@TMTisFree

Quote:

hence my still not answered question

Failure to accept an answer on your part does not mean I failed to provide one.

Quote:

Typical response by a believing alarmist not based on any fact checking.

More TMTisFree attempts to belittle the opponents. When the facts fail you, perhaps the insults will stick.

Quote:

McIntyre and McKitrick's papers have repeatedly discredited Mann's data uses and statistics because there were able to: 1/ reproduce the hockey stick with red noise only;

Which has repeately been discredited.

Quote:

2/ suppress the HS by removing 1 single tree ring; thus respectively indicating statistical flaws and the data mining

To restate... McIntyre and Mckitrick use statistical flaws and data mining to show... statistical flaws? Nice and bunk!

But we're far off Loehle. And you're Mann claims have already more than demonstrated to be wrong.

@BrianK

No answer at all to my genuine questions about your unsupported wrong claims (not surprising), only rhetorical and BS repetitions in the same UnReal vein (still not surprising). Pathetic.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

The evidence currently available indicates that NH mean temperatures during medieval times

Again, I remind you of the rather important word in the thread title.

@TMTisFree

Quote:

No answer at all to my genuine questions about your unsupported wrong claims (not surprising), only rhetorical and BS repetitions in the same UnReal vein (still not surprising). Pathetic.

Being we were posting at nearly the same time I went off to find the science showing how coral and pollen are worse predictors than trees. I have some.... But no.

Instead I'm treated with disrespect, more false accuations and insults. So as you requested in the past you are reported.

@TMTisFree

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: @BrianK No answer at all to my genuine questions about your unsupported wrong claims (not surprising), only rhetorical and BS repetitions in the same UnReal vein (still not surprising). Pathetic. Bye, TMTisFree

Calling someone 'pathetic' or their point of view the same word is NOT acceptable as it is both rude and inflaming. Being rude and inflaming, and/or crafting your responses to get a 'rise' are against TOS (as well as being quite a lousy attitudes to use through life.) May I politely suggest you reread your comments BEFORE you hit the submit button in future? Please consider this an official warning.

_________________
¤¤ Official Hyperion Zealot ¤¤

(No, I didn't type that with a straight face.)

@BrianK

Quote:

But no.

It is easier.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@Yo

I wasn't calling someone or his POV but the lack of responses. Anyway, noted your request.

Bye
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@umisef

Again, what about visiting this world map, as previously suggested?

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

Again, what about visiting this world map, as previously suggested?

What's "about" that world map is that it does not link to the actual papers, but rather just states their titles and makes claims that they identified a MWP; The "Description" entry is *not* the published abstract of papers, but rather something written by the people at co2science.

Looking at one example from New Zealand, we find the "description" to read
Quote:

A master speleothem δ18O record (which is a proxy for temperature) was developed for New Zealand's western South Island for the period 2000 BC to about AD 1825 from data acquired from four speleothems of Aurora, Calcite, Doubtful Xanadu and Waiau caves. This record revealed that the warmest time interval of the nearly 4000 years occurred between about AD 900 and 1100. Because the record did not extend beyond AD 1825, however, we cannot compare peak MWP warmth with peak CWP warmth.

whereas the actual abstract reads
Quote:

A primary step in the interpretation of speleothem stable isotope records (18O/16O and 13C/12C) is to conduct a comparison with other local palaeoclimate proxies. Here, two new master speleothem δ18O and δ13C records (one from eastern North Island, and the other from western/southern South Island, New Zealand) are evaluated against independent precipitation and temperature proxy information to assess their palaeoclimate reconstruction potential. This comparison also resulted in a serendipitous opportunity to reconstruct past circulation using climate regime classification [Lorrey, A.M., Fowler, A.M., Salinger, J., 2007a. Regional climate regime classification as a qualitative tool for interpreting multi-proxy palaeoclimate data spatial patterns: a New Zealand case study. Palaeo-3, in press], specifically because these two regional climate districts are hyper-sensitive to westerly circulation changes, and in many cases, exhibit contrasting climate character in response to circulation anomalies. For both the western South Island and the eastern North Island master speleothem δ13C records, variations tracked changes in relative regional precipitation. The δ18O master speleothem record for both regions varied with temperature change. Both records contain strong regional climate signals that suggest they have good value for palaeoclimate reconstruction. The ensuing attempt at a multi-proxy reconstruction of regional climate regimes from the compiled proxies indicates past circulation in the New Zealand sector has varied considerably during the past four millennia. Centennial-scale circulation changes for the past 4000 years are evident, and are analogous to modern Blocking, Zonal and Trough regime types (Kidson J. W., 2000. An analysis of New Zealand synoptic types and their use in defining weather regimes. International Journal of Climatology 20, 299–316) that characterise changes in present-day (prevailing) westerly circulation. This palaeoclimate reconstruction indicates modern regional climate regime classification can be extended at least as far back as the temporal coverage of the records presented here, and it can likely be improved on with better dating control and the addition of new records with higher resolution. It is also anticipated that future work will expand to include more proxy data from across New Zealand to improve the clarity of past climate regime occurrence for the Late Holocene.

