John McCain refutes a global warming denier
Roger Coppock
at an event in Spartanburg, SC, on February 18, 2007.
Please watch:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9150415991320412693
No matter which of the top three candidates wins,
with the swearing in of the new US President,
Global Warming wins the political battle.
The current administrations do-noting and
know-nothing policies are a thing of the past.
The world is going to start controlling CO2.
A few kooks and their fantasies will remain
behind, barking their pseudo-science at the
moon.
Claudius Denk
Well, Roger. Considering your normal source for your scientific
insights include Japanese schoolchildren and high-school science
projects I think it's encouraging that at least now your source is an
adult.
Roger Coppock
> On May 13, 7:16 am, Roger Coppock <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote:
> > Senator John McCain (R-AZ) refutes a global warming denier
> > at an event in Spartanburg, SC, on February 18, 2007.
> >
> > Please watch:
> >
> > http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9150415991320412693
> >
> > No matter which of the top three candidates wins,
> > with the swearing in of the new US President,
> > Global Warming wins the political battle.
> > The current administrations do-noting and
> > know-nothing policies are a thing of the past.
> > The world is going to start controlling CO2.
> > A few kooks and their fantasies will remain
> > behind, barking their pseudo-science at the
> > Moon.
>
> Well, Roger. Considering your normal source for your scientific
> insights include Japanese schoolchildren and high-school science
> projects I think it's encouraging that at least now your source is an
> adult.
. . . barking at the Moon.
hurt_beyo...@yahoo.com
> No matter which of the top three candidates wins,
> with the swearing in of the new US President,
> Global Warming wins the political battle.
Paying homage to the god of global warming is not a bad strategy but I
doubt it will win over many of the imbecilic meterosexuals. At best
it might keep them at home washing their SUVs or something on election
day.
Ouroboros_Rex
"Claudius Denk" <claudi...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:cc7c91eb-86b7-456c...@w4g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
LOL Poor claudia lies, and lies, and lies, and lies....
Tell us more about beach chimps, Claudia!
alanm...@yahoo.com
> at an event in Spartanburg, SC, on February 18, 2007.
>
> Please watch:
>
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9150415991320412693
>
McCain REFUTED nothing!- A. McIntire
00ZNB
news:11b5f8c1-4aa8-4cec...@n1g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
> Senator John McCain (R-AZ) refutes a global warming denier
> at an event in Spartanburg, SC, on February 18, 2007.
> Please watch:
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9150415991320412693
>
ROTFLMAO
He just spouted the usual dogma.
So this is your idea of a refutation?
... how scientific of you NOT!
--
Warmest Regards
Bonzo
".it should not be surprising to see hordes of former Reds, or of those
who otherwise would have become Reds, turning from Marxism and becoming
the Greens of the ecology movement. It is the same fundamental
philosophy in a different guise, ready as ever to wage war on the
freedom and well-being of the individual." Dr. George Reisman's book
Capitalism
00ZNB
news:11b5f8c1-4aa8-4cec...@n1g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
> at an event in Spartanburg, SC, on February 18, 2007.
> Please watch:
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9150415991320412693
>
00ZNB
news:11b5f8c1-4aa8-4cec...@n1g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
> at an event in Spartanburg, SC, on February 18, 2007.
> Please watch:
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9150415991320412693
>
00ZNB
"Roger Coppock" <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote in message
news:11b5f8c1-4aa8-4cec...@n1g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
> at an event in Spartanburg, SC, on February 18, 2007.
****************************
Now this is a refutation!
Common Misconceptions About Global Warming
http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=3
MYTH 1: Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate.
FACT: Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made
over the last three decades have not shown any significant change in the
long term rate of increase in global temperatures. Average ground
station readings do show a mild warming of 0.6 to 0.8C over the last 100
years, which is well within the natural variations recorded in the last
millennium. The ground station network suffers from an uneven
distribution across the globe; the stations are preferentially located
in growing urban and industrial areas ("heat islands"), which show
substantially higher readings than adjacent rural areas ("land use
effects").
There has been no catastrophic warming recorded.
MYTH 2: The "hockey stick" graph proves that the earth has experienced
a steady, very gradual temperature decrease for 1000 years, then
recently began a sudden increase.
