A Nagging Question On CO2 Levels
b0onz
28 Sep 2009
The AGW crowd claims there has been a global
temperature rise of 0.5�C over the last 60 years
and that this is due to increasing CO2.
Both AGW proponents and sceptics accept that the
relationship between energy retained and CO2
concentration is LOGARITHMIC
Viz: A constant increase in retained energy for
each doubling of CO2.
The AGW movement data also shows that since 1900
CO2 has risen by very close to half a doubling
over this 60 year period.
IPCC have claimed in their 4th assessment report
(summary for policy makers), that the most likely
temperature rise by 2070, when CO2 will have risen
by a further half doubling to twice the level in
1900, is a further 3�C rise.
QUESTION:
Why would the first half doubling give 0.5�C rise
while the second half doubling gives 3�C or 6
times as much rise?
Regards
Bonz0
"I care about the environment (I grew up in a
solar house) and think there are a dozen good
reasons why we should burn less fossil fuels,
but.global warming is not one of them."
Nir Shaviv, Israeli physicist 2009
Roger Coppock
[ . . . ]
> QUESTION:
>
> Why would the first half doubling give 0.5ºC rise
> while the second half doubling gives 3ºC or 6
> times as much rise?
A single, snappy, and short answer would be,
"You said the system was nonlinear, didn't you?"
To break it down further, here are
TWO ANSWERS:
1) There is a delay between the application
of CO2 to the atmosphere and the rise of
global mean surface temperatures of about
half a century.
2) The rising CO2 levels trigger positive
feedbacks.
Consult any climatology text written in the
last decade, the IPCC documents, Google,
Wikipedia, or many other references for details.
I M @ good guy
<rcop...@adnc.com> wrote:
>On Sep 27, 11:42 pm, "b0onz" <y...@x.com> wrote:
>[ . . . ]
>> QUESTION:
>>
>> Why would the first half doubling give 0.5ºC rise
>> while the second half doubling gives 3ºC or 6
>> times as much rise?
>
>A single, snappy, and short answer would be,
>"You said the system was nonlinear, didn't you?"
>To break it down further, here are
>TWO ANSWERS:
>
>1) There is a delay between the application
>of CO2 to the atmosphere and the rise of
>global mean surface temperatures of about
>half a century.
Oh, baloney, if there is no immediate response,
how can there be a delayed response?
By suggesting the response is delayed really
destroys what little credibility AGW had, now you
really need a year warmer than 1998 to show a
response to the increased CO2 concentration
of 50 years ago.
>2) The rising CO2 levels trigger positive
>feedbacks.
>
>Consult any climatology text written in the
>last decade, the IPCC documents, Google,
>Wikipedia, or many other references for details.
Ask any inmate in a nuthouse he is crazy.
Peter Webb
"Roger Coppock" <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote in message
news:13b6d76a-7f19-4f0c...@r24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...> Why would the first half doubling give 0.5�C rise
> while the second half doubling gives 3�C or 6
> times as much rise?
A single, snappy, and short answer would be,
"You said the system was nonlinear, didn't you?"
__________________________________________________
No, he said it varied according to the logarithm.
To break it down further, here are
TWO ANSWERS:
1) There is a delay between the application
of CO2 to the atmosphere and the rise of
global mean surface temperatures of about
half a century.
2) The rising CO2 levels trigger positive
feedbacks.
Consult any climatology text written in the
