Lord Moncton Declares Sarah Palin To Be The Greatest Authority On Climate In The World
Perry Brown
Wednesday, December 9, 2009; 6:48 PM
Don't be fooled about climate science. In April, 1994 -- long after
scientists had clearly demonstrated the addictive quality and
devastating health impacts of cigarette smoking -- seven chief
executives of major tobacco companies denied the evidence, swearing
under oath that nicotine was not addictive.
Now, the American public is again being subjected to those kinds of
denials, this time about global climate change. While former Alaska
governor Sarah Palin wrote in her Dec. 9 op-ed that she did not deny
the "reality of some changes in climate," she distorted the clear
scientific evidence that Earth's climate is changing, largely as a
result of human behaviors. She also badly confused the concepts of
daily weather changes and long-term climate trends when she wrote that
"while we recognize the occurrence of these natural, cyclical
environmental trends, we can't say with assurance that man's
activities cause weather changes." Her statement inaccurately suggests
that short-term weather fluctuations must be consistent with long-term
climate patterns. And it is the long-term patterns that are a cause
for concern.
Climate-change science is clear: The concentration of atmospheric
carbon dioxide -- derived mostly from the human activities of fossil-
fuel burning and deforestation -- stands at 389 parts per million
(ppm). We know from studying ancient Antarctic ice cores that this
concentration is higher than it has been for at least the past 650,000
years. Exhaustive measurements tell us that atmospheric carbon dioxide
is rising by 2 ppm every year and that the global temperature has
increased by about 1.1 degrees Fahrenheit over the past century.
Multiple lines of other evidence, including reliable thermometer
readings since the 1880s, reveal a clear warming trend. The broader
impacts of climate change range from rapidly melting glaciers and
rising sea levels to shifts in species ranges.
Thousands of respected scientists at an array of institutions
worldwide agree that major health and economic impacts are likely
unless we act now to slow greenhouse gas emissions. Already, sea
levels are estimated to rise by 1 to 2 meters by the end of this
century. Some scientists have said that average temperatures could
jump by as much as 4 degrees Fahrenheit if the atmospheric carbon
dioxide level reaches 450 ppm. We may face even more dangerous impacts
at 550 ppm, and above that level, devastating events. U.S. crop
productivity would be affected, while European communities might
suffer increased fatalities because of intensely hot summers.
Doubters insist that the earth is not warming. This is in stark
contrast to the consensus of 18 of the world's most respected
scientific organizations, who strongly stated in an Oct. 21 letter to
the U.S. Senate that human-induced climate change is real. Still, the
doubters try to leverage any remaining points of scientific
uncertainty about the details of warming trends to cast doubt on the
overall conclusions shared by traditionally cautious, decidedly non-
radical science organizations such as the National Academy of Sciences
and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which
represents an estimated 10 million individual scientists through 262
affiliated societies. Doubters also make selective use of the
evidence, noting that the warming of the late 1990s did not persist
from 2001 to 2008, while ignoring the fact that the first decade of
the 21st century looks like it will be the warmest decade on record.
None of these tactics changes the clear consensus of a vast majority
of scientists, who agree that the Earth is warming as greenhouse gas
levels rise. The public and policymakers should not be confused by a
few private e-mails that are being selectively publicized and, in any
case, remain irrelevant to the broad body of diverse evidence on
climate change. Selected language in the messages has been interpreted
by some to suggest unethical actions such as data manipulation or
suppression. To be sure, investigations are appropriate whenever
questions are raised regarding the transparency and rigor of the
scientific process or the integrity of individual scientists. We
applaud that the responsible authorities are conducting those
investigations. But it is wrong to suggest that apparently stolen
emails, deployed on the eve of the Copenhagen climate summit, somehow
refute a century of evidence based on thousands of studies.
Palin also errs by claiming that America can't afford to reduce
greenhouse gases. The highly regarded Stern Commission revealed that
inaction could cost us the equivalent of between 5 and 20 percent of
global gross domestic product per year. In contrast, the price of
slowing emissions was estimated to be 1 percent of GDP. China,
meanwhile, reportedly is investing heavily in clean energy
technologies.
Now, policymakers must decide whether to act on the evidence or to
avoid facing one of the most crucial issues of our generation.
Alan I. Leshner is the chief executive officer of the American
Association for the Advancement of Science and executive publisher of
the journal Science.
Matthew Moulton, Onideus Mad Hatter
As long as I can still get cornholed, who cares? <grin>
*nods*
^__^
Regards,
Matthew Moulton
TimK
"Perry Brown" <PBR...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.258b36953...@news.x-privat.org...
> By Alan I. Leshner
> Wednesday, December 9, 2009; 6:48 PM
>
> Now, the American public is again being subjected to those kinds of
> denials, this time about global climate change. While former Alaska
> governor Sarah Palin wrote in her Dec. 9 op-ed that she did not deny
> the "reality of some changes in climate," she distorted the clear
> scientific evidence that Earth's climate is changing, largely as a
> result of human behaviors. She also badly confused the concepts of
> daily weather changes and long-term climate trends when she wrote that
> "while we recognize the occurrence of these natural, cyclical
> environmental trends, we can't say with assurance that man's
> activities cause weather changes." Her statement inaccurately suggests
> that short-term weather fluctuations must be consistent with long-term
> climate patterns. And it is the long-term patterns that are a cause
> for concern.
Ain't it tragic how an idiot like Palin has any audience at all concerning a
matter of science...
If this isn't yet more evidence that the U.S. is failing its citizens in
science education I don't know what is.
James
Pricks like you also think Al Gore is scientist enough to know what he is talking about. lol
David Hartung
According to this : http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
The total human contribution to the green house effect is less that
3/1000th of the total. three tenths of one percent of the total
greenhouse effect is caused by human activity. As yet, no one has been
able to explain how this three tenths of one percent is causing
catastrophic warming.
Among the tidbits included in this piece is the fact that since the
beginning of the industrial revolution, atmospheric CO2 has increased by
80,400 parts per billion, of which 68,500 parts per billion is from
natural causes, leaving only 11,880 coming from man made causes.
In other words, the overwhelming majority of the CO2 increase is beyond
man's control.
Please explain.
anorton
"David Hartung" <d_ha...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4b2176c9$0$5345$bbae...@news.suddenlink.net...
Not true at all. You are even exagerating the common distortion of the data
. This is one of the 7 major commonly-cited distortions that Scientific
American took the pains to refute:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=seven-answers-to-climate-contrarian-nonsense
Refuting all crap like that posted by Mr. Hartung and others is a bit like
playing whack-a-mole.
David Hartung
Obviously you did not take the time to follow the link I provided.
Had you done so, you would realize that the data from which they draw
their conclusions comes from the US Department of energy.
Willie Gort
> the sun. Since you seem to believe anything you read...
>
>
>
> > Among the tidbits included in this piece is the fact that since the
> > beginning of the industrial revolution, atmospheric CO2 has increased by
> > 80,400 parts per billion, of which 68,500 parts per billion is from
> > natural causes, leaving only 11,880 coming from man made causes.
>
>
> > In other words, the overwhelming majority of the CO2 increase is beyond
> > man's control.
>
> > Please explain.
>
He's a Republican. Gullibility is a core tenet of their Ideology
(Religion). Facts never matter to them because lies are all they
have to fall back on. Repeating debunked lies was a Nazi tactic as
well.
ents and some brief rebuttals of them.
Claim 1: Anthropogenic CO2 can't be changing climate, because CO2 is
only a trace gas in the atmosphere and the amount produced by humans
is dwarfed by the amount from volcanoes and other natural sources.
Water vapor is by far the most important greenhouse gas, so changes in
CO2 are irrelevant.
Although CO2 makes up only 0.04 percent of the atmosphere, that small
number says nothing about its significance in climate dynamics. Even
at that low concentration, CO2 absorbs infrared radiation and acts as
a greenhouse gas, as physicist John Tyndall demonstrated in 1859. The
chemist Svante Arrhenius went further in 1896 by estimating the impact
of CO2 on the climate; after painstaking hand calculations he
concluded that doubling its concentration might cause almost 6 degrees
Celsius of warming—an answer not much out of line with recent, far
more rigorous computations.
Contrary to the contrarians, human activity is by far the largest
contributor to the observed increase in atmospheric CO2. According to
the U.S. Geological Survey, anthropogenic CO2 amounts to about 30
billion tons annually—more than 130 times as much as volcanoes
produce. True, 95 percent of the releases of CO2 to the atmosphere are
natural, but natural processes such as plant growth and absorption
into the oceans pull the gas back out of the atmosphere and almost
precisely offset them, leaving the human additions as a net surplus.
Moreover, several sets of experimental measurements, including
analyses of the shifting ratio of carbon isotopes in the air, further
confirm that fossil-fuel burning and deforestation are the primary
reasons that CO2 levels have risen 35 percent since 1832, from 284
parts per million (ppm) to 388 ppm—a remarkable jump to the highest
levels seen in millions of years.
Contrarians frequently object that water vapor, not CO2, is the most
abundant and powerful greenhouse gas; they insist that climate
scientists routinely leave it out of their models. The latter is
simply untrue: from Arrhenius on, climatologists have incorporated
water vapor into their models. In fact, water vapor is why rising CO2
has such a big effect on climate. CO2 absorbs some wavelengths of
infrared that water does not so it independently adds heat to the
atmosphere. As the temperature rises, more water vapor enters the
atmosphere and multiplies CO2's greenhouse effect; the IPCC notes that
water vapor (pdf) may “approximately double the increase in the
greenhouse effect due to the added CO2 alone.”
richp
Hey fuck brains. Humans accumulate 0.5% of CO2 in the atmosphere on
an annual basis. Post less disingenous next time asshole
richp
> anorton wrote:
> > "David Hartung" <d_hart...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > Refuting all crap like that posted by Mr. Hartung and others is a bit like
> > playing whack-a-mole.
>
> Obviously you did not take the time to follow the link I provided.
>
> Had you done so, you would realize that the data from which they draw
> their conclusions comes from the US Department of energy.
You are one fucking clueless individual when it comes to science you
asshole
richp
Pricks like you ought to shut your mouth for all you do is spew lies
anorton
No, sorry. Looks like have not read any of this carefully. First of all
even your erroneous initial link claims the man-made conribution is 3.207%
not the 0.3% you mentioned above. Second if you look at the citation from
the department of energy that is supposedly the source of this table, there
are NO columns breaking out man made versus natural contributions. Also the
other numbers in the cited table do not exactly match those in your link.
This is another example of apparent fraud. Whack-a-Mole again.
David Hartung
You may wish to look again.
From the very top of the site:
"Just how much of the "Greenhouse Effect" is caused by human activity?"
"It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account-- about 5.53%,
if not."
> Second if you look at the citation from
> the department of energy that is supposedly the source of this table, there
> are NO columns breaking out man made versus natural contributions.
That may be because the reference was to a table updated in 2002, while
the current site was updated in 2009, I have no idea why the current
table doesn't break out man made vs natural.
anorton
You are correct, I did not anticipate your author would take this falacy one
step further (one has to wade through a lot of crap to get to that point).