Seeing as I picked that paper at random, the large difference between the co2science-supplied summary and the actual abstract does not fill me with confidence regarding the other papers on that world map.


At the same time, looking at the tree ring records (which, oddly enough, are available free of charge, unlike those papers linked from co2science), there is no discernible variation during what, according to you (and the fine people at co2science, of course), was a period of considerable warming. Yes, I understand that you consider tree rings a bad proxy, and that you are concerned about all sorts of other things having an influence on them, and that you are not even sure whether a rise in temperature should make those rings wider or narrower. However, I believe you have already agreed that a rise in temperature *should* result in *some* sort of change. And looking at the data, it's just not there. There is just no change.

You could argue, of course, that to build a 2000 year tree ring history, one would need to use multiple trees (true), and that those multiple trees are naturally genetically different, and thus introduce extra noise which might be masking the signal from the MWP. But of course, you would only argue that if you hadn't familiarized yourself with the particular tree ring history I pointed you at earlier :)

@umisef

Quote:

What's "about" that world map is that it does not link to the actual papers, but rather just states their titles and makes claims that they identified a MWP; The "Description" entry is *not* the published abstract of papers, but rather something written by the people at co2science.

It appears that:
1/ you don't know scientific papers are not free, so it is impossible to link to;
2/ the way descriptions are written makes it clear that they are not simple cut&paste of abstracts (someone used to read scientific papers understands that at the first sentence) but analysis of papers related to the subject studied (MWP here);
3/ it is better to read papers entirely (and then build a description/discussion from) rather than relying on abstracts alone (general rule in life).

Quote:

Looking at one example from New Zealand, we find the "description" to read

We? On top of that you were helped!

Quote:

Seeing as I picked that paper at random

Sure, you wrote it clearly: random, from the entire map... At least you are funny.

Quote:

the large difference between the co2science-supplied summary and the actual abstract does not fill me with confidence regarding the other papers on that world map

Please note that:
I/ you did not link to the description of the paper on the CO²Science website itself. That does not fill me with confidence you actually have linked correctly the CO²Science description with the real paper;
II/ see 2/ and 3/ above. What about reading the actual paper then? Nowhere it is indicated it is 'verboten' to do so;
III/ even if I/ is true, I don't see anything in their description that contradicts the abstract.
IV/ the paper is preliminary step to compare a new proxy (speleothem) with many others. CO²Science was only interested in specific data showing MWP in proxies. It is not that surprising that their description is focused on their interest and not on the comparison: It thus strongly indicates *they* have actually read the paper.

Quote:

At the same time, looking at the tree ring records (which, oddly enough, are available free of charge

Only scientists who don't want their results to be reproduced hide their data (see the number of FOI against the UnReal team for ex.). Also, may I suggest you reread the paper (the abstract will suffice)? Its main subject is about usefulness of speleothem records not tree rings.

Quote:

unlike those papers linked from co2science

Most of 'those papers' come from scientific journals which are not free (as noted in 1/). Your surprise of this well known fact (at least for those who read papers on a regular basis) tells you are not familiar with the scientific world.

Quote:

there is no discernible variation during what, according to you (and the fine people at co2science, of course), was a period of considerable warming

Given that tree rings have been demonstrated repeatedly to be not reliable for temperature, that seems consistent.

