Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

Ah, yes you did.

If you believed the globe was warming up you would never say "true or not"
much less equate it as a religion.

"global warming" as the general public puts it - and as your putting it
here - is not only the _observation_ that global temps are on the rise, but
the _assumption_ that it's man-made.

"global warming" as the scientists put it is pretty much restricted to the
observational part.

You may not believe the assumption that the globe is warming up because of
man-made
things. That I can understand, and so far it is still a somewhat defensible
position. But your foolish if you don't believe that the globe is getting
warmer.
It is. Whether we are causing it or can do anything about it is a different
kettle of fish.

Ted

 

Then you should have no trouble quoting it and pointing to relevant
post in your favorite usenet archive, so do so.

I am not a true believer. Others however are, and will defend the *entire*
religon from temps are going up to it's due to evil american corporations
to their last breath.

Depends on which scientific papers one reads. The religon has not surpressed
all other thought on the matter.

"global warming" refers to much more than that and you know it. And don't
forget the mixing of science and religon that we see here on usenet. There
is a new religon and it masks itself within science.

Warmer than what? We have maybe 50 years of good *global* data. Maybe a
century of much of the world. The rest gets pretty spotty and the remaining
is from proxy data that has to be interpeted correctly. Throw into that
the proper use of statistics etc, and this warming trend does become
questionable. However the religon demands that any analysis of the data
that doesn't agree with the tenet that the globe is getting warmer is
blasphemy.

The leaders of the religon have already decided upon the path to salvation.

 

Roughly 1/5/04 02:05, Ted Mittelstaedt's kept beating a dead horse:

[totally freakingly disinterested groups removed...]

 

Roughly 1/5/04 08:53, Brent P's kept beating this dead horse:

[totally freakingly disinterested groups removed...]

 

Roughly 1/5/04 02:05, Ted Mittelstaedt continued beating a dead horse:

[totally freakingly disinterested groups removed...]

 

Roughly 1/5/04 08:53, Brent P beat the dead horse:

[totally freakingly disinterested groups removed...]

 

Nope... I mean DEVELOPING countries like China. By actually checking out
the Kioto treaty verbiage, you might also discover that the treaty had
absolutely no teeth.... that the price would be paid by the US, but with
essentially no real effect. These other countries would have to do
essentially nothing per the treaty, but the US would have to place
significant restrictions on the already strict emissions standards,
resulting in huge costs and essentially no positive benefit.

Hmmm.... so the 1 or 2 degrees of additional temperature (based on an
arbitrary "baseline" that fits the argument) would then result in snow falls
in the range of 30% or more over average? Interesting. When I was studying
for my physics degree, I don't recall the evaporation rates rising at
exponential rates with respect to the temperature. For that matter, it
would only make sense that there must have been a major global cooling trend
in the 30s that caused the dust bowl, eh?

The real problem is that there is a significant difference between CLIMATE
and WEATHER. The measured temperatures in a specific area, whether that be
a small area, or even the entire plant, over a small number of years
(a.k.a., less that a few hundred) can't substantiate a scientifically-based
conclusion that there is a CLIMATE change. Have average temperatures been
on the rise the last few years? yes..... have we yet caught up with the
average temperatures from around 50 years ago? ... NO!... Sounds like Global
cooling to me... (if we're going to define it that way). The average
temperatures started down in the late 50s, then started an upward trend in
the 70s.... the "warming" we've experienced is the upward cycling nature of
the climate. It will likely reverse in nature in the next 10 years, and
some liberal will take credit for it.... like inventing the internet.

OH, I understand how snow is made. Made some myself a couple of weekends
ago.

One thing we DON'T want to do is confuse those few "scientists" out there
that are looking for the next buck, regardless of how the data has to be
skewed, or how a statistically insignificant quantity of data can suddenly
become "conclusive" to meet the political agenda of their clients with the
real scientists that live by a code of professional ethics.

Bottom line..... I'm not a meteorologist. I'm a physicist. However, in my
work in atmospheric transport / dispersion over the past 15 years, I have
learned one thing with almost painful clarity. If you can make such a broad
statement such as claiming major climate changes based on single parameter
measurements over a statistically insignificant amount of time, then why
can't the Whether Channel or the Clinton News Network tell me if it's REALLY
going to rain tomorrow? Or maybe what time it will rain? Anybody that can
claim to perform such a miracle isn't a scientist.....

ST
2000 Cherokee Classic

 

Roughly 1/5/04 18:36, Stroyer continued mutilation of the dead horse.

[Totally disinterested groups trimmed...]

 

Stroyer:

WTFC.

 

x-no-archive: yes

What is your point?

 

x-no-archive: yes

That's nice, Lon.

 

x-no-archive: yes

Whatever.

 

x-no-archive: yes

Except to you of course.

 

x-no-archive: yes

Fixed. Just for you.

 

We wouldn't want to stop the US buying pollution credits from developing
countries now would we.

As sure as I am that there was a rain forest in my back yard where there
is snow now, I'm sure there will be again some day.

 

I think the kiddie thinks he is sending out forged cancellation posts. But
unfortunately
for him his news admin isn't forwarding them. He probably thinks he's
particularly
clever as if no one else ever thought of doing this, to the rest of us he
looks like
a moron.

Ted

 

Roughly 1/6/04 01:42, Ted Mittelstaedt's monkeys randomly typed:

No, unlike rachet jawed assholes like you that keep this off topic
thread going, I know what a cancel post is and is not, as well as
the concept of topicality.

Now have a nice day and may the foo bird shine your head with
good luck for the century.

 

Under the illusion anyone cares, Ted Mittelstaedt spews more BS:
[snip]