Cold sun rising

On 11/12/2015 4:47 PM, One Party System wrote:


Because you are.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload


30272650.html

then.

My dog craps smarter then you.
--

to get well, because as long as the disease holds out they have not only an
easy means of making a living, but also an easy medium through which to
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 11/12/2015 6:17 PM, One Party System wrote:


in your mouth
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Sorry Rudy, but anyone so stupid as to post about climate in a news group t hat is about recreational metalworking should be ignored. You obviously ar e too stupid to be believed. If you want to post about climate change, go find a newsgroup that is about climate change. Posting here just shows tha t you are a troll.
Dan
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 11/12/2015 7:06 PM, snipped-for-privacy@krl.org wrote:

It's barely about that. You're one of the reasons it's not much about that.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

at.
When you can not even tell what is an appropriate place to post about clima te change, how can I possibly believe anything you say.
Dan
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 11/13/2015 4:55 AM, snipped-for-privacy@krl.org wrote:

You post often in this group entirely off-topic. You have no standing to complain when others do it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I have much more standing than you. I generally post about metalworking or about how stupid trolls are to post in rcm. Unlike you I do not start th reads that are off topic. I realize that you start off topic threads becau se you are ignorant about metalworking. But if you are going to post off t opic threads , you could pick topics on wbich you have some knowledge. Cop ying and pasting something is not the same as posting something of which y ou have some knowledge.
Dan
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@krl.org wrote:

Dan , he posts off-topic bullshit because he's a troll . He has no other raison d'etre . I've had a little fun poking him with a stick , but he's gone totally off his liberal nut . We've reduced him to just calling names and attempting (feebly IMO) to insult us . I scoff in his general direction while picking my nose and flipping the boogers at him .
--
Snag
And these are big boogers , I've been laying
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 11/13/2015 12:50 PM, snipped-for-privacy@krl.org wrote:

You post off-topic bullshit, which means you have no standing to criticize others who do it.
This is settled.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Now stamp your feet.
You do realize everyone is laughing at you, not with you.
Dan
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 11/13/2015 3:04 PM, snipped-for-privacy@krl.org wrote:

No need. You *do* post off-topic bullshit, in nearly every post.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 11/12/2015 6:25 AM, One Party System wrote:


The FACT is that, at present, the overwhelming majority of scientific experts in the RELEVANT fields of climatology, etc., concur with the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) regarding global warming and mankind's contributions to it. Only a small minority of scientists, mostly from fields with no bearing on the subject, continue to disagree.
But if large and influential economic interests, primarily in the heavily polluting coal and oil industries, did not perceive a threat to their future profits arising from the obvious implications of anthropogenic global warming, there would even be that level of mostly ginned up public controversy or denial of these scientific facts, apart from a tiny handful of cranks, crackpots and contrarians.
They are following the model laid down by the U.S. tobacco industry in coping with the scientific fact that smoking causes cancer and other diseases. First, try to prevent any scientific research on the subject from ever being conducted. Then try to prevent the results from being disclosed, using methods such as economic coercion, threats of litigation, and seek special legislative protections to cut off research funding, bar research, and prevent public disclosure of findings. Once the scientific facts have publicly emerged, attack, intimidate and attempt to silence, discredit or undermine the scientists, their employers and funding, and the scientific or academic institutions involved. Lastly, pay other scientists to dispute the known facts and produce contrary results, and pay to get your propaganda published and to influence the news media, using hired advertising, PR, and crisis management firms.
Using these tactics, the tobacco industry was able to effectively delay actions to protect public health and thereby maintain their profits for decades, at the insignificant (to them) human cost of hundreds of thousands of early deaths and disabilities, and at a financial cost of untold millions of dollars borne by the public, not the tobacco companies.
We already know that heavy polluting industries are major direct causers and contributors to many hundreds of thousands of deaths and illnesses annually, so why would anyone expect them to have any greater concern or act any differently over global warming and the harm it will cause? After, the profits are theirs today, but the consequences are somebody else's in the future.
"I brought you into a fertile land to eat its fruit and rich produce. But you came and defiled my land and made my inheritance detestable." - Jeremiah 2:7
"Do not defile the land where you live and where I dwell" - Numbers 35:34
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 11/12/2015 02:15 PM, Rick Blaine wrote:


That FACT is that the above is a major lie. The so-called 95% consensus is a PROVEN fabrication. Control of journals, employees, trade organizations and media does not produce facts only propaganda.
The IPCC is a POLITICAL organization not a scientific one. Hence all pronouncements are suspect for a political agenda (Trillion dollar tax tackling a non-problem. The idea that only "kooks" are "deniers" shows that it is all propaganda. And even if there WERE a true "consensus" science is never established by "majority vote". That is politics not science.
The FACT is that there has been no warming for 17 years now. THE FACT is that all the computer models of doom are TOTALLY WRONG! The FACT is that the more wrong the warmist models become the more the warmballers scream at how "certain" they are. And finally the FACT is that without warming there is NOTHING to drive all the "extreme weather" that the media screams is caused by "climate change".
Clearly the rest of this post is equally fraudulent and not worth reading.
--

___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 11/12/2015 1:37 PM, benj wrote:


Uh huh. Believe what you want, including the nonsensical idea that climate science can't discover facts about the climate, but climate science deniers can prove the "fact" that its all propaganda generated by the global warming conspiracy.

