Gore Learns About Photoshop from Iranians
Jim Thompson
http://www.prisonplanet.com/with-hurricanes-at-thirty-year-low-gore-turns-to-photoshop.html
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
California is to Arizona as masturbation is to getting laid
Ouroboros Rex
> Gore Learns About Photoshop from Iranians... and fudges reality....
Gore did his own...
wait for it....
BOOK COVER ART?!?!?!?!?!?
Why, the scientific fraud is breathtaking! ROFLMMFAO
Bill Sloman
Web-Site.com> wrote:
> Gore Learns About Photoshop from Iranians... and fudges reality....
>
Not unexpectedly, the article includes the give-away line
" As many skeptics have attempted to highlight, in the face of
official intimidation and quasi-religious decrees that “the debate is
over,” temperature levels prompted by natural factors leads the
concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, not the other way around."
Temperature does lead CO2 levels in the ice core data, back when
nobody was boosting the atmospheric CO2 levels by digging up fossil
carbon and burning it. For the past 250 years we have been digging up
and burning coal and (more recently) oil, and that reverses the
causation.
Nobody who knew any physics would be silly enough write such a
sentence, so what we have here is another dose of denialist
propaganda, retailed by Jim-out-of-touch-with-reality-Thompson, in his
capacity as the group's leading purveyor of off-topic nonsense.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
UltimatePatriot
wrote:
The rate at which you massage the depth of your utter stupidity is
astounding.
Paul Keinanen
<To-Email-Use-Th...@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
>Gore Learns About Photoshop from Iranians... and fudges reality....
>
>http://www.prisonplanet.com/with-hurricanes-at-thirty-year-low-gore-turns-to-photoshop.html
To get such situation as shown in the retouched picture, the equator
would have to go through Oregon and Venezuela and the axis of rotation
would go from Australia (North Pole) to Europe (South Pole) :-) :-).
This would be required to satisfy the requirement that cyclones rotate
counterclockwise in the Northern Hemisphere and clockwise in the
Southern Hemisphere and cyclones do not cross the equator.
Paul
GM
> On Nov 19, 9:06 pm, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@My-
> Web-Site.com> wrote:
>> Gore Learns About Photoshop from Iranians... and fudges reality....
>>
>> http://www.prisonplanet.com/with-hurricanes-at-thirty-year-low-gore-t...
>
> Not unexpectedly, the article includes the give-away line
>
> " As many skeptics have attempted to highlight, in the face of
> over,� temperature levels prompted by natural factors leads the
> concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, not the other way around."
>
> Temperature does lead CO2 levels in the ice core data, back when
> nobody was boosting the atmospheric CO2 levels by digging up fossil
> carbon and burning it. For the past 250 years we have been digging up
> and burning coal and (more recently) oil, and that reverses the
> causation.
>
> Nobody who knew any physics would be silly enough write such a
> sentence, so what we have here is another dose of denialist
> propaganda, retailed by Jim-out-of-touch-with-reality-Thompson, in his
> capacity as the group's leading purveyor of off-topic nonsense.
> --
> Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
>
MK
"Bill Sloman" <bill....@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:83c8c038-74c6-406d...@g27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
Hey Bill,
On the subject of silly sentances can you please elucidate this "reverses
the causation" concept. Is it univerally applicable - will enough cancer
cause smoking, enough pregnancy cause sex or does it only apply to AGW ?
Michael Kellett
Ouroboros Rex
I'm not the one shrieking about a cover illustration. lol
...And did you see the shape of Florida? Why, those people must be in
full evacuation mode right now! "Gosh, honey, Al Gore's cover illustration
says we're underwater RIGHT THISMINUTE!!!!!!"
Proof abounds - republicans are betas.
Rich Grise
> Web-Site.com> wrote:
>> Gore Learns About Photoshop from Iranians... and fudges reality....
>>
>> http://www.prisonplanet.com/with-hurricanes-at-thirty-year-low-gore-t...
>
> Not unexpectedly, the article includes the give-away line
>
> " As many skeptics have attempted to highlight, in the face of official
> intimidation and quasi-religious decrees that �the debate is over,�
> temperature levels prompted by natural factors leads the concentration of
> CO2 in the atmosphere, not the other way around."
