow invalidates an entire huge body of data,
that by far most climate scientists agree completely is a very real
and present danger.  
Post by Doug Miller
Post by Doug Miller
I can see that truth and logic isn't your thing, either. It's simply not true
that those who do not think climate change is a problem are in an extreme
minority. That is a lie that the liberal left is working very hard to push,
and I see you've been completely taken in. But it's still a lie.
How many climate scientists can you name that think AGW is a hoax?  I
bet you can't name more than one.  
http://petitionproject.org
LOL !  "Thousands" of "scientists"  (but only a small portion of them
actually have PhDs.)
About 9000 IIRC. Anyway it seems you need to have spent many years
locked in a room writing 50,000 words about how some obscure part of
eco-science that interests nobody to swallow AGW unthinkingly (or at
least it helps). This guarantees that the only career skills you have
developed is to make up reams of rubbish that sound vaugly green. Hee
hee.

Laugh laugh.  But nothing about qualifications.
Post by hal
It's easy to put together a big list of names.  It proves nothing.
Basically it's signed by anyone against global warming who doesn't
mind calling themselves "scientists".   snicker.
Same as the AGW lists, just bigger and a lot more credible.
Post by hal
On the other hand, you could actually try going to NOAA and looking up
the fucking data yourself, idiot.  It's all there.  Need the link?
Easier just to put the link rather than ask for permission.
Cliff
2010-03-03 00:03:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Giga2
Post by hal
Post by Doug Miller
http://petitionproject.org
LOL !  "Thousands" of "scientists"  (but only a small portion of them
actually have PhDs.)
About 9000 IIRC.
But it was all bogus.
They lied to you & were paid well to do so.
--
Cliff
Cliff
2010-03-02 23:33:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by hal
Post by Doug Miller
Post by hal
Post by Doug Miller
Post by hal
Reading for comprehension isn't your thing, I see. I didn't say "all
scientists agree". I said hundreds if not thousands of climates
scientists, "all whom agree". There is a huge difference. And
amongst qualified scientists who have been studying climate data for
decades those who do NOT think climate change is a real problem are in
an extreme minority. In other words, since reading ain't your thing,
by far MOST climate scientists agree this a huge problem.
I can see that science isn't your thing. News flash: science does not operate
by majority vote.
No, shit, asshole. Those are your words not mine. The data is all
there, look it up.
No, idiot. *You're* the one talking about majority/minority. That's not
science. That's politics. Science doesn't operate by vote, and scientific
truth is not determined by the number of people that believe or don't believe
a proposition. Scientific truth is determined by evidence. And the "evidence"
supporting AGW has been manufactured. It's bogus.
Or haven't you been watching the news the last three months?
Shit, it's you detractors that are claiming the statements of only one
climate researcher somehow invalidates an entire huge body of data,
that by far most climate scientists agree completely is a very real
and present danger.
Post by Doug Miller
Post by hal
Post by Doug Miller
I can see that truth and logic isn't your thing, either. It's simply not true
that those who do not think climate change is a problem are in an extreme
minority. That is a lie that the liberal left is working very hard to push,
and I see you've been completely taken in. But it's still a lie.
How many climate scientists can you name that think AGW is a hoax? I
bet you can't name more than one.
http://petitionproject.org
LOL ! "Thousands" of "scientists" (but only a small portion of them
actually have PhDs.) Laugh laugh. But nothing about qualifications.
It's easy to put together a big list of names. It proves nothing.
Basically it's signed by anyone against global warming who doesn't
mind calling themselves "scientists". snicker.
That "list" is a long-known fake & fraud.
Most on it cannot be found & those that can mostly
denied ever seeing or signing the thing (or were not
in the sciience field anywy).
Post by hal
On the other hand, you could actually try going to NOAA and looking up
the fucking data yourself, idiot. It's all there. Need the link?
--
Cliff
Cliff
2010-03-02 23:30:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doug Miller
Post by hal
Post by Doug Miller
Post by hal
Reading for comprehension isn't your thing, I see. I didn't say "all
scientists agree". I said hundreds if not thousands of climates
scientists, "all whom agree". There is a huge difference. And
amongst qualified scientists who have been studying climate data for
decades those who do NOT think climate change is a real problem are in
an extreme minority. In other words, since reading ain't your thing,
by far MOST climate scientists agree this a huge problem.
I can see that science isn't your thing. News flash: science does not operate
by majority vote.
No, shit, asshole. Those are your words not mine. The data is all
there, look it up.
No, idiot. *You're* the one talking about majority/minority. That's not
science. That's politics. Science doesn't operate by vote, and scientific
truth is not determined by the number of people that believe or don't believe
a proposition. Scientific truth is determined by evidence. And the "evidence"
supporting AGW has been manufactured. It's bogus.
Or haven't you been watching the news the last three months?
Were you mentioned as a famous liar & idiot?
--
Cliff
Cliff
2010-03-02 23:29:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doug Miller
Post by hal
Post by Doug Miller
Post by hal
Post by Doug Miller
Post by Cliff
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6200OE20100301?type=politicsNews
"Al Gore takes aim at climate change skeptics"
[
Former Vice President Al Gore on took aim at skeptics who doubt the reality
of
Post by Doug Miller
Post by Cliff
human-caused climate change, saying he wished it were an illusion but that
the
Post by Doug Miller
Post by Cliff
problem is real and urgent.
.....
]
And we should all do exactly what Al says, because everyone knows he is an
eminent climate scientist.
He is the spokesman for hundreds if not thousands of climate
scientists all whom agree that this problem is real and urgent.
The idea that "all scientists" agree that the problem is real and urgent is
simply a lie. There is considerable disagreement among scientists about the
nature and extent of the problem, and indeed if there even *is* a problem.
Reading for comprehension isn't your thing, I see. I didn't say "all
scientists agree". I said hundreds if not thousands of climates
scientists, "all whom agree". There is a huge difference. And
amongst qualified scientists who have been studying climate data for
decades those who do NOT think climate change is a real problem are in
an extreme minority. In other words, since reading ain't your thing,
by far MOST climate scientists agree this a huge problem.
I can see that science isn't your thing. News flash: science does not operate
by majority vote.
I can see that truth and logic isn't your thing, either. It's simply not true
that those who do not think climate change is a problem are in an extreme
minority. That is a lie that the liberal left is working very hard to push,
and I see you've been completely taken in. But it's still a lie.
IOW it's not getting warmer, the polar ice pack is not melting
nor are the glaciers and crop zones & pests are not changing
and CO2 & methane are not greenhouse gasses.

How do you know all of this fancy stuff? Did Rush or Faux let you in
on the secrets?
--
Cliff
Claudius Denk
2010-03-01 15:32:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doug Miller
Post by hal
Post by Doug Miller
 http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6200OE20100301?type=politicsNews
 "Al Gore takes aim at climate change skeptics"
[
Former Vice President Al Gore on took aim at skeptics who doubt the reality
of
Post by Doug Miller
human-caused climate change, saying he wished it were an illusion but that
the
Post by Doug Miller
problem is real and urgent.
.....
]
And we should all do exactly what Al says, because everyone knows he is an
eminent climate scientist.
He is the spokesman for hundreds if not thousands of climate
scientists all whom agree that this problem is real and urgent.
The idea that "all scientists" agree that the problem is real and urgent is
simply a lie. There is considerable disagreement among scientists about the
nature and extent of the problem, and indeed if there even *is* a problem.
Reading for comprehension isn't your thing, I see.  I didn't say "all
scientists agree".  I said hundreds if not thousands of climates
scientists, "all whom agree".
The number of climate scientists that agree that there is a problem
and who are also willing to discuss this belief and details thereof is
zero. They only release press releases and they avoid any open
forums, like this NG.