FACT: Significant changes in climate have continually occurred
throughout geologic time. For instance, the Medieval Warm Period, from
around 1000 to1200 AD (when the Vikings farmed on Greenland) was
followed by a period known as the Little Ice Age. Since the end of the
17th Century the "average global temperature" has been rising at the low
steady rate mentioned above; although from 1940 - 1970 temperatures
actually dropped, leading to a Global Cooling scare.
The "hockey stick", a poster boy of both the UN's IPCC and Canada's
Environment Department, ignores historical recorded climatic swings, and
has now also been proven to be flawed and statistically unreliable as
well. It is a computer construct and a faulty one at that.
MYTH 3: Human produced carbon dioxide has increased over the last 100
years, adding to the Greenhouse effect, thus warming the earth.
FACT: Carbon dioxide levels have indeed changed for various reasons,
human and otherwise, just as they have throughout geologic time. Since
the beginning of the industrial revolution, the CO2 content of the
atmosphere has increased. The RATE of growth during this period has also
increased from about 0.2% per year to the present rate of about 0.4% per
year,which growth rate has now been constant for the past 25 years.
However, there is no proof that CO2 is the main driver of global
warming. As measured in ice cores dated over many thousands of years,
CO2 levels move up and down AFTER the temperature has done so, and thus
are the RESULT OF, NOT THE CAUSE of warming. Geological field work in
recent sediments confirms this causal relationship. There is solid
evidence that, as temperatures move up and down naturally and cyclically
through solar radiation, orbital and galactic influences, the warming
surface layers of the earth's oceans expel more CO2 as a result.
MYTH 4: CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas.
FACT: Greenhouse gases form about 3 % of the atmosphere by volume. They
consist of varying amounts, (about 97%) of water vapour and clouds, with
the remainder being gases like CO2, CH4, Ozone and N2O, of which carbon
dioxide is the largest amount. Hence, CO2 constitutes about 0.037% of
the atmosphere. While the minor gases are more effective as "greenhouse
agents" than water vapour and clouds, the latter are overwhelming the
effect by their sheer volume and - in the end - are thought to be
responsible for 60% of the "Greenhouse effect".
Those attributing climate change to CO2 rarely mention this important
fact.
MYTH 5: Computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause
significant global warming.
FACT: The computer models assume that CO2 is the primary climate
driver, and that the Sun has an insignificant effect on climate. You
cannot use the output of a model to verify or prove its initial
assumption - that is circular reasoning and is illogical. Computer
models can be made to roughly match the 20th century temperature rise by
adjusting many input parameters and using strong positive feedbacks.
They do not "prove" anything. Also, computer models predicting global
warming are incapable of properly including the effects of the sun,
cosmic rays and the clouds. The sun is a major cause of temperature
variation on the earth surface as its received radiation changes all the
time, This happens largely in cyclical fashion. The number and the
lengths in time of sunspots can be correlated very closely with average
temperatures on earth, e.g. the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm
Period. Varying intensity of solar heat radiation affects the surface
temperature of the oceans and the currents. Warmer ocean water expels
gases, some of which are CO2. Solar radiation interferes with the cosmic
ray flux, thus influencing the amount ionized nuclei which control cloud
cover.
MYTH 6: The UN proved that man-made CO2 causes global warming.
FACT: In a 1996 report by the UN on global warming, two statements were
deleted from the final draft. Here they are:
1) "None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we
can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse
gases."
2) "No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the
climate change to man-made causes"
To the present day there is still no scientific proof that man-made CO2
causes significant global warming.
MYTH 7: CO2 is a pollutant.
FACT: This is absolutely not true. Nitrogen forms 80% of our
atmosphere. We could not live in 100% nitrogen either. Carbon dioxide is
no more a pollutant than nitrogen is. CO2 is essential to life on
earth. It is necessary for plant growth since increased CO2 intake as a
result of increased atmospheric concentration causes many trees and
other plants to grow more vigorously. Unfortunately, the Canadian
Government has included CO2 with a number of truly toxic and noxious
substances listed by the Environmental Protection Act, only as their
means to politically control it.
MYTH 8: Global warming will cause more storms and other weather
extremes.
FACT: There is no scientific or statistical evidence whatsoever that
supports such claims on a global scale. Regional variations may occur.
