On 7/31/12 7:53 AM, BAR wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 07:19:13 -0400, wrote:

In summation: Wow, the last skeptic has been drug across the finish
line and now, only now, the "skeptics" believe what virtually every
other scientist has known for years! That, in retrospect, might really
be the bad news.

===

Either way, global warming is probably going to be bad news.

There are several reasons in my opinion why there have been die hard
skeptics, including myself. 1) Al Gore was absolutely the wrong
spokesman for the original message. His overall lack of credibility
and borderline hysteria made him a poor messenger. 2) It is
abundantly clear that there have been many past instances of global
warming/cooling that demonstrably had nothing to do with fossil fuel
emissions.

Which means that warming and cooling and warming again is just a natural
cycle that the Earth goes through.



Isn't wonderful that we have a university-educated, Ph.D level
climatologist like BAR here in rec.boats? Oh, wait...

--
I'm a liberal because militant fundamentalist ignorant science-denying
religious xenophobic corporate oligarchy just doesn't work for me.

In article ,
says...


As long ago as 2003, the US military was gearing up for the reality
that global climate change would affect the scarcity of food, water
and energy. The warning from the US military, then, was that global
warming should "be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a U.S.
national security concern." What more does it take to attract people's
attention? For another read, see the report: "An Abrupt Climate Change
Scenario and the Implications for United States Security."

The military has a plan to invade Canada. The military has plans for
every contingency.

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums...hp/t-9586.html

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nati...ecret-defence-
plans-included-file-on-invasion-of-fiji/story-e6frg8yo-1226389513967

It doens't matter whose military it is, they are always planning for
every possible scenario.

On 7/31/12 7:57 AM, BAR wrote:
In article ,
says...


As long ago as 2003, the US military was gearing up for the reality
that global climate change would affect the scarcity of food, water
and energy. The warning from the US military, then, was that global
warming should "be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a U.S.
national security concern." What more does it take to attract people's
attention? For another read, see the report: "An Abrupt Climate Change
Scenario and the Implications for United States Security."

The military has a plan to invade Canada. The military has plans for
every contingency.

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums...hp/t-9586.html

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nati...ecret-defence-
plans-included-file-on-invasion-of-fiji/story-e6frg8yo-1226389513967

It doens't matter whose military it is, they are always planning for
every possible scenario.


Well, of course. Boys will be boys, and it helps keep the boys in uniform.


--
I'm a liberal because militant fundamentalist ignorant science-denying
religious xenophobic corporate oligarchy just doesn't work for me.

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 16:46:07 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 15:16:06 -0400, Wayne.B wrote:

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 14:43:31 -0400, John H.
wrote:

Thanks for posting. It is a good heuristic read, if nothing else (or
should be).

Well, hey...you gotta remember the source.

===

What source is that?

The NYT. If the source of information is a liberal rag, shouldn't it be disregarded?

===

Actually I first saw it on the Weather Underground web site. If they
have any political bias it is news to me. The report itself was
published in scientific circles and has attracted quite a bit of
attention elsewhere. As far as I know no one has tried to discredit
it. The study itself was funded by some folks who are more
conservative than you or I. As I stated previously, it is highly
regrettable when serious issues of science become politicized.

People like John just won't believe science, they only believe what FOX
tells them.

In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 07:19:13 -0400, wrote:

In summation: Wow, the last skeptic has been drug across the finish
line and now, only now, the "skeptics" believe what virtually every
other scientist has known for years! That, in retrospect, might really
be the bad news.

===

Either way, global warming is probably going to be bad news.

There are several reasons in my opinion why there have been die hard
skeptics, including myself. 1) Al Gore was absolutely the wrong
spokesman for the original message. His overall lack of credibility
and borderline hysteria made him a poor messenger. 2) It is
abundantly clear that there have been many past instances of global
warming/cooling that demonstrably had nothing to do with fossil fuel
emissions.

Which means that warming and cooling and warming again is just a natural
cycle that the Earth goes through.
Damned right! Don't believe good science, believe FOX!!!

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2011/9#temp

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 18:10:53 -0400, Wayne.B wrote:

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 16:46:07 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 15:16:06 -0400, Wayne.B wrote:

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 14:43:31 -0400, John H.
wrote:

Thanks for posting. It is a good heuristic read, if nothing else (or
should be).

Well, hey...you gotta remember the source.

===

What source is that?

The NYT. If the source of information is a liberal rag, shouldn't it be disregarded?

