Gore-Backed Car Firm Gets Large U.S. Loan. Piece of **** onlyruns 50 miles on a charge!

wrote:
> On Oct 5, 8:20 pm, Bill Putney > wrote:
>> PeterD wrote:
>>> There is NO scientific consensus that global warming is caused by man,
>>> is anything other than a natural occurance, or that it is even
>>> happening at all... Again, just as others are saying, you are choosing
>>> to belive the sky is falling.
>> Even more, the earth has actually been cooling off. The biggest driver?
>> Solar activity. Gee - imagine that!!! LOL!
>
> The 2000s are the hottest decade ever. How is that cooling off?
>
>> (The warmest year on record in relatively recent history was in the 30's
>> - 1936 or 1938 - I think - I forget which.
>
> Uh, you forget a lot. It's 2005, then 1998 and 2007 tied. 8 of the
> hottest years on record have occurred in the 2000s.

Here's one from a very obscure right-wing web site - OH WAIT - it's
NASA's own data and on their own web site (after they corrected the
false data)!! Imagine that.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt

1934 and 2008 tied.

"Four of the top 10 years of US CONUS high temperature deviations are
now from the 1930s: 1934, 1931, 1938 and 1939, while only 3 of the top
10 are from the last 10 years (1998, 2006, 1999). Several years (2000,
2002, 2003, 2004) fell well down the leaderboard, behind even 1900."

--
Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

wrote:
> On Oct 5, 8:56 pm, Bill Putney > wrote:
>> dr_jeff wrote:
>>> PeterD wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 18:45:10 -0400, dr_jeff > wrote:
>>>>> Bill Putney wrote:
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> If it's so imaginary, why does every national science academy in the
>>>>>>> world say it's real?...
>>>>>> News flash: They don't. You're way behind on your reading, or just
>>>>>> tend to ignore what you choose to because it doesn't fit the idiot
>>>>>> agenda. Or you're looking at the data that NASA and others faked and
>>>>>> compiled before they were forced to correct it and they conveniently
>>>>>> hid it in hard to find pages of their web site.
>>>>> What data did NASA fake and compile? Please prove that they faked it.
>>>>> And, what do the corrected data show?
>>>> This is common knowledge, they used bad data, got bad results. Then
>>>> they covered up... Been well documented.
>>> Gee, then it should be easy to support your claim.
>> It is - for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear the truth.
>> You'll have to find it yourself. If we spoon-fed it to you, you'd not
>> believe it anyway. You'll believe what you want anyway. In fact, it's
>> been documented before on this very news group - there - your homework
>> is mostly done for you. But you still won't believe it.
>
>
> So tell us, what scientific sources did you consult to come to this
> conclusion?

NASA. But like I said, you won't believe it no matter what.

>>>>>>> Every scientific organization?...
>>>>>> News flash: They don't. You're way behind on your reading, or just
>>>>>> tend to ignore what you choose to because it doesn't fit the idiot
>>>>>> agenda. Or you're looking at the data that NASA and others faked and
>>>>>> compiled before they were forced to correct it and they conveniently
>>>>>> hid it in hard to find pages of their web site.
>>>>> So the only data that the scientific organizations used where those
>>>>> from NASA? Or was there other data that they looked at?
>>>> Huh?
>>> You're saying that NASA lied about its data. These are not the only data
>>> that climatologists use to understand climate and climate change. Nor
>>> are the data in question that only data that NASA has.
>> Funny how before the mistakes were revealed the GW'ers would always
>> point to the NASA data and say "LOOK - the most respected scientific
>> organization of the U.S. Gov't says so - so it is indisputable", then
>> when it turns out they faked data - and on more than one occasion - it's
>> "These are not the only data that climatologists use to understand
>> climate and climate change".
>
> You are a liar.

Very convincing argument.

If you check the prior post, I was direct quoting exactly what someone
in this thread had said, and yet I'm a liar when I actually quote what
someone said. You just stuck your foot in it. I say something that is
a direct quote documented in this very discussion, and I am a liar.

BTW - Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals don't work anymore. People have
become immune to them. So you need to learn to discuss with factual
information rather than using the worn out methods.