Growing insurance and infrastructure repair costs, particularly in
coastal areas, are sometimes claimed to be the result of increasing
frequency and severity of storms, whereas in reality they are a function
of increasing population density, escalating development value, and ever
more media reporting.
MYTH 9: Receding glaciers and the calving of ice shelves are proof of
global warming.
FACT: Glaciers have been receding and growing cyclically for hundreds
of years. Recent glacier melting is a consequence of coming out of the
very cool period of the Little Ice Age. Ice shelves have been breaking
off for centuries. Scientists know of at least 33 periods of glaciers
growing and then retreating. It's normal. Besides, glacier's health is
dependent as much on precipitation as on temperature.
MYTH 10: The earth's poles are warming; polar ice caps are breaking up
and melting and the sea level rising.
FACT: The earth is variable. The western Arctic may be getting somewhat
warmer, due to unrelated cyclic events in the Pacific Ocean, but the
Eastern Arctic and Greenland are getting colder. The small Palmer
Peninsula of Antarctica is getting warmer, while the main Antarctic
continent is actually cooling. Ice thicknesses are increasing both on
Greenland and in Antarctica.
Sea level monitoring in the Pacific (Tuvalu) and Indian Oceans
(Maldives) has shown no sign of any sea level rise.
--
Warnest Regards
Bonzo
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods
but by perpetual repetition." Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of
Meteorology, MIT
00ZNB
INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
May 13, 2008
http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=295571289462118
After the coldest April in 11 years, John McCain offers a "market
friendly" approach to global warming - saying we "have a genius for
adapting, solving problems."
But shouldn't the problems be real?
McCain is the last politician we'd accuse of pandering. His honesty,
steadfastness and independence have earned him the right to call his
campaign the Straight Talk Express.
So we were disappointed when, at an Oregon wind turbine manufacturer on
Monday, he seemed to embrace the shaky environmentalist position on
global warming.
Saying the costs of our reliance on fossil fuels "have added up now in
the atmosphere, in the oceans and all across the natural world," he
proposed that by 2050, the U.S. should reduce CO2 emissions to a level
60% below that emitted in 1990.
The question is, why?
Cold water was thrown on the climate-change disaster hypothesis by the
National Climate Data Center's recent announcement that last month was
the coldest April in more than a decade and the 29th coolest since
record keeping began 114 years ago.
The average temperature was 1 degree cooler than the average April
temperature of the entire 20th century.
A few weeks ago, as North America was emerging from one of its coldest
and snowiest winters in decades, the climate center issued a statement
saying that snow cover on the Eurasian land mass had been the most
extensive ever recorded, and that this March had been only the 63rd
warmest since 1895.
On April 24, the World Wildlife Fund published a study, based on last
September's data, showing that Arctic ice had shrunk from 13 million
square kilometers to just 3 million. What the WWF omitted was that by
March the Arctic ice had recovered to 14 million square kilometers and
that the ice cover around the Bering Strait and Alaska was at the
highest level ever recorded.
In fact, the United States already leads the world in both energy
efficiency per unit of GDP and control of CO2 emissions. We recently
pointed out that, according to the 2008 Index of Leading Economic
Indicators, U.S. emissions grew by 6.6% from 1997 to 2004, vs. 18% for
the world as a whole and 21.1% for those nations that signed the Kyoto
Protocol on greenhouse gases.
The U.S. reduced carbon emissions from natural gas and petroleum by 1.7%
and 1.5% from 2005 to 2006 and coal emissions by 0.9%. Energy intensity
(energy consumed per dollar of real GDP) fell more than 4% as total
energy declined 0.9% and the U.S. economy expanded 3.3%.
We were pleased that McCain endorsed nuclear power as a pollution-free
source of energy that can help us toward energy independence while
reducing emissions. But the fact is that we will need more energy, not
less, by 2050, from all sources. Both economic and technological growth
will demand more.
The nation that first split the atom should first stop splitting hairs
and revive nuclear power. We should also be taking more American oil out
of our soil. We are the Saudi Arabia of coal. McCain is right about our
ability to solve problems. The nation that put men on the moon can find
a way to burn coal cleanly.
We definitely should not subsidize burning food in our gas tanks. McCain
heroically opposed ethanol subsidies in 2000, running third in the Iowa
caucuses, and he rightly opposes them today. And we have nothing against
wind and solar, if they are economically competitive.