Most of the other sites that promulgate this type of falacy stop at the
larger number. Of course natural water vapor is a huge factor, but if you
compare man made CO2 to natural water vapor, why not include all natural
heating effects like sunlight? If you do that it becomes obvious that you
would then have to have to include all the natural cooling effects as well
that have delicately balanced to create the temperature we have been used to
(without any gases we would burn in sunlight and freeze in darkness like on
the moon) . So you really need to compare the man-made changes to the NET
natural changes. Even your authors' table shows that the man made
greenhouse gas additions are 15% of the total additions (they neglect to
calculate this number for you).
But Even this 15% number is very low. Deniers usually base it on total
natural CO2 contributions that varies throughout the year with the seasons
while ignoring total natual take-up that also varies with the seasons and
nearly balances out over the whole year. In actuality most of the added net
CO2 is man made as shown by isotope studies. See the references in the
Scientific American article e.g.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-that-recent-cosub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/
In addition, man made warming adds more water vapor to the atmosphere that
exacerbates the warming effect.
What you are seeing in your cited blog (among many others) is a marketing
strategy called F.U.D. ( Fear Uncertaintly Doubt). When your product (or
ideology) is deficient, you confuse the market as much as possible by
spreading rumors, specious allegations, and disinformation about your
competitor through your network of salesmen and the internet. The idea is
usually to slow the sales of the competitor until you come up with a new
product. With Russia, China, Saudia Arabia, and oil companies standing to
loose many, many trillions of dollars if oil and coal are replaced, you can
bet they are using every marketing trick in the book to delay that.
Aratzio
"James" <king...@iglou.com> got double secret probation for writing:
No, he is a concerned citizen with a platform and is espousing a
cogent and rational policy.
You do know how to tell the difference between policy and science,
right?
So, eplain why the "left" would create the conspiracy of global
warming:
Aratzio
David Hartung <d_ha...@hotmail.com> got double secret probation for
writing:
>TimK wrote:
Which has a worse outcome:
1. Making the world more energy efficient and less polluting and being
wrong about the effects of humans upon global warming.
2. Not becoming more energy efficient and less polluting and being
wrong about the effects of humans upon global warming.
which of the two above has the most dire long term effects for all of
humanity?
Aratzio
"anorton" <ano...@removethis.ix.netcom.com> got double secret
probation for writing:
>
All of which does not matter, cost benefit analysis is simple, if
humans are not affecting global warming creating a less carbon based
energy policy will not damage the global environment. Whereas
continuimg in the same mode and being wrong will kill millios and
quite possibly billions of people and with a possibility of all
humanity.
Being wrong and having no effect or being wrong and we all die. Make
that decision and explain it to your grandchildren in 40 years.
I M @ good guy
wrote:
Tell the engineers how to create a less carbon
based energy policy.
Please.
>Being wrong and having no effect or being wrong and we all die.
From what, weather like in Florida, or Hawaii,
Rio, the Riviera?
>Make
>that decision and explain it to your grandchildren in 40 years.
That is something I would like to do, but
at 120 there might be difficulty talking.
pyotr filipivich
<PBR...@yahoo.com> reported Elvis on Thu, 10 Dec 2009 16:47:57 -0500
in misc.survivalism:
>By Alan I. Leshner
>Wednesday, December 9, 2009; 6:48 PM
>
>Don't be fooled about climate science. In April, 1994 -- long after
>scientists had clearly demonstrated the addictive quality and
>devastating health impacts of cigarette smoking -- seven chief
>executives of major tobacco companies denied the evidence, swearing
>under oath that nicotine was not addictive.
>
>Now, the American public is again being subjected to those kinds of
>denials, this time about global climate change.
Sorry schmuck, but trying to deflect the problem to Sarah Palin
just isn't going to wash.
the problem is that in the data dump from the Climate Research
Unit there is program code. The instructions to make the computer
software to run. And in that code is evidence that they were making
it all up as they went. Hard coding the "variables" in order to get
the answer they wanted. That's not science, that's fraud.
>
>Alan I. Leshner is the chief executive officer of the American
>Association for the Advancement of Science and executive publisher of
>the journal Science.
Like I'm suppose to believe someone who is tainted by the bogus
"science".
Sorry, there is no data to support the GlobalWarmists, or the
Climate Changists, or the Algorians, or any of the other modern day
pagans worshiping the earth.
-
pyotr filipivich.
Just about the time you finally see light at the end of the tunnel,
you find out it's a Government Project to build more tunnel.
Rob Dekker
"Aratzio" <a6ah...@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
news:66m3i55hom636lac8...@4ax.com...
Aratzio, which newsgroup are you posting from ?
We can sure use some rational thinkers in the alt.global-warming group,
which seems to be dominated by denialist liers these days.
socialist that fear the truth and want the new Holocaust for 9/11
"pyotr filipivich" <ph...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:qfn3i51pg1sae2ls5...@4ax.com...
> the problem is that in the data dump from the Climate Research
> Unit there is program code. The instructions to make the computer
> software to run. And in that code is evidence that they were making
> it all up as they went. Hard coding the "variables" in order to get
> the answer they wanted. That's not science, that's fraud.
You people are missing the bigger picture coming forth, as the whole point
of pushing this fraud called global warming isn't about the science, the
fraud, and lies, it nothing more then:
1.. The condition of being deceived by a false perception or belief.
2.. Something, such as a fantastic plan or desire, that causes an
erroneous belief or perception tp create a new order out of Kaos.
it is al about creating a one world government, where nations will have to
give up their sovereign rights and that is what people should be concerned
about.
Rob Dekker
"anorton" <ano...@removethis.ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:JrWdnS-Dq_LwTbzW...@earthlink.com...
Anorton, which newsgroup are you posting from ?
We can sure use some more rational thinkers in the alt.global-warming group,
Rob Dekker
"I M @ good guy" <I...@good.guy> wrote in message
news:scn3i5lpnsuqshl2n...@4ax.com...
You do not have to tell the engineers. They already know.
There are alternatives to fossil fuel burning, starting with plug-in
hybrids, nationwide upgraded grid, wind, solar, nuclear (thorium plants),
geothermal etc etc. All we need is the political will and the capital to
start this process of transformation of our civilisation's energy need.
And that is where the problem is (at least for the fossil fuel industry and
fossil fuel producing countries and a small but very vocal group of science
deniers).
>
>>Being wrong and having no effect or being wrong and we all die.
>
> From what, weather like in Florida, or Hawaii,
> Rio, the Riviera?
>
>
>>Make
>>that decision and explain it to your grandchildren in 40 years.
>
>
> That is something I would like to do, but
> at 120 there might be difficulty talking.
>
Maybe you make it to 120 in your dreams..
We all die, with 100% certainty.
What we leave behind is what counts.
>
>
>
>
>
Rob Dekker
"socialist that fear the truth and want the new Holocaust for 9/11"
<Libertarian...Neo-.Con.kook@"KentCowen.conservatarian".free.police.protection.gcmail>
wrote in message news:U_mUm.57047$PH1.53686@edtnps82...
You are listening to Fox News and Lord Monckton too much.
There is a reason why he is called the "lord of the lies".
He juggles formula's and graphs that look scientific but are completely
fabricated.
He is a puppet of some very powerfull opinions.
Google "lord monckton magical mystery tour" to see who is pulling his
strings.
Rob
socialist that fear the truth and want the new Holocaust for 9/11
"Rob Dekker" <r...@verific.com> wrote in message
news:E_adnX5iH-dtnb_W...@giganews.com...
Rob, you are either an idiot, or you just don't get out very much, this came
from the new EU leader, the WTO and the UN and to top it off, world leaders
spoke of it at the G20 summit. So either you are clueless twit, or just
another dumbass socialist kook or sheep...either way, you better get off
your fat ass and wake up to the real world emerging... all for the New Order
>
> Rob
>
>
>
>
Cliff
>You may wish to look again.
>
> From the very top of the site:
>"Just how much of the "Greenhouse Effect" is caused by human activity?"
>
>"It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account-- about 5.53%,
>if not."
<Sheesh>
IF we assume you are correct in any meaningful way
then the *old* steady state can be represented by a "greenhouse warming
equilibrium factor" of 1.
Energy in = energy out but what's the temp?
IOW Without that much greenhouse effect (1) the average temp
would be something akin to -50 C.
IOW 1^N = 1 (compounded energy gains).
Now you say it's up to 1.0553.
What is 1.0553^N ? Say in 50 to 100 years?
PLUS the "5.53%" factor grows each year as more
greenhouse gasses are added.
So try 1.3^N on for size ....
--
Cliff
Cliff
Just the melting of the glaciers in the Himalayas is putting
the water & irrigation supplies of China, India & much of the
rest of Asia at severe risk.
That would turn into several billion starving people looking
at the US & other places for food & water .... IF the US is
unimpacted. And guess who would get the blame ....
--
Cliff
Cliff
We really need cheap fusion worldwide ASAP.
Anybody that makes, exports & maintains such power plants ....
>And that is where the problem is (at least for the fossil fuel industry and
>fossil fuel producing countries and a small but very vocal group of science
>deniers).
>
>>
>>>Being wrong and having no effect or being wrong and we all die.
>>
>> From what, weather like in Florida, or Hawaii,
>> Rio, the Riviera?
>>
>>
>>>Make
>>>that decision and explain it to your grandchildren in 40 years.
>>
>>
>> That is something I would like to do, but
>> at 120 there might be difficulty talking.
>>
>
>Maybe you make it to 120 in your dreams..
>
>We all die, with 100% certainty.
>What we leave behind is what counts.
Wingers love rubble.
--
Cliff
Cliff
wrote:
>because CO2 is
>only a trace gas in the atmosphere and the amount produced by humans
>is dwarfed by the amount from volcanoes
That is untrue on the face of it.
--
Cliff
Rob Dekker
"socialist that fear the truth and want the new Holocaust for 9/11"
wrote in message news:grnUm.57056$PH1.43470@edtnps82...
Mmmm. You wrote "You people are missing the bigger picture coming forth, as
the whole point of pushing this fraud called global warming isn't about the
science, the fraud, and lies..."
but I can't seem to find that anywhere in the EU, WTO or UN top notes.
Do you have a cite for that ?
> So either you are clueless twit, or just
> another dumbass socialist kook or sheep...either way, you better get off
> your fat ass and wake up to the real world emerging... all for the New
> Order
OK. When you are done with your tantrum, can you Google "lord monckton
magical mystery tour", and share your findings with us as to what is really
going on behind the screens of the denialist science-smear campaign ?
>
>>
>> Rob
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Cliff
wrote:
>Although CO2 makes up only 0.04 percent of the atmosphere, that small
>number says nothing about its significance in climate dynamics. Even
>at that low concentration, CO2 absorbs infrared radiation and acts as
>a greenhouse gas, as physicist John Tyndall demonstrated in 1859. The
>chemist Svante Arrhenius went further in 1896 by estimating the impact
>of CO2 on the climate; after painstaking hand calculations he
>concluded that doubling its concentration might cause almost 6 degrees
>Celsius of warming�an answer not much out of line with recent, far
>more rigorous computations.
IIRC he came up with an underestimate .... it's about double that.
--
Cliff
Cliff
>
>According to this : http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
>
>The total human contribution to the green house effect is less that
>3/1000th of the total. three tenths of one percent of the total
>greenhouse effect is caused by human activity.