This tells me all I need to know. AGW is a scam, through and through.
There is a huge difference.  And
amongst qualified scientists who have been studying climate data for
decades those who do NOT think climate change is a real problem are in
an extreme minority.  
This is a retarded statement because the people that are proposing AGW
refuse to delineate the details. Consequently nobody knows who
believes what. You can claim anything you want. (And AGW whackos
constantly do.) Good luck substantiating any of it.

AGW is propaganda. End of story.
hal
2010-03-01 15:43:56 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 07:32:46 -0800 (PST), Claudius Denk
Post by Claudius Denk
The number of climate scientists that agree that there is a problem
and who are also willing to discuss this belief and details thereof is
zero. They only release press releases and they avoid any open
forums, like this NG.
That's complete nonsense, of course. There's lots of scientists out
there that ARE discussing this, in detail.
Post by Claudius Denk
This tells me all I need to know. AGW is a scam, through and through.
And that tells me you're an idiot that chooses to ignore all the data
that says this is true.
Post by Claudius Denk
There is a huge difference. =A0And
amongst qualified scientists who have been studying climate data for
decades those who do NOT think climate change is a real problem are in
an extreme minority. =A0
This is a retarded statement because the people that are proposing AGW
refuse to delineate the details.
Nonsense. Read something. Look it up, moron.
Post by Claudius Denk
Consequently nobody knows who
believes what. You can claim anything you want. (And AGW whackos
constantly do.) Good luck substantiating any of it.
AGW is propaganda. End of story.
You're a moron who has no more intelligence than an ostrich sticking
it's head in the sand because that's exactly what you are doing.

The data is all there if you wanted to know the truth.
James
2010-03-01 16:02:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by hal
On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 07:32:46 -0800 (PST), Claudius Denk
Post by Claudius Denk
The number of climate scientists that agree that there is a problem
and who are also willing to discuss this belief and details thereof
is zero. They only release press releases and they avoid any open
forums, like this NG.
That's complete nonsense, of course. There's lots of scientists out
there that ARE discussing this, in detail.
Not many. Most hide behind their organisation logos of authotity and
keep quiet. Those that do speak out are usually the ones that are
suspect in chicanery or have so committed themselves to the hoax that
they can't reverse themselves without being looked upon as incompetent.
hal
2010-03-01 16:09:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by James
Post by hal
On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 07:32:46 -0800 (PST), Claudius Denk
Post by Claudius Denk
The number of climate scientists that agree that there is a problem
and who are also willing to discuss this belief and details thereof
is zero. They only release press releases and they avoid any open
forums, like this NG.
That's complete nonsense, of course. There's lots of scientists out
there that ARE discussing this, in detail.
Not many. Most hide behind their organisation logos of authotity and
keep quiet. Those that do speak out are usually the ones that are
suspect in chicanery or have so committed themselves to the hoax that
they can't reverse themselves without being looked upon as incompetent.
You're completely full of shit, of course.

http://www.ntsg.umt.edu/files/5StagesClimateGrief.htm
J. Nielsen
2010-03-01 19:46:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by hal
You're completely full of shit, of course.
http://www.ntsg.umt.edu/files/5StagesClimateGrief.htm
They forgot to mention the sixth stage:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/argentina/7344329/Baby-survives-parents-global-warming-suicide-pact.html
--
-JN-
Cliff
2010-03-03 00:36:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Nielsen
Post by hal
You're completely full of shit, of course.
http://www.ntsg.umt.edu/files/5StagesClimateGrief.htm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/argentina/7344329/Baby-survives-parents-global-warming-suicide-pact.html
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/nations_snowmen_march_against
"Nation's Snowmen March Against Global Warming"

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/northeast_stunned_by_freak_january
"Northeast Stunned By Freak January Snowfall"

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/addressing_climate_crisis_bush
"Addressing Climate Crisis, Bush Calls For Development Of National Air
Conditioner"

http://www.theonion.com/content/infograph/climate_changes_security
"Climate Change's Security Fallout"

http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/man_with_food_in_beard
"Man With Food In Beard Saying Something About Climate Change"

http://www.theonion.com/content/amvo/spam_a_global_warming_issue
"Spam A Global Warming Issue"

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/melting_ice_caps_expose_hundreds
"Melting Ice Caps Expose Hundreds Of Secret Arctic Lairs"

HTH
--
Cliff
Hawke
2010-03-02 06:07:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by James
Post by hal
On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 07:32:46 -0800 (PST), Claudius Denk
Post by Claudius Denk
The number of climate scientists that agree that there is a problem
and who are also willing to discuss this belief and details thereof
is zero. They only release press releases and they avoid any open
forums, like this NG.
That's complete nonsense, of course. There's lots of scientists out
there that ARE discussing this, in detail.
Not many. Most hide behind their organisation logos of authotity and
keep quiet. Those that do speak out are usually the ones that are
suspect in chicanery or have so committed themselves to the hoax that
they can't reverse themselves without being looked upon as incompetent.
Can you do us a favor and tell us now what your excuse will be this
summer for why global warming is a hoax? You know, when it's over 100
degrees and new records for heat happen what are you going to say to
make it seem like it's not getting hotter? You guys use the winter
storms this year to "prove" there is no global warming, right? So what
excuse will you use this summer when it's sweltering? It's not really
hot? We're just imagining all these 100 degrees plus days? The
thermometers are all Chinese and aren't accurate? What's it going to be?

Hawke
d***@krl.org
2010-03-02 12:29:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hawke
Can you do us a favor and tell us now what your excuse will be this
summer for why global warming is a hoax? You know, when it's over 100
degrees and new records for heat happen what are you going to say to
make it seem like it's not getting hotter? You guys use the winter
storms this year to "prove" there is no global warming, right? So what
excuse will you use this summer when it's sweltering? It's not really
hot? We're just imagining all these 100 degrees plus days? The
thermometers are all Chinese and aren't accurate? What's it going to be?
Hawke
That is what I like about liberals. Not only are they so smart that
they know what is good for us, but they are able to forecast the
weather months in advance. But if you are wrong, and the high for the
fourth of July is only 69 degrees, then what?

Dan
Cliff
2010-03-03 01:03:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@krl.org
Post by Hawke
Can you do us a favor and tell us now what your excuse will be this
summer for why global warming is a hoax? You know, when it's over 100
degrees and new records for heat happen what are you going to say to
make it seem like it's not getting hotter? You guys use the winter
storms this year to "prove" there is no global warming, right? So what
excuse will you use this summer when it's sweltering? It's not really
hot? We're just imagining all these 100 degrees plus days? The
thermometers are all Chinese and aren't accurate? What's it going to be?
Hawke
That is what I like about liberals. Not only are they so smart that
they know what is good for us, but they are able to forecast the
weather months in advance. But if you are wrong, and the high for the
fourth of July is only 69 degrees, then what?
Dan
You confuse weather with climate.
Typical for a winger.
--
Cliff
d***@krl.org
2010-03-03 15:48:48 UTC
Permalink
  You confuse weather with climate.
  Typical for a winger.
--
Cliff
You really need to look up the definitions of climate and weather.
Climate is just weather averaged over a period longer than a couple of
weeks according to Wiki.

