|
Stwryrch (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Now, now, the Cat Lullaby song is a little corny, but I certainly wouldn't call somebody a loser because of their musical choice.However, I would call someone a loser that spends their time making new accounts on Youtube, just to spam comments and have the account deleted 3 hours later.What a colossal waste of time that was, huh?
grastogisaloser (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
grastog i just wanted to let you know you really are a loser.
TheRealArchAngel (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
** I wonder if Exxon pays this cretin with dollars or Euros**Why would Exxon pay people to conteract their Global Warming scare scam?You do know when you pull into a recharge station in your carbon fiber and foam electric car 100 years from now that the carbon fiber is made from oil,the foam is made from oil,the electric battery is made by companies like Exxon,Tires are made from oil,and the sign above the recharge station will still say Exxon,Chevron,Shell,BP...yes?
grastog1313 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
It hardly seems worth arguing when viewers can visit all the climate sites themselves - HadCRUT3, NCDC, GISS, UAH, RSS. I judge them to show recent warming, as well as a long term CO2-driven warming trend punctuated by typical short term ups and downs, all consistent with the basic CO2 forcing as the long term factor. However, anyone visiting these sites should draw his or her own conclusions.
icecreamdose (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
"Let me first repeat the invitation for viewers to visit the climate monitoring sites to confirm both very recent and long term warming"in telling people to do this you continually show that you don't know how to read graphs. In these graphs you are so anxious to believe show warming you are only paying attention to upward spikes. You do want to see the more numerous downward spikes. On average these graph show a downward trend.The earth is cooling. It is not warming.
grastog1313 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Let me first repeat the invitation for viewers to visit the climate monitoring sites to confirm both very recent and long term warming. Regarding the listed papers, anyone who reads and understands them will see they don't contradict basic anthropogenic warming principles Gore enunciated. Each is outdated to some extent, and those interested in the first should read the more recent papers not only by Douglass/Christy, but also Haimberger, Allen/Sherwood, and Santer for current perspectives.
icecreamdose (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Four peer-reviewed works from the scientific literature. These works show the Al Gore side is wrong. Titles for web search :A Comparison of Tropical Temperature Trends With Model Predictions, DOI: 10.1002/joc.1651Cloud and Radiation Budget Changes Associated With Tropical Intraseasonal Oscillations, doi:10.1029/2007GL029698Corrections to the Mann Proxy Data Base and Northern Hemispheric Average Temperature SeriesGreenland Warming of 19201930 and 19952005, doi:10.1029/2006GL026510
icecreamdose (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
"I judge each to show recent warming"you are talking about 2 months?where was all your concern with checking these sites when temperatures plummeted for 12 months in 2007? And for four months eqrlier this year?you have a double standard mr grastog
icecreamdose (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
"Please see my comment below"mindless repetitionwhat readers grastog? maybe you could tell me who all these readers are? Are they like that rabbit Harvey?
grastog1313 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Please see my comment below, inviting readers to visit all the temperature monitoring sites to determine whether we're warming or cooling. I judge each to show recent warming, as well as long-term warming driven primarily by CO2, with periodic ups and downs, but each viewer should visit the sites to draw his or her own conclusions. |