It says no such thing !!!
It DOES say Carbon dioxide (CO2) Pre-1750 tropospheric concentration
280 ppm.
Carbon dioxide (CO2) Recent tropospheric concentration 384.8 ppm !
PLUS all the others.
AND Increased radiative forcing = 2.65+ W/m2.
>As yet, no one has been
>able to explain how this three tenths of one percent is causing
>catastrophic warming.
[
Assuming 1.5 watts per square meter (some give the current
actual figure as 2.4 Watts per square meter) ... an average 24X7 world wide ...
Air at 50 degrees C & one atmosphere has a density of 1.09 (Kg/m3)
and a specific heat of 1.40.
A one kilometer high column of air (one meter square) would have a
mass of 1,400 Kg.
In one year (31,556,926 seconds) that's an added energy of
47,335,389 watt seconds or about 47,335 kilowatt seconds.
(47,335 kilowatt seconds)/(1.40 *1,400 Kg) = ~ 24 degrees C
(or 75 degrees F) per year in temperature rise (roughly)
But we have a spot of luck here ... the atmosphere is much
deeper than one kilometer (though the density declines with
altitude) and the soil, ice & water can also remove a bit of the
added energy ... while warming up.
]
So
[
In one year (31,556,926 seconds) that's an added energy of
47,335,389 watt seconds or about 47,335 kilowatt seconds.
(47,335 kilowatt seconds)/(1.40 *1,400 Kg) = ~ 24 degrees C
(or 75 degrees F) per year in temperature rise (roughly)
]
Now adjust that from "Assuming 1.5 watts per square meter" to the
current 2.65+ W/m2 figure .....
>Among the tidbits included in this piece is the fact that since the
>beginning of the industrial revolution, atmospheric CO2 has increased by
>80,400 parts per billion, of which 68,500 parts per billion is from
>natural causes, leaving only 11,880 coming from man made causes.
Given the core stable background of Pre-1750 tropospheric concentration
280 ppm the current (but rapidly growing) 384.8 ppm would give
104.8 ppm in increase or about 37.5% so far.
An increase of 104,000 parts per billion.
Per YOUR cite.
>
>In other words, the overwhelming majority of the CO2 increase is beyond
>man's control.
BS.
But we soon may get a cascade of increases ....
>Please explain.
See above.
HTH
--
Cliff
David Hartung
People generally use this line of argument when all else fails.
There is the possibility that I am wrong, but right now I believe that
the greater possibility is that I am right. We do not know what has
caused the warming trends of recent past, and to "fix" the wrong problem
could have unintended consequences, which could make things worse. The
rational thing to do is to continue the research but not make drastic
changes until we have more fact to go on.
David Hartung
Your evidence?
Cliff
Just look up the numbers.
Pretty simple.
Man-made CO2 emissions alone far exceed volcanic ones each year.
BTW, The US alone uses over 2 cubic miles just of imported oil each year.
Then there are coal & natural gas, burning forests, destroyed soils,
dead seas & etc.
--
Cliff
Cliff
Is 100% a "possibility"?
>but right now I believe that
>the greater possibility is that I am right.
Faith based science, eh?
>We do not know what has
>caused the warming trends of recent past,
Which ones?
>and to "fix" the wrong problem
>could have unintended consequences, which could make things worse. The
>rational thing to do is to continue the research but not make drastic
>changes until we have more fact to go on.
The scientists & experts have far more
data, science, facts & info than is needed.
Wingers just have confusion, ignorance & lies. Why buy from them?
--
Cliff
I M @ good guy
wrote:
>
Not that it has been evident in the available products.
>There are alternatives to fossil fuel burning, starting with plug-in
>hybrids,
Half the people can't afford a new car, few used ones.
>nationwide upgraded grid, wind, solar, nuclear (thorium plants),
>geothermal etc etc.
So start activism where it will do some good.
>All we need is the political will and the capital to
>start this process of transformation of our civilisation's energy need.
The will is there, the perception of what capital
must be is outmoded, if I had a say there would be
an all-out shallow geothermal installation program,
all space heating should be geothermal with just
electric air or fluid handlers.
>And that is where the problem is (at least for the fossil fuel industry and
>fossil fuel producing countries and a small but very vocal group of science
>deniers).
No it isn't, you fail to see the role skeptics play,
my message is broader than yours, go all out to
develop alternate energy, because fossil fuels
are limited in quantity and a lot should be saved
for the plastics and chemical industries.
Money is no object, presidents and legislators
can ask for guidance.
Marvin the Martian
Yes. For the people that run this conspiracy, it is all about one
socialist world government. It is also literally about reducing the human
population by billions; either by lowering the birth rate or simple
genocide by intentional starvation.
If you read the Science Czar's Manifesto, "Ecoscience", he advocates
forced abortions and a law similar to China's on one child per couple.
This is a subject to be discussed at Copenhagen.
Now, for the rank and file common stooge, it is about their religion.
They believe humans to be evil and the root of all that is wrong in the
world, and they want to see some sort of die off. Of course, they always
view themselves as the worthy folk to be spared but the truth is once
their leaders are done with these tools, they'll be useless and the first
up against the wall.
Marvin the Martian
repetitive drivel that I cut out.
Okay. First all, in rational thought, it doesn't matter who says
something or why they are saying it, you have to look at what they are
saying to judge the argument itself on its own merits. This "so and so is
backed by THEM, so it must not be true" is called an "irrelevant
argumentum ad hominem" fallacy. IT is gibberish and drivel, and it is Mr.
Dekker's favorite fallacy, so I snipped it to avoid Mr. Dekker any
further self embarrassment.
Is what Lord Monckton saying about Climate Gate and the AGW arguments
true? If you know simple chemistry of equilibrium, yes, you know that
there is no way humans could have caused the increase in CO2 in the
atmosphere with their piddly 5 Gt carbon/year being added to a 40,000 Gt
Carbon system, a system which has a sink of carbonate rock should the
carbon levels rise to much. If we didn't put the carbon there, then we
aren't causing the warming, EVEN IF CO2 can be shown to be causing the
warming. You even know that CO2 is an EFFECT of warming, not a cause of
warming.
But CO2 can't be causing the warming, because we know that there is a
much stronger correlation of warming with solar cycle than there is
between CO2 and solar cycle. There is no way global temperatures on
earth could affect solar cycle, so there can be no causal connection on
the part of the earth. The warming, and the CO2 with it, MUST be related
to solar cycle. A bright fellow named Svensmark bucked the system and
showed how this works at CERN, and has successfully tested his
hypothesis. The AGW advocates don't even have a hypothesis to test
anymore since all their computer models failed to predict.
So, Lord Monckton is right, and the IPCC is clearly and utterly wrong.
NOW you can talk about why each side advocates what they do. There is
little justification needed to justify saying the truth, but why would
the IPCC lie?
I hate to bring it up, but the IPCC is full of greedy frauds trying to
make a financial killing and power mad commies trying to establish a one
world government where they can dictate how much fuel everyone can use,
how many children they can have, and even what they can eat.
Mind you, these idiot commies, had they tried to make the case for their
totalitarian government, would immediately go up against the wall.
They're talking Hitler like eugenic stuff. They can't make their case
directly, so they do this big "we're all going to die!! Do as I say and I
may save you" crap.
TUKA
Thanks for trivializing the Holocaust by equating people who are skeptical
of an unproven theory with those who deny recorded history.
--
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
TUKA
Exactly. I hear people saying "the precautionary principle", like there
is only one scenario to be concerned about.
Here is a great article:
http://volokh.com/2009/12/09/applying-the-precautionary-principle-consistently/
TUKA
Any of them.
>
>>and to "fix" the wrong problem could have unintended consequences,
>>which could make things worse. The rational thing to do is to
>>continue the research but not make drastic changes until we have more
>>fact to go on.
>
> The scientists & experts have far more data, science, facts & info
> than is needed.
Huh? Our ignorance is enormous.
> Wingers just have confusion, ignorance & lies. Why buy from them?
"Wingers"? Are you claiming that you have the one, the only, the
authoritive answer?
http://volokh.com/2009/12/09/applying-the-precautionary-principle-consistently/
--
Celebrate Diversity...
except veterans, small-business owners, practicing Catholics, gun
owners, talk-radio listeners, tea-party attendees, Texans, smokers, limited-
government proponents, pro-lifers, taxpayers, NASCAR fans, Boy Scouts,
oil-company employees, secure-border advocates, capitalists, global-
warming agnostics, Cuban refugees, school-choicers.. -- Peter Kirsanow
TUKA
Explain what happened to them in the MWP then. Or the Roman Optimum.
>
> That would turn into several billion starving people looking at the US
> & other places for food & water .... IF the US is unimpacted. And
> guess who would get the blame ....
If my grandmother had wheels she would become a taxi.
--
Unix version of an Outlook-style virus:
It works on the honor system. Please forward this message to everyone
you know, and delete a bunch of your files at random.
TUKA
That's right. Rob's hybrid plugs into a wall with electricity he made
himself by cycling during the night. Emissions free -- well, mostly.
Depending on his bean consumption.
> nationwide upgraded grid, wind, solar,
Right. No one has shown how this can supply more than a small amount
of electricity.
> nuclear (thorium plants),
Now we're talking.
> geothermal etc etc.
All of which will happen, presuming the technology is there, when
fossil fuels become expensive enough.
> All we need is the political will and the capital to
> start this process of transformation of our civilisation's energy need.
You are going to legislate research and innovation? How about a law
making pi == 3?
>
> And that is where the problem is (at least for the fossil fuel industry and
> fossil fuel producing countries and a small but very vocal group of science
> deniers).
"Science deniers"? What science? When alternative energy is price-
competitive and plentiful, it won't be turned away. And until it is price-
competitive, it won't do any good. Remember we were supposed to have third-
generation bio-diesel available plentifully in 2005? Well, there seems
to be a little problem even with subsidies. Now they are saying 2012,
but no one believes them.
Speaking of denying, what about denying reality by thinking that you can
stop using fossil fuels unilaterally? Any we don't use the Chinese and
Indians will gladly use for us.
>
>>
>>>Being wrong and having no effect or being wrong and we all die.
>>
>> From what, weather like in Florida, or Hawaii,
>> Rio, the Riviera?
>>
>>
>>>Make that decision and explain it to your grandchildren in 40 years.
>>
>>
>> That is something I would like to do, but at 120 there might be
>> difficulty talking.
>>
>
> Maybe you make it to 120 in your dreams..
>
> We all die, with 100% certainty. What we leave behind is what counts.
And if you teach your crap to your children, as many have, you leave
behind the false impression that man is guilty of "global warming". The
hubris is amazing.
--
Being against torture ought to be sort of a bipartisan thing.
-- Karl Lehenbauer
socialist that fear the truth and want the new Holocaust for 9/11
It's been posted many times, and you can find it on you tube also...
>
> > So either you are clueless twit, or just
> > another dumbass socialist kook or sheep...either way, you better get off
> > your fat ass and wake up to the real world emerging... all for the New
> > Order
>
> OK. When you are done with your tantrum, can you Google "lord monckton
> magical mystery tour", and share your findings with us as to what is
really
> going on behind the screens of the denialist science-smear campaign ?
