Re: More Gore

In article <48411C10.9D454B8C@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Eeyore wrote:

Don Klipstein wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Don Klipstein wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Richard Henry wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
"Kevin G. Rhoads" wrote:
Have any of the "Al Gore is evil" crowd actually WATCHED the video?

Enough of it to know that it's sentimental, heart tugging bull***. I actually
had some difficulty believing that anyone claiming to be intelligent could
make such a crock of *** with its fabulously wild assertions instead of
reasoned argument. A classic case of dumbing down if ever there was one.

Al Gore (and his movie) is not the issue.

It is to the general public.

Typical AGW debate:

A: Global temperatures are rising.

Not for the last 10 years.

Of course not from a record El Nino to an 8-year low.

Why is it the the warmingists alweays please 'special cases' when the
facts don't fit their agenda ?

There's nothing new about El Nino.

In this case choosing from 1998-2008 is cherrypicking by the AGW
denialists.

No it's not.

El Nino and El Nina are both natural climate events. They cannot be
excluded from climate just because they have a name that allows YOU to
chery pick and claim they have to ignored.

The AGWists are very worst cherry pickers of all.

I suggest having start point and end point of a picked period being at
the same point of the equatorial Pacific oscillation when this can be
discerned in the data, rather than starting when this cycle is at a record
point of one direction and ending when this cycle is very well at a peak
in the opposite direction.

If I wanted to cherrypick the way harping on the 1998-early 2008 period
does, I would use the 15 years from 1984 to 1998 inclusive.

- Don Klipstein (don@xxxxxxxxx)
.

Quantcast