Greenhouse gases reach record levels
Harry Hope
From Reuters, 11/23/09:
http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSGEE5AM2FF
By Robert Evans
GENEVA
Concentrations of greenhouse gases, the major cause of global warming,
are at their highest levels ever recorded and are still climbing, the
U.N. World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) said on Monday.
The head of the agency, Michel Jarraud, said the trend could be
pushing the world towards the most pessimistic assessments of the rise
in temperatures expected in coming decades and said this underlined
the need for urgent action.
The worst-case scenario envisaged by the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change) in a 2007 report was that temperatures could rise
by between 2.4 and 6.4 Celsius by the end of this century.
The Group of Eight and other major economies agreed at a summit in
Italy in July to try to limit the rise to 2 Celsius.
Carbon dioxide <CO2/EUR> is entering the atmosphere at an accelerating
rate, Jarraud told a news conference in Geneva to present the agency's
annual Greenhouse Gas Bulletin.
"The CO2 content in the atmosphere rose slightly faster in 2008 than
over the last decade when the growth rate was 1.9 parts per million,"
he said.
"Levels of most greenhouse gases continue to increase," said the WMO,
in the report issued before next month's U.N. climate change
conference in Copenhagen, aimed at reaching a new international accord
to fight global warming.
It said the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 385.2 parts
per million in 2008, up 2 parts per million in one year.
GREENHOUSE GASES AT RECORD
"In 2008 global concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous
oxide, which are the main long-lived greenhouse gases in the
atmosphere, reached the highest levels recorded since pre-industrial
times," the WMO said.
The major focus at the Copenhagen summit, from December 7-18, is how
targets for cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, caused mainly by burning
fossil fuels like oil and gas, can be agreed and put into a new
international treaty. [ID:nNGEESAL07Q]
Hopes of a legally binding agreement have slipped amid continuing
disagreements between rich and poorer nations over how the burden
should be shared.
Jarraud said the data showed "we are actually closer to the
pessimistic scenario" for warming in the coming years.
_______________________________________________________
Harry
Get lost
America the Stupid
"Get lost" <rande...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:76aa5230-0422-4255...@h2g2000vbd.googlegroups.com...
> climate liars
Why have half the World's ski resorts closed in the last 50 years??
Your misinformed ignorance is going to kill your family.
buzz
The largest contributor to the greenhouse effect is not CO2, but water
vapor.
Too bad Hairy.
Barack Hussein Obama...MMM MMM MMM
Send HIM to Pakistan to fight Osama...MMM MMM MMM
Simple-minded dummycrats (the party that birthed the KKK) and
liberals...morons electing morons.
Sid9
"Get lost" <rande...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:76aa5230-0422-4255...@h2g2000vbd.googlegroups.com...
> climate liars
.
It's over.
It's too late to recover.
It can no longer be fixed.
bvallely
> news:76aa5230-0422-4255...@h2g2000vbd.googlegroups.com...> climate liars
.
> It's too late to recover.
> It can no longer be fixed.
We've had a decade of slight global cooling. The problem is already
fixed.
bvallely
> > The largest contributor to the greenhouse effect is not CO2, but water
> > vapor.
> What is the dewpoint of carbon dioxide?
.
3. Whenever possible go outside the experience of the enemy.
Saul Alinsky
Rules for Radicals
pyjamarama
Sorry, hairless -- your climate change fraud has been exposed...
You're through.
Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global
Warming'?
By James Delingpole Politics Last updated: November 20th, 2009
If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start
dumping them NOW. The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global
Warming myth (aka AGW; aka ManBearPig) has been suddenly, brutally and
quite deliciously exposed after a hacker broke into the computers at
the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (aka Hadley CRU)
and released 61 megabites of confidential files onto the internet.
(Hat tip: Watts Up With That)
When you read some of those files – including 1079 emails and 72
documents – you realise just why the boffins at Hadley CRU might have
preferred to keep them confidential. As Andrew Bolt puts it, this
scandal could well be “the greatest in modern science”. These alleged
emails – supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists
pushing AGW theory – suggest:
Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal
destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to
disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their
public claims and much more.
One of the alleged emails has a gentle gloat over the death in 2004 of
John L Daly (one of the first climate change sceptics, founder of the
Still Waiting For Greenhouse site), commenting:
“In an odd way this is cheering news.”
But perhaps the most damaging revelations – the scientific equivalent
of the Telegraph’s MPs’ expenses scandal – are those concerning the
way Warmist scientists may variously have manipulated or suppressed
evidence in order to support their cause.
Here are a few tasters. (So far, we can only refer to them as alleged
emails because – though Hadley CRU’s director Phil Jones has confirmed
the break-in to Ian Wishart at the Briefing Room – he has yet to fess
up to any specific contents.) But if genuine, they suggest dubious
practices such as:
Manipulation of evidence:
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to
each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961
for Keith’s to hide the decline.
Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up:
The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the
moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in
the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more
warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is
inadequate.
Suppression of evidence:
Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family
crisis.
Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his
new email address.
We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
Fantasies of violence against prominent Climate Sceptic scientists:
Nexttime I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted
to beat
the crap out of him. Very tempted.
Attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm
Period (MWP):
……Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH
records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly
2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than
the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard
to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative
“MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction
available that far back….
And, perhaps most reprehensibly, a long series of communications
discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer
review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in
which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank,
whose views do not have a scrap of authority.
“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not
publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a
solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I
think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate
peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in
the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers
in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or
request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the
editorial board…What do others think?”
“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more
to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome
editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The
responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a
few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words
with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to
discuss in Nice !”
Hadley CRU has form in this regard. In September – I wrote the story
up here as “How the global warming industry is based on a massive lie”
– Hadley CRU’s researchers were exposed as having “cherry-picked” data
in order to support their untrue claim that global temperatures had
risen higher at the end of the 20th century than at any time in the
last millenium. Hadley CRU was also the organisation which – in
contravention of all acceptable behaviour in the international
scientific community – spent years withholding data from researchers
it deemed unhelpful to its cause. This matters because Hadley CRU,
established in 1990 by the Met Office, is a government-funded body
which is supposed to be a model of rectitude. Its HadCrut record is
one of the four official sources of global temperature data used by
the IPCC.
I asked in my title whether this will be the final nail in the coffin
of Anthropenic Global Warming. This was wishful thinking, of course.
In the run up to Copenhagen, we will see more and more hysterical (and
grotesquely exaggerated) stories such as this in the Mainstream Media.
And we will see ever-more-virulent campaigns conducted by eco-fascist
activists, such as this risible new advertising campaign by Plane
Stupid showing CGI polar bears falling from the sky and exploding
because kind of, like, man, that’s sort of what happens whenever you
take another trip on an aeroplane.
The world is currently cooling; electorates are increasingly reluctant
to support eco-policies leading to more oppressive regulation, higher
taxes and higher utility bills; the tide is turning against Al Gore’s
Anthropogenic Global Warming theory. The so-called “sceptical” view is
now also the majority view.
Unfortunately, we’ve a long, long way to go before the public mood
(and scientific truth) is reflected by our policy makers. There are
too many vested interests in AGW, with far too much to lose either in
terms of reputation or money, for this to end without a bitter fight.
But if the Hadley CRU scandal is true,it’s a blow to the AGW lobby’s
credibility which is never likely to recover.
Tags: AGW, Andrew Bolt, Climategate, Hadley CRU, ManBearPig, scandal
Stile4aly
So why are you participating in a debate when you admit you're
inexperienced in the details of the debate.
Let me give you a hint - As temperature increases, more water is
vaporized. Warming leads to more water vapor which leads to more
warming.
Dave Heil
> In article <232ed0cb-ac77-4f4b...@y10g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
You do understand that there is no current global warming, do you not?
Kevin Cunningham
Interesting, there isn't a climate scientist any were that agrees with
you. Of course climate scientists, what do they know? They spend
years and years studying and they think they're smart. Now you're
smart. You dropped out of art school. Now who knows the most about
climate? A climate scientist or you?
bvallely
wrote:
> In article <232ed0cb-ac77-4f4b-a5b6-71a68bc90...@y10g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
That would explain the fact that the oceans haven't risen Correct me
if I'm wrong - as of this writing, New York City ISN'T submerged, is
it?
bvallely
> On Nov 24, 11:19 am, bvallely <bvall...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > .> > The largest contributor to the greenhouse effect is not CO2, but water
> > > > vapor.
> > .
> > > What is the dewpoint of carbon dioxide?
>
> > .
> > 3. Whenever possible go outside the experience of the enemy.
> > Saul Alinsky
> > Rules for Radicals
>
> So why are you participating in a debate when you admit you're
> inexperienced in the details of the debate.
