This smacks of the Y2K hoax that was perpetrated on the world. Much money was spent on freeze-dried foods, water, ammo, and guns.
Did anyone go to jail for perpetuating the hoax? Did anyone have to give back their ill-gotten gains? When the Global Warming hoax fades away, who will go to jail, anyone? --- On Wed, 2/17/10, Gary Jeurink <[email protected]> wrote: > From: Gary Jeurink <[email protected]> > Subject: RE: [OT] No global warming since 1995 > To: "'ProFox Email List'" <[email protected]> > Date: Wednesday, February 17, 2010, 2:52 PM > Now that NASA has a stay at home > budget in place, lets hope we can move > forward with solid data and potential solutions. We're all > here on a > seriously crowded planet. Can we afford to be wrong and > wait too long if > such things can take so many years to correct! > > -----Original Message----- > From: Nicholas Geti [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2010 1:30 PM > To: ProFox Email List > Subject: Re: [OT] No global warming since 1995 > > Jeeze. You go on all the time about bad research. If it is > bad why should I > pay attention to it. The only contrarians to global warming > that I have read > are nut cases. Their "research?" is higly flawed. One that > I read took > temperature samples for a couple of hundred years on one > small land area and > claimed that the temperature never changed since the ice > age and that CO2 > was constant. > > I have already gone on at length that CO2 is measurably not > constant since > the ice age nor is the temperature constant. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Michael Madigan" <[email protected]> > To: "ProFox Email List" <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2010 12:39 PM > Subject: Re: [OT] No global warming since 1995 > > > You have ignored all the bad research. At > least admit you have no idea > whether man-made global warming is real or not. > > --- On Wed, 2/17/10, Nicholas Geti <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > From: Nicholas Geti <[email protected]> > > Subject: Re: [OT] No global warming since 1995 > > To: "ProFox Email List" <[email protected]> > > Date: Wednesday, February 17, 2010, 10:41 AM > > Sorry. Your attempt to show the > > "facts" have ignored all of the good > > research that is being done. I have alluded to this > > research in my past > > notes but you have not responded to them. > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Publius Maximus" <[email protected]> > > To: "ProFox Email List" <[email protected]> > > Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2010 8:49 AM > > Subject: Re: [OT] No global warming since 1995 > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 6:02 PM, Nicholas Geti <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > Hey. For once I agree with Ricardo. Good > comment. > > > > But again, the point I was making was that consensus > means > > jack squat > > for proving scientific validity. It's all about the > > conclusion being > > demonstrably reproducible, which is all about data > > integrity + process > > integrity. > > > > In the case of AGW (not just GW, but specifically AGW) > we > > have very > > good reason to be very skeptical of both the data > integrity > > and the > > process integrity behind the so-called "consensus." > > > > - Publius > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Ricardo Aráoz" <[email protected]> > > > To: "ProFox Email List" <[email protected]> > > > Sent: Monday, February 15, 2010 3:01 PM > > > Subject: Re: [OT] No global warming since 1995 > > > > > > > > >> Stephen Russell wrote: > > >>> On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 11:28 AM, > Michael > > Madigan <[email protected]> > > >>> wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> Scientific consensus in 1492 was that > the > > world was flat. > > >>>> > > >>>> Scientific consensus in the 1800s was > that > > the gorilla didn't exist > > >>>> > > >>>> Scientific consensus in the 1930s was > that > > the Coelacanth was extinct > > >>>> for millions of years. > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>> ------------------------ > > >>> > > >>> 2011 Idiots finally REALIZE that the > worlds > > temp is in flux and goes > > >>> up and down. The overall trend of this > flux > > can be graphed in an > > >>> increasing slope. > > >>> > > >>> > > >> > > >> Reaaaaally nice piece of thought. Because > > scientific consensus was wrong > > >> in 3 (Three!!!) isolated points (against > billions > > of correct > > >> conclusions) then we should ditch scientific > > consensus and instead rely > > >> on ....... a consensus table with three seats > : > > MadAgain, Minimus, and > > >> Petgay. We could add a couple of preachers, > GWB, > > Shwarzenegger, and > > >> Ronald Reagan's ghost. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts > --- > > >> multipart/alternative > > >> text/plain (text body -- kept) > > >> text/html > > >> --- > > >> > [excessive quoting removed by server] > > _______________________________________________ > Post Messages to: [email protected] > Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox > OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech > Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox > This message: > http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/3cebf87f468e439a92a6e56575ed6...@livingroom > ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are > the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or > medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for > those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious. > _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
