Are they any scientists who are climate change skeptics?
Seon Ferguson
Sunny
"Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:nMCdndxRHtXE5ZLW...@westnet.com.au...
> Just wondering...
Eunometic
> Just wondering...
Several scientists appear in the below videos.
The AGW insistors have focused their efforts on fund raising, PR and
isolating and discrediting skeptical scientists.
This is not science, its machiavelian politics.
Air Con a seriously inconveniant truth.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90otAJORkK8
Climate Catastrophe Cancelled - Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnipKZAhgW4
Green Turtle
news:nMCdndxRHtXE5ZLW...@westnet.com.au...
> Just wondering...
I am a skeptic.Global warming has become a new religion." - Nobel Prize
Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.
"Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any
funding, I can speak quite frankly..As a scientist I remain skeptical." -
Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to
receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more
than 190 studies and has been called "among the most preeminent scientists
of the last 100 years."
Warming fears are the "worst scientific scandal in the history.When people
come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and
scientists." - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an
award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.
"The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn't listen to others.
It doesn't have open minds. I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize
has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not
geologists," - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University
and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.
"The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they only
are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do
not include, for example, solar activity." - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera,
a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous
University of Mexico
"It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only
a fringe of scientists who don't buy into anthropogenic global warming." -
U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane
Research Division of NOAA.
"Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have
little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds
dominate the worldwide scene and always will." - . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a
professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the
University of Auckland, NZ.
"After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing
skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet." - Climate
statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of
forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's
Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly
Weather Review.
"For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that
the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" -
Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008
International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed
papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.
"Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly
found myself solidly in the skeptic camp.Climate models can at best be
useful for explaining climate changes after the fact." - Meteorologist Hajo
Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a
skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.
"Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from
promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers
ruined." - Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space
Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.
"Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense.The
present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a
pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology,
which is concerning." - Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos
of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more
than 150 published articles.
"CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another..Every
scientist knows this, but it doesn't pay to say so.Global warming, as a
political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver's seat and developing
nations walking barefoot." - Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the
Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.
"The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that
it is something that generates funds." - Award-winning Paleontologist Dr.
Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and
head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata. # #
Super Turtle
Seon Ferguson
" Sunny" <womba...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:t2LPm.57979$ze1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Even they admit that Climate Change is real. And I still haven't made my
mind up on the cause of climate change as well. So I welcome a debate.
JohnM
> Just wondering...
Of course there are. Just as there are scientists who are sceptical
about the claims of every other theory the scientific world has ever
produced.
The 'trick' is to look at the distribution of viewpoints across the
board and see what the middle ground is saying. Bit like examination
of any frequency distribution in any science - look at the median, the
mode, the mid-range, the mean, ...
Bruce Richmond
According to the e-mails the 'trick' is to mix some real data in
with....
Rob Dekker
"Peter Muehlbauer" <spamt...@AT.frankenexpress.de> wrote in message
news:ps2vg5hp2s6qaqa5m...@nntp.frankenexpress.de...> I assume not.
> All science is about global CHANGE but those idiots praying
> perpetual anthropogenic global WARMING doom and thus have to fudge
> data to satisfy their paranoia.
Evidence of fudging ?
Yes there is some : Lindzen and Choi 2009.
Lindzen wants to see negative feedback in the climate system so badly that
you falsified the climate feedback formula to get it.
That as, apart from him using the wrong models, and extrapolating his
conclusions way beyond what was scientifically sound.
Good thing that this paper was quickly debunked by fellow skeptic
Dr.Spencer.
And Lindzen was paid under a DOE grant...
Meanwhile, reports came in that after Greenland, the Arctic sea ice and West
Artarctica, now also East Antarctica shows massive ice losses.
Reality has a way of creaping up against these skeptics.
Rob
JohnM
<spamtrap...@AT.frankenexpress.de> wrote:
> It's not about opinions, it's about facts.
In that case, why are you ignoring them (the facts) and forever just
expressing your opinion?
Seon Ferguson
"JohnM" <john_howa...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:6ebdcb04-5e0b-42df...@w19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
So which scientists deny it then?
Bill Ward
I don't think many people question that climate is, has been, and always
will be changing. The issue is whether CO2 can cause catastrophic
warming, and IMHO, it's now pretty clear it can't.
Seon Ferguson
"Peter Muehlbauer" <spamt...@AT.frankenexpress.de> wrote in message
news:ps2vg5hp2s6qaqa5m...@nntp.frankenexpress.de...
> "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Just wondering...
>
> I assume not.
> All science is about global CHANGE but those idiots praying
> perpetual anthropogenic global WARMING doom and thus have to fudge
> data to satisfy their paranoia.
I can't disagree with you because I can't find any scientist who denies it.
Seon Ferguson
"Bill Ward" <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote in message
news:HNqdnWkjCbpSDpLW...@giganews.com...
Well I think that is a rational approach then. What do you think of Margret
Fatchers quote "This is a risk management cause"
Green Turtle
The number of scientists chaning on this issue is turning to a flood:
I am a skeptic. Global warming has become a new religion." - Nobel Prize
Bill Ward
At the time it was reasonable. A lot has been learned since then, such
as the ice core lag of CO2 after T, failure of the theoretical climate
models to predict the temperature over the last decade, and finding the
lack of positive feedback. When I first became interested, the
hypothesis seemed plausible, but on closer examination, it fell apart.
The ad hominem attacks rather than logical answers from AGwers was one
of my initial clues. That indicated to me that on some level they don't
really believe it themselves. If they actually thought they were right,
why would they cheat and avoid debate?
I think it's about over.
