On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 21:49:04 -0500, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

Please read completely. Don't kill the messenger, don't give anecdotal
crap, but respond with good, solid science to refute each of the points.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0219-01.htm

I noticed this was published in the great scientific journal...

CommonDreams.org is an Internet-based progressive news and grassroots
activism organization, founded in 1997.
We are a nonprofit, progressive, independent and nonpartisan
organization.

Well, supposedly he covered that by saying, "Don't kill the
messenger..."

The Plum has the same philosophy. Anything can be said, but don't
attack the one who made up the bull****.
--
Loogy says:

Conservative = Good
Liberal = Bad

I agree. John H

On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 19:13:37 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

Ok, your turn - let's talk some science.

Hello? Anybody home?

On Nov 4, 6:14*pm, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:
On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 13:11:58 -0500, NotNow wrote:
Please read completely. Don't kill the messenger, don't give anecdotal
crap, but respond with good, solid science to refute each of the points.

*http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0219-01.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific...al_oscillation

I'll condense it for you.

1750: PDO displays an unusually strong oscillation.[2]
1905: After a strong swing, PDO changed to a "warm" phase.
1946: PDO changed to a "cool" phase. [See the blue section of the
graph on the right]
1977: PDO changed to a "warm" phase.[3]
1998: PDO index showed several years of "cool" values, but did not
remain in that pattern.[4]
2008: The early stages of a cool phase of the basin-wide Pacific
Decadal Oscillation

That does NOTHING to scientifically prove that man has had no impact
on global warming.

Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 19:13:37 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

Ok, your turn - let's talk some science.

Hello? Anybody home?

The resident omniscient one must but be preoccupied.

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 19:13:37 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

Ok, your turn - let's talk some science.

Hello? Anybody home?

Bugger is looking up the definition of science.

On 11/5/09 8:56 AM, BAR wrote:
In ,
says...

On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 19:13:37 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

Ok, your turn - let's talk some science.

Hello? Anybody home?

Bugger is looking up the definition of science.


Is that what you studied in the marines? I mean, it isn't as if you
studied science in college, right?

On Nov 4, 6:29*pm, John H. wrote:
On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 13:11:58 -0500, NotNow wrote:
Please read completely. Don't kill the messenger, don't give anecdotal
crap, but respond with good, solid science to refute each of the points.

*http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0219-01.htm

When have you responded to the myriad of postings presented to you?
Besides, you present four year old garbage and call it science.

Wake up, Loogy.
--
Loogy says:

Conservative = Good
Liberal = Bad

I agree. John H

There you go, THATS proof positive.....NOT.....

On Nov 4, 7:13*pm, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:
On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 18:14:22 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports





wrote:
On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 13:11:58 -0500, NotNow wrote:

Please read completely. Don't kill the messenger, don't give anecdotal
crap, but respond with good, solid science to refute each of the points..

*http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0219-01.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific...al_oscillation

I'll condense it for you.

1750: PDO displays an unusually strong oscillation.[2]
1905: After a strong swing, PDO changed to a "warm" phase.
1946: PDO changed to a "cool" phase. [See the blue section of the
graph on the right]
1977: PDO changed to a "warm" phase.[3]
1998: PDO index showed several years of "cool" values, but did not
remain in that pattern.[4]
2008: The early stages of a cool phase of the basin-wide Pacific
Decadal Oscillation

Sorry dude - hit the send button a little fast.

Click on the Senate Testimony link.

http://windfarms.wordpress.com/2008/...s-70-of-global...

Here's another - a little more condensed, but fairly accurate.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...=aU.evtnk6DPo#

Here's a key point to keep in mind. The relationship between global
temperature and solar activity is confused by the difference between
global temperature and surface temperature. Global temperature is the
average temperature of the oceans - simple fact because they are
Earth's heat sink.

As we've all know ocean temperatures are not evenly distributed. The
Atlantic and Pacific oceans both experience oscillations, where
unusually warm or cold waters take turns at the ocean surface. *It's
very similar to lake water turnover in fact. Lake Lanier, one that
you're very familiar with, exhibits this effect as well. *This surface
water is a primary determinant of the earth's surface temperature, so
the ocean oscillations cause surface temperature to oscillate with
respect to the actual local and/or global temperature.

We also need to account for the largest source of raw energy which is
the Sun. *It's no accident that, coincident with normal warm/cold
cycles, that the increasedecrease in sunspots and solar prominences,
mass coronal ejections and solar flares. *The high magnetic energy
components of these various solar events are very coincident with
Earth weather and weather patterns. *One of the more interesting
studies done in 2007, which I can't find on the web but I'll keep
looking - at the minimum I'll be glad to send you a copy of it,
studied a solar event that occured in 1998 and it's effect on weather
patterns. *It was a major mass ejection that caused an unusual wet/dry
pattern in the Northern Hemisphere.

There is also some interest in what are called Milankovitch Cycles -
basically eccentricities in Earth's orbit around the sun. *Oddly,
these cycles also seem to correspond to warm/cold cycles and long term
Earth weather patterns.

Ok, your turn - let's talk some science.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Sure enough! Now, tell me in the above where it scientifically states
without a doubt that man has not aided in global warming.

On Nov 4, 9:49*pm, BAR wrote:
In article ,
says...



Please read completely. Don't kill the messenger, don't give anecdotal
crap, but respond with good, solid science to refute each of the points..

*http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0219-01.htm

I noticed this was published in the great scientific journal...

CommonDreams.org is an Internet-based progressive news and grassroots
activism organization, founded in 1997.
We are a nonprofit, progressive, independent and nonpartisan
organization.

Uh, Common dreams did nothing more than put the data, BY OTHERS on
it's sight.:

Tim Barnett, a marine physicist at the Scripps Institution of
Oceanography in San Diego

The study involved scientists from the US Department of Energy, the
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California and the US
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, as well as the Met
Office's Hadley Center

Ruth Curry, from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution,

On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 06:38:19 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:

Sure enough! Now, tell me in the above where it scientifically states
without a doubt that man has not aided in global warming.

Never mind. Unfortunate - I thought you'd want to actually talk some
science and maybe we could have come to some sort of conclusion.

I'm not playing the semantics game with you.