84% of US scientists are lying about global warming, they were bribed by the commies! Yeah, that's the ticket!
Johnny Asia
in on the scam! Yeah, that's the ticket!
An overwhelming number of scientists (84%) say the earth is warming
because of human activity, while just 4% of scientists say there is no
solid evidence the earth is warming. Yet only 56% of Americans say
that scientists agree that global warming is real and man-made. More
than a third (35%) say scientists have not reached a consensus on
climate change. The public's perception of where the scientific
community stands on climate change is tied to their own opinions on
the issue.
+
Pucker your lips for the Apocalypse!
Johnny Asia, Guitarist from the Future
tunderbar
> Yeah, that's the ticket! The vast majority of American scientists are
> in on the scam! Yeah, that's the ticket!
>
> An overwhelming number of scientists (84%) say the earth is warming
> because of human activity, while just 4% of scientists say there is no
> solid evidence the earth is warming. Yet only 56% of Americans say
> that scientists agree that global warming is real and man-made. More
> than a third (35%) say scientists have not reached a consensus on
> climate change. The public's perception of where the scientific
> community stands on climate change is tied to their own opinions on
> the issue.
>
>
> +
>
> Pucker your lips for the Apocalypse!
>
> Johnny Asia, Guitarist from the Future
>
> http://johnnyasia.com
I call BULLSHIT, Mr. Gutarist from the Future.
What poll exactly said that 84% of scientists agree that agw exists?
What poll? Where? When? How? What were the questions? Who exactly was
polled and how?
TUKA
> Yeah, that's the ticket! The vast majority of American scientists are
> in on the scam! Yeah, that's the ticket!
>
>
>
> An overwhelming number of scientists (84%) say the earth is warming
> because of human activity, while just 4% of scientists say there is no
> solid evidence the earth is warming.
As usual, you are misrepresenting what the question is. AGW proponents
are cherry pickers extraordinaire.
You can find most scientists will say there is *some* warming. Even sceptics
say that. However if you ask how many think there will be *catastrophic* warming,
the answer will be different.
As usual, it boils down to the below.
Let's break down the case for human-caused global warming logically:
1) There is plenty of evidence that global warming has been occurring
recently.
2) There is ample evidence that carbon emissions causes warming and that
the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide is increasing.
3) But there is no evidence that carbon dioxide emissions are the main
cause of the recent global warming.
What Would Constitute Evidence?
There is good evidence to support the calculations of the warming caused by
an increase in atmospheric CO2, without the effect of the climate feedbacks.
We are much less certain about the total warming due to increasing CO2,
which include the climate feedbacks that amplify or dampen this no-feedbacks
warming due to CO2. IPCC climate theory assumes a strong positive,
amplifying climate feedback, principally due to water vapor. Therefore,
either:
* evidence of overall strong positive feedback in the climate, or
* evidence of a strongly positive water vapor feedback
would constitute evidence (that CO2 is the main cause of the recent global
warming).
For example, if the radiosondes had detected the strong hotspot predicted by
the IPCC climate models then that would have been strong evidence--but
instead the observed lack of hotspot demonstrates that the water vapor
feedback is weak or negative. Strong correlations and synchronized changes
in trend directions between CO2 and temperature on all time scales would
constitute evidence, but we know that it is not the case.
Otherwise we are looking for some new evidence from left field. Especially
difficult for the CO2 theory is how to explain the counter evidence that is
accumulating, which shows that the feedbacks are dampening not amplifying
and that the climate sensitivity is a fraction of that assumed by the IPCC.
It appears at this point that the CO2 theory is doomed, and it is only a
matter of time before its bubble bursts.
All at:
http://sciencespeak.com/NoEvidence.pdf
--
An amateur practices until he gets it right. A pro
practices until he can't get it wrong. -- unknown
Johnny Asia
wrote:
>
>As usual, you are misrepresenting what the question is. >>
TUKA
And again you are misrepresenting. Some warming? Even skeptics like myself
will say it probably is. Catastrophic warming? Another question entire.
Once again:
Let's break down the case for human-caused global warming logically:
1) There is plenty of evidence that global warming has been occurring
recently.
2) There is ample evidence that carbon emissions causes warming and that
the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide is increasing.
3) But there is no evidence that carbon dioxide emissions are the main
cause of the recent global warming.
[1]Read the document at http://sciencespeak.com/NoEvidence.pdf.
What Would Constitute Evidence?
There is good evidence to support the calculations of the warming caused by
an increase in atmospheric CO2, without the effect of the climate feedbacks.
We are much less certain about the total warming due to increasing CO2,
which include the climate feedbacks that amplify or dampen this no-feedbacks
warming due to CO2. IPCC climate theory assumes a strong positive,
amplifying climate feedback, principally due to water vapor. Therefore,
either:
* evidence of overall strong positive feedback in the climate, or
* evidence of a strongly positive water vapor feedback
would constitute evidence (that CO2 is the main cause of the recent global
warming).
For example, if the radiosondes had detected the strong hotspot predicted by
the IPCC climate models then that would have been strong evidence--but
instead the observed lack of hotspot demonstrates that the water vapor
feedback is weak or negative. Strong correlations and synchronized changes
in trend directions between CO2 and temperature on all time scales would
constitute evidence, but we know that it is not the case.
Otherwise we are looking for some new evidence from left field. Especially
difficult for the CO2 theory is how to explain the counter evidence that is
accumulating, which shows that the feedbacks are dampening not amplifying
and that the climate sensitivity is a fraction of that assumed by the IPCC.
It appears at this point that the CO2 theory is doomed, and it is only a
matter of time before its bubble bursts.
Excerpted from document by Dr David Evans 16 June 2009 Last minor
revision 1 July 2009
References
1. http://sciencespeak.com/NoEvidence.pdf
--
Alas for those who never sing, but die with all their music in them.
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr.
Ouroboros Rex
5 seconds with Google and I knew. What's your specific brain illness?
tunderbar
> tunderbar wrote:
> > On Dec 11, 12:56 pm, Johnny Asia <baying46...@mypacks.net> wrote:
> >> Yeah, that's the ticket! The vast majority of American scientists are
> >> in on the scam! Yeah, that's the ticket!
>
> >> An overwhelming number of scientists (84%) say the earth is warming
> >> because of human activity, while just 4% of scientists say there is
> >> no solid evidence the earth is warming. Yet only 56% of Americans say
> >> that scientists agree that global warming is real and man-made. More
> >> than a third (35%) say scientists have not reached a consensus on
> >> climate change. The public's perception of where the scientific
> >> community stands on climate change is tied to their own opinions on
> >> the issue.
>
> >>http://pewresearch.org/databank/dailynumber/?NumberID=902&utm_source=...
