Asher is like SO Cool

http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2007-03-04-1.html

"Here's the raw truth:
All the computer models are wrong. They have not only failed to predict the
future, they can't even predict that past.

That is, when you run their software with the data from, say, the 1970s or
1980s, and project what should happen in the 1990s or 2000s, they project
results that have absolutely nothing to do with the known climate data for
those decades.

In other words, the models don't work. The only way to make them "work" is
to take the known results and then fiddle with the software until it finally
produces them. That's not how honest science is done."

"Science isn't done by consensus. It's done by rigorous testing. When a
hypothesis -- or a computer model -- fails to correspond to the actual
real-world data, you throw it out."

"And Kerr quotes glaciologist Richard Alley of Penn State:

"The ... data are sufficiently convincing that [solar variability] is now
the leading hypothesis to explain the roughly 1,500-year oscillation of the
climate seen since the last ice age, including the Little Ice Age of the
17th century" (p.8)."

Asher tells us, on the other hand, that it is ALL caused by man. He cries
that there is NOW nothing that we can do about it and that the whole earth
will suffer from Bill C's back surgery and all of the energy that it took to
perform it.

Asher of course, is a true believer. He will see nothing but anthropogenic
global warming no matter what real science says.

Don't you ****ing off-topic losers realize this group is about bike
racing? Is your circle of people who tolerate so small that you have
nobody else to talk about your non-bike-related things with?

"Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote in message
link.net...
http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2007-03-04-1.html

"Here's the raw truth:
All the computer models are wrong. They have not only failed to predict
the
future, they can't even predict that past.

snipped

Asher of course, is a true believer. He will see nothing but anthropogenic
global warming no matter what real science says.

Houston we have a problem. Thomas has derailed, he is off-track. Maybe his
Meds should be re-evaluated.

chiefhiawatha wrote:

Don't you ****ing off-topic losers realize this group is about bike
racing? Is your circle of people who tolerate so small that you have
nobody else to talk about your non-bike-related things with?

Dumbass,
This the the global warming newsgroup. We like to travel incognito.

"Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote in message
link.net...
http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2007-03-04-1.html

"Here's the raw truth:
All the computer models are wrong. They have not only failed to
predict the future, they can't even predict that past.

That is, when you run their software with the data from, say, the
1970s or 1980s, and project what should happen in the 1990s or 2000s,
they project results that have absolutely nothing to do with the known
climate data for those decades.

In other words, the models don't work. The only way to make them
"work" is to take the known results and then fiddle with the software
until it finally produces them. That's not how honest science is
done."

"Science isn't done by consensus. It's done by rigorous testing. When
a hypothesis -- or a computer model -- fails to correspond to the
actual real-world data, you throw it out."

"And Kerr quotes glaciologist Richard Alley of Penn State:

"The ... data are sufficiently convincing that [solar variability] is
now the leading hypothesis to explain the roughly 1,500-year
oscillation of the climate seen since the last ice age, including the
Little Ice Age of the 17th century" (p.8)."

Asher tells us, on the other hand, that it is ALL caused by man. He
cries that there is NOW nothing that we can do about it and that the
whole earth will suffer from Bill C's back surgery and all of the
energy that it took to perform it.

Asher of course, is a true believer. He will see nothing but
anthropogenic global warming no matter what real science says.


A couple of interesting articles ..........

http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journa...viewpoint.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...page_id=19 65

Phil H

"Phil Holman" piholmanc@yourservice wrote in message
. ..

"Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote in message
link.net...
http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2007-03-04-1.html

"Here's the raw truth:
All the computer models are wrong. They have not only failed to predict
the future, they can't even predict that past.

That is, when you run their software with the data from, say, the 1970s
or 1980s, and project what should happen in the 1990s or 2000s, they
project results that have absolutely nothing to do with the known climate
data for those decades.

In other words, the models don't work. The only way to make them "work"
is to take the known results and then fiddle with the software until it
finally produces them. That's not how honest science is done."

"Science isn't done by consensus. It's done by rigorous testing. When a
hypothesis -- or a computer model -- fails to correspond to the actual
real-world data, you throw it out."

"And Kerr quotes glaciologist Richard Alley of Penn State:

"The ... data are sufficiently convincing that [solar variability] is now
the leading hypothesis to explain the roughly 1,500-year oscillation of
the climate seen since the last ice age, including the Little Ice Age of
the 17th century" (p.8)."

Asher tells us, on the other hand, that it is ALL caused by man. He cries
that there is NOW nothing that we can do about it and that the whole
earth will suffer from Bill C's back surgery and all of the energy that
it took to perform it.

Asher of course, is a true believer. He will see nothing but
anthropogenic global warming no matter what real science says.


A couple of interesting articles ..........

http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journa...viewpoint.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...page_id=19 65

It wouldn't be any really big deal if the results of this mythical man-made
climate change wasn't being born mostly by the third world nations.

The same whack-jobs that are crying Global Warming are pushing ethanol which
has already caused a sharp increase in corn prices and reduced other grains
as farmers switch over to the more profitable corn.

Think about this - Al Gore and "Buffy" Edwards
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AE847UXu3Q) are buying "carbon credits".
This is rich people giving money to poor people so that the rich can
continue their profligate lifestyles while poor people sit in dark cold
rooms without energy. Pretty hypocritical for people claiming to be for the
working man.

wrote in message
ups.com...
Don't you ****ing off-topic losers realize this group is about bike
racing? Is your circle of people who tolerate so small that you have
nobody else to talk about your non-bike-related things with?

Not to put too fine a point on it but you didn't have any discussions
concerning the old guys racing at Redlands but this posting seemed
interesting enough for you to comment on. So it looks to me like
"off-thread" is more interesting to you than "on-thread".

Tom Kunich wrote:

Think about this - Al Gore and "Buffy" Edwards
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AE847UXu3Q) are buying "carbon credits".
This is rich people giving money to poor people so that the rich can
continue their profligate lifestyles while poor people sit in dark cold
rooms without energy. Pretty hypocritical for people claiming to be for the
working man.

Not necessarily. If carbon credits are costly enough, the poor will have
money to burn.

"Fred Fredburger" wrote in message
. ..
Tom Kunich wrote:

Think about this - Al Gore and "Buffy" Edwards
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AE847UXu3Q) are buying "carbon credits".
This is rich people giving money to poor people so that the rich can
continue their profligate lifestyles while poor people sit in dark cold
rooms without energy. Pretty hypocritical for people claiming to be for
the working man.

Not necessarily. If carbon credits are costly enough, the poor will have
money to burn.

If you can't buy electricity, gasoline or any other form of energy explain
to me what having money means?

in message . net, Tom
Kunich ('cyclintom@yahoo. com') wrote:

"Fred Fredburger" wrote in message
. ..
Tom Kunich wrote:

Think about this - Al Gore and "Buffy" Edwards
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AE847UXu3Q) are buying "carbon
credits". This is rich people giving money to poor people so that the
rich can continue their profligate lifestyles while poor people sit in
dark cold rooms without energy. Pretty hypocritical for people claiming
to be for the working man.

Not necessarily. If carbon credits are costly enough, the poor will have
money to burn.

If you can't buy electricity, gasoline or any other form of energy
explain to me what having money means?

http://www.colnago.com/

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; An enamorata is for life, not just for weekends.