Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History'

Phil Holman wrote:


wrote in message
oups.com...
On Nov 10, 4:59 pm, "Phil Holman" piholmanc@yourservice wrote:

There is no argument that global warming is happening. That's not the
issue.

Phil, meet Tom and Scott. Scott and Tom, this is Phil.


What corner are you attempting to paint me into now?
To use your analogy, there are too many hands on the wheel steering the
ship to get it to follow a definitive course. In a sense, no one is
steering the ship.

Phil H



No, to use RC's analogy, it is as if you have 100 highly trained navigators
all telling the captain that 1/2 degree of course heading will make a huge
difference in whether the ship hits the bridge or not and that a course
correction would be a great idea. However, there are these 5 loud voices
on the bridge, none of whom are navigators but some of whom designed
compasses or sell GPS navigation systems, telling the captain that the 100
trained navigators are wrong because there is no evidence that the bridge
is out there, this particular ship has never hit the bridge in the past,
that if you look back over the entire history of the ship, there have been
much much larger course changes, maybe 10's of degrees, and the ship didn't
hit any bridges, so that a 1/2 degree of course change in this instance is
trivial and won't make a difference, and finally that even if the ship hits
the bridge, it will be a glancing blow with no real damage done to either
the ship or the bridge. Because making the ship turn 1/2 a degree involves
effort (e.g., the captain has to tell the helmsman and the helmsman has to
turn the rudder) and the captain is tired, the captain prefers to believe
the 5 loud voices.

I know that's more complicated than thinking nobody knows what is going on
and that the experts don't know their collective asses from holes in the
ground, but sometimes things aren't complete cluster****s at the start.
Sometimes things are understood by experts, whose good advice gets ignored,
at which time things turn into complete cluster****s.

--
Bill Asher

"William Asher" wrote in message
...
Phil Holman wrote:


wrote in message
oups.com...
On Nov 10, 4:59 pm, "Phil Holman" piholmanc@yourservice wrote:

There is no argument that global warming is happening. That's not
the
issue.

Phil, meet Tom and Scott. Scott and Tom, this is Phil.


What corner are you attempting to paint me into now?
To use your analogy, there are too many hands on the wheel steering
the
ship to get it to follow a definitive course. In a sense, no one is
steering the ship.

Phil H



No, to use RC's analogy, it is as if you have 100 highly trained
navigators
all telling the captain that 1/2 degree of course heading will make a
huge
difference in whether the ship hits the bridge or not and that a
course
correction would be a great idea. However, there are these 5 loud
voices
on the bridge, none of whom are navigators but some of whom designed
compasses or sell GPS navigation systems, telling the captain that the
100
trained navigators are wrong because there is no evidence that the
bridge
is out there, this particular ship has never hit the bridge in the
past,
that if you look back over the entire history of the ship, there have
been
much much larger course changes, maybe 10's of degrees, and the ship
didn't
hit any bridges, so that a 1/2 degree of course change in this
instance is
trivial and won't make a difference, and finally that even if the ship
hits
the bridge, it will be a glancing blow with no real damage done to
either
the ship or the bridge. Because making the ship turn 1/2 a degree
involves
effort (e.g., the captain has to tell the helmsman and the helmsman
has to
turn the rudder) and the captain is tired, the captain prefers to
believe
the 5 loud voices.

I know that's more complicated than thinking nobody knows what is
going on
and that the experts don't know their collective asses from holes in
the
ground, but sometimes things aren't complete cluster****s at the
start.
Sometimes things are understood by experts, whose good advice gets
ignored,
at which time things turn into complete cluster****s.


Your grasp of reality is impeccable.

Phil H

On Nov 11, 7:55 am, "Phil Holman" piholmanc@yourservice wrote:

There is no argument that global warming is happening. That's not the
issue.

Phil, meet Tom and Scott. Scott and Tom, this is Phil.

What corner are you attempting to paint me into now?

Moi?

