Al meet Roy, Roy, Al. Oh, and I think Roy has some questions for you, Al.

claudi...@sbcglobal.net

unread,

Feb 26, 2007, 8:25:02 PM2/26/07

to

Dr. Roy Spencer, former senior scientist for climate studies at NASA's
Marshall Space Flight Center, has some additional "Questions for Al
Gore" based on what he calls "Gore's Inconvenient Truth."

http://patriotpost.us/news/questions.asp

We are still awaiting Gore's reply...

Message has been deleted

Bawana

unread,

Feb 26, 2007, 9:18:17 PM2/26/07

to

On Feb 26, 9:02 pm, kT <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote:
> claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> > Dr. Roy Spencer
>
> From Wiki :
>
> In several self-published articles Spencer has espoused opinions that
> defy mainstream scientific views. (i.e. - Spencer is a senile crackpot)
>
> In support of Intelligent design Spencer wrote in 2005 "Twenty years
> ago, as a PhD scientist, I intensely studied the evolution versus
> intelligent design controversy for about two years. And finally, despite
> my previous acceptance of evolutionary theory as "fact," I came to the
> realization that intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more
> religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism. . . . In the
> scientific community, I am not alone. There are many fine books out
> there on the subject. Curiously, most of the books are written by
> scientists who lost faith in evolution as adults, after they learned how
> to apply the analytical tools they were taught in college.
>
> Ah. That Roy Spencer

Yep, that one, capt kunT.

Care to answer any of his questions or are you content with messing in
your astro-diapers while spewing your religious babble?

1) Why did you make it look like hurricanes, tornadoes, wildfires,
floods, droughts, and ice calving off of glaciers and falling into the
ocean, are only recent phenomena associated with global warming? You
surely know that hurricane experts have been warning congress for many
years that the natural cycle in hurricanes would return some day, and
that our built-up coastlines were ripe for a disaster (like Katrina,
which you highlighted in the movie). And as long as snow continues to
fall on glaciers, they will continue to flow downhill toward the sea.
Yet you made it look like these things wouldn't happen if it weren't
for global warming. Also, since there are virtually no measures of
severe weather showing a recent increase, I assume those graphs you
showed actually represented damage increases, which are well known to
be simply due to greater population and wealth. Is that right?

2) Why did you make it sound like all scientists agree that climate
change is manmade and not natural? You mentioned a recent literature
review study that supposedly found no peer-reviewed articles that
attributed climate change to natural causes (a non-repeatable study
which has since been refuted....I have a number of such articles in my
office!) You also mentioned how important it is to listen to
scientists when they warn us, yet surely you know that almost all past
scientific predictions of gloom and doom have been wrong. How can we
trust scientists' predictions now?

3) I know you still must feel bad about the last presidential election
being stolen from you, but why did you have to make fun of Republican
presidents (Reagan; both Bushes) for their views on global warming?
The points you made in the movie might have had wider appeal if you
did not alienate so many moviegoers in this manner.

4) Your presentation showing the past 650,000 years of atmospheric
temperature and carbon dioxide reconstructions from ice cores was very
effective. But I assume you know that some scientists view the CO2
increases as the result of, rather than the cause of, past temperature
increases. It seems unlikely that CO2 variations have been the
dominant cause of climate change for hundreds of thousands of years.
And now that there is a new source of carbon dioxide emissions
(people), those old relationships are probably not valid anymore. Why
did you give no hint of these alternative views?

5) When you recounted your 6-year-old son's tragic accident that
nearly killed him, I thought that you were going to make the point
that, if you had lived in a poor country like China or India, your son
would have probably died. But then you later held up these countries
as model examples for their low greenhouse gas emissions, without
mentioning that the only reason their emissions were so low was
because people in those countries are so poor. I'm confused...do you
really want us to live like the poor people in India and China?

6) There seems to be a lot of recent concern that more polar bears are
drowning these days because of disappearing sea ice. I assume you know
that polar bears have always migrated to land in late summer when sea
ice naturally melts back, and then return to the ice when it re-
freezes. Also, if this was really happening, why did the movie have to
use a computer generated animation of the poor polar bear swimming
around looking for ice? Haven't there been any actual observations of
this happening? Also, temperature measurements in the arctic suggest
that it was just as warm there in the 1930's...before most greenhouse
gas emissions. Don't you ever wonder whether sea ice concentrations
back then were low, too?

7) Why did you make it sound like simply signing on to the Kyoto
Protocol to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions would be such a big
step forward, when we already know it will have no measurable effect
on global temperatures anyway? And even though it represents such a
small emission reduction, the economic pain Kyoto causes means that
almost no developed country will be meeting its emission reductions
commitments under that treaty, as we are now witnessing in Europe.

8) At the end of the movie, you made it sound like we can mostly fix
the global warming problem by conserving energy... you even claimed we
can reduce our carbon emissions to zero. But I'm sure you know that
this will only be possible with major technological advancements,
including a probable return to nuclear power as an energy source. Why
did you not mention this need for technological advancement and
nuclear power? It is because that would support the current
(Republican) Administration's view?

Mr. Gore, I think we can both agree that if it was relatively easy for
mankind to stop emitting so much carbon dioxide, that we should do so.
You are a very smart person, so I can't understand why you left so
many important points unmentioned, and you made it sound so easy.

I wish you well in these efforts, and I hope that humanity will make
the right choices based upon all of the information we have on the
subject of global warming. I agree with you that global warming is
indeed a "moral issue," and if we are to avoid doing more harm than
good with misguided governmental policies, we will need more
politicians to be educated on the issue.

Your "Good Friend,"

Dr. Roy W. Spencer

James

unread,

Feb 26, 2007, 9:27:48 PM2/26/07

to

"kT" <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote in message
news:CjMEh.64$xo4...@newsfe04.lga...

> claudi...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
>
>> Dr. Roy Spencer
>
> From Wiki :
>
> In several self-published articles Spencer has espoused opinions that defy
> mainstream scientific views. (i.e. - Spencer is a senile crackpot)
>
> In support of Intelligent design Spencer wrote in 2005 "Twenty years ago,
> as a PhD scientist, I intensely studied the evolution versus intelligent
> design controversy for about two years. And finally, despite my previous
> acceptance of evolutionary theory as "fact," I came to the realization
> that intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and
> no less scientific, than evolutionism. . . . In the scientific community,
> I am not alone. There are many fine books out there on the subject.
> Curiously, most of the books are written by scientists who lost faith in
> evolution as adults, after they learned how to apply the analytical tools
> they were taught in college.
>
> Ah. That Roy Spencer
>

> The Patriot Post must be the US equivalent of biblical science.
>
> In the future all science will be screened for the proper patriotism.

I've noticed you don't sign your replies anymore with your web link. Is
there a reason for that or are you just cleaning it up a bit and removing
the bullshit.

>
> --
> Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator :
> http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html

Message has been deleted

Roger Coppock

unread,

Feb 26, 2007, 9:55:17 PM2/26/07

to

1) When will you make a movie that wins an Oscar?

2) Why is it that the movies you have made are
full of talking heads vomiting obvious lies?

kwag...@hotmail.com

unread,

Feb 26, 2007, 10:51:39 PM2/26/07

to

On Feb 26, 9:55 pm, "Roger Coppock" <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote:
> 1) When will you make a movie that wins an Oscar?

About the same time you do, groupthink freak. Your whole 'my team,
your team' siege mentality says volumes about your objectivity.

> 2) Why is it that the movies you have made are
> full of talking heads vomiting obvious lies?

The only reason your own inconsistencies aren't obvious to you are
because your beliefs are apparently disjoined from little things, like
facts and valid deduction and inference.

Here's Edward Wegman speaking to your precise point of view from the
none too distant past:

"While Wegman's advice -- to use trained statisticians in studies
reliant on statistics -- may seem too obvious to need stating, the
"science is settled" camp resists it. Mann's hockey-stick graph may be
wrong, many experts now acknowledge, but they assert that he
nevertheless came to the right conclusion.

To which Wegman, and doubtless others who want more rigourous science,
shake their heads in disbelief. As Wegman summed it up to the energy
and commerce committee in later testimony: "I am baffled by the claim
that the incorrect method doesn't matter because the answer is correct
anyway. Method Wrong + Answer Correct = Bad Science." With bad
science, only true believers can assert that they nevertheless
obtained the right answer."

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=22003a0d-37cc-4399-8bcc-39cd20bed2f6&k=0

Hydrogen FREEDOM is Energy Security

unread,

Feb 26, 2007, 11:50:13 PM2/26/07

to

On Feb 26, 7:51 pm, kwag7...@hotmail.com wrote:

> Here's Edward Wegman speaking to your precise point of view from the
> none too distant past:

Here's Crook McIntyre & Crook Wegman's Social Networks...

Dr. Edward J. Wegman, Center for Computational Statistics, George
Mason
University, Fairfax, Va.
George Mason University, Law and Economics Center : TASSC Fred Singer
(IHS),
George Mason University, Law and Economics Center has received
$185,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Mercatus Center, George Mason University has received $80,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
KOCH OIL Funding George Mason University Foundation, Inc. =
$19,194,643
KOCH OIL Funding George Mason University = $4,753,754
KOCH OIL Funding George Mason University Institute for Humane
Studies = $3,111,457
KOCH OIL Funding Mercatus Center, George Mason University =
$427,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding George Mason University Law and
Economics
Center = $860,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding George Mason University Foundation, Inc.
= $3,665,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding George Mason University = $1,731,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding George Mason University Institute for
Humane Studies = $1,050,000
SCAIFE OIL FORTUNE Funding Center for Market Processes, Inc =
$100,000
White Star Oil Fortune (Earhart Foundation) Funding George Mason
Universit = $980,155
White Star Oil Fortune (Earhart Foundation) Funding George Mason
University (Arlington) = $59,500
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding George Mason University =
$6,665,824
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding George Mason University
Institute for Humane Studies = $797,000
OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Mercatus Center, George Mason
University = $80,000

When the George Mason perfessor begins ambiguating on "Social
Networks"
perhaps he can also reveal something about these George Mason
University "Social Networks" ...

kwag...@hotmail.com

unread,

Feb 27, 2007, 12:24:47 AM2/27/07

to

On Feb 26, 11:50 pm, "Hydrogen FREEDOM is Energy Security" <Energy-
Secur...@HydrogenFREEDOM.info> wrote:

You can't even write a proper title! Not a question in the whole
post. You need a nap followed by some intensive education.

Hydrogen FREEDOM is Energy Security

unread,

Feb 27, 2007, 3:45:44 AM2/27/07

to

You didn't click all the links. I'm sooo disappointed.

Trakar

unread,

Feb 27, 2007, 11:22:53 AM2/27/07

to

<claudi...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:1172539502.2...@z35g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

This the same "former NASA scientist" that came out in 2005 supporting
Intelligent Design?

"Twenty years ago, as a PhD scientist, I intensely studied the evolution
versus intelligent design controversy for about two years. And finally,
despite my previous acceptance of evolutionary theory as "fact," I came to
the realization that intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more
religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism. . . . In the
scientific community, I am not alone. There are many fine books out there on
the subject. Curiously, most of the books are written by scientists who lost
faith in evolution as adults, after they learned how to apply the analytical
tools they were taught in college."

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=080805I
Faith-Based Evolution

clear.gif

kwag...@hotmail.com

unread,

Feb 27, 2007, 6:55:43 PM2/27/07

to

On Feb 27, 11:22 am, "Trakar" <TShaitanaku-at-comcast-dot-net> wrote:
> <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message

>
> news:1172539502.2...@z35g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > Dr. Roy Spencer, former senior scientist for climate studies at NASA's
> > Marshall Space Flight Center, has some additional "Questions for Al
> > Gore" based on what he calls "Gore's Inconvenient Truth."
>
> >http://patriotpost.us/news/questions.asp
>
> > We are still awaiting Gore's reply...
>
> This the same "former NASA scientist" that came out in 2005 supporting
> Intelligent Design?

It sure is. My question to you is, so what? The questions he poses
are sound ones that Gore should be able to answer if his point of view
is accurate and his film is not just a bunch of propaganda.

kwag...@hotmail.com

unread,

Feb 27, 2007, 7:28:26 PM2/27/07

to

On Feb 27, 3:45 am, "Hydrogen FREEDOM is Energy Security" <Energy-

Secur...@HydrogenFREEDOM.info> wrote:
> On Feb 26, 9:24 pm, kwag7...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Feb 26, 11:50 pm, "Hydrogen FREEDOM is Energy Security" <Energy-
>
> > Secur...@HydrogenFREEDOM.info> wrote:
>
> > You can't even write a proper title! Not a question in the whole
> > post. You need a nap followed by some intensive education.
>
> You didn't click all the links. I'm sooo disappointed.

So ask your question.

Energy Security With Hydrogen Economy

unread,

Feb 27, 2007, 8:55:07 PM2/27/07

to

Why hasn't Wegman reported to the law enforcement authorities a 15-
year pattern of felony fraud RICO racketeering at his home institution
George Mason University?

kwag...@hotmail.com

unread,

Feb 28, 2007, 12:36:59 AM2/28/07

to

On Feb 27, 8:55 pm, "Energy Security With Hydrogen Economy" <Energy-

Because it doesn't exist. And how is this even vaguely relevant to
the topic at hand?

In case you got distracted, the topic at hand was how Wegman and a
team of statisticians demonstrated that M&M's critique of Mann 98 and
99 was absolutely correct.

Get Real Energy Security with H2-PV

unread,

Feb 28, 2007, 12:57:46 AM2/28/07

to

On Feb 27, 9:36 pm, kwag7...@hotmail.com wrote:

> > > > > You can't even write a proper title! Not a question in the whole
> > > > > post. You need a nap followed by some intensive education.
>
> > > > You didn't click all the links. I'm sooo disappointed.
>
> > > So ask your question.
>
> > Why hasn't Wegman reported to the law enforcement authorities a 15-
> > year pattern of felony fraud RICO racketeering at his home institution
> > George Mason University?
>
> Because it doesn't exist. And how is this even vaguely relevant to
> the topic at hand?
>
> In case you got distracted, the topic at hand was how Wegman and a
> team of statisticians demonstrated that M&M's critique of Mann 98 and
> 99 was absolutely correct.

I thought the topic at hand was you affiliation with Crooks and your
Crooked nature and Crooked Mind.

Wegman's crookedness is well known and he is a permanent outcast from
science discussions. Since only a Crook would try to sneak another
crook into the discussion, that's where your crookedness came into
question.

You thought wrong about what the question was. See the subject title
line? That's the question you have to answer.

So when is the Koch Industries Stoodge going to Explain his Crooked
connection to Crooked Wegman from Crooked George Mason University?

kwag...@hotmail.com

unread,

Feb 28, 2007, 2:17:35 AM2/28/07

to

On Feb 28, 12:57 am, "Get Real Energy Security with H2-PV"

<Energy.Secur...@H2-PV.us> wrote:
> On Feb 27, 9:36 pm, kwag7...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > > You can't even write a proper title! Not a question in the whole
> > > > > > post. You need a nap followed by some intensive education.
>
> > > > > You didn't click all the links. I'm sooo disappointed.
>
> > > > So ask your question.
>
> > > Why hasn't Wegman reported to the law enforcement authorities a 15-
> > > year pattern of felony fraud RICO racketeering at his home institution
> > > George Mason University?
>
> > Because it doesn't exist. And how is this even vaguely relevant to
> > the topic at hand?
>
> > In case you got distracted, the topic at hand was how Wegman and a
> > team of statisticians demonstrated that M&M's critique of Mann 98 and
> > 99 was absolutely correct.
>
> I thought the topic at hand was you affiliation with Crooks and your
> Crooked nature and Crooked Mind.

You were wrong. It happens often enough that I'd think you'd be a bit
more tentative in your judgements.

> Wegman's crookedness is well known and he is a permanent outcast from
> science discussions.

HAHAHA! He is a man of credentials, renown and respect you will never
even hope to achieve, you fruitcake. When's the last time you were
called to testify on your scientific findings about environmentalism
before the US Congress? Seriously, why even write the laughable
nonsense above?

Since only a Crook would try to sneak another
> crook into the discussion, that's where your crookedness came into
> question.

That is some piece of reasoning. You're like a genius or something.