Dan
Cliff
2010-03-13 21:34:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@krl.org
  You confuse weather with climate.
  Typical for a winger.
--
Cliff
You really need to look up the definitions of climate and weather.
Climate is just weather averaged over a period longer than a couple of
weeks according to Wiki.
Dan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change
[
Climate change is a change in the statistical distribution of weather over
periods of time that range from decades to millions of years. It can be a change
in the average weather or a change in the distribution of weather events around
an average (for example, greater or fewer extreme weather events). Climate
change may be limited to a specific region, or may occur across the whole Earth.
It can be caused by recurring, often cyclical climate patterns such as El
Niño-Southern Oscillation, or come in the form of more singular events such as
the Dust Bowl.[1]

In recent usage, especially in the context of environmental policy, climate
change usually refers to changes in modern climate. It may be qualified as
anthropogenic climate change, more generally known as "global warming" or
"anthropogenic global warming" (AGW).
....
]

HTH
--
Cliff
Hawke
2010-03-03 22:43:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@krl.org
Post by Hawke
Can you do us a favor and tell us now what your excuse will be this
summer for why global warming is a hoax? You know, when it's over 100
degrees and new records for heat happen what are you going to say to
make it seem like it's not getting hotter? You guys use the winter
storms this year to "prove" there is no global warming, right? So what
excuse will you use this summer when it's sweltering? It's not really
hot? We're just imagining all these 100 degrees plus days? The
thermometers are all Chinese and aren't accurate? What's it going to be?
Hawke
That is what I like about liberals. Not only are they so smart that
they know what is good for us, but they are able to forecast the
weather months in advance. But if you are wrong, and the high for the
fourth of July is only 69 degrees, then what?
Dan
Well, that depends on where you are. If it's San Francisco then it's no
big deal. If it's Dallas then it is. But what I am doing is betting that
when summer comes it's going to be just as hot or hotter this year than
it was last year. I think that is a pretty safe bet.

Hawke
d***@krl.org
2010-03-03 23:32:31 UTC
Permalink
On Mar 3, 10:43 pm, Hawke <***@digitalpath.net> wrote:
   
Post by Hawke
Well, that depends on where you are. If it's San Francisco then it's no
big deal. If it's Dallas then it is. But what I am doing is betting that
when summer comes it's going to be just as hot or hotter this year than
it was last year. I think that is a pretty safe bet.
Hawke
Maybe. I bet that this winter was going to be as warm or warmer than
it was last year. It may have been a pretty safe bet, but this winter
was colder. I think that the high for every day in Jan and Feb was
below the average high for those dates. Still have snow on over 50%
of the lawn.

Dan
Hawke
2010-03-04 01:25:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@krl.org
Post by Hawke
Well, that depends on where you are. If it's San Francisco then it's no
big deal. If it's Dallas then it is. But what I am doing is betting that
when summer comes it's going to be just as hot or hotter this year than
it was last year. I think that is a pretty safe bet.
Hawke
Maybe. I bet that this winter was going to be as warm or warmer than
it was last year. It may have been a pretty safe bet, but this winter
was colder. I think that the high for every day in Jan and Feb was
below the average high for those dates. Still have snow on over 50%
of the lawn.
Dan
That's the problem with looking at local data and trying to apply it
globally. In my neck of the woods, Northern California, we had a warm
winter. We got a pretty good amount of rain for a change but it was not
a cold winter. So who's climate do we look at yours or mine? I'd say
leave it to the scientists who are not affected by local weather events
when looking at global weather changes. Did you see the Olympics? They
didn't have enough snow for a number of events. That's Vancouver,
Canada, no snow. So do we look at your state or at Canada, and what
about the rest of the world? How was their weather? You have to go with
what the experts say and I have to tell you they still believe in global
warming being real. That's who I'm listening to. Not some right or left
wing political type. I am trusting what the scientists say. You want to
dispute them that's your choice.

Hawke
Cliff
2010-03-13 21:44:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hawke
Post by d***@krl.org
Post by Hawke
Well, that depends on where you are. If it's San Francisco then it's no
big deal. If it's Dallas then it is. But what I am doing is betting that
when summer comes it's going to be just as hot or hotter this year than
it was last year. I think that is a pretty safe bet.
Hawke
Maybe. I bet that this winter was going to be as warm or warmer than
it was last year. It may have been a pretty safe bet, but this winter
was colder. I think that the high for every day in Jan and Feb was
below the average high for those dates. Still have snow on over 50%
of the lawn.
Dan
That's the problem with looking at local data and trying to apply it
globally. In my neck of the woods, Northern California, we had a warm
winter. We got a pretty good amount of rain for a change but it was not
a cold winter.
Plants are in bloom weeks or months early.

How are the mountain snowpacks holding up?
California depends on them for summer & fall water IIRC.
Post by Hawke
So who's climate do we look at yours or mine? I'd say
leave it to the scientists who are not affected by local weather events
when looking at global weather changes. Did you see the Olympics? They
didn't have enough snow for a number of events. That's Vancouver,
Canada, no snow. So do we look at your state or at Canada, and what
about the rest of the world? How was their weather? You have to go with
what the experts say and I have to tell you they still believe in global
warming being real. That's who I'm listening to. Not some right or left
wing political type. I am trusting what the scientists say. You want to
dispute them that's your choice.
Hawke
--
Cliff
Cliff
2010-03-13 21:41:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@krl.org
   
Post by Hawke
Well, that depends on where you are. If it's San Francisco then it's no
big deal. If it's Dallas then it is. But what I am doing is betting that
when summer comes it's going to be just as hot or hotter this year than
it was last year. I think that is a pretty safe bet.
Hawke
Maybe. I bet that this winter was going to be as warm or warmer than
it was last year. It may have been a pretty safe bet, but this winter
was colder. I think that the high for every day in Jan and Feb was
below the average high for those dates. Still have snow on over 50%
of the lawn.
Dan
So far, IIRC, this last winter is a record warm one for the US.
--
Cliff
D Murphy
2010-03-14 05:29:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cliff
Post by d***@krl.org
   
Post by Hawke
Well, that depends on where you are. If it's San Francisco then it's
no big deal. If it's Dallas then it is. But what I am doing is
betting that when summer comes it's going to be just as hot or
hotter this year than it was last year. I think that is a pretty
safe bet.
Hawke
Maybe. I bet that this winter was going to be as warm or warmer than
it was last year. It may have been a pretty safe bet, but this winter
was colder. I think that the high for every day in Jan and Feb was
below the average high for those dates. Still have snow on over 50%
of the lawn.
Dan
So far, IIRC, this last winter is a record warm one for the US.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_ev
olution-status-fcsts-web.pdf

HTH
--
Dan
Gunner Asch
2010-03-19 10:26:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by D Murphy
olution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
Looks like 1998 was the hot year and its been getting cooler ever since.
D Murphy
2010-03-20 02:37:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gunner Asch
Post by D Murphy
olution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
Looks like 1998 was the hot year and its been getting cooler ever since.
Cliff isn't very good at math and has little understanding of science. It's
funny how he will dismiss ten years of cooler temperatures as "weather" but
cites an El Nino as a sign of impending global doom.
--
Dan
Curly Surmudgeon
2010-03-20 04:00:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by D Murphy
Post by Gunner Asch
Post by D Murphy
olution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
Looks like 1998 was the hot year and its been getting cooler ever since.
Cliff isn't very good at math and has little understanding of science.
It's funny how he will dismiss ten years of cooler temperatures as
"weather" but cites an El Nino as a sign of impending global doom.
Untrue: http://
www.g2weather.com/.a/6a010535bea9f5970b010536311139970b-800wi
--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Republican Party: Our Bridge to the 11th Century
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
D Murphy
2010-03-20 05:20:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Post by D Murphy
Post by Gunner Asch
Post by D Murphy
olution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
Looks like 1998 was the hot year and its been getting cooler ever since.
Cliff isn't very good at math and has little understanding of
science.
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Post by D Murphy
It's funny how he will dismiss ten years of cooler temperatures as
"weather" but cites an El Nino as a sign of impending global doom.
Untrue: http://
www.g2weather.com/.a/6a010535bea9f5970b010536311139970b-800wi
Wow. I'm convinced. That nifty graph proves Cliff got better at math
between 1950 and 2000.

Or not.