>
> Temperature does lead CO2 levels in the ice core data, back when nobody
> was boosting the atmospheric CO2 levels by digging up fossil carbon and
> burning it. For the past 250 years we have been digging up and burning
> coal and (more recently) oil, and that reverses the causation.
>
> Nobody who knew any physics would be silly enough write such a sentence,
> so what we have here is another dose of denialist propaganda, retailed by
> Jim-out-of-touch-with-reality-Thompson, in his capacity as the group's
> leading purveyor of off-topic nonsense. --
>
> the causation" concept. Is it univerally applicable - will enough cancer
> cause smoking, enough pregnancy cause sex or does it only apply to AGW ?
>
they're afraid it might lead to dancing....
;-)
Rich
John Devereux
It applies to systems with positive feedback.
(It is pretty sad that this concept seems to cause such difficulty,
here, in an electronics group of all places. I see this factoid trotted
out again and again here as if it undermines AGW, when in fact it is
obvious to me that it supports it.)
--
John Devereux
alie...@gmail.com
> On Nov 19, 9:06 pm, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@My-
>
> Web-Site.com> wrote:
> > Gore Learns About Photoshop from Iranians... and fudges reality....
>
> >http://www.prisonplanet.com/with-hurricanes-at-thirty-year-low-gore-t...
>
> Not unexpectedly, the article includes the give-away line
>
> " As many skeptics have attempted to highlight, in the face of
> official intimidation and quasi-religious decrees that “the debate is
> over,” temperature levels prompted by natural factors leads the
> concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, not the other way around."
>
> Temperature does lead CO2 levels in the ice core data, back when
> nobody was boosting the atmospheric CO2 levels by digging up fossil
> carbon and burning it. For the past 250 years we have been digging up
> and burning coal and (more recently) oil, and that reverses the
> causation.
"...reverses the causation"? Now that's some serious nonsense.
You've agreed that the ice core data demonstrates that temperature
definitely leads CO2 levels. You also implicitly agree with the
implication that correlation implies causation in this case.
Then, you assert that nowadays that no longer holds; that instead
CO2 levels _cause_ (not just correlate with) temperature levels.
That right?
> Nobody who knew any physics would be silly enough write such a
> sentence
Which sentence, the one about how temperature lead CO2 levels
according to ice core data? The one YOU agreed with?
Or the sentence that claims the opposite, that you ALSO agreed with?
Mark L. Fergerson
dagmarg...@yahoo.com
The argument is that rising temperatures cause ocean & ice to release
CO2, and that increased CO2 in turn leads to a further temperature
increase.
This is interesting:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/19/breaking-news-story-hadley-cru-has-apparently-been-hacked-hundreds-of-files-released/
--
Cheers,
James Arthur
Bill Sloman
> "Bill Sloman" <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote in message
>
> news:83c8c038-74c6-406d...@g27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 19, 9:06 pm, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@My-
>
> Web-Site.com> wrote:
> > Gore Learns About Photoshop from Iranians... and fudges reality....
>
> >http://www.prisonplanet.com/with-hurricanes-at-thirty-year-low-gore-t...
>
> Not unexpectedly, the article includes the give-away line
>
> " As many skeptics have attempted to highlight, in the face of
> official intimidation and quasi-religious decrees that “the debate is
> over,” temperature levels prompted by natural factors leads the
> concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, not the other way around."
>
> Temperature does lead CO2 levels in the ice core data, back when
> nobody was boosting the atmospheric CO2 levels by digging up fossil
> carbon and burning it. For the past 250 years we have been digging up
> and burning coal and (more recently) oil, and that reverses the
> causation.
>
> Nobody who knew any physics would be silly enough write such a
> sentence, so what we have here is another dose of denialist
> propaganda, retailed by Jim-out-of-touch-with-reality-Thompson, in his
> capacity as the group's leading purveyor of off-topic nonsense.
>
> Hey Bill,
>
> On the subject of silly sentances can you please elucidate this "reverses
> the causation" concept. Is it univerally applicable - will enough cancer
> cause smoking, enough pregnancy cause sex or does it only apply to AGW ?