Our needs for more energy and less reliance on foreign sources are both
real and solvable. Global warming is debatable, both as to its causes
and its effects. By taking the lead on domestic energy, McCain could
help solve a real problem and make a clear distinction between himself
and his head-in-the-tundra opponents.
"00ZNB" <00...@ddoooo.com> wrote in message
news:482a6ca1$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
00ZNB
> "Roger Coppock" <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote in message
> news:11b5f8c1-4aa8-4cec...@n1g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
>> Senator John McCain (R-AZ) refutes a global warming denier
>> at an event in Spartanburg, SC, on February 18, 2007.
>> Please watch:
>> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9150415991320412693
>>
>
>
> ROTFLMAO
> He just spouted the usual dogma.
> So this is your idea of a refutation?
> ... how scientific of you NOT!
> --
McCain Should Stick To Real Problems
INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
May 13, 2008
http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=295571289462118
The question is, why?
--
Warmest Regards
Bonzo
"Attributing global climate change to human CO2 production is akin to
trying to diagnose an automotive problem by ignoring the engine
(analogous to the Sun in the climate system) and the transmission (water
vapour) and instead focusing entirely, not on one nut on a rear wheel,
which would be analogous to total CO2, but on one thread on that nut,
which represents the human contribution." Dr. Timothy Ball, Chairman of
the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (NRSP.com), Former Professor
Of Climatology, University of Winnipeg
00ZNB
> "Roger Coppock" <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote in message
> news:11b5f8c1-4aa8-4cec...@n1g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
>> Senator John McCain (R-AZ) refutes a global warming denier
>> at an event in Spartanburg, SC, on February 18, 2007.
>> Please watch:
>> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9150415991320412693
>>
>
>
> ROTFLMAO
> He just spouted the usual dogma.
> So this is your idea of a refutation?
> ... how scientific of you NOT!
> --
McCain Should Stick To Real Problems
INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
May 13, 2008
http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=295571289462118
The question is, why?
Warmest Regards
Bonzo
"CO2 variations show little correlation with our planet's climate on
long, medium and even short time scales." R. Timothy Patterson,
Professor Of Geology, Director Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Center,
Carleton University, Canada
00ZNB
> "Roger Coppock" <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote in message
> news:11b5f8c1-4aa8-4cec...@n1g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
>> Senator John McCain (R-AZ) refutes a global warming denier
>> at an event in Spartanburg, SC, on February 18, 2007.
>> Please watch:
>> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9150415991320412693
>>
>
> ROTFLMAO
> He just spouted the usual dogma.
> So this is your idea of a refutation?
> ... how scientific of you NOT!
> --
McCain Should Stick To Real Problems
INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
May 13, 2008
http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=295571289462118
The question is, why?
Warmest Regards
Bonzo
". researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Solar Research in Germany
report the sun has been burning more brightly over the last 60 years,
accounting for the 1 degree Celsius increase in Earth's temperature over
the last 100 years."
http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=287279412587175
Lloyd
> "Roger Coppock" <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote in message
>
> news:11b5f8c1-4aa8-4cec...@n1g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Senator John McCain (R-AZ) refutes a global warming denier
> > at an event in Spartanburg, SC, on February 18, 2007.
>
> ****************************
>
> Now this is a refutation!
>
> Common Misconceptions About Global Warming
>
> http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=3
>
Oh so many lies, where to start?
> MYTH 1: Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate.
>
> FACT: Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made
> over the last three decades have not shown any significant change in the
> long term rate of increase in global temperatures.
Lie 1
> Average ground
> station readings do show a mild warming of 0.6 to 0.8C over the last 100
> years, which is well within the natural variations recorded in the last
> millennium.
Lie 2
> The ground station network suffers from an uneven
> distribution across the globe; the stations are preferentially located
> in growing urban and industrial areas ("heat islands"), which show
> substantially higher readings than adjacent rural areas ("land use
> effects").
>
> There has been no catastrophic warming recorded.
>
> MYTH 2: The "hockey stick" graph proves that the earth has experienced
> a steady, very gradual temperature decrease for 1000 years, then
> recently began a sudden increase.
>
> FACT: Significant changes in climate have continually occurred
> throughout geologic time.
Not human history.