But seeing as it doesn't cover this winter, it probably doesn't support
his claims.
--
Dan
Gunner Asch
2010-03-20 05:50:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doug Miller
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Post by D Murphy
Post by Gunner Asch
Post by D Murphy
olution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
Looks like 1998 was the hot year and its been getting cooler ever since.
Cliff isn't very good at math and has little understanding of
science.
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Post by D Murphy
It's funny how he will dismiss ten years of cooler temperatures as
"weather" but cites an El Nino as a sign of impending global doom.
Untrue: http://
www.g2weather.com/.a/6a010535bea9f5970b010536311139970b-800wi
Wow. I'm convinced. That nifty graph proves Cliff got better at math
between 1950 and 2000.
Or not.
But seeing as it doesn't cover this winter, it probably doesn't support
his claims.
And given the source of that particular graph...part of the Gorbal
Warming propaganda that has been proven to be an utter lie..one can
simply toss it into the scrap bin.

Notice the source is "woodfortrees.org"

Notice the disclaimer on the first page of the above website?

"I have no particular axe to grind in the "Global Warming Debate" one
way or the other. Indeed, as a life-long Green ......"


Gunner


"First Law of Leftist Debate
The more you present a leftist with factual evidence
that is counter to his preconceived world view and the
more difficult it becomes for him to refute it without
losing face the chance of him calling you a racist, bigot,
homophobe approaches infinity.

This is despite the thread you are in having not mentioned
race or sexual preference in any way that is relevant to
the subject." Grey Ghost
Cliff
2010-03-21 07:23:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gunner Asch
Post by Doug Miller
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Post by D Murphy
Post by Gunner Asch
Post by D Murphy
olution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
Looks like 1998 was the hot year and its been getting cooler ever since.
Cliff isn't very good at math and has little understanding of
science.
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Post by D Murphy
It's funny how he will dismiss ten years of cooler temperatures as
"weather" but cites an El Nino as a sign of impending global doom.
Untrue: http://
www.g2weather.com/.a/6a010535bea9f5970b010536311139970b-800wi
Wow. I'm convinced. That nifty graph proves Cliff got better at math
between 1950 and 2000.
Or not.
But seeing as it doesn't cover this winter, it probably doesn't support
his claims.
And given the source of that particular graph...part of the Gorbal
Warming propaganda that has been proven to be an utter lie..
As usual, gummer lies again.
Post by Gunner Asch
one can
simply toss it into the scrap bin.
With winger lies?
Post by Gunner Asch
Notice the source is "woodfortrees.org"
Notice the disclaimer on the first page of the above website?
"I have no particular axe to grind in the "Global Warming Debate" one
way or the other. Indeed, as a life-long Green ......"
So what?
Check any other real graphs of the data.
Not the fake winger ones.
Post by Gunner Asch
Gunner
Demonstrating yet again utter ignorance & winger lies.
As usual.

2010 is International Educate a Winger Day.
--
Cliff
Curly Surmudgeon
2010-03-21 18:07:10 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 03:23:16 -0400, Cliff
Post by Cliff
Post by Gunner Asch
Post by Doug Miller
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Post by D Murphy
Post by Gunner Asch
Post by D Murphy
olution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
Looks like 1998 was the hot year and its been getting cooler ever since.
Cliff isn't very good at math and has little understanding of
science.
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Post by D Murphy
It's funny how he will dismiss ten years of cooler temperatures as
"weather" but cites an El Nino as a sign of impending global doom.
Untrue: http://
www.g2weather.com/.a/6a010535bea9f5970b010536311139970b-800wi
Wow. I'm convinced. That nifty graph proves Cliff got better at math
between 1950 and 2000.
Or not.
But seeing as it doesn't cover this winter, it probably doesn't support
his claims.
And given the source of that particular graph...part of the Gorbal
Warming propaganda that has been proven to be an utter lie..
As usual, gummer lies again.
Post by Gunner Asch
one can
simply toss it into the scrap bin.
With winger lies?
Post by Gunner Asch
Notice the source is "woodfortrees.org"
Notice the disclaimer on the first page of the above website?
"I have no particular axe to grind in the "Global Warming Debate" one
way or the other. Indeed, as a life-long Green ......"
So what?
Check any other real graphs of the data. Not the fake winger ones.
Post by Gunner Asch
Gunner
Demonstrating yet again utter ignorance & winger lies. As usual.
2010 is International Educate a Winger Day.
Which one? Or all 365? Sorry, I'm booked...
--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Republican Party: Our Bridge to the 11th Century
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff
2010-03-21 07:19:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doug Miller
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Post by D Murphy
Post by Gunner Asch
Post by D Murphy
olution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
Looks like 1998 was the hot year and its been getting cooler ever since.
Cliff isn't very good at math and has little understanding of
science.
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Post by D Murphy
It's funny how he will dismiss ten years of cooler temperatures as
"weather" but cites an El Nino as a sign of impending global doom.
Untrue: http://
www.g2weather.com/.a/6a010535bea9f5970b010536311139970b-800wi
Wow. I'm convinced. That nifty graph proves Cliff got better at math
between 1950 and 2000.
Or not.
But seeing as it doesn't cover this winter, it probably doesn't support
his claims.
Does not cover next year either.
So what?

But it does show that "ten years of cooler temperatures"
is a big winger lie. As usual & as expected.
--
Cliff
Last Post
2010-03-21 17:36:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doug Miller
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Post by D Murphy
Post by Gunner Asch
Post by D Murphy
olution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
Looks like 1998 was the hot year and its been getting cooler ever since.
Cliff isn't very good at math and has little understanding of
science.
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Post by D Murphy
It's funny how he will dismiss ten years of cooler temperatures as
"weather" but cites an El Nino as a sign of impending global doom.
Untrue: http://
www.g2weather.com/.a/6a010535bea9f5970b010536311139970b-800wi
Wow. I'm convinced. That nifty graph proves Cliff got better at math
between 1950 and 2000.
Or not.
But seeing as it doesn't cover this winter, it probably doesn't support
his claims.
  Does not cover next year either.
  So what?
  But it does show that "ten years of cooler temperatures"
is a big winger lie. As usual & as expected.
--
Cliff
ø Cliff why don't you jump over one, you do not
contribute anything here.

ø Nobody can control the wind
Nobody can control the rain or snow
Nobody (collectively) can control climate.
Global temps are within natural variations
Oceans heating are a prelude to glaciation


 Get used to it!!

— —
| In real science the burden of proof is always
| on the proposer, never on the skeptics. So far
| neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
| iota of valid data for global warming nor have
| they provided data that climate change is being
| effected by commerce and industry, and not by
| natural causes
D Murphy
2010-03-21 18:13:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cliff
Post by Doug Miller
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Post by D Murphy
Post by Gunner Asch
Post by D Murphy
olution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
Looks like 1998 was the hot year and its been getting cooler ever since.
Cliff isn't very good at math and has little understanding of
science.
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Post by D Murphy
It's funny how he will dismiss ten years of cooler temperatures as
"weather" but cites an El Nino as a sign of impending global doom.
Untrue: http://
www.g2weather.com/.a/6a010535bea9f5970b010536311139970b-800wi
Wow. I'm convinced. That nifty graph proves Cliff got better at math
between 1950 and 2000.
Or not.
But seeing as it doesn't cover this winter, it probably doesn't support
his claims.
Does not cover next year either.
So what?
But it does show that "ten years of cooler temperatures"
is a big winger lie. As usual & as expected.
Loading Image...

Feel free to point out the years warmer than '98.

Or maybe you could explain Phil Jones' statement that there's no
statistically significant warming in the last 15 years.

While you're at it explain how warm El Nino winters are proof of
whatever idiocy you were claiming about this past winter.