>
>
> >> Pucker your lips for the Apocalypse!
>
> >> Johnny Asia, Guitarist from the Future
>
> >>http://johnnyasia.com
>
> > I call BULLSHIT, Mr. Gutarist from the Future.
>
> > What poll exactly said that 84% of scientists agree that agw exists?
> > What poll? Where? When? How? What were the questions? Who exactly was
> > polled and how?
>
> 5 seconds with Google and I knew. What's your specific brain illness?
Then fucking post it moron.
Johnny Asia
wrote:
> Excerpted from document by Dr David Evans 16 June 2009 Last minor
> revision 1 July 2009
>
No peer-reviewed articles on climate change
According to his resume, Evans has not published any peer-reviewed
research papers on the subject of climate change. Evans published one
paper, in 1987, but it was unrelated to climate change.
Evans published an article for the Alabama-based Ludwig von Mises
Instutute, a right-wing, free-market think tank.
Some of Evans articles appear on the website for the for the
Australian chapter of the Lavoisier Group, a global warming "skeptic"
organization with close ties to the mining industry.
http://www.desmogblog.com/node/3228
Dr. David Evans was described in a brief bio note in an opinion column
in The Australian disputing global warming as a former "consultant to
the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005".[1] This article
has been refuted online.[2]
History & Background
A biographical note on Evans states that he "attended the University
of Sydney for five years from 1979 where he did science and
engineering, and then spent a further five years at Stanford
University at Palo Alto in California, doing a PhD in electrical
engineering ... After taking out his doctorate he worked for a year in
Silicon Valley and then returned to Australia to write a book on the
research he had done for his PhD. He had planned to spend a year or
two writing, but during his writing he discovered "lots more
interesting stuff and mainly did my own research until 1999". In the
meantime, to support himself, he traded on the stock market and did
some programming odd jobs."[3]
According to his biographical note, Evans rhetorically describes
himself as a "Rocket Scientist"[4]. (While Evans use of the term was
rhetorical, one article on a website for the conspiracy-minded took it
literally and headed an article about Evans claims "Top Rocket
Scientist: No Evidence CO2 Causes Global Warming".[5] While Evans has
a PhD in electrical engineering, there is no evidence that he was ever
employed as a rocket scientist. Evans explained this was a
misunderstanding: "In US academic and industry parlance, 'rocket
scientist' means anyone who has completed a PhD in one of the hard
sciences at one of the top US institutions."[6]
Evans wrote an article posted on the website of the Ludwig von Mises
Institute -- an Alabama-based free market think tank -- that in the
late 1990's "lots of jobs depended on the idea that carbon emissions
caused global warming. Many of them were bureaucratic, but there were
a lot of science jobs created too. I was on that gravy train, making a
high wage in a science job that would not have existed if we didn't
believe carbon emissions caused global warming. And so were lots of
people around me; there were international conferences full of such
people. We had political support, the ear of government, big budgets.
We felt fairly important and useful (I did anyway). It was great. We
were working to save the planet!"[7]
Articles and Resources
Sources
1.? David Evans, "No smoking hot spot", The Australian, July 18, 2008.
2.? Tim Lambert, "The Australian's War on Science XV", Deltoid (blog),
July 18, 2008.
3.? Lavoisier Group, "Workshop 2007: About the Participants",
Lavoisier Group website, 2007.
4.? "David Evans", Science Speak, accessed March 2009.
5.? Paul Joseph Watson, "Top Rocket Scientist: No Evidence CO2 Causes
Global Warming", Prison Planet, July 22, 2008.
6.? "Who is 'Rocket Scientist' David Evans?", DeSmog Blog, July 22,
2008.
7.? David Evans, "I Was On the Global Warming Gravy Train", Ludwig von
Mises Institute, May 28, 2007
Eddie Haskell
"Johnny Asia" <bayin...@mypacks.net> wrote in message
news:5a55i5tqcr7f3sf5v...@4ax.com...
> Yeah, that's the ticket! The vast majority of American scientists are
> in on the scam! Yeah, that's the ticket!
Hint: Follow the money.
The fundamentalist doom mongers also ignore scientists who say the effects
of global warming may be benign. Harvard astrophysicist Sallie Baliunas said
added CO2 in the atmosphere may actually benefit the world because more CO2
helps plants grow. Warmer winters would give farmers a longer harvest
season, and might end the droughts in the Sahara Desert.
Why don't we hear about this part of the global warming argument? "It's the
money!" said Dr. Baliunas. "Twenty-five billion dollars in government
funding has been spent since 1990 to research global warming. If scientists
and researchers were coming out releasing reports that global warming has
little to do with man, and most to do with just how the planet works, there
wouldn't be as much money to study it."
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=3061015&page=1
But much of science runs on government money. Some people find the stink of
bias only in private money, and see government as free of it, but they are
mistaken. Government likes certain beliefs. To get its money, you have to
get the approval of the scientists it selects, and you are less likely to
get it if they think your idea wrong.
What that means, Miller says, is that "If you say low doses of radiation
aren't bad for you, or that global warming is due to variations in the sun,
you can't get funded."
He says this happened to University of California scientist Peter Dues-berg,
who challenged the viral theory of AIDS, and to Harvard's Willie Soon, who
challenged the pollution theory of global warming, and to others. In a paper
published in 2007 in the Journal of Information Ethics, Miller argued that
conformity is built into the system of government grants.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2004290766_rams19.html
Perhaps because there's little incentive for scientists to do anything but
emphasize the negative and the destructive. Alarming news often leads to
government funding, funding generates research, and research is the key to
scientists' professional advancement. Good news threatens that arrangement.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=2872
-Eddie Haskell
Eddie Haskell
You never told us how money the government pays them to say that.
Btw, shut your yapper. You're polluting the place.
Last Post
On Dec 11, 2:11 pm, TUKA <t...@tuka.valuemedia.com> wrote:
> On 2009-12-11, Johnny Asia <baying46...@mypacks.net> wrote:
>
> > Yeah, that's the ticket! The vast majority of American scientists are
> > in on the scam! Yeah, that's the ticket!
•• A vast majority of scientists both here and abroad are afraid for
their jobs if they speak out. Gore disagreed with his scientific
mentor and he was quickly replaced at NASA by James Hansen.
>
> > An overwhelming number of scientists (84%) say the earth is warming
> > because of human activity, while just 4% of scientists say there is no
> > solid evidence the earth is warming.
>
> As usual, you are misrepresenting what the question is. AGW proponents
> are cherry pickers extraordinaire.
>
> You can find most scientists will say there is *some* warming. Even sceptics
> say that. However if you ask how many think there will be *catastrophic* warming,
> the answer will be different.
>
> As usual, it boils down to the below.