The ice core data records the process by which the Milankovitch effect
slightly changed the solar heat absorbed by the Earth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
changing its temperature, leading to CO2 moving between the oceans and
the atmosphere in a way with amplified the initial changes in in
insolation. The temperature changes came first (the cause) and the
changes in CO2 levels followed them (the result).
For the last 250 years we have been changing the atmospheric CO2 level
by burning fossil carbon, causing the earth to warm up. In this
situation the CO2 levels change first, and this has resulted in a
temperature rise. What was a "cause" in the ice core data is now an
"effect", which is what I meant by "reverses the causation".
It is difficult to imagine comparable situations for smoking and lung
cancer or sex and pregnancy.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Bill Sloman
> On Nov 19, 3:32 pm,Bill Sloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 19, 9:06 pm, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@My-
>
> > Web-Site.com> wrote:
> > > Gore Learns About Photoshop from Iranians... and fudges reality....
>
> > >http://www.prisonplanet.com/with-hurricanes-at-thirty-year-low-gore-t...
>
> > Not unexpectedly, the article includes the give-away line
>
> > " As many skeptics have attempted to highlight, in the face of
> > official intimidation and quasi-religious decrees that “the debate is
> > over,” temperature levels prompted by natural factors leads the
> > concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, not the other way around."
>
> > Temperature does lead CO2 levels in the ice core data, back when
> > nobody was boosting the atmospheric CO2 levels by digging up fossil
> > carbon and burning it. For the past 250 years we have been digging up
> > and burning coal and (more recently) oil, and that reverses the
> > causation.
>
> "...reverses the causation"? Now that's some serious nonsense.
>
> You've agreed that the ice core data demonstrates that temperature
> definitely leads CO2 levels. You also implicitly agree with the
> implication that correlation implies causation in this case.
I don't claim that correlation implies causation - we know fairly
exactly how the rsing temperature of the oceans drives CO2 out of
solution in the oceans, raising its concentration in the atmosphere,
where it furhter raises the temperature of the earth by increasing the
greenhouse effect. We don't have to foll around with implications,
because we known the mechanism.
> Then, you assert that nowadays that no longer holds; that instead
> CO2 levels _cause_ (not just correlate with) temperature levels.
I don't assert that any of the mechanisms have changed, What has
changed is that we have recently been digging up and burning fossil
carbon, which is a new and different way of raising CO2 levels in the
atmosphere and increasing the greenhouse warming.
> That right?
No, it isn't right. Anything but.
> > Nobody who knew any physics would be silly enough write such a
> > sentence
>
> Which sentence, the one about how temperature lead CO2 levels
> according to ice core data? The one YOU agreed with?
The sentence I quoted - and disagreed with - said nothing explicitly
about ice core levels, though it was clearly recycling a favourite
denialist observation which reflects a very ill-informed
interpretation of the ice core data (which you seem to be silly enough
to share).
> Or the sentence that claims the opposite, that you ALSO agreed with?
Try and find - and quote - the sentences that you think that I am
agreeing with. Since I only quoted a single sentence - with which I
clearly disagreed - this may keep you busy for a while.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
alie...@gmail.com
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.design/msg/4d9d1db51c3014f9?dmode=source
You wrote:
"Temperature does lead CO2 levels in the ice core data"
Mark L. Fergerson
Jon
"Ouroboros Rex" <i...@casual.com> wrote in message
news:he4cr...@news1.newsguy.com...
The fold out has two hurricanes spinning the wrong direction....
JosephKK
>Bill Sloman wrote:
>> On Nov 19, 9:06 pm, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@My-
>> Web-Site.com> wrote:
>>> Gore Learns About Photoshop from Iranians... and fudges reality....
>>>
>>> http://www.prisonplanet.com/with-hurricanes-at-thirty-year-low-gore-t...
>>
>> Not unexpectedly, the article includes the give-away line
>>
>> " As many skeptics have attempted to highlight, in the face of
>> official intimidation and quasi-religious decrees that “the debate is
>> over,” temperature levels prompted by natural factors leads the
>> concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, not the other way around."
>>
Bill Wrote:
>> Temperature does lead CO2 levels in the ice core data, back when
>> nobody was boosting the atmospheric CO2 levels by digging up fossil
>> carbon and burning it. For the past 250 years we have been digging up
>> and burning coal and (more recently) oil, and that reverses the
>> causation.
