OT: For Dan White
John Black
You did a very convincing job debunking hockey stick in the past but this is
the real icing on the cake:
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/emails-that-damn-cru-head-jones
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/20/climate-sceptics-hackers-
leaked-emails/print
http://climaterealists.com/?id=4418
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125883405294859215.html?
mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_world
Its bad enough that nature has not been cooperating with alarmists:
hurricanes at 30 year lows dispite hysterical warnings that 2005 would be
the "new norm", temps going down dispite CO2 going up (no warming since
1998), better ice core data showing that changes in temp caused changes in
CO2 instead of the way originally thought where CO2 would have been the
driver, etc. etc. ETC. Then the whole hockey stick debacle (on which much
of the IPCC recommendations were based) was proven a fraud, to the point
that even the IPCC quietly removed it from their reports. And NOW, we have
proof that they knew it was a fraud, that they sought to cover that up,
colluded to alter data and prevent data from being obtained. Things are
unravelling fast and with more to come.
John Black
Jack Stein
I think its known simply as an inconvenient truth...
Who knew.....
--
Jack
Got Change: Free Trade ====> Cap and Trade!
http://jbstein.com
John Black
says...
> I think its known simply as an inconvenient truth...
>
> Who knew.....
Jack, it seems you've recently had somewhat of a vindication as well. There
is a new book out called Hyping Health Risks that argues that the totality
of evidence shows that there is essentially no risk of getting cancer or
heart disease from second-hand or passive tobacco smoke.
From a review of the book: "[the book shows that] agencies like the ACS and
state and federal environmental protection agencies have willfully distorted
the science of second-hand smoke to push the otherwise laudable goal of
banning smoking in public places. In one case, the Massachusetts Lung
Association attempted to suppress publication of a study that did not
support its position that second-hand smoke is dangerous... [sound
familiar?] This book, especially this chapter, should be read by anyone
interested in how political pressure can change not only what science gets
funded but how science is misrepresented even in offical documents that
should be objective". [again, sound familiar?]
John Black
JakartaDean
jakar...@gmail.com, so we can take this away from this usenet group.
But until I hear from you...
This decade is the warmest on record (i.e. since 1850). The last decade
was the second warmest. The problem with many deniers (not necessarily
you, John & Dan) is that they succumb to the temptation of repeating
claims without checking them. See, for example,
http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2009/12/08/un-20002009-likely-warmest-decade-record.html
The way I see it, basic (first year university) physics says that more
CO2 in the atmosphere will change the amount of heat reflected from the
Earth. Since the temperature of the Earth will change depending on the
energy balance, if less energy is radiated outwards, the temperature
will go up. How much it will increase is tricky, due to the many
positive and negative feedback loops (forcings), but it will go up.
That's just basic, basic (I'll say it again, basic) physics. We've
known this since the 19th century.
I don't deny the words used in these email messages encourage
scepticism, and may even indicate fraud. If there was fraud, then the
perpetrators should receive appropriate punishment. That doesn't change
the basic facts, that higher CO2 levels will increase temperatures, that
CO2 levels have increased, and that temperatures have increased. I
don't see how there can be anything left to debate. Yes, if these guys
were dishonest it looks bad for everyone involved, but it doesn't change
the basic signal, it just increases the noise.
Dean
Ron Shepard
JakartaDean <deanb...@forteinc.com> wrote:
I think the general problem here (i.e. the problem for general people)
is that CO2 is colorless and odorless, the IR radiation involved with
the greenhouse effect is invisible, and ultimately the predicted
temperature effect is small (about 2 degrees K out of about 270 degrees
average). So everything depends on invisible radiation being absorbed
by an invisible gas. Chemists and spectroscopists work with things like
this all the time and are comfortable with the concept, but it is all
too abstract for everyone else, especially considering the low level of
scientific education among children these days. If CO2 absorbed or
scattered visible light so you could see it (like smog, or the nitrogen
oxides in smog), or if you could smell it (like, say, H2S gas or ozone
or ammonia), then the general discussions would all be very different.