This whole thing is to keep you people fighting, so you don't see that the
one world government will be forced on you all, and when it is a done deal,
not one of you will be able to do anything about it...
>
> >
> >>
> >> Rob
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
�n�hw��f
of pure thought with
news:sb44i595bkqm27rvl...@4ax.com:
>>[...]
>>In other words, the overwhelming majority of the CO2 increase is
>>beyond man's control.
>
> BS.
No, actually it is. Its beyond the generally agreed upon number of
380ppm as a 'safe" level.
> But we soon may get a cascade of increases ....
>
When the ocean stops absorbing the excess...
Then you get the fun co-effect of ocean acidification.
>>Please explain.
>
> See above.
>
> HTH
And this is worth a read:
http://www.rall.com/2009/12/ted-rall-column-give-hoot-but-were.html
FYI
^_^
--
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COaoYqkpkUA
cageprisoners.com|www.snuhwolf.9f.com|www.eyeonpalin.org
_____ ____ ____ __ /\_/\ __ _ ______ _____
/ __/ |/ / / / / // // . . \\ \ |\ | / __ \ \ \ __\
_\ \/ / /_/ / _ / \ / \ \| \| \ \_\ \ \__\ _\
/___/_/|_/\____/_//_/ \_@_/ \__|\__|\____/\____\_\
socialist that fear the truth and want the new Holocaust for 9/11
"Marvin the Martian" <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote in message
news:RuadnT7Pl54hx7_W...@giganews.com...
You hit the whole issue on the nose and your right, the sheep are falling in
line, and it just like rounding up the cattle to the slaughter.....I like to
compair this to the Jews who denied Hitler was killing them off, until they
went to the camps and today we see the same thing coming into view and you
think the Jewish people would have seen this coming....oh well who said
histroy doesn't repete itself..
> They believe humans to be evil and the root of all that is wrong in the
> world, and they want to see some sort of die off.
These global elite are into some real weird stuff, from sacifices, to
worshiping their sun god.. The strange part is the sheep just can't see what
is going to bring them down.
anorton
This is the cosmic ray hypothesis. Only the first minor link in a long
chain of assumptions was tested. Nothing else suggests it is correct. See
for exapmple:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/recent-warming-but-no-trend-in-galactic-cosmic-rays/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/10/taking-cosmic-rays-for-a-spin/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/cosmoclimatology-tired-old-arguments-in-new-clothes/
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=seven-answers-to-climate-contrarian-nonsense&page=3
Marvin the Martian
Thanks for the junk science political links. They start of with a straw
dog fallacy, and go down hill.
I would point out that there isn't even a hypothesis how CO2 causes
climate, yet the same AGW advocates who dismiss the Svensmark theory
ignore that their arguments are far weaker.
Lastly, these attacks on Svensmark's theory don't address that the size
of the carbon cycle system is far larger than the AGW admit, and they
tell a bogus story, using isotope ratios, how man made CO2 doesn't go
into the ocean all the while claiming that natural CO2 does to the tune
of 20 times what humans add. This is bogus.
I M @ good guy
Gee, cry over a few beers and maybe you
will feel more depressed.
anorton
What fallacy exactly and why? And why is Scientific American (the oldest
continuously published periodical in the USA) junk science?
>
> I would point out that there isn't even a hypothesis how CO2 causes
> climate, yet the same AGW advocates who dismiss the Svensmark theory
> ignore that their arguments are far weaker.
Again, blatantly false claim. Here are the detailed calculations of the CO2
green house effect:
http://www.hfranzen.org/Global_Warming.pdf
>
> Lastly, these attacks on Svensmark's theory don't address that the size
> of the carbon cycle system is far larger than the AGW admit, and they
> tell a bogus story, using isotope ratios, how man made CO2 doesn't go
> into the ocean all the while claiming that natural CO2 does to the tune
> of 20 times what humans add. This is bogus.
>
All this according to who?
(rest snipped)
Marvin the Martian
S-T-R-A-W D-O-G Fallacy(1). Sometimes called a straw man. The person
making the argument intentionally misstates the opposing argument into a
weaker argument and then attacks the weaker argument.
In this case, the argument was that no one has shown how CO2 can cause
the observed warming. It is a trace gas, and most of the warming is due
to water vapor. Simple physics shows that CO2 can't cause the warming. No
one has been able to show how CO2 causes the claimed warming. There have
been climate computer models, but they all failed to predict.
The author misstated the argument and turned it on it's head, saying that
the deniers had to PROVE that CO2 can't cause the warming, and he then
claimed that the only argument was that CO2 was a trace gas; he then
attacked the non-sequitor in his straw dog argument.
(1) http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/straw.htm
> And why is Scientific American (the
> oldest continuously published periodical in the USA) junk science?
First I note that you add some loaded language in your "question" that
amounts to an appeal to authority question. It doesn't matter what their
laurels are, they are publishing crap now. "Crap" being straw dog
fallacies that turn science and logic on its head. See, for example, the
article in question.
>> I would point out that there isn't even a hypothesis how CO2 causes
>> climate, yet the same AGW advocates who dismiss the Svensmark theory
>> ignore that their arguments are far weaker.
>
> Again, blatantly false claim. Here are the detailed calculations of the
> CO2 green house effect:
> http://www.hfranzen.org/Global_Warming.pdf
Oh please. I debunked this crap power point before.
Charts 1 & 2: data from a live, CO2 emitting volcano being used as
representative of the whole world's CO2 level. That's non-science.
Chart 3 through 9: Here he calculates the amount of CO2 added and the
amount of CO2 increase. He shows that the amount of CO2 we add is larger
than the increase from the volcano data, ERGO he fallaciously concludes,
we put the CO2 there. This is a fallacy of omission, and pathetically bad
science. He should have included the entire carbon cycle system, and not
just a part of it. A huge amount of carbon, 20X what humans produce,
enters and is exchanged with the ocean. The we add about 5 Gt carbon to a
system 40,000 Gt carbon in size. If you use THOSE numbers, there is no
way we are causing the CO2 increase. It must be a natural event. The
amount of CO2 we add is then divided up into the total system, atmosphere
plus ocean. Chemistry tells us the ONLY way for the ratio between
atmospheric CO2 and ocean CO2 to change is if the temperature of the
ocean changes. And the only way that the amount of CO2 in the ocean can
change is if the temperature of the ocean changes, causing the
equilibrium between carbonate rock and dissolved CO2 to change.
>> Lastly, these attacks on Svensmark's theory don't address that the size
>> of the carbon cycle system is far larger than the AGW admit, and they
>> tell a bogus story, using isotope ratios, how man made CO2 doesn't go
>> into the ocean all the while claiming that natural CO2 does to the tune
>> of 20 times what humans add. This is bogus.
>>
>>
> All this according to who?
Why don't you have the person who tells you what to think do your
posting.
> (rest snipped)
TimK
"�n�hw��f" <snuh...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9CDE694CD5994...@216.196.97.142...
You know, I have to agree. We won't stop it or even slow it down. We ought
to be looking at how we're going to adapt to it - managed retreat, etc. But
we still have to get off oil as a national security issue.
richp
> Aratzio wrote:
> > On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 16:31:35 -0600, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
You mean 50 cu miles of greenland ice disappearing each year and on an
accelerating basis "3X per decade" is pure conjecture??? Really
richp
There is no and being and being
TimK
> It is a trace gas, and most of the warming is due to water vapor.
Um, the gap between your assertion and reality is pretty wide there skippy.
In the first place, water is a feedback not a forcing. And in the second
place, water is, for the most part, in equilibrium in the atmosphere.
Although I have no reason to believe you're clever enough to come in out of
it, you probably have seen what happens when the atmosphere becomes
"saturated" with water vapor.
But thanks for playing; it's always nice when deniers spout such utter
nonsense - it's a great way of showing those of us who actually understand
some of this stuff that you don't even get the basics.
TimK
"TUKA" <tu...@tuka.valuemedia.com> wrote in message
news:slrnhi4qb...@bill.heins.net...
> Explain what happened to them in the MWP then. Or the Roman Optimum.
How many people were on the earth then compared to now?
anorton
Huh? Those particular links were talking about problems with the cosmic ray
hypothesis not trying to prove CO2 causes warming. The Scientific American
article does ALSO talk about the CO2 trace gas issue But there is no
strawman (or dog), it is simply hard to include every variation of every
specious argument to counter as new ones keep cropping up as old ones are
debunked.
> (1) http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/straw.htm
>
>> And why is Scientific American (the
>> oldest continuously published periodical in the USA) junk science?
>
> First I note that you add some loaded language in your "question" that
> amounts to an appeal to authority question. It doesn't matter what their
> laurels are, they are publishing crap now. "Crap" being straw dog
> fallacies that turn science and logic on its head. See, for example, the
> article in question.
>
>
>
>
>>> I would point out that there isn't even a hypothesis how CO2 causes
>>> climate, yet the same AGW advocates who dismiss the Svensmark theory
>>> ignore that their arguments are far weaker.
>>
>> Again, blatantly false claim. Here are the detailed calculations of the
>> CO2 green house effect:
>> http://www.hfranzen.org/Global_Warming.pdf
>
> Oh please. I debunked this crap power point before.
>
> Charts 1 & 2: data from a live, CO2 emitting volcano being used as
> representative of the whole world's CO2 level. That's non-science.
So that means you think the true CO2 concentration is actually significantly
different? What about readings from many other stations that show nearly
identical results.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/sio-keel.html
>
> Chart 3 through 9: Here he calculates the amount of CO2 added and the
> amount of CO2 increase. He shows that the amount of CO2 we add is larger
> than the increase from the volcano data, ERGO he fallaciously concludes,
> we put the CO2 there. This is a fallacy of omission, and pathetically bad
> science.
No, this is NOT what he does here. He calculates the total mass of carbon
entering the atmosphere each year due to ALL sources and sinks based on the
observed increased in CO2 ( which are basically the same at stations across
the world). He makes no attempt to say how much is put there by humans. He
simply compares that to the total mass of human generated CO2 to give the
reader an idea of the magnitude.
But the important point, that you did not rebut, is the main part of the
paper. The paper does not deal with where the CO2 comes from. He calculates
the effect of the earth's heat flux and temperature due to a change in CO2
concentration (from any source). This is something you claimed no one has
even shown, yet here it is. And there are a whole bunch of other people that
have done similar if not so detailed calculations.
Marvin the Martian
Not the last one. You wanted an example, I gave it to you.
> The Scientific
> American article does ALSO talk about the CO2 trace gas issue But there
> is no strawman (or dog), it is simply hard to include every variation of
> every specious argument to counter as new ones keep cropping up as old
> ones are debunked.
Simple denial, and then you follow up by admitting it isn't the argument
and use another fallacy to defend it.
>> (1) http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/straw.htm
>>
>>> And why is Scientific American (the
>>> oldest continuously published periodical in the USA) junk science?
>>
>> First I note that you add some loaded language in your "question" that
>> amounts to an appeal to authority question. It doesn't matter what
>> their laurels are, they are publishing crap now. "Crap" being straw dog
>> fallacies that turn science and logic on its head. See, for example,
>> the article in question.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> I would point out that there isn't even a hypothesis how CO2 causes
>>>> climate, yet the same AGW advocates who dismiss the Svensmark theory
>>>> ignore that their arguments are far weaker.