> You thought wrong about what the question was. See the subject title
> line? That's the question you have to answer.
>
> So when is the Koch Industries Stoodge going to Explain his Crooked
> connection to Crooked Wegman from Crooked George Mason University?

Where in all of your voluminous crap did you demonstrate Wegman was
'crooked'? You misspelled 'stooge'. And what the hell does that
question even mean? What are you asking?

H2-PV Fast Track to Energy Security

unread,

Feb 28, 2007, 2:32:40 AM2/28/07

to

On Feb 27, 11:17 pm, kwag7...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 28, 12:57 am, "Get Real Energy Security with H2-PV"
>
>
>
> <Energy.Secur...@H2-PV.us> wrote:
> > On Feb 27, 9:36 pm, kwag7...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > > > > You can't even write a proper title! Not a question in the whole
> > > > > > > post. You need a nap followed by some intensive education.
>
> > > > > > You didn't click all the links. I'm sooo disappointed.
>
> > > > > So ask your question.
>
> > > > Why hasn't Wegman reported to the law enforcement authorities a 15-
> > > > year pattern of felony fraud RICO racketeering at his home institution
> > > > George Mason University?
>
> > > Because it doesn't exist. And how is this even vaguely relevant to
> > > the topic at hand?
>
> > > In case you got distracted, the topic at hand was how Wegman and a
> > > team of statisticians demonstrated that M&M's critique of Mann 98 and
> > > 99 was absolutely correct.
>
> > I thought the topic at hand was you affiliation with Crooks and your
> > Crooked nature and Crooked Mind.
>
> You were wrong. It happens often enough that I'd think you'd be a bit
> more tentative in your judgements.
>
> > Wegman's crookedness is well known and he is a permanent outcast from
> > science discussions.
>

> HAHAHA! He is a man of ... fruitcake... laughable
> nonsense

>
> Since only a Crook would try to sneak another
>
> > crook into the discussion, that's where your crookedness came into
> > question.
>
> That is some piece of reasoning. You're like a genius or something.
>
> > You thought wrong about what the question was. See the subject title
> > line? That's the question you have to answer.
>

> > So when is the Koch Industries Stodge going to Explain his Crooked

> > connection to Crooked Wegman from Crooked George Mason University?
>

> ...Wegman was
> 'crooked'
> ... What are you asking?

It means that Killer Kock Brothers and their millions have bought
George Mason University from Richard Drunkard Scaife (Gulf Oil Mellon
Fortune) who owned it before them. They run the Charles G Kock Summer
Fellows Program out of offices shared by five criminal front
operations, including lying crook Fred Singer used to have his SEPPtic
tank at the same address as Koch Fellows.

The http://TobaccoDocuments.org has thousands of court evidence
records posted by order of a federal judge on the tobacco mafia serial
killers including cancelled checks paid to the Crooks at the Crooked
George Mason Crookaversity. Dozens and dozens of crooks from the
crookaversity, just like crooked Wegman taking their crooked payoff
money in exchange for having a Koch in their mouth and one up their
buttocks.

Look it up. Google keywords Koch Organized Crime and read for an hour
or two.

It like True Crime Magazine, except this is real.

Lloyd

unread,

Feb 28, 2007, 10:01:43 AM2/28/07

to

No, that's your opinion that they did. If you read the discussion in
Science, you'll find that they didn't. And it's moot anyway, as other
studies come to the same conclusions.

Lloyd

unread,

Feb 28, 2007, 10:02:43 AM2/28/07

to

On Feb 28, 2:17 am, kwag7...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 28, 12:57 am, "Get Real Energy Security with H2-PV"
>
>
>
> <Energy.Secur...@H2-PV.us> wrote:
> > On Feb 27, 9:36 pm, kwag7...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > > > > You can't even write a proper title! Not a question in the whole
> > > > > > > post. You need a nap followed by some intensive education.
>
> > > > > > You didn't click all the links. I'm sooo disappointed.
>
> > > > > So ask your question.
>
> > > > Why hasn't Wegman reported to the law enforcement authorities a 15-
> > > > year pattern of felony fraud RICO racketeering at his home institution
> > > > George Mason University?
>
> > > Because it doesn't exist. And how is this even vaguely relevant to
> > > the topic at hand?
>
> > > In case you got distracted, the topic at hand was how Wegman and a
> > > team of statisticians demonstrated that M&M's critique of Mann 98 and
> > > 99 was absolutely correct.
>
> > I thought the topic at hand was you affiliation with Crooks and your
> > Crooked nature and Crooked Mind.
>
> You were wrong. It happens often enough that I'd think you'd be a bit
> more tentative in your judgements.
>
> > Wegman's crookedness is well known and he is a permanent outcast from
> > science discussions.
>
> HAHAHA! He is a man of credentials, renown and respect you will never
> even hope to achieve, you fruitcake.

But not in any scientific field.

>When's the last time you were
> called to testify on your scientific findings about environmentalism
> before the US Congress? Seriously, why even write the laughable
> nonsense above?

Oh come on, that fruitcake Inhofe invited him. He also had a sci fi
writer testify.

kwag...@hotmail.com

unread,

Feb 28, 2007, 10:08:28 AM2/28/07

to

Statistics is not a science? Support your ludicrous claim.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistics

> >When's the last time you were
> > called to testify on your scientific findings about environmentalism
> > before the US Congress? Seriously, why even write the laughable
> > nonsense above?
>
> Oh come on, that fruitcake Inhofe invited him. He also had a sci fi
> writer testify.

And a good sci-fi writer has loads more credibility than this
sockpuppet cretin. And Edward Wegman has accomplished more in
statistics than him or you, so you and your sly denigration of his
character can take a walk.

kwag...@hotmail.com

unread,

Feb 28, 2007, 12:04:10 PM2/28/07

to

On Feb 28, 2:32 am, "H2-PV Fast Track to Energy Security"

> Thehttp://TobaccoDocuments.orghas thousands of court evidence

> records posted by order of a federal judge on the tobacco mafia serial
> killers including cancelled checks paid to the Crooks at the Crooked
> George Mason Crookaversity. Dozens and dozens of crooks from the
> crookaversity, just like crooked Wegman taking their crooked payoff
> money in exchange for having a Koch in their mouth and one up their
> buttocks.
>
> Look it up. Google keywords Koch Organized Crime and read for an hour
> or two.
>
> It like True Crime Magazine, except this is real.

Other than your homophobia, what the hell is this supposed to prove?
Nothing in this entails anything about Wegman at all. If you want to
prove him wrong, find one of his arguments and show how it is
illogical or unsound. All of this innuendo is crap.

kwag...@hotmail.com

unread,

Feb 28, 2007, 1:42:17 PM2/28/07

to

Which is your [and their] opinion. If you think there's something
relevant there, then cite it. Naysaying is pointless.

> And it's moot anyway, as other
> studies come to the same conclusions.

This is ridiculous and Wegman answered it specifically. To
paraphrase: right answer + wrong method = bad science. An invalid
context of discovery means your science blows. If other studies from
the scientists who peer reviewed Mann et al. 98 & 99 come to the same
conclusions, it means just about jack shit. Do the other studies
you've not even managed to name drop use the same flawed methodology
as MBH 98 & 99?

The problem is this: why is the paleoclimatology community not
ostracizing Mann for sticking to invalid statistical methodology and
going down with all guns blazing? His flawed study passed peer
review, so the question is far from moot. It speaks to the
reliability of peer-reviewed papers coming out of the paleoclimatology
community and their anti-scientific commitment to certain conclusions.

S. McIntyre, right now, is going about demonstrating that Jones' 1990
claims of homogeneous Chinese temp. records are false. Unlike Mann,
et al., he posts all of his code and data on ClimateAudit with every
entry. He's asked for Jones' data previously, Jones purportedly said
it was too hard to find and people had moved on so it was 'moot'.
Well AGW theorists still cite Jones et al. so it isn't moot and
McIntyre is managing to reconstruct the data slowly and is finding a
lot of gaps in the data sets.

Lloyd

unread,

Feb 28, 2007, 3:41:07 PM2/28/07

to

But if you read the discussion in Science, Mann refuted Wegman's
allegations.

>If other studies from
> the scientists who peer reviewed Mann et al. 98 & 99 come to the same
> conclusions, it means just about jack shit.

So now all scientists are in a conspiracy? You really are an idiot.

>Do the other studies
> you've not even managed to name drop use the same flawed methodology
> as MBH 98 & 99?
>
> The problem is this: why is the paleoclimatology community not
> ostracizing Mann for sticking to invalid statistical methodology and
> going down with all guns blazing?

Because he's right?

>His flawed study passed peer
> review, so the question is far from moot. It speaks to the
> reliability of peer-reviewed papers coming out of the paleoclimatology
> community and their anti-scientific commitment to certain conclusions.
>
>

Or it says Mann is right.

S. McIntyre, right now, is going about demonstrating that Jones' 1990
> claims of homogeneous Chinese temp. records are false. Unlike Mann,
> et al., he posts all of his code and data on ClimateAudit with every
> entry. He's asked for Jones' data previously, Jones purportedly said
> it was too hard to find and people had moved on so it was 'moot'.
> Well AGW theorists still cite Jones et al. so it isn't moot and
> McIntyre is managing to reconstruct the data slowly and is finding a
> lot of gaps in the data sets.

AGW theorists is like "atom theorists", but I'd expect that from
someone hostile to science.

Joe Fischer

unread,

Feb 28, 2007, 5:55:14 PM2/28/07

to

On 28 Feb 2007 "Lloyd" <lpa...@emory.edu> wrote:

>AGW theorists is like "atom theorists", but I'd expect that from
>someone hostile to science.

Please be specific about what AGW stands for,
CO2 emissions from man made devices is part of AGW
studies, but measurement of CO2 concentrations in the
atmosphere are known not to be all man made.

No person can object to calculating known man
made emissions from the fossil fuels burned, and even
the CO2 from certain other processes.

But the modeling of future levels and temperature
changes expected begins to depart from science, and
predicting all kinds of harmful results is worse than
fortune telling, at least the fortune tellers tell people
some good things, and if there are no good things
predicted from the study of global warming, then
something is missing.

And the Summary for Policy Makers ends
with a statement that even if CO2 levels are made
to level, bad things will still continue.

Just what "political party" do you get the
canned responses from?

Joe Fischer

Gonna Bust Up Exxon's Crime Ring

unread,

Feb 28, 2007, 6:29:54 PM2/28/07

to

On Feb 28, 2:55 pm, Joe Fischer <j...@bigscreencomputers.com> wrote:

Global Warming KNOWLEDGE is based on measured data and a knowledge-net
that nothing very big can escape notice.

Joe Fischer

unread,

Feb 28, 2007, 7:18:54 PM2/28/07

to

On 28 Feb 2007 15:29:54 -0800, "Gonna Bust Up Exxon's Crime Ring"
<Crook...@ScienceCop.info> wrote:

I didn't write that. :-)

At this point in time, the data may suggest a trend,
but it is not certain, and example of how the data can be
misleading is a 32 degree difference in the high today
between northern Tennessee and Indianapolis.

This difference is partly the result of snow cover
to the north and none to the south, and possibly a
stationary front.
My remarks are based on questioning if the
data collection sites just happen to be in the cold
zone or the warm zone, the distance is only 200 or
300 miles and there are many areas of the world
where data collection sites are farther apart than
that.

There is probably an assumption that it
all averages out, but the remarkable increases
shown in the report just occurred in the last
few years, so it seems reasonable to question
the data set and the assumption, that is the
way of double checking.

Don't put total faith in the assertion that
science is infallible, at one time medical doctors
operated with the same instruments they did
autopsies with and only washed them in soap
and water (if at all).

Also, there may be a long term warming
trend, not totally associated with man made CO2,
so the warming may continue regardless.

I sure hope some of the fortune telling
is wrong, but it would be nice to have a little
warmer weather, I rarely have to run an air
conditioner, but I have to have heat about
9 months of the year.

Joe Fischer

Gonna Bust Up Exxon's Crime Ring

unread,

Feb 28, 2007, 8:03:12 PM2/28/07

to

On Feb 28, 4:18 pm, Joe Fischer <j...@bigscreencomputers.com> wrote:
> On 28 Feb 2007 15:29:54 -0800, "Gonna Bust Up Exxon's Crime Ring"
>

> <CrookWa...@ScienceCop.info> wrote:
> >On Feb 28, 2:55 pm, Joe Fischer <j...@bigscreencomputers.com> wrote:
>
> >Global Warming KNOWLEDGE is based on measured data and a knowledge-net
> >that nothing very big can escape notice.
>
> I didn't write that. :-)
>
> At this point in time, the data may suggest a trend,
> but it is not certain, and example of how the data can be
> misleading is a 32 degree difference in the high today
> between northern Tennessee and Indianapolis.

Even worse when you have no science education and you think kinetic
energy only appears as "heat" on "thermometers".

It is very uncertain whether the temperatures will get to 150 degrees
farenheit before the winds get to be 400 miles per hour. What's the
"wind-chill" factor on 400 mph, anyway?

> This difference is partly the result of snow cover
> to the north and none to the south, and possibly a
> stationary front.
> My remarks are based on questioning if the
> data collection sites just happen to be in the cold
> zone or the warm zone, the distance is only 200 or
> 300 miles and there are many areas of the world
> where data collection sites are farther apart than
> that.

No. Your questions stem from the salty dogs you suck from the Koch
Sucker faction of the republican party.

> There is probably an assumption that it
> all averages out, but the remarkable increases
> shown in the report just occurred in the last
> few years, so it seems reasonable to question
> the data set and the assumption, that is the
> way of double checking.

I'm sure a Koch miraculously appearing in your mouth has no prior
history of you doing anything to cause that sequence of events. It's
just so reasonable to assume that you were born with a Koch in the
mouth.

> Don't put total faith in the assertion that
> science is infallible, at one time medical doctors
> operated with the same instruments they did
> autopsies with and only washed them in soap
> and water (if at all).

And not long before that your female ancestors copulated with
chimpanzees too. Some things have changed since then. Doctors wash
better now, and tell yo mamma to knock it off with the apes.

> Also, there may be a long term warming
> trend, not totally associated with man made CO2,
> so the warming may continue regardless.
>
> I sure hope some of the fortune telling
> is wrong, but it would be nice to have a little
> warmer weather, I rarely have to run an air
> conditioner, but I have to have heat about
> 9 months of the year.
>
> Joe Fischer

At least you have a habitable planet to set up that house with the
cost-of-living heating bills, for now. Don't expect that to always be
true no matter what you do.

kwag...@hotmail.com

unread,

Feb 28, 2007, 8:27:52 PM2/28/07

to

On Feb 28, 3:41 pm, "Lloyd" <lpar...@emory.edu> wrote:

> > > No, that's your opinion that they did. If you read the discussion in
> > > Science, you'll find that they didn't.
>
> > Which is your [and their] opinion. If you think there's something
> > relevant there, then cite it. Naysaying is pointless.
>
> > > And it's moot anyway, as other
> > > studies come to the same conclusions.
>
> > This is ridiculous and Wegman answered it specifically. To
> > paraphrase: right answer + wrong method = bad science. An invalid
> > context of discovery means your science blows.
>
> But if you read the discussion in Science, Mann refuted Wegman's
> allegations.

I didn't. I did see the intellectually impoverished response on
RealClimate. If you can cite something relevant from the Science
article, please do. It is called 'proving your claim.' It's fun to
do for a lark; give it a shot.

> >If other studies from
> > the scientists who peer reviewed Mann et al. 98 & 99 come to the same
> > conclusions, it means just about jack shit.
>
> So now all scientists are in a conspiracy? You really are an idiot.

Are you part of Mann's clique? :-)

> >Do the other studies
> > you've not even managed to name drop use the same flawed methodology
> > as MBH 98 & 99?

Well?

> > The problem is this: why is the paleoclimatology community not
> > ostracizing Mann for sticking to invalid statistical methodology and
> > going down with all guns blazing?
>
> Because he's right?

That's possible. Wegman's theory is also possible. Given the
evasiveness demonstrated by Mann and Jones and the vituperative nature
of their rebuttals, I'd favor Wegman's theory. Since you've nothing
to offer, I guess we can leave it there.