Anyway, when you write "there is no argument that global warming is
happening" shall I presume you mean that there is no argument that
global warming is *not* happening?

In that case, I'll point out that Tom and Scott have been arguing just
that: that global warming is *not* happening. Tim Ball argues that
global warming was happening, but stopped in the 1930's. Richard
Lindzen doctored data to show that NH temperatures stopped increasing
in 2003. If you think that no one is arguing that global warming is
not happening, you're not paying attention.

wrote in message
oups.com...
On Nov 11, 7:55 am, "Phil Holman" piholmanc@yourservice wrote:

There is no argument that global warming is happening. That's not the
issue.

Phil, meet Tom and Scott. Scott and Tom, this is Phil.

What corner are you attempting to paint me into now?

Anyway, when you write "there is no argument that global warming is
happening" shall I presume you mean that there is no argument that
global warming is *not* happening?

In that case, I'll point out that Tom and Scott have been arguing just
that: that global warming is *not* happening.

Well, I'm sorry that English as a second language gives you the willies. But
in fact what I've been arguing is that global warming per se' doesn't exist
though NORMAL cyclic variation does. And of course you've been arguing that
you know the earth's temperature behavior so well that you can tell us
precise temperature increase rates from millenia past with complete
accuracy.

http://www.gcrio.org/CONSEQUENCES/wi...cle3-fig3.html

wrote in message
oups.com...
On Nov 11, 7:55 am, "Phil Holman" piholmanc@yourservice wrote:

There is no argument that global warming is happening. That's not
the
issue.

Phil, meet Tom and Scott. Scott and Tom, this is Phil.

What corner are you attempting to paint me into now?

Moi?

Anyway, when you write "there is no argument that global warming is
happening" shall I presume you mean that there is no argument that
global warming is *not* happening?

In that case, I'll point out that Tom and Scott have been arguing just
that: that global warming is *not* happening. Tim Ball argues that
global warming was happening, but stopped in the 1930's. Richard
Lindzen doctored data to show that NH temperatures stopped increasing
in 2003. If you think that no one is arguing that global warming is
not happening, you're not paying attention.


I thought I was paying attention. Barring a few crackpots, the
dissenting minority argue the cause of global warming not the fact that
it is or isn't happening.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts.txt

Phil H

In article , William Asher
wrote:

"Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote in
:

Well, I'm sorry that English as a second language gives you the
willies. But in fact what I've been arguing is that global warming per
se' doesn't exist though NORMAL cyclic variation does. And of course
you've been arguing that you know the earth's temperature behavior so
well that you can tell us precise temperature increase rates from
millenia past with complete accuracy.

http://www.gcrio.org/CONSEQUENCES/wi...cle3-fig3.html


Tom:

Did you read the text of the article those figures come from?

http://www.gcrio.org/CONSEQUENCES/wi...unclimate.html

From the conclusion of the article:

"In this case the Sun could make a difference of about 0.5°C in the
surface temperatures now projected by consensus climate models for
doubled concentrations of CO2. A fortuitous future cooling of this
amount, due to the Sun, would not fully compensate for the effects of
increases in greenhouse gases, which are projected to warm the Earth by 1
to 3°. Furthermore, the overall, long-term level of solar activity would
have to fall steadily and systematically over the next few hundred years
from the current, high sunspot numbers that have characterized the
greater part of the 20th century. Were that to happen, the principal
impacts would be to cloud for a time the unambiguous detection of
enhanced greenhouse warming and to soften, by at most about a half, its
projected impact on the temperature of the planet. The rapid warming
since 1970 is several times larger than that expected from any known or
suspected effects of the Sun, and may already indicate the growing
influence of atmospheric greenhouse gases on the Earth's climate."

That was written over ten years ago. Are you sure you know which side of
the debate you are on?

Whatever side you're on - that's the side he's *not* on. Nothing else matters.