>For instance, the Medieval Warm Period, from
> around 1000 to1200 AD (when the Vikings farmed on Greenland) was
> followed by a period known as the Little Ice Age.
Not global.
>Since the end of the
> 17th Century the "average global temperature" has been rising at the low
> steady rate mentioned above; although from 1940 - 1970 temperatures
> actually dropped, leading to a Global Cooling scare.
>
Lie 3
> The "hockey stick", a poster boy of both the UN's IPCC and Canada's
> Environment Department, ignores historical recorded climatic swings, and
> has now also been proven to be flawed and statistically unreliable as
> well. It is a computer construct and a faulty one at that.
>
Lie 4
> MYTH 3: Human produced carbon dioxide has increased over the last 100
> years, adding to the Greenhouse effect, thus warming the earth.
>
> FACT: Carbon dioxide levels have indeed changed for various reasons,
> human and otherwise, just as they have throughout geologic time. Since
> the beginning of the industrial revolution, the CO2 content of the
> atmosphere has increased. The RATE of growth during this period has also
> increased from about 0.2% per year to the present rate of about 0.4% per
> year,which growth rate has now been constant for the past 25 years.
> However, there is no proof that CO2 is the main driver of global
> warming.
Lie 5
>As measured in ice cores dated over many thousands of years,
> CO2 levels move up and down AFTER the temperature has done so, and thus
> are the RESULT OF, NOT THE CAUSE of warming. Geological field work in
> recent sediments confirms this causal relationship. There is solid
> evidence that, as temperatures move up and down naturally and cyclically
> through solar radiation, orbital and galactic influences, the warming
> surface layers of the earth's oceans expel more CO2 as a result.
>
So why are the oceans gaining CO2 now?
> MYTH 4: CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas.
>
Strawman argument.
> FACT: Greenhouse gases form about 3 % of the atmosphere by volume. They
> consist of varying amounts, (about 97%) of water vapour and clouds, with
> the remainder being gases like CO2, CH4, Ozone and N2O, of which carbon
> dioxide is the largest amount. Hence, CO2 constitutes about 0.037% of
> the atmosphere. While the minor gases are more effective as "greenhouse
> agents" than water vapour and clouds, the latter are overwhelming the
> effect by their sheer volume and - in the end - are thought to be
> responsible for 60% of the "Greenhouse effect".
>
> Those attributing climate change to CO2 rarely mention this important
> fact.
>
> MYTH 5: Computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause
> significant global warming.
>
> FACT: The computer models assume that CO2 is the primary climate
> driver, and that the Sun has an insignificant effect on climate.
Lie 6
>You
> cannot use the output of a model to verify or prove its initial
> assumption - that is circular reasoning and is illogical. Computer
> models can be made to roughly match the 20th century temperature rise by
> adjusting many input parameters and using strong positive feedbacks.
> They do not "prove" anything. Also, computer models predicting global
> warming are incapable of properly including the effects of the sun,
> cosmic rays and the clouds. The sun is a major cause of temperature
> variation on the earth surface as its received radiation changes all the
> time, This happens largely in cyclical fashion. The number and the
> lengths in time of sunspots can be correlated very closely with average
> temperatures on earth, e.g. the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm
> Period. Varying intensity of solar heat radiation affects the surface
> temperature of the oceans and the currents. Warmer ocean water expels
> gases, some of which are CO2.
So why are the oceans gaining CO2 now?
>Solar radiation interferes with the cosmic
> ray flux, thus influencing the amount ionized nuclei which control cloud
> cover.
>
> MYTH 6: The UN proved that man-made CO2 causes global warming.
>
> FACT: In a 1996 report by the UN on global warming, two statements were
> deleted from the final draft. Here they are:
>
There's a later report, doofus.
> 1) "None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we
> can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse
> gases."
>
Lie 7
> 2) "No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the
> climate change to man-made causes"
>
Lie 8
> To the present day there is still no scientific proof that man-made CO2
> causes significant global warming.
>
Lie 9
> MYTH 7: CO2 is a pollutant.
>
> FACT: This is absolutely not true.