> >His flawed study passed peer
> > review, so the question is far from moot. It speaks to the
> > reliability of peer-reviewed papers coming out of the paleoclimatology
> > community and their anti-scientific commitment to certain conclusions.
>
> Or it says Mann is right.

This is real funny given that Mann himself attacks the peer review
process in trying to explain why MM's hammerstroke against his study
"slipped past" the peer review process and made it into GRL.

> > S. McIntyre, right now, is going about demonstrating that Jones' 1990
> > claims of homogeneous Chinese temp. records are false. Unlike Mann,
> > et al., he posts all of his code and data on ClimateAudit with every
> > entry. He's asked for Jones' data previously, Jones purportedly said
> > it was too hard to find and people had moved on so it was 'moot'.
> > Well AGW theorists still cite Jones et al. so it isn't moot and
> > McIntyre is managing to reconstruct the data slowly and is finding a
> > lot of gaps in the data sets.
>
> AGW theorists is like "atom theorists", but I'd expect that from
> someone hostile to science.

I am hostile to rhetoric and that seems to be about the extent of your
ability.

You've nothing to say about the lack of homogeneity in Jones et al.
1990 but you will try and quibble on the meaning of AGW. Sure, humans
manage to heat the environment; no doubt at all. Is the amount of CO2
they are returning to the atmosphere causing runaway and catastrophic
global warming? The people who would answer yes to that one are the
referent [for me at least] of 'AGW theorist'.

kwag...@hotmail.com

unread,

Feb 28, 2007, 8:30:57 PM2/28/07

to

On Feb 28, 7:18 pm, Joe Fischer <j...@bigscreencomputers.com> wrote:
> On 28 Feb 2007 15:29:54 -0800, "Gonna Bust Up Exxon's Crime Ring"
>

Well you seem reasonable enough. Let me ask you this:

What is the most credible evidence you have seen for the proposition
that AGW will cause a runaway greenhouse effect with net harmful
results for the world's human population?

Joe Fischer

unread,

Feb 28, 2007, 8:33:40 PM2/28/07

to

On 28 Feb 2007 17:03:12 -0800, "Gonna Bust Up Exxon's Crime Ring"
<Crook...@ScienceCop.info> wrote:

>On Feb 28, 4:18 pm, Joe Fischer <j...@bigscreencomputers.com> wrote:
>> On 28 Feb 2007 15:29:54 -0800, "Gonna Bust Up Exxon's Crime Ring"
>> <CrookWa...@ScienceCop.info> wrote:
>> >On Feb 28, 2:55 pm, Joe Fischer <j...@bigscreencomputers.com> wrote:
>> >Global Warming KNOWLEDGE is based on measured data and a knowledge-net
>> >that nothing very big can escape notice.
>>
>> I didn't write that. :-)
>>
>> At this point in time, the data may suggest a trend,
>> but it is not certain, and example of how the data can be
>> misleading is a 32 degree difference in the high today
>> between northern Tennessee and Indianapolis.
>
>Even worse when you have no science education and you think kinetic
>energy only appears as "heat" on "thermometers".

And you think "kinetic energy" is "energy"?

For those that are confused, kinetic energy
does not exist, it is a mathematical term to describe
what can be expected in collisions and physical
interactions.

Joe Fischer

Ray Lopez Kiddie-Porn@NAMBLA.org

unread,

Feb 28, 2007, 8:43:36 PM2/28/07

to

On Feb 28, 5:33 pm, Joe Fischer <j...@bigscreencomputers.com> wrote:
> On 28 Feb 2007 17:03:12 -0800, "Gonna Bust Up Exxon's Crime Ring"
>
>
>

> <CrookWa...@ScienceCop.info> wrote:
> >On Feb 28, 4:18 pm, Joe Fischer <j...@bigscreencomputers.com> wrote:
> >> On 28 Feb 2007 15:29:54 -0800, "Gonna Bust Up Exxon's Crime Ring"
> >> <CrookWa...@ScienceCop.info> wrote:
> >> >On Feb 28, 2:55 pm, Joe Fischer <j...@bigscreencomputers.com> wrote:
> >> >Global Warming KNOWLEDGE is based on measured data and a knowledge-net
> >> >that nothing very big can escape notice.
>
> >> I didn't write that. :-)
>
> >> At this point in time, the data may suggest a trend,
> >> but it is not certain, and example of how the data can be
> >> misleading is a 32 degree difference in the high today
> >> between northern Tennessee and Indianapolis.
>
> >Even worse when you have no science education and you think kinetic
> >energy only appears as "heat" on "thermometers".
>
> And you think "kinetic energy" is "energy"?
>
> For those that are confused, kinetic energy
> does not exist, it is a mathematical term to describe
> what can be expected in collisions and physical
> interactions.
>
> Joe Fischer

Come back when you can explain how windmills and hydroelectric works
without any such thing as "kinetic energy"

Joe Fischer

unread,

Feb 28, 2007, 10:34:06 PM2/28/07

to

On 28 Feb 2007 17:30:57 -0800, kwag...@hotmail.com wrote:

>What is the most credible evidence you have seen for the proposition
>that AGW will cause a runaway greenhouse effect with net harmful
>results for the world's human population?

It is far too complex for me, since nature did make
big changes, anything like that is surely possible in the
future, regardless of what man adds.

But hopefully there won't be as much mountain
building or plate tilting as there was, and maybe less
volcanic activity, so maybe the extremes won't be
as great in the future.

I really believe in many self regulating and
controlling processes in nature, the ocean warms,
and evaporates to cool.
Upper atmosphere ozone levels do not continue
to increase because ozone blocks the very radiation
that creates it.
Studies of nature with this view may suggest
less extremes, but the things that have happened
in the last 80 years have been too extreme to suit me.

Whatever happens, man must continue to
have plans on how to survive. I don't see the
present ice and snow storms as unusual, but
there does seem to be quite a few of them more
severe than the local population is ready for,
and that makes it bad.

I spent part of the winter of 1975 delivering
25KW generators to snowed in farmers to use
powered by their tractor power take-offs.

And was stranded in 1978 at home until the
Air Force flew in two snow blowers from Alaska
to open the roads.

I will take the warmer scenarios any day.

Joe Fischer

unread,

Feb 28, 2007, 11:03:00 PM2/28/07

to

On 28 Feb 2007 "Ray Lopez Kiddi...@NAMBLA.org"
<Exxon.RI...@ecovilliage.us> wrote:

>Come back when you can explain how windmills and hydroelectric works
>without any such thing as "kinetic energy"

Wind and water, but you knew that. :-)

There is no energy in a moving car, the
energy is in the difference in the speed of other
objects _relative_ to the car.

In other words, kinetic energy is relative,
and doesn't exist in the same way chemical or
electrical energy is stored in objects.

Thermal energy of gases is in the speed
of the molecules, and that is why the speed of
sound in air is dependent on temperature, sound
can't travel any faster than the molecules move
as they bounce around.

Energy needs to be understood for what
it is in the various ways it occurs or exists.
Hot air does not cause storms, in fact storms
are rare in dry regions, moisture carries a lot more
potential energy than air, even though it is lighter
than air.
And things like this make predictions very
difficult.

Joe Fischer

Why DON'T You Want Energy Security?

unread,

Feb 28, 2007, 11:30:46 PM2/28/07

to

On Feb 28, 8:03 pm, Joe Fischer <j...@bigscreencomputers.com> wrote:
> On 28 Feb 2007 "Ray Lopez Kiddie-P...@NAMBLA.org"

Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a NEW WINNER!!! New Guiness Book Record for
Ultimate Super-Duper Lamer Joe Fischer

dlzc

unread,

Mar 1, 2007, 12:29:04 PM3/1/07

to

Dear Joe Fischer:

On Feb 28, 8:34 pm, Joe Fischer <j...@bigscreencomputers.com> wrote:
> On 28 Feb 2007 17:30:57 -0800, kwag7...@hotmail.com wrote:
...

> I really believe in many self regulating and
> controlling processes in nature, the ocean warms,
> and evaporates to cool.
> Upper atmosphere ozone levels do not continue
> to increase because ozone blocks the very radiation
> that creates it.
> Studies of nature with this view may suggest
> less extremes, but the things that have happened
> in the last 80 years have been too extreme to suit me.

Atmospheric ozone is also at the whims of the half life of ozone at
any given temperature and pressure, the absorption of other UV
wavelengths, and compounds that will catalytically or sacrificially
accept the extra O atom from ozone. You talk about the "supply side",
but not the "demand side". The balance of these two describe changes
in the amount of ozone at any given locale, and integration gives you
"upper atmosphere ozone levels".

David A. Smith

Vendicar Decarian

unread,

Mar 16, 2007, 11:46:13 PM3/16/07

to

<claudi...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message

news:1172539502.2...@z35g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> Dr. Roy Spencer, former senior scientist for climate studies at NASA's
> Marshall Space Flight Center, has some additional "Questions for Al
> Gore" based on what he calls "Gore's Inconvenient Truth."
>
> http://patriotpost.us/news/questions.asp

I had no idea that Roy Spencer was a RepubliKKKan until now.

This explains his cowardly opposition to admitting the reality of Climate
change, and explains his anti-social behaviour, and his penchant for
misrepresenting the facts.

Now, we all know that Spencer's analysis of the satellite data was dead
wrong, because he "forgot" that satellites fall out of their orbits, and
that's ok, because it was probably just honest ignorance on his part, and
it's good to see him now admitting that the troposphere is warming rather
than cooling as he initially claimed.

But what amuses me about Spencer is his ability to deceive himself. As an
example his laughable argumetn that CO2 can't be causing warming today
because the historic record shows CO2 levels lag temperature change by some
800 years.

The record certainly shows that they do lag through the hsitoric record,
over millions of years...... Until now.

Simpletons often think that there is just one variable controlling a
characteristic being observed. Spencer is like that, ignoring the CO2
variable even when basic physics tells us that it is not possible to do
that.

So I have a question for Mr. Spencer... Why is there no lag between
temperature rise today and the observed anthropogenic CO2 excursion when
there was a near constant lag in the past, and what has changed recently to
negate the delay?

Vendicar Decarian

unread,

Mar 16, 2007, 11:51:26 PM3/16/07

to

<kwag...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> "While Wegman's advice -- to use trained statisticians in studies
> reliant on statistics -- may seem too obvious to need stating, the
> "science is settled" camp resists it. Mann's hockey-stick graph may be
> wrong, many experts now acknowledge, but they assert that he
> nevertheless came to the right conclusion.

Winter warmest on record worldwide
----------------------------------
By RANDOLPH E. SCHMID - AP Science Writer
Thu Mar 15, 5:38 PM ET

WASHINGTON - This winter was the warmest on record worldwide, the government
said Thursday in the latest worrisome report focusing on changing climate.
The
report comes just over a month after the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change said global warming is very likely caused by human actions and is so
severe it will continue for centuries.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said the combined land
and
ocean temperatures for December through February were 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit
above average for the period since record keeping began in 1880.

The report said that during the past century, global temperatures have
increased
at about 0.11 degrees per decade. But that increase has been three times
larger
since 1976, NOAA's National Climatic Data Center reported.

Most scientists attribute the rising temperatures to so-called greenhouse
gases
which are produced by industrial activities, automobiles and other
processes.
These gases build up in the atmosphere and trap heat from the sun somewhat
like
a greenhouse.

Also contributing to this winter's record warmth was an El Nino, a periodic
warming of the tropical Pacific Ocean. It was particularly strong in
January -
the warmest January ever - but the ocean surface has since begun to cool.
The report noted that in the Northern Hemisphere the combined land and water
temperature was the warmest ever at 1.64 degrees above average. In the
Southern
Hemisphere, where it was summer, the temperature was 0.88 degree above
average
and the fourth warmest.

The late March date of the vernal equinox noted on most calendars
notwithstanding, for weather and climate purposes northern winter is
December,
January and February.

For the United States, meanwhile, the winter temperature was near average.
The
season got off to a late start and spring-like temperatures covered most of
the
eastern half of the country in January, but cold conditions set in in
February,
which was the third coldest on record.

For winter, statewide temperatures were warmer than average from Florida to
Maine and from Michigan to Montana while cooler-than-average temperatures
occurred in the southern Plains and areas of the Southwest.

For Alaska, both February and winter were warmer than average but far from
the
record warmth of 2003 and 2001, respectively.

Vendicar Decarian

unread,

Mar 16, 2007, 11:58:44 PM3/16/07

to

<kwag...@hotmail.com> wrote

> And a good sci-fi writer has loads more credibility than this
> sockpuppet cretin.

Ah yes, the RepubliKKKan Loser knows how to evaluate his scientific
sources.

Ahahahaha... Who is the next expert in climate science that Kwag will
defend? Harry Potter?

<kwag...@hotmail.com> wrote

> And Edward Wegman has accomplished more in
> statistics than him or you, so you and your sly denigration of his
> character can take a walk.

Good for him. I still wouldn't trust him to lance a boil, or perscribe an
asperin, since he is not trained in medicine. Similarly he has no
climatological expertise, and similarly his cross-profession musings are
equally untrustworthy.

Vendicar Decarian

unread,

Mar 16, 2007, 11:59:27 PM3/16/07

to

<kwag...@hotmail.com> wrote

> Other than your homophobia, what the hell is this supposed to prove?
> Nothing in this entails anything about Wegman at all. If you want to
> prove him wrong, find one of his arguments and show how it is
> illogical or unsound. All of this innuendo is crap.

Vendicar Decarian

unread,

Mar 17, 2007, 12:01:44 AM3/17/07

to

<kwag...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> S. McIntyre, right now, is going about demonstrating that Jones' 1990
> claims of homogeneous Chinese temp. records are false. Unlike Mann,
> et al., he posts all of his code and data on ClimateAudit with every
> entry. He's asked for Jones' data previously, Jones purportedly said
> it was too hard to find and people had moved on so it was 'moot'.
> Well AGW theorists still cite Jones et al. so it isn't moot and
> McIntyre is managing to reconstruct the data slowly and is finding a
> lot of gaps in the data sets.

Yadda, yadda, yadda....

Meanwhile the Earth continues to warm.....

Vendicar Decarian

unread,

Mar 17, 2007, 12:07:24 AM3/17/07

to

"Joe Fischer" <j...@bigscreencomputers.com> wrote

> For those that are confused, kinetic energy
> does not exist, it is a mathematical term to describe
> what can be expected in collisions and physical
> interactions.

It's difficult to say what <exists>. In this context it is sufficent to
note that the energy of motion translates to larger inertial mass and hence
more matter.

Once again Joe Fischer - Global Warming Denialist - illustrates his
ignorance of science.

Vendicar Decarian

unread,

Mar 17, 2007, 12:17:09 AM3/17/07

to

<kwag...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> It sure is. My question to you is, so what? The questions he poses
> are sound ones that Gore should be able to answer if his point of view
> is accurate and his film is not just a bunch of propaganda.

Half the questions are political in nature, and all have KKKonservative
Political undertones.

Why does Spencer feel the need to politicize science?

And why does anyone think Gore needs to answer questions posed in a
political attack piece?

kwag...@hotmail.com

unread,

Mar 17, 2007, 12:17:12 AM3/17/07

to

On Mar 16, 10:51 pm, "Vendicar Decarian" <BushIsATrai...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> <kwag7...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> > "While Wegman's advice -- to use trained statisticians in studies
> > reliant on statistics -- may seem too obvious to need stating, the
> > "science is settled" camp resists it. Mann's hockey-stick graph may be
> > wrong, many experts now acknowledge, but they assert that he
> > nevertheless came to the right conclusion.
>
> Winter warmest on record worldwide

How is this relevant, stalker?

Saddam's Rope, Exxon's Neck

unread,

Mar 17, 2007, 12:21:08 AM3/17/07

to

Crooked Amoral Adultery-Defender Kwag Crackpot, Ignore.

kwag...@hotmail.com

unread,

Mar 17, 2007, 12:23:39 AM3/17/07

to

On Mar 16, 10:58 pm, "Vendicar Decarian" <BushIsATrai...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> <kwag7...@hotmail.com> wrote

>
> > And a good sci-fi writer has loads more credibility than this
> > sockpuppet cretin.
>
> Ah yes, the RepubliKKKan Loser knows how to evaluate his scientific
> sources.
>
> Ahahahaha... Who is the next expert in climate science that Kwag will
> defend? Harry Potter?
>

> <kwag7...@hotmail.com> wrote

>
> > And Edward Wegman has accomplished more in
> > statistics than him or you, so you and your sly denigration of his
> > character can take a walk.
>
> Good for him. I still wouldn't trust him to lance a boil, or perscribe an
> asperin, since he is not trained in medicine. Similarly he has no
> climatological expertise, and similarly his cross-profession musings are
> equally untrustworthy.