Or just snip this up, quote some shit out of context and call me names.
That seems to be the extent of you skill set.
--
Dan
Dawlish
2010-03-21 19:12:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doug Miller
Post by Doug Miller
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Post by D Murphy
Post by Gunner Asch
Post by D Murphy
olution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
Looks like 1998 was the hot year and its been getting cooler ever since.
Cliff isn't very good at math and has little understanding of
science.
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Post by D Murphy
It's funny how he will dismiss ten years of cooler temperatures as
"weather" but cites an El Nino as a sign of impending global doom.
Untrue: http://
www.g2weather.com/.a/6a010535bea9f5970b010536311139970b-800wi
Wow. I'm convinced. That nifty graph proves Cliff got better at math
between 1950 and 2000.
Or not.
But seeing as it doesn't cover this winter, it probably doesn't
support
Post by Doug Miller
his claims.
  Does not cover next year either.
  So what?
  But it does show that "ten years of cooler temperatures"
is a big winger lie. As usual & as expected.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.E.lrg.gif
Feel free to point out the years warmer than '98.
2005 (NASA) and the period May 2009 - March 2010 is warmer than the
same period in 1998 (and any other year). Jan-Dec years are very
arbitrary time periods and one year is far too short a period from
which to deduce anything to do with climate. Decades are better. The
last decade was significantly warmer than the 90s.
Post by Doug Miller
Or maybe you could explain Phil Jones' statement that there's no
statistically significant warming in the last 15 years.
Maybe you'd like to read the actual BBC interview?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8511670.stm

You have to understand a little about statistical significance to
understand this, of course, but there has been warning and it alnost
achieved 95% significance. That's what Phil Jones meant. The warming
was significant at >90%. I hope someone will now alter their sig to
say the truth. "Over the last 15 years, there has been warming at the
90%+ significance level. Again, Phil Jones has also said the every
decade of the last century was warmer than the decade previous to it.
That longer timespan is a far better measure.
Post by Doug Miller
While you're at it explain how warm El Nino winters are proof of
whatever idiocy you were claiming about this past winter.
This has been a moderate El Nino. 1998, the "record year" that you
refer to, was the largest El Nino of the modern era. We presently have
an extended solar minimum, which we didn't then and the PDO is
negative (positive in 1998) Both of those are cooling factors.
Temperatures through this El NIno and despite the cooling factors are
roughly comparable to 1998. What does that tell you has happened to
the background world temperature?
Post by Doug Miller
Dan- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Well?
D Murphy
2010-03-21 22:16:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dawlish
innews:k0ibq5lqkq7
Post by Doug Miller
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Post by D Murphy
Post by Gunner Asch
Post by D Murphy
olution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
Looks like 1998 was the hot year and its been getting cooler ever since.
Cliff isn't very good at math and has little understanding of
science.
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
Post by D Murphy
It's funny how he will dismiss ten years of cooler temperatures
as "weather" but cites an El Nino as a sign of impending global
doom.
Untrue: http://
www.g2weather.com/.a/6a010535bea9f5970b010536311139970b-800wi
Wow. I'm convinced. That nifty graph proves Cliff got better at
math between 1950 and 2000.
Or not.
But seeing as it doesn't cover this winter, it probably doesn't
support
Post by Doug Miller
his claims.
  Does not cover next year either.
  So what?
  But it does show that "ten years of cooler temperatures"
is a big winger lie. As usual & as expected.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.E.lrg.gif
Feel free to point out the years warmer than '98.
2005 (NASA) and the period May 2009 - March 2010 is warmer than the
same period in 1998 (and any other year). Jan-Dec years are very
arbitrary time periods and one year is far too short a period from
which to deduce anything to do with climate. Decades are better. The
last decade was significantly warmer than the 90s.
Or maybe you could explain Phil Jones' statement that there's no
statistically significant warming in the last 15 years.
Maybe you'd like to read the actual BBC interview?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8511670.stm
You have to understand a little about statistical significance to
understand this, of course, but there has been warning and it alnost
achieved 95% significance. That's what Phil Jones meant. The warming
was significant at >90%. I hope someone will now alter their sig to
say the truth. "Over the last 15 years, there has been warming at the
90%+ significance level. Again, Phil Jones has also said the every
decade of the last century was warmer than the decade previous to it.
That longer timespan is a far better measure.
While you're at it explain how warm El Nino winters are proof of
whatever idiocy you were claiming about this past winter.
This has been a moderate El Nino. 1998, the "record year" that you
refer to, was the largest El Nino of the modern era. We presently have
an extended solar minimum, which we didn't then and the PDO is
negative (positive in 1998) Both of those are cooling factors.
Temperatures through this El NIno and despite the cooling factors are
roughly comparable to 1998. What does that tell you has happened to
the background world temperature?
Dan- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Well?
Well, you've taken this even further out of context, plus with Cliff's
snipping out the relevent bits, it gets hard to follow. So here's the
context: Cliff made a statement that this might be a record warm winter
in the US. I post a link that shows ENSO data that concludes with
evidence of the current El Nino, so you'd expect certain weather
patterns. Cliff doesn't respond, likely because he doesn't get it. Later
I make the observation how any data, such as the absence of a warming
trend over the last ten years, that is counter to his beliefs is
dismissed by him as weather. But when data shows that weather patterns
like El Nino help explain the recent warm weather, he's silent. Then
Curly posts a link to a Hadcrut graph of some unkown temperature series
from 1950-2000 to show that the last ten years have in fact been warmer.
Huh?

Then Cliff jumps in with the brilliant observation that in order to
disprove that the last ten years have been cooler years than 1998, you
needn't look at the last ten years.

So, there's nothing incorrect about anything I've posted so far. You
seem to be making some unfounded assumptions into what I've written. I
didn't post any conclusions, just observations.

Take statistics for instance. In manufacturing we apply them in process
control. So I have more than a passing familiarity with them, thank you
very much. I've also read the interview with Jones and agree that it is
often mischarecterized, but I don't see where I did that in the context
of talking about the last ten years.

To sum it all up, I posted ENSO data to show Cliff that you might expect
the weather he posted about, and from that action, everyone assumes that
they know what I think about AGW and jumps to conclusions that aren't
there.
--
Dan
Cliff
2010-03-21 07:14:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by D Murphy
Post by Gunner Asch
Post by D Murphy
olution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
Looks like 1998 was the hot year and its been getting cooler ever since.
Cliff isn't very good at math and has little understanding of science. It's
funny how he will dismiss ten years of cooler temperatures as "weather" but
cites an El Nino as a sign of impending global doom.
??
I never cited El Nino.
--
Cliff
D Murphy
2010-03-21 18:14:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cliff
Post by D Murphy
Post by Gunner Asch
Post by D Murphy
olution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
Looks like 1998 was the hot year and its been getting cooler ever since.
Cliff isn't very good at math and has little understanding of science.
It's funny how he will dismiss ten years of cooler temperatures as
"weather" but cites an El Nino as a sign of impending global doom.
??
I never cited El Nino.
I did dumbass.
--
Dan
Cliff
2010-03-21 07:13:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by D Murphy
Post by Cliff
Post by d***@krl.org
   
Post by Hawke
Well, that depends on where you are. If it's San Francisco then it's
no big deal. If it's Dallas then it is. But what I am doing is
betting that when summer comes it's going to be just as hot or
hotter this year than it was last year. I think that is a pretty
safe bet.
Hawke
Maybe. I bet that this winter was going to be as warm or warmer than
it was last year. It may have been a pretty safe bet, but this winter
was colder. I think that the high for every day in Jan and Feb was
below the average high for those dates. Still have snow on over 50%
of the lawn.
Dan
So far, IIRC, this last winter is a record warm one for the US.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_ev
olution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
HTH
Up to 8 degrees C warmer you say?
With Canada nearly balmy (for a Canadian winter)?
Think any polar ice or tundra will melt (more/sooner)?

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100316_globalstats.html

"The combined global land and ocean surface temperature for February 2010 was
the sixth warmest on record,"

"Warmer-than-average temperatures enveloped much of the rest of the world’s
land areas, with the warmest temperature anomalies occurring across Alaska,
Canada and across the Middle East and northern Africa. "

"The February worldwide ocean temperature was the second warmest, behind 1998,
on record."

