+ This is no longer a science newsgroup because of all the political
+ debates regarding global warming.

This is no longer a science newsgroup because of all the political
debates regarding global warming.

I for one never said their is no such thing as global warming, all I
EVER said was man wasn't responsible for it. I said global warming was
natural especially when you look at the past warming cycle when man
wasn't burning fossil fuels. This wasn't good enough for the political
types in this newsgroup.


We need to change the name to,

alt.politics.global-warming
alt.politics.climate-change

something like that.

cheers.


More of a religion, no?

On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 10:03:34 -0500,
Robert Blass <blame@messenger.xcx>, in
etris3dhuffcknuvlekgqutkkq53kih22o@xxx.org> wrote:

+ This is no longer a science newsgroup because of all the political
+ debates regarding global warming.

To call them "debates" is generous. Neither side is willing to consider
the possibility that the other side might actually have a point. It's all
about yelling, screaming, throwing chairs and posturing.

That was evident when the AGW crowd rushed forth to claim that the
"debate" was over, and that people should be stripped of the
credentials, or put in jail, for questioning their point of view.

All you need to do is killfile anything posted to more than 3 newsgroups.
In slrn, it looks like this:

%BOS
% Crosspostings.
[*]
Score:: -9999
Newsgroups: .*,.*,.*
%EOS

I don't see any of the bovine scatology.

You watch too much TV. There are not two sides to a fact.

+ You watch too much TV. There are not two sides to a fact.

+ I R A Darth Aggie wrote:
+ > On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 12:42:11 -0800,
+ > dave <nothere@nowhere.com>, in
+ > <13sjft9m5s9rf84@corp.supernews.com> wrote:
+
+ >> + You watch too much TV. There are not two sides to a fact.
+
+ > But there may be multiple interpretations of the data. To say one
+ > interpretation -- particularly one based on computer generated
+ > simulations -- as being totally accurate is, what's the word?
+
+ > Premature.
+
+ > Ask yourself this question: which of those models predicted the very
+ > significant cooling currently happening?
+
+ Your premise is flawed. There is no long term context that defines the
+ current dip in measured air temps as a cooling trend.

On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 12:42:11 -0800,
dave <nothere@nowhere.com>, in
13sjft9m5s9rf84@corp.supernews.com> wrote:

+ You watch too much TV. There are not two sides to a fact.

But there may be multiple interpretations of the data. To say one
interpretation -- particularly one based on computer generated
simulations -- as being totally accurate is, what's the word?

Premature.

Ask yourself this question: which of those models predicted the very
significant cooling currently happening?

Your premise is flawed. There is no long term context that defines the

On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 06:17:39 -0800,
dave <nothere@nowhere.com>, in
13stasanks67286@corp.supernews.com> wrote:
+ I R A Darth Aggie wrote:
+ > On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 12:42:11 -0800,
+ > dave <nothere@nowhere.com>, in
+ > <13sjft9m5s9rf84@corp.supernews.com> wrote:
+
+ >> + You watch too much TV. There are not two sides to a fact.
+
+ > But there may be multiple interpretations of the data. To say one
+ > interpretation -- particularly one based on computer generated
+ > simulations -- as being totally accurate is, what's the word?
+
+ > Premature.
+
+ > Ask yourself this question: which of those models predicted the very
+ > significant cooling currently happening?
+
+ Your premise is flawed. There is no long term context that defines the
+ current dip in measured air temps as a cooling trend.

Ok, now tell me why the current dip isn't the opening salvo in
a long-term cooling trend.

+ I R A Darth Aggie wrote:
+
+ > On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 06:17:39 -0800,
+ > dave <nothere@nowhere.com>, in
+ > <13stasanks67286@corp.supernews.com> wrote:
+ >>+ I R A Darth Aggie wrote:
+ >>+ > On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 12:42:11 -0800,
+ >>+ > dave <nothere@nowhere.com>, in
+ >>+ > <13sjft9m5s9rf84@corp.supernews.com> wrote:
+ >>+
+ >>+ >> + You watch too much TV. There are not two sides to a fact.
+ >>+
+ >>+ > But there may be multiple interpretations of the data. To say one
+ >>+ > interpretation -- particularly one based on computer generated
+ >>+ > simulations -- as being totally accurate is, what's the word?
+ >>+
+ >>+ > Premature.
+ >>+
+ >>+ > Ask yourself this question: which of those models predicted the very
+ >>+ > significant cooling currently happening?
+ >>+
+ >>+ Your premise is flawed. There is no long term context that defines the
+ >>+ current dip in measured air temps as a cooling trend.
+
+ > Ok, now tell me why the current dip isn't the opening salvo in
+ > a long-term cooling trend.

+ One swallow doesn't make a summer, nor one less warm month a cooling trend.
+ Same thing has happened before. Wait until La Nina gives up the ghost and
+ then see what happens to this "cooling trend".

On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 17:52:18 +0000,
Graham P Davis <newsboy@scarlet-jade.com>, in
6384rdF252jv8U1@mid.individual.net> wrote:
+ I R A Darth Aggie wrote:
+
+ > On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 06:17:39 -0800,
+ > dave <nothere@nowhere.com>, in
+ > <13stasanks67286@corp.supernews.com> wrote:
+ >>+ I R A Darth Aggie wrote:
+ >>+ > On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 12:42:11 -0800,
+ >>+ > dave <nothere@nowhere.com>, in
+ >>+ > <13sjft9m5s9rf84@corp.supernews.com> wrote:
+ >>+
+ >>+ >> + You watch too much TV. There are not two sides to a fact.
+ >>+
+ >>+ > But there may be multiple interpretations of the data. To say one
+ >>+ > interpretation -- particularly one based on computer generated
+ >>+ > simulations -- as being totally accurate is, what's the word?
+ >>+
+ >>+ > Premature.
+ >>+
+ >>+ > Ask yourself this question: which of those models predicted the
very + >>+ > significant cooling currently happening?
+ >>+
+ >>+ Your premise is flawed. There is no long term context that defines
the
+ >>+ current dip in measured air temps as a cooling trend.
+
+ > Ok, now tell me why the current dip isn't the opening salvo in
+ > a long-term cooling trend.

+ One swallow doesn't make a summer, nor one less warm month a cooling
trend.
+ Same thing has happened before. Wait until La Nina gives up the ghost
and
+ then see what happens to this "cooling trend".

Yes, exactly.

Just like one hot summer isn't necessary the harbinger of AGW.

Oh, wait...

But it isn't just one hot summer. It's thirty years of rising temperatures.