Doug Jewell
> Just wondering...
Well I'm entitled to place the letters B.App.Sc after my
name, so I guess that makes me a scientist ;-)
Define "Climate change skeptic" - only a fool would believe
the climate isn't changing, it changes hourly, daily,
monthly, seasonally, yearly, etc etc and has done since the
planet first started forming.
Do I believe that human influences are impacting climate
change? Well on the local scale, yes. On a global scale,
bugger all. Is human produced CO2 the cause? Definitely not.
Most people live in cities, where the solar heat trapped
from bitumen, concrete, rooves etc, combined with all the
energy consumption which is ultimately turned to heat, have
led to a noticeable and clearly observable rise in local
temperature over the last few decades. Couple this with the
fact that many weather stations are in areas that are now
inside this urban heat island, and you find that the easily
accessible measured temperatures have clearly risen. As a
result it is very easy to sell "global warming", because the
majority of the population in the western world lives in
areas that have seen a clear warming pattern.
This warming however has absolutely nothing to do with CO2
and everything to do with human's propensity to live in
cities. It is however very localised. The technical term for
human's effect on the global scale is Sweet Fuck All.
As for CO2, it is incapable of creating the types of change
blamed upon it. CO2 is not the dominant gas maintaining
atmospheric temperature. Water vapour and the water cycle is
by far and away the most dominant factor in regulating the
planet's temperature.
--
What is the difference between a duck?
Seon Ferguson
"Bill Ward" <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote in message
news:HNqdnWgjCbo_BZLW...@giganews.com...
The tactics they use made me question them as well. I mean yeah it's easy to
prove climate change is happening but not so easy to prove CO2 is the only
cause. Like, did you know they are other greenhouse gasses? I just found
that out a few months ago! carbon dioxide isn't even the majority of gas.
Seon Ferguson
"Green Turtle" <Super...@greenpiece.com> wrote in message
news:tJMPm.25832$tz6....@newsfe02.iad...
I see most scientists quoted question if carbon dioxide is the only cause of
climate change. Some say that it is natural and that is quite possible.
>
richp
>
> I don't think many people question that climate is, has been, and always
> will be changing. The issue is whether CO2 can cause catastrophic
> warming, and IMHO, it's now pretty clear it can't.
Only a dipshit believes that
richp
> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 19:57:45 +1100, Seon Ferguson wrote:
> > "Bill Ward" <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote in message
> >news:HNqdnWkjCbpSDpLW...@giganews.com...
> >> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 18:56:41 +1100, Seon Ferguson wrote:
>
> >>>news:t2LPm.57979$ze1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> >>>> "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>>news:nMCdndxRHtXE5ZLW...@westnet.com.au...
> >>>>> Just wondering...
>
> >>>>http://www.auscsc.org.au/
>
> >>> Even they admit that Climate Change is real. And I still haven't made
> >>> my mind up on the cause of climate change as well. So I welcome a
> >>> debate.
>
> >> I don't think many people question that climate is, has been, and
> >> always will be changing. The issue is whether CO2 can cause
> >> catastrophic warming, and IMHO, it's now pretty clear it can't.
>
> > Well I think that is a rational approach then. What do you think of
> > Margret Fatchers quote "This is a risk management cause"
>
> At the time it was reasonable. A lot has been learned since then, such
> as the ice core lag of CO2 after T, failure of the theoretical climate
> models to predict the temperature over the last decade, and finding the
> lack of positive feedback. When I first became interested, the
> hypothesis seemed plausible, but on closer examination, it fell apart.
>
> The ad hominem attacks rather than logical answers from AGwers was one
> of my initial clues. That indicated to me that on some level they don't
> really believe it themselves. If they actually thought they were right,
> why would they cheat and avoid debate?
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
I gave up using logic and reason when I deal with deniers as no amount
will sway a person like you from your denialist religion. Fuck you
very much
Green Turtle
> I see most scientists quoted question if carbon dioxide is the only cause
> of climate change. Some say that it is natural and that is quite possible.
>>
There is no question that some scientists state that co2 has some effect,
AND agree that man's co2 has some effect. However, they do state that the
effect is small. For example, there is a group that agrees with manmade
warming, but only a VERY small amount.
For example, the medieval warm period (that the IPCC denies) was at least
as warm as it today (if not in fact warmer). So, we had temperatures warmer
then today in the past.
Remember, oxygen is about 18%, Nitrogen is about 80% of the air. Co2 is ONLY
0.038%. That is not even 4/100th of a %. And, of that TINY amount we ONLY
put out 3%. So, nature puts out 97% of the co2 in one year, we only put out
3%. (So all that industry and cars etc, nature is STILL responsible for 97%
of the co2 output in one year).
Even more interesting there is many scientists that state warming is BENEFIT
for man! Almost EVERY time there been some warming, man has prospered, grown
more food and it done more help then harm. For example a few 1000 people die
in a year to heat, but due to cold..it many times more people (weakened
immune, damage to livestock, ability to grow food reduced).
For example Bjorn Lomborg agrees that there SOME warming, but states it not
a problem we really need to bother with. His "reasoning" is outlined here in
this interview:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xquohKzR8QI&feature=PlayList&p=AB8D69F1FF1797C6&index=17
However, I suspect with the recent MAJOR public change on this AGW issue, I
would bet that Bjorn is FAR MORE likely to state in public not only is man's
contribution to warming not a problem, but it hardily even measurable. So,
we seeing a SIGNIFICANT softening on this issue right now.