>>
So some activity of some species on this planet causes reversal of
causality? Total disregard for Physics and classic religious belief
spoken by Bill.
>> Nobody who knew any physics would be silly enough write such a
>> sentence, so what we have here is another dose of denialist
>> propaganda, retailed by Jim-out-of-touch-with-reality-Thompson, in his
>> capacity as the group's leading purveyor of off-topic nonsense.
>> --
>> Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
>>
>
>http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=25125221043
I wish i had caught this one earlier.
JosephKK
When the fact that they have reversed time in their assumptions it
turns the supposed positive feedback mechanism into a negative
feedback mechanism.
Do remember that their models cannot recapitulate recorded history.
Bill Sloman
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 10:24:27 +0200, GM <g...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >Bill Slomanwrote:
> >> On Nov 19, 9:06 pm, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@My-
> >> Web-Site.com> wrote:
> >>> Gore Learns About Photoshop from Iranians... and fudges reality....
>
> >>>http://www.prisonplanet.com/with-hurricanes-at-thirty-year-low-gore-t...
>
> >> Not unexpectedly, the article includes the give-away line
>
> >> " As many skeptics have attempted to highlight, in the face of
> >> official intimidation and quasi-religious decrees that “the debate is
> >> over,” temperature levels prompted by natural factors leads the
> >> concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, not the other way around."
>
> Bill Wrote:
>
> >> Temperature does lead CO2 levels in the ice core data, back when
> >> nobody was boosting the atmospheric CO2 levels by digging up fossil
> >> carbon and burning it. For the past 250 years we have been digging up
> >> and burning coal and (more recently) oil, and that reverses the
> >> causation.
>
> So some activity of some species on this planet causes reversal of
> causality? Total disregard for Physics and classic religious belief
> spoken by Bill.
Don't be stupid. The ice core data records a situation where small
changes in the solar heat absorbed by the earth - the Milankovitch
effect - were driving relatively large change in temperature by
changing the snow cover in the northern hemisphere, and driving CO2 in
or out of solution in the oceans. The temperature changes were the
cause and the changes in CO2 levels were the effect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
Since the Industrial Revolution we have been digging up fossil carbon
and burning it, raising the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. This
has caused the surface temerpature of the earth to rise by
strengthening the greenhouse effect - the CO2 is now the cause and the
temperature rise is now the effect, reversing the situation recorded
by the ice core data.
This is perfectly good physics, and only an ignoramus would think
otherwise.
<snip>
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Bill Sloman
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 17:23:55 +0000, John Devereux
>
>
>
>
>
> <j...@devereux.me.uk> wrote:
> >"MK" <m...@nospam.please> writes:
>
Nobody has reversed time. The ice core data records one particular
form of climate change, where the Milankovitch effect produces a
change in the amount of solar heating absorbed by the earth and
several forms of postive feedback then amplify this change.
What's going on a the moment is that we have raised the CO2
concentration in the atmosphere by digging up and burning fossil
carbon, which raises the surface temperature of the earth by
strengthening the greenhouse effect. At the moment about a third of
the emitted CO2 is dissolving in the oceans, so the positive feedback
from the reduced solubility of CO2 in a warmer ocean has yet to kick
in. Nobody seems to have identified a negative feedback mechanism -
Lindzen was hoping that clouds would do it, but his theory didn't fit
the emprical facts.
> Do remember that their models cannot recapitulate recorded history.
Try not to remember this particular claim - it doesn't happen to be
true.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Bill Sloman
>
> "Temperature does lead CO2 levels in the ice core data"
And I explained why this wasn't relevant to the current situation.
So where is your other sentence? You need at least one more to sustain
your attempted rhetorical flourish.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
UltimatePatriot
wrote:
What you fail to see is that he uses that as the premise for his "dire
environmental emergency" scenario.
I do not feel comfortable with a charlatan trying to pass off bullshit
as fact in my version of a civil society.
Ouroboros Rex
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 09:59:42 -0600, "Ouroboros Rex" <i...@casual.com>
> wrote:
>
>> UltimatePatriot wrote:
>>> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 15:22:52 -0600, "Ouroboros Rex" <i...@casual.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jim Thompson wrote:
>>>>> Gore Learns About Photoshop from Iranians... and fudges
>>>>> reality....