Hey dumbass, and I mean that with all due respect, paleoclimatology is
utterly dependent on statistical reconstruction of data.

Saddam's Rope, Exxon's Neck

unread,

Mar 17, 2007, 12:39:37 AM3/17/07

to

Crooked Amoral Adultery-Defender Kwag Crackpot, Ignore.

Vendicar Decarian

unread,

Mar 17, 2007, 3:11:40 AM3/17/07

to

<kwag...@hotmail.com> wrote

>> > And Edward Wegman has accomplished more in
>> > statistics than him or you, so you and your sly denigration of his
>> > character can take a walk.

Vendicar Decarian wrote:
>> Good for him. I still wouldn't trust him to lance a boil, or perscribe
>> an
>> asperin, since he is not trained in medicine. Similarly he has no
>> climatological expertise, and similarly his cross-profession musings are
>> equally untrustworthy.

<kwag...@hotmail.com> wrote

> Hey dumbass, and I mean that with all due respect, paleoclimatology is
> utterly dependent on statistical reconstruction of data.

And as long as he keeps his comments confined to the mathematics, there is
no singificant issue.

Outside of that area, his opinions are pretty much worthless. I note that
mental illness is common among mathematicians.

Vendicar Decarian

unread,

Mar 17, 2007, 3:14:21 AM3/17/07

to

"Joe Fischer" <j...@bigscreencomputers.com> wrote

> But the modeling of future levels and temperature
> changes expected begins to depart from science, and
> predicting all kinds of harmful results is worse than
> fortune telling, at least the fortune tellers tell people
> some good things, and if there are no good things
> predicted from the study of global warming, then
> something is missing.

Why is that? Loser.

"Joe Fischer" <j...@bigscreencomputers.com> wrote

> And the Summary for Policy Makers ends
> with a statement that even if CO2 levels are made
> to level, bad things will still continue.

It's called momentum. Go Educate yourself.

"Joe Fischer" <j...@bigscreencomputers.com> wrote

> Just what "political party" do you get the
> canned responses from?

Why are you bringing politics into a discusssion of science
KKKonservative.

Vendicar Decarian

unread,

Mar 17, 2007, 3:16:48 AM3/17/07

to

<kwag...@hotmail.com> wrote

> How is this relevant, stalker?

Gosh, one would think that the warmest winter on record globally might
have something to do with globally warmer than normal temperatures and hence
Global Warming.

It's just another nail in the coffin of Global Warming Denialism.

You pathetic Losers.

kwag...@gmail.com

unread,

Mar 17, 2007, 2:58:17 PM3/17/07

to

On Mar 17, 2:11 am, "Vendicar Decarian" <BushIsATrai...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> <kwag7...@hotmail.com> wrote

>
> >> > And Edward Wegman has accomplished more in
> >> > statistics than him or you, so you and your sly denigration of his
> >> > character can take a walk.
> Vendicar Decarian wrote:
> >> Good for him. I still wouldn't trust him to lance a boil, or perscribe
> >> an
> >> asperin, since he is not trained in medicine. Similarly he has no
> >> climatological expertise, and similarly his cross-profession musings are
> >> equally untrustworthy.
>

> <kwag7...@hotmail.com> wrote

>
> > Hey dumbass, and I mean that with all due respect, paleoclimatology is
> > utterly dependent on statistical reconstruction of data.
>
> And as long as he keeps his comments confined to the mathematics, there is
> no singificant issue.
>
> Outside of that area, his opinions are pretty much worthless. I note that
> mental illness is common among mathematicians.

His opinions on Mann were largely on his failed statistical analysis.
Outside that, he pointed out something interesting that Mann's peer
review buddies were all coauthors and that the paleoclimatology
community is incestuous as a means of explaining how something so bad
could have passed peer review. That he had to dig that far to explain
Mann's research failures is sad.

kwag...@gmail.com

unread,

Mar 17, 2007, 3:00:07 PM3/17/07

to

On Mar 17, 2:16 am, "Vendicar Decarian" <BushIsATrai...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> <kwag7...@hotmail.com> wrote

It's actually an unrelated anecdote that proves nothing at all. I was
wondering if you'd be able to figure that out when the relevance was
questioned, but I see not.

kwag...@gmail.com

unread,

Mar 17, 2007, 3:01:57 PM3/17/07

to

On Mar 16, 10:46 pm, "Vendicar Decarian" <BushIsATrai...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message

Because the warming is unrelated to CO2 would be the most parsimonious
explanation.

Carbon Criminal Polluters

unread,

Mar 17, 2007, 4:00:34 PM3/17/07

to

Crooked Amoral Adultery-Defender Kwag Crackpot, Ignore.

Vendicar Decarian

unread,

Mar 18, 2007, 7:18:51 AM3/18/07

to

> On Mar 17, 2:16 am, "Vendicar Decarian" <BushIsATrai...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>> <kwag7...@hotmail.com> wrote
>>
>> > How is this relevant, stalker?
>>
>> Gosh, one would think that the warmest winter on record globally might
>> have something to do with globally warmer than normal temperatures and
>> hence
>> Global Warming.
>>
>> It's just another nail in the coffin of Global Warming Denialism.

<kwag...@gmail.com> wrote

> It's actually an unrelated anecdote that proves nothing at all.

Yet another "warmest winter on record" is unrelated to a rise in the
Earth's average temperature?

No honest person could say such a thing unless they are mentally
disturbed.

So which is it Kwag? Are you a liar? Or are you mentally disturbed?

And again, another nail in the coffin of Global Warming Denialism.

You Pathetic Loser.

Vendicar Decarian

unread,

Mar 18, 2007, 7:22:00 AM3/18/07

to

>> So I have a question for Mr. Spencer... Why is there no lag between
>> temperature rise today and the observed anthropogenic CO2 excursion when
>> there was a near constant lag in the past, and what has changed recently
>> to
>> negate the delay?

<kwag...@gmail.com> wrote

> Because the warming is unrelated to CO2 would be the most parsimonious
> explanation.

Spencer's claim is that CO2 levvels are driven by warming. And that
explains why CO2 rises after a temperature increase. His position is that
the thermal enertia of the ocean causes a 800 year delay in the rise of CO2
relative to a rise in temperature.

So again....

Horace Ontullman

unread,

Mar 18, 2007, 3:39:18 PM3/18/07

to

On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 03:22:00 -0800, "Vendicar Decarian"
<BushIsA...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> So again....
>
> I have a question for Mr. Spencer... Why is there no lag between
>temperature rise today and the observed anthropogenic CO2 excursion when
>there was a near constant lag in the past, and what has changed recently to
>negate the delay?

You don't remember the warming period 800 years ago?

H.

Crackpot Zombie Hordes

unread,

Mar 18, 2007, 5:43:01 PM3/18/07

to

On Mar 18, 11:39 am, Horace Ontullman <H...@barrow.rine> wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 03:22:00 -0800, "Vendicar Decarian"
>

> <BushIsATrai...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > So again....
>
> > I have a question for Mr. Spencer... Why is there no lag between
> >temperature rise today and the observed anthropogenic CO2 excursion when
> >there was a near constant lag in the past, and what has changed recently to
> >negate the delay?
>
> You don't remember the warming period 800 years ago?

Give us your personal recollections, grandpa Crackpot.

Vendicar Decarian

unread,

Mar 18, 2007, 7:34:56 PM3/18/07

to

"Horace Ontullman" <H...@barrow.rine> wrote in message

> You don't remember the warming period 800 years ago?

Nope, I have no recollection of it. And there is no recollection in the
clamatological records.

Hanson Crackpot

unread,

Mar 18, 2007, 8:37:23 PM3/18/07

to

Definition of a Libertarian.... a Libertarian is an anarchist who
wants police protection from his slaves.

a Libertarian is

adj.

1. Concerned chiefly or only with oneself: "Selfish men were . . .
trying to make capital for themselves out of the sacred cause of human
rights" (Maria Weston Chapman).
2. Arising from, characterized by, or showing selfishness: a
selfish whim.

Devoid of consideration for the selfishness of others.

Absorbed primarily or only in one's own interests or activities.

adj.

1. Serving one's own interests, especially without concern for the
needs or interests of others.
2. Exhibiting concern solely for one's own interests: a speech full
of self-serving comments.

adj., -i·er, -i·est.

1. Excessively desirous of acquiring or possessing, especially
wishing to possess more than what one needs or deserves.
2. Wanting to eat or drink more than one can reasonably consume;
gluttonous.
3. Extremely eager or desirous: greedy for the opportunity to prove
their ability.

adjective

1. Having a strong urge to obtain or possess something, especially
material wealth, in quantity: acquisitive, avaricious, avid, covetous,
grasping, hungry. Informal grabby. See desire, give/take/reciprocity.
2. Wanting to eat or drink more than one can reasonably consume:
edacious, gluttonous, hoggish, piggish, ravenous, voracious. See
desire, ingestion.
3. Having an insatiable appetite for an activity or pursuit: avid,
edacious, gluttonous, omnivorous, rapacious, ravenous, unappeasable,
voracious. See desire.

adj.

1. Taking by force; plundering.
2. Greedy; ravenous. See synonyms at voracious.
3. Subsisting on live prey.

Impossible to appease or satisfy: unappeasable thirst and hunger.

Meaning #1: not to be placated or appeased or moved by entreaty
Synonyms: grim, inexorable, relentless, stern, unforgiving,
unrelenting

IN BRIEF: Wanting or taking all that one can get with no thought of
what others need.

adj.

1. Shunning the society of others; not sociable.
2. Hostile to or disruptive of the established social order; marked
by or engaging in behavior that violates accepted mores: gangs
engaging in vandalism and other antisocial behavior.
3. Antagonistic toward or disrespectful of others; rude.

Behaving in a manner that violates the social or legal norms of
society.

IN BRIEF: Thinking and acting as if one's own desires and interests
are more important than the interests and desires of others.

Vendicar Decarian

unread,

Mar 18, 2007, 10:46:11 PM3/18/07

to

"Joe Fischer" <j...@bigscreencomputers.com> wrote in message
> At this point in time, the data may suggest a trend,
> but it is not certain, and example of how the data can be
> misleading is a 32 degree difference in the high today
> between northern Tennessee and Indianapolis.

AAAS Board Statement on Climate Change
--------------------------------------

Approved by the AAAS Board of Directors

9 December 2006

For more information:

www.aaas.org/climate

The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human
activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society.

Accumulating data from across the globe reveal a wide array of effects:
rapidly melting glaciers, destabilization of major ice sheets, increases in
extreme weather, rising sea level, shifts in species ranges, and more. The
pace of change and the evidence of harm have increased markedly over the
last five years. The time to control greenhouse gas emissions is now.

The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, a critical greenhouse gas,
is higher than it
has been for at least 650,000 years. The average temperature of the Earth is
heading for levels not experienced for millions of years. Scientific
predictions of the impacts of increasing atmospheric concentrations of
greenhouse gases from fossil fuels and deforestation match observed changes.
As expected, intensification of droughts, heat waves, floods, wildfires, and
severe storms is occurring, with a mounting toll on vulnerable ecosystems
and societies.

These events are early warning signs of even more devastating damage to
come, some of which will be irreversible.

Delaying action to address climate change will increase the environmental
and societal consequences as well as the costs. The longer we wait to tackle
climate change, the harder and more expensive the task will be.

History provides many examples of society confronting grave threats by
mobilizing knowledge and promoting innovation. We need an aggressive
research, development and eployment effort to transform the existing and
future energy systems of the world away from technologies that emit
greenhouse gases. Developing clean energy technologies will provide economic
opportunities and ensure future energy supplies.

In addition to rapidly reducing greenhouse gas emissions, it is essential
that we develop strategies to adapt to ongoing changes and make communities
more resilient to future changes. The growing torrent of information
presents a clear message: we are already experiencing global climate change.
It is time to muster the political will for concerted action. Stronger
leadership at all levels is needed. The time is now. We must rise to the
challenge. We owe this to future generations.

The conclusions in this statement reflect the scientific consensus
represented by, for example, the intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(www.ipcc.ch/), and the joint National Academies' statement

(http://nationalacademies. org/onpi/06072005.pdf).

Joe Fischer

unread,

Mar 19, 2007, 12:25:38 AM3/19/07

to

On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 18:46:11 -0800, "Vendicar Decarian"
<BushIsA...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>"Joe Fischer" <j...@bigscreencomputers.com> wrote in message
>> At this point in time, the data may suggest a trend,
>> but it is not certain, and example of how the data can be
>> misleading is a 32 degree difference in the high today
>> between northern Tennessee and Indianapolis.
>
>AAAS Board Statement on Climate Change
>--------------------------------------
>Approved by the AAAS Board of Directors
>9 December 2006
>
>For more information:
>www.aaas.org/climate
>
>The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human
>activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society.
>
>Accumulating data from across the globe reveal a wide array of effects:
>rapidly melting glaciers, destabilization of major ice sheets, increases in
>extreme weather, rising sea level, shifts in species ranges, and more. The
>pace of change and the evidence of harm have increased markedly over the
>last five years. The time to control greenhouse gas emissions is now.

That paragraph is a good example of why there are
skeptics.

There is only one measure of "global warming", and
that is an increase in the heat content of the Earth.
All of those "effects" in the above paragraph are
opinions or impressions, not scientific data.

As long as the temperature here is 10 degrees
below normal around the clock, I may be inclined to
be more than skeptical.

The focus should be on continuing documentation
of temperature data, and examining all possible reasons
for any observed change. Mitigation could then be
more effective if the reason(s) is/are known.

While the climate and weather scientist may be
the ones to point out the problems and possible causes,
the rest of the scientific community is the only possible
source of technical options and they need to offer some
possibilities, rather than just saying something has to
be done now .....

If it is an urgency, then the scientists should
be in auto makers offices insisting on building two
engine cars to double gas mileage, and in power
plants insisting on co-generation at all power plants.

But even that may not totally mitigate the
problem if it exists, so hopefully the trend will not
be so fast that people will not have a chance to
take measures to be safe.

With cold weather in the US midwest and
northeast and a blizzard in Europe, it may be difficult
to convince many that the problem is urgent.

Joe Fischer

Saddam's Noose, Exxon's Neck

unread,

Mar 18, 2007, 11:35:55 PM3/18/07

to

CRACKPOT. IGNORE.

Vendicar Decarian

unread,

Mar 19, 2007, 12:12:24 AM3/19/07

to

"Joe Fischer" <j...@BigScreenComputers.com> wrote

> That paragraph is a good example of why there are
> skeptics.

Actually there are two reasons. RepubliKKKan Corruption and profound
Ignorance.

One can never be sure which is which however. Often they are combined in
varying degrees.

"Joe Fischer" <j...@BigScreenComputers.com> wrote

> There is only one measure of "global warming", and
> that is an increase in the heat content of the Earth.

Ah, so in your crackpot view of the situation, if the core of the earth
warms during an ice age, the globe has warmed.

Ahahahahahahahahah...

The topic is Climate Change you Pathetic, Scientifically Illiterate,
Moron.

Climate change driven by the temperature change of the earth's surface
and atmosphere.

"Joe Fischer" <j...@BigScreenComputers.com> wrote

> All of those "effects" in the above paragraph are
> opinions or impressions, not scientific data.

Absolutely. They are the opinions of scientists who have collected the
data and seen the data . They are scientists who are experts in the analysis
of data, and who are trained to evaluate data.

You haven't seen the data because you are a scientifically illiterate
moron.

And even if you were to see it, as a scientifically illiterate moron, you
would be incapable of comprehending it.

"Joe Fischer" <j...@BigScreenComputers.com> wrote

> As long as the temperature here is 10 degrees
> below normal around the clock, I may be inclined to
> be more than skeptical.

You still can't figure out the difference between weather and climate ay?
Even after being told the difference a half dozen times.

Ahahahahahahahaha... You Pathetic, Scientifically Illiterate Moron.

What do the scientists say?