So, the MAIN problem here is that while you have groups that state no
warming to co2, there is groups that agree there some warming,but it NOT A
BIG problem that needs a huge worldwide tax and redistribution of wealth
based on carbon trading. The value of carbon trading would exceed that of
oil if these money traders get their way. And, other groups are asking who
the heck came up with the idea as to WHAT IS the best current temperature
should be? They in public state that warming would actually be better for
us...
At the end of the day, all the above groups state that the IPCC and orgs
like the CRU (where the leaked emails come from), and Al Gore have VASTLY
overstated their case for man's co2 being a problem.
Man's co2 is NOT driving the global temperatures. Even if man's co2 did have
some effect, we seeing cooling right now, so other mechanics are at play
here that have far greater effects then man's co2..
Super Turtle
Seon Ferguson
"richp" <travelin...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ef7b7e6a-bbb9-43e1...@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
That's very scientific of you...
Seon Ferguson
"Peter Muehlbauer" <spamt...@AT.frankenexpress.de> wrote in message
news:9iavg55k7anadrugd...@nntp.frankenexpress.de...
> Just a few old, smiled at statements for recall in new light:
>
>
> "None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we
> can attribute the observed (climate) changes to the specific cause
> of increases in greenhouse gases."
> [IPCC report, censored paragraph]
>
> "No study to date has positively attributed all or part (of the
> climate change obvserved to date) to anthropogenic (manmade) causes."
> [IPCC report, censored paragraph]
>
How do we know they are censored? Because if they really were censored then
I agree with the IPCC report 100%
> "I have never before witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the
> peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report."
> [Fredrik Seitz, former chairman of the American Science Academy]
>
> [IPCC report] "But this report is not what it appears to be - it is
> not the version that was approved by the contributing scientists
> listed on the title page."
> [Fredrik Seitz, former chairman of the American Science Academy]
>
Green Turtle
"Green Turtle" <Super...@greenpiece.com> wrote in message news:...
>
> There is no question that some scientists state that co2 has some effect,
> AND agree that man's co2 has some effect. However, they do state that the
> effect is small. For example, there is a group that agrees with manmade
> warming, but only a VERY small amount.
>
Sorry, the above should read:
but only agree that the WARMING contribution by man is a VERY small amount.
(I did not intended to spin or state that a "small" amount of people believe
this, but in fact they state there is some manmade contribution, but ONLY a
very small amount of temperature...
hda
Research Distraction. Have a look at this overall
heatbalance:
ACCUMULATION = IN - OUT + PRODUCTION
90 = 239 - 150 + (-90) {FLUXes in W/m^2}
IN = sun 239 W/m2 [gray body 0.7 of black]
OUT = (288-255 K) = 150 W/m2 by radiation ultimately
PROD = -90 [by ocean, ice, human activity, volcanic
activity, albedo change, ...]
ACCU = 90 [delta (IN - OUT)] should not happen
BALANCE should be = 0
Actually I think we are still struggling with the details of
the heatbalance. How should we identify within the PROD-part
that humans are the major cause of climate change ?
What do you think of CO2 is a major factor in the OUT-part ?
What do you think of humans could be *the* solution to
counteract climate *variation* ? (I am not refering the
out-of-control (3 sigma standard deviation)).
And what do you think is the value of the climate
out-of-specification, 6 sigma standard deviation ?
Eunometic
> "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > I see most scientists quoted question if carbon dioxide is the only cause
> > of climate change. Some say that it is natural and that is quite possible.
>
> There is no question that some scientists state that co2 has some effect,
Bob Carters, nornally slandered by AGW insistors says if we double CO2
it will rise a little maybe 1 degree.
>
> For example, the medieval warm period (that the IPCC denies) was at least
> as warm as it today (if not in fact warmer). So, we had temperatures warmer
> then today in the past.
So called Mann Hockey Stick, MBH98 was published on the FIRST page of
the IPCC report. It used data manipulation to get rid of the roman
optimum, medieval optimun and little ice age etc. Thereby the rise in
the 20 century looks abnormal, like a hockey stick. As if there was
2000 years of steady temperatures untill 1980 or so.
They were outed by two canadians who had to use FOI to get the raw
data.
it was on the FIRST page of the IPCC report. But here is the point:
1 The raw data was not made available.
2 The IPCC does not audit reports, it just assumes the review process
of the journal is accurate. But we know now that the journals are
hotbeads of partisan favourasitsm and part of the 'political
correctness'
3 The Hadley CRU are of course the core of the current "climate gate"
4 The AGW alarmists insistors are colluding to try attack sceptics
and ruin their carears while avoiding review of their data, they ring
newspapers and journals to try and get them to not publish certain
researchers.
Same with other reports.
Same with Hadley CRU hiding temperatue data.
Eunometic
> "Peter Muehlbauer" <spamtrap...@AT.frankenexpress.de> wrote in message
>
> news:ps2vg5hp2s6qaqa5m...@nntp.frankenexpress.de...
>
> > "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Just wondering...
>
> > I assume not.
> > All science is about global CHANGE but those idiots praying
> > perpetual anthropogenic global WARMING doom and thus have to fudge
> > data to satisfy their paranoia.
>
> Evidence of fudging ?
> Yes there is some : Lindzen and Choi 2009.
> Lindzen wants to see negative feedback in the climate system so badly that
> you falsified the climate feedback formula to get it.
> That as, apart from him using the wrong models, and extrapolating his
> conclusions way beyond what was scientifically sound.
> Good thing that this paper was quickly debunked by fellow skeptic
> Dr.Spencer.
> And Lindzen was paid under a DOE grant...
So what he got paid by the US department of energy who also build
atomic power plants and solar power plants, the most corrupting
organisation to get funding from is the IPCC. A UN body established
to prove climate change.