"Arctic sea ice covered an average of 5.6 million square miles (14.6 million
square kilometers) during February. This is 6.8 percent below the 1979-2000
average extent and the fourth lowest February extent since records began in
1979. This was also the 12th consecutive February with below-average Arctic sea
ice extent. February Arctic sea ice extent has decreased by 2.9 percent per
decade since 1979."

Guess some cold airmoved South from Canada at one point, eh?
--
Cliff
D Murphy
2010-03-21 18:45:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cliff
Post by Cliff
Post by d***@krl.org
   
Post by Hawke
Well, that depends on where you are. If it's San Francisco then
it's no big deal. If it's Dallas then it is. But what I am doing
is betting that when summer comes it's going to be just as hot or
hotter this year than it was last year. I think that is a pretty
safe bet.
Hawke
Maybe. I bet that this winter was going to be as warm or warmer
than it was last year. It may have been a pretty safe bet, but this
winter was colder. I think that the high for every day in Jan and
Feb was below the average high for those dates. Still have snow on
over 50% of the lawn.
Dan
So far, IIRC, this last winter is a record warm one for the US.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_e
Post by Cliff
v olution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
HTH
Up to 8 degrees C warmer you say?
I never said that.
Post by Cliff
With Canada nearly balmy (for a Canadian winter)?
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20091015_winteroutlook.html

Shocking!
Post by Cliff
Think any polar ice or tundra will melt (more/sooner)?
I would certainly hope so.
Post by Cliff
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100316_globalstats.html
"The combined global land and ocean surface temperature for February 2010 was
the sixth warmest on record,"
"Warmer-than-average temperatures enveloped much of the rest of the world’s
land areas, with the warmest temperature anomalies occurring across
Alaska, Canada and across the Middle East and northern Africa. "
"The February worldwide ocean temperature was the second warmest, behind 1998,
on record."
"Arctic sea ice covered an average of 5.6 million square miles (14.6 million
square kilometers) during February. This is 6.8 percent below the
1979-2000 average extent and the fourth lowest February extent since
records began in 1979. This was also the 12th consecutive February
with below-average Arctic sea ice extent. February Arctic sea ice
extent has decreased by 2.9 percent per decade since 1979."
Guess some cold airmoved South from Canada at one point, eh?
Guess you missed this part from your link - "A moderate-to-strong El
Niño continued in February. Sea surface temperatures across parts of the
equatorial Pacific Ocean were more than 2.7 degrees F (1.5 degrees C)
above average during the month. According to NOAA's Climate Prediction
Center, El Niño is expected to continue at least through the Northern
Hemisphere spring 2010."

Loading Image...

Effects of a normal weather cycle.

HTH
--
Dan
Cliff
2010-03-03 00:20:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by James
Post by hal
On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 07:32:46 -0800 (PST), Claudius Denk
Post by Claudius Denk
The number of climate scientists that agree that there is a problem
and who are also willing to discuss this belief and details thereof
is zero. They only release press releases and they avoid any open
forums, like this NG.
That's complete nonsense, of course. There's lots of scientists out
there that ARE discussing this, in detail.
Not many. Most hide behind their organisation logos of authotity and
keep quiet. Those that do speak out are usually the ones that are
suspect in chicanery or have so committed themselves to the hoax that
they can't reverse themselves without being looked upon as incompetent.
The numbers don't matter as long a Rush & Faux can tell
you what to think & say.
See how simple it all is without thinking or any sort of education,
reason, facts or research?
--
Cliff
Cliff
2010-03-03 00:04:41 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 07:32:46 -0800 (PST), Claudius Denk
Post by Claudius Denk
The number of climate scientists that agree that there is a problem
and who are also willing to discuss this belief and details thereof is
zero. They only release press releases and they avoid any open
forums, like this NG.
This tells me all I need to know. AGW is a scam, through and through.
Who would pay them to try to give you a third grade education?
--
Cliff
Bill McKee
2010-03-01 18:10:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by hal
Post by Doug Miller
Post by hal
Post by Doug Miller
Post by Cliff
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6200OE20100301?type=politicsNews
"Al Gore takes aim at climate change skeptics"
[
Former Vice President Al Gore on took aim at skeptics who doubt the reality
of
Post by Doug Miller
Post by Cliff
human-caused climate change, saying he wished it were an illusion but that
the
Post by Doug Miller
Post by Cliff
problem is real and urgent.
.....
]
And we should all do exactly what Al says, because everyone knows he is an
eminent climate scientist.
He is the spokesman for hundreds if not thousands of climate
scientists all whom agree that this problem is real and urgent.
The idea that "all scientists" agree that the problem is real and urgent is
simply a lie. There is considerable disagreement among scientists about the
nature and extent of the problem, and indeed if there even *is* a problem.
Reading for comprehension isn't your thing, I see. I didn't say "all
scientists agree". I said hundreds if not thousands of climates
scientists, "all whom agree". There is a huge difference. And
amongst qualified scientists who have been studying climate data for
decades those who do NOT think climate change is a real problem are in
an extreme minority. In other words, since reading ain't your thing,
by far MOST climate scientists agree this a huge problem.
He is a spokesman for a company he partially owns that is making millions of
dollars off selling carbon credits.
hal
2010-03-01 18:59:56 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 10:10:54 -0800, "Bill McKee"
Post by Bill McKee
He is a spokesman for a company he partially owns that is making millions of
dollars off selling carbon credits.
So? Capitalism is somehow bad if liberals do it? You should be
jerking off to his picture thinking about him making millions selling
anything.
Bill McKee
2010-03-01 22:27:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by hal
On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 10:10:54 -0800, "Bill McKee"
Post by Bill McKee
He is a spokesman for a company he partially owns that is making millions of
dollars off selling carbon credits.
So? Capitalism is somehow bad if liberals do it? You should be
jerking off to his picture thinking about him making millions selling
anything.
There is capitolism and there is fraud. You are too stupid recognize
either.
hal
2010-03-01 22:39:28 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 14:27:31 -0800, "Bill McKee"
Post by Bill McKee
Post by hal
On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 10:10:54 -0800, "Bill McKee"
Post by Bill McKee
He is a spokesman for a company he partially owns that is making millions of
dollars off selling carbon credits.
So? Capitalism is somehow bad if liberals do it? You should be
jerking off to his picture thinking about him making millions selling
anything.
There is capitolism and there is fraud. You are too stupid recognize
either.
Why is what Gore does fraud? And is firing American workers and
exporting jobs to overseas sweatshops where people work in unsafe
conditions for pennies a day then taking their shoddy products and
selling them back to the same workers you fired considered good
capitalism?
D Murphy
2010-03-02 04:39:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by hal
Post by Doug Miller
Post by hal
Post by Doug Miller
Post by Cliff
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6200OE20100301?
type=politics
Post by hal
Post by Doug Miller
Post by hal
Post by Doug Miller
Post by Cliff
News "Al Gore takes aim at climate change skeptics"
[
Former Vice President Al Gore on took aim at skeptics who doubt the reality
of
Post by Doug Miller
Post by Cliff
human-caused climate change, saying he wished it were an illusion but that
the
Post by Doug Miller
Post by Cliff
problem is real and urgent.
.....
]
And we should all do exactly what Al says, because everyone knows he
is an eminent climate scientist.
He is the spokesman for hundreds if not thousands of climate
scientists all whom agree that this problem is real and urgent.
The idea that "all scientists" agree that the problem is real and
urgent is simply a lie. There is considerable disagreement among
scientists about the nature and extent of the problem, and indeed if
there even *is* a problem.
Reading for comprehension isn't your thing, I see. I didn't say "all
scientists agree". I said hundreds if not thousands of climates
scientists, "all whom agree". There is a huge difference. And
amongst qualified scientists who have been studying climate data for
decades those who do NOT think climate change is a real problem are in
an extreme minority. In other words, since reading ain't your thing,
by far MOST climate scientists agree this a huge problem.
Excellent. Just think of all the money we'll save now that scientific
outcomes are decided by consensus rather than research, experimentation,
and peer review. Not to mention the time saved! We can just jump right
to big government policy decisions right after the majority agrees. No
more waiting for the truth.