>
> Let's break down the case for human-caused global warming logically:
>
> 1) There is plenty of evidence that global warming has been occurring
> recently.
•• Not true! th e data collected ny GISS/NASA, NOAA, and Hadley-CRU is
carefully groomed to provide a desired effect. North America and
Europe have both had miserable summers yet NASA, NOAA and The Met
Office
reported several months with the ie warmest/hottest October in
history.
•• We are 12,000+ years past the ending the last Ice Age. We are due
for reglaciation. We had an 800± year trial run ending about 1850. Now
after 160 years later we are seeing all of the signals of a climate
that is entering the next glaciation ie violent storms (See
Phillipines) the worst Tsunami (in 2004) earthquakes, volcanic
eruptions, tornados, floods and blizzards. Hot hot spells (Australia)
and cold cold spells; forests changing from hardwoods to conifers that
peefer the cold etc but you get the idea.
•• These were all spelled out in 1979 in papers by Dr Genvieve
Woillard and others. By Woillards estimate we should see the violence
continue for another 20 to 30 years and the ice start to advance from
the poles about 2110.
•• Greenhouse gasses will only hasten the cooling
> 2) There is ample evidence that carbon emissions causes warming and
•• There is ZERO evidence for CO2
causing warming. There is some
evidence for a miniscule feedback
Miniscule because the clouds are on the
move and when they meet a cold front,
the works-- CO2+NO2+H2O gets
dumped and becomes fertilizer.
> the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide is increasing.
•• yes but at a snails pace
> 3) But there is no evidence that carbon dioxide emissions are the main
> cause of the recent global warming.
•• What warming?????
>
> What Would Constitute Evidence?
>
> There is good evidence to support the calculations of the warming caused by
> an increase in atmospheric CO2, without the effect of the climate feedbacks.
•• Not true!
— —
| In real science the burden of proof is always
| on the proposer, never on the sceptics. So far
| neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
| iota of valid data for global warming nor have
| they provided data that climate change is being
| effected by commerce and industry, and not by
| natural phenomena
TUKA
> wrote:
>
>
>> Excerpted from document by Dr David Evans 16 June 2009 Last minor
>> revision 1 July 2009
>>
>
> David Evans
>
> No peer-reviewed articles on climate change
> According to his resume, Evans has not published any peer-reviewed
> research papers on the subject of climate change. Evans published one
> paper, in 1987, but it was unrelated to climate change.
Well, with the peer review process in climate being what it is, it is
not surprising.
Since non-AGW climate studies are not funded, it isn't surprising that
not many are done. After all, if you are a priest at a church like our
now-obvious Church of Climate Change, you don't keep your priesthood very
long if you explain you are going to investigate whether your God exists.
Adam Whyte-Settlar
"tunderbar" <tdco...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3678269d-aba6-4e55...@r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
The figure rises to 96.2% among published climatologists.
Google is your friend.
Adam Whyte-Settlar
"TUKA" <tu...@tuka.valuemedia.com> wrote in message
news:slrnhi68n...@bill.heins.net...
> On 2009-12-11, Johnny Asia <bayin...@mypacks.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 13:39:24 -0600, TUKA <tu...@tuka.valuemedia.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Excerpted from document by Dr David Evans 16 June 2009 Last minor
>>> revision 1 July 2009
>>>
>>
>> David Evans
>>
>> No peer-reviewed articles on climate change
>> According to his resume, Evans has not published any peer-reviewed
>> research papers on the subject of climate change. Evans published one
>> paper, in 1987, but it was unrelated to climate change.
>
> Well, with the peer review process in climate being what it is, it is
> not surprising.
>
> Since non-AGW climate studies are not funded,
Cite?
TUKA
No study out there that I know of. But I can mention the work of UC San
Diego science historian Naomi Oreskes, who looked at 928 abstracts of
peer-reviewed articles from 1993 and 2003 and found, "Remarkably, none
of the papers disagreed with the consensus position" in favor of man-
made global warming.
Yet there are very definitely scientists skeptical of AGW. I will also
mention Bill Gray of Colorado State. Gray is a renowned researcher and
is considered one of the foremost experts on hurricanes. He had been a
funding machine, frequently getting his proposals accepted by NASA,
NOAA, and the NSF. Once he stated his skepticism about AGW in 1993,
not a single proposal was accepted by those agencies. Thirteen
consecutive denied.
Tim Ball and Richard Lindzen also state they have trouble getting
funding for studies. Lindzen has had none from NASA or NOAA, dominated
by AGW alarmists like James Hansen and Gavin Schmidt.
Also, there is this:
http://www.heartland.org/custom/semod_policybot/pdf/25717.pdf
--
I don't want to get to the end of my life and find I have just
lived the length of it. I want to have lived the width of it as
well. -- Diane Ackerman
Adam Whyte-Settlar
> On 2009-12-13, Adam Whyte-Settlar <ador@ble> wrote:
>>
>> "TUKA" <tu...@tuka.valuemedia.com> wrote in message
>> news:slrnhi68n...@bill.heins.net...
>>> On 2009-12-11, Johnny Asia <bayin...@mypacks.net> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 13:39:24 -0600, TUKA <tu...@tuka.valuemedia.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Excerpted from document by Dr David Evans 16 June 2009 Last
>>>>> minor
>>>>> revision 1 July 2009
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> David Evans
>>>>
>>>> No peer-reviewed articles on climate change
>>>> According to his resume, Evans has not published any peer-reviewed
>>>> research papers on the subject of climate change. Evans published one
>>>> paper, in 1987, but it was unrelated to climate change.
>>>
>>> Well, with the peer review process in climate being what it is, it is
>>> not surprising.
>>>
>>> Since non-AGW climate studies are not funded,
>>
>> Cite?
>
> No study out there that I know of. But I can mention the work of UC San
> Diego science historian Naomi Oreskes, who looked at 928 abstracts of
> peer-reviewed articles from 1993 and 2003 and found, "Remarkably, none
> of the papers disagreed with the consensus position" in favor of man-
> made global warming.
>
> Yet there are very definitely scientists skeptical of AGW.
Yes indeed. About seven the last time I counted.
> I will also
> mention Bill Gray of Colorado State. Gray is a renowned researcher and
> is considered one of the foremost experts on hurricanes. He had been a
> funding machine, frequently getting his proposals accepted by NASA,
> NOAA, and the NSF. Once he stated his skepticism about AGW in 1993,
> not a single proposal was accepted by those agencies. Thirteen
> consecutive denied.
The Bill Gray who contends "it's all a hoax contrived by scientists hungry
for research funding, media professionals thirsting for Pulitzer Prizes and
foreign powers seeking to create a single world government" and that
"Scientists are brainwashing our children". That Bill Gray?