I am surprised how the "no warming since 1998" line gets repeated so
often. Even George Will fell for it in an article a few weeks back. If
you look at any of the data, from satellites, from sea surface
temperatures, from land measurements (either urban or rural), or from
proxies such as arctic ice coverage, or bugs moving north, or
agricultural temperature zones, they all show a slow temperature
increase trend over the past 10 years.
But, as Will Rogers said, a lie makes it half way around the world
before the truth gets its shoelaces tied.
$.02 -Ron Shepard
John Black
@forteinc.com says...
> This decade is the warmest on record (i.e. since 1850).
But not warmer than it was a few hundred years before that. (MWP)
> The last decade was the second warmest.
The mid-1800 ended a "little ice age" so its unsurprising that its been
warming since then. More warming since 1850 occurred before 1940 than after
it.
> The way I see it, basic (first year university) physics says that more
> CO2 in the atmosphere will change the amount of heat reflected from the
> Earth. Since the temperature of the Earth will change depending on the
> energy balance, if less energy is radiated outwards, the temperature
> will go up. How much it will increase is tricky, due to the many
> positive and negative feedback loops (forcings), but it will go up.
> That's just basic, basic (I'll say it again, basic) physics. We've
> known this since the 19th century.
I know you really believe the climate of a planet the size of Earth really
is this simple. Basic first year university physics says that if I light a
candle in the middle of a room, the temperature will go up. That's just
basic, basic (I'll say it again, basic) physics. Deniers of that statement
would have to deny that fire emits heat! How dumb would you have to be to
deny something that is so easily verifiable? Is the room the size of a
closet or a warehouse? No matter, fire emits heat - that is settled
science. Does the room have windows? Are they open? Air conditioning?
Central heat? And this is a room, not a planet.
John Black
John Black
she...@NOSPAM.comcast.net says...
> I am surprised how the "no warming since 1998" line gets repeated so
> often.
Its unsurprising since the hottest year on record was 1998. Hottest year in
the US was 1934.
> IF you look at any of the data, from satellites, from sea surface
> temperatures, from land measurements (either urban or rural), or from
> proxies such as arctic ice coverage, or bugs moving north, or
> agricultural temperature zones, they all show a slow temperature
> increase trend over the past 10 years.
No they don't. If 1998 was the hottest year on record, then temperature has
not increased since then. You have to look at real data, not the hockey
stick graph which is generated by an algorithm that has been shown to
produce the same graph when fed by random data.
John Black
Ron Shepard
sittingduck <du...@spamherelots.com> wrote:
> JakartaDean wrote:
>
> > I don't deny the words used in these email messages encourage
> > scepticism, and may even indicate fraud. If there was fraud, then the
> > perpetrators should receive appropriate punishment. That doesn't change
> > the basic facts, that higher CO2 levels will increase temperatures, that
> > CO2 levels have increased, and that temperatures have increased. I
> > don't see how there can be anything left to debate. Yes, if these guys
> > were dishonest it looks bad for everyone involved, but it doesn't change
> > the basic signal, it just increases the noise.
>
> I find it absolutely comical that a group (right wing and deniers) that
> generally bases almost EVERYTHING they say and do on LIES and half-truths,
> has the boldness to attack and try to ignore DECADES of scientific data
> because of a couple of emails that point to some very minor discrepancies.
It isn't clear yet even if there are "discrepancies" between anything in
these emails and in any of the published data. These were informal
private emails that were stolen, not formal reports or formal published
data in refereed journals. These stolen emails have been examined
character by character for several weeks now and still no evidence of a
grand conspiracy has been found. Several investigations are ongoing, so
I'm still waiting to see the outcome.
There is evidence in these emails of the low regard with which some of
the climate change deniers are held by the real climate scientists.
That is no surprise, of course, but it is something that you would never
see published by these scientists in any other context, not even in
their blogs.