AAAS Board Statement on Climate Change
--------------------------------------

Approved by the AAAS Board of Directors

9 December 2006

For more information:

www.aaas.org/climate

The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human
activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society.

Accumulating data from across the globe reveal a wide array of effects:
rapidly melting glaciers, destabilization of major ice sheets, increases in
extreme weather, rising sea level, shifts in species ranges, and more. The
pace of change and the evidence of harm have increased markedly over the
last five years. The time to control greenhouse gas emissions is now.

The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, a critical greenhouse gas,

Vendicar Decarian

unread,

Mar 19, 2007, 12:14:01 AM3/19/07

to

"Joe Fischer" <j...@BigScreenComputers.com> wrote

> With cold weather in the US midwest and
> northeast and a blizzard in Europe, it may be difficult
> to convince many that the problem is urgent.

Winter warmest on record worldwide

Joe Fischer

unread,

Mar 19, 2007, 7:12:36 AM3/19/07

to

On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 20:12:24 -0800, "Vendicar Decarian"
<BushIsA...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>"Joe Fischer" <j...@BigScreenComputers.com> wrote
>> That paragraph is a good example of why there are
>> skeptics.
>
> Actually there are two reasons. RepubliKKKan Corruption and profound
>Ignorance.

If you are a typical demonrat, it is no wonder that
the rank and file swing vote.

> One can never be sure which is which however. Often they are combined in
>varying degrees.

Neither corruption or ignorance by others is reason
enough for your abuse of internet rules and guidelines.

>"Joe Fischer" <j...@BigScreenComputers.com> wrote
>> There is only one measure of "global warming", and
>> that is an increase in the heat content of the Earth.
>
> Ah, so in your crackpot view of the situation, if the core of the earth
>warms during an ice age, the globe has warmed.

No, moron, the core of the Earth is hotter than
the surface of the sun to begin with, and the different
specific heats of the various materials of the surface
and atmosphere present too complex a problem for
morons at keyboards.

Averaging temperatures is an exercise of idiots,
just the fact that the temperatures from the Antarctic
represent 80 BTU per pound of ice less heat is
enough to confuse the effort.

Evaporation of water from the entire surface
is such a large cooling effect, and an extreme variable,
something as simplistic as air and water and soil
temperature averages becomes meaningless.

> Ahahahahahahahahah...
>
> The topic is Climate Change you Pathetic, Scientifically Illiterate,
>Moron.

And climate is the sum of all factors of weather,
including evaporation and precipitation, but those who
place politics and hatred above science conveniently
ignore the science and realities.

> Climate change driven by the temperature change of the earth's surface
>and atmosphere.

If only it was that simple, stupid.

>"Joe Fischer" <j...@BigScreenComputers.com> wrote
>> All of those "effects" in the above paragraph are
>> opinions or impressions, not scientific data.
>
> Absolutely. They are the opinions of scientists who have collected the
>data and seen the data . They are scientists who are experts in the analysis
>of data, and who are trained to evaluate data.

They are paid lackeys of the UN, with guidelines
for every occasion, like a networked system of computers,
and that is what is hurting the study of a very important
part of the physical sciences.

> You haven't seen the data because you are a scientifically illiterate
>moron.

I have seen the data and it is too sparse, and
totally inadequate to make such wild conclusions rational.

> And even if you were to see it, as a scientifically illiterate moron, you
>would be incapable of comprehending it.

At least I would approach the study without an
agenda obviously driven by hatred and biased opinion
as you do.

>"Joe Fischer" <j...@BigScreenComputers.com> wrote
>> As long as the temperature here is 10 degrees
>> below normal around the clock, I may be inclined to
>> be more than skeptical.
>
> You still can't figure out the difference between weather and climate ay?
>Even after being told the difference a half dozen times.

Temperature is the most noticeable part of climate,
there are no blizzards when it is 70 F, and the supposed
cause of the rise in CO2 levels is partly caused by the
amount of space heating fuel used.

> Ahahahahahahahaha... You Pathetic, Scientifically Illiterate Moron.

How many times a day do your keepers train you
to say that?

> What do the scientists say?
>
>AAAS Board Statement on Climate Change
>--------------------------------------
>
>Approved by the AAAS Board of Directors
>
>9 December 2006
>
>For more information:
>
>www.aaas.org/climate
>
>The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human
>activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society.

A bigger threat to society is those who are bitter,
egotists prone to kneejerk reaction.

>Accumulating data from across the globe reveal a wide array of effects:
>rapidly melting glaciers, destabilization of major ice sheets, increases in
>extreme weather, rising sea level, shifts in species ranges, and more. The
>pace of change and the evidence of harm have increased markedly over the
>last five years. The time to control greenhouse gas emissions is now.

It is nice to have a group leadership make such
difficult appraisals, too bad they don't have more control
of the government.

I see all kinds of ways to reduce fossil fuel use,
but I don't see any of the bitter idiots doing anything
except suggest somebody donate to their pocketbook.

Please follow usenet rules, your excessive use
of my name and the number of insults is a flagrant
example of a personal attack, please stop, regardless
of your reasons, I am not a threat to serious study of
climate and the environment.

Joe Fischer

hanson

unread,

Mar 19, 2007, 9:11:49 AM3/19/07

to

******** Global COOLING imminent ************

says Left leaning NY Times & Glen Beck CNN-HLN on 18-Mar-07:....
based on research of sober scientists who are NOTpaid by
anyone like the IPCC Global Warmers who are on the payroll
of the crooked UN paymasters, who took $billions in bribes
from Saddam Hussein, and who try to advance their Global
Govenrment agenda by spreading false fear and doom.

Has anybody more details on this aside these 2 desperately
lonely welfare items who are getting hot under their collar and
post every night, inadvertently moving the US evermore to the
Right, and becoming so terribly excited that they take a few
steps closer to their plot at
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/21b72828229da0a0
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/6ab1baf9ab204bd4

Lloyd

unread,

Mar 19, 2007, 10:48:22 AM3/19/07

to

If you want to ignore all the data and all the science. Heck just
chalk all things up to "magic" -- no explanations needed, no research
need...

Vendicar Decarian

unread,

Mar 19, 2007, 3:31:09 PM3/19/07

to

"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote Nothing but Ignorance.

AAAS Board Statement on Climate Change
--------------------------------------

Approved by the AAAS Board of Directors

9 December 2006

For more information:

www.aaas.org/climate

The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human
activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society.

Accumulating data from across the globe reveal a wide array of effects:

rapidly melting glaciers, destabilization of major ice sheets, increases in
extreme weather, rising sea level, shifts in species ranges, and more. The
pace of change and the evidence of harm have increased markedly over the
last five years. The time to control greenhouse gas emissions is now.

The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, a critical greenhouse gas,

Vendicar Decarian

unread,

Mar 19, 2007, 3:32:20 PM3/19/07

to

"Joe Fischer" <j...@BigScreenComputers.com> wrote Nothing but Stupidity

Ex-CIA chief says U.S. must act on climate
Mon Mar 19, 2007 9:07 AM ET

By Paul Taylor

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - The United States must act to cap its emissions of
greenhouse gases and join the fight against climate change or risk losing
global leadership, a former CIA director said in a report released on
Monday.

"The United States must adopt a carbon emission control policy," John
Deutch, head of the Central Intelligence Agency in 1995-96, said in a report
to the Trilateral Commission, a grouping of business and opinion leaders
from Europe, the United States and Asia.

"If the United States or any other OECD country that is a large producer of
greenhouse gas emissions is to retain a leadership role in other areas, it
cannot just opt out of the global climate change policy process," he wrote.

Deutch, an energy specialist who is now a professor at the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, also proposed an expanded use of nuclear power,
international cooperation to develop clean coal technology and a sharing of
the costs of emissions control between rich countries and large emerging
nations.

He advocated an additional tax of about $1 per gallon on gasoline, diesel
and other petroleum products in the United States, coupled with a tightening
of fuel economy standards for U.S. car manufacturers, to encourage fuel
efficiency and dampen demand, while recognizing that would be politically
difficult.

CAP AND TRADE

He suggested Washington use the same "cap and trade" system of limiting
carbon dioxide emissions and issuing emissions permits to industry that can
be traded, which the European Union currently uses.

His report to the council, created in 1973 to build a policy consensus among
capitalist democracies on three continents, was the latest in a series of
international studies highlighting the need for radical policy changes to
combat global warming.

Deutch also listed so-called geotechnical measures under consideration to
counterbalance climate change, including adding aerosols to the
stratosphere, placing balloons or mirrors in the stratosphere and even "high
altitude nuclear explosions to induce a nuclear 'spring'".

These ideas were so risky and hard to demonstrate technically that they
highlighted the need to redouble efforts to mitigate human-induced climate
change.

The report said the major industrialized countries must began a process of
transition away from a petroleum-based economy to reduce their dependence on
oil and gas imports for political as well as environmental reasons.

It also called for China and India to be admitted to the International
Energy Agency to improve cooperation among major oil and gas importers and
help avoid tensions over supplies.

While Deutch placed great expectations on carbon capture and sequestration
technology to reduce emissions from coal-fired power stations, notably in
China, a parallel report to the Trilateral Commission by French energy
executive Anne Lauvergeon cast doubt on that solution.

Lauvergeon, chief executive of Areva, which builds nuclear power stations,
said the capture and storage of carbon emitted through the burning of fossil
fuels was too often presented as a miracle solution.

"This technology will ... not play a significant role in the limitation of
carbon emissions for half a century," she wrote.

hanson

unread,

Mar 19, 2007, 4:17:19 PM3/19/07

to

Scott Nudds aka "Vendicar Decarian" <BushIsA...@hotmail.com> w/i
news:ZxBLh.7871$_f....@read2.cgocable.net...... that his own NG cv
posted by "hanson" <han...@quick.net> is "Nothing But Ignoracnce":
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/6ab1baf9ab204bd4
>
[hanson]
ahahaha... Scott Nudds' aka Vendicar Decarian's confession of
ignorance is further cemented by VD having characterized himself in:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/637bc182d88f8894
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.energy.renewable/msg/cb0c66d9bd07a830
with lots of other good stuff, incl. where VD **Scuttled his Nuts**... and
wherein VD Scotty maintains that:
::VD:: In 20 years of being on line ... I [VD] have asked thousands.
::VD:: [Their] Typical answeres [to me, VD Scotty,] are...
::VD:: "Fuck off Moron"
::VD:: debt is indeed foremost on my [VD's]
::VD:: warped, tiny mind. [03-07-05]
>
ahahahaha.....

------------------ but issue at hand was and is -----------------
>
[hanson]

******** Global COOLING imminent ************

says Left leaning NY Times & Glen Beck CNN-HLN on 18-Mar-07:....
based on research of sober scientists who are NOTpaid by
anyone like the IPCC Global Warmers who are on the payroll
of the crooked UN paymasters, who took $billions in bribes
from Saddam Hussein, and who try to advance their Global

Government agenda by spreading false fear and doom.

Has anybody more details on this aside these 2 desperately
lonely welfare items who are getting hot under their collar and
post every night, inadvertently moving the US evermore to the
Right, and becoming so terribly excited that they take a few
steps closer to their plot at
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/21b72828229da0a0
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/6ab1baf9ab204bd4
>
>

Since VD Scotty did not have any comment on the issue he,
VD Scotty, immediately elected to respond to the latter link
as it embarrassed him. So, he tried to cover up his own shit
that he had extruded, with a stale old newspaper article.
That's standard VD MO. Watch him now doing it again, with
VD believing that he is influencing international policy.
ahahahaha....
Scotty, all in all, you are cheap but great entertainment.
Thanks for the laughs, Nudds.
ahahaha... ahahahanson

Crackpot Zombie Hordes

unread,

Mar 19, 2007, 7:31:52 PM3/19/07

to

On Mar 19, 5:11 am, "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
> ******** Global COOLING imminent ************
>
> says Left leaning NY Times & Glen Beck CNN-HLN on 18-Mar-07:....
> based on research of sober scientists who are NOTpaid by
> anyone like the IPCC Global Warmers who are on the payroll
> of the crooked UN paymasters, who took $billions in bribes
> from Saddam Hussein, and who try to advance their Global
> Govenrment agenda by spreading false fear and doom.
>
> Has anybody more details on this aside these 2 desperately
> lonely welfare items who are getting hot under their collar and
> post every night, inadvertently moving the US evermore to the
> Right, and becoming so terribly excited that they take a few
> steps closer to their plot

Lying reich-winger. Global Warming exists, because it is accurately
measured. Climate change has happened already and is recorded
worldwide and is documented. It is caused by humans without a doubt.
It harms the rich and poor both by threatens the poor the most because
they can't afford the defenses that the rich can buy to make
accommodations, like air conditioning or deeper well or flood control
measures.

It was discussed openly over 3 decades and the decision has been made
that the debate portion is closed so that emergency response actions
can go forward.

There is no new evidence and no surprises. It has been found that the
richest corporations are engaged in criminal frauds to protect their
dirty pollution sources of income and refuse to change to clean
industry investments. Career criminal accomplices in the sciences have
been exposed, identified, debunked by courtroom evidence. Paid
accomplices through front organizations regularly post deceptions to
continue the "appearance of debate" when the debate is over. No new
evidence accompanies the propaganda piece above.

hanson

unread,

Mar 19, 2007, 7:40:27 PM3/19/07

to

Lion Kuntz aka "Awe Shit" woke up, badly hung-over after guzzling in the
"Night of the Living Crackpots" <Crac...@Exxon-Turds.info> dreaming
of the "Invasion of the Crackpots" <Crackpot.Invaders w/ Exxon-Turds.info
him being one in the <Crackpot.Zombie.Hordes full of Exxon-Turds.info >
in news:1174347112....@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
and carefully snipped, in fear, the lines that should concern him the most:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/21b72828229da0a0
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/6ab1baf9ab204bd4
ahahahaha... wherein you'll see "Awe Shit's fear factor... ahahaha

>
> On Mar 19, 5:11 am, "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
>> ******** Global COOLING imminent ************
>> says Left leaning NY Times & Glen Beck CNN-HLN on 18-Mar-07:....
>> based on research of sober scientists who are NOTpaid by
>> anyone like the IPCC Global Warmers who are on the payroll
>> of the crooked UN paymasters, who took $billions in bribes
>> from Saddam Hussein, and who try to advance their Global
>> Govenrment agenda by spreading false fear and doom.
>>
>> Has anybody more details on this aside these 2 desperately
>> lonely welfare items who are getting hot under their collar and
>> post every night, inadvertently moving the US evermore to the
>> Right, and becoming so terribly excited that they take a few

>> steps closer to their plot at [ next 2 links were snipped by
"Awe Shit's" greatest fears. Reinstated here:]
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/21b72828229da0a0
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/6ab1baf9ab204bd4
>
obviously, "Awe Shit" had no details except making a stupid
subject line to project his anger that his, Loin Kuntz's, tardy welfare
check and malingering me for reporting what I saw in the news:
>
["Awe Shit"]
> Lying reich-winger.... [snip "Awe Shit's" plagiarized & regurgitated
> tripe from his idol and role model VD Scott Nudds]... It was discussed

>openly over 3 decades and the decision has been made that the
>debate portion is closed so that emergency response actions can
>go forward.
>

[hanson]
"Awe Shit" listen, in your sorry and terminal condition, can you poor
sod no longer realize that you have fallen victim to and became
damaged goods thanks to your
**** GREEN BIBLE & its 4 decade old enviro Theology *****
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/70ed6372eccc32ba
wherein it says that:
= "It doesn't matter what is true ... it only matters what people
= believe is true. -- Paul Watson, Sea Shepard/ex-Greenpeace, &...
= "A lot of environmental [sci/soc/pol] messages are simply not
= accurate. We use hype." -- Jerry Franklin, Ecologist, UoW, and...
= "If you don't know an answer, a fact, a statistic, then .... make it
= up on the spot ... for the mass-media today ... the truth is irrelevant."
= -- Paul Watson in Earthforce: An Earth Warrior's Guide to Strategy.
= "We make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little
= mention of any doubts we may have [about] being honest."
= -- Stephen Schneider (Stanford prof. who first sought fame as
= a global cooler, but has now hit the big time as a global warmer)
= "It is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presen-
= tations" -- Al Gore, Chairman, Gen. Investment Management Bank.
>
Bless you, Leon,
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/21b72828229da0a0
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/6ab1baf9ab204bd4
I will miss you, "Awe Shit".
ahahaha... ahahahahahanson

Idiot Hanson's Cracked Pot Army

unread,

Mar 19, 2007, 8:28:10 PM3/19/07

to

On Mar 19, 3:40 pm, "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
> I will miss you, "Awe Shit".
> ahahaha... ahahahahahanson

Definition of a Libertarian.... Excessively desirous of acquiring or

kwag...@gmail.com

unread,

Mar 19, 2007, 9:36:01 PM3/19/07

to

On Mar 18, 6:22 am, "Vendicar Decarian" <BushIsATrai...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> >> So I have a question for Mr. Spencer... Why is there no lag between
> >> temperature rise today and the observed anthropogenic CO2 excursion when
> >> there was a near constant lag in the past, and what has changed recently
> >> to
> >> negate the delay?
>

> <kwag7...@gmail.com> wrote

>
> > Because the warming is unrelated to CO2 would be the most parsimonious
> > explanation.
>
> Spencer's claim is that CO2 levvels are driven by warming. And that
> explains why CO2 rises after a temperature increase. His position is that
> the thermal enertia of the ocean causes a 800 year delay in the rise of CO2
> relative to a rise in temperature.
>
> So again....
>
> I have a question for Mr. Spencer... Why is there no lag between
> temperature rise today and the observed anthropogenic CO2 excursion when
> there was a near constant lag in the past, and what has changed recently to
> negate the delay?