Lie 10
> Nitrogen forms 80% of our
> atmosphere. We could not live in 100% nitrogen either. Carbon dioxide is
> no more a pollutant than nitrogen is. CO2 is essential to life on
> earth. It is necessary for plant growth since increased CO2 intake as a
> result of increased atmospheric concentration causes many trees and
> other plants to grow more vigorously. Unfortunately, the Canadian
> Government has included CO2 with a number of truly toxic and noxious
> substances listed by the Environmental Protection Act, only as their
> means to politically control it.
>
> MYTH 8: Global warming will cause more storms and other weather
> extremes.
>
> FACT: There is no scientific or statistical evidence whatsoever that
> supports such claims on a global scale.
Lie 11
>Regional variations may occur.
> Growing insurance and infrastructure repair costs, particularly in
> coastal areas, are sometimes claimed to be the result of increasing
> frequency and severity of storms, whereas in reality they are a function
> of increasing population density, escalating development value, and ever
> more media reporting.
>
> MYTH 9: Receding glaciers and the calving of ice shelves are proof of
> global warming.
>
> FACT: Glaciers have been receding and growing cyclically for hundreds
> of years.
Not as many and not as fast as now.
>Recent glacier melting is a consequence of coming out of the
> very cool period of the Little Ice Age. Ice shelves have been breaking
> off for centuries. Scientists know of at least 33 periods of glaciers
> growing and then retreating. It's normal. Besides, glacier's health is
> dependent as much on precipitation as on temperature.
>
Most are retreating, so lie 12
> MYTH 10: The earth's poles are warming; polar ice caps are breaking up
> and melting and the sea level rising.
>
> FACT: The earth is variable.
Doh!
>The western Arctic may be getting somewhat
> warmer, due to unrelated cyclic events in the Pacific Ocean, but the
> Eastern Arctic and Greenland are getting colder. The small Palmer
> Peninsula of Antarctica is getting warmer, while the main Antarctic
> continent is actually cooling. Ice thicknesses are increasing both on
> Greenland and in Antarctica.
>
> Sea level monitoring in the Pacific (Tuvalu) and Indian Oceans
> (Maldives) has shown no sign of any sea level rise.
>
Lie 13
Lloyd
> "00ZNB" <00...@ddoooo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:482a6aa8$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>
Cold water was not thrown.
> The average temperature was 1 degree cooler than the average April
> temperature of the entire 20th century.
>
So?
> A few weeks ago, as North America was emerging from one of its coldest
> and snowiest winters in decades, the climate center issued a statement
> saying that snow cover on the Eurasian land mass had been the most
> extensive ever recorded, and that this March had been only the 63rd
> warmest since 1895.
>
> On April 24, the World Wildlife Fund published a study, based on last
> September's data, showing that Arctic ice had shrunk from 13 million
> square kilometers to just 3 million. What the WWF omitted was that by
> March the Arctic ice had recovered to 14 million square kilometers and
> that the ice cover around the Bering Strait and Alaska was at the
> highest level ever recorded.
>
And what you omitted was that it's thinner ice, and will melt more
quickly next time.
> In fact, the United States already leads the world in both energy
> efficiency per unit of GDP and control of CO2 emissions.
Lie.
>We recently
> pointed out that, according to the 2008 Index of Leading Economic
> Indicators, U.S. emissions grew by 6.6% from 1997 to 2004, vs. 18% for
> the world as a whole and 21.1% for those nations that signed the Kyoto
> Protocol on greenhouse gases.
>
You choose a year of high CO2 emissions in the US for your base.
Dishonest.
> The U.S. reduced carbon emissions from natural gas and petroleum by 1.7%
> and 1.5% from 2005 to 2006 and coal emissions by 0.9%.
Bush wrecked the economy?
>Energy intensity
> (energy consumed per dollar of real GDP) fell more than 4% as total
> energy declined 0.9% and the U.S. economy expanded 3.3%.
>
> We were pleased that McCain endorsed nuclear power as a pollution-free
> source of energy that can help us toward energy independence while
> reducing emissions. But the fact is that we will need more energy, not
> less, by 2050, from all sources. Both economic and technological growth
> will demand more.
>
> The nation that first split the atom should first stop splitting hairs
> and revive nuclear power. We should also be taking more American oil out
> of our soil.
We should be reducing our dependence on oil.
>We are the Saudi Arabia of coal. McCain is right about our
> ability to solve problems. The nation that put men on the moon can find
> a way to burn coal cleanly.