Because I don't need to be a scientist to know when I'm being lied
to. It's pretty simple - al gore refuses to debate the issue, or even
to take questions. Scientists who disagree with gobal warming
predictiions are demonized and find their funding shut down. You,
yourself, tried to intimidate me into not discussing the issue.
The only reason for such activity is to cover up a gigantic scam -
literally the largest in world history.
We now have evidence that the top climatic scientists have been
cooking the books on global warming - and yet, leftists STILL insist
this load of crap be accepted without question.
bvallely
wrote:
> In article <8165a2b6-28ee-4a13-abe6-fed3b7e4e...@u25g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
>
> bvallely <bvall...@aol.com> wrote:
> > .
> > > > The largest contributor to the greenhouse effect is not CO2, but water
> > > > vapor.
> > .
> > > What is the dewpoint of carbon dioxide?
> > .
> > 3. Whenever possible go outside the experience of the enemy.
>
.
I don't need to be a scientist to know when I'm being lied to. It's
pretty simple - al gore refuses to debate the issue, or even to take
Beam Me Up Scotty
>>
>> bvallely <bvall...@aol.com> wrote:
>>> .
>>>> news:76aa5230-0422-4255...@h2g2000vbd.googlegroups.com....>
>>>> climate liars
>>> .
>>>> It's over.
>>>> It's too late to recover.
>>>> It can no longer be fixed.
>>> .
>>> We've had a decade of slight global cooling. The problem is already
>>> fixed.
>> That would explain the Arctic ice pack melting.
> That would explain the fact that the oceans haven't risen Correct me
> if I'm wrong - as of this writing, New York City ISN'T submerged, is
> it?
shrinking, it's never the same.
Wayne
"Once in a China Blue Moon" <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:chine.bleu-8EA97...@news.eternal-september.org...
> In article
> <232ed0cb-ac77-4f4b...@y10g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
> bvallely <bval...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
condition, that the Arctic ice pack would not melt? Huh???
Tom Sr.
> You do understand that there is no current global warming, do you not?
Please give at least *one* citation from a peer-reviewed article
published in a professional climate-related journal or magazine that
supports this *claim* by you.
And while you are at it, Heil:
-----
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=003LKN94
-----
Above is the link to 169 megabytes of all the emails and files that
were hacked by some on the far-right-wing. You can download 26-
megabyte FOI2009.zip from there, then unpack it. You’ll have to set up
a free account before you can download the file.
So once you ultraconservative, anti-science, reactionary k00ks are
done reading the material, get back to us rational people with exact
quotes, in context, with reference locations that prove your *claims*
that climate change is a fraud.
We'll be waiting, Heil!
-Tom Sr.
Yup
>
>
> > bvallely <bvall...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > .
> > > > > The largest contributor to the greenhouse effect is not CO2, but water
> > > > > vapor.
> > > .
> > > > What is the dewpoint of carbon dioxide?
> > > .
> > > 3. Whenever possible go outside the experience of the enemy.
>
> > Thanks for admitting you don't understand.
>
> .
> I don't need to be a scientist to know when I'm being lied to. It's
> pretty simple - al gore refuses to debate the issue
>
But you do need to an anti-science right-wing shitkicker to make this
idiotic statement. Gore is not a scientist so there is no point in
debating the issue with him. You can hate and distrust Gore all you
like - but what really bothers you wing nuts is that he happens to be
on the correct side of this issue.
bvallely
> > I don't need to be a scientist to know when I'm being lied to. It's
> > pretty simple - al gore refuses to debate the issue
> But you do need to an anti-science right-wing shitkicker to make this
> idiotic statement. >
You're the one who wants to turn Science into a religion, not me.
.
> Gore is not a scientist so there is no point in debating the issue with him. >
So, the most important proponent of global doesn't know what he's
talking about. As long as Al has made a billion dollars off this
scam, it behooves him to defend what he's selling. But he can't,
because even he knows that Global Warming is full of crap.
.
>You can hate and distrust Gore all you like - but what really bothers you wing nuts is that he happens to be on the correct side of this issue.>
No, what bothers me is that a billionaire who owns three mansions (two
of which are on the oceanfront) flies around the world in private jets
to lecture millions who flew in first class why it's essential that
single mothers who work at K-Mart shouldn't be allowed an SUV to drive
her children around.
It bothers me that billionaire algore is making an obscene fortune by
producing a non-product which has no oversight or regulation
whatsoever.
It bothers me that massive sacrifices are demanded of Americans,
without an honest debate if the problem exists in the first place.
bvallely
> You mean those same climate scientists that just got caught hiding
> findings showing them to be wrong? Yeah, why should anyone doubt the
> word of those getting their funding from promoting GW?
.
What I find jaw-dropping is that critics continue to have to beg for
these guys' data, for their models, for their assumptions. JESUS LORD
GOD ALL MIGHTY WHAT THE HELL KIND OF "SCIENCE" KEEPS ITS DATA,
METHODOLOGY, AND ASSUMPTIONS "SECRET"?
That is not science. There are lots of emails from these guys where
they say things like "There's no point giving our data to the climate
skeptics; all they want to do is punch holes in it."
Well... yes. This is how science is done, you see. You make a claim;
you present your evidence; other people try to punch holes in your
claim and your evidence. If your claim and evidence stand up to the
fire, congratulations, you just advanced science. If not -- well, you
also advanced science by failing. Not as much as success would have
advanced science, but still -- a failed theory, disproven, also
advances science. At least it eliminates one bad theory from
consideration.
But what these guys are doing -- and this is the real scandal that no
one wants to address -- is merely presenting their claims as naked
assertions, with charts and displays to "back them up," and then when
people ask for the data, methodology, and assumptions that went into
creating those displays, they simply refuse.
And no one calls them on this. The media and the rest of the
cocksucking left, which claims to be so "logical" and "pro-science,"
apparently has no idea that when you present claims, you're supposed
to disclose your data and assumptions and methodology.
Science is in the business of reproducible results. That is the
central point of it. That results must be reproducible by anyone
following the same procedure.
But they refuse to disclose what procedure produced these results, so
no one can reproduce them. At least -- no one except their buddies,
chatting together in secret email lists, telling each other what
"tricks" to use to "hide the decline."
And no one points out: This is not science. Science is not secret. It
is open, it is conducted openly, information -- the goal of science --
is to be disseminated, not hoarded and kept under lock and key.
bvallely
wrote:
> In article <488d107d-0ba9-46a1-b591-b1a4ee10f...@b36g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
.
No, I mean New York City. Why is it that the only examples of global
warming happen are in remote. sparely populated and rarely visited,
parts of the world? If the oceans were actually rising, it would
effect every coastline in the world, not a handful of obscure islands
in the middle of nowhere. Why hasn't the Hudson River gotten
deeper? Never mind New York flooding, why haven't local piers in
Point Pleasant been flooded under? Some of those are only a few
inches above high tide, and yet they survive.
And I've got a question about those hacked e-mails.. Why is it that
critics to have to beg for these guys' data, for their models, for
their assumptions. JESUS LORD GOD ALL MIGHTY WHAT THE HELL KIND OF
"SCIENCE" KEEPS ITS DATA, METHODOLOGY, AND ASSUMPTIONS "SECRET"?
That is not science. There are lots of emails from these guys where
they say things like "There's no point giving our data to the climate
skeptics; all they want to do is punch holes in it."
Well... yes. This is how science is done, you see. You make a claim;
you present your evidence; other people try to punch holes in your
claim and your evidence. If your claim and evidence stand up to the
fire, congratulations, you just advanced science. If not -- well, you
also advanced science by failing. Not as much as success would have
advanced science, but still -- a failed theory, disproven, also
advances science. At least it eliminates one bad theory from
consideration.
But what these guys are doing -- and this is the real scandal that no
one wants to address -- is merely presenting their claims as naked
assertions, with charts and displays to "back them up," and then when
people ask for the data, methodology, and assumptions that went into
creating those displays, they simply refuse.
Science is in the business of reproducible results. That is the
Yup
>
> .> > I don't need to be a scientist to know when I'm being lied to. It's
> > > pretty simple - al gore refuses to debate the issue
> .
> > But you do need to an anti-science right-wing shitkicker to make this
> > idiotic statement. >
>
> .
> You're the one who wants to turn Science into a religion, not me.
> .> Gore is not a scientist so there is no point in debating the issue with him. >
>
> .
> So, the most important proponent of global doesn't know what he's
> talking about. As long as Al has made a billion dollars off this
> scam, it behooves him to defend what he's selling. But he can't,
> because even he knows that Global Warming is full of crap.
>
Yes you've made it perfectly clear that you base your entire anti-
science argument on your hatred of Gore.