Quote:

Yes, I understand that you consider tree rings a bad proxy, and that you are concerned about all sorts of other things having an influence on them,

It is not me but concerned scientists: the linear response of trees to temperature was an assumption before being demonstrated to be not correct (see for example Schoettle (2004) or D’Arrigo et al. (2004): Quote:

"A few tree ring studies indicate recent growth declines at northern latitudes. The precise causes are not well understood. Here we identify a temperature threshold for decline in a tree ring record from a well established temperature-sensitive site at elevational tree line in northwestern Canada. The positive ring width/temperature relationship has weakened such that a pre-1965 linear model systematically overpredicts tree ring widths from 1965 to 1999. A nonlinear model shows an inverted U-shaped relationship between this chronology and summer temperatures, with an optimal July–August average temperature of 11.3 deg C based on a nearby station. This optimal value has been consistently exceeded since the 1960s, and the concurrent decline demonstrates that even at tree line, trees can be negatively affected when temperatures warm beyond a physiological threshold."

Clearer now). So instead of discussing one of the worst proxy for temperature, what about commenting on the other proxies of the study: speleothem, palynology records, lake sedimentation events, alluvial deposits, moraines and fires data? Oh my bad, I forgot you have not read the paper because it is not free.

Quote:

and that you are not even sure whether a rise in temperature should make those rings wider or narrower.

A gross attempt to put words in my mouth. Refer to the above quote.

Quote:

However, I believe you have already agreed that a rise in temperature *should* result in *some* sort of change. And looking at the data, it's just not there. There is just no change.

Circular logic.

Quote:

with the particular tree ring history I pointed you at earlier

Ah that was that, a not subtle tentative to switch from speleothem to your NZ trees, and to which I already replied. Refer then back (notice also the last sentence btw) to it. It just reinforces once more the inability of trees to capture temperature variations, as exposed here and before.

Overall this puts in light (again) the danger of superficial approaches (diagonal reading/fast screening, googlingite, facts selectivity, UnRealClimate- or MasterOfPseudoscience-like rough cut&pastes, obsolete evidences, thought cloning, contextual oversight, mass media misrepresentations, data politicization, consensual, common or by default opinion, model and physic confusion, etc [note that I let aside congenital lies, convenient hypocrisy, cognitive dissonance, assumed failure, simple opportunism and hardcore beliefs]).

Edit: typos only

Bye,
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 18-May-2009 at 11:10 AM.

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

Question @ all

Is Co2 a "smog" gas? or does Co2 create "smog"? or would the reduction of Co2 reduce "smog"?


I consider Co2 a “natural” gas not a smog gas, and part of life on earth. Today the EPA and the Imperial Obama have the news media pushing the thought that reduction of Co2 will reduce “smog”. IMHO, they are pushing a view to the American people not in “fact”?

_________________
"The system no longer works " -- Young Anakin Skywalker

the headline:

Obama wants increased fuel efficiency, less smog
link to the full story

Quote:

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama outlined Tuesday the nation's first comprehensive effort to curb vehicle emissions while cutting dependence on imported oil, calling the plan an historic turning point toward a "clean-energy economy." Joined in the White House Rose Garden by leaders of the auto industry, labor, government officials and key national and state political leaders, Obama said the agreement that once would have been "considered impossible" was what he termed a "harbinger of a change in the way business is done in Washington." The two-pronged approach to problems that compound threats to the global environment marks the latest in a series of shifts by the Obama administration away from the policies of his conservative predecessor, former President George W. Bush "As a result of this agreement," Obama said, "we will save 1.8 billion barrels of oil over the lifetime of the vehicles sold in the next five years. And at a time of historic crisis in our auto industry, this rule provides the clear certainty that will allow these companies to plan for a future in which they are building the cars of the 21st century." He said the new rules amounted to removing 177 million cars from the roads over the next 6 1/2 years. In that period, the savings in oil burned to fuel American cars, trucks and buses would amount to last year's combined U.S. imports from Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Libya and Nigeria. While the new fuel and emission standards for cars and trucks will save billions of barrels of oil, they are expected to cost consumers an extra $1,300 per vehicle by the time the plan is complete in 2016. Obama said the fuel cost savings would offset the higher price of vehicles in three years. While requiring that vehicle carbon dioxide emissions be reduced by about one-third by the target date, the plan requires the auto industry to be building vehicles that average 35.5 miles per gallon. The plan also would effectively end a feud between automakers and statehouses over emission standards — with the states coming out on top but the automakers getting the single national standard they've been seeking and more time to make the changes. The plan, to be proposed in the Federal Register of pending rules and regulations, must still clear procedural hurdles at the Environmental Protection Agency and the Transportation Department. Automakers expressed their support for the plan. "We're all agreeing to work together on a national program," said Dave McCurdy, president and CEO of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. Administration officials said consumers were going to pay an extra $700, anyway, for mileage standards that had already been approved. The Obama plan adds another $600 to the price of a vehicle, a senior administration official said, bringing the total cost to $1,300 by 2016. Under the changes, the overall fleet average would have to be 35.5 mpg by 2016, with passenger cars reaching 39 mpg and light trucks hitting 30 mpg under a system that develops standards for each vehicle class size. Manufacturers would also be required to hit individual mileage targets. In a battle over emission standards, California, 13 other states and the District of Columbia have urged the federal government to let them enact more stringent standards than the federal government's requirements. The states' regulations would cut greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent in new cars and trucks by 2016 — the benchmark Obama planned to unveil for vehicles built in model years 2012 and beyond. The Obama plan gives the states essentially what they sought and more, although the buildup is slower than the states sought. In exchange, though, cash-strapped states such as California would not have to develop their own standards and enforcement plan. Instead, they can rely on federal tax dollars to monitor the environment. The auto industry will be required to ramp up production of more fuel-efficient vehicles on a much tighter timeline than originally envisioned. It will be costly; the Transportation Department last year estimated that requiring the industry to meet 31.6 mpg by 2015 would cost nearly $47 billion. But industry officials — many of whom are running companies on emergency taxpayer dollars — said Obama's plan would help them because they would not face multiple emissions requirements and would have more certainty as they develop their vehicles for the next decade.

_________________
"The system no longer works " -- Young Anakin Skywalker

@TMTisFree and BrianK (and thread)

Look...

You both bring very good and reasoned arguments to the table.

AGAIN I would like to request, strongly, that you PLEASE take any tone of derision, mocking, patronage, condescension, disdain or any superior, superciliously indulgent treatment OUT of your posts.

Science is all about observing, neutrally and from a unbiased viewpoint (as MUCH as possible and taking into consideration the bias) at data, facts, situations and drawing conclusions, assumptions, a hypothesis based on that. Belief, faith, religion, bias and a closed mind just doesn't have any place there.

Remember what hypothesis means, please:
Quote:

A tentative supposition with regard to an unknown state of affairs, the truth of which is thereupon subject to investigation by any available method, either by logical deduction of consequences which may be checked against what is known, or by direct experimental investigation or discovery of facts not hitherto known and suggested by the hypothesis.

I am loathe to lock this thread, seriously. This is a fantastic topic for discussion, in MY own opinion, however, everyone MUST play fair and leave the slagging off for the x86 threads. (Joke!! ) On the other hand, ffs, grow thicker skin, will you?

Opinion is opinion, and we all have one, so... perhaps you both will just have to agree to disagree, how is that?

/me sits back with another big box of fresh, hot popcorn

_________________
¤¤ Official Hyperion Zealot ¤¤

(No, I didn't type that with a straight face.)

@Yo

I understand your point and said previously I agree with (here). I also replied to you at the beginning of this thread (here) the following: Quote:

Well, the core problem (absence of additional GH effect by CO²) has been sufficiently exposed in vol. 1 & 2. I see no point continuing discussing unphysical realities and, therefore their non-existent consequences. What is sure is that belief can not be rationalized.