>> Read up on the "hockey stick curve" that Al Gore used to "prove" global
>> warming. Turns out that no matter what numbers you plug into the
>> formula used to create the curve creates the same general shape curve of
>> increasing temperature over time.
>
> Turns out that's wrong. The National Academy of Sciences validated
> Mann's work, and 10 other reconsructions of temp. agree with it.

Ummm - that's the point. No matter the numbers you put into it, it
shows the rise in temperature as you move time forward. Appreciate the
confirmation of the false science even though you see it as proving the
"science" that is false.

>> That's just one example of majorly
>> faked non-NASA data. There also the Cascades Mountains snow pack data
>> faking (actually cherry picking mins and max's to force the conclusion)
>> - Assistant State Climatologist in Washintgton state got removed from
>> his position for blowing the whistle on that one - that's how honest and
>> pure they were about "science". When data was corrected, it showed the
>> warming that was claimed was a lie. Duh!
>
> No it didn't. What scientific sources did you get this from?

It happened. Google is spelled g-o-o-g-l-e. Again - it happened.

>> Hints for NASA: (1) Don't claim your data is scientific when you control
>> your temperature measuring stations and data so sloppily that you allow
>> air conditioning units to be installed a few feet away from the station
>> and then soon after report a temperature rise. (2) When you falsify
>> October's data by copying over September's data to show warming over the
>> previous year, be aware that when you have to copy one day twice to make
>> a 30 day month fit the 31 day month, once people see the mistake and
>> correct the data, it will be pretty obvious that it had to be
>> intentional fakery. Nice try. Busted! (3) Oh - and don't launch
>> satellites to monitor actual temperatures that contradict the trends
>> "proven" by the faulty terrestrial based measurement data and throw all
>> of your faulty warming models into a cocked hat.
>>
>
> Hint: Don't post lies from right-wing web sites.

Again, Saul Alinsky and his methods are dead.

>>> Really? Why does Science and Nature, the preeminent science journals in
>>> the world both say otherwise?
>> You'd have to ask them. Vested interests in perpetuating the myth? But
>> really - you'd have to ask them.
>
>
> Yeah, all science is in on a vast conspiracy and only Bill Putney sees
> the truth!
>
> Pathetic.

Can't argue the facts, so you continue to revert to the Saul Alinsky
methods. Very convincing. And scientific.

From Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals":
1. "Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have."

2. "Never go outside the expertise of your people. When an action or
tactic is outside the experience of the people, the result is confusion,
fear and retreat.... [and] the collapse of communication.

3. "Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy. Look for
ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all
the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by
seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)

4. "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules. You can kill them
with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian
church can live up to Christianity."

5. "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to
counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then
reacts to your advantage."

6. "A good tactic is one your people enjoy."

7. "A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag. Man can sustain
militant interest in any issue for only a limited time...."

8. "Keep the pressure on, with different tactics and actions, and
utilize all events of the period for your purpose."

9. "The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself."

10. "The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that
will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this
unceasing pressure that results in the reactions from the opposition
that are essential for the success of the campaign."

11. "If you push a negative hard and deep enough, it will break through
into its counterside... every positive has its negative."

12. "The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative."

13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. In
conflict tactics there are certain rules that [should be regarded] as
universalities. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the
target and 'frozen.'...

"...any target can always say, 'Why do you center on me when there
are others to blame as well?' When your 'freeze the target,' you
disregard these [rational but distracting] arguments.... Then, as you
zero in and freeze your target and carry out your attack, all the
'others' come out of the woodwork very soon. They become visible by
their support of the target...'

"One acts decisively only in the conviction that all the angels
are on one side and all the devils on the other."