Does that seem like the words of someone you would be happy to hand over
taxpayers funding to?
But in any case he still authored the yearly hurricane forecasts up until
2005 (in fact SFAIK he still co-authors it?) and he is head the Tropical
Meteorology Project at CSU.
The Dean also said recently that he was a great faculty member and an
'institution' at CSU.
He's also perfectly free to state his views anywhere he wants and he
frequently does. He's hardly been ostracised. Compare that to the sordid
witch-hunt and blatent libel - even death threats FFS! - aimed at prominant
climate scientists lately. Cuts both ways.
I've been involved in environmental management since about 1978.
Every scientist I know has had difficulties due to their speaking out
against the vested interests of Big Oil and others for decades. Most of them
worked for a pittance considering their qualifications. Many still do. The
Copanhagen Diagnosis they compiled for FREE.
Back in the 70's and 80's some lost their jobs as a result of their research
into CO2 induced warming.(or 'The Greenhouse Effect" as we called it back
then) - some lost their careers. It is particularly galling to the likes of
them and me to hear the dittoheads endlessly repeat the meme that the AGW
scientists are only doing it for the money in the light of the decades most
of them have spent fighting a lonely and thankless uphill battle against
hugely powerfull government and commercial vested interests.
As I've said elsewhere - if any scientist could disprove AGW then he'd be a
cert for the Nobel Prize and would be a millionairre within months - but I
strongly doubty that even with unlimited funding anyone could achieve that.
That CO2 traps heat is a scientific fact easily replicated in any high
school scince lab. The extent to which is traps heat is now observable using
sientific instruments.
Everything else is just politics.
> Tim Ball and Richard Lindzen also state they have trouble getting
> funding for studies. Lindzen has had none from NASA or NOAA, dominated
> by AGW alarmists like James Hansen and Gavin Schmidt.
The science has been warning of the consequences of CO2 emissions since
1896. We are on the line of the 'worst case scenario' in almost every single
aspect. The effects can be observed. The consequences of 'bussiness as
usaul' will be dire. How is that 'alarmist'? It's just science. If some
scientists aren't getting published perhaps it's because their papers
contain serious flaws.
If 96.2% of practicing published climatologists worldwide are all in
agreement that the earth is warming and humans are mainly responsible it
seems fairly prudent to me to listen to them. Especially when I can see the
results with my own eyes.
I'm living in Australia at the moment. We are probably the most vulnerable
country. The last 6 months have been the hottest 6 months recorded here in
180 years. The droughts have exceeded even the famously disastrous 1950's
'big dry' by a large margin. As we speak thousands of farmers are currently
abandoning ranches and farms that they have lived on for half a dozen
generations. Coincidence? I suppose it's just possible. But precisely this
scenario was predicted 20 years ago. If it is a coincidence then it's a damn
big one.
> Also, there is this:
>
> http://www.heartland.org/custom/semod_policybot/pdf/25717.pdf
OH perleeese! Heartland?!
I'm not usualy one to shoot the messenger but in their case.....
I have read their lists of 'facts' many times. Practically every single
figure, graph and quote they produce can be debunked within minutes.
And is it really surprising that capitalist western governments
are -finally - spending billions on trying to prevent the end of the
capitalist western industialised world?
Do you really believe dictatorships like China need some kind of 'scam' to
raise taxes?
I'm glad they are. If you wan't to end up as a survivalist in a cave in a
hot desert fine. I like my comforts - and after 30 years I'm glad to see
mine and my contemporaries warnings are at last being taken seriously. If
they had listened to us in the 70's we wouldn't have such a massive problem
now.
If there is any truth to what you say about 'sceptics' getting funded then I
agree it's 'a bad thing' but the real debate has long since moved on from
'is it happening' to 'what can we do to stop it'. The pendulum has swung and
if they aren't part of the solution then they are part of the problem, and I
for one won't be crying any tears over handfull of poor dears.
Adam Whyte-Settlar
"Last Post" <last...@primus.ca> wrote in message
news:aa416f2c-e0ba-48d8...@g31g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
EXCESS AND OFF-TOPIC NEWSGROUPS TRIMMED
On Dec 11, 2:11 pm, TUKA <t...@tuka.valuemedia.com> wrote:
> On 2009-12-11, Johnny Asia <baying46...@mypacks.net> wrote:
>
> > Yeah, that's the ticket! The vast majority of American scientists are
> > in on the scam! Yeah, that's the ticket!
�� A vast majority of scientists both here and abroad are afraid for
their jobs if they speak out. Gore disagreed with his scientific
mentor and he was quickly replaced at NASA by James Hansen.
>
> > An overwhelming number of scientists (84%) say the earth is warming
> > because of human activity, while just 4% of scientists say there is no
> > solid evidence the earth is warming.
>
> As usual, you are misrepresenting what the question is. AGW proponents
> are cherry pickers extraordinaire.
>
> You can find most scientists will say there is *some* warming. Even
> sceptics
> say that. However if you ask how many think there will be *catastrophic*
> warming,
> the answer will be different.
>
> As usual, it boils down to the below.
>
> Let's break down the case for human-caused global warming logically:
>
> 1) There is plenty of evidence that global warming has been occurring
> recently.
�� Not true! th e data collected ny GISS/NASA, NOAA, and Hadley-CRU is
carefully groomed to provide a desired effect.
Except that it isn't of course.
North America and
Europe have both had miserable summers yet NASA, NOAA and The Met
Office reported several months with the ie warmest/hottest October in
history.
Oh good grief.
Do you honestly expect anyone to take you seriously when you spout stuff
like that.
Have you even SEEN the GISS global temperature anomoly charts for October?
The only significant areas on earth to have experienced lower than average
temps are the US, Scandanavia and, to a lesser extent New Zealand and a
small part of Antarctica - about 10% of the surface of the planet.
Almost every other area has been above average including vast swathes of
Siberia, central Asia and the Arctic that were up to SIX degrees above the
50 - 80 mean.
And in case you think that's a fluke - or a 'liberal-conspiracy' check out
this one for the three months of spring 2009.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/work/gistemp/NMAPS/tmp_GHCN_GISS_250km_Anom0303_2009_2009_1951_1980/GHCN_GISS_250km_Anom0303_2009_2009_1951_1980.gif
Stick to the science and stay away from lying denier-blogs and you won't
appear so ignorant.
TUKA
I assume you are joking.
>
>
>> I will also
>> mention Bill Gray of Colorado State. Gray is a renowned researcher and
>> is considered one of the foremost experts on hurricanes. He had been a
>> funding machine, frequently getting his proposals accepted by NASA,
>> NOAA, and the NSF. Once he stated his skepticism about AGW in 1993,
>> not a single proposal was accepted by those agencies. Thirteen
>> consecutive denied.