If your head wasn't so far up your ass you'd know as anyone with
common sense does that it's the old guard energy industry raping the
consumers - making BILLIONS every quarter off unsustainable,
unreliable energy supplies that produce massive pollution and inspire
wars. I could care less about Gore one way or the other. The
scientific community says it's YOU who is full of crap - and you
provide irrefutable proof of that fact with every last one of your
idiotic rants.
Dave Heil
> In article <hehs99$s2k$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> school. So you never attended high school?
You often seem unable to answer the most simple question.
Dave Heil
> In article <488d107d-0ba9-46a1...@b36g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Neither NYC nor Tonga is submerged.
Clairbear
news:uQ0Pm.11152$cX4....@newsfe10.iad:
Those islands they claim are sinking di anybody bother to check out the
possibility of subsidence Since Florida and delware are still the hieght
above sealevel
Beam Me Up Scotty
> On Nov 24, 8:51 pm, bvallely <bvall...@aol.com> wrote:
>> .> > I don't need to be a scientist to know when I'm being lied to. It's
>>>> pretty simple - al gore refuses to debate the issue
>> .
>>> But you do need to an anti-science right-wing shitkicker to make this
>>> idiotic statement. >
>> .
>> You're the one who wants to turn Science into a religion, not me.
>> .> Gore is not a scientist so there is no point in debating the issue with him. >
>>
>> .
>> So, the most important proponent of global doesn't know what he's
>> talking about. As long as Al has made a billion dollars off this
>> scam, it behooves him to defend what he's selling. But he can't,
>> because even he knows that Global Warming is full of crap.
>>
>
> Yes you've made it perfectly clear that you base your entire anti-
> science argument on your hatred of Gore.
That's just a bonus.... I mostly base my anti Global Warming on the
Fake and unconfirmed DATA that you base you *HYPOTHESIS ON*
The Gore stupidity is a side show.
Beam Me Up Scotty
> In article <488d107d-0ba9-46a1...@b36g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> bvallely <bval...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
Tater Gumfries
Doesn't mean the oceans haven't risen. Tater gots more water in his
bucket than an hour ago, but because it ain't overflowin, the bucket
is dry?
Tater
Tater Gumfries
wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 13:54:37 -0800 (PST), Kevin Cunningham
> findings showing them to be wrong?
When did that happen?
Tater
Tater Gumfries
> On Nov 24, 10:36 am, Stile4aly <stile4...@yahoo.com> wrote:> On Nov 24, 11:19 am, bvallely <bvall...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > .> > The largest contributor to the greenhouse effect is not CO2, but water
> > > > > vapor.
> > > .
> > > > What is the dewpoint of carbon dioxide?
>
> > > .
> > > 3. Whenever possible go outside the experience of the enemy.
> > > Saul Alinsky
> > > Rules for Radicals
>
> > So why are you participating in a debate when you admit you're
> > inexperienced in the details of the debate.
>
> .
> Because I don't need to be a scientist to know when I'm being lied
> to. It's pretty simple - al gore refuses to debate the issue, or even
> to take questions.
Al Gore ain't no scientist.
> Scientists who disagree with gobal warming
> predictiions are demonized and find their funding shut down.
Name one instance.
> The only reason for such activity is to cover up a gigantic scam -
> literally the largest in world history.
What is your evidence?
> We now have evidence that the top climatic scientists have been
> cooking the books on global warming -
No, you don't. Provide a citation or admit you're ignorant.
Tater
bvallely
> On Nov 24, 8:51 pm, bvallely <bvall...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > .> > I don't need to be a scientist to know when I'm being lied to. It's
> > > > pretty simple - al gore refuses to debate the issue
> > .
> > > But you do need to an anti-science right-wing shitkicker to make this
> > > idiotic statement. >
>
> > .
> > You're the one who wants to turn Science into a religion, not me..
(crickets)
.
> > .> Gore is not a scientist so there is no point in debating the issue with him. >
.
> > So, the most important proponent of global doesn't know what he's
> > talking about. As long as Al has made a billion dollars off this
> > scam, it behooves him to defend what he's selling. But he can't,
> > because even he knows that Global Warming is full of crap.
.
> Yes you've made it perfectly clear that you base your entire anti-
.
I did no such thing. Questioning global warming is not anti-science -
it's the very basis of the branch of knoweldge.
hiding data, disguising errors, and keeping secrets, that the
disclosure of that behavior proves embarrassing. That is simply --
what's the word? -- obvious cause-and-effect.
Global warming critics have to beg for these guys' data, for their
bvallely
> When did that happen?
.
About two weeks ago.
.
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2009/11/24/Republicans-plan-climate-change-probe/UPI-35051259120749/
bvallely
Yes, I do.
.
>Provide a citation or admit you're ignorant.>
Here's an article in the Wall Street Journal. After reading this, ask
yourself why you didn't hear about this on CBS, or the New York Times.
Global Warming With the Lid Off
The emails that reveal an effort to hide the truth about climate
science.
* Article
* Comments (393)
more in Opinion »
* Email
* Printer
Friendly
* Share:
facebook ↓ More
o StumbleUpon
o Digg
o Twitter
o Yahoo! Buzz
o Fark
o Reddit
o LinkedIn
o del.icio.us
o MySpace
*
Save This ↓ More
* smaller Text larger
'The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they
ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the U.K., I
think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone. . . . We also
have a data protection act, which I will hide behind."
So apparently wrote Phil Jones, director of the University of East
Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU) and one of the world's leading
climate scientists, in a 2005 email to "Mike." Judging by the email
thread, this refers to Michael Mann, director of the Pennsylvania
State University's Earth System Science Center. We found this nugget
among the more than 3,000 emails and documents released last week
after CRU's servers were hacked and messages among some of the world's
most influential climatologists were published on the Internet.
The "two MMs" are almost certainly Stephen McIntyre and Ross
McKitrick, two Canadians who have devoted years to seeking the raw
data and codes used in climate graphs and models, then fact-checking
the published conclusions—a painstaking task that strikes us as a
public and scientific service. Mr. Jones did not return requests for
comment and the university said it could not confirm that all the
emails were authentic, though it acknowledged its servers were hacked.
Yet even a partial review of the emails is highly illuminating. In
them, scientists appear to urge each other to present a "unified" view
on the theory of man-made climate change while discussing the
importance of the "common cause"; to advise each other on how to
smooth over data so as not to compromise the favored hypothesis; to
discuss ways to keep opposing views out of leading journals; and to
give tips on how to "hide the decline" of temperature in certain
inconvenient data.
View Full Image
climate
Associated Press
A satellite image of Tropical Storm Ida. Some climate researchers
claim that an increase in tropical storms is proof of anthropogenic
climate change.
climate
climate
Some of those mentioned in the emails have responded to our requests
for comment by saying they must first chat with their lawyers. Others
have offered legal threats and personal invective. Still others have
said nothing at all. Those who have responded have insisted that the
emails reveal nothing more than trivial data discrepancies and
procedural debates.
Yet all of these nonresponses manage to underscore what may be the
most revealing truth: That these scientists feel the public doesn't
have a right to know the basis for their climate-change predictions,
even as their governments prepare staggeringly expensive legislation
in response to them.
Consider the following note that appears to have been sent by Mr.
Jones to Mr. Mann in May 2008: "Mike, Can you delete any emails you
may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. . . . Can you
also email Gene and get him to do the same?" AR4 is shorthand for the
U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change's (IPCC) Fourth
Assessment Report, presented in 2007 as the consensus view on how bad
man-made climate change has supposedly become.
Read a Selection of the Emails
Climate Science and Candor
In another email that seems to have been sent in September 2007 to
Eugene Wahl of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's
Paleoclimatology Program and to Caspar Ammann of the National Center
for Atmospheric Research's Climate and Global Dynamics Division, Mr.
Jones writes: "[T]ry and change the Received date! Don't give those
skeptics something to amuse themselves with."
When deleting, doctoring or withholding information didn't work, Mr.
Jones suggested an alternative in an August 2008 email to Gavin
Schmidt of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, copied to Mr.
Mann. "The FOI [Freedom of Information] line we're all using is this,"
he wrote. "IPCC is exempt from any countries FOI—the skeptics have
been told this. Even though we . . . possibly hold relevant info the
IPCC is not part of our remit (mission statement, aims etc) therefore
we don't have an obligation to pass it on."
It also seems Mr. Mann and his friends weren't averse to blacklisting
scientists who disputed some of their contentions, or journals that
published their work. "I think we have to stop considering 'Climate
Research' as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal," goes one email,
apparently written by Mr. Mann to several recipients in March 2003.
"Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research
community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal."
Mr. Mann's main beef was that the journal had published several
articles challenging aspects of the anthropogenic theory of global
warming.
For the record, when we've asked Mr. Mann in the past about the charge
that he and his colleagues suppress opposing views, he has said he
"won't dignify that question with a response." Regarding our most
recent queries about the hacked emails, he says he "did not manipulate
any data in any conceivable way," but he otherwise refuses to answer
specific questions. For the record, too, our purpose isn't to gainsay
the probity of Mr. Mann's work, much less his right to remain silent.