All this new definition of science needs is a catchy name. Let's see
Democroscience? Nope. Scientology? Damn, already taken. I've got it!
Progressivism!

Settled. We've voted.
--
Dan
Cliff
2010-03-02 23:24:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doug Miller
Post by hal
Post by Doug Miller
Post by Cliff
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6200OE20100301?type=politicsNews
"Al Gore takes aim at climate change skeptics"
[
Former Vice President Al Gore on took aim at skeptics who doubt the reality
of
Post by Doug Miller
Post by Cliff
human-caused climate change, saying he wished it were an illusion but that
the
Post by Doug Miller
Post by Cliff
problem is real and urgent.
.....
]
And we should all do exactly what Al says, because everyone knows he is an
eminent climate scientist.
He is the spokesman for hundreds if not thousands of climate
scientists all whom agree that this problem is real and urgent.
The idea that "all scientists" agree that the problem is real and urgent is
simply a lie. There is considerable disagreement among scientists about the
nature and extent of the problem, and indeed if there even *is* a problem.
It's interesting that you think the guys with tinfoil hats are "scientists".
Who told you that?
--
Cliff
AM
2010-03-01 15:28:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by hal
Post by Doug Miller
And we should all do exactly what Al says, because everyone knows he is an
eminent climate scientist.
He is the spokesman for hundreds if not thousands of climate
scientists all whom agree that this problem is real and urgent.
And how convienant that he has made a fortune off AGW. Yet existing
energy companies are bad for making money, but Al Gore is a hero. How
interesting.


The economy comes first, AGW is dead in the voters minds. Get used to
it. The people want real job's. Not the green kind that go overseas on
pipe dream energy ideas (wind/solar) that can't supply power on the
scale we need right now.
--
AM

http://sctuser.home.comcast.net

http://www.novac.com
Claudius Denk
2010-03-01 18:05:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by hal
Post by Doug Miller
 http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6200OE20100301?type=politicsNews
 "Al Gore takes aim at climate change skeptics"
[
Former Vice President Al Gore on took aim at skeptics who doubt the reality of
human-caused climate change, saying he wished it were an illusion but that the
problem is real and urgent.
.....
]
And we should all do exactly what Al says, because everyone knows he is an
eminent climate scientist.
He is the spokesman for hundreds if not thousands of climate
scientists all whom agree that this problem is real and urgent.
Gore is their front man so they can avoid debate.
hal
2010-03-01 18:56:05 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 10:05:27 -0800 (PST), Claudius Denk
Post by Claudius Denk
Post by hal
He is the spokesman for hundreds if not thousands of climate
scientists all whom agree that this problem is real and urgent.
Gore is their front man so they can avoid debate.
I know climate scientists who are happy to debate you.
Martin H. Eastburn
2010-03-02 03:41:27 UTC
Permalink
And has quit their jobs and rescinded their remarks.

The points of fact of measurements were as bad as can be.
One station next to a smoke stack. Another ..... I saw three or four
in a public statement and there was hung heads on the data base used.

A single station in mid Canada prediction central. What a laugh.

Can you explain why the snow on Mars has melted ? Been there for millions of years.

Solar winds are driving upon us like not before. No one knows why.
Something is going on in the sun and we can only hope it isn't expanding!

When it expands, it will overtake our orbit.

Martin
Post by hal
Post by Doug Miller
Post by Cliff
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6200OE20100301?type=politicsNews
"Al Gore takes aim at climate change skeptics"
[
Former Vice President Al Gore on took aim at skeptics who doubt the reality of
human-caused climate change, saying he wished it were an illusion but that the
problem is real and urgent.
.....
]
And we should all do exactly what Al says, because everyone knows he is an
eminent climate scientist.
He is the spokesman for hundreds if not thousands of climate
scientists all whom agree that this problem is real and urgent.
Cliff
2010-03-03 00:39:39 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 21:41:27 -0600, "Martin H. Eastburn"
Post by Martin H. Eastburn
Can you explain why the snow on Mars has melted ?
Like it does every summer on Mars?
Post by Martin H. Eastburn
Been there for millions of years.
You were watching?
--
Cliff
Cliff
2010-03-03 00:40:54 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 21:41:27 -0600, "Martin H. Eastburn"
Post by Martin H. Eastburn
Solar winds are driving upon us like not before. No one knows why.
Something is going on in the sun and we can only hope it isn't expanding!
When it expands, it will overtake our orbit.
How odd that the solar observations do not create panic.
How long did you stare at it?
--
Cliff
Last Post
2010-03-21 17:32:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by hal
Post by Doug Miller
 http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6200OE20100301?type=politicsNews
 "Al Gore takes aim at climate change skeptics"
[
Former Vice President Al Gore on took aim at skeptics who doubt the reality of
human-caused climate change, saying he wished it were an illusion but that the
problem is real and urgent.
.....
]
And we should all do exactly what Al says, because everyone knows he is an
eminent climate scientist.
He is the spokesman for hundreds if not thousands of climate
scientists all whom agree that this problem is real and urgent.
ø Gore is the spokesman only for the IPCC 52 and
even that number is shrinking.

ø Nobody can control the wind
Nobody can control the rain or snow
Nobody (collectively) can control climate.
Global temps are within natural variations
Oceans heating are a prelude to glaciation


 Get used to it!!

— —
| In real science the burden of proof is always
| on the proposer, never on the skeptics. So far
| neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
| iota of valid data for global warming nor have
| they provided data that climate change is being
| effected by commerce and industry, and not by
| natural causes
Last Post
2010-03-21 17:38:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Last Post
Post by hal
Post by Doug Miller
 http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6200OE20100301?type=politicsNews
 "Al Gore takes aim at climate change skeptics"
[
Former Vice President Al Gore on took aim at skeptics who doubt the reality of
human-caused climate change, saying he wished it were an illusion but that the
problem is real and urgent.
.....
]
And we should all do exactly what Al says, because everyone knows he is an
eminent climate scientist.
He is the spokesman for hundreds if not thousands of climate
scientists all whom agree that this problem is real and urgent.
ø Gore is the spokesman only for the IPCC 52 and
   even that number is shrinking.
ø Nobody can control the wind
   Nobody can control the rain or snow
   Nobody (collectively) can control climate.
   Global temps are within natural variations
   Oceans heating are a prelude to glaciation

   Get used to it!!
    — —
| In real science the burden of proof is always
| on the proposer, never on the skeptics. So far
| neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
| iota of valid data for global warming nor have
| they provided data that climate change is being
| effected by commerce and industry, and not by
| natural causes
Garlicdude
2010-03-01 23:29:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doug Miller
Post by Cliff
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6200OE20100301?type=politicsNews
"Al Gore takes aim at climate change skeptics"
[
Former Vice President Al Gore on took aim at skeptics who doubt the reality of
human-caused climate change, saying he wished it were an illusion but that the
problem is real and urgent.
.....
]
And we should all do exactly what Al says, because everyone knows he is an
eminent climate scientist.
http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/24192/


"At the first opportunity for audience participation just several minutes into
the proceeding, a longtime and well-known Apple shareholder--some would say
gadfly--who introduced himself as Shelton Ehrlich, stood at the microphone and
urged against Gore's re-election to the board. Gore 'has become a laughingstock.
The glaciers have not melted,' Ehrlich said, referring to Gore's views on global
warming. 'If his advice he gives to Apple is as faulty as his views on the
environment then he doesn't need to be re-elected.'"
--
Regards,
Steve Saling
aka The Garlic Dude ©
Gilroy, CA
The Garlic Capital of The World

http://tinyurl.com/2avg58
Cliff
2010-03-03 00:42:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Garlicdude
Post by Doug Miller
Post by Cliff
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6200OE20100301?type=politicsNews
"Al Gore takes aim at climate change skeptics"
[
Former Vice President Al Gore on took aim at skeptics who doubt the reality of
human-caused climate change, saying he wished it were an illusion but that the
problem is real and urgent.
.....
]
And we should all do exactly what Al says, because everyone knows he is an
eminent climate scientist.
http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/24192/
"At the first opportunity for audience participation just several minutes into
the proceeding, a longtime and well-known Apple shareholder--some would say
gadfly--who introduced himself as Shelton Ehrlich, stood at the microphone and
urged against Gore's re-election to the board. Gore 'has become a laughingstock.
The glaciers have not melted,' Ehrlich said, referring to Gore's views on global
warming. 'If his advice he gives to Apple is as faulty as his views on the
environment then he doesn't need to be re-elected.'"
Pretty funny considering all the melting polar ice & glaciers worldwide.
--
Cliff
Martin H. Eastburn
2010-03-02 03:31:43 UTC
Permalink
Now he is saying climate change is he!