>
> The Bill Gray who contends "it's all a hoax contrived by scientists hungry
> for research funding, media professionals thirsting for Pulitzer Prizes and
> foreign powers seeking to create a single world government" and that
> "Scientists are brainwashing our children". That Bill Gray?
> Does that seem like the words of someone you would be happy to hand over
> taxpayers funding to?
> But in any case he still authored the yearly hurricane forecasts up until
> 2005 (in fact SFAIK he still co-authors it?) and he is head the Tropical
> Meteorology Project at CSU.
> The Dean also said recently that he was a great faculty member and an
> 'institution' at CSU.
> He's also perfectly free to state his views anywhere he wants and he
> frequently does. He's hardly been ostracised. Compare that to the sordid
> witch-hunt and blatent libel - even death threats FFS! - aimed at prominant
> climate scientists lately. Cuts both ways.
Attack the messenger, aye. Do you guys have any other tricks?
>
> I've been involved in environmental management since about 1978.
Now comes the appeal to authority.
> Every scientist I know has had difficulties due to their speaking out
> against the vested interests of Big Oil and others for decades. Most of them
> worked for a pittance considering their qualifications. Many still do. The
> Copanhagen Diagnosis they compiled for FREE.
Oh, the poor climate scientist. Billions of dollars in funding, and it's
just a pittance.
> Back in the 70's and 80's some lost their jobs as a result of their research
> into CO2 induced warming.(or 'The Greenhouse Effect" as we called it back
> then) - some lost their careers. It is particularly galling to the likes of
> them and me to hear the dittoheads endlessly repeat the meme that the AGW
> scientists are only doing it for the money in the light of the decades most
> of them have spent fighting a lonely and thankless uphill battle against
> hugely powerfull government and commercial vested interests.
> As I've said elsewhere - if any scientist could disprove AGW then he'd be a
> cert for the Nobel Prize and would be a millionairre within months - but I
> strongly doubty that even with unlimited funding anyone could achieve that.
> That CO2 traps heat is a scientific fact easily replicated in any high
> school scince lab. The extent to which is traps heat is now observable using
> sientific instruments.
> Everything else is just politics.
I am glad you have the climate system down to one variable, must have been
a lot of work to reduce it that far.
It's the one sure shot for every AGW proponent.
> I have read their lists of 'facts' many times. Practically every single
> figure, graph and quote they produce can be debunked within minutes.
So do it.
> And is it really surprising that capitalist western governments
> are -finally - spending billions on trying to prevent the end of the
> capitalist western industialised world?
> Do you really believe dictatorships like China need some kind of 'scam' to
> raise taxes?
> I'm glad they are. If you wan't to end up as a survivalist in a cave in a
> hot desert fine. I like my comforts - and after 30 years I'm glad to see
> mine and my contemporaries warnings are at last being taken seriously. If
> they had listened to us in the 70's we wouldn't have such a massive problem
> now.
> If there is any truth to what you say about 'sceptics' getting funded then I
> agree it's 'a bad thing' but the real debate has long since moved on from
> 'is it happening' to 'what can we do to stop it'. The pendulum has swung and
> if they aren't part of the solution then they are part of the problem, and I
> for one won't be crying any tears over handfull of poor dears.
Ho hum, another "nothing to see here, the pendulum has swung, the debate
is over". Surprise, surprise. The arrows in your quiver are the same as
every other AGW alarmist.
After billions of dollars in research, no discernible temperature signal
that is distinct from natural variation has been found. Period.
--
Making the simple complex, that is easy -- anyone can do that.
But to make the complex simple, awesomely simple, that is
true creativity. -- Charles Mingus
Adam Whyte-Settlar
"Eddie Haskell" <fg...@eeaeae.com> wrote in message
news:4b22beb8$0$1591$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com...
>
> "Johnny Asia" <bayin...@mypacks.net> wrote in message
> news:5a55i5tqcr7f3sf5v...@4ax.com...
>> Yeah, that's the ticket! The vast majority of American scientists are
>> in on the scam! Yeah, that's the ticket!
>
> Hint: Follow the money.
>
> The fundamentalist doom mongers also ignore scientists who say the effects
> of global warming may be benign. Harvard astrophysicist Sallie Baliunas
> said
> added CO2 in the atmosphere may actually benefit the world because more
> CO2
> helps plants grow. Warmer winters would give farmers a longer harvest
> season, and might end the droughts in the Sahara Desert.
She's about the only one.
I used to have a nursery and plant growing business.
Anything less that 800ppm Co2 has no discernable effect on yeild. 1200ppm is
about the average used.
It's also on an 'all other things being equal" basis. All the Co2 in the
world won't help if it's too hot or you don't have enough water.
The article below is a bit out of date now as things are getting worse more
quickly than was thought even as recently as 2007 but it's representative of
what almost every serious scientific paper published on the subject agrees -
that AGW will be a disaster for global agriculture.
And, of course, GW won't simply stop after 'a little warming' - it will keep
right on going into the next century as well, eventually peaking at around
6+C above todays temps - enough to initiate a ELE on the scale of the
Permian extinction.
----------------
The Peterson Institute and the Center for Global Development released Global
Warming and Agriculture: Impact Estimates by Country by William R. Cline at
a luncheon on September 12, 2007. After brief remarks by Jonathan Lash,
president of the World Resources Institute, Dr. Cline discussed the
magnitude of global warming and its differential impact across countries,
providing detailed information for countries and subregions within larger
countries. Dr. Cline finds developing countries' production may fall between
10 and 25 percent if global warming continues unabated.
William Cline, senior fellow since the Institute's inception in 1981, holds
a joint appointment at the Institute and the Center for Global Development.
Dr. Cline has been a pioneer in the study of the economic effects of global
warming. His Economics of Global Warming (1992) was among the first studies
to tackle this crucial topic and won the 1992 Harold and Margaret Sprout
Prize for best book on international environmental affairs.
"... On average, developing countries would suffer losses of 9 percent.
Damages would be severe in Africa (17 percent average loss), Latin America
(13 percent average loss), and South Asia (30 percent average loss in India
and 20 percent in Pakistan). The losses would be much larger if the benefits
from carbon fertilization did not materialize (averaging about 21 percent
for all developing countries, 28 percent for Africa, and 24 percent for
Latin America).
Moreover, the Ricardian models count on availability of more water for
irrigation under circumstances in which there could easily be less water.
Neither the Ricardian nor the crop models deal with increased damage from
pests or more frequent and more severe extreme weather events (e.g., floods
and droughts). For several reasons, then, declines in global agricultural
capacity by the 2080s could thus easily be greater than the estimates in
this study and perhaps lie in the range of 10 to 25 percent...."
