Earth Photography: It's Harder Than It Looks

Eric Stevens wrote:
rOn 04 Mar 2012 05:43:54 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Eric Stevens wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
Bowser wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 06:16:49 -0800 (PST), RichA

NASA should be looking out, not down. They've hooked their wagon to
the global warming "cause" to justify their existence after the
discontinuation of the Shuttle program so now they monitor Earth.

Yeah. **** science. Screw all the evidence. We all KNOW that global
warming is a hoax! It's just a coincidence that the warmest years on
history have occured since 2000. Besides, science is just a bunch of
nunmbers. Don't mean nuthin'.

Yeah, we're just recovering from the small ice age (which ended
the warm period that allowed the bloom of the middle ages)

If you think that several centuries is "just recovering".

and
we've neither temperature data from the middle ages nor from the
time when Rome ruled the Earth and Romans grew wine in England.

Both those claims are lies.

I'm afraid they are not. The best we have got are temperature
proxies.

In other words you admit that we do have "temperature data" from
several centuries ago. In fact temperature data can be had going
back a few thousand years.

I'm not admitting it all: I'm denying it.

You just stated that we have temperature data.

We have proxydata going back far more than 'a few thousand years'

Q.E.D.

but
what can be inferred from this is not primary temperature data.

You're changing your claim. Like most deniers you're not capable
of honest discussion.

--
Ray Fischer | None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.
| Goethe

George Kerby wrote:



On 3/4/12 2:37 AM, in article ,
"Eric Stevens" wrote:

rOn 04 Mar 2012 05:43:54 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
Bowser wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 06:16:49 -0800 (PST), RichA

NASA should be looking out, not down. They've hooked their wagon to
the global warming "cause" to justify their existence after the
discontinuation of the Shuttle program so now they monitor Earth.

Yeah. **** science. Screw all the evidence. We all KNOW that global
warming is a hoax! It's just a coincidence that the warmest years on
history have occured since 2000. Besides, science is just a bunch of
nunmbers. Don't mean nuthin'.

Yeah, we're just recovering from the small ice age (which ended
the warm period that allowed the bloom of the middle ages)

If you think that several centuries is "just recovering".

and
we've neither temperature data from the middle ages nor from the
time when Rome ruled the Earth and Romans grew wine in England.

Both those claims are lies.

I'm afraid they are not. The best we have got are temperature
proxies.

In other words you admit that we do have "temperature data" from
several centuries ago. In fact temperature data can be had going
back a few thousand years.

I'm not admitting it all: I'm denying it.

We have proxydata going back far more than 'a few thousand years' but
what can be inferred from this is not primary temperature data.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

Eric, you are trying to use logic on a liberal lump of lignite. It just
doesn't work: FishHead "feels" there is this 'Global Warming' and all of the
data out there to the contrary just does NOT matter when a LibTard "feels"
something to be true.

See the bitter hate of the rightard.

--
Ray Fischer | None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.
| Goethe

On Sun, 04 Mar 2012 09:51:15 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:
: On 2012-03-04 03:37 , Eric Stevens wrote:
:
: We have proxydata going back far more than 'a few thousand years' but
: what can be inferred from this is not primary temperature data.
:
: The interpretation of temperature and other environmental data is the
: domain of scientists. They have overwhelmingly confirmed a rise in
: global temperature averages and by a wide margin attributed it to human
: activities in the past 100+ years.
: (IPCC Climate Change 2007 aka the "4th report").

Two problems with that:

1. Regardless of what the scientists say, they have not proven the connection
to human activities. And ...

2. Even if you accept that connection, they have not shown that the proposed
"solutions", or *anything* within current human capabilities, will even begin
to do the job.

Bob

On 2012-03-04 14:08 , Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 04 Mar 2012 09:51:15 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2012-03-04 03:37 , Eric Stevens wrote:

We have proxydata going back far more than 'a few thousand years' but
what can be inferred from this is not primary temperature data.

The interpretation of temperature and other environmental data is the
domain of scientists. They have overwhelmingly confirmed a rise in
global temperature averages and by a wide margin attributed it to human
activities in the past 100+ years.
(IPCC Climate Change 2007 aka the "4th report").

So what?

That's got nothing to do with whether or not we have temperature data
or have to rely on proxies.

No. It means that the collective evidence (including temperature records
of several kinds) investigated by a wide range of scientists from
different disciplines indicate warming and its anthropogenic cause.

I should point out that the (mainly) Republican anti environmental
movement playbook is nearly verbatim that of the tobacco industry
against the onslaught of legislation and medical advice against smoking.