>>>
>>> Again, blatantly false claim. Here are the detailed calculations of
>>> the CO2 green house effect:
>>> http://www.hfranzen.org/Global_Warming.pdf
>>
>> Oh please. I debunked this crap power point before.
>>
>> Charts 1 & 2: data from a live, CO2 emitting volcano being used as
>> representative of the whole world's CO2 level. That's non-science.
>
> So that means you think the true CO2 concentration is actually
> significantly different?
Got any objective data? I don't know what the CO2 concentrations are. I
know CO2 concentrations vary throughout the world, and that it is clearly
junk science to use one data point as representative of the entire world.
> What about readings from many other stations
> that show nearly identical results.
> http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/sio-keel.html
Quite frankly, the CRU emails proves that such nice, agreeable graphs are
often the product of collusion. So, that doesn't prove much, especially
when the source is a fraud website.
But lets say that CO2 is increasing. That in no way proves it is a man
made increase. That doesn't follow, especially since CO2 levels have
shown changes in the past.
>> Chart 3 through 9: Here he calculates the amount of CO2 added and the
>> amount of CO2 increase. He shows that the amount of CO2 we add is
>> larger than the increase from the volcano data, ERGO he fallaciously
>> concludes, we put the CO2 there. This is a fallacy of omission, and
>> pathetically bad science.
>
> No, this is NOT what he does here. He calculates the total mass of
> carbon entering the atmosphere each year due to ALL sources and sinks
> based on the observed increased in CO2 ( which are basically the same at
> stations across the world). He makes no attempt to say how much is put
> there by humans. He simply compares that to the total mass of human
> generated CO2 to give the reader an idea of the magnitude.
Okay, so you agree with me and admit he is gibbering, and his calculation
meaningless. I thought you were taken in by his one sided BS.
So, why are you foisting what you know is Bullshit at me? It doesn't do
your credibility any good at all.
> But the important point, that you did not rebut, is the main part of the
> paper. The paper does not deal with where the CO2 comes from. He
> calculates the effect of the earth's heat flux and temperature due to a
> change in CO2 concentration (from any source). This is something you
> claimed no one has even shown, yet here it is. And there are a whole
> bunch of other people that have done similar if not so detailed
> calculations.
Now you're being stupid on purpose. If we humans didn't put the CO2
there, then we're not causing the warming and the discussion is over.
I didn't bother with the rest of his paper when I got to the point where
he failed to prove a human cause for the CO2 increase. Now you throw a
fallacy-fallacy at me?
When you are making a sequential argument and each step is critical, you
can't blow BS at one and then claim your argument is good because the
next step hasn't been rebutted yet.
IF We caused the CO2 increase (failed to prove)
and
IF the CO2 caused the warming (I didn't bother much with...)
and
IF the warming is bad... (never really got there)
THEN
Do something about it.
You have to prove the first IF. Any "If" that isn't true invalidates your
argument.
TimK
> But lets say that CO2 is increasing.
Well, it is being measured...
>That in no way proves it is a man made increase.
Of course, how could it be man-made, as we go scurrying around in our cars
pumping about 10 kg of CO2 for every 4 litres we burn...
Aratzio
"I M @ good guy" <I...@good.guy> got double secret probation for
writing:
>On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 21:40:00 -0800, Aratzio <a6ah...@sneakemail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 14:46:14 -0800, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
>>"anorton" <ano...@removethis.ix.netcom.com> got double secret
>>probation for writing:
>>>
>>>"David Hartung" <d_ha...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:4b2176c9$0$5345$bbae...@news.suddenlink.net...
>>>> effect is caused by human activity. As yet, no one has been able to
>>>> explain how this three tenths of one percent is causing catastrophic
>>>> warming.
>>>>
>>>> Among the tidbits included in this piece is the fact that since the
>>>> beginning of the industrial revolution, atmospheric CO2 has increased by
>>>> 80,400 parts per billion, of which 68,500 parts per billion is from
>>>> natural causes, leaving only 11,880 coming from man made causes.
>>>>
>>>> In other words, the overwhelming majority of the CO2 increase is beyond
>>>> man's control.
>>>>
>>>> Please explain.
>>>
>>>Not true at all. You are even exagerating the common distortion of the data
>>>. This is one of the 7 major commonly-cited distortions that Scientific
>>>American took the pains to refute:
>>>
>>>http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=seven-answers-to-climate-contrarian-nonsense
>>>
>>>Refuting all crap like that posted by Mr. Hartung and others is a bit like
>>>playing whack-a-mole.
>>>
>>
>>All of which does not matter, cost benefit analysis is simple, if
>>humans are not affecting global warming creating a less carbon based
>>energy policy will not damage the global environment. Whereas
>>continuimg in the same mode and being wrong will kill millios and
>>quite possibly billions of people and with a possibility of all
>>humanity.
>
> Tell the engineers how to create a less carbon
>based energy policy.
>
> Please.
Nuclear, solar, wind, geothermal, tidal, solar/microwave.
As an Engineer I can say that isn't the even the hard part. Getting
the less informed educated and relieving their self-indulgent
ignorance is the majot roadblock.
>
>>Being wrong and having no effect or being wrong and we all die.
>
> From what, weather like in Florida, or Hawaii,
>Rio, the Riviera?
Just a few: Flooding, droughts, snow pack melting sooner, increased
water vapor in the atmosphere as temps increase causing ever greater
increases.
You sure don't know much about the process.
>
>
>>Make
>>that decision and explain it to your grandchildren in 40 years.
>
>
> That is something I would like to do, but
>at 120 there might be difficulty talking.
>
So you are 80 now, right.
Aratzio
"Rob Dekker" <r...@verific.com> got double secret probation for
writing:
>
>"Aratzio" <a6ah...@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
>news:66m3i55hom636lac8...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 17:23:27 -0500, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
>> "James" <king...@iglou.com> got double secret probation for writing:
>>
>>>TimK wrote:
>>>> "Perry Brown" <PBR...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:MPG.258b36953...@news.x-privat.org...
>>>>> By Alan I. Leshner
>>>>> Wednesday, December 9, 2009; 6:48 PM
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Now, the American public is again being subjected to those kinds of
>>>>> denials, this time about global climate change. While former Alaska
>>>>> governor Sarah Palin wrote in her Dec. 9 op-ed that she did not deny
>>>>> the "reality of some changes in climate," she distorted the clear
>>>>> scientific evidence that Earth's climate is changing, largely as a
>>>>> result of human behaviors. She also badly confused the concepts of
>>>>> daily weather changes and long-term climate trends when she wrote
>>>>> that "while we recognize the occurrence of these natural, cyclical
>>>>> environmental trends, we can't say with assurance that man's
>>>>> activities cause weather changes." Her statement inaccurately
>>>>> suggests that short-term weather fluctuations must be consistent
>>>>> with long-term climate patterns. And it is the long-term patterns
>>>>> that are a cause for concern.
>>>>
>>>> Ain't it tragic how an idiot like Palin has any audience at all
>>>> concerning a matter of science...
>>>
>>>Pricks like you also think Al Gore is scientist enough to know what he is
>>>talking about. lol
>>
>> No, he is a concerned citizen with a platform and is espousing a
>> cogent and rational policy.
>>
>> You do know how to tell the difference between policy and science,
>> right?
>>
>> So, eplain why the "left" would create the conspiracy of global
>> warming:
>>
>
>Aratzio, which newsgroup are you posting from ?
The Spanish Inquisition.
(Didn't expect that, eh?)
>We can sure use some rational thinkers in the alt.global-warming group,
>which seems to be dominated by denialist liers these days.
>
Well, I'm less of a rationalist and more of a fuckheadalist. I am also
a big fan of smoking craters.
Aratzio
Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> got double secret
probation for writing:
>On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 21:40:00 -0800, Aratzio <a6ah...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 14:46:14 -0800, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
>>"anorton" <ano...@removethis.ix.netcom.com> got double secret
>>probation for writing:
>>
>>>
>>>"David Hartung" <d_ha...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:4b2176c9$0$5345$bbae...@news.suddenlink.net...
>>>> TimK wrote:
>>>>> "Perry Brown" <PBR...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:MPG.258b36953...@news.x-privat.org...
>>>>>> By Alan I. Leshner
>>>>>> Wednesday, December 9, 2009; 6:48 PM
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Now, the American public is again being subjected to those kinds of
>>>>>> denials, this time about global climate change. While former Alaska
>>>>>> governor Sarah Palin wrote in her Dec. 9 op-ed that she did not deny
>>>>>> the "reality of some changes in climate," she distorted the clear
>>>>>> scientific evidence that Earth's climate is changing, largely as a
>>>>>> result of human behaviors. She also badly confused the concepts of
>>>>>> daily weather changes and long-term climate trends when she wrote that
>>>>>> "while we recognize the occurrence of these natural, cyclical
>>>>>> environmental trends, we can't say with assurance that man's
>>>>>> activities cause weather changes." Her statement inaccurately suggests
>>>>>> that short-term weather fluctuations must be consistent with long-term
>>>>>> climate patterns. And it is the long-term patterns that are a cause
>>>>>> for concern.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ain't it tragic how an idiot like Palin has any audience at all
>>>>> concerning a matter of science...
>>Being wrong and having no effect or being wrong and we all die. Make
>>that decision and explain it to your grandchildren in 40 years.
>
> Just the melting of the glaciers in the Himalayas is putting
>the water & irrigation supplies of China, India & much of the
>rest of Asia at severe risk.
>
> That would turn into several billion starving people looking
>at the US & other places for food & water .... IF the US is
>unimpacted. And guess who would get the blame ....
The US will not be unaffected. The snowpack which supplies much of the
water to the major river systems in the USA will melt earlier. Places
like California that depend upon water storage to supply agro and
municipal water will have to release most of their water due to
overfilling and then when the dry months arrive there will be no
snowpack to replenish the reservoirs.
The earlier melt will also cause massive flooding in the midwest
wiping out crops there and removing milions of acres of top soil.
Aratzio
David Hartung <d_ha...@hotmail.com> got double secret probation for
writing:
>Aratzio wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 16:31:35 -0600, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
>> David Hartung <d_ha...@hotmail.com> got double secret probation for
>> writing:
>>
>> Which has a worse outcome:
>>
>> 1. Making the world more energy efficient and less polluting and being
>> wrong about the effects of humans upon global warming.
>>
>> 2. Not becoming more energy efficient and less polluting and being
>> wrong about the effects of humans upon global warming.
>>
>> which of the two above has the most dire long term effects for all of
>> humanity?
>
>People generally use this line of argument when all else fails.
>
>There is the possibility that I am wrong, but right now I believe that
>the greater possibility is that I am right. We do not know what has
>caused the warming trends of recent past, and to "fix" the wrong problem
>could have unintended consequences, which could make things worse. The
>rational thing to do is to continue the research but not make drastic
>changes until we have more fact to go on.
We know the results of lower levels of greenhouse gasses so your
concerns are shown false by empirical evidence.
Even so, the ability to add greenhouse gases is available at almost a
moments notice. The inverse is a technological process requiring
decades.