>
Fine. Let's do it. And let's expand the use of coal only after we
do.
> We definitely should not subsidize burning food in our gas tanks. McCain
> heroically opposed ethanol subsidies in 2000, running third in the Iowa
> caucuses, and he rightly opposes them today. And we have nothing against
> wind and solar, if they are economically competitive.
>
> Our needs for more energy and less reliance on foreign sources are both
> real and solvable. Global warming is debatable,
Like atoms.
Tunderbar
A politician goes along with and pays lip service to a political
movement and a limited public perception that has been fostered by
that political movement and it proves what? That there is one born
every minute and many people actually believe the lie that is agw. And
that politicians must go along with the false perception for them to
get elected.
No more and no less.
Pretty sad that you would use this to bolster your flagging agw fraud.
The ultimate in circular thinking is saying that people believe it
because I say it is so, then saying that the it must be so because
people believe it. And their politicians must then address it to get
elected.
The good news is that more and more people are realizing that it is a
false perception based on political motives and has nothing to do with
actual science.
Claudius Denk
wrote:
What do you expect from guy that considers counting decimal places a
statistical technique.
Roger Coppock
he can't count that high. I just debunk one or two
lies at a time. Also remember, fossil fools like
Bonzo can't focus for longer than a sound bite, nor
can they stay within a thread's topic.
Tunderbar
>
> - Show quoted text -
Counting "lies" means nothing. You actually have to engage the
discussion by actually addressing the issue(s) and providing facts,
figures or logic. And since you warmists have none of those, you
resort to the only thing you have and that is unfounded accusations of
lying.
V-for-Vendicar
"Tunderbar" <tdco...@gmail.com> wrote
> Counting "lies" means nothing.
On the contrary, it tells us how big a liar you are.
chemist
> Lloyd, it is useless to count Bonzo'slies, because
> he can't count that high. I just debunk one or twoliesat a time. Also remember, fossil fools like
> Bonzo can't focus for longer than a sound bite, nor
> can they stay within a thread's topic.
>
> > CO2 is soluble in sea water.
> > It's solubility reduces as the sea temperature increases.
> > It is probable that the depths of the Oceans contain more
> > CO2 than the surface due to volcanic action.
> > Deep ocean water is continuously being brought to the
> > surface by the Ocean Gyre where it can lose CO2 due to ocean circulation.
> > If the oceans are cool they do not lose CO2 to the atmosphere
> > but if the are warm they do.
> > These considerations explain the fact that CO2 lags
> > behind the temperature by 800 years or more.
You replied
> Do you read palms too, Tom?
V-for-Vendicar
"00ZNB" <00...@ddoooo.com> wrote
> McCain Should Stick To Real Problems
Like this....
Here are the global average temperatures since 1958. "o" = trend line.
Look at all those "o"'s lined up there. The trend is up, Up, UP.
And most recently the rate of increase is about 2'C per century.
View with mono spaced font.
1958 14.08 *******************o***************
1959 14.06 ********************o************
1960 13.99 *********************o******
1961 14.08 **********************o************
1962 14.04 ***********************o********
1963 14.08 ************************o**********
1964 13.79 **************===========o
1965 13.89 *********************====o
1966 13.97 **************************o
1967 14.00 ***************************o*
1968 13.96 **************************==o
1969 14.08 *****************************o*****
1970 14.03 ******************************o
1971 13.90 **********************=========o
1972 14.00 *****************************===o
1973 14.14 ********************************o******
1974 13.92 ***********************==========o
1975 13.95 *************************=========o
1976 13.84 ******************=================o
1977 14.13 ************************************o*
1978 14.02 ******************************=======o
1979 14.09 ***********************************===o
1980 14.18 ***************************************o**
1981 14.27 ****************************************o*******
1982 14.05 ********************************========o
1983 14.26 *****************************************o*****
1984 14.09 ***********************************=======o
1985 14.06 *********************************==========o
1986 14.13 **************************************======o
1987 14.27 *********************************************o**
1988 14.31 **********************************************o****
1989 14.19 ******************************************=====o
1990 14.38 ************************************************o*******
1991 14.35 ************************************************o****
1992 14.12 *************************************============o
1993 14.14 ***************************************===========o
1994 14.24 **********************************************=====o
1995 14.38 ****************************************************o***
1996 14.30 **************************************************===o
1997 14.40 ******************************************************o**
1998 14.57
*******************************************************o*************
1999 14.33 ****************************************************===o
2000 14.33 ****************************************************====o
2001 14.48 *********************************************************o*****
2002 14.56
**********************************************************o*********
2003 14.55
***********************************************************o*******
2004 14.49 ************************************************************o**
2005 14.62
*************************************************************o**********
2006 14.54
**************************************************************o****
2007 14.57
***************************************************************o*****
Correlation Coefficient .8529209
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VMu14mBXAs
V-for-Vendicar
"Tunderbar" <tdco...@gmail.com> wrote
> The good news is that more and more people are realizing that it is a
> false perception based on political motives and has nothing to do with
> actual science.