Have you noted that the ETS gives the UN a 0.7% permament budget?
> Meanwhile, reports came in that after Greenland, the Arctic sea ice and
In 1950 US nuclear subs used to surface in the middle of the Nth
pole. Right in the middle of the pole. It melts occaisionally. Its
normal.
Greenlands accelerated ice melts has stopped. The accelerated ice
melts whereby molten water was supposed to lubricate the sheets to
allow them to slip off. This was a red herring, the water rapidly
refreezes. Its over.
> West Artarctica, now also East Antarctica shows massive ice losses.
Nothing extra-ordinary, every decade or so el-nino sends warm water
licking against the shores of antartica and some breakaway icebergs.
Stay calm. It happens several times a century.
The now totally corrupted IPCC presents data over limited years to
hide the historical lows.
>
> Reality has a way of creaping up against these skeptics.
It will have a way of creeping up against the AGW insistors,
especially the bullies.
tunderbar
> " Sunny" <wombatlo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:t2LPm.57979$ze1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> >> Just wondering...
>
> >http://www.auscsc.org.au/
>
> Even they admit that Climate Change is real. And I still haven't made my
> mind up on the cause of climate change as well. So I welcome a debate.
Tell us.... when have the climate not changed? When in the history of
the world has climate ever stayed static for any period of time?
Look fuckwit, climate changes... that is what chaotic systems do.
What real climate scientists say is that manmade CO2 had nothing to do
with any climate change. Ever.
Michael Dobony
> Just wondering...
Gobs of them. Just had a college professor push AGW through name-calling
and relying on consensus. Evidently had no science to back her position.
Bill Ward
It's best not to jump to conclusions. Try to understand everything you
believe, so you don't get hustled into a scam by those who would
intimidate you.
Water vapor is far and away the most important GHG. It not only radiates
LWIR to space, it carries latent heat up through the troposphere,
bypassing radiation models.
When you look at a satellite photo, notice the band of clouds around the
equator. That's where most of the cooling of Earth takes place.
This is a water planet, not a CO2 planet. There's pretty strong evidence
that water and its phase changes is actually responsible for holding the
surface temperature between the historical limits we see. There's just
not much room left for CO2 to do anything significant.
erschro...@gmail.com
Oh yes, profs love 18-year olds who think they know more than the
prof.
Tell your bio prof the earth is just 6000 years old and evolution is
false.
chemist
JohnM
<spamtrap...@AT.frankenexpress.de> wrote:
> JohnM <john_howard_mor...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> > On Nov 27, 9:28 am, Peter Muehlbauer
> > <spamtrap...@AT.frankenexpress.de> wrote:
> > > JohnM <john_howard_mor...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > about the claims of every other theory the scientific world has ever
> > > > produced.
>
> > > > The 'trick' is to look at the distribution of viewpoints across the
> > > > board and see what the middle ground is saying. Bit like examination
> > > > of any frequency distribution in any science - look at the median, the
> > > > mode, the mid-range, the mean, ...
>
> > > It's not about opinions, it's about facts.
>
> > In that case, why are you ignoring them (the facts) and forever just
> > expressing your opinion?
>
> What have facts done to you for being ignored so sturdy?
I suggest you forget using "Babaelfish", and concentrate on the
English you already know. That way we can better understand what you
write.
Professional data rigger
> Just wondering...
no
--
Well, opinions are like assholes... everybody has one. -- Harry Callahan
http://tinyurl.com/m7m3qd
Seon Ferguson
"Peter Muehlbauer" <spamt...@AT.frankenexpress.de> wrote in message
news:psfvg5996tckt0ai4...@nntp.frankenexpress.de...
> They were tacitly taken out between two IPCC final reports.
> For more details, pick a string of words, set them in quotation marks and
> google for them.
> You may simply pick the one on top of the results.
>
> And just remember:
>
> From: Phil Jones <p.j...@uea.ac.uk>
> To: "Michael E. Mann" <ma...@virginia.edu>
> Subject: HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
> Date: Thu Jul 8 16:30:16 2004
>
> I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin
> and I
> will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the
> peer-review
> literature is !
>
>
Oh was that what they were talking about? Even if it wasn't I see your
point. if this institution does that how do we know other one's don't do
manipulate the data as well?
Hunter
And here we see the true face of the entire debate. Those who
scientifically try to point out the flaws in the man-made global warming
hysteria, and those on the other side of the fence with no legitimate
science that wouldn't look like a wet paper bag waiting for holes to be
poked in it, so instead resort to abuse and ranting like a rabid pig-dog.
Says it all really.... Also says it all about the fuckwits that advise
rudd and turnbull (yes, I'm talking about the crazy voices in their heads).
I M @ good guy
wrote:
>Just wondering...
All scientists should be.
I M @ good guy
wrote:
>
>
>" Sunny" <womba...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:t2LPm.57979$ze1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>> "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:nMCdndxRHtXE5ZLW...@westnet.com.au...
>>> Just wondering...
>>
>> http://www.auscsc.org.au/
>>
>Even they admit that Climate Change is real. And I still haven't made my
>mind up on the cause of climate change as well. So I welcome a debate.
:-)
Waffled again, huh?
olde.sault
Most of scientists (except those,those whose livlihood depends on this
scam, are climate sketics but do not speak - they realise it's best to
shut up until this insanity dies down and it will when it starts
hurting the pocket.
Why don't we convert to nuclear power and be done with it?
Nah, that would be too sensible!
OS
olde.sault
> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 20:35:40 +1100, Seon Ferguson wrote:
> > "Bill Ward" <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote in message
> >news:HNqdnWgjCbo_BZLW...@giganews.com...