What didn't you understand above? That the CO2 were are injecting is
not related to warming would be the hypothesis that makes the least
assumptions about facts not in our apprehension.

kwag...@gmail.com

unread,

Mar 19, 2007, 9:47:34 PM3/19/07

to

On Mar 18, 6:18 am, "Vendicar Decarian" <BushIsATrai...@hotmail.com>

wrote:
> > On Mar 17, 2:16 am, "Vendicar Decarian" <BushIsATrai...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >> <kwag7...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
> >> > How is this relevant, stalker?
>
> >> Gosh, one would think that the warmest winter on record globally might
> >> have something to do with globally warmer than normal temperatures and
> >> hence
> >> Global Warming.
>
> >> It's just another nail in the coffin of Global Warming Denialism.
>

> <kwag7...@gmail.com> wrote

>
> > It's actually an unrelated anecdote that proves nothing at all.
>
> Yet another "warmest winter on record" is unrelated to a rise in the
> Earth's average temperature?

No, the false part you write follows "hence" and is an unwarranted
assumption that the warmest winter on record, not a claim I would
necessarily even say was credible, proves AGW is true.

> No honest person could say such a thing unless they are mentally
> disturbed.
>
> So which is it Kwag? Are you a liar? Or are you mentally disturbed?
>
> And again, another nail in the coffin of Global Warming Denialism.
>
> You Pathetic Loser.

See? Unwarranted assumptions everywhere.

http://Hanson-Turd.Exxon-Turds.info

unread,

Mar 19, 2007, 9:48:43 PM3/19/07

to

On Mar 19, 5:36 pm, kwag7...@gmail.com wrote:

> > I have a question for Mr. Spencer... Why is there no lag between
> > temperature rise today and the observed anthropogenic CO2 excursion when
> > there was a near constant lag in the past, and what has changed recently to
> > negate the delay?
>
> What didn't you understand above? That the CO2 were are injecting is
> not related to warming would be the hypothesis that makes the least
> assumptions about facts not in our apprehension.

Crooked Amoral Adultery-Defender Kwag Crackpot, Ignore.

Lying reich-winger. Global Warming exists, because it is accurately

measured. Climate change has happened already and is recorded
worldwide and is documented. It is caused by humans without a doubt.

It harms the rich and poor both but threatens the poor the most

because they can't afford the defenses that the rich can buy to make
accommodations, like air conditioning or deeper well or flood control
measures.

It was discussed openly over 3 decades and the decision has been made

that the debate portion is closed so that emergency response actions
can go forward.

There is no new evidence and no surprises. It has been found that the

richest corporations are engaged in criminal frauds to protect their
dirty pollution sources of income and refuse to change to clean
industry investments. Career criminal accomplices in the sciences have
been exposed, identified, debunked by courtroom evidence. Paid
accomplices through front organizations regularly post deceptions to
continue the "appearance of debate" when the debate is over. No new
evidence accompanies the propaganda piece above.

http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html
Scientists' Report Documents ExxonMobil's Tobacco-like Disinformation
Campaign on Global Warming Science -- Oil Company Spent Nearly $16
Million to Fund Skeptic Groups, Create Confusion

kwag...@gmail.com

unread,

Mar 19, 2007, 9:51:19 PM3/19/07

to

On Mar 18, 6:34 pm, "Vendicar Decarian" <BushIsATrai...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Mayeb true but in the "climatological" records, a medieval warming is
shown. Poor typing doesn't justify your tricky rheotric.

Exxon Liars & Thieves

unread,

Mar 19, 2007, 9:57:30 PM3/19/07

to

Crooked Amoral Adultery-Defender Kwag Crackpot, Ignore.

Vendicar Decarian

unread,

Mar 20, 2007, 12:55:53 AM3/20/07

to

<kwag...@gmail.com> wrote
> His opinions on Mann were largely on his failed statistical analysis.
> Outside that, he pointed out something interesting that Mann's peer
> review buddies were all coauthors and that the paleoclimatology
> community is incestuous as a means of explaining how something so bad
> could have passed peer review. That he had to dig that far to explain
> Mann's research failures is sad.

You are a liar of course.

"Shortly after it appeared in the report, two Canadians, economist
Ross McKitrick and mineral-exploration consultant Stephen McIntyre,
attacked the methodology behind the graph, claiming that it was
based on insufficient data and flawed statistical analysis. US
politicians amplified their complaints, most prominently
Representative Joe Barton (Republican, Texas), who in 2005 wrote to
Mann demanding he share his data with critics and congressional
overseers. In an effort to quell the controversy, the chairman of
the House Committee on Science, Representative Sherwood Boehlert
(Republican, New York), commissioned the academy to examine the
earlier work.

The academy essentially upholds Mann's findings, although the panel
concluded that systematic uncertainties in climate records from
before 1600 were not communicated as clearly as they could have
been. The NAS also confirmed some problems with the statistics. But
the mistakes had a relatively minor impact on the overall finding,
says Peter Bloomfield, a statistician at North Carolina State
University in Raleigh, who was involved in the latest report. "This
study was the first of its kind, and they had to make choices at
various stages about how the data were processed," he says, adding
that he "would not be embarrassed" to have been involved in the
work." - Nature - Academy affirms hockey-stick graph - 28 June 2006

Vendicar Decarian

unread,

Mar 20, 2007, 12:57:27 AM3/20/07

to

"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote Nothing but ignorance

Wired News: Bush Ripped on Global WarmingNote

By Luke O'Brien| Also by this reporter
15:00 PM Feb, 07, 2007

WASHINGTON -- Congress continued to probe allegations Wednesday that the
Bush
administration tried to muzzle government scientists on climate change and
suppress scientific research, including a comprehensive report in 2000 on
global
warming's impact on the United States.

During a Senate Commerce Committee hearing, both Democratic and Republican
lawmakers weighed in with harsh words for an administration that has come
under
fire in the 110th Congress for its stance on climate change.

"One incidence of political tampering with science is too many," said Sen.
Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii), the committee chairman, referring to a survey
released
last week by two advocacy groups that showed widespread political
interference
in research related to global warming.

"For years we have been frustrated by the lack of recognition and
cooperation on
the part of the administration on addressing this issue," said Sen. John
McCain
(R-Arizona).

Sen. John Kerry (D-Massachusetts) blasted the alleged political meddling,
calling it "George Orwell at its best."

At the hearing, several witnesses testified that they had experienced or
seen
political interference by the Bush administration in climate-change science.
Witnesses said press officers at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration and other agencies had manipulated or obstructed media
interviews
with government scientists. Witnesses also said that important research on
global warming had been downplayed, edited or suppressed by a system of
"minders" and "gatekeepers."

Rick Piltz, the director of the climate science watch program at watchdog
group
the Government Accountability Project, said the Bush administration
effectively
quashed official use of the 2000 National Assessment report on global
warming in
the United States.

According to Piltz, who worked for White House climate-change programs from
1995
to 2005, the report remains "the most comprehensive, scientifically based
assessment of the potential consequences of climate change for the United
States." In his written statement, he called the suppression of the report
"the
central climate science scandal of the (Bush) administration."

Other witnesses testified that agency flacks had hindered their ability to
inform the public about their research. In his written statement to the
committee, Tom Knutson, a meteorologist and hurricane expert at NOAA,
detailed
several instances in which his media interviews were mysteriously canceled
or
language in his presentations was changed.

Internal NOAA e-mails (.pdf) obtained by a Freedom of Information Act
request
last year suggest a plan to keep Knutson from discussing any evidence
connecting
global warming to stronger hurricanes.

James Mahoney, a deputy administrator of NOAA from 2002 to 2006, also said
he
had seen scientists discouraged from talking to the media during his time at
the
agency. Other witnesses bemoaned cuts in areas of funding at NOAA and NASA
that
would reduce the number of satellites and Earth-observing instruments in
space
by 35 percent by 2010, making it harder to study climate change and predict
natural disasters.

The committee hoped to hear from representatives from the U.S. Office of
Science
and Technology Policy, which advises the White House on science issues, but
none
showed up, leaving William Brennan, acting director of the U.S. Climate
Change
Science Program, to defend the administration.

Kerry saved his most withering comments for Brennan, expressing outrage over
the
amount of progress on climate change achieved by Brennan's program, which
seeks
to integrate research on climate change from 13 federal agencies.

"I think this is the most serious dereliction of public responsibility that
I've
ever seen," Kerry said. "This is a disgrace. You're turning your backs on
future
generations in this country and potentially inviting a global catastrophe."
Brennan said his group would soon be releasing 21 reports covering a range
of
key issues related to climate change that would help inform policy. A
comparison
of the research schedule released by the Climate Change Science Program in
July
2003 and a current status summary of the research reveals that the program
has
failed to meet its deadlines or is behind schedule on 20 of the 21 reports.

Vendicar Decarian

unread,

Mar 20, 2007, 12:57:49 AM3/20/07

to

"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote Nothing but Ignorance

Hanging Exxon's Tillerman for Mass Murder

unread,

Mar 20, 2007, 1:01:13 AM3/20/07

to

Vendicar Decarian

unread,

Mar 20, 2007, 1:02:38 AM3/20/07

to

<kwag...@gmail.com> wrote

> No, the false part you write follows "hence" and is an unwarranted
> assumption that the warmest winter on record, not a claim I would
> necessarily even say was credible, proves AGW is true.

Quoting myself...."Gosh, one would think that the warmest winter on record

globally might
have something to do with globally warmer than normal temperatures and
hence
Global Warming."

I must conclude that your belief that globally higher temperatures do not
reflect a warmer globe and thta increasingly warmer global temperatures
therefore can not represent a Warming globe.

In other words, your belief is that a warming globe is not evidence of
global warming.

Ahahahahahahahah... No honest person could say such a thing unless they
were mentally disturbed.

Vendicar Decarian

unread,

Mar 20, 2007, 1:06:45 AM3/20/07

to

<kwag...@gmail.com> wrote in message

> Mayeb true but in the "climatological" records, a medieval warming is
> shown. Poor typing doesn't justify your tricky rheotric.

Here is a temperature plot of global surface temp over the past several
thousand years.

Please point out where your so called "ice age" is documented in the
record.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Holocene_Temperature_Variations_Rev_png

Joe Fischer

unread,

Mar 20, 2007, 2:21:11 AM3/20/07

to

How can "warming" translate to "ice age", here is
the warming shown on that page, and the little "ice age"
at the bottom right.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison_png

Joe Fischer

Bill Ward

unread,

Mar 20, 2007, 3:29:27 AM3/20/07

to

On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 21:06:45 -0800, Vendicar Decarian wrote:

> <kwag...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> Maybe true but in the "climatological" records, a medieval warming is
>> shown. Poor typing doesn't justify your tricky rhetoric.

>
> Here is a temperature plot of global surface temp over the past
> several
> thousand years.
>
> Please point out where your so called "ice age" is documented in the
> record.
>
> http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Holocene_Temperature_Variations_Rev_png

Nice link Scotty. You should have someone read and interpret it for you
sometime. Here's a further link found in the above that is also
interesting:

First of all, he said a "warming" and you responded with an "ice age"
challenge. Second, where are the error bars on the chart you link to?
Note the "average" of 8 wildly varying measurements of presumably the the
same "global temperature". Most scientists are acutely aware of their
instrumental errors, and carefully do an error analysis on their results
to see what conclusions can be supported to what degree of certainty.

In fact we find in the writeup:

<Begin quote>
Because of the limitations of data sampling, each curve in the main plot
was smoothed (see methods below) and consequently, this figure can not
resolve temperature fluctuations faster than approximately 300 years.
Further, while 2004 appears warmer than any other time in the long-term
average, an observation that might be a sign of global warming, it should
also be noted that the 2004 measurement is from a single year (see
Image:Short Instrumental Temperature Record.png for comparison to other
years). It is impossible to know whether similarly large short-term
temperature fluctuations may have occurred at other times but are
unresolved by the resolution available in this figure. The next 150 years
will determine whether the long-term average centered on the present
appears anomalous with respect to this plot.

Since there is no scientific consensus on how to reconstruct global
temperature variations during the Holocene, the average shown here should
be understood as only a rough, quasi-global approximation to the
temperature history of the Holocene. In particular, higher resolution data
and better spatial coverage could significantly alter the apparent
long-term behavior (see below for further caveats). For another estimate
of Holocene temperature fluctuations, see: [2]
http://www.atmo.arizona.edu/students/courselinks/fall04/atmo336/lectures/sec5/holocene.html
<end quote>

So the authors are aware of the uncertainties in the analysis. Here's
more of what they have to say about it:

<begin quote>
While any conclusions to be drawn from the long-term average must be
considered crude and potentially controversial, one can comment on a
number of well established inferences from the individual curves
contributing to the average. First, at many locations, there exist large
temperature fluctuations on multi-centennial scales. Hence, climate change
lasting for centuries appears to be a common feature of many regions.
Assuming the timing information from these records is reasonably accurate,
it appears that in many cases large changes at any particular site may
occur without correlating to similarly large changes at other sites.
Secondly, it is also notable that different locations appear to take
different amounts of time to reach typical Holocene conditions following
the last glacial termination. Scientists generally agree that warming
concluded in the far Southern Hemisphere earlier than in most other
regions. In part, the prolonged climate change may be related to prolonged
changes in sea level, which took till roughly 7000 years ago to reach near
modern levels. Some of the differences may also reflect timescale
uncertainties.
<end quote>

Do you really think anything in there supports the wild claims that
are being made about AGW? With a signal to noise ratio that bad,
you could make the data say whatever you want. It looks totally bogus to
me. Surely even you can do better than that.

Ignore the Exxon Crackpot Brigade

unread,

Mar 20, 2007, 9:36:38 AM3/20/07

to

Ignore the Exxon Crackpot Brigade

unread,

Mar 20, 2007, 9:37:30 AM3/20/07

to

Vendicar Decarian

unread,

Mar 20, 2007, 5:37:47 PM3/20/07

to

"Joe Fischer" <j...@BigScreenComputers.com> wrote

> How can "warming" translate to "ice age", here is
> the warming shown on that page, and the little "ice age"
> at the bottom right.

You mean that little .2'C decline in temperatures that took place over 800
years was a little ice age?

What do you call the .85'C temperature change that has occurred over the
last 100 years then?

The worlds scientists call it unprecedented.

Earth has warmest December-February on record by Veronica Smith

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The Earth has experienced its warmest December-February
since
records began 128 years ago, a US agency said in a report which has added
fire
to global warming concerns.

A record warm January worldwide pushed average temperatures to 1.3 degrees
Fahrenheit (0.72 degrees Celsius) above normal for the 20th century, the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said.

It was the highest average temperature for the period since records began in
1880, the NOAA, said in its report released on Thursday.

A UN panel said last month that global warming was almost certainly caused
by
human activity and several governments and international bodies have sounded
the
alarm over the need to cut carbon emissions.

