[at-l] More Global Warming ahead

[spiriteagle99 at hotmail.com (Jim and/or Ginny Owen)]

Weary wrote:
>Ah. Jimmy. Again, you have told us nothing that adds anything to this very
>important discussion. I recognize that years ago, you read extensively in 
>the
>writings of the "aginners."

Not years ago, Bob - continuously for the last 40 years.

>But I see no evidence that you have read any
>significant part of the research done by hundreds of climate researchers in 
>the
>decade since.

Uh, Bob - only continuously for the last 40 years. I also know which parts 
they lie about - and where the bodies are buried - and which climate models 
don't work - and who's "stuffing the ballot boxes", so to speak.  The last 
reading I did was 2 days ago - it was a report that I don't think the NY 
Times has picked it up yet.  And they may never - it doesn't support their 
politically correct view of global warming.

>The mere fact that you think an 18-month-old discussion is sufficient,
>illustrates my point. Jimmy, science discovers and moves on and learns 
>more.

Yup - that's what I've been telling you - that was the message 18 months 
ago.  You know - the one you didn't believe then?  And that's what I've been 
doing for the last 40 years - working with the data, the systems and the 
scientists - and discovering - and moving on.  Wanna tango?  <G>

The 18 month-old discussion is perfectly sufficient as a place to start.  
And as a place to end as far as at-l is concerned.  Any new discussion on 
this subject DOES NOT belong on this list - it needs to be moved to 
alt.warming or some other suitable place.  You have a problem with that?  We 
have, after all, been through this before, haven't we?  Several times?


>Yes. Some alleged science is humbug. But much science is done by very 
>bright
>dedicated people, seeking to provide useful knowledge. The evidence is
>overwhelming that human activities are changing our climate.

Uh - Bob - once again - who would you be accusing of saying otherwise?

>Even our present
>government admits that. Most of your skeptics have done none of the 
>original
>research. They just sit on the sidelines, enjoying their multi-national 
>energy
>company pay checks, and poke at whatever weaknesses they can find in an 
>effort
>to keep their bosses prosperous.

That last statement is an interesting fiction but has no basis in fact.  
It's one of those things that you keep telling us - but neither you nor 
anyone else has any reason to believe it other than personal prejudice and 
ignorance.  When someone does original research which is then dismissed 
out-of-hand by those who label them skeptics - it's still original research 
even if it doesn't support your case.   As Toey quoted to me -
"In practice, people often question the accuracy of the observations and the 
reliability and moral character of those making the observations."
          From ?The Universe in a Nutshell? by Stephen Hawking

Character assassination is unbecoming and unproductive.  You should stop it.

Uh - for Shelly - the fire hasn't even started - but since Weary apparently 
has no new information on the subject, there's no reason for me to fan the 
flames anymore.    <G>

Walk softly through those coals,
Jim

_________________________________________________________________
Check out the new MSN 9 Dial-up ? fast & reliable Internet access with prime 
features! http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-us&page=dialup/home&ST=1