> >> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 19:57:45 +1100, Seon Ferguson wrote:
>
> >>> "Bill Ward" <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:HNqdnWkjCbpSDpLW...@giganews.com...
> >>>> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 18:56:41 +1100, Seon Ferguson wrote:
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Goodonya, mate!
OS
olde.sault
Wondering why there are so many gullible in this world, chemist?
I'm appalled!
OS
Seon Ferguson
"I M @ good guy" <I...@good.guy> wrote in message
news:gv21h5p3377igc34l...@4ax.com...
Yet it's hard to find them. Oh some scientists are skeptical as to what the
cause of climate change is. But the main scientific view, like with
evolution, is that it is real.
Bruce Richmond
> "I M @ good guy" <I...@good.guy> wrote in messagenews:gv21h5p3377igc34l...@4ax.com...> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 17:56:50 +1100, "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >>Just wondering...
>
> > All scientists should be.
>
> Yet it's hard to find them. Oh some scientists are skeptical as to what the
> cause of climate change is. But the main scientific view, like with
> evolution, is that it is real.
Well maybe if the data had been real. But when you find that much of
the data has been manipulated....
Hunter
Exactly, the "main scientific" view is not actually the main scientific
view, it's all in reference to this band of frauds that hackers have
recently and kindly exposed as sheisters. And Rudd's STILL on the hook
because the stupid cunt can't admit he was wrong.
richp
<spamtrap...@AT.frankenexpress.de> wrote:
> richp <travelingman95...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > will sway a person like you from your denialist religion. Fuck you
> > very much
>
>
> "I gave up using logic and reason when I deal with religion. Fuck you
> very much"
>
> --
> =======================
> || Save the planet? || (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw)
> || Not yet. ||
> || SAVE THE SCIENCE! || (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ydo2Mwnwpac)
> =======================- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Fuck you and George Carlin too
Seon Ferguson
"Bruce Richmond" <bsr...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:98e2a6b5-063d-4309...@s20g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
I thought the data manipulated was about CO2 (you are talking about the data
recently exposed by hackers, right?). How do you manipulate data that shows
the temperature has been rising?
Sunny
By, when using "Computer Modelling" only input data that agrees with what
you want.
(Even if you have to "guess" the temperatures before they were "recorded")
Has the temperature been "rising"?
Greatest Mining Pioneer of Australia of all Times
Please Sunnyzecunt, spare us your ridiculous comments ...keep those
for your drunkard friend Bhawke !
Ta !!
Hunter
Where is it being measured? At what times? By what method? What are they
doing to determine "average temperature", what do they mean by "a rise
of....", comparative to what? Over what period is it being looked at?
etc.etc.etc. Most numbers can be manipulated to show what you want them
to show, and obviously that is what this mob have been doing.
Hunter
Hmmm, this post from westnet (actually giganews they're using) came
through straight away on eternal-september, yet still hasn't appeared on
giganews through which it was posted. Might have found myself something
a little more reliable as a news server. Sweet.
Bruce Richmond
> "Bruce Richmond" <bsr3...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
Um, the problem was that the data didn't show the temp was rising,
so....
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=154&filename=942777075.txt
you use a "trick" to "hide the decline".
Or, if the data refuses to rise just add some corrections.
Note that the above has nothing to do with the CRU, which goes to show
they are not unique.
And then there are games like chopping data off for effect.
http://i49.tinypic.com/mk8113.jpg
And then there was Mann getting rid of the "Medieval Warm Period" by
reconstructing the data to suit his purposes. The cooler you make the
past the warmer it makes the present by comparison.
Elsewhere we have NASA making corrections to their data as directed to
by a man that has gotten arrested for the AGW cause.
Do you doubt that such a person might be fudging things to make his
views more convincing?
Bruce
Bill Ward
They didn't. They took temperatures that were not rising and made them
appear to be rising by adding unspecified "corrections" to recent ones
and subtracting "corrections" from older data. I've seen an snippet of
code (from the "Harry Read Me" file?) that explicitly added a "hockey
stick" to the raw data. It doesn't get much clearer than that.
I M @ good guy
wrote:
>
>
>"I M @ good guy" <I...@good.guy> wrote in message
>news:gv21h5p3377igc34l...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 17:56:50 +1100, "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Just wondering...
>>
>>
>> All scientists should be.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>Yet it's hard to find them. Oh some scientists are skeptical as to what the
>cause of climate change is. But the main scientific view, like with
>evolution, is that it is real.
What? And that melts glaciers?
Oh, thanks, you mean the Bible prophecy of the
end of the world by fire is not going to happen, Al Gore
is wrong, we are not going to fry?
JohnM
Oh, good. Here's what you wrote, translated back to German by
"Babelfish":
Was die Tatsachen haben, die Sie für Sein ignoriertes so starkes
angetan werden.
And then translating this back to English gives:
Which the facts have, which are done you for its ignored so strong.
There. That's so much better than what you originally wrote.
Bwahahaha..........
Seon Ferguson
"Hunter" <hunt...@iinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:5IydnZE1x6_JSY3W...@westnet.com.au...
I don't know. I'm no scientist. But suggesting every single scientist is
part of this global conspiracy...lol come on. That's almost as dumb as the
Joos faking the holocaust or the 911 toothers.
Hunter
>> they doing to determine "average temperature", what do they mean by "a
>> rise of....", comparative to what? Over what period is it being looked
>> at? etc.etc.etc. Most numbers can be manipulated to show what you want
>> them to show, and obviously that is what this mob have been doing.