===

Actually I first saw it on the Weather Underground web site. If they
have any political bias it is news to me. The report itself was
published in scientific circles and has attracted quite a bit of
attention elsewhere. As far as I know no one has tried to discredit
it. The study itself was funded by some folks who are more
conservative than you or I. As I stated previously, it is highly
regrettable when serious issues of science become politicized.

It sure didn't help when the Democrats walked out of the Al Gore hearing so as to show their disdain
for Bjorn Lomborg. Now Huffington is saying he is changing his tune - becoming more accepting of the
fact that global climate change is occurring. Even during that hearing he didn't dispute the
occurrence of global climate change, but did dispute several of Al's findings - which were quite
inaccurate.

On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 07:55:34 -0400, X ` Man wrote:

On 7/31/12 7:53 AM, BAR wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 07:19:13 -0400, wrote:

In summation: Wow, the last skeptic has been drug across the finish
line and now, only now, the "skeptics" believe what virtually every
other scientist has known for years! That, in retrospect, might really
be the bad news.

===

Either way, global warming is probably going to be bad news.

There are several reasons in my opinion why there have been die hard
skeptics, including myself. 1) Al Gore was absolutely the wrong
spokesman for the original message. His overall lack of credibility
and borderline hysteria made him a poor messenger. 2) It is
abundantly clear that there have been many past instances of global
warming/cooling that demonstrably had nothing to do with fossil fuel
emissions.

Which means that warming and cooling and warming again is just a natural
cycle that the Earth goes through.



Isn't wonderful that we have a university-educated, Ph.D level
climatologist like BAR here in rec.boats who is correct?

Yes!

On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 08:07:54 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 16:46:07 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 15:16:06 -0400, Wayne.B wrote:

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 14:43:31 -0400, John H.
wrote:

Thanks for posting. It is a good heuristic read, if nothing else (or
should be).

Well, hey...you gotta remember the source.

===

What source is that?

The NYT. If the source of information is a liberal rag, shouldn't it be disregarded?

===

Actually I first saw it on the Weather Underground web site. If they
have any political bias it is news to me. The report itself was
published in scientific circles and has attracted quite a bit of
attention elsewhere. As far as I know no one has tried to discredit
it. The study itself was funded by some folks who are more
conservative than you or I. As I stated previously, it is highly
regrettable when serious issues of science become politicized.

People like John just won't believe science, they only believe what FOX
tells them.

Now Kevin, it's a fact that you watch Fox much more than I do!

It seems like you have a Fox quote daily.

On 7/31/2012 8:07 AM, X ` Man wrote:
On 7/31/12 7:57 AM, BAR wrote:
In article ,
says...


As long ago as 2003, the US military was gearing up for the reality
that global climate change would affect the scarcity of food, water
and energy. The warning from the US military, then, was that global
warming should "be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a U.S.
national security concern." What more does it take to attract people's
attention? For another read, see the report: "An Abrupt Climate Change
Scenario and the Implications for United States Security."

The military has a plan to invade Canada. The military has plans for
every contingency.

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums...hp/t-9586.html

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nati...ecret-defence-
plans-included-file-on-invasion-of-fiji/story-e6frg8yo-1226389513967

It doens't matter whose military it is, they are always planning for
every possible scenario.


Well, of course. Boys will be boys, and it helps keep the boys in uniform.


Ahhh. The boys in uniform disrespected by one of the cowards. That's SOP
for them.

On 7/31/12 8:32 AM, John H. wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 07:55:34 -0400, X ` Man wrote:

On 7/31/12 7:53 AM, BAR wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 07:19:13 -0400, wrote:

In summation: Wow, the last skeptic has been drug across the finish
line and now, only now, the "skeptics" believe what virtually every
other scientist has known for years! That, in retrospect, might really
be the bad news.

===

Either way, global warming is probably going to be bad news.

There are several reasons in my opinion why there have been die hard
skeptics, including myself. 1) Al Gore was absolutely the wrong
spokesman for the original message. His overall lack of credibility
and borderline hysteria made him a poor messenger. 2) It is
abundantly clear that there have been many past instances of global
warming/cooling that demonstrably had nothing to do with fossil fuel
emissions.

Which means that warming and cooling and warming again is just a natural
cycle that the Earth goes through.



Isn't wonderful that we have a university-educated, Ph.D level
climatologist like BAR here in rec.boats who is correct?

Yes!



It's sort of sad that bottomfeeders like you and your buttbuddy Meyer
find it necessary to change the posts of others to make them fit into
your narrow little minds. But, what the hell, that's all you
Conservatrashers have these days, right?



--
I'm a liberal because the militant fundamentalist ignorant
science-denying religious xenophobic corporate oligarchy of modern
Republican conservatism just doesn't work for me or my country.