> Where was their outrage when we were lied into war? Where is their outrage
> over the manipulation of the news media, and the lies told in the war on
> science that continues today? Amazing hypocrites!
Where was their outrage when the British TV show "The Great Global
Warming Swindle" was shown to have falsified data, cherry picked data,
truncated graphs, easily disproven conjectures, and flat out lies about
well known facts? The climate change deniers do these things day in and
day out as their regular mode of operation. They don't publish data in
scientific journals, they don't develop climate models, they don't
gather data, and they don't make predictions that can be verified.
That's not to say the real climate scientists are necessarily right, but
it does show the vast difference in the way the two groups work.
$.02 -Ron Shepard
bk4...@hotmail.com
But how will the warmer temperatures affect my bank shots?
Will we see a corresponding change in the humidity making the cloth
slower too?
Are there any organizations planning on meeting the demand to move
pool tables from coastal cities to higher elevations?
SOMETHING has GOT to be done to save those pool tables!!!
Bob Keller <<-----Trying to stay on topic.
(Howzat Lou?)
Carter Adams
interested...
http://climate.nasa.gov/Eyes/eyes.html
~Carter
On Dec 11, 12:38 am, "bk42...@hotmail.com" <bk42...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
lfigueroa
Lou Figueroa
Mark0
Couple of things, Dean.
1st and most important, my preference is that you debate it here where we
all have a chance to learn something (netiquette be damned). People can
easily skip the thread if they don't want to play.
2nd, geologically speaking 20years ain't much. What's the trend when you
compare scores of years or half-centuries? I agree that more CO2 can't be
'good' but I'm not convinced that the planet can 'cope' with the
increases...
--Mark0 <--large carbon footprint
Author of Secrets to a Perfect Pool Table Recovering Job
http://www.mccauleyweb.com/secrets.htm
-----�
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
ernie
planetary warming in general, since it deals with the terraforming of
Mars and methods for doing so. Potentially useful theoretical
material since we may one day have to terraform terra:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terraforming_of_Mars
Ernie
John Black
> I agree that more CO2 can't be
> 'good' but I'm not convinced that the planet can 'cope' with the
> increases...
Actually there was a series of 10 scenarios run on the effects of doubling
CO2 in the atmosphere. About 4 were a bit positive (better crop yields,
longer growing seasons, less weather related deaths), 4 were a bit negative
and 2 were neutral. Nothing catastrophic like what is portrayed in some
alarmist propaganda. The worst case IPCC sea level rise of 100 years is now
reduced to 6 inches to a *max* of 2 feet. Sea level has risen about a foot
over the last 100 years for reference and that has hardly been a catastrophe
(if anyone has even noticed).
John Black
Mark0
> JakartaDean wrote:
>
> > I don't deny the words used in these email messages encourage
> > scepticism, and may even indicate fraud. If there was fraud, then the
> > perpetrators should receive appropriate punishment. That doesn't change
> > the basic facts, that higher CO2 levels will increase temperatures, that
> > CO2 levels have increased, and that temperatures have increased. I
> > don't see how there can be anything left to debate. Yes, if these guys
> > were dishonest it looks bad for everyone involved, but it doesn't change
> > the basic signal, it just increases the noise.
>
> I find it absolutely comical that a group (right wing and deniers) that
> generally bases almost EVERYTHING they say and do on LIES and half-truths,
> has the boldness to attack and try to ignore DECADES of scientific data
> because of a couple of emails that point to some very minor discrepancies.
>
> Where was their outrage when we were lied into war? Where is their outrage
> over the manipulation of the news media, and the lies told in the war on
> science that continues today? Amazing hypocrites!
Horsepucky. My jury is still out on AGW but short of a nuclear exchange I
have a hard time believing the planet won't reach stasis.