--
tanx,
Howard

Faberge eggs are elegant but I prefer Faberge bacon.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

"Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote in
:

wrote in message
oups.com...
On Nov 11, 7:55 am, "Phil Holman" piholmanc@yourservice wrote:

There is no argument that global warming is happening. That's not
the issue.

Phil, meet Tom and Scott. Scott and Tom, this is Phil.

What corner are you attempting to paint me into now?

Anyway, when you write "there is no argument that global warming is
happening" shall I presume you mean that there is no argument that
global warming is *not* happening?

In that case, I'll point out that Tom and Scott have been arguing
just that: that global warming is *not* happening.

Well, I'm sorry that English as a second language gives you the
willies. But in fact what I've been arguing is that global warming per
se' doesn't exist though NORMAL cyclic variation does. And of course
you've been arguing that you know the earth's temperature behavior so
well that you can tell us precise temperature increase rates from
millenia past with complete accuracy.

http://www.gcrio.org/CONSEQUENCES/wi...cle3-fig3.html


Tom:

Did you read the text of the article those figures come from?

http://www.gcrio.org/CONSEQUENCES/wi...unclimate.html

From the conclusion of the article:

"In this case the Sun could make a difference of about 0.5°C in the
surface temperatures now projected by consensus climate models for
doubled concentrations of CO2. A fortuitous future cooling of this
amount, due to the Sun, would not fully compensate for the effects of
increases in greenhouse gases, which are projected to warm the Earth by 1
to 3°. Furthermore, the overall, long-term level of solar activity would
have to fall steadily and systematically over the next few hundred years
from the current, high sunspot numbers that have characterized the
greater part of the 20th century. Were that to happen, the principal
impacts would be to cloud for a time the unambiguous detection of
enhanced greenhouse warming and to soften, by at most about a half, its
projected impact on the temperature of the planet. The rapid warming
since 1970 is several times larger than that expected from any known or
suspected effects of the Sun, and may already indicate the growing
influence of atmospheric greenhouse gases on the Earth's climate."

That was written over ten years ago. Are you sure you know which side of
the debate you are on?

--
Bill Asher

Howard Kveck wrote in
:

snip

Whatever side you're on - that's the side he's *not* on. Nothing
else matters.


It seemed like it would be another rehashing of the discredited Friis-
Christensen and Lassen paper from 1991 so I was cringing at first. I was
pleasantly surprised to read such a nicely balanced article.

--
Bill Asher

On Nov 11, 6:27 pm, wrote:
On Nov 11, 7:55 am, "Phil Holman" piholmanc@yourservice wrote:

There is no argument that global warming is happening. That's not the
issue.

Phil, meet Tom and Scott. Scott and Tom, this is Phil.

What corner are you attempting to paint me into now?

Moi?

Anyway, when you write "there is no argument that global warming is
happening" shall I presume you mean that there is no argument that
global warming is *not* happening?

In that case, I'll point out that Tom and Scott have been arguing just
that: that global warming is *not* happening. Tim Ball argues that
global warming was happening, but stopped in the 1930's. Richard
Lindzen doctored data to show that NH temperatures stopped increasing
in 2003. If you think that no one is arguing that global warming is
not happening, you're not paying attention.

I'd have thought your reading comprehension skills were better than
that. I'm not arguing that global warming isn't happening, unless you
concede that by definition 'global warming' implies man-made warming
only, which is irreversible unless we institute major world wide
economic/social changes (oh, except China and the third world won't
change).

On Nov 11, 8:25 pm, "Phil Holman" piholmanc@yourservice wrote:


I thought I was paying attention. Barring a few crackpots, the
dissenting minority argue the cause of global warming not the fact that
it is or isn't happening.

Well, I agree that they're crackpots but I'm not so sure about the
few--or, at least, if they are few their voices are loud. All of the
braying you hear about "the hockey stick has been debunked" has, as
its underlying argument, that if one paper published eight years ago
can be shown to have one single flaw then global warming is not
happening.