However, we do now have hundreds of emails that give every appearance
of testifying to concerted and coordinated efforts by leading
climatologists to fit the data to their conclusions while attempting
to silence and discredit their critics. In the department of
inconvenient truths, this one surely deserves a closer look by the
media, the U.S. Congress and other investigative bodies.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704888404574547730924988354.html
.
bvallely
wrote:
> In article <bbb4172f-ac78-47d5-b11e-d45f51a62...@u16g2000pru.googlegroups.com>,
> > > You mean like Tonga and other islands?
.
> > No, I mean New York City. Why is it that the only examples of global
> > warming happen are in remote. sparely populated and rarely visited,
> So if you don't see it, it doesn't happen.>
.
There is no such thing as a single ocean rising - they're all
connected. Excluding high time, it's insane to pretend that parts of
the Pacific could be higher than other parts. It's all, or nothing..
An increased sea level would be equally obvious in Baha California,
Santa Monica, New Jersey and Florida. It couldn't only strike obscure
islands far away from prying eyes.
.
>You have the intellectual capacity of a four year old.
.
".... and then the lying tailors pretended to hold their imaginary
cloth so the Emperor might "see" it all the better. With a sneer,
they insisted that the fabric was so sheer and beautiful that only a
person with the intellectual capacity of a four year old wouldn't be
able to see it. "
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEiLgbBGKVk&feature=player_embedded
bvallely
wrote:
> In article <4b0ca1ff$0$813$ec3e2...@unlimited.usenetmonster.com>,
> Beam Me Up Scotty <Then-Destroy-Everyth...@Talk-n-dog.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Once in a China Blue Moon wrote:
> > > In article
> > > bvallely <bvall...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > >> On Nov 24, 11:01 am, Once in a China Blue Moon <chine.b...@yahoo.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>> In article
> > >>> <232ed0cb-ac77-4f4b-a5b6-71a68bc90...@y10g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > >>> bvallely <bvall...@aol.com> wrote:
> > >>>> .
> > >>>>>news:76aa5230-0422-4255...@h2g2000vbd.googlegroups.com...
>
> > >>>>> climate liars
> > >>>> .
> > >>>>> It's over.
> > >>>>> It's too late to recover.
> > >>>>> It can no longer be fixed.
> > >>>> .
> > >>>> We've had a decade of slight global cooling. The problem is already
> > >>>> fixed.
> > >>> That would explain the Arctic ice pack melting.
> > >> .
> > >> That would explain the fact that the oceans haven't risen Correct me
> > >> if I'm wrong - as of this writing, New York City ISN'T submerged, is
> > >> it?
>
> > > You mean like Tonga and other islands?
>
> > Next you'll tell us Venice is under water....
>
> covered by the ocean?
.
Sure - because those islands are far away from people who can double
check the data. You DO know that the Pacific is a single body of
water, don't you? if part of it rises, it ALL rises.
Kevin Cunningham
> On Nov 24, 11:01 am, Once in a China Blue Moon <chine.b...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:> In article <232ed0cb-ac77-4f4b-a5b6-71a68bc90...@y10g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > bvallely <bvall...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > .
> > > >news:76aa5230-0422-4255...@h2g2000vbd.googlegroups.com...>
> > > > climate liars
> > > .
> > > > It's over.
> > > > It's too late to recover.
> > > > It can no longer be fixed.
> > > .
> > > We've had a decade of slight global cooling. The problem is already
> > > fixed.
>
> > That would explain the Arctic ice pack melting.
>
> .
> That would explain the fact that the oceans haven't risen Correct me
> if I'm wrong - as of this writing, New York City ISN'T submerged, is
> it?
So the fact that the Comoros Islands in the India ocean are becoming
uninhabitable, the fact that India has removed all the willing
inhabitants doesn't count? The fact that every low lying island chain
in the Pacific is joining with the rest of the world because they know
that they are next is just a crock?
Yeah, typical right winger, as long as the flood doesn't affect them
there is no flood. The minute it hits their door step, why it's a
tragedy that the government has to correct!
Kevin Cunningham
> On Nov 24, 10:36 am, Stile4aly <stile4...@yahoo.com> wrote:> On Nov 24, 11:19 am, bvallely <bvall...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > .> > The largest contributor to the greenhouse effect is not CO2, but water
> > > > > vapor.
> > > .
> > > > What is the dewpoint of carbon dioxide?
>
> > > .
> > > 3. Whenever possible go outside the experience of the enemy.
> > > Saul Alinsky
> > > Rules for Radicals
>
> > So why are you participating in a debate when you admit you're
> > inexperienced in the details of the debate.
>
> .
> Because I don't need to be a scientist to know when I'm being lied
> to. It's pretty simple - al gore refuses to debate the issue, or even
> predictiions are demonized and find their funding shut down. You,
> yourself, tried to intimidate me into not discussing the issue.
>
> The only reason for such activity is to cover up a gigantic scam -
> literally the largest in world history.
>
> this load of crap be accepted without question.
Yeah, you an artist know the facts about science which the scientists
don't know. Odd.
See, bunkie, the scientists have published paper after paper about the
who and what of global warming. You haven't read any of them but you
know. The climatological groups all agree. There isn't a scientific
group out there that agrees with you. But you know that all
scientists are just wrong.
So next time you get an injury, the next time you have an ache or a
growing pain solve it your self. You know climate change better than
scientists so......
Kevin Cunningham
It bothers you that you don't have Al Gores money and fame. It
bothers you that Al Gore grows trees in the Amazon rain forest to
compensate for the carbon he consumes.
You can't stand the fact that Al Gore was raised to fame, he served in
the military and he went on to be a senator and a vice president. You
didn't. Bush never served. Face it, you met the better man and
you're just jealous.
Kevin Cunningham
> > bvallely <bvall...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >> On Nov 24, 11:01 am, Once in a China Blue Moon <chine.b...@yahoo.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>> In article
> >>> <232ed0cb-ac77-4f4b-a5b6-71a68bc90...@y10g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
>
> >>> bvallely <bvall...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>>> .
> >>>>>news:76aa5230-0422-4255...@h2g2000vbd.googlegroups.com...>
> >>>>> climate liars
> >>>> .
> >>>>> It's over.
> >>>>> It's too late to recover.
> >>>>> It can no longer be fixed.
> >>>> .
> >>>> We've had a decade of slight global cooling. The problem is already
> >>>> fixed.
> >>> That would explain the Arctic ice pack melting.
> >> .
> >> That would explain the fact that the oceans haven't risen Correct me
> >> if I'm wrong - as of this writing, New York City ISN'T submerged, is
> >> it?
>
> > You mean like Tonga and other islands?
>
> Next you'll tell us Venice is under water....
If it wasn't for the lock system about 5km out in the ocean, Venice
would have disappeared decades ago. As it is there are doubts about
how much longer it can continue.
Kevin Cunningham
And Valley Girl learned that the world is round and about Columbus in
elementary school. Valley Girl still knows the world is round. How
much science do you need? Those idiot scientists keep having these
idiot ideas about the earth's shape but who cares?
The fact that it is oblate means nothing. Just a word made up by
liberals.
Beam Me Up Scotty
> covered by the ocean?
Meaning you don't know why the rest of the world has things like climate
change and rising/sinking "sea level" or land mass.
How did we get mountains?
Why are some cities covered by the sea.
Why are there Hawaiian Islands?
Is every sinking or growing island or land mass caused by Global warming?
Looks like that sea level argument is unsolved science...
pbj
> In article <4b0ca1ff$0$813$ec3e...@unlimited.usenetmonster.com>,
> Beam Me Up Scotty <Then-Destro...@Talk-n-dog.com> wrote:
>
> I already know why Venice is sinking. Do you know why Pacific islands
> are being covered by the ocean?
This thread reminds me of a scene in Erik the Viking:
cut to a close-up of King Arnulf. He is standing at the top of the Forum
steps addressing a crowd of anxious citizens. They are keeping
surprisingly good order considering they are already standing ankle-deep
in water, and the whole town is rapidly sinking around them.
KING ARNULF:
Now, I know what some of you must be thinking... the day has Come....
we're all going down, etc. etc. But let's get away from the fantasy
and look at the FACTS.
FACT ONE - The threat of total destruction has kept the peace for one
thousand years.
FACT TWO - The chances of it failing now are therefore one in three
hundred and sixty-five thousand.
FACT THREE...
By this time the water is up to people's knees, and several have
crowded onto the lower steps to avoid getting wet.
KING ARNULF
FACT THREE - Our safety regulations are the most rigorous in the
world. We are all nice to each other, we never rub each other up the
wrong way or contradict each other, do we?