As for the war, all your Dem buddies looked at the "intelligence" and
voted for it too. Why didn't you vote them out for it? MY opinion is
that we couldn't leave Hussein in there with his reputation for trying to
acquire WMDs and his proclivity to use them even in his own country.
Sometimes there are no good answers and you do the best you can.
--Mark0
JakartaDean
> In article <vs5av6x...@recgroups.com>, markmc...@charter.net says...
>> I agree that more CO2 can't be
>> 'good' but I'm not convinced that the planet can 'cope' with the
>> increases...
>
> Actually there was a series of 10 scenarios run on the effects of doubling
> CO2 in the atmosphere. About 4 were a bit positive (better crop yields,
> longer growing seasons, less weather related deaths), 4 were a bit negative
> and 2 were neutral.
I'll challenge, Alex, and request a citation.
Dean <-- do they talk like that on Jeopardy?
bk4...@hotmail.com
> I don't know. Maybe I'm just getting too old for all this.
>
> Lou Figueroa
I KNOW I'm too old for it.
Fuck it, Lou, let's go play some pool. <<----attempt at Big Lewbowski
parody
Bob Keller
lfigueroa
I told those fucks down at the league office a thousand times that I
don't roll on Shabbos!
Lou Figueroa
or OT
bk4...@hotmail.com
> You know it, big guy.
>
> I told those fucks down at the league office a thousand times that I
> don't roll on Shabbos!
>
> Lou Figueroa
> or OT
>
> > On Dec 11, 6:02 am, lfigueroa <lfigue...@att.net> wrote:
> >> I don't know. Maybe I'm just getting too old for all this.
>
> >> Lou Figueroa
>
> > I KNOW I'm too old for it.
> > Fuck it, Lou, let's go play some pool. <<----attempt at Big Lewbowski
> > parody
>
> > Bob Keller
I'm calmer than you are.
Bob Keller
Jack Stein
> I don't know. Maybe I'm just getting too old for all this.
Your still exhaling carbon dioxide so your not too old.
The trees thank you for that...
--
Jack
Got Change: Global Warming ====> Global Fraud!
http://jbstein.com
Jack Stein
> 1st and most important, my preference is that you debate it here where we
> all have a chance to learn something (netiquette be damned). People can
> easily skip the thread if they don't want to play.
I pretty much agree with that.
> 2nd, geologically speaking 20years ain't much.
It ain't nothing. Geologically speaking, the shortest period is like 28
million years.
What's the trend when you
> compare scores of years or half-centuries? I agree that more CO2 can't be
> 'good' but I'm not convinced that the planet can 'cope' with the
> increases...
More CO2 could be good. It was like 27 times higher when the dinosaurs
were buzzing around. They seemed to enjoy it as did plant life.
--
Jack
Got Change: General Motors =====> Government Motors!
http://jbstein.com
Jack Stein
> Furthermore, they didn't vote for war, they voted to give shitforbrains the
> power they should have kept for themselves (congress). How stupid is that?
By "shitforbrains" I assume you mean the guy that thinks there are 57
states, not counting Alaska and Hawaii, right?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrsBKGpwi58
--
Jack
Got Change: God Bless America =========> God Damn Amerika!
http://jbstein.com
Jack Stein
> Jack Stein wrote:
>
>> By "shitforbrains" I assume you mean the guy that thinks there are 57
>> states, not counting Alaska and Hawaii, right?
>
> person's intelligence.
I'm no fan of the Bazaar Bush Bashers either... Letterman did it every
single night for 5 years.
--
Jack
Got Change: God Bless America ===== God Damn Amerika!
http://jbstein.com
Mark0
correction
> I agree that more CO2 can't be
> 'good' but I'm not convinced that the planet can 'cope' with the
> increases...
This should read "I agree that more CO2 can't be 'good' but I'm not
convinced
that the planet *can't* 'cope' with the increases...
--Mark0 <--ooops
Author of Secrets to a Perfect Pool Table Recovering Job
http://www.mccauleyweb.com/secrets.htm
------�
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com