?
> Why don't we hear about this part of the global warming argument?
Because it's utter bunk.
I M @ good guy
wrote:
Is that as high as you can count?
Frankly, there should be no papers about AGW
either way until better measurements are made, it
is absurd to have such a repository of AGW papers
mostly by journalists and activists without some
better experiments.
>> I will also
>> mention Bill Gray of Colorado State. Gray is a renowned researcher and
>> is considered one of the foremost experts on hurricanes. He had been a
>> funding machine, frequently getting his proposals accepted by NASA,
>> NOAA, and the NSF. Once he stated his skepticism about AGW in 1993,
>> not a single proposal was accepted by those agencies. Thirteen
>> consecutive denied.
>
>The Bill Gray who contends "it's all a hoax contrived by scientists hungry
>for research funding, media professionals thirsting for Pulitzer Prizes and
>foreign powers seeking to create a single world government" and that
>"Scientists are brainwashing our children". That Bill Gray?
>Does that seem like the words of someone you would be happy to hand over
>taxpayers funding to?
>But in any case he still authored the yearly hurricane forecasts up until
>2005 (in fact SFAIK he still co-authors it?) and he is head the Tropical
>Meteorology Project at CSU.
>The Dean also said recently that he was a great faculty member and an
>'institution' at CSU.
>He's also perfectly free to state his views anywhere he wants and he
>frequently does. He's hardly been ostracised. Compare that to the sordid
>witch-hunt and blatent libel - even death threats FFS! - aimed at prominant
>climate scientists lately. Cuts both ways.
How many words does it take to write a hatchet
job about a person because of his scientific opinion.
>I've been involved in environmental management since about 1978.
Where? Doing what, taking out the garbage?
>Every scientist I know has had difficulties due to their speaking out
>against the vested interests of Big Oil and others for decades.
No doubt because they sound like nuts, as if
anybody can do without petrol, and there are not
enough small oil to provide the needed product.
When will people learn that science is about
science, not about people.
>Most of them
>worked for a pittance considering their qualifications. Many still do.
If they get paid anything for the alarmist wording
it is too much. There is a stark difference between
the Hadley camp in Antarctica and the games being
played at cru, while cru claimed melting, five new
facilities had to be built on top of the snow, the
old ones were crushed and carried by the moving
ice sheet to the ocean cliff.
>The
>Copanhagen Diagnosis they compiled for FREE.
The what? Oh, great, after correcting the
spelling I found there is a web site for that, and
google has a new feature to exploring the warming
that is causing all this snow and cold.
>Back in the 70's and 80's some lost their jobs as a result of their research
>into CO2 induced warming.(or 'The Greenhouse Effect" as we called it back
>then) - some lost their careers.
Can you be more specific, did they take jobs
where the job specification was to research CO2
and got fired for doing it?
What do you call the GreenHouse Effect now?
>It is particularly galling to the likes of
>them and me to hear the dittoheads endlessly repeat the meme that the AGW
>scientists are only doing it for the money in the light of the decades most
>of them have spent fighting a lonely and thankless uphill battle against
>hugely powerfull government and commercial vested interests.
Well, thank God there is still oil, coal and
natural gas available, else I would have had to
move to Central America to keep from freezing.
>As I've said elsewhere - if any scientist could disprove AGW then he'd be a
>cert for the Nobel Prize and would be a millionairre within months - but I
>strongly doubty that even with unlimited funding anyone could achieve that.
Do you mean you have written this rigidly
aligned article without being absolutely certain?
I'll tell you what, you name something
besides gases with "GreenHouse Gas" properties
that cool the atmosphere and I will stop writing
anything critical of AGW.
>That CO2 traps heat is a scientific fact easily replicated in any high
>school scince lab.
But difficult in a college or government physics
lab apparently.
>The extent to which is traps heat is now observable using
>sientific instruments.
>Everything else is just politics.
Please point me to web links that show actual
back radiation flux measurements, experiments
that certify the Stevenson Screen has absolutely
minimal effect on temperature measurements,
and experiments with identical weather stations
in a natural moist environment away from the
dry buildings and pavement of cities and airports.
>> Tim Ball and Richard Lindzen also state they have trouble getting
>> funding for studies. Lindzen has had none from NASA or NOAA, dominated
>> by AGW alarmists like James Hansen and Gavin Schmidt.
>
>The science has been warning of the consequences of CO2 emissions since
>1896.
By a guy trying to figure out what caused ice ages.
>We are on the line of the 'worst case scenario' in almost every single
>aspect. The effects can be observed. The consequences of 'bussiness as
>usaul' will be dire. How is that 'alarmist'? It's just science. If some
>scientists aren't getting published perhaps it's because their papers
>contain serious flaws.
I have no problem with any scientist not
getting funded for writing about the weather
in a way that has nothing to do with rational
near term forecasting.
Anything longer than 2 or 3 months is
just fortune telling and worthless.
>If 96.2% of practicing published climatologists worldwide are all in
>agreement that the earth is warming
They all get the information from 3 or 4 sources.
>and humans are mainly responsible it
>seems fairly prudent to me to listen to them. Especially when I can see the
>results with my own eyes.
Please describe what you see, the snow
has my window covered shut.
>I'm living in Australia at the moment. We are probably the most vulnerable
>country. The last 6 months have been the hottest 6 months recorded here in
>180 years. The droughts have exceeded even the famously disastrous 1950's
>'big dry' by a large margin. As we speak thousands of farmers are currently
>abandoning ranches and farms that they have lived on for half a dozen
>generations. Coincidence? I suppose it's just possible. But precisely this
>scenario was predicted 20 years ago. If it is a coincidence then it's a damn
>big one.
And what could have been done to prevent it,
a desalination plant?
>> Also, there is this:
>>
>> http://www.heartland.org/custom/semod_policybot/pdf/25717.pdf
>
>OH perleeese! Heartland?!
Are you covering your eyes with 7 fingers?
>I'm not usualy one to shoot the messenger but in their case.....
>I have read their lists of 'facts' many times. Practically every single
>figure, graph and quote they produce can be debunked within minutes.
And why are they biased and you are not?
>And is it really surprising that capitalist western governments
Oh, if you would have said you prefer eastern
or world socialist policies I would not have started this.
>are -finally - spending billions on trying to prevent the end of the
>capitalist western industialised world?
And is that your objective, I thought only some
rogue country leaders felt that way.
>Do you really believe dictatorships like China need some kind of 'scam' to
>raise taxes?
>I'm glad they are. If you wan't to end up as a survivalist in a cave in a
>hot desert fine. I like my comforts - and after 30 years I'm glad to see
>mine and my contemporaries warnings are at last being taken seriously. If
>they had listened to us in the 70's we wouldn't have such a massive problem
>now.