>>
> I don't know. I'm no scientist. But suggesting every single scientist is
> part of this global conspiracy...lol come on. That's almost as dumb as
> the Joos faking the holocaust or the 911 toothers.
But every single scientist does not support the man-made global warming
myth, a great many of them, well respected and in many cases more
involved in the field than the global warming hysteria merchants, are
pointing out that it is in fact a beat up and more propaganda than reality.
So really it'd be pretty dumb just to accept the man-made global warming
panic, it'd be akin to listening to the hysterical theatrics of those
that promote the "fake holocaust" and "911 conspiracy" theories, when
there are much more qualified to know people saying it's crap.
Agent Orange
<erschroedin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 27, 10:23 am, Michael Dobony <sur...@stopassaultnow.net> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 17:56:50 +1100, Seon Ferguson wrote:
> > > Just wondering...
>
> > Gobs of them. Just had a college professor push AGW through name-calling
> > and relying on consensus. Evidently had no science to back her position.
>
> Oh yes, profs love 18-year olds who think they know more than the
> prof.
>
> Tell your bio prof the earth is just 6000 years old and evolution is
> false.
Why do you keep referring to evolution? Is this some sort of
obsession with you?
Professional data rigger
Has you ever thought about the nuclear proliferation problem, and
perhaps just also a sustainable nuclear energy production.
You will not be able to solve this problem, and that's why most
scientists are skeptic in my opinion.
Q
Seon Ferguson
"Hunter" <hunt...@iinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:heqtm9$g9n$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
That's what I have been saying in my other posts. Most scientists accept
there is a climate change happening. But many don't accept that CO2 is the
cause of it. I am among those numbers who question the causes. There has
been a bunch of ice ages, a medieval warming period, lots of natural climate
changes. So how do we know this isn't just natural?
Seon Ferguson
" Sunny" <womba...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Vf4Qm.58312$ze1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Well most scientists say it has and say climate change is happening. I would
be a fool to disagree with the majority of scientists. As I said to another
poster the question should be does CO2 cause climate change or is it
natural?
Seon Ferguson
"Bill Ward" <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote in message
news:OPKdnXpGs7brf43W...@giganews.com...
And every single scientist is lying to us? Or do they just believe that lie
and not investigate it for themselves?
Seon Ferguson
"Bruce Richmond" <bsr...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:80acbf07-8a6e-4d87...@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
I didn't realise some scientists were trying to cover up the medieval
warming period. Or even the medieval mini ice age. But nah I'm still
convinced climate change is real. I just question if CO2 was the main cause
or if it's natural like all the other climate changes that happened.
> Bruce
Seon Ferguson
"I M @ good guy" <I...@good.guy> wrote in message
news:rdo1h5pooklqn6duq...@4ax.com...
He could be. I don't think it will be as bad as everyone says. They like
painting this end of the world thing to alarm us.
Sunny
"Greatest Mining Wannabee of all Times" <Enema...@neuf.fr> wrote in
message
news:f9e30717-d935-4407...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>Please Sunnyzecunt, spare us your ridiculous comments ...keep those
>for your drunkard friend Bhawke !
Ditch your pills and use the Enema liquid Turdo.
TUKA
We don't. You used to be able to sum it up this way:
1. We know there has been recent warming.
2. We know that CO2 scientifically can cause some warming.
3. But we don't know that CO2 is the *main* cause of the recent warming.
Now even #1 could be doubtful. After all, Jones, Hansen, and company are the
custodians of the temperature data sets. And they aren't showing them.
--
Software axiom: Lack of speed kills.
TUKA
We don't even know that now at all. The CRU and their cronies are the
custodians of the temperature data sets. We no longer know *what* that
data says.
--
There comes a time when you should stop expecting other people to make
a big deal about your birthday. That time is age 12. -- Dave Barry
SPierce
> "Hunter" <hunt...@iinet.net.au> wrote in message
> news:heqtm9$g9n$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>> they doing to determine "average temperature", what do they mean by "a
>>>> rise of....", comparative to what? Over what period is it being looked
>>>> at? etc.etc.etc. Most numbers can be manipulated to show what you want
>>>> them to show, and obviously that is what this mob have been doing.
>>>>
# Apart from the measurement details there is also the possibility that
measurement of air temperature itself is a furphy.
Maybe the tectonic plates are shifting more and releasing magma into the
oceans. Heat rises, and...
I always remember a Goon joke about Customs men looking for smuggled goods
on ships and never finding anything . Then they found out the smugglers
were smuggling Ships.
Bruce Richmond
>
> > you use a "trick" to "hide the decline".
>
> > Or, if the data refuses to rise just add some corrections.
>
>
> > Note that the above has nothing to do with the CRU, which goes to show
> > they are not unique.
>
> > And then there are games like chopping data off for effect.
>
> >http://i49.tinypic.com/mk8113.jpg
>
> > And then there was Mann getting rid of the "Medieval Warm Period" by
> > reconstructing the data to suit his purposes. The cooler you make the
> > past the warmer it makes the present by comparison.
>
> > Elsewhere we have NASA making corrections to their data as directed to
> > by a man that has gotten arrested for the AGW cause.
>
>
> > Do you doubt that such a person might be fudging things to make his
> > views more convincing?
>
> I didn't realise some scientists were trying to cover up the medieval
> warming period. Or even the medieval mini ice age. But nah I'm still
> convinced climate change is real. I just question if CO2 was the main cause
> or if it's natural like all the other climate changes that happened.