CROWD
No!
Rumble. The buildings sink and masonry falls.
CITIZEN
We... er... do seem to be going down quite fast, Your Majesty
- not trying to contradict you, course.
KING ARNULF
No, of course you're not, citizen. But let's stick to the facts. There
has NEVER been a safer, more certain way of keeping the peace. So
whatever's happening, you can rest assured, Hy-Brasil is NOT sinking.
Repeat, NOT sinking.
We cut to an unfortunate Hy-Brasilian who looks out of a window to see
if it's raining, but is immersed before he can find out. The citizens in
the Forum, however, are reassured by the King's words - even though they
are now up to their waists in water. One of them steps forward.
ANOTHER CITIZEN
May I just make a point in support of what King Arnulf's just said?
KING ARNULF
We'd be delighted - wouldn't we?
CITIZENS
Yes, we'd certainly like to hear what one of us has got to say...
Erik, Sven, Sven's dad and Harald struggle out of the Great Hall,
carrying their belongings and the Horn Resounding, while the citizen is
still speaking most articulately in support of the King. They are ALMOST
in a panic.
ERIK
What are you all doing?
CITIZEN AT THE BACK (cheerfully)
It's all right. It's not happening.
ERIK (urgently)
The place is sinking!
CITIZEN AT THE BACK
Yes... I thought it was too, but the King's just pointed out that it
can't be.
CITIZEN (still speaking in support of the King)
...and, of course, we mustn't forget King Arnulf's EXCELLENT eye for
flower-arranging.
There is a smattering of applause. A few people pull their robes up out
of the wet. Erik leaps onto a wall and shouts to the crowd.
ERIK
Save yourselves! Hy-Brasil... is sinking.
There are a lot of knowing smiles amongst the citizens.
CITIZEN FROM MIDDLE
Look, you don't know our safety regulations.
KING ARNULF
It can't happen.
ERIK
But it IS! Look!
KING ARNULF (ignoring Erik)
The important thing is not to panic.
CITIZENS
Quite... yes... we understand....
KING ARNULF
I've already appointed the Chancellor as Chairman of a committee to find
out exactly what IS going on, and meantime I suggest we have a
sing-song!
CITIZENS
Good idea!
ANOTHER
Can we do the one that goes "TUM-TI-TUM-TI-TUM-TI-TUM"?
Dave Heil
> On Nov 24, 1:17 pm, bvallely <bvall...@aol.com> wrote:
>> .>news:76aa5230-0422-4255...@h2g2000vbd.googlegroups.com...> climate liars
>> .
>>> It's over.
>>> It's too late to recover.
>>> It can no longer be fixed.
>> .
>> We've had a decade of slight global cooling. The problem is already
>> fixed.
>
> you. Of course climate scientists, what do they know? They spend
> years and years studying and they think they're smart. Now you're
> smart. You dropped out of art school. Now who knows the most about
> climate? A climate scientist or you?
http://deltafarmpress.com/news/robinson-column-0825/
quote
Global cooling gains momentum among scientists
Aug 25, 2008 9:40 AM, By Elton Robinson
Farm Press Editorial Staff
Two weeks ago, after writing about the possibility that the Earth may
actually be entering a cooling phase, I braced myself for a torrent of
icy missives from the global warming crowd suggesting that the heat must
have fried my noggin.
By the way, it is very difficult to discuss global cooling in the midst
of a summer when temperatures are hovering around 100 degrees and crops
are wilting. As one friend and colleague from the sweltering Southwest
noted after reading the column, �Please send some of that cooling this way.�
However, one response opened my eyes to the growing community of global
warming skeptics out there, most of them merited scientists. I thought
it might be worth presenting their thoughts � a little equal time if you
will. Marc Marona, a global warming skeptic who works for the U.S.
Senate Committee on Environmental and Public Works, sent me these
excerpts from a U.S. Senate report.
Russian solar physicists Galina Mashnich and Vladimir Bashkirtsev are so
convinced that global temperatures will cool within the next decade they
have placed a $10,000 wager with a United Kingdom scientist to prove
their certainty. The criteria for the $10,000 bet will be to compare
global temperatures between 1998 and 2003 with those between 2012 and
2017. The loser will pay up in 2018, according to an April 16, 2007,
article in Live Science.
Australian engineer Peter Harris says that the Earth is nearing the end
of the typical interglacial cycle and is due for a sudden cooling
climate change. �Based on this analysis we can say that there is a 94
percent probability of imminent global cooling and the beginning of the
coming ice age.
unquote
==========================================
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/07/12/four-scientists-global-warming-out-global-cooling-in/
quote
Four scientists: Global Warming Out, Global Cooling In
12 07 2008
Alan Lammey, Texas Energy Analyst, Houston
Four scientists, four scenarios, four more or less similar conclusions
without actually saying it outright � the global warming trend is done,
and a cooling trend is about to kick in. The implication: Future energy
price response is likely to be significant.
Late last month, some leading climatologists and meteorologists met in
New York at the Energy Business Watch Climate and Hurricane Forum. The
theme of the forum strongly suggested that a period of global cooling is
about emerge, though possible concerns for a political backlash kept it
from being spelled out.
However, the message was loud and clear, a cyclical global warming trend
may be coming to an end for a variety of reasons, and a new cooling
cycle could impact the energy markets in a big way.
Words like �highly possible,� �likely� or �reasonably convincing� about
what may soon occur were used frequently. Then there were other words
like �mass pattern shift� and �wholesale change in anomalies� and
�changes in global circulation.�
Noted presenters, such as William Gray, Harry van Loon, Rol Madden and
Dave Melita, signaled in the strongest terms that huge climate changes
are afoot. Each weather guru, from a different angle, suggested that
global warming is part of a cycle that is nearing an end. All agreed the
earth is in a warm cycle right now, and has been for a while, but that
is about to change significantly.
unquote
=======================================
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nathan-burchfiel/2008/02/08/canadian-scientists-fear-global-cooling
quote
Canadian Scientists Fear Global Cooling
By Nathan Burchfiel (Bio | Archive)
February 8, 2008 - 15:33 ET
Investor's Business Daily is reporting something we haven't seen much of
in the media since the 1970s: concerns about global cooling. You read
that correctly: cooling.
Kenneth Tapping, a researcher at Canada's National Research Council,
wants to look for evidence of increased sunspot activity, according to
IBD. "The lack of increased activity could signal the beginning of what
is known as a Maunder Minimum, an event which occurs every couple of
centuries and can last as long as a century."
A "solar hibernation" in the 17th Century "corresponded with a period of
bitter cold that began around 1650 and lasted, with intermittent spikes
of warming, until 1715," IBD reported. "Frigid winters and cold summers
during that period led to massive crop failures, famine and death in
Northern Europe."
Tapping's concerns fly in the face of the current media drumbeat about
global warming, which would have Americans believe the Earth is on
course for catastrophic climate changes unless the federal government
(i.e. taxpayers) steps in to save the day.
unquote
====================================
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aU.evtnk6DPo&refer=worldwide
quote
Ocean Cooling to Briefly Halt Global Warming, Researchers Say
Share Business ExchangeTwitterFacebook| Email | Print | A A A
By Jim Efstathiou Jr.
April 30 (Bloomberg) -- Parts of North America and Europe may cool
naturally over the next decade, as shifting ocean currents temporarily
blunt the global-warming effect caused by mankind, Germany's Leibniz
Institute of Marine Sciences said.
Average temperatures in areas such as California and France may drop
over the next 10 years, influenced by colder flows in the North
Atlantic, said a report today by the institution based in Kiel, Germany.
Temperatures worldwide may stabilize in the period.
The study was based on sea-surface temperatures of currents that move
heat around the world, and vary from decade to decade. This regional
cooling effect may temporarily neutralize the long- term warming
phenomenon caused by heat-trapping greenhouse gases building up around
the earth, said Richard Wood, a research scientist at the Met Office
Hadley Centre, a U.K. provider of environmental and weather-related
services.
unquote
==============================================
http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20080304113132.aspx
quote
Famed Hurricane Forecaster William Gray Predicts Global Cooling in 10 Years
Expert states ocean cycles will have a more profound effect on climate
than CO2; criticizes James Hansen's climate models.