I temporarily solved my massive problem by
buying a few black sweat pants to wear as long
underwear and a couple of warmer coats, plus
a new heater for the smallest room in the house.
>If there is any truth to what you say about 'sceptics' getting funded then I
>agree it's 'a bad thing' but the real debate has long since moved on from
>'is it happening' to 'what can we do to stop it'. The pendulum has swung and
>if they aren't part of the solution then they are part of the problem, and I
>for one won't be crying any tears over handfull of poor dears.
Well, don't cry, there hasn't been a year warmer
since 1998, when there is one, I will read what you
write then.
I M @ good guy
wrote:
>
6 C? SIX Celsius?
Can you speed it up?
tunderbar
> "tunderbar" <tdcom...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Post the link. Just because you it it is does not make it so.
Adam Whyte-Settlar
Use your brain cell fucktard.
Adam Whyte-Settlar
>
>> I have read their lists of 'facts' many times. Practically every single
>> figure, graph and quote they produce can be debunked within minutes.
> After billions of dollars in research, no discernible temperature signal
> that is distinct from natural variation has been found. Period.
Geez - is that all you've got. More dittohead lies.
You think I have time to waste continualy debunking the same old shit you
moronic fucktard.
But that's what you count on isn't it? Endlessly spewing out your baseless
anti-science shit and hoping that the grown ups are so busy clearing up your
mess that we don't have time to educate you.
Well - you're right. I don't have the energy and in any case time will tell.
See you in 20 years you gullible usefull idiot.
Adam Whyte-Settlar
"I M @ good guy" <I...@good.guy> wrote in message
news:uc9ci55u8255aqb64...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 13:27:09 +1000, "Adam Whyte-Settlar" <ador@ble>
> Well, don't cry, there hasn't been a year warmer
> since 1998, when there is one, I will read what you
> write then.
2005 was warmer than 1998.
2010 will be warmer yet. That pretty much destroys all your dittohead lies
right there.
See you next year you gullible usefull idiot.
Adam Whyte-Settlar
"I M @ good guy" <I...@good.guy> wrote in message
news:q7dci5dusa83geatd...@4ax.com...
>>> Why don't we hear about this part of the global warming argument?
>>
>>Because it's utter bunk.
>
>
> 6 C? SIX Celsius?
>
>
> Can you speed it up?
Google 'copenhagen diagnosis'.
Those people are a LOT smarter than you usefull idiots even think you are.
TUKA
>
> news:uc9ci55u8255aqb64...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 13:27:09 +1000, "Adam Whyte-Settlar" <ador@ble>
>
>> Well, don't cry, there hasn't been a year warmer
>> since 1998, when there is one, I will read what you
>> write then.
>
>
> 2005 was warmer than 1998.
According to temperature data no one is allowed to look at?
> 2010 will be warmer yet.
According to who, CRU and the IPCC? They have forecasted rises in
temperature for 17 years, and not once has their forecast been borne out
by actual measurement.
> That pretty much destroys all your dittohead lies
> right there.
> See you next year you gullible usefull idiot.
So long, Mr. Ad Hominem.
--
There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale
returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.
-- Mark Twain
TUKA
>
> news:slrnhibe3...@bill.heins.net...
>
>>
>>> I have read their lists of 'facts' many times. Practically every single
>>> figure, graph and quote they produce can be debunked within minutes.
>
>> After billions of dollars in research, no discernible temperature signal
>> that is distinct from natural variation has been found. Period.
>
> Geez - is that all you've got. More dittohead lies.
> You think I have time to waste continualy debunking the same old shit you
> moronic fucktard.
It would be simple to just debunk me, if you could. But you can't.
> But that's what you count on isn't it? Endlessly spewing out your baseless
> anti-science shit and hoping that the grown ups are so busy clearing up your
> mess that we don't have time to educate you.
> Well - you're right. I don't have the energy and in any case time will tell.
>
> See you in 20 years you gullible usefull idiot.
So long, Mr. A. Hominem.
--
Being against torture ought to be sort of a bipartisan thing.
-- Karl Lehenbauer
Eddie Haskell
"Adam Whyte-Settlar" <ador@ble> wrote in message
news:EvednRKTNdsPwLvW...@westnet.com.au...
Yeah, so smart they render their own Nobel Prize meaningless by awarding it
to terrorists and people who haven't earned it.
Brilliant.
-Eddie Haskell
Adam Whyte-Settlar
You don't even know what the Copenhagen Diagnosis is do you ?
I M @ good guy
wrote:
>
Greedy? Unbalanced activists? Born to fail?
Actually I don't have a problem with my
government helping people in need, I don't
think promising money is the right approach.
And even thinking the US could reduce
CO2 emissions by even 30 percent by 2050
is not rational or reasonable.
Adam Whyte-Settlar
"I M @ good guy" <I...@good.guy> wrote in message
Oh I agree on that point at least.
No government anywhere is going to get even close to doing that.
The climate will do it for them.
I M @ good guy
wrote:
Do you mean it will get warmer?
Happy Day, lower utility bills.
5311 Dead, 444 since 1/20/09
wrote:
Not if you live in the south.
>
>
>
>
>
I M @ good guy
I have lived in Texas, Biloxi, California,
Las Vegas and a few other places, and loved it.
The hot places won't get hotter, at least
that is what AGW theory says.
RichTravsky
wrote:
>On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 00:54:37 +1000, "Adam Whyte-Settlar" <ador@ble>
>wrote:
>>"I M @ good guy" <I...@good.guy> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Because it's utter bunk.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 6 C? SIX Celsius?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Can you speed it up?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Google 'copenhagen diagnosis'.
>>>>>> Those people are a LOT smarter than you usefull idiots even think you
>>>>>> are.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah, so smart they render their own Nobel Prize meaningless by awarding
>>>>> it to terrorists and people who haven't earned it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Brilliant.
>>>>
>>>>You don't even know what the Copenhagen Diagnosis is do you ?
>>>
>>> Greedy? Unbalanced activists? Born to fail?
>>>
>>> Actually I don't have a problem with my
>>> government helping people in need, I don't
>>> think promising money is the right approach.
>>>
>>> And even thinking the US could reduce
>>> CO2 emissions by even 30 percent by 2050
>>> is not rational or reasonable.
>>
>>Oh I agree on that point at least.
>>No government anywhere is going to get even close to doing that.
>>The climate will do it for them.
>
> Do you mean it will get warmer?
>
> Happy Day, lower utility bills.
Really? AC runs for free? You're looking forward to water restrictions? Crop
failures?
I M @ good guy
It rarely gets warm enough for A/C, besides,
I lived 50 years without A/C, what is with all the
obese and high metabolism stuff??