Every year is climate change. There is procession. :-)

Martin
Post by Doug Miller
Post by Cliff
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6200OE20100301?type=politicsNews
"Al Gore takes aim at climate change skeptics"
[
Former Vice President Al Gore on took aim at skeptics who doubt the reality of
human-caused climate change, saying he wished it were an illusion but that the
problem is real and urgent.
.....
]
And we should all do exactly what Al says, because everyone knows he is an
eminent climate scientist.
D Murphy
2010-03-02 04:29:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doug Miller
Post by Cliff
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6200OE20100301?
type=politicsNew
Post by Doug Miller
Post by Cliff
s "Al Gore takes aim at climate change skeptics"
[
Former Vice President Al Gore on took aim at skeptics who doubt the
reality of human-caused climate change, saying he wished it were an
illusion but that the problem is real and urgent.
.....
]
And we should all do exactly what Al says, because everyone knows he
is an eminent climate scientist.
You misspelled effeminate.

[Former Veep Goes Girly-Man, Has Hissy Fit in Pages of New York Times
Posted by Kyle-Anne Shiver


The New York Times continues its painful-to-watch demise with this
published hissy-fit from the ultra-feminine side of the prophet of the-
sky-is-really-falling gloom, Al Gore. Have your hankies at the ready,
ladies. Get your Pepto Bismol off the shelf, guys.

This piece of pure, dribbling, drooling emoting is going to either make
you collapse in a torrent of tears or retch into the nearest barf bag.
The only human beings on the planet to whom this editorial would appeal
are a bunch of 13-year-old girls without a single clue between them.]

http://bigjournalism.com/kashiver/2010/02/28/former-veep-goes-girly-man-
has-hissy-fit-in-pages-of-new-york-times/
--
Dan
--
Dan
Hawke
2010-03-02 05:55:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doug Miller
Post by Cliff
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6200OE20100301?type=politicsNews
"Al Gore takes aim at climate change skeptics"
[
Former Vice President Al Gore on took aim at skeptics who doubt the reality of
human-caused climate change, saying he wished it were an illusion but that the
problem is real and urgent.
.....
]
And we should all do exactly what Al says, because everyone knows he is an
eminent climate scientist.
No, he's not a climate scientist. Just like you're not either. The
difference between you and him is huge though. As a former U.S. Vice
President, he has access to information and to experts that you couldn't
even dream of. Gore never said he knew that much about the science
behind global warming. He never said he was an expert. To be clear, what
he has said is what the most eminent experts in the world on the subject
have told him are the facts. To make it simple for you, it would be like
me telling you that Peyton Manning is a great quarterback. See, I'm just
telling you what all the experts in professional football say. I'm just
passing on what the pros say. So now you know who to blame for making Al
Gore think the planet is getting hot. It's those darn scientists, who
according to an expert like you, have misinformed poor Al. You think we
should believe an ignorant, and untrained schmuck like you instead of Al
Gore. Sorry to burst your bubble but anybody with any brains isn't going
to listen to anything you have to say about global warming. Except maybe
if we want to make fun of you.

Hawke
Dorsai
2010-03-02 06:11:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hawke
Post by Doug Miller
Post by Cliff
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6200OE20100301?
type=politicsNews
Post by Hawke
Post by Doug Miller
Post by Cliff
"Al Gore takes aim at climate change skeptics"
[
Former Vice President Al Gore on took aim at skeptics who doubt the
reality of human-caused climate change, saying he wished it were an
illusion but that the problem is real and urgent.
.....
]
And we should all do exactly what Al says, because everyone knows he is
an eminent climate scientist.
No, he's not a climate scientist. Just like you're not either. The
difference between you and him is huge though. As a former U.S. Vice
President, he has access to information and to experts that you couldn't
even dream of. Gore never said he knew that much about the science
behind global warming. He never said he was an expert. To be clear, what
he has said is what the most eminent experts in the world on the subject
have told him are the facts. To make it simple for you, it would be like
me telling you that Peyton Manning is a great quarterback. See, I'm just
telling you what all the experts in professional football say. I'm just
passing on what the pros say. So now you know who to blame for making Al
Gore think the planet is getting hot. It's those darn scientists, who
according to an expert like you, have misinformed poor Al. You think we
should believe an ignorant, and untrained schmuck like you instead of Al
Gore. Sorry to burst your bubble but anybody with any brains isn't going
to listen to anything you have to say about global warming. Except maybe
if we want to make fun of you.
Hawke
And.... this has WHAT to do with CNC, again?

C'mon, folks, take it somewhere else, would you please?
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dorsai - Author of Erotic Fiction
http://www.asstr.org/~Dorsai

3 out of 4 Americans make up 75 percent of the population.
Randy
2010-03-01 13:04:02 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 07:13:43 -0500, Cliff
Post by Cliff
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6200OE20100301?type=politicsNews
"Al Gore takes aim at climate change skeptics"
[
Former Vice President Al Gore on took aim at skeptics who doubt the reality of
human-caused climate change, saying he wished it were an illusion but that the
problem is real and urgent.
....
]
This from a man whose "house" has a $2500 a month energy bill.

AND who stands to make MILLIONS of $$$ off of cap and trade.

Thank You,
Randy

Remove 333 from email address to reply.
tunderbar
2010-03-01 14:43:23 UTC
Permalink
 http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6200OE20100301?type=politicsNews
  "Al Gore takes aim at climate change skeptics"
[
Former Vice President Al Gore on took aim at skeptics who doubt the reality of
human-caused climate change, saying he wished it were an illusion but that the
problem is real and urgent.
....
]
Yep, just like he wishes he were 100 million dollars poorer.
James
2010-03-01 16:05:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by tunderbar
Post by Cliff
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6200OE20100301?type=politicsNews
"Al Gore takes aim at climate change skeptics"
[
Former Vice President Al Gore on took aim at skeptics who doubt the
reality of human-caused climate change, saying he wished it were an
illusion but that the problem is real and urgent.
....
]
Yep, just like he wishes he were 100 million dollars poorer.
Good lord. What does Tipper think of this comic book character?
Jim Stewart
2010-03-01 17:43:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cliff
"Al Gore takes aim at climate change skeptics"
Cliff, Cliff, Cliff. Surely you can find a better
poster boy for AWG than Algore. Or maybe not.
tnik
2010-03-03 16:03:25 UTC
Permalink
Anyone know of someone that carries left handed cobalt or carbide
drills? Looking for a 3/8" jobber or screw length..

thanks

tom
DoN. Nichols
2010-03-04 03:28:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by tnik
Anyone know of someone that carries left handed cobalt or carbide
drills? Looking for a 3/8" jobber or screw length..
I would go to (and have gone to) MSC <http://www.mscdirect.com>
for left-hand drills in several materials, but I would strongly suspect
that McMaster Carr also has them.

Enjoy,
DoN.
--
Email: <***@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...