>>>>
>>>> Gore did his own...
>>>>
>>>> wait for it....
>>>>
>>>> BOOK COVER ART?!?!?!?!?!?
>>>>
>>>> Why, the scientific fraud is breathtaking! ROFLMMFAO
>>>>
>>> The rate at which you massage the depth of your utter stupidity is
>>> astounding.
>>
>> I'm not the one shrieking about a cover illustration. lol
>>
>> ...And did you see the shape of Florida? Why, those people must be
>> in full evacuation mode right now! "Gosh, honey, Al Gore's cover
>> illustration says we're underwater RIGHT THISMINUTE!!!!!!"
>>
>> Proof abounds - republicans are betas.
>>
>
>
> What you fail to see is that he uses that as the premise for his
> "dire environmental emergency" scenario.
Ridiculous lie.
>
> I do not feel comfortable with a charlatan trying to pass off
> bullshit as fact in my version of a civil society.
You support them here every time. lol
Ouroboros Rex
Take a look at Florida. ;)
Hilarious that anyone would consider this part of the science.
Ian Jackson
<NoTh...@nowhere.com> writes
Also, the water tends to go down the plug-hole the wrong way.
And the sun passes from east to west via the north (if you know what I
mean).
It's a funny old world.
--
Ian
nospam
They rotate counter-clockwise in the northern hemisphere and clockwise
in the southern hemisphere. Both ways are correct for their
hemispheres. There is no wrong way. :)
But the book depicts a CW rotation off Florida and over towards
Europe. Both are wrong for their hemispheres and were clearly planted.
If the book is about the science, let it be real. If the book is a
work of fiction and fantasy with illustrations, let it be listed as
such. Dire predictions about sea level and hurricanes and cyclones are
attempts to engender fear and uncertainty in the public. The cover and
binder art have the same goal.
Insincere science is no science at all.
PeterD
wrote:
>
>If the book is about the science, let it be real. If the book is a
>work of fiction and fantasy with illustrations, let it be listed as
>such.
I think we all knwo that anythign Gore is behind is fiction and
fantasy. It is all about power, something that Gore wants, badly.
>Dire predictions about sea level and hurricanes and cyclones are
>attempts to engender fear and uncertainty in the public. The cover and
>binder art have the same goal.
You got it.
Ouroboros Rex
The cover art? Crazyassed BS.
Ouroboros Rex
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 09:03:36 -0800, nospam <nos...@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> If the book is about the science, let it be real. If the book is a
>> work of fiction and fantasy with illustrations, let it be listed as
>> such.
>
> I think we all knwo that anythign Gore is behind is fiction and
> fantasy.
I don't think you can prove that for any of it, bar none. =)
UltimatePatriot
wrote:
>> What you fail to see is that he uses that as the premise for his
>> "dire environmental emergency" scenario.
>
> Ridiculous lie.
>
You really do not see much of what transpires in the world around you,
if you are going to be claiming that Gore really knows what is going on,
and is not merely a mouthpiece for a bent scientific community that
doesn't know what the whys and wherefores are either, and his own bent
perception of reality.
And yet another group of idiots gave the dope a peace prize.
I know more about it than he does *WITHOUT* having had the exposure
level he has had to all manner of data.
UltimatePatriot
wrote:
>> I do not feel comfortable with a charlatan trying to pass off
>> bullshit as fact in my version of a civil society.
>
> You support them here every time. lol
I do not support anybody here, you lying piece of shit.
As usual, you cannot remember or discern one event from another.
You are thinking of some of the others you argued with here.
You aren't casual, you're retarded.
UltimatePatriot
wrote:
>Jon wrote:
>
Only a retarded, street corner, snake oil hawker would put something
like that on the cover of his book, or anywhere else, for that matter.
Much less a book that claims to be all about scientific "facts".
And YES, he DOES know that it is a doctored picture, and he DID know
BEFORE it went on the cover. In fact, HE CHOSE IT.
UltimatePatriot
wrote:
>On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 16:05:42 +0000, Ian Jackson
Well stated.
UltimatePatriot
wrote:
> Crazyassed BS.
Nice sig. Fits you well.