You climate science deniers like to point to those scientists who agree with you. The obvious counter to that rather meaningless claim is to point to the vastly larger number of scientists who concur with the consensus opinion. So don't complain about your own methodology being used to set the record straight. Also, a scientific consensus is not created by a "majority vote" or some sort of poll. It would be helpful if more people actually understood how science work is actually done in the real world.
The IPCC is far less "political" than, for example, the National Institutes of Health or NASA. It doesn't sponsor or conduct climate change research, set research parameters, or monitor how others collect data or conduct research. It doesn't answer to any government, taxing or regulatory authority. It is a scientific body, and it only collects, collates, assesses and reports the results of research from sources worldwide on the subject of climate change.
Its credibility is far greater than that of science deniers.

What you claim to be a "FACT" isn't a fact at all.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 11/12/2015 12:14 PM, Rick Blaine wrote:


Not *one* of whom is a climate scientist. They're a few mostly retired physicists, chemists, medical doctors, etc., but not *ONE* of the "scientists" trotted out by the deniers is or was a real climate scientist.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

There's not a single "climate scientist"-global warming alarmist who has developed a climate model that actually works.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 11/13/2015 9:34 AM, Just Wondering wrote:

Cite
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload


http://thefederalist.com/2014/05/06/climate-change-is-real-too-bad-accurate-climate-models-arent/
Climate Change Is Real. Too Bad Accurate Climate Models Aren?t. May 6, 2014 By Sean Davis
The Obama Administration released a new report on global cooling global warming climate change this week, and its findings and recommendations are about what you?d expect: conservatives are stupidheads who hate Science?, so give us eleventy trillion dollars.
From the Chicago Tribune:
The Obama administration Tuesday released an updated report on how climate change requires urgent action to counter impacts that touch every corner of the country, from oyster growers in Washington State to maple syrup producers in Vermont.
?Climate change, once considered an issue for a distant future, has moved firmly into the present,? the report said.
Unfortunately, climate models ? ones that can accurately and consistently predict global temperatures in the not-so-distant future ? simply don?t exist in the present. Indeed, for a group that so nakedly appeals to the authority of ?consensus,? the faith-based global warming alarmist movement is shockingly impervious to the consensus of actual data:
Climate Model Comparison
I?ll see your ?95 percent of scientists believe in global warming? talking point and raise you a ?95 percent of reality thinks your climate models are garbage.? According to that chart of actual satellite and surface temperature observations vs. what was predicted by 90 different climate models, 95 percent of models overestimated actual temperatures. Nothing says Science? like predicting stuff incorrectly over and over and over again.
And therein lies the real reason why so many global warming cultists are so desperate to change the terms of the debate. Rather than discuss the actual science, they?d rather marginalize anyone who disagrees with their policy prescriptions.
The global warming alarmists aren?t attempting to shut down debate because they?re worried the dissenters are wrong; the alarmists are attempting to shut down debate because they know their models are wrong, and they?d rather nobody focus on that inconvenient little fact.
As the old legal adage goes: When you have the facts, argue the facts; when you have the law, argue the law; when you have neither, just accuse your adversary of hating science and hope that nobody will listen to what they have to say about your consistently wrong forecasting models. And if that doesn?t work, blatantly manipulate and torture the English language and hope that nobody will notice.
Of course climate change ? the notion that climates change over time, not the idea that we should spend a fortune futilely trying to change the weather ? is real. Climates have changed consistently throughout the earth?s history. I am not aware of a single person who disagrees with the fact that climates change. Accusing someone of being a ?climate denier? (does anyone on earth deny that climates exist?) doesn?t tell me that you?re awesome at science ? it tells me that you?re awful at understanding what words mean.
And of course the earth has been gradually warming over the past 150+ years. That?s what happens when you emerge from a Little Ice Age, which lasted for hundreds of years and extended through the mid-19th century.
It is clearly possible (and quite common) to simultaneously believe that the earth is warming and that global warming cultists have utterly failed in their attempts to predict future climate changes.
I have a simple rule when it comes to people who want me to invest obscene sums of money in their forecasts of discrete future events: just be accurate. If you come to me and tell me you can predict future stock market performance based on these five factors, then you had better predict future stock market performance based on those five factors. All you have to do is be correct, over and over again. But if your predictive model is wrong, I?m not going to give you any money, and I?m certainly not going to pretend that what you just did is science. Any idiot can make incorrect guesses about the future.
Science, properly practiced, is the search for truth. Science, properly practiced, rejects forecasting models that consistently produce inaccurate forecasts. There?s nothing scientific about shouting down anyone who has the audacity to point out that the only thing your model can accurately predict is what the temperature won?t be.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 11/13/2015 1:48 PM, Just Wondering wrote:


The person who wrote that isn't a scientist, and is not in a position to evaluate climate change models.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.