Bottom line: you are willing to gamble the lives of billions of people
based upon no evidence other than your own suppositions. People who
will be dying long after your own demise.
Aratzio
Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> got double secret
probation for writing:
> Is 100% a "possibility"?
>
>>but right now I believe that
>>the greater possibility is that I am right.
>
> Faith based science, eh?
>
>>We do not know what has
>>caused the warming trends of recent past,
>
> Which ones?
>
>>and to "fix" the wrong problem
>>could have unintended consequences, which could make things worse. The
>>rational thing to do is to continue the research but not make drastic
>>changes until we have more fact to go on.
>
> The scientists & experts have far more
>data, science, facts & info than is needed.
> Wingers just have confusion, ignorance & lies. Why buy from them?
Empirical data for less greeenhouse gasses in the atmosphere is
available.
Empirical evidence of runaway greenhouse is also: Venus.
Aratzio
"I M @ good guy" <I...@good.guy> got double secret probation for
writing:
>On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 00:08:02 -0800, "Rob Dekker" <r...@verific.com>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>"I M @ good guy" <I...@good.guy> wrote in message
>>news:scn3i5lpnsuqshl2n...@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 21:40:00 -0800, Aratzio <a6ah...@sneakemail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 14:46:14 -0800, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
>>>>"anorton" <ano...@removethis.ix.netcom.com> got double secret
>>>>probation for writing:
>>>>>
>>>>>"David Hartung" <d_ha...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:4b2176c9$0$5345$bbae...@news.suddenlink.net...
>>>>>Not true at all. You are even exagerating the common distortion of the
>>>>>data
>>>>>. This is one of the 7 major commonly-cited distortions that Scientific
>>>>>American took the pains to refute:
>>>>>
>>>>>http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=seven-answers-to-climate-contrarian-nonsense
>>>>>
>>>>>Refuting all crap like that posted by Mr. Hartung and others is a bit
>>>>>like
>>>>>playing whack-a-mole.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>All of which does not matter, cost benefit analysis is simple, if
>>>>humans are not affecting global warming creating a less carbon based
>>>>energy policy will not damage the global environment. Whereas
>>>>continuimg in the same mode and being wrong will kill millios and
>>>>quite possibly billions of people and with a possibility of all
>>>>humanity.
>>>
>>> Tell the engineers how to create a less carbon
>>> based energy policy.
>>>
>>> Please.
>>
>>You do not have to tell the engineers. They already know.
>
>
> Not that it has been evident in the available products.
*BOGGLE*
Really? You can't find any evidence?
>
>
>>There are alternatives to fossil fuel burning, starting with plug-in
>>hybrids,
>
> Half the people can't afford a new car, few used ones.
Well, I am convinced, fuck it, trash the dump.
>
>>nationwide upgraded grid, wind, solar, nuclear (thorium plants),
>>geothermal etc etc.
>
>
> So start activism where it will do some good.
*BOGGLE*
Really? You don't see any local activism? Like those crazy kids
running the State of California?
Aratzio
"TimK" <tim...@cfl.rr.com> got double secret probation for writing:
That is what always amazes me, the basic denier is more often than not
big on defense issues. They don't get that disconnect.
pyotr filipivich
that fear the truth and want the new Holocaust for 9/11"
reported Elvis on Fri, 11 Dec 2009 08:00:52 GMT in misc.survivalism:
>
>"pyotr filipivich" <ph...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:qfn3i51pg1sae2ls5...@4ax.com...
>
>> the problem is that in the data dump from the Climate Research
>> Unit there is program code. The instructions to make the computer
>> software to run. And in that code is evidence that they were making
>> it all up as they went. Hard coding the "variables" in order to get
>> the answer they wanted. That's not science, that's fraud.
>
>You people are missing the bigger picture coming forth, as the whole point
>of pushing this fraud called global warming isn't about the science, the
>fraud, and lies, it nothing more then:
> 1.. The condition of being deceived by a false perception or belief.
> 2.. Something, such as a fantastic plan or desire, that causes an
>erroneous belief or perception tp create a new order out of Kaos.
>it is al about creating a one world government, where nations will have to
>give up their sovereign rights and that is what people should be concerned
>about.
All true. But the globalists are dressing up their religion in
the guise of "Science" - they have computer models!
When it is pointed out that their computer models are not "models"
but rigged demos, it hammers at the quality of their "science".
revealing that their beleif is based not on "science" but on faith -
religion, ideology, mania, delusion, the madness of crowds, whatever.
>
-
pyotr filipivich.
Just about the time you finally see light at the end of the tunnel,
you find out it's a Government Project to build more tunnel.
TimK
> When it is pointed out that their computer models are not "models"
> but rigged demos, it hammers at the quality of their "science".
> revealing that their beleif is based not on "science" but on faith -
> religion, ideology, mania, delusion, the madness of crowds, whatever.
You've obviously never seen a model compared to actual measurements in the
primary literature or you'd realize what a fucking ignorant statement that
is. But that's how the deniers work, you just make the shit up as you go
along.
technomaNge
>
> You mean 50 cu miles of greenland ice disappearing each year and on an
> accelerating basis "3X per decade" is pure conjecture??? Really
Why do they call it Greenland if it is frozen over with all that ice?
technomaNge
--
Because hundreds of years ago the Earth was warm enough
for green stuff to grow there.
TimK
"technomaNge" <pir...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:hfusfj$9if$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> richp wrote:
>
>>
>> You mean 50 cu miles of greenland ice disappearing each year and on an
>> accelerating basis "3X per decade" is pure conjecture??? Really
>
>
>
> Why do they call it Greenland if it is frozen over with all that ice?
A d v e r t i s i n g
Martin H. Eastburn
great Brown Spot of South East Asia is so close by. It can be seen
from space and on the ground. Southern Ca. was nothing compared to
the brown air.
The largest by far polluters are volcanoes. We have had a number of them
put out excessive pollutants in the past 20 years.
Martin
Perry Brown wrote:
> By Alan I. Leshner
> Wednesday, December 9, 2009; 6:48 PM
>
> Don't be fooled about climate science. In April, 1994 -- long after
> scientists had clearly demonstrated the addictive quality and
> devastating health impacts of cigarette smoking -- seven chief
> executives of major tobacco companies denied the evidence, swearing
> under oath that nicotine was not addictive.
>
> Now, the American public is again being subjected to those kinds of
> denials, this time about global climate change. While former Alaska
> governor Sarah Palin wrote in her Dec. 9 op-ed that she did not deny
> the "reality of some changes in climate," she distorted the clear
> scientific evidence that Earth's climate is changing, largely as a
> result of human behaviors. She also badly confused the concepts of
> daily weather changes and long-term climate trends when she wrote that
> "while we recognize the occurrence of these natural, cyclical
> environmental trends, we can't say with assurance that man's
> activities cause weather changes." Her statement inaccurately suggests
> that short-term weather fluctuations must be consistent with long-term
> climate patterns. And it is the long-term patterns that are a cause
> for concern.
>
> Climate-change science is clear: The concentration of atmospheric
> carbon dioxide -- derived mostly from the human activities of fossil-
> fuel burning and deforestation -- stands at 389 parts per million
> (ppm). We know from studying ancient Antarctic ice cores that this
> concentration is higher than it has been for at least the past 650,000
> years. Exhaustive measurements tell us that atmospheric carbon dioxide
> is rising by 2 ppm every year and that the global temperature has
> increased by about 1.1 degrees Fahrenheit over the past century.
> Multiple lines of other evidence, including reliable thermometer
> readings since the 1880s, reveal a clear warming trend. The broader
> impacts of climate change range from rapidly melting glaciers and
> rising sea levels to shifts in species ranges.
>
> Thousands of respected scientists at an array of institutions
> worldwide agree that major health and economic impacts are likely
> unless we act now to slow greenhouse gas emissions. Already, sea
> levels are estimated to rise by 1 to 2 meters by the end of this
> century. Some scientists have said that average temperatures could
> jump by as much as 4 degrees Fahrenheit if the atmospheric carbon
> dioxide level reaches 450 ppm. We may face even more dangerous impacts
> at 550 ppm, and above that level, devastating events. U.S. crop
> productivity would be affected, while European communities might
> suffer increased fatalities because of intensely hot summers.
>
> Doubters insist that the earth is not warming. This is in stark
> contrast to the consensus of 18 of the world's most respected
> scientific organizations, who strongly stated in an Oct. 21 letter to
> the U.S. Senate that human-induced climate change is real. Still, the
> doubters try to leverage any remaining points of scientific
> uncertainty about the details of warming trends to cast doubt on the
> overall conclusions shared by traditionally cautious, decidedly non-
> radical science organizations such as the National Academy of Sciences
> and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which
> represents an estimated 10 million individual scientists through 262
> affiliated societies. Doubters also make selective use of the
> evidence, noting that the warming of the late 1990s did not persist
> from 2001 to 2008, while ignoring the fact that the first decade of
> the 21st century looks like it will be the warmest decade on record.
>
> None of these tactics changes the clear consensus of a vast majority
> of scientists, who agree that the Earth is warming as greenhouse gas
> levels rise. The public and policymakers should not be confused by a
> few private e-mails that are being selectively publicized and, in any
> case, remain irrelevant to the broad body of diverse evidence on
> climate change. Selected language in the messages has been interpreted
> by some to suggest unethical actions such as data manipulation or
> suppression. To be sure, investigations are appropriate whenever
> questions are raised regarding the transparency and rigor of the
> scientific process or the integrity of individual scientists. We
> applaud that the responsible authorities are conducting those
> investigations. But it is wrong to suggest that apparently stolen
> emails, deployed on the eve of the Copenhagen climate summit, somehow
> refute a century of evidence based on thousands of studies.
>
> Palin also errs by claiming that America can't afford to reduce
> greenhouse gases. The highly regarded Stern Commission revealed that
> inaction could cost us the equivalent of between 5 and 20 percent of
> global gross domestic product per year. In contrast, the price of
> slowing emissions was estimated to be 1 percent of GDP. China,
> meanwhile, reportedly is investing heavily in clean energy
> technologies.
>
> Now, policymakers must decide whether to act on the evidence or to
> avoid facing one of the most crucial issues of our generation.
>
> Alan I. Leshner is the chief executive officer of the American
> Association for the Advancement of Science and executive publisher of
> the journal Science.
I M @ good guy
wrote:
Earlier than what, huge glaciers? California
depends mostly on annual snowfall, along with
summer rains, melting is not an issue.
>Places
>like California that depend upon water storage to supply agro and
>municipal water will have to release most of their water due to
>overfilling and then when the dry months arrive there will be no
>snowpack to replenish the reservoirs.
No, the courts just shut down 300,000 acres
of produce to give a 2 inch fish enough water to drink.
>The earlier melt will also cause massive flooding in the midwest
>wiping out crops there and removing milions of acres of top soil.
What? Glaciers in the midwest? Most of
the US grain crop is in the great plains, did you
know plains are flat?
Too many newsgroups, bringing too many
gossip mongers into technical discussions.
TimK
"I M @ good guy" <I...@good.guy> wrote in message
> No, the courts just shut down 300,000 acres
> of produce to give a 2 inch fish enough water to drink.