Europe has had its hottest winter on record and European experts say the
spring
and summer are also likely to be the warmest ever.
The El Nino phenomenon, a periodic warming of surface ocean waters in the
eastern Pacific, contributed to the chart-busting combined global land and
ocean
surface temperature, the NOAA said.

But in February ocean temperatures in the central equatorial Pacific cooled
more
than 0.5 degrees F/0.3 degrees C and were near average for the month.
Nevertheless, the ocean-surface temperature in the period tied for second
warmest on record, the agency said, just 0.1 degree Fahrenheit (0.06 degrees
Celsius) cooler than the record established during the very strong El Nino
episode of 1997-1998.

The NOAA scientists pointed to a steady rise in temperatures in recent
decades.
During the past century, global surface temperatures have increased at a
rate
near 0.11 degrees F (0.06 degrees C) per decade.

"But the rate of increase has been three times larger since 1976, or 0.32
degrees F (0.18 degrees C) per decade, with some of the largest temperature
increases occurring in the high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere," they
said.

For the United States alone, the December 2006-February 2007 winter season
had
an overall temperature that was close to average, while December was the
11th
warmest on record.

The UN's Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change said last month that human
activity was almost certain to blame for global warming and warned that the
Earth's average surface temperature could rise between 1.1 and 6.4 degrees C
by
2100.

Fossil fuel pollution will raise temperatures this century, worsen floods,
droughts and hurricanes, melt polar ice and damage the climate system for a
thousand years to come, the UN's top panel on climate change said.
Experts say that if global warming trends continue, up to a third of the
world's
highest glaciers could melt away by 2050 and half will disappear by 2090.
The new sense of urgency comes with the Kyoto treaty, the world's first
serious
attempt to combat the problem, set to expire in 2012.

USPresident George W. Bush refused to adopt Kyoto, which excluded China,
India and other big emerging economies.

The NOAA, an agency of the USCommerce Department, said it was working
with its federal partners, more than 60 countries and theEuropean
Commission to develop a global monitoring network "that is as integrated as
the
planet it observes, predicts and protects."

Climatologists and weather forecasters across Europe have warned that record
warm weather is likely to continue through the spring.
"The average temperature for the three months of spring (March, April, May)
will
be above normal," said French climatologist Michel Schneider, though he did
not
rule out the possibility of a cold snap or two.

Vendicar Decarian

unread,

Mar 20, 2007, 8:11:32 PM3/20/07

to

"Bill Ward" <bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote in

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Holocene_Temperature_Variations_Rev_png
>
> Nice link Scotty. You should have someone read and interpret it for you
> sometime.

It is, and shows the current temperature to be higher than at any time
since the last period of glaciation.

Now where on that plot is that little ice age that you have been
ignorantly blathering about?

Ahahahahaha... I still don't see it.

"Bill Ward" <bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote in

> Because of the limitations of data sampling, each curve in the main plot
> was smoothed (see methods below) and consequently, this figure can not
> resolve temperature fluctuations faster than approximately 300 years.
> Further, while 2004 appears warmer than any other time in the long-term
> average, an observation that might be a sign of global warming, it should
> also be noted that the 2004 measurement is from a single year (see
> Image:Short Instrumental Temperature Record.png for comparison to other
> years). It is impossible to know whether similarly large short-term
> temperature fluctuations may have occurred at other times but are
> unresolved by the resolution available in this figure. The next 150 years
> will determine whether the long-term average centered on the present
> appears anomalous with respect to this plot.

Ahahahahaha... So you are going to wait another 150 years to see if the
current temperature trend is anomolous.

Gee honey I think we are going to crash into that tree in 10 seconds, but
I'm gonna wait for 15 seconds to make sure that we were indeed traveling
toward the tree in question.

Ahahahahahahahah.....

You Pathetic Dung Eating moron.

"Bill Ward" <bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote in

> Do you really think anything in there supports the wild claims that
> are being made about AGW? With a signal to noise ratio that bad,
> you could make the data say whatever you want. It looks totally bogus to
> me. Surely even you can do better than that.

Ocean Acidification Predicted To Harm Shellfish, Aquaculture

Following the acid rain issue, we now have to solve a new acid
environmental problem: the oceans are turning sourer. Because of the
growing anthropogenic emission of CO2, more of that greenhouse gas is
going into the ocean. This carbonic acid gas is acidifying the surface
water. The past two centuries of industrialisation showed a decrease of
0.1 unit of pH .The average acidity of the ocean level is presently just
above 8. The sea absorbs 25 million tons of CO2 each day. If this
continues at the same rate, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) predicts a further decline of up to 0.35 by the end of the century.
In such water the balance is tipping: calcification gets slower. Sea life
that needs calcium carbonate for its shell (like mussels) or skeleton
(like corals) are hindered. And at higher CO2 concentrations the mussel
shell even dissolves, discovered NIOO biologist Frédéric Gazeau.

To test the effects of a high-CO2 world on shellfish, Gazeau and his
colleagues from NIOO and France (Centre National de la Recherche
Scientifique / Université Pierre et Marie Curie) built a small sea in the
lab. Exposure of the edible mussels (Mytilus edulis) and Pacific oysters
(Crassostrea gigas) to more acid conditions for a few hours resulted in
immediate diminishing of shell calcification. These animals calcify to
strengthen their shells and thereby their suit of armour. For those
interested in the details: the additional CO2 causes a decrease of the
degree of acidity (making the water more acid) and of the carbonate
(CO32-) concentration in the water, and this impedes the deposition of
calcium carbonate. 'The mussels proved to be a lot more sensitive to
rising CO2 levels than the oysters.' The oysters are using another
crystalline form of calcium carbonate for their shells.

In 2002 people around the world produced 11.7 million tons of shellfish,
representing a value of 10.5 billion dollars. Almost 15 % of this
concerned Pacific oyster or mussel. Because of this major economic
importance a diminished yield of these species will have a large financial
impact. Besides that, these species are invaluable for the biodiversity
and nature in general along our shorelines. The so-called "ecosystem
engineers" create the right underwater climate for other life at the spot.
Also, shellfish are an important food source for birds.

Marine biologist Gazeau is now busy preparing the sequel to the shellfish
experiment. 'In this new and longer experiment we will follow mussels
under several CO2 concentrations during some months. This way, we will be
able to see if they can get used to the more acid conditions. That would
reduce the damage to these animals.' Another issue to study is the
response of the more sensitive shellfish larvae to a more acid future sea.
Note: This story has been adapted from a news release issued by
Netherlands Institute of Ecology.

Joe Fischer

unread,

Mar 20, 2007, 8:29:04 PM3/20/07

to

On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 13:37:47 -0800, "Vendicar Decarian"
<BushIsA...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>"Joe Fischer" <j...@BigScreenComputers.com> wrote
>> How can "warming" translate to "ice age", here is
>> the warming shown on that page, and the little "ice age"
>> at the bottom right.
>
> You mean that little .2'C decline in temperatures that took place over 800
>years was a little ice age?

I was talking about the apparent reversal of terms
in the prior message and pointing out what the text on
the graph said. I have no idea what it was.

> What do you call the .85'C temperature change that has occurred over the
>last 100 years then?

Good news?

> The worlds scientists call it unprecedented.

Opinions are as meaningless as an "average"
temperature, maybe the whole community of climate
"scientists" are goofballs, I have no idea, but it is
moronic to average below freezing temperatures
with above freezing temperatures because there
is more heat energy needed to make the phase
change than the total range of temperatures for
any date.

"Scientists" are welcome to try to refute this,
I have the utmost respect for science, and facts are
essential to science.
I have seen numbers for the "climatologists"
working for the UN IPCC, and wonder where they
all came from, a college degree and little meteorological
experience seems a poor excuse for calling them
"scientists".

Is there anybody here that has any understanding
of heat energy at all? The process of evaporation,
at any temperature, requires more heat than raising
a pound of water 900 degrees F, or, more heat than
raising 900 pounds of water one degree F, how can
any "scientist" average the temperature of dry air and
moist air and expect to get a meaningful result?

Air only weighs about one ounce per cubic foot,
so 900 pounds of water is equivalent to a lot of air.

The spammers here can post all the stupid
purely political "ignore" messages they want, it is
not going to prevent real scientists from reading
this and real scientists know that temperature is
not a measure of heat energy.

Temperature and mass and specific heat
can be used to calculate heat energy, but that
doesn't make the stupid idea of an average
temperature any more meaningful than an
outhouse rumor.

I may not be the smartest or the fastest thinking
person in the world, but eventually I can wade through
the bull manure, I have high boots.

I don't like putting any person on the spot by
direct criticism or ridicule, but I feel obligated to respond
to what appears to be a news release you clumsily posted;

>Earth has warmest December-February on record by Veronica Smith

I suppose that should read;

>"Earth has warmest December-February on record"
> by Veronica Smith

>WASHINGTON (AFP) - The Earth has experienced its warmest December-February
>since records began 128 years ago, a US agency said in a report which has added
>fire to global warming concerns.

What is "AFP"? Is the author a "scientist"?

Is this thing you posted supposed to be an official
government news release?

>A record warm January worldwide pushed average temperatures to 1.3 degrees
>Fahrenheit (0.72 degrees Celsius) above normal for the 20th century, the
>National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said.

Oh, the author is describing his/her opinion of what
an official NOAA news release said?

Where is the link to that document?

This is the 21st century, isn't it? And there has only
been 6 or 7 years of it.

>It was the highest average temperature for the period since records began in
>1880, the NOAA, said in its report released on Thursday.

Where is the link? What is the title of the document?

And since it is talking about January, then there must
be a lot of observation sites reporting temperatures below
freezing, which makes the heat energy content of the
measured media totally different from "temperature".

>A UN panel said last month that global warming was almost certainly caused
>by
>human activity and several governments and international bodies have sounded
>the
>alarm over the need to cut carbon emissions.

Who cares, why quote one government agency report
and then use a non-governmental "panel" opinion as an
argument for the importance of the event?

>Europe has had its hottest winter on record

The last I heard in the last week or so they have
had some pretty severe snow storms.

>and European experts say the
>spring and summer are also likely to be the warmest ever.

European "fortune teller" experts, foretelling the future?

>The El Nino phenomenon, a periodic warming of surface ocean waters in the
>eastern Pacific, contributed to the chart-busting combined global land and
>ocean surface temperature, the NOAA said.

If water temperatures were used, then there is
more heat energy content than in air temperatures.

>But in February ocean temperatures in the central equatorial Pacific cooled
>more than 0.5 degrees F/0.3 degrees C and were near average for the month.

That was fast, wasn't it? Maybe by the end of
the year, the temperatures will be below normal, will that
be big news then?

>Nevertheless, the ocean-surface temperature in the period tied for second
>warmest on record, the agency said, just 0.1 degree Fahrenheit (0.06 degrees
>Celsius) cooler than the record established during the very strong El Nino
>episode of 1997-1998.

But how many years of data is available on El Nino
temperatures, and what was the temperatures in the La Nina's?

>The NOAA scientists pointed to a steady rise in temperatures in recent
>decades.

Using flawed properties of matter, the "temperature"
is not a measure of heat energy, most early data readings
were just highs and lows, which doesn't give a minute by
minute or hour by hour record of the conditions.

>During the past century, global surface temperatures have increased at a
>rate near 0.11 degrees F (0.06 degrees C) per decade.

More good news?

>"But the rate of increase has been three times larger since 1976, or 0.32
>degrees F (0.18 degrees C) per decade, with some of the largest temperature
>increases occurring in the high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere," they
>said.

Who said, NOAA the UN panel?

>For the United States alone, the December 2006-February 2007 winter season
>had an overall temperature that was close to average,

Boy, that is a relief, it would be awful to have
temperatures other than near average.

>while December was the 11th warmest on record.

Let's see, 11th out of 126 years of record keeping?

>The UN's Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change said last month that human
>activity was almost certain to blame for global warming and warned that the
>Earth's average surface temperature could rise between 1.1 and 6.4 degrees C
>by 2100.

Too bad none of us will be here to enjoy it.

>Fossil fuel pollution will raise temperatures this century, worsen floods,
>droughts and hurricanes, melt polar ice and damage the climate system for a
>thousand years to come, the UN's top panel on climate change said.

Back to fortune telling now? A thousand years?

Boy, that panel must have a special connection to
a time machine.

>Experts say that if global warming trends continue, up to a third of the
>world's
>highest glaciers could melt away by 2050 and half will disappear by 2090.

I don't believe that, but then the mile thick glacier
that was where I am now has melted, all in 18,000 years.

>The new sense of urgency comes with the Kyoto treaty, the world's first
>serious attempt to combat the problem, set to expire in 2012.

They should have planned a longer program,
what will we do after 2012?

>USPresident George W. Bush refused to adopt Kyoto, which excluded China,
>India and other big emerging economies.

I thought it was the Senate that refused to ratify
Clinton's signature.

>The NOAA, an agency of the USCommerce Department, said it was working
>with its federal partners, more than 60 countries and theEuropean
>Commission to develop a global monitoring network "that is as integrated as
>the planet it observes, predicts and protects."

Then they need to start using data more meaningful
than temperature alone. And stop massaging data.
And stop adding and removing observation sites,
it is essential to use only the same observation sites all
the way through a study.

>Climatologists and weather forecasters across Europe have warned that record
>warm weather is likely to continue through the spring.

Sounds great, but I won't count on it.

>"The average temperature for the three months of spring (March, April, May)
>will be above normal," said French climatologist Michel Schneider, though he did
>not rule out the possibility of a cold snap or two.

It is the cold snap or two that I don't like.

My apology if I stepped on anybody's toes.

Joe Fischer

Exxon's Dick Pumping Hanson's Mouth

unread,

Mar 20, 2007, 9:48:08 PM3/20/07

to

On Mar 20, 4:29 pm, Joe Fischer <j...@BigScreenComputers.com> wrote:

> "Scientists" are welcome to try to refute this,
> I have the utmost respect for science, and facts are
> essential to science.
> I have seen numbers for the "climatologists"
> working for the UN IPCC, and wonder where they
> all came from, a college degree and little meteorological
> experience seems a poor excuse for calling them
> "scientists".

Crackpot. You can't see the numbers without the citation references.
Real scientists cite their statements with references. You lie if you
say you saw one without the other. Of course you yourself can prove
you are not a liar by linking to where you saw the numbers without the
citations. Go ahead. Take your time, Crackpot.

> The spammers here can post all the stupid
> purely political "ignore" messages they want, it is
> not going to prevent real scientists from reading
> this and real scientists know that temperature is
> not a measure of heat energy.

Not only real scientists, but real bakers know what temperature and
heat energy are. Ever bought a loaf of bread? Cookies? Pizza Pie?
Cooked Crackpot?

> Temperature and mass and specific heat
> can be used to calculate heat energy, but that
> doesn't make the stupid idea of an average
> temperature any more meaningful than an
> outhouse rumor.

Complain to your local TV stations to stop putting phony temperature
on their weather reports. Write your congressman to get the National
Weather Service to stop defacing maps of the US with non-existent hi/
lo temperatures all over them. My god man, this is bigger than the
Roswell UFO cover-up. Call A Current Affair to do an expose'.

> I may not be the smartest or the fastest thinking
> person in the world,

Yeah, we see that. Crackpot.

> And since it is talking about January, then there must
> be a lot of observation sites reporting temperatures below
> freezing, which makes the heat energy content of the
> measured media totally different from "temperature".

> My apology if I stepped on anybody's toes.
>
> Joe Fischer

So, do you think that mercury in a sealed tube gives a damn about
whether or not water is freezing outside?

Those weren't "toes" you stepped on. Out here in Texas we call them
cowpies, Crackpot.

Joe Fischer

unread,

Mar 20, 2007, 10:23:15 PM3/20/07

to

On 20 Mar 2007 <Global....@ARMY.com> wrote:

>On Mar 20, 4:29 pm, Joe Fischer <j...@BigScreenComputers.com> wrote:
>> "Scientists" are welcome to try to refute this,
>> I have the utmost respect for science, and facts are
>> essential to science.
>> I have seen numbers for the "climatologists"
>> working for the UN IPCC, and wonder where they
>> all came from, a college degree and little meteorological
>> experience seems a poor excuse for calling them
>> "scientists".
>
>Crackpot. You can't see the numbers without the citation references.
>Real scientists cite their statements with references. You lie if you
>say you saw one without the other. Of course you yourself can prove
>you are not a liar by linking to where you saw the numbers without the
>citations. Go ahead. Take your time, Crackpot.