Meanwhile back here in the reality based community...
V-for-Vendicar
"00ZNB" <00...@ddoooo.com> wrote
> ".it should not be surprising to see hordes of former Reds, or of those
> who otherwise would have become Reds, turning from Marxism and becoming
> the Greens of the ecology movement. It is the same fundamental
> philosophy in a different guise, ready as ever to wage war on the
> freedom and well-being of the individual." Dr. George Reisman's book
> Capitalism
Other Pamphlets by Dr. George Reisman (quack)
Education and the Racist Road to Barbarism
Gold: The solution to Our Monetary Dilemma
The Harmony of men's Material Self-interests
The Toxicity of Environmentalism
The Real Right to Medical care Vs, Socialized Medicine
Capitalism: The Cure for Racism
George Reisman's Program of Self-Education in the Economic Theory and
Political Philosophy of Capitalism
Version 2.0
90 hours of lectures on 10 CDs, in mp3 format. The equivalent of more than 7
academic hours.
Price: $249. Includes shipping worldwide.
http://www.capitalism.net/gr_prog.htm
Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
V-for-Vendicar
> ".it should not be surprising to see hordes of former Reds, or of those
> who otherwise would have become Reds, turning from Marxism and becoming
> the Greens of the ecology movement. It is the same fundamental
> philosophy in a different guise, ready as ever to wage war on the
> freedom and well-being of the individual." Dr. George Reisman's book
> Capitalism
V-for-Vendicar
> "Attributing global climate change to human CO2 production is akin to
> trying to diagnose an automotive problem by ignoring the engine
> (analogous to the Sun in the climate system) and the transmission (water
> vapour) and instead focusing entirely, not on one nut on a rear wheel,
> which would be analogous to total CO2, but on one thread on that nut,
> which represents the human contribution." Dr. Timothy Ball, Chairman of
> the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (NRSP.com), Former Professor
> Of Climatology, University of Winnipeg
And once again you are caught lying. Timothy Ball isn't a former professor
of climatology, and the University of Winnipeg has no climatoloty program.
Ball is a former geography professor with no training in climatology who
couldn't make it as a university professor (pubishing a total of 4 papers in
his entire career), who then cashed in by jumping on the big oil Gravy
train.
You should ask Ball about the little incident concerning the
Misappropriattion of University Resources at the University of Calgary by
his propaganda group - Friends of Science
V-for-Vendicar
> "Attributing global climate change to human CO2 production is akin to
> trying to diagnose an automotive problem by ignoring the engine
> (analogous to the Sun in the climate system) and the transmission (water
> vapour) and instead focusing entirely, not on one nut on a rear wheel,
> which would be analogous to total CO2, but on one thread on that nut,
> which represents the human contribution." Dr. Timothy Ball, Chairman of
> the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (NRSP.com), Former Professor
> Of Climatology, University of Winnipeg
And once again you are caught lying. Timothy Ball isn't a former professor
V-for-Vendicar
to change the course of history.
G8 ministers endorse greenhouse gas cuts by 2050
------------------------------------------------
- May 25, 2008 =
KOBE, Japan - Environmental ministers from the world's top industrial
countries say they have the political will to
move toward cutting greenhouse gas emissions in half by 2050.
However, the announcement Monday by ministers meeting in Japan stopped short
of setting a more contentious goal of
slashing emissions by 2020.
The G8 statement said that rich nations have the responsibility to take the
lead in cutting emissions. The statement is
aimed at setting the stage for the Group of Eight summit in Japan in July.