No, morons decided it was a wise idea to grow crops in a fucking desert by
stealing water that belongs to everyone.
I bet you watch Hannity...
Curly Surmudgeon
Wow, two idiots in a row.
How'd you find your way to usenet and not be aware of wikipedia?
--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012 Run, John, Run! 2012
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aratzio
"I M @ good guy" <I...@good.guy> got double secret probation for
writing:
Where to start?
Well, there are virtually no summer rains in California. So you fucked
the most basic understanding of the weather patterns there. A small
amount in the summer months falls in the far north but it is
negligible to the overall water supply.
Next, if the snow melts earlier in the year then there the water runs
off the mountains. There is only finite storage for the water, so ALL
of the excess that would have melted later and then been stored later
in the cycle is allowed to flow through the river system and into the
ocean.
Since there is no snowmelt in the later months of summer (it all
melted) then there is nothing to replenish the reservoirs that supply
the drinking water and agricultural needs that year.
Agriculture water use dries up since the humans will demand that the
limited water resource be saved for drinking water.
Since there is no water for agriculture the price of food skyrockets
due to the need to import billions of pounds of food from alternate
sources as there is nothing left growing in the Central Valley farms.
The crash of the agricultural market causes a crash of the California
economy and that causes a domino financial crash world wide
(California has a huge economy).
>
>>Places
>>like California that depend upon water storage to supply agro and
>>municipal water will have to release most of their water due to
>>overfilling and then when the dry months arrive there will be no
>>snowpack to replenish the reservoirs.
>
>
> No, the courts just shut down 300,000 acres
>of produce to give a 2 inch fish enough water to drink.
Really, that is possibly the most ignorant statement you have made
yet. Explain how restoration of the San Joaquin River has an effect
upon the majority water storage system that feeds the Sacramento River
system. Do you even have a clue as to where the water is stored in
California? Where are the major dams & reservoirs? The overburden of
the San Joaquin River by agricultural overuse has been known for
decades and the farmers given an opportunity to adapt to less water
intensive crops decided to wage a losing battle in the courts rather
than adapt.
>
>
>>The earlier melt will also cause massive flooding in the midwest
>>wiping out crops there and removing milions of acres of top soil.
>
>
> What? Glaciers in the midwest? Most of
>the US grain crop is in the great plains, did you
>know plains are flat?
Really, you imagine that snowpack and glacier are the same thing?
Point out where I mentioned glaciers in any of these posts.
But that is your defense, pretend what was written means something
completely different and then use that strawman to pretend you have a
point.
Here is your hint, the word snowpack is a specific term for the
accumulation of snow, generally in the mountains, during a given year.
Most of the snowpack melts every year when the weater turns warm. The
melt is usualy a gradual event over the course a spring and summer.
Now if you are done being intentionally ignorant would you care to
address the statement made rather than your strawman?
Hint#2: Given the flatness of the plains what do you imagine will be
the effect of a larger quantity of snowmelt in a shorter period of
time on the just the Missouri River system?
>
>
> Too many newsgroups, bringing too many
>gossip mongers into technical discussions.
Really, anyone that is as factually ignorant as you are rewally should
avoid technical discussions.
>
>
>
>
>
>
Aratzio
"TimK" <tim...@cfl.rr.com> got double secret probation for writing:
That was Hannity. The interesting thing here is that was the San
Jouquin River System. The majority water system in California is the
Sacramento. Since the San Jouquin is a much smaller river system in
size and water quantitiy the agriculture literally sucked the river
dry before it ever reached the Delta. They were literally given
warnings for decades that the river would have to be restored and that
they needed to adapt to lower water usage. Rather than adapt they
chose to fight in the courts and ignore the advice to adapt to methods
that would allow them to farm in a less water intensive method.
They were offered government grants and low interest loans to make the
transistion. But the "fuck you, I got mine" attitude took hold.
TUKA
And what has that to do with melting glaciers?
Oh, that's right -- nothing. Which is probably why you snipped the context.
--
The tenor's voice is spoilt by affectation,
And for the bass, the beast can only bellow;
In fact, he had no singing education,
An ignorant, noteless, timeless, tuneless fellow. -- Lord Byron
Hang Dog
> On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 05:53:32 -0600, David Hartung <d_ha...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> We do not know what has
>> caused the warming trends of recent past,
>
> Which ones?
>
> data, science, facts & info than is needed.
> Wingers just have confusion, ignorance & lies. Why buy from them?
Why are you bothering with this fuckwit? He says he's 80 or there
abouts, a dead man walking, in the last throws of dementia. His family
roll their eyes and think "Whatever" every time he opens his mouth, the
younger ones just turn up the volume on their mp3 player.
Leave him to drool in his oatmeal.
Hang Dog
> "socialist that fear the truth and want the new Holocaust for 9/11"
> <Libertarian...Neo-.Con.kook@"KentCowen.conservatarian".free.police.protection.gcmail>
>>
>>> the problem is that in the data dump from the Climate Research
>>> Unit there is program code. The instructions to make the computer
>>> software to run. And in that code is evidence that they were making
>>> it all up as they went. Hard coding the "variables" in order to get
>>> the answer they wanted. That's not science, that's fraud.
>> You people are missing the bigger picture coming forth, as the whole point
>> of pushing this fraud called global warming isn't about the science, the
>> fraud, and lies, it nothing more then:
>> 1.. The condition of being deceived by a false perception or belief.
>> 2.. Something, such as a fantastic plan or desire, that causes an
>> erroneous belief or perception tp create a new order out of Kaos.
>> it is al about creating a one world government, where nations will have to
>> give up their sovereign rights and that is what people should be concerned
>> about.
>>
>>
>
Monckton eh! Damn its been years since he was in the news over here in
the UK. They don't even have him on for light relief any more.
hda
>
>"socialist that fear the truth and want the new Holocaust for 9/11"
><Libertarian...Neo-.Con.kook@"KentCowen.conservatarian".free.police.protection.gcmail>
>wrote in message news:grnUm.57056$PH1.43470@edtnps82...
>>
>> "Rob Dekker" <r...@verific.com> wrote in message
>> news:E_adnX5iH-dtnb_W...@giganews.com...
>>> There is a reason why he is called the "lord of the lies".
>>> He juggles formula's and graphs that look scientific but are completely
>>> fabricated.
>>> He is a puppet of some very powerfull opinions.
>>> Google "lord monckton magical mystery tour" to see who is pulling his
>>> strings.
>>
>>
>> Rob, you are either an idiot, or you just don't get out very much, this
>> came
>> from the new EU leader, the WTO and the UN and to top it off, world
>> leaders
>> spoke of it at the G20 summit.
>
>
>Mmmm. You wrote "You people are missing the bigger picture coming forth, as
>the whole point of pushing this fraud called global warming isn't about the
>science, the fraud, and lies..."
>
>but I can't seem to find that anywhere in the EU, WTO or UN top notes.
>Do you have a cite for that ?
Dilbert's director:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEqFtVrAgSo&feature=player_embedded
>
>> So either you are clueless twit, or just
>> another dumbass socialist kook or sheep...either way, you better get off
>> your fat ass and wake up to the real world emerging... all for the New
>> Order
>
>OK. When you are done with your tantrum, can you Google "lord monckton
>magical mystery tour", and share your findings with us as to what is really
>going on behind the screens of the denialist science-smear campaign ?
>
>>
>>>
>>> Rob
Dilbert's director:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEqFtVrAgSo&feature=player_embedded
TimK
> On 2009-12-11, TimK <tim...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>> "TUKA" <tu...@tuka.valuemedia.com> wrote in message
>> news:slrnhi4qb...@bill.heins.net...
>>
>>> Explain what happened to them in the MWP then. Or the Roman Optimum.
>>
>> How many people were on the earth then compared to now?
>
> And what has that to do with melting glaciers?
>
> Oh, that's right -- nothing. Which is probably why you snipped the
> context.
As so may of you deniers are want to do, you appeal to past climate changes
in a flaccid attempt to demonstrate that current changes are no more
important. However, the large error in logic your lot commits when doing
that is the tacit assumption that the impact on k will be no different.
There are many orders of magnitude more humans on the planet now than then.
There is an old saying in the learned circles, so I doubt you've read it,
that goes civilization only exists by geological consent. Well, the same can
be said of climate. It is obvious that you lack even the rudimentary logical
skills necessary to evaluate the potential impacts on humanity from even
modest sea level rise and shifting climate patterns. But you just go right
on ahead waving your arms in sweeping generalizations and rampant
hyperbole - after all, that's all you have. You certainly know fuck all
about the science. You are the most dangerous kind of stupid person - the
one with an opinion.
TimK
"Curly Surmudgeon" <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote in message
news:hfv4u6$p88$7...@news.eternal-september.org...
> On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 21:39:45 -0500, "TimK" <tim...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> "technomaNge" <pir...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:hfusfj$9if$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> richp wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> You mean 50 cu miles of greenland ice disappearing each year and on an
>>>> accelerating basis "3X per decade" is pure conjecture??? Really
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Why do they call it Greenland if it is frozen over with all that ice?
>>
>> A d v e r t i s i n g
>
> Wow, two idiots in a row.
>
> How'd you find your way to usenet and not be aware of wikipedia?
Your lack of Norse history is noted.
Try googling the question why is Greenland called Greenland, moron.
�n�hw��f
thought with news:hdp5i5l1nckv3hr7p...@4ax.com:
ITs yet another side effect of AMericas addiction to something.
We're fighting a failed drug war when ending prohibition would solve
it.
We're addicted to foreign oil when energy self sufficiency would fix
it.
Go fig.
--
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COaoYqkpkUA
cageprisoners.com|www.snuhwolf.9f.com|www.eyeonpalin.org
_____ ____ ____ __ /\_/\ __ _ ______ _____
/ __/ |/ / / / / // // . . \\ \ |\ | / __ \ \ \ __\
_\ \/ / /_/ / _ / \ / \ \| \| \ \_\ \ \__\ _\
/___/_/|_/\____/_//_/ \_@_/ \__|\__|\____/\____\_\
TimK
> Aratzio <a6ah...@sneakemail.com> clouded the waters of pure
> thought with news:hdp5i5l1nckv3hr7p...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 17:44:42 -0500, in the land of
>> alt.usenet.kooks, "TimK" <tim...@cfl.rr.com> got double secret
>> probation for writing:
>>
>>>
>>>"�n�hw��f" <snuh...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:Xns9CDE694CD5994...@216.196.97.142...
>>>> And this is worth a read:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.rall.com/2009/12/ted-rall-column-give-hoot-but-were.ht
>>>> ml
>>>
>>>You know, I have to agree. We won't stop it or even slow it down.
>>>We ought to be looking at how we're going to adapt to it - managed
>>>retreat, etc. But we still have to get off oil as a national
>>>security issue.
>>>
>>
>> That is what always amazes me, the basic denier is more often than
>> not big on defense issues. They don't get that disconnect.
>>
> ITs yet another side effect of AMericas addiction to something.
> We're fighting a failed drug war when ending prohibition would solve
> it.
> We're addicted to foreign oil when energy self sufficiency would fix
> it.
> Go fig.
It's so easy to declare war on nouns.