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=319&filename=1054736277.txt
"it would be nice to try to "contain" the putative "MWP", even if we
don't yet
have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back"
I don't doubt that the climate is changing, or that CO2 might have
some small part in it. But I am very skeptical that man made CO2 is a
significant factor to say nothing about the primary cause. These e-
mails among some of the top men in the AGW field have shown that the
"science" is not nearly as solid as you have been led to believe.
They have learned how to manipulate data, to control the peer review
process, to block their opposition and much more. I don't doubt that
most of the people working on the AGW problem are good honest people
that believe in their work, but the e-mails show that this team cannot
be trusted. It will be telling whether others in the field rally
round them or throw them under the bus.
Eunometic
> olde.sault wrote:
> > On Nov 27, 2:54 pm, Professional data rigger <d...@rigger.com> wrote:
> >> Seon Ferguson wrote:
> >>> Just wondering...
> >> no
>
> >> --
> >> Well, opinions are like assholes... everybody has one. -- Harry Callahanhttp://tinyurl.com/m7m3qd
>
> > Most of scientists (except those,those whose livlihood depends on this
> > scam, are climate sketics but do not speak - they realise it's best to
> > shut up until this insanity dies down and it will when it starts
> > hurting the pocket.
>
> > Why don't we convert to nuclear power and be done with it?
>
> > Nah, that would be too sensible!
>
> > OS
>
> Has you ever thought about the nuclear proliferation problem,
It's very diffuclt to make materials deriving from commerical reactor
fuels and waste into a bomb.
Pu 240 (besides the desirable Pu 239) casues the bomb to fizzle and
gives of vast amounts of gamma rays
that tend to make anyone sick.
And of course the best insurance against nuclear war is what's worked
in the past: MAD.
and
> > perhaps just also a sustainable nuclear energy production.
Nuclear fuel reprocessing extends life, nuclear fuel breeding even
more. The japanese have demonstrated that absrobing uranium out of
the oceans is commercially viable withing a breeding cycle thus giving
the world millions of years of energy since about 30,000-60,000 tons
of uranium enters the oceans from rivers. Breeders are not commercial
but dozens have been built and opperated as one of experiments.
My own personal view is that the nuclear era will last maybe 60 years
at which point very advanced renewable rescources will become viable.
EG solar electric cells based on nano technology of 90% efficiency.
These would work by having light wavelenght antena fabricated onto the
structure.
>
> You will not be able to solve this problem, and that's why most
> scientists are skeptic in my opinion.
The breeder is the answer. It clearly works, its just rather more
expensive than a plain reactor.
Bruce Richmond
> On 2009-11-28, Seon Ferguson <seo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >news:Vf4Qm.58312$ze1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> >> "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>news:LomdnWpIL6BZUI3W...@westnet.com.au...
>
There are other sources of data that they don't control, at least not
yet. Most airports keep records back to the 1920's or so. Not long
ago I made a post showing that our local records showed that the
1940's were warmer than any decade since then, and that the 1950's
were the coldest since they started keeping track in 1920.
Bill Ward
No, a few scientists used political pull to gain control of the funding
and peer review process via the IPCC, then, with the help of the
compliant mainstream media, demonized and intimidated almost all other
scientists into irrelevance. They proclaimed the "debate was over",
before any debate had taken place. Trace the progress from Al Gore
through Hansen to Mann, Briffa, Jones, and the rest of the sorry cast.
The somnambulent public and politicians failed to think for themselves
and accepted the whole scam hook, line and sinker. Many scientists spoke
out, but were ridiculed as "deniers". The believers would never
actually debate the issue, but would instead try to destroy the careers
of any who disagreed with them without actually addressing the issues
they raised. It became basically a religious belief, with no heretics
allowed.
McIntyre and McKittrick were able to find and prove serious, misleading
errors in a key paper, then refused to back down from the resulting
counterattack. Their determined efforts to find the original exact data
and analysis methods being hidden by the believers caused much of the
angst that appears in the now infamous e-mails. Now, the unofficial
release of the data has blown the cover off the entire scam, and will
very likely allow many scientists who were silenced in fear of their
careers to come forward and tell their stories.
Now I would suggest you read the e-mails and arrive at your own
conclusions. I don't think your opinion will make much difference either
way, but you should at least know why you have come to whatever
conclusion you reach. Public waffling doesn't help your credibility.
Seon Ferguson
"TUKA" <tu...@tuka.valuemedia.com> wrote in message
news:slrnhh3cn...@bill.heins.net...
While it is true that it has been cooling the temperature is still higher
than it used to be. How do we know the current trends will continue?
Seon Ferguson
"TUKA" <tu...@tuka.valuemedia.com> wrote in message
news:slrnhh3cq...@bill.heins.net...
That's only true for some of the organisations, like the one that was hacked
into.
Seon Ferguson
"Bruce Richmond" <bsr...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:45dc21bd-9ba8-439d...@l13g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
But what about "Global cooling" in the 1970's?
Seon Ferguson
"Bruce Richmond" <bsr...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:f83e12de-5d6e-479e...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
I'm glad I'm not the only one they turned scepticle. I have my doubts now as
well. But they are just that, doubts. It is not enough to convince me to
vote liberal.
Seon Ferguson
"Bill Ward" <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote in message
news:Qqadne-7mIF7TYzW...@giganews.com...
Actually the recently hacked email's have made me grow skeptical. A climate
change skeptic would say the politicians have other motives and are using
global warming for their own agenda. If you read the act congress passed in
America or the ETS scheme in Australia you will know what I mean.
Seon Ferguson
"olde.sault" <olde....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a5600444-4f0c-43e7...@u16g2000pru.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 27, 2:54 pm, Professional data rigger <d...@rigger.com> wrote:
>> Seon Ferguson wrote:
>> > Just wondering...