By Jeff Poor
Business & Media Institute
3/4/2008 11:47:32 AM
It turns out Al Gore was wrong. The scientists aren�t all in
agreement on global warming; thus there is no �consensus.�
Prominent hurricane forecaster Dr. William M. Gray, a professor at
Colorado State University, told the audience at the 2008 International
Conference on Climate Change on March 4 in New York that a natural cycle
of ocean water temperatures related to the salinity (the amount of salt)
in ocean water was responsible for some global warming that has taken
place. However, he said that same cycle means a period of cooling would
begin within 10 years.
unquote
==================================================
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/scarewatch/warming_really_cooling.html
quote
�Global cooling is really �global warming��
The scare: On 2 January 2009, the Wall Street Journal wrote one of a
series of articles apparently co-ordinated throughout the generally
alarmist news media throughout the holiday season, trying to overcome
the problem posed for �global warming� alarmists by the fact that global
mean surface temperatures have been on a downtrend for eight straight
years (Figure 1):
Figure 1
Eight straight years� global temperature downtrend: The authoritative
SPPI composite index of global mean surface temperature anomalies,
taking the mean of two surface and two satellite datasets and updated
through November 2008, shows a pronounced downtrend for eight full
years. Not one of the climate models relied upon by the IPCC had
predicted this downturn. The pink region shows the IPCC�s projected
rates of temperature increase: the thick red straight line � entirely
outside and below the pink region shows the real trend, calculated as
the least-squares linear regression on the composite temperature anomalies.
In the article, entitled The Warming Earth Blows Hot, Cold and Chaotic,
the Wall Street Journal starts out by admitting that �three independent
research groups� had concluded that 2008 was a comparatively cool year.
Even so, the article said, the year�s global temperature was the 9th or
10th warmest since reliable record-keeping began in 1850, though it was
the coldest since the turn of the 21st century.
The article, having mentioned last year�s cooling through gritted teeth,
but somehow not having mentioned that there has been a downtrend in
temperatures not for one year but for eight straight years, then lists a
series of bugaboos nearly all of which depend on the weather having
warmed over the past decade when in fact it has cooled.
The article frets that �higher temperatures make weather patterns more
unstable�; that �the planet has grown steadily warmer in recent
decades�; that �almost all of the warming in North America has taken
place since 1970�; that �the effects of rising temperatures are
accelerating�; that �ice loss is happening faster than the models are
showing�; that �Greenland has lost an area of ice ten times the size of
Manhattan�; that �Alaska�s low-lying ice-fields are disappearing�; that
�tropical storms can be expected to increase by 6% every 10 years�; that
2007�s Atlantic hurricane season was �the fourth most active in 64
years�; that �solar heat is the energy that drives the world�s weather,
and greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane are allowing
more of that energy to build up in the atmosphere every year�; and that
�so many subtle changes in so many different places, building up decade
after decade, add up to something more than the weather�s natural
variation�.
The truth: Since global temperatures have followed a cooling trend for
eight straight years (or 11, if one goes back to the exceptionally warm
el Nino year of 1998), most of the supposed recent consequences of
�global warming� mentioned in the article � to the extent that the
phenomena mentioned have occurred at all � cannot possibly have arisen
because of �global warming�, because there has not been any. What is
more, it is not only the atmosphere but also the oceans that have shown
a cooling trend. Not one of the models relied upon by the IPCC had
forecast the cooling. The pink region in Figure 1 is the IPCC�s range of
projections for future �global warming�, starting in 2001. It bears no
correlation whatsoever to the observed downtrend. From January 2009,
SPPI will be publishing a monthly-updated CO2 Report that will make
these and other data regularly available, and will help to dispel
climate myths such as those perpetrated and perpetuated in the Wall
Street Journal.
unquote
======================================================
Be very careful what you wish for, Kevin.
IAAH
> Kevin Cunningham wrote:
>> On Nov 24, 1:17 pm, bvallely <bvall...@aol.com> wrote:
>>> .>news:76aa5230-0422-4255...@h2g2000vbd.googlegroups.com...>
>>> climate liars
>>> .
>>>> It's over.
>>>> It's too late to recover.
>>>> It can no longer be fixed.
>>> .
>>> We've had a decade of slight global cooling. The problem is already
>>> fixed.
>>
>> Interesting, there isn't a climate scientist any were that agrees with
>> you. Of course climate scientists, what do they know? They spend
>> years and years studying and they think they're smart. Now you're
>> smart. You dropped out of art school. Now who knows the most about
>> climate? A climate scientist or you?
>
> http://deltafarmpress.com/news/robinson-column-0825/
Mmm. Not so much, as it turns out.
http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/ap-impact-statisticians-reject-174088.html
--
"I do not pretend to be able to prove that there
is no God. I equally cannot
prove that Satan is a fiction. The Christian god
may exist; so may the gods of
Olympus, or of ancient Egypt, or of Babylon. But
no one of these hypotheses is
more probable than any other: they lie outside the
region of even probable
knowledge, and therefore there is no reason to
consider any of them."
-Bertrand Russell
Yup
dog.com> wrote:
>
>
> >> .
> >>> But you do need to an anti-science right-wing shitkicker to make this
> >>> idiotic statement. >
> >> .
> >> You're the one who wants to turn Science into a religion, not me.
> >> .> Gore is not a scientist so there is no point in debating the issue with him. >
>
> >> .
> >> So, the most important proponent of global doesn't know what he's
> >> talking about. As long as Al has made a billion dollars off this
> >> scam, it behooves him to defend what he's selling. But he can't,
> >> because even he knows that Global Warming is full of crap.
>
> > Yes you've made it perfectly clear that you base your entire anti-
> > science argument on your hatred of Gore.
>
> That's just a bonus.... I mostly base my anti Global Warming on the
> Fake and unconfirmed DATA that you base you *HYPOTHESIS ON*
>
Then either PROVE IT to be fake – or just STFU. Of course you can’t do
that since the data you would use to “refute” is pure junk science
produced by a small minority of “scientists” whose work is never
published in peer reviewed journals and whose “research” is funded by
Exxon/Mobil. lol
Tom Sr.
> On Nov 24, 10:46 pm, Once in a China Blue Moon <chine.b...@yahoo.com>
> > covered by the ocean?
> .
> Sure - because those islands are far away from people who can double
> check the data.
Wrong Have you ever heard of New Zeland?
> You DO know that the Pacific is a single body of
> water, don't you? if part of it rises, it ALL rises.
And it ALL is.
It is just the simply fact that some places are just barely above sea
level that they are being affected FIRST:
-----
http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/449/index.html
Week of 12.12.08
Paradise Lost
Just this week, a top UN official predicted that by the middle of this
century, the world should expect six million people a year to be
displaced by increasingly severe storms and floods caused by climate
change. But for many island nations in the South Pacific, climate
change is already more than just a theory—it is a pressing, menacing
reality. These small, low-lying islands are frighteningly vulnerable
to rising temperatures and sea levels that could cause flooding and
contaminate their fresh water wells. Within 50 years, some of them
could be under water.
This week, NOW travels to the nation of Kiribati to see up close how
these changes affect residents' daily lives and how they are dealing
with the reality that both their land and culture could disappear from
the Earth. We also travel to New Zealand to visit an I-Kiribati
community that has already left its home, and to the Pacific Island
Forum in Niue to see how the rest of the region is coping with the
here-and-now crisis of climate change.
-----
And while these low-lying islands might be the FIRST to go, they are
NOT going to be the LAST:
-----
http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/green/greenblog/2009/11/boston_faces_deep_risk_from_se.html
Boston Faces Deep Risk from Sea Level Rise
A new report out by World Wildlife Fund and insurer Allianz warns that
sea levels could rise along the U.S. coast a whopping 26 inches by
2050 as the world warms. That would place assets worth $7.4 trillion
at risk along the US coast.
“With each new study the alarm bells become deafeningly clear that
climate change will have devastating consequences for our economy and
way of life,’’ said David Reed, senior vice president of policy at
WWF.
The report comes several weeks before the world’s nations meet in
Copenhagen to work toward a binding agreement to lower greenhouse
gases from power plants, cars, and factories that are warming the
earth and causing sea levels to rise.
New scientific evidence shows that the pace of warming in some places
is outstripping even dire projections.
In the report, Boston is cited as the city with the fourth greatest
risk exposure. The top three are Miami with $2.8 trillion; New York-
Newark area with $1.8 trillion and New Orleans with $753 billion.
-----
I live in Boston.
-Tom Sr.
Dave Heil
> On Nov 24, 5:43 pm, bvallely <bvall...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 24, 11:01 am, Once in a China Blue Moon <chine.b...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:> In article <232ed0cb-ac77-4f4b-a5b6-71a68bc90...@y10g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>>> bvallely <bvall...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>> .
>>>>> news:76aa5230-0422-4255...@h2g2000vbd.googlegroups.com...>
>>>>> climate liars
>>>> .
>>>>> It's over.
>>>>> It's too late to recover.
>>>>> It can no longer be fixed.
>>>> .
>>>> We've had a decade of slight global cooling. The problem is already
>>>> fixed.
>>> That would explain the Arctic ice pack melting.
>> .
>> That would explain the fact that the oceans haven't risen Correct me
>> if I'm wrong - as of this writing, New York City ISN'T submerged, is
>> it?
