Text 20892, 148 rader
Skriven 2015-01-27 15:20:00 av TIM RICHARDSON (1:123/140)
     Kommentar till en text av BJÖRN FELTEN
Ärende: Assumptive questions
============================
On 01-25-15, BJöRN FELTEN said to TIM RICHARDSON:

TR> You may label it 'non' serious all you like. But it is indeed a 'serious'
TR> question.


BF>No it is not! It's based on a totally outrageous


Which you do not explain or offer any evidence of.


BF>and ditto erroneous assumption.


Which you also fail to explain in any way. Just throw those accusations out
there and slam the door. No reasons...no evidence....just close-minded
denial.


BF>You might as well ask "have you stopped beating your wife?"
BF>It's exactly the same type of, impossible to answer, assumptive question.


Wait a minute....`impossible to answer'? What do you mean `impossible to
answer'?


Its a simple straight forward set of easy questions...


If `global warming' claims are so real....why alter data?


If the Earth is warming to the point where we're facing ecological dooms day,
as claimed....shouldn't the actual data itself `prove' that conclusively? Why
try to hide it from FOIA inquiries?


And do so without all this altering of data? Hiding temperature recordings
that do not conform to the `warming' trend thats bringing that `dooms day'
closer and closer? `Averaging' temperatures over long periods to conceal
any `cooling' trends? (Oh yes....thats quite explicit in many of the East
Anglia e-mails. I have all of them that are in `text' mode...and all that
are in Microsoft Office mode as well. In a few days I will have a copy of
`Office' which will allow me to read those in that format.)


The e-mail traffic between the people at the top of the ladder are quite
revealing; Mann...Phil Jones...etc etc.


BF>Try asking a real question and many of us will be happy to inform you.


So...here's a real question:


You all have hammered me with insults, false accusations, you've raised
long protests as to the quality of my simple, easy questions on the matter.


I will ask once again:


If `global warming' is so real...why doesn't Al Gore stand still and answer
a few simple questions on the subject he so strongly champions?


After making all his wild-ass claims about oceans rising and ice and snow
being gone and all that stuff, why doesn't he just answer a few simple
questions? Why does he stalk off-stage all red-faced, and jump in his
limo and disappear?


And the so-called `climate' scientists.....if this ecological armaggedon
we're supposedly headed for is so real....why alter data that doesn't
agree with their dooms-day claims?


If its so genuine...why delete information? Why all the concealment?


If its all so real...you'd think they'd want every scrap of data and info
out there for all to see.


And if you all are so certain that its real....why can't you just answer a
few simple questions? Why the insults and put-downs in lieu off any answers
of substance?


If you're so convinced you're right....you'd think you would want to convince
me as well.


See....I am not a real scientist....but I have been following several
scientific disciplines for over forty years, since I first became keenly
interested in astronomy. I have had several telescopes over the years,
and presently have two 6" scopes I use a lot now that I'm retired. (One's a
Meade...the other a really decent Celestron. And as soon as I am able to I
intend to have the Meade reflector tube adapted to the Celestron mount as
Meade's reflector tube technology is far superior to Celestron's Cassegrain
method....but Celestron's axial mount is far superior to Meades)


My strong interest in astronomy has led me into many other disciplines
as well...astrophysics...mathematics....cosmology...it turns out that
every one of those other disciplines are important necessities to astronomy
itself.


One thing I've learned in all those 40 or more years is...science is NEVER
`settled'. There is always something we don't know, or one simple point in
one discipline suddenly is seen to overlap, or become a previously unknown
determinate in another....


The point is....science is never `settled'. Even Einstein's general relativity
is becoming a little shaky as regards to galaxies and unseen energy and mass
at far-flung regions of the Universe.


So....with regard to `global warming' which had to morph into `climate
change'..and which is now morphing again into something else as it fails
to explain anything....


Why all the concealment? Why alter data? Why try to hide material from FOIA
demands that it be revealed? And many of the East Anglia e-mails are
explicitly on that very subject.....how to hide material from FOIA demands.


If its all so real...why hide it? What is it they don't want enyone finding
out?


And why, when I ask a couple of simple questions...do you all reply with
nothing but insults? Silly claims that I'm not `asking real questions?


You can't answer? Understood.



---
*Durango b301 #PE* 
 * Origin: Check Out Doc's QWK Mail  Via Web BBS > DocsPlace.org  (1:123/140)