I will accept your number, was it 10,000 "scientists"

>> The spammers here can post all the stupid
>> purely political "ignore" messages they want, it is
>> not going to prevent real scientists from reading
>> this and real scientists know that temperature is
>> not a measure of heat energy.
>
>Not only real scientists, but real bakers know what temperature and
>heat energy are. Ever bought a loaf of bread? Cookies? Pizza Pie?
>Cooked Crackpot?

I have baked hundreds of loafs of bread, but
that was more than 60 years ago.

I said nothing about the veracity of the data,
my remarks were about "averaging" temperatures.

>> Temperature and mass and specific heat
>> can be used to calculate heat energy, but that
>> doesn't make the stupid idea of an average
>> temperature any more meaningful than an
>> outhouse rumor.
>
>Complain to your local TV stations to stop putting phony temperature
>on their weather reports.

I said nothing about the temperature date, dummy.

>Write your congressman to get the National
>Weather Service to stop defacing maps of the US with non-existent hi/
>lo temperatures all over them.

The temperatures are what the thermometers said,
learn the difference between data recording and playing
fortune teller with the results.

>My god man, this is bigger than the
>Roswell UFO cover-up. Call A Current Affair to do an expose'.

Not hardly, while UFOs made the headlines,
it was all a non-event, I flew from Randolph Field to
Godman Field with the base commander in 1947,
UFOs were not mentioned.

>> I may not be the smartest or the fastest thinking
>> person in the world,
>
>Yeah, we see that. Crackpot.

Glad you are so observant, too bad you know
so little about heat energy.

>> And since it is talking about January, then there must
>> be a lot of observation sites reporting temperatures below
>> freezing, which makes the heat energy content of the
>> measured media totally different from "temperature".
>
>> My apology if I stepped on anybody's toes.
>> Joe Fischer
>
>So, do you think that mercury in a sealed tube gives a damn about
>whether or not water is freezing outside?

Recorded temperatures are accepted, thousands
of "scientists" taking those readings and making something
they are not, is not accepted by me.

>Those weren't "toes" you stepped on. Out here in Texas we call them
>cowpies, Crackpot.

Sorry if I stepped on your dinner.

Joe Fischer

Exxon's Dick Pumping Hanson's Mouth

unread,

Mar 20, 2007, 11:31:42 PM3/20/07

to

On Mar 20, 6:23 pm, Joe Fischer <j...@BigScreenComputers.com> wrote:

> Recorded temperatures are accepted, thousands
> of "scientists" taking those readings and making something
> they are not, is not accepted by me.

> Joe Fischer

It's all a great big worldwide conspiracy of scientists to make you
look like a Crackpot Joe Fischer.

kwag...@gmail.com

unread,

Mar 21, 2007, 10:15:30 AM3/21/07

to

On Mar 20, 7:29 pm, Joe Fischer <j...@BigScreenComputers.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 13:37:47 -0800, "Vendicar Decarian"
>

> <BushIsATrai...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >"Joe Fischer" <j...@BigScreenComputers.com> wrote
> >> How can "warming" translate to "ice age", here is
> >> the warming shown on that page, and the little "ice age"
> >> at the bottom right.
>
> > You mean that little .2'C decline in temperatures that took place over 800
> >years was a little ice age?
>
> I was talking about the apparent reversal of terms
> in the prior message and pointing out what the text on
> the graph said. I have no idea what it was.
>
> > What do you call the .85'C temperature change that has occurred over the
> >last 100 years then?
>
> Good news?
>
> > The worlds scientists call it unprecedented.
>
> Opinions are as meaningless as an "average"
> temperature, maybe the whole community of climate
> "scientists" are goofballs,

You may already be aware of it, but might I recommend Stephen
McIntyre's blog at:

www.climateaudit.org

He is building a pretty good case that, yes, the scientists who've
been instrumental in "proving" AGW are in fact not very likely to be
using good methods or data.

kwag...@gmail.com

unread,

Mar 21, 2007, 10:20:09 AM3/21/07

to

On Mar 19, 8:57 pm, "Exxon Liars & Thieves"

<Exxon.Liars.and.Thie...@Exxon-Turds.info> wrote:
> On Mar 19, 5:51 pm, kwag7...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Mar 18, 6:34 pm, "Vendicar Decarian" <BushIsATrai...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > "Horace Ontullman" <H...@barrow.rine> wrote in message
> > > > You don't remember the warming period 800 years ago?
>
> > > Nope, I have no recollection of it. And there is no recollection in the
> > > clamatological records.
>
> > Mayeb true but in the "climatological" records, a medieval warming is
> > shown. Poor typing doesn't justify your tricky rheotric.
>
> Crooked Amoral Adultery-Defender Kwag Crackpot, Ignore.
>
> Lying reich-winger. Global Warming exists, because it is accurately
> measured. Climate change has happened already and is recorded
> worldwide and is documented. It is caused by humans without a doubt.
> It harms the rich and poor both but threatens the poor the most
> because they can't afford the defenses that the rich can buy to make
> accommodations, like air conditioning or deeper well or flood control
> measures.

Crop yields will likely go through the roof and previously
uninhabitable areas will become habitable. Perhaps previously
habitable areas will become uninhabitable as well. Declaring debate
closed is nothing like doing a legitimate CBA and making an informed
judgement.

Lloyd

unread,

Mar 21, 2007, 10:55:09 AM3/21/07

to

On Mar 20, 8:29 pm, Joe Fischer <j...@BigScreenComputers.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 13:37:47 -0800, "Vendicar Decarian"
>

> <BushIsATrai...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >"Joe Fischer" <j...@BigScreenComputers.com> wrote
> >> How can "warming" translate to "ice age", here is
> >> the warming shown on that page, and the little "ice age"
> >> at the bottom right.
>
> > You mean that little .2'C decline in temperatures that took place over 800
> >years was a little ice age?
>
> I was talking about the apparent reversal of terms
> in the prior message and pointing out what the text on
> the graph said. I have no idea what it was.
>
> > What do you call the .85'C temperature change that has occurred over the
> >last 100 years then?
>
> Good news?
>
> > The worlds scientists call it unprecedented.
>
> Opinions are as meaningless as an "average"
> temperature, maybe the whole community of climate
> "scientists" are goofballs, I have no idea, but it is
> moronic to average below freezing temperatures
> with above freezing temperatures because there
> is more heat energy needed to make the phase
> change than the total range of temperatures for
> any date.

So since it's just "opinion" that the earth rotates, it's equally
valid that it doesn't? Cuckoo!

>
> "Scientists" are welcome to try to refute this,
> I have the utmost respect for science, and facts are
> essential to science.

So learn them!

> I have seen numbers for the "climatologists"
> working for the UN IPCC, and wonder where they
> all came from, a college degree and little meteorological
> experience seems a poor excuse for calling them
> "scientists".
>
> Is there anybody here that has any understanding
> of heat energy at all? The process of evaporation,
> at any temperature, requires more heat than raising
> a pound of water 900 degrees F, or, more heat than
> raising 900 pounds of water one degree F, how can
> any "scientist" average the temperature of dry air and
> moist air and expect to get a meaningful result?
>

Because neither process is happening that quickly.

> Air only weighs about one ounce per cubic foot,
> so 900 pounds of water is equivalent to a lot of air.
>
> The spammers here can post all the stupid
> purely political "ignore" messages they want, it is
> not going to prevent real scientists from reading
> this and real scientists know that temperature is
> not a measure of heat energy.
>

measure of the quantity of thermal energy in a substance. High
temperature indicates more heat energy than low temperature. From U.
Texas

> Temperature and mass and specific heat
> can be used to calculate heat energy, but that
> doesn't make the stupid idea of an average
> temperature any more meaningful than an
> outhouse rumor.
>
> I may not be the smartest or the fastest thinking
> person in the world, but eventually I can wade through
> the bull manure, I have high boots.
>

Yeah, sure, all the scientists are wrong and only you see the truth.

Mostly, people like that are in institutions, and I don't mean of
higher learning.

> I don't like putting any person on the spot by
> direct criticism or ridicule, but I feel obligated to respond
> to what appears to be a news release you clumsily posted;
>
> >Earth has warmest December-February on record by Veronica Smith
>
> I suppose that should read;
>
> >"Earth has warmest December-February on record"
> > by Veronica Smith
> >WASHINGTON (AFP) - The Earth has experienced its warmest December-February
> >since records began 128 years ago, a US agency said in a report which has added
> >fire to global warming concerns.
>
> What is "AFP"? Is the author a "scientist"?
>

No, it's obviously a news source -- Agence France-Presse. Do you know
about Google?

> Is this thing you posted supposed to be an official
> government news release?
>
> >A record warm January worldwide pushed average temperatures to 1.3 degrees
> >Fahrenheit (0.72 degrees Celsius) above normal for the 20th century, the
> >National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said.
>
> Oh, the author is describing his/her opinion of what
> an official NOAA news release said?
>

No. "Said" has a specific meaning.

> Where is the link to that document?
>

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2007/s2819.htm

> This is the 21st century, isn't it? And there has only
> been 6 or 7 years of it.
>

It means this winter was warmer than any in the 20th century.

> >It was the highest average temperature for the period since records began in
> >1880, the NOAA, said in its report released on Thursday.
>
> Where is the link? What is the title of the document?
>
> And since it is talking about January, then there must
> be a lot of observation sites reporting temperatures below
> freezing, which makes the heat energy content of the
> measured media totally different from "temperature".
>

And your science degree is?

> >A UN panel said last month that global warming was almost certainly caused
> >by
> >human activity and several governments and international bodies have sounded
> >the
> >alarm over the need to cut carbon emissions.
>
> Who cares, why quote one government agency report
> and then use a non-governmental "panel" opinion as an
> argument for the importance of the event?
>

The IPCC is a panel of thousands of climate scientists.

> >Europe has had its hottest winter on record
>
> The last I heard in the last week or so they have
> had some pretty severe snow storms.
>

You are unbelievable.

Look, fool: Real scientists understand this better than you.

> >During the past century, global surface temperatures have increased at a
> >rate near 0.11 degrees F (0.06 degrees C) per decade.
>
> More good news?
>
> >"But the rate of increase has been three times larger since 1976, or 0.32
> >degrees F (0.18 degrees C) per decade, with some of the largest temperature
> >increases occurring in the high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere," they
> >said.
>
> Who said, NOAA the UN panel?
>
> >For the United States alone, the December 2006-February 2007 winter season
> >had an overall temperature that was close to average,
>
> Boy, that is a relief, it would be awful to have
> temperatures other than near average.
>
> >while December was the 11th warmest on record.
>
> Let's see, 11th out of 126 years of record keeping?
>
> >The UN's Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change said last month that human
> >activity was almost certain to blame for global warming and warned that the
> >Earth's average surface temperature could rise between 1.1 and 6.4 degrees C
> >by 2100.
>
> Too bad none of us will be here to enjoy it.
>

Or a meteorite than hits.

> >Fossil fuel pollution will raise temperatures this century, worsen floods,
> >droughts and hurricanes, melt polar ice and damage the climate system for a
> >thousand years to come, the UN's top panel on climate change said.
>
> Back to fortune telling now? A thousand years?
>
> Boy, that panel must have a special connection to
> a time machine.
>
> >Experts say that if global warming trends continue, up to a third of the
> >world's
> >highest glaciers could melt away by 2050 and half will disappear by 2090.
>
> I don't believe that,

Because you're stupid.

>but then the mile thick glacier
> that was where I am now has melted, all in 18,000 years.
>
> >The new sense of urgency comes with the Kyoto treaty, the world's first
> >serious attempt to combat the problem, set to expire in 2012.
>
> They should have planned a longer program,
> what will we do after 2012?
>
> >USPresident George W. Bush refused to adopt Kyoto, which excluded China,
> >India and other big emerging economies.
>
> I thought it was the Senate that refused to ratify
> Clinton's signature.
>

Then you thought wrong.

> >The NOAA, an agency of the USCommerce Department, said it was working
> >with its federal partners, more than 60 countries and theEuropean
> >Commission to develop a global monitoring network "that is as integrated as
> >the planet it observes, predicts and protects."
>
> Then they need to start using data more meaningful
> than temperature alone. And stop massaging data.
> And stop adding and removing observation sites,
> it is essential to use only the same observation sites all
> the way through a study.
>

You need to learn some science.

> >Climatologists and weather forecasters across Europe have warned that record
> >warm weather is likely to continue through the spring.
>
> Sounds great, but I won't count on it.
>
> >"The average temperature for the three months of spring (March, April, May)
> >will be above normal," said French climatologist Michel Schneider, though he did
> >not rule out the possibility of a cold snap or two.
>
> It is the cold snap or two that I don't like.
>
> My apology if I stepped on anybody's toes.
>
> Joe Fischer

You should apologize for being dumb (and flaunting it).

Lloyd

unread,

Mar 21, 2007, 10:56:29 AM3/21/07

to

On Mar 21, 10:15 am, kwag7...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Mar 20, 7:29 pm, Joe Fischer <j...@BigScreenComputers.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 13:37:47 -0800, "Vendicar Decarian"
>
> > <BushIsATrai...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >"Joe Fischer" <j...@BigScreenComputers.com> wrote
> > >> How can "warming" translate to "ice age", here is
> > >> the warming shown on that page, and the little "ice age"
> > >> at the bottom right.
>
> > > You mean that little .2'C decline in temperatures that took place over 800
> > >years was a little ice age?
>
> > I was talking about the apparent reversal of terms
> > in the prior message and pointing out what the text on
> > the graph said. I have no idea what it was.
>
> > > What do you call the .85'C temperature change that has occurred over the
> > >last 100 years then?
>
> > Good news?
>
> > > The worlds scientists call it unprecedented.
>
> > Opinions are as meaningless as an "average"
> > temperature, maybe the whole community of climate
> > "scientists" are goofballs,
>
> You may already be aware of it, but might I recommend Stephen
> McIntyre's blog at:
>
> www.climateaudit.org
>

Or you can go to www.fixedearth and read about the earth not rotating
or going around the sun.

> He is building a pretty good case that, yes, the scientists who've
> been instrumental in "proving" AGW are in fact not very likely to be
> using good methods or data.

Creationists usually sound convincing to the ignorant and gullible.

kwag...@gmail.com

unread,

Mar 21, 2007, 11:57:34 AM3/21/07

to

On Mar 21, 9:56 am, "Lloyd" <lpar...@emory.edu> wrote:
> On Mar 21, 10:15 am, kwag7...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 20, 7:29 pm, Joe Fischer <j...@BigScreenComputers.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 13:37:47 -0800, "Vendicar Decarian"
>
> > > <BushIsATrai...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > >"Joe Fischer" <j...@BigScreenComputers.com> wrote
> > > >> How can "warming" translate to "ice age", here is
> > > >> the warming shown on that page, and the little "ice age"
> > > >> at the bottom right.
>
> > > > You mean that little .2'C decline in temperatures that took place over 800
> > > >years was a little ice age?
>
> > > I was talking about the apparent reversal of terms
> > > in the prior message and pointing out what the text on
> > > the graph said. I have no idea what it was.
>
> > > > What do you call the .85'C temperature change that has occurred over the
> > > >last 100 years then?
>
> > > Good news?
>
> > > > The worlds scientists call it unprecedented.
>
> > > Opinions are as meaningless as an "average"
> > > temperature, maybe the whole community of climate
> > > "scientists" are goofballs,
>
> > You may already be aware of it, but might I recommend Stephen
> > McIntyre's blog at:
>
> >www.climateaudit.org
>

> Or you can go towww.fixedearthand read about the earth not rotating

> or going around the sun.
>
> > He is building a pretty good case that, yes, the scientists who've
> > been instrumental in "proving" AGW are in fact not very likely to be
> > using good methods or data.
>
> Creationists usually sound convincing to the ignorant and gullible.

Actually, creationists sound lunatic to the ignorant. It takes
someone sophisticated in religion to buy the whole invisible guy in
the sky argument.

How is ad hominem argumentation supposed to refute what climateaudit
is doing which is a big smackdown of the methodology used by AGW
climatologists?