This last sentence was unfortunately fully supported here. It is a little bit appalling that people with scientific background and education exhibit such irrational behavior. I was working in a laboratory (coupled to the paediatric unit of a maternity hospital in a 'CHU' [in French Centre Hospitalo-Universitaire, don't know how to translate that]) and had contracts with so-called Big Pharma to test molecules in a in-house model of in vitro hypoxic-ischemic neurons (a somewhat common but negative/lethal situation of newborn's brain): these contracts were under NDA but be sure that they clearly stated the deontology and the liability of doing such researches with potential applications on newborns: it was not written with politically correct, semantically confused or rhetorical convolution wording and meaning. So it is somewhat difficult to think that evidencing a lying/hypocritical/dishonest behavior by anything else than the words lie-liar/hypocrisy-hypocrite/bad faith, respectively, will help anyone's conscience and ethics. Formally, describing (publicly or not is a false problem) such behavior is neither name calling nor insult: it is the proper way to circumvent the problem. Same for ex cathedra argumentum: Science is not properly build with convenient silence or muzzled truth.


@Yo & Interesting also

I also added: Quote:

IPCC has been proved a non-scientific organization with a political agenda. A minority of scientists (Hansen and UnRealclimate) are embarked in a crusade where bad science is just a pretext to support a political goal based on an erroneous hypothesis. The best the majority of honest scientists could do is honest science (non-models based): demonstrating that earth climate is under negative feedbacks (oceans, vapour water, clouds, aerosols) with influence of the sun and other factors and CO² effect recognized as marginal. It will take probably some time because the science is currently being corrupted by politicians & environmentalists whose main concern is not ecology.

In support of the above, I am afraid it seems that next IPCC COP16 in Copenhagen at the end of 2009 will not be about Science, but about money, our money. When I say our money, I am not talking about the money we are already throwing in the 2nd cap and trade trashcan system in Europe (the 1rst one crashed badly and costly) or the next one in USA or the high prices of energy and of most things you can buy nowadays (to the benefits of Mr All Gone). No, when I say our money I want to point to China (world's number 1 producer of CO²) and India (#4) that have called for 1% of the developed world's GDP to be paid for projects to reduce CO² in the third world. Let calculate a little: developing countries account for 1/3 of the world CO² emissions; this means that China and India effectively request in reality 3% GDP ad vitam aeternam (ad vitam aeternam because this will have no measurable effects on CO² level and that environmentalists do not want to resolve this (non-)problem). GDP of developed countries is about $45 trillions annually: 3% of $45 trillions is $1.35 trillion per year (for a comparison Kyoto protocol costs just about 150 billions per year and it is estimated that the current economic crisis has reduced the GDP by about 5%). I hope you have a very good job (2 preferably) because the draining will be drastic over western economies, effectively leading to a world wealth redistribution to hostile and competitive countries as probably green dogmatists and red ideologists have never dream it would be possible. I suppose no one will hear of that in the mass(aged) media.

Dum spiramus tuebimur.

Edit: grammar

Bye,
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 20-May-2009 at 04:46 PM.

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Hello!

I am more than a little confused as to why this trip down memory lane replies adequately to the rather large bosomed "Yo"'s request to treat others with courtesy and respect? After all, given you have a claimed background in science (and no, not domestic science) you should know that only way to deal with critics effectively is with wit, data and above all reason.

I think perhaps that English is not your first language, so I am afraid I have had to translate somewhat. Please do correct me where I make mistakes. I have taken out the seemingly random latin phrases (although you might enjoy non sequitur).

Quote:

I see no point continuing discussing unphysical realities and, therefore their non-existent consequences. What is sure is that belief can not be rationalized.

I think you are saying that all reality is physical in nature? Are you also inferring that unless it is certain it is not rational? So, for example, projection based on evidence and trends would be void? If so, how is that a rational position, I'm sure a scientist of your undoubted experience would be aware of how much of modern scientific knowledge owes more than a tip of the hat to trend analysis and related fields.

(snipped seemingly irrelevant story about how you worked for a university hospital on some research that you can't really talk about that has no bearing on what Yo was talking about, and somehow politically correct gets thrown in a joyous way).

But can I ask, did you write it? If so, I'm not sure that it would have been confused or rhetorically unconvoluted. Because I didn't understand a word of it. Perhaps my mind has been made feeble by reading biased left leaning newspapers.

Quote:

So it is somewhat difficult to think that evidencing a lying/hypocritical/dishonest behavior by anything else than the words lie-liar/hypocrisy-hypocrite/bad faith, respectively, will help anyone's conscience and ethics.

Ah but again, may I refer you to your statement from before:

"I see no point continuing discussing unphysical realities and, therefore their non-existent consequences. What is sure is that belief can not be rationalized."