--
Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

On Oct 5, 5:31*pm, "
> wrote:
> On Oct 2, 12:33*am, jr92 > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 30, 5:27*pm, "
>
> > > wrote:
> > > On Sep 30, 8:59*am, PeterD > wrote:
>
> > > > On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 09:08:37 +0200, "Major Debacle"
>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125383160812639013.html
>
> > > > >WASHINGTON -- A tiny car company backed by former Vice President
> > > > >Al Gore has just gotten a $529 million U.S. government
>
> > > > Over half a billion dollars for another Gore scam... Gore, the
> > > > environmental disastar beyond belief! And, no that half billion will
> > > > never be repaid!
>
> > > Gore is a partner in a firm which invested in Fisker. *Your rant about
> > > Gore is stupid, and that's being polite.
>
> > Gore is not stupid. He is GENIUS. And,alas, very CROOKED. . He has
> > learned how to take an imaginery "event", global wamring,(
>
> If it's so imaginary, why does every national science academy in the
> world say it's real? *Every scientific organization? *Why do all the
> articles in scientific journals say it's real?
>




They don't. Just the ones you want to believe do.


The ones that forget that science and politics are not one and the
same.







> >or in the
> > year 2009, "climate change"),
>
> A term a Bush pollster told the Bush people to use as it was less
> "alarming."
>




Naw. Just covers a lot more ground. Cooler temps than normal, more
rain than predicted when alarmists scream "DROUGHT!!!", Fewer
hurricanes than predicted, can more easily be attributed to "climate
change" than global warming.


All you have to do is "prove" something is out of the ordinary,
climate-wise.





> >and turn it into a source of vast income
> > for him. *Whether it is in recieving millions in government grants,
> > raking in tens of millions in stocks of "green" companies, or the
> > 200,000 dollars a pop he comands for speaking engagements, all the
> > while jet-setting the planet in his evil, carbon spewing private
> > plane, he just keeps getting richer and richer.
>
> I thought you right-wingers admired greed. *And I thought you
> considered the rich to be harder-working and smarter than everybody
> else.
>
>This right-wing does not admire liars, crooks and thieves. All can be used to describe AlGore, and his host of left-wing extremists.


Al Capone probably worker harder and was smarter than most anybody. He
was rich. Was he a good guy????



>
>
>
> > I only wish I were as smart as he.
>
> > But glad I AM a little more honest.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

FWIW it seems to me that there does seem to be a temperature increase but to
me the question remains whether in an historical context it (and other
changes) means that much, and whether humans have had such an impact, all of
which have been raised in this thread so far.

Certainly carbon dioxide levels are higher than when I was a kid. I
remember learning 2.5% (that's in the 60s) and now it is 3.5%, which is, of
course, an enormous increase, though this level is not as high as peak
levels seen in the historic past.

That oil will run out makes sense, whatever we may be discovering now, since
we are using it at a rate much faster than petroleum deposit creation. The
only question is when, though it may not be as soon as some doom-sayers seem
to think.

I certainly agree that an enormous amount of hooey is said and done in the
name of 'greeness'. The Prius (already mentioed) and, indeed, all
electrical cars are inferior to modern diesels. Most of recycling is daft
from an energy or raw material point of view. Glass especially, since the
essential raw material, sand, is infinitely available. As I understand it,
about the only thing genuinely worth recycling is aluminium since the energy
required to reprocess the metal is a lot less that that required to process
ore. All the rest ought to be incinerated (not sent to landfill sites), but
everyone is a NIMBY (not in my backyard). While we are at it, the heat
generated from such an incinerator could be used for heating water,
especially for homes in the vicinity.

And do on.

DAS

To send an e-mail directly replace "spam" with "schmetterling"
---
"dr_jeff" > wrote in message
...
[...]
>
> Not really. Compare this to A/C efficiency or refrigerator efficiency.
> There is a much better increase in efficiency compared to cars. And let's
> compare this to computers, which are millions of times faster, able to
> store millions of times more data, and are able to send data to other
> computers millions of times faster. Gee, A/C and refrigerators don't even
> compare.
>
[...]
>
> Except that the supply and demand are nearly the same amount. And remember
> what happened when the demand went up a just a bit more about 1 or 1.5
> years ago? High gas prices.
>
> That the Middle East no longer supplies as high a proportion of the
> world's oil supply, the supply is still limited.
[...]

Dori A Schmetterling wrote:
> FWIW it seems to me that there does seem to be a temperature increase...

LOL! Even if you believe the GW'ers, it's a whopping 0.6°C over a
century. Don't tell anybody, but it's dropping now due to decrease in
solar activity.

--
Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')