>You're looking forward to water restrictions? Crop
>failures?
Oh, really? Maybe your crystal ball
is wrong, I fear colder more than warmer,
and so does every other sane person.
Lets wait and see what the weather
brings and what any revelations of data
manipulation shows before getting so
hysterical.
Maybe you never heard the saying,
"The jig is up", that means "everybody
is wise to the lies or fabrications".
Adam Whyte-Settlar
"I M @ good guy" <I...@good.guy> wrote in message
LOL
You guys are funny.
".. North America is projected to warm between 3.6-18 �F (2-10 �C) by 2100,
depending on the region (IPCC, 2007)..."
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/effects/usregions.html
"...Unmitigated climate change will lead to grave consequences for
California's economy and ecosystems. Furthermore, it appears that even a
scenario that drastically curtails emissions of greenhouse gases may still
lead to undesirable trends in warming and sea-level rise..."
http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/research/2008_assessment/index.html
"...New Mexico and other Western states have particular concerns about the
impacts of climate change and climate variability on the environment,
including the potential for prolonged drought, severe forest fires, warmer
temperatures, increased snowmelt, reduced snow pack and other effects..."
http://www.nmclimatechange.us/background-impacts.cfm
You think that's bad you should check out the figures for India and Africa.
Do you know how to access facts?
Adam Whyte-Settlar
"I M @ good guy" <I...@good.guy> wrote in message
LOL
In your dreams.
Show me one single case where data has been 'manipulated'. Just one. And
don't mean 'Hannity says so , soit must be true'.
Just claiming it over and over again on the blogosphere and hate TV doesn't
make it true - which is why all the grown-ups are ignoring you gullible
dupes.
By the way - today is the hottest day ever recorded. Right now. Strange that
if the 'Erath is cooling' isn't it?
You guys are so funny.
>
>
>
>
I M @ good guy
wrote:
Today where?
YASW.
leona...@gmail.com
<spamtrap...@AT.frankenexpress.de> wrote:
>
> And a name changing anonymhole.
> Right, Mr. *US*?
• Just call him Shawn Smith
RichTravsky
Uh, dude, if it gets warmer you'll want AC, right? And then there's a lot of other
people besides you...
> >You're looking forward to water restrictions? Crop
> >failures?
>
> Oh, really? Maybe your crystal ball
> is wrong, I fear colder more than warmer,
> and so does every other sane person.
Water supplies are already a problem in many places. States sue each other over
supplies.
> Lets wait and see what the weather
> brings and what any revelations of data
> manipulation shows before getting so
> hysterical.
>
> Maybe you never heard the saying,
> "The jig is up", that means "everybody
> is wise to the lies or fabrications".
What lies and fabrications?
RT
I M @ good guy
Saying we are all going to die if it warms up
3 degrees every place is a joke, if not a lie.
Anybody claiming to know what the climate
will be any place in 90 years is fabricating stories.
Sea level will rise regardless until the next
ice age starts, glaciers will probably continue
to melt from the bottom as always.
CO2 will continue to rise, but it will be a while
before it doubles even the 280 PPMV of 150 years ago.
Individuals getting hysterical over that maybe
should visit a shrink often.
*us*
> Saying we are all going to die if it warms up
>3 degrees every place is a joke, if not a lie.
You made that up, liar.
> Anybody claiming to know what the climate
>will be any place in 90 years is fabricating stories.
You made that up, liar.
>... getting hysterical over that maybe
>should visit a shrink often.
That's your best excuse for your lies.
I M @ good guy
Stop denying that GreenHouse Gases
are the only thing that cool the atmosphere,
unless you can name something else that does.
*us*
>...GreenHouse Gases
>are the only thing that cool the atmosphere,
You made that up, liar.
Adam Whyte-Settlar
"I M @ good guy" <I...@good.guy> wrote in message
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 10:39:29 +1000, "Adam Whyte-Settlar" <ador@ble>
>>By the way - today is the hottest day ever recorded. Right now. Strange
>>that
>>if the 'Earth is cooling' isn't it?
>>You guys are so funny.
>
>
> Today where?
Average global temperature for December is the highest ever recorded - above
the previous hottest of 2005
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps
I M @ good guy
wrote:
>"I M @ good guy" <I...@good.guy> wrote in message
And what always follows a warm month, January may
turn out to be the coldest since 1963.
Now where was it warmest, before they adjusted
for distance between stations, errors in calibrating
the instruments, poorly located Stevenson screens,
night satellite image correction of UHI, and hiding
the decline?
Adam Whyte-Settlar
"tunderbar" <tdco...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f8dce6e3-e5cc-4574...@v30g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>
> > 5 seconds with Google and I knew. What's your specific brain illness?
>
> Then fucking post it moron.
>
> The figure rises to 96.2% among published climatologists.
>
> Google is your friend.
Post the link. Just because you it it is does not make it so.
I'd forgotten about this but I've got a few minutes to waste on fucktards so
here you go
"..Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change//"
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
Adam Whyte-Settlar
"I M @ good guy" <I...@good.guy> wrote in message
> On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 23:42:51 +1000, "Adam Whyte-Settlar" <ador@ble>
> wrote:
>
>>"I M @ good guy" <I...@good.guy> wrote in message
>>news:pqolj51aa6tgub4hj...@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 10:39:29 +1000, "Adam Whyte-Settlar" <ador@ble>
>>
>>>>By the way - today is the hottest day ever recorded. Right now. Strange
>>>>that
>>>>if the 'Earth is cooling' isn't it?
>>>>You guys are so funny.
>>>
>>>
>>> Today where?
>>
>>Average global temperature for December is the highest ever recorded -
>>above
>>the previous hottest of 2005
>>
>>http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps
>
>
> And what always follows a warm month, January may
> turn out to be the coldest since 1963.
Turns out that this January is the hottest January ever recorded globaly. No
suprise to people that live in the real world of course
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/
(click on 'make graph' for the latest real time temps) -. from your
favourite denialist Mr Spencer at AUH. Even HE can't deny the real time
temp' measurements from space.
>
> Now where was it warmest, before they adjusted
> for distance between stations, errors in calibrating
> the instruments, poorly located Stevenson screens,
All adjusted and allowed for as per normal scientific practice. Your point?
> night satellite image correction of UHI, and hiding
> the decline?
You have absolutely no fucking idea what you are talking about do you.
What do you understand from the phrase "hide the decline"?
You DO realise that that e-mail was written in 1999 don't you?
Duh!
You people are a fucking joke.
I M @ good guy
wrote:
Little boy potty mouths are sure to carry a lot
of credibility in science, too bad they were not able
to hide the decline, now there is a decline in climate
science.