So hard to define victory...
Aratzio
Here is an interesting scenario:
1. Oil embargo of the 70's drives innovation to wean off hydro-carbon
based energy consumption.
2. US becomes energy self-sufficient in 1980s
3. Iraq invades Kuwait in early 90s
4. US tells middle east to handle their own shit, no Gulf War I
5. No US Military Bases in Muslim Holy Land
6. No attack on WTC
7. No invasion of Iraq & Afghanistan, No Gulf War II
8. Thousands of US Soldiers and 10s of thousands of Iragi civilians
still alive.
9. US Economy booming supplying renewable energy resource tools to
world.
It all came down to: "I can make more money importing oil from the
middle east, so fuck America."
TUKA
Ad hominems, appeals to authority, dismissiveness, and red herrings. That's
all you got, boy.
--
Life isn't fair, but it's good. -- Regina Brett
Aratzio
TUKA <tu...@tuka.valuemedia.com> got double secret probation for
writing:
>On 2009-12-12, TimK <tim...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
Complete obfuscation and avoidance of the facts. That's all you got,
illiterate pussy?
TUKA
And you prove my point.
--
Those who bring sunshine into the lives of others
cannot keep it from themselves. -- James Barrie
Aratzio
And the irony just keeps flowing. I'll bet you haven't a clue how
ridiculous you look whining about "Ad Hominems" in the middle of a non
sequitur used to avoid substantive discussion of current science.
So here is a test of your abilities to actually argue the science
within the bounds of the statements
"evaluate the potential impacts on humanity from even modest sea level
rise."
That is the simplest point os all the points you could not answer. So
here is your chance, address that one simple point:
TUKA
Substantive discussion of current science? You mean your constant citing
of possible effects as evidence of global warming?
>
> So here is a test of your abilities to actually argue the science
> within the bounds of the statements
>
> "evaluate the potential impacts on humanity from even modest sea level
> rise."
What the heck does that have to do with global warming? You are presupposing
in all this that humans cause and/or can actually do something about global
warming. I do not grant that point. What is so difficult for you to understand
about that?
>
> That is the simplest point os all the points you could not answer. So
> here is your chance, address that one simple point:
>
I don't need to. It has nothing to do with AGW.
--
Just because something is obviously happening doesn't mean something
obvious is happening. --Larry Wall
Claudius Denk
> Rob Dekker wrote:
> > "socialist that fear the truth and want the new Holocaust for 9/11"
> > <Libertarian...Neo-.Con.kook@"KentCowen.conservatarian".free.police.protection.gcmail>
> >> "pyotr filipivich" <ph...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> >>news:qfn3i51pg1sae2ls5...@4ax.com...
>
> >>> the problem is that in the data dump from the Climate Research
> >>> Unit there is program code. The instructions to make the computer
> >>> software to run. And in that code is evidence that they were making
> >>> it all up as they went. Hard coding the "variables" in order to get
> >>> the answer they wanted. That's not science, that's fraud.
> >> You people are missing the bigger picture coming forth, as the whole point
> >> of pushing this fraud called global warming isn't about the science, the
> >> fraud, and lies, it nothing more then:
> >> 1.. The condition of being deceived by a false perception or belief.
> >> 2.. Something, such as a fantastic plan or desire, that causes an
> >> erroneous belief or perception tp create a new order out of Kaos.
> >> it is al about creating a one world government, where nations will have to
> >> give up their sovereign rights and that is what people should be concerned
> >> about.
>
> > You are listening to Fox News and Lord Monckton too much.
>
> Monckton eh! Damn its been years since he was in the news over here in
>
> - Show quoted text -
You are so desperate to dispute Monckton and so inept in that regard
that you resort to misquoting him in the title of the thread.
Aratzio
Again, complete avoidance.
>
>>
>> So here is a test of your abilities to actually argue the science
>> within the bounds of the statements
>>
>> "evaluate the potential impacts on humanity from even modest sea level
>> rise."
>
>What the heck does that have to do with global warming? You are presupposing
>in all this that humans cause and/or can actually do something about global
>warming. I do not grant that point. What is so difficult for you to understand
>about that?
So your method is to deny, deny, deny rather than actual discussion.
Is there something about the direct correlation between rising
temperatures and rising sea levels that you do not understand?
So once more:
"evaluate the potential impacts on humanity from even modest sea level
rise."
This time try answering the question rather than going haring off into
some non sequitur based upon what you wished had been written.
>
>
>>
>> That is the simplest point os all the points you could not answer. So
>> here is your chance, address that one simple point:
>>
>
>I don't need to. It has nothing to do with AGW.
Really, you have any evidence to support that claim?
TimK
Ah, the Usenet equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and going
lalalalalalala.
TimK
Perhaps you could be troubled to share the credentials that give you leave
to make such pronouncements as "I do not grant that point." Your posts, from
my sample size of a few dozen, are bereft of substance. I see no reason to
believe you have any idea how climate works.
It is an established fact that humans have increased the concentration of
CO2 in the atmosphere by just over 30%, to a level last seen when sea level
was about 7 meters higher than it is now.
It is an established fact that increasing the atmospheric concentration of
CO2 changes earth's heat balance.
It is an established fact that we are increasing levels of other greenhouse
gases as well. You look pretty silly just denying all this. You might as
well deny evolution and that whole round earth stuff too.
pyotr filipivich
<tim...@cfl.rr.com> reported Elvis on Fri, 11 Dec 2009 20:14:07
-0500 in misc.survivalism:>news:cfp5i55rlbegpqd9h...@4ax.com...
>
>> When it is pointed out that their computer models are not "models"
>> but rigged demos, it hammers at the quality of their "science".
>> revealing that their beleif is based not on "science" but on faith -
>> religion, ideology, mania, delusion, the madness of crowds, whatever.
>
>You've obviously never seen a model compared to actual measurements in the
>primary literature or you'd realize what a fucking ignorant statement that
>is.
And your degree is in what again? Because I do recognize a
"fucking ignorant statement" (and even "celibate ignorant statements")
when I see one. Like yours.
> But that's how the deniers work, you just make the shit up as you go
>along.
>
Um. you do know the difference between comparing the model to the
actual measurements, and having the program "adjust" the data stream,
so that the results achieve the desired outcome? And have you noticed
how there doesn't seem to be any records of what the raw data was?
Without that raw data, the results of these "models" is no longer
reproducible.
To put it mildly, the data dump revealed that there was a decade
long attempt to suppress any alternative interpretation of any data,
and a refusal to supply the actual raw data to those who were outside
the consensus. That is not science, that is an ideology at work.
-
pyotr filipivich.
Just about the time you finally see light at the end of the tunnel,
you find out it's a Government Project to build more tunnel.
TUKA
Credentials? I am an informed layman. I have some rudimentary knowledge
of science.
Bereft of substance? No, not at all. I constantly post the substance of
other people, interpreted in my own light. But this effort is constantly
frustrated by people like you, who do little but attack the man. As you
are doing now.
>
> It is an established fact that humans have increased the concentration of
> CO2 in the atmosphere by just over 30%, to a level last seen when sea level
> was about 7 meters higher than it is now.
I won't admit that man has done all of it, but I will grant that we are pumping
CO2 into the atmosphere. So?
>
> It is an established fact that increasing the atmospheric concentration of
> CO2 changes earth's heat balance.
That is simply not true. It is simply unknown what the radiation balance is
for the earth. Our ignorance of cloud systems and how they work is enormous.
A minute percentage change in the cloud cover easily effects the albedo of
the earth enough to negate any change in CO2.
> It is an established fact that we are increasing levels of other greenhouse
> gases as well. You look pretty silly just denying all this. You might as
> well deny evolution and that whole round earth stuff too.
Why do you equate skepticism toward catastrophic AGW as denying every
bit of science?
Humans do influence things in many ways, no doubt. But it is unknown what
the effect is.
Despite pouring over $30 billion dollars into research specifically looking
for the human signature in the earth's temperature data, to this point there
has not been one found that is distinguishable from natural variation. There
have been many times when the earth has been hotter or cooler than now, and
there is no evidence at all that man's effect is anywhere near what is required
to change that appreciably.
--
Experience is what allows you to recognize a mistake the second time you
make it. -- unknown
TUKA
No, the Usenet equivalent of "sticks and stones". It wouldn't be
necessary if you would simply stop calling names, appealing to authority,
throwing out red herrings, and dismissing the contentions of others
out of hand.
--
Find the grain of truth in criticism, chew it, and swallow
it. -- anonymous
TUKA
Avoidance? I repeat, what does extrapolating possible effects have
to do with cause? Answer that.
>
>>
>>>
>>> So here is a test of your abilities to actually argue the science
>>> within the bounds of the statements
>>>
>>> "evaluate the potential impacts on humanity from even modest sea level
>>> rise."
>>
>>What the heck does that have to do with global warming? You are presupposing
>>in all this that humans cause and/or can actually do something about global
>>warming. I do not grant that point. What is so difficult for you to understand
>>about that?
>
> So your method is to deny, deny, deny rather than actual discussion.
>
> Is there something about the direct correlation between rising
> temperatures and rising sea levels that you do not understand?
Is there something about rising temperatures not necessarily having
anything to do with man that you don't understand.
>
> So once more:
> "evaluate the potential impacts on humanity from even modest sea level
> rise."
I don't care. That is not the question at hand.
>
> This time try answering the question rather than going haring off into
> some non sequitur based upon what you wished had been written.
I am talking about the cause.
You are saying, "Assume I am right and man is causing the earth's temperature
to rise. Now discuss the effects."
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> That is the simplest point os all the points you could not answer. So
>>> here is your chance, address that one simple point:
>>>
>>
>>I don't need to. It has nothing to do with AGW.
>
> Really, you have any evidence to support that claim?
>
Because you are presuming AGW as a prerequisite to your discussion.
--
Give me a young man in whom there is something of the old,
and an old man with something of the young. -- Cicero
pandora
"Aratzio" <a6ah...@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
news:8rl7i5tp8erlo0mo6...@4ax.com...
> Here is an interesting scenario:
>
> 1. Oil embargo of the 70's drives innovation to wean off hydro-carbon
> based energy consumption.
That would have been nice to see. Of course, *some* of us tried to
do our part by riding bicycles, recycling (plastics, bottles and cans)
and growing our own vegetables and canning them. However, there
was not much backing from big business. (Well, except for the bottle
and littering bills which at least made our highways a little less
cluttered)
> 2. US becomes energy self-sufficient in 1980s
Could have happened that way.
> 3. Iraq invades Kuwait in early 90s
> 4. US tells middle east to handle their own shit, no Gulf War I
Shoulda happened that way.
> 5. No US Military Bases in Muslim Holy Land
They might have happened anyway as the US likes to keep
an eye on the Middle East countries (and others).
> 6. No attack on WTC
Coulda been that way.
> 7. No invasion of Iraq & Afghanistan, No Gulf War II
> 8. Thousands of US Soldiers and 10s of thousands of Iragi civilians
> still alive.
> 9. US Economy booming supplying renewable energy resource tools to
> world.
>
Woulda happened that way IF we'd done the right things.
> It all came down to: "I can make more money importing oil from the
> middle east, so fuck America."
>
Indeed.
>