>
> So the fact that the Comoros Islands in the India ocean are becoming
> uninhabitable, the fact that India has removed all the willing
> inhabitants doesn't count?
http://www.comores-online.com/tourisme/tourismegb.htm
For places becoming uninhabitable, they're certainly going out of their
way to draw tourists. Is India forcibly removing people there? After
all the Comoros is a sovereign country:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/cn.html
The U.S. Embassy in Moroni closed in 1993 but the American Ambassador in
Madagascar represents U.S. interests in the Comoros.
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/5236.htm
As you'll note by reading the links to the web pages, nothing is
mentioned about encroaching water levels making the place uninhabitable.
You'd think something that important would have been mentioned,
wouldn't you?
Dave Heil
Al Gore is a pinhead who squats when he pees. I don't believe there is
anyone jealous or envious of Al. He now makes his money through a scam.
He'll sell you carbon offsets as penance for your use of fossil fuels.
You could set up a company selling brownie points to absolve someone of
their guilt over their use of electricity.
> You can't stand the fact that Al Gore was raised to fame, he served in
> the military and he went on to be a senator and a vice president. You
> didn't.
Raised to fame? His dad was a Senator who voted against the '64 Civil
Rights Act. We're supposed to jealous of Al because he was Vice
President?
> Bush never served.
The facts say that he did. His National Guard service satisfied his
military obligation. Perhaps you are confusing him with William
Jefferson Clinton, a draft dodger. Unlike Albert Gore, George Bush was
elected President--twice.
> Face it, you met the better man and
> you're just jealous.
He squats when he pees.
bvallely
> > GOD ALL MIGHTY WHAT THE HELL KIND OF "SCIENCE" KEEPS ITS DATA,
> > METHODOLOGY, AND ASSUMPTIONS "SECRET"?
> Who refuses to look at what is actually happening out there in the real world?
.
God doesn't refuse to look - He's given people free will to choose
their own paths. The global warming scam artists have chose to cook
the books to push their lies, and they got caught.
Dave Heil
> been sinking into the lagoon since its founding; sea level changes have little
> to do with its problem. Pacific islands that are going under the waves are coral
> atolls built on submerged volcanos.
Oh, damn! Kevin's gondola just sunk.
Dave Heil
> On Nov 25, 4:47 am, bvallely <bvall...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 24, 10:46 pm, Once in a China Blue Moon <chine.b...@yahoo.com>
>>> I already know why Venice is sinking. Do you know why Pacific islands are being
>>> covered by the ocean?
>> .
>> Sure - because those islands are far away from people who can double
>> check the data.
>
> Wrong Have you ever heard of New Zeland?
No. Is it anywhere near New Zealand?
bvallely
> > On Nov 24, 10:46 pm, Once in a China Blue Moon <chine.b...@yahoo.com>
> > > I already know why Venice is sinking. Do you know why Pacific islands are being
> > > covered by the ocean?
.
> > Sure - because those islands are far away from people who can double
> > check the data.
> Wrong Have you ever heard of New Zeland?
Yes, what about it?
.
> > You DO know that the Pacific is a single body of
> > water, don't you? if part of it rises, it ALL rises.
> And it ALL is.
.
Then why haven't we seen massive beach front loss in California and
New Jersey?
.
> It is just the simply fact that some places are just barely above sea
> level that they are being affected FIRST:
There are low islands dotting America's coasts - why are they doing
just fine? If the islands you're pointing to are mere inches about
sea level, is it possible that there's something inherently unstable
about that land mass which has nothing whatsoever to do with a rising
ocean? Why is man made global warming the Go To explanation for all
woes? Your example stinks of someone who's come to a conclusion and is
desperately looking for supporting evidence - not unlike the woman who
finds herself unexpectedly pregnant, and searches for someone with
whom to fall in love.
.
> -----http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/449/index.html
.
> Week of 12.12.08
> Paradise Lost
> Just this week, a top UN official
Ah, THAT fine organization. Just what cheap scam is the Oil For Food
people up to now?
.
>....predicted that by the middle of this century, the world should expect six million people a year to be displaced by increasingly severe storms and floods caused by climate change. But for many island nations in the South Pacific, climate change is already more than just a theory—it is a pressing, menacing reality. These small, low-lying islands are frighteningly vulnerable to rising temperatures and sea levels that could cause flooding and contaminate their fresh water wells. Within 50 years, some of them could be under water.>
.
"Give us all your money, or everyone will die. Aaaaaaiiiieeeeeee".
.
>This week, NOW travels to the nation of Kiribati to see up close how these changes affect residents' daily lives and how they are dealing with the reality that both their land and culture could disappear from the Earth.>
"Give us all your money, or everyone will die. Aaaaaaiiiieeeeeee".
.
> We also travel to New Zealand to visit an I-Kiribati community that has already left its home, and to the Pacific Island Forum in Niue to see how the rest of the region is coping with the here-and-now crisis of climate change.>
They're in the middle of the Pacific Ocean - up to 1200 miles away
from New Zealand. Mot of I-Kiribati aren't even island, but atols.
They're fragil, and in the middle of the most violent storms on the
planet. Land masses sink all the time in that part of the world.
Kevin Cunningham
wrote:
> In article <ff897db9-df53-41c2-bfe5-3c56d6c2a...@z10g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
>
> bvallely <bvall...@aol.com> wrote:
> > GOD ALL MIGHTY WHAT THE HELL KIND OF "SCIENCE" KEEPS ITS DATA,
> > METHODOLOGY, AND ASSUMPTIONS "SECRET"?
>
>
> Damn the living - It's a lovely life. I'm whoever you want me to be.
> Silver silverware - Where is the love? At least I can stay in character.
> Oval swimming pool - Where is the love? Annoying Usenet one post at a time.
> Damn the living - It's a lovely life. We support you, Sarah.
Actually you on the ultra right wing. You use what little science you
actually know to attack in the popular press. Face it, in scientific
circles you are considered idiots. There is a profound difference
between Newsmax and Science.
Tom Sr.
> Tom Sr. wrote:
> > On Nov 25, 4:47 am, bvallely <bvall...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> On Nov 24, 10:46 pm, Once in a China Blue Moon <chine.b...@yahoo.com>
> >>> I already know why Venice is sinking. Do you know why Pacific islands are being
> >>> covered by the ocean?
> >> Sure - because those islands are far away from people who can double
> >> check the data.
> > Wrong Have you ever heard of New Zeland?
> No. Is it anywhere near New Zealand?
I'm dyslexic. Do you enjoy making fun of the learning disabled?
So you got your cheap shot in, Heil. I also couldn't help but noticed
you failed to quote, let alone address, the fact that your *claim*
that "those islands are far away from people who can double check the
data" was actually false.
How typical of you, Heil.
-Tom Sr.
Tater Gumfries
> On Nov 24, 7:43 pm, Tater Gumfries <TaterGumfr...@usa.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 24, 3:51 pm, bvallely <bvall...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 24, 10:36 am, Stile4aly <stile4...@yahoo.com> wrote:> On Nov 24, 11:19 am, bvallely <bvall...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > .> > The largest contributor to the greenhouse effect is not CO2, but water
> > > > > > > vapor.
> > > > > .
> > > > > > What is the dewpoint of carbon dioxide?
>
> > > > > .
> > > > > 3. Whenever possible go outside the experience of the enemy.
> > > > > Saul Alinsky
> > > > > Rules for Radicals
>
> > > > So why are you participating in a debate when you admit you're
> > > > inexperienced in the details of the debate.
>
> > > .
> > > Because I don't need to be a scientist to know when I'm being lied
> > > to. It's pretty simple - al gore refuses to debate the issue, or even
> > > to take questions.
>
>
> > > Scientists who disagree with gobal warming
> > > predictiions are demonized and find their funding shut down.
>
>
> > > The only reason for such activity is to cover up a gigantic scam -
> > > literally the largest in world history.
>
>
> > > We now have evidence that the top climatic scientists have been
> > > cooking the books on global warming -
>
>
> .
> Yes, I do.
> .>Provide a citation or admit you're ignorant.>
>
> .
> Here's an article in the Wall Street Journal.
Where is the part about this guy being a top climatic scientist?
Tater
Dave Heil
> On Nov 25, 4:05 pm, Dave Heil <k...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
>> Tom Sr. wrote:
>>> On Nov 25, 4:47 am, bvallely <bvall...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>> On Nov 24, 10:46 pm, Once in a China Blue Moon <chine.b...@yahoo.com>
>>>>> I already know why Venice is sinking. Do you know why Pacific islands are being
>>>>> covered by the ocean?
>>>> .--
>>>> Sure - because those islands are far away from people who can double
>>>> check the data.
>> --
>>> Wrong Have you ever heard of New Zeland?
>> --
>> No. Is it anywhere near New Zealand?
>
> I'm dyslexic. Do you enjoy making fun of the learning disabled?