>>
>> no
>>
>> --
>> Well, opinions are like assholes... everybody has one. -- Harry
>> Callahanhttp://tinyurl.com/m7m3qd
>
> Most of scientists (except those,those whose livlihood depends on this
> scam, are climate sketics but do not speak - they realise it's best to
> shut up until this insanity dies down and it will when it starts
> hurting the pocket.
>
> Why don't we convert to nuclear power and be done with it?
>
> Nah, that would be too sensible!
>
Exactly and there is the "not in my backyard" mentality.
> OS
Bill Ward
We don't. Nobody does. Climate gets warmer until it cools for a while,
then it gets warmer again. It's for sure it will happen, but nobody
knows how much or how long.
Those who claim to know, want something from you. Beware.
Bill Ward
Indeed I do.
Seon Ferguson
"Bill Ward" <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote in message
news:Qqadnem7mIHIe4zW...@giganews.com...
What if it suddenly gets warmer and we didn't do anything because it was
getting cooler for a few years?
Seon Ferguson
"Bill Ward" <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote in message
news:Qqadnei7mIFke4zW...@giganews.com...
All reasons I am not 100% convinced the "science is in" regarding CO2
causing climate change.
Bill Ward
What would you do? CO2 has been shown unlikely to significantly affect
temperatures. If you pointlessly destroy the economy by banning carbon
fuels, it wouldn't really matter. The only bright spot might be that a
warmer climate would make it somewhat easier to rebuild civilization from
the Stone age.
But a prosperous planet would have a much better chance of adapting to
changes.
Which would you recommend? Destroying freedom and civilization, or
adapting to the change? What if the next change turned out to be a
colder, rather than warmer climate? That's what the Sun seems to be
telling us.
Seon Ferguson
"Bill Ward" <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote in message
news:Qqadneu7mIGCdozW...@giganews.com...
Well maybe we need to look at alternative energy. Your right, if we ban all
of CO2 right now that will be it for the economy. Even if we ban a lot of
CO2 it will be bad. But as someone who is on the fence and could swing
either way I will say if it is true that CO2 causes climate change what
about the climate refugees and island nations that will emerge under sea
water? on one hand people are saying we don't want any refugees but on the
other if we don't do anything and the scientists are right which country do
you think all those Island nation climate refugees will swarm to?
Hunter
>> warming myth, a great many of them, well respected and in many cases
>> more involved in the field than the global warming hysteria merchants,
>> are pointing out that it is in fact a beat up and more propaganda than
>> reality.
>>
>> So really it'd be pretty dumb just to accept the man-made global
>> warming panic, it'd be akin to listening to the hysterical theatrics
>> of those that promote the "fake holocaust" and "911 conspiracy"
>> theories, when there are much more qualified to know people saying
>> it's crap.
>
> That's what I have been saying in my other posts. Most scientists accept
> there is a climate change happening. But many don't accept that CO2 is
> the cause of it. I am among those numbers who question the causes. There
> has been a bunch of ice ages, a medieval warming period, lots of natural
> climate changes. So how do we know this isn't just natural?
Take a look here, it matches what the observations are telling us,
whereas the CO2 proponents are scrambling to hide current observations
as they contradict their theory.
I tend to prefer theories that DO match what is actually happening.
Hunter
Oops, the link would probably help.....
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=1396&linkbox=true
Addinall
> olde.sault wrote:
> > On Nov 27, 2:54 pm, Professional data rigger <d...@rigger.com> wrote:
> >> Seon Ferguson wrote:
> >>> Just wondering...
> >> no
>
> >> --
> >> Well, opinions are like assholes... everybody has one. -- Harry Callahanhttp://tinyurl.com/m7m3qd
>
> > Most of scientists (except those,those whose livlihood depends on this
> > scam, are climate sketics but do not speak - they realise it's best to
> > shut up until this insanity dies down and it will when it starts
> > hurting the pocket.
>
> > Why don't we convert to nuclear power and be done with it?
>
> > Nah, that would be too sensible!
>
>
> Has you ever thought about the nuclear proliferation problem, and
> perhaps just also a sustainable nuclear energy production.
>
> scientists are skeptic in my opinion.
Been solved. www.bravenewclimate.com
The IFR is clean, green, safe and sustainable for the next 100,000
years at least.
Mark Addinall.
>
> Q
Bill Ward
Then I guess you better learn enough physics to decide for yourself
whether or not CO2 can significantly affect climate. When you do, let me
know which it is and why. Then we can continue. Right now you seem to
be too confused and indecisive to stay on point.
TUKA
How do you know that? Do you trust Jones as custodian of the temperature
numbers? Or James Hansen? I don't.
> How do we know the current trends will continue?
We don't. In fact, most people in the know are betting on a decade or
three of cooling.
--
It is not true that people stop pursuing dreams
because they grow old, they grow old because they
stop pursuing dreams. -- Gabriel Garcia Marquez
TUKA
> of CO2 right now that will be it for the economy. Even if we ban a lot of
> CO2 it will be bad. But as someone who is on the fence and could swing
> either way I will say if it is true that CO2 causes climate change what
> about the climate refugees and island nations that will emerge under sea
> water?
Boy, they really *have* brainwashed you. Don't you realize that sea level
rise right now is about 18mm a year and currently slowing in rate?
TUKA
There are only two. Both of them are run by the same people on the IPCC,
and neither is showing the raw data.
The satellite data sets have only been around for 29 years, the Argos
buoys only 6 years.
--
Fast, reliable, cheap. Pick two and we'll talk.
-- unknown