Re: More proof that global warming is a hoax ...

Neil Rieck wrote:
<bob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1174078419.397209.175820@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Mar 16, 4:36 pm, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spam...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
b...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
and make sure you read this last paragraph real carefully ...
this is from a specialist in glaciers ... from London ... not
an american scientist for you conspiracy theorists ...

The earth is a very multitasking process. There are many things
happening at the
same time.

Just because one thing that is happening is not related to global
warming doesn't preclude the fact that global warming is happening.

come on JF, I thought you were smatter than this ...

I can find you articles from scientist after scientist
who are disproving this ... alot of scientists are being
pushed into this by pressure because of $$$$$$$$.


Yes and the money is coming from Exxon and Halliburton.


Well, they employ about 99% of the worlds geologists (I made that statistic
up by the way), so it is hardly surprising they are funding some research.
They are however not the only ones funding reasearch. My geologist friend is
not in the employ of oil companies or in need of their research grants.

The evidence from the hard sciences (as distinct from climatology) is that
temperature fluctuations happen, have always happened, and will continue to
happen, independent of the existence of industrialised civilisations. The
predictive ability of this science is quite high, within the limits of
observational tolerances.

The same cannot be said of climatology which has an historically abysmal
record of predictive capability.

Every day in my professional life I hear people describe a symptom or event
(something melted/end-to-end performance has degraded over time), and then
postulate a solution (use less carbon fuel/buy more hardware) without ever
considering that in order for a solution to "work" it must be proved that it
will act on the cause and thus reverse the trend or stop the degradation.

Without being able to demonstrate the a causal relationship between event A
and result B, all postulated solutions are logically invalid - ie. just a
wild guess.

This was the "pirates" post previously.

Dweeb

Neil Rieck
Kitchener/Waterloo/Cambridge,
Ontario, Canada.
http://www3.sympatico.ca/n.rieck/


.