After I've read your vituperative rants directed at others, I'd have to
say yes.
> So you got your cheap shot in, Heil.
For a guy who spews venom at others, you certainly have thin skin.
> I also couldn't help but noticed
> you failed to quote, let alone address, the fact that your *claim*
> that "those islands are far away from people who can double check the
> data" was actually false.
My claim? Refresh my memory. What did I claim?
>
> How typical of you, Heil.
What is typical of me?
datakoll
SLIME TOMORROW REFERS:
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/23/global-warming-basics/
IF posters have the time then please read
Tom Sr.
> Tom Sr. wrote:
> > On Nov 25, 4:05 pm, Dave Heil <k...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
> >> Tom Sr. wrote:
> >>> On Nov 25, 4:47 am, bvallely <bvall...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Nov 24, 10:46 pm, Once in a China Blue Moon <chine.b...@yahoo.com>
> >>>>> I already know why Venice is sinking. Do you know why Pacific islands are being
> >>>>> covered by the ocean?
> >>>> .--
> >>>> Sure - because those islands are far away from people who can double
> >>>> check the data.
> >> --
> >>> Wrong Have you ever heard of New Zeland?
> >> --
> >> No. Is it anywhere near New Zealand?
> > I'm dyslexic. Do you enjoy making fun of the learning disabled?
> After I've read your vituperative rants directed at others, I'd have to
> say yes.
> > So you got your cheap shot in, Heil.
> For a guy who spews venom at others, you certainly have thin skin.
> > I also couldn't help but noticed
> > you failed to quote, let alone address, the fact that your *claim*
> > that "those islands are far away from people who can double check the
> > data" was actually false.
> My claim? Refresh my memory. What did I claim?
> > How typical of you, Heil.
> What is typical of me?
I have no interest in playing your stupid and silly games, child.
If you want to be the fool, Heil, you are doing an excellent job of
it. I have no need to help you.
I accept your choice of the willful-ignorance in your reply as a
direct admission of your refusal to accept and deal with scientific
facts and reality..
One final thing, Heil, for now. Willful-ignorance is dangerous to the
person who chooses it and everyone around them. You have chosen to be
both willfully and woefully ignorant.
Beware of yourself, Heil.
-Tom Sr.
Dave Heil
Then why generate them?
> If you want to be the fool, Heil, you are doing an excellent job of
> it. I have no need to help you.
Help me? You're doing fine, all by your lonesome.
> I accept your choice of the willful-ignorance in your reply as a
> direct admission of your refusal to accept and deal with scientific
> facts and reality..
Have I done all that? I thought I'd done pretty well with scientific
fact and reality. I just don't happen to agree with you. Many
scientists do not either. See my other posts today for info on them.
> One final thing, Heil, for now. Willful-ignorance is dangerous to the
> person who chooses it and everyone around them. You have chosen to be
> both willfully and woefully ignorant.
What I've chosen is not to play your game. In fact, I think you're a kook.
>
> Beware of yourself, Heil.
Thanks for the warning. I'll be on the lookout for me.
bvallely
wrote:
> In article <4315f6e5-328f-4867-93ab-506ee7595...@z3g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
>
> bvallely <bvall...@aol.com> wrote:
> > .
> > > > GOD ALL MIGHTY WHAT THE HELL KIND OF "SCIENCE" KEEPS ITS DATA,
> > > > METHODOLOGY, AND ASSUMPTIONS "SECRET"?
> > .
> > > Who refuses to look at what is actually happening out there in the real
> > > world?
> > .
> > God doesn't refuse to look - He's given people free will to choose
> > their own paths. The global warming scam artists have chose to cook
>
.
The reality is that 3000 e-mails have been hacked which prove the
Gobal Warming scare mongers have cooked the books.
The scam is over. Deal with it.
LAWRENCE
You may be master of
Your chosen occupation
With several strings of
Polo ponies in your stable-
You must remember all the same
That at the crux of every game
Is knowing when it's time
To leave the table.
And it's important to be artful
in your exit-
No turning back, you must accept
the con is done,
But now and then, you might recall
The moments when you had it all-
You had the charm,
You had the talent
And, my God, you hd some fun.
It was a ball, it was a blast
And it's a shame it couldn't last,
But every chapter has to end,
You must agree.
It was a joy, it was sublime,
A splendid way to earn a dime
For a dirty rotten guy like me.
When you look back on all your
conquests and deceptions
You see a thousand flawless pearls
set in a strand,
Laid out from Biarritz to Rome,
Each one as perfect as a poem-
An opus to be proud of though it's
written in the sand.
It was a ball, it was a thrill,
You had teh grace, you had the skill
To know exactly what to say
And what to do.
You wouldn't trade a single day
Or have it any other way-
A dirty rotten guy like you.
FREDDY
It's almost a religion-
The need to take a pigeon
And to play your part
With elegance and zest
But when it's time to fold the act
And your duffel bag is packed
Take comfort in the fact
That you've been
working with the best.
It was a blast, it was a ball
It was a gas, I loved it all
'Cause I was hanging with the man
And that's a plus.
LAWRENCE
Aw, Freddy.
You've got the verve
FREDDY
You've got the guts-
LAWRENCE
You've go the nerve-
FREDDY
You've got the nuts!
LAWRENCE
I guess we're
LAWRENCE/FREDDY
-Dirty rotten crooks, dirty rotten
shnooks-
It was a trip, it was a blast
It was a shame it couldn't lsat
'Cause it was almost
Too prodigious to discuss.
LAWRENCE
So we get screw for fifty-grand-
FREDDY
I think we still deserve a hand-
LAWRENCE/FREDDY
Dirty
Rotten
Guys-
Like us!
David Yazbek
"Dirty, Rotten Scoundrels"
Day Brown
> climate liars
You're not a gardener, are you. Maybe you should study statistics too.
Look at the date for this post. This morning I went out, and saw a
potato plant still green. The seed catalogs all say I should expect my
first fall frost Oct 15. Mite see it tomorrow. Over 5 weeks late.
Now, if you knew anything about statistics and weather patterns, you'd
know that this is well beyond the record for my neck of Ozark woods. So
far, in fact, that the chances are over a million to one of having a
first frost this late without a climate change.
I was born on a farm in 1939, and been paying attention to weather
patterns, as my ancestors have done, for a damn long time. We can feel
it in our bones. Those who could not feel it had crop failures, and
didnt stay in the gene pool.
Kevin Cunningham
wrote:
> warming when it suits your own stupid arguments but when anyone does
> the same in arguing the opposite you all are the first to scream that
> "it's about global climate not regional weather".
> Typical liberal flip flopping.
>
> And speaking of records, why is it that a lot of the record high
> temperatures for any given day during the year that were set 50, 60
> and up to 100 years ago remain unbroken if everything is indeed
> warming?
>
> Matter of fact, the National weather service reports: "The average
> October temperature of 50.8°F was 4.0°F below the 20th Century average
> and ranked as the 3rd coolest based on preliminary data.
>
> # For the nation as a whole, it was the third coolest October on
> record. The month was marked by an active weather pattern that
> reinforced unseasonably cold air behind a series of cold fronts.
> Temperatures were below normal in eight of the nation's nine climate
> regions, and of the nine, five were much below normal. Only the
> Southeast climate region had near normal temperatures for October.
> # Statewide temperatures coincided with the regional values as all but
> six states had below normal temperatures. Oklahoma had its coolest
> October on record and ten other states had their top five coolest such
> months.
> # Florida was the only state to have an above normal temperature
> average in October. It was the sixth consecutive month that the
> Florida's temperature was above normal, resulting in the third warmest
> such period (May-October).
> # The three-month period (August-October) was the coolest on record
> for three states: Nebraska, Kansas, and Oklahoma. Five other states
> had top five cool periods: Missouri (2nd), Iowa (3rd) , Arkansas (5th)
> , Illinois (5th) and South Dakota (5th) . Every climate division in
> Kansas (nine) and Nebraska (eight) recorded a record cool such period.
> # For the year-to-date (January - October) period, the contiguous U.S.
> temperature ranked 43rd warmest. No state had a top or bottom ten
> temperature value for this period. "http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=national&year=2009&month=10
>
> Guess "your bones" know more about statistics and average temps than
> all those climate experts you all love to drool over no?
> ROFL
Wow, all the meteorologists will have to get new methods. At
meteorological meetings they just have meteorologist after
meteorologist get up and give the weather for today.
Geez, drooler, you can't site *a* scientific paper that shows your
right. You don't know what the the science of meteorology is.
But that's typical for the right wing. They can't quote facts so they
quote what ever they think. The plain and simple fact is that global
warming is all to real. That the oceans are increasing in size. Low
lying islands are being flooded. And the future looks bleak.
If you have a fact please post it. It will be a first.