You are failing to provide the evidence, and then the rationale in order to be able to make such an attack on someone's character. Indeed, any decent tutor of sciences would point out how heading into an ad homenin line of argument dilutes your own credibility and isn't a substitute for clarity.

Quote:

Formally, describing (publicly or not is a false problem) such behavior is neither name calling nor insult: it is the proper way to circumvent the problem. Same for ex cathedra argumentum: Science is not properly build with convenient silence or muzzled truth.

Ever heard of signal/noise ratio? People are less likely to listen to you when they have to tune out the static. But perhaps I misunderstand you again. I think you are saying that because you have a counter argument and perhaps believe you have some contrary evidence it means you have a right to name call... because somehow it stops being name calling. You can see how confusing this gets, as it seems more than a tadge circular. Science is most definitely not built with silence or muzzling truth, but nor is it built with slander, name calling or insults (even if you conveniently define them as "not insults" after the fact).

But then we get onto the entertainment:

Quote:

I also added: Quote: IPCC has been proved a non-scientific organization with a political agenda. A minority of scientists (Hansen and UnRealclimate) are embarked in a crusade where bad science is just a pretext to support a political goal based on an erroneous hypothesis. The best the majority of honest scientists could do is honest science (non-models based): demonstrating that earth climate is under negative feedbacks (oceans, vapour water, clouds, aerosols) with influence of the sun and other factors and CO² effect recognized as marginal. It will take probably some time because the science is currently being corrupted by politicians & environmentalists whose main concern is not ecology. In support of the above, I am afraid it seems that next IPCC COP16 in Copenhagen at the end of 2009 will not be about Science, but about money, our money. When I say our money, I am not talking about the money we are already throwing in the 2nd cap and trade trashcan system in Europe (the 1rst one crashed badly and costly) or the next one in USA or the high prices of energy and of most things you can buy nowadays (to the benefits of Mr All Gone). No, when I say our money I want to point to China (world's number 1 producer of CO²) and India (#4) that have called for 1% of the developed world's GDP to be paid for projects to reduce CO² in the third world. Let calculate a little: developing countries account for 1/3 of the world CO² emissions; this means that China and India effectively request in reality 3% GDP ad vitam aeternam (ad vitam aeternam because this will have no measurable effects on CO² level and that environmentalists do not want to resolve this (non-)problem). GDP of developed countries is about $45 trillions annually: 3% of $45 trillions is $1.35 trillion per year (for a comparison Kyoto protocol costs just about 150 billions per year and it is estimated that the current economic crisis has reduced the GDP by about 5%). I hope you have a very good job (2 preferably) because the draining will be drastic over western economies, effectively leading to a world wealth redistribution to hostile and competitive countries as probably green dogmatists and red ideologists have never dream it would be possible. I suppose no one will hear of that in the mass(aged) media.

I will just say this in return, using your own admirable words:

Quote:

I see no point continuing discussing unphysical realities and, therefore their non-existent consequences. What is sure is that belief can not be rationalized.

That, my friend, is politics.

_________________
Suffering pains from the belly laugh.

@MassiveAttack

Quote:
You have put the level low for a first post (I add an empty quote from you as I don't see anything valuable to quote/reply to, I hope you don't mind).

Nox nocti indicat scientiam.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Oh dear, was it all a little too much for you?

Nil desperandum. I look forward to reading your next conspiracy theory with the greatest anticipation.

_________________
Suffering pains from the belly laugh.

@MassiveAttack

Have a read at the previous 1500 posts. Surely you will find what you are searching for.

Nullum est iam dictum quod non dictum sit prius.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@MassiveAttack

Quote:

I look forward to reading your next conspiracy theory with the greatest anticipation

The Warmists are the ones with the "conspiracy therory" from what I've seen during my lifetime! There are many of us who *are not* a member of the New Religion!

@TMTisFree

I already have found what I am looking for. I can quite easily spot someone who selects the science to fit their political expectations.

@d4m0n

One individual coming up with entertaining conspiracy theories does not preclude others doing the same, so I fail to see what your point is.

Last edited by MassiveAttack on 22-May-2009 at 06:50 PM.

_________________
Suffering pains from the belly laugh.