That is to say: influence, denial, cherry picking of facts, dubious
(aligned) experts, conspiracy theories and so on.

--
"I was gratified to be able to answer promptly, and I did.
I said I didn't know."
-Samuel Clemens.

On 2012-03-04 14:27 , Robert Coe wrote:
On Sun, 04 Mar 2012 09:51:15 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:
: On 2012-03-04 03:37 , Eric Stevens wrote:
:
: We have proxydata going back far more than 'a few thousand years' but
: what can be inferred from this is not primary temperature data.
:
: The interpretation of temperature and other environmental data is the
: domain of scientists. They have overwhelmingly confirmed a rise in
: global temperature averages and by a wide margin attributed it to human
: activities in the past 100+ years.
: (IPCC Climate Change 2007 aka the "4th report").

Two problems with that:

1. Regardless of what the scientists say, they have not proven the connection
to human activities. And ...

It took a long time for most people to accept that smoking is harmful.
There are still holdouts. Indeed the rightwing anti-environmental types
use the tobacco industry playbook to divide the question and evidence;
provide contrary "proof" from dubious (aligned) experts, and so on.


2. Even if you accept that connection, they have not shown that the proposed
"solutions", or *anything* within current human capabilities, will even begin
to do the job.

That is unmitigated bull**** of the first order.

The very _first_ thing to do is to reduce pollution including carbon
output into the atmosphere. This is in the realm of possibility
technically and economically.

Nobody claims it can be reversed in quick order (less than 100 years),
but the progression can be slowed and stopped in less than that period).

(My last post on the subject here).

--
"I was gratified to be able to answer promptly, and I did.
I said I didn't know."
-Samuel Clemens.

On 3/4/12 1:12 PM, in article ,
"Eric Stevens" wrote:

On Sun, 04 Mar 2012 09:52:48 -0600, George Kerby
wrote:




On 3/4/12 2:37 AM, in article ,
"Eric Stevens" wrote:

rOn 04 Mar 2012 05:43:54 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
Bowser wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 06:16:49 -0800 (PST), RichA

NASA should be looking out, not down. They've hooked their wagon to
the global warming "cause" to justify their existence after the
discontinuation of the Shuttle program so now they monitor Earth.

Yeah. **** science. Screw all the evidence. We all KNOW that global
warming is a hoax! It's just a coincidence that the warmest years on
history have occured since 2000. Besides, science is just a bunch of
nunmbers. Don't mean nuthin'.

Yeah, we're just recovering from the small ice age (which ended
the warm period that allowed the bloom of the middle ages)

If you think that several centuries is "just recovering".

and
we've neither temperature data from the middle ages nor from the
time when Rome ruled the Earth and Romans grew wine in England.

Both those claims are lies.

I'm afraid they are not. The best we have got are temperature
proxies.

In other words you admit that we do have "temperature data" from
several centuries ago. In fact temperature data can be had going
back a few thousand years.

I'm not admitting it all: I'm denying it.

We have proxydata going back far more than 'a few thousand years' but
what can be inferred from this is not primary temperature data.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

Eric, you are trying to use logic on a liberal lump of lignite. It just
doesn't work: FishHead "feels" there is this 'Global Warming' and all of the
data out there to the contrary just does NOT matter when a LibTard "feels"
something to be true.

The question is not whether or not there is global warming (which
there is) but whether or not we have temperature data from several
centuries ago. My point was that we do not have direct data.

Absolutely.


Note: even though I accept that there has been global warming, I am
doubtful that it can be entirely (or even largely) attributed to
man-made CO2.


Correct. Bovine flatulence accounts for more. And, so what? Oxygen producing
plants need something to work with for photosynthesis and life.

No, it's just another way to come up with another tax on the Mooing Masses
with that "Carbon Credit" crap camp of Al (the whale) Gore. Nothing more,
other than trying to establish a White Man's Guilt again. And again.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 3/4/12 1:24 PM, in article , "Ray
Fischer" wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
rOn 04 Mar 2012 05:43:54 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Eric Stevens wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
Bowser wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 06:16:49 -0800 (PST), RichA

NASA should be looking out, not down. They've hooked their wagon to
the global warming "cause" to justify their existence after the
discontinuation of the Shuttle program so now they monitor Earth.

Yeah. **** science. Screw all the evidence. We all KNOW that global
warming is a hoax! It's just a coincidence that the warmest years on
history have occured since 2000. Besides, science is just a bunch of
nunmbers. Don't mean nuthin'.

Yeah, we're just recovering from the small ice age (which ended
the warm period that allowed the bloom of the middle ages)

If you think that several centuries is "just recovering".

and
we've neither temperature data from the middle ages nor from the
time when Rome ruled the Earth and Romans grew wine in England.

Both those claims are lies.

I'm afraid they are not. The best we have got are temperature
proxies.

In other words you admit that we do have "temperature data" from
several centuries ago. In fact temperature data can be had going
back a few thousand years.

I'm not admitting it all: I'm denying it.

You just stated that we have temperature data.

We have proxydata going back far more than 'a few thousand years'

Q.E.D.

but
what can be inferred from this is not primary temperature data.

You're changing your claim. Like most deniers you're not capable
of honest discussion.

"Yap-yap. Yappitty-Yap! YAP!!!"

‹The Mangy FishHead Rot

On 3/4/12 1:25 PM, in article , "Ray
Fischer" wrote:

George Kerby wrote:



On 3/4/12 2:37 AM, in article ,
"Eric Stevens" wrote:

rOn 04 Mar 2012 05:43:54 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
Bowser wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 06:16:49 -0800 (PST), RichA

NASA should be looking out, not down. They've hooked their wagon to
the global warming "cause" to justify their existence after the
discontinuation of the Shuttle program so now they monitor Earth.

Yeah. **** science. Screw all the evidence. We all KNOW that global
warming is a hoax! It's just a coincidence that the warmest years on
history have occured since 2000. Besides, science is just a bunch of
nunmbers. Don't mean nuthin'.

Yeah, we're just recovering from the small ice age (which ended
the warm period that allowed the bloom of the middle ages)

If you think that several centuries is "just recovering".

and
we've neither temperature data from the middle ages nor from the
time when Rome ruled the Earth and Romans grew wine in England.

Both those claims are lies.

I'm afraid they are not. The best we have got are temperature
proxies.

In other words you admit that we do have "temperature data" from
several centuries ago. In fact temperature data can be had going
back a few thousand years.

I'm not admitting it all: I'm denying it.

We have proxydata going back far more than 'a few thousand years' but
what can be inferred from this is not primary temperature data.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

Eric, you are trying to use logic on a liberal lump of lignite. It just
doesn't work: FishHead "feels" there is this 'Global Warming' and all of the
data out there to the contrary just does NOT matter when a LibTard "feels"
something to be true.

See the bitter hate of the rightard.

"Yappy-yap! Grrr! Yap-yap!! Yapitty-yap!!! YAP- YAAAP!!!!"

‹Ray the Retarded Retriever

On 3/4/12 1:47 PM, in article ,
"Alan Browne" wrote:

On 2012-03-04 14:27 , Robert Coe wrote:
On Sun, 04 Mar 2012 09:51:15 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:
: On 2012-03-04 03:37 , Eric Stevens wrote:
:
: We have proxydata going back far more than 'a few thousand years' but
: what can be inferred from this is not primary temperature data.
:
: The interpretation of temperature and other environmental data is the
: domain of scientists. They have overwhelmingly confirmed a rise in
: global temperature averages and by a wide margin attributed it to human
: activities in the past 100+ years.
: (IPCC Climate Change 2007 aka the "4th report").

Two problems with that:

1. Regardless of what the scientists say, they have not proven the
connection
to human activities. And ...

It

snip

(My last post on the subject here).

Thank The Dear Lord for that!

On 3/4/12 1:47 PM, in article ,
"Alan Browne" wrote:

On 2012-03-04 14:27 , Robert Coe wrote:
On Sun, 04 Mar 2012 09:51:15 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:
: On 2012-03-04 03:37 , Eric Stevens wrote:
:
: We have proxydata going back far more than 'a few thousand years' but
: what can be inferred from this is not primary temperature data.
:
: The interpretation of temperature and other environmental data is the
: domain of scientists. They have overwhelmingly confirmed a rise in
: global temperature averages and by a wide margin attributed it to human
: activities in the past 100+ years.
: (IPCC Climate Change 2007 aka the "4th report").

Two problems with that:

1. Regardless of what the scientists say, they have not proven the
connection
to human activities. And ...


2. Even if you accept that connection, they have not shown that the proposed
"solutions", or *anything* within current human capabilities, will even begin
to do the job.

That is unmitigated bull**** of the first order.


Your story. Stick with it.


(My last post on the subject here).

Even for you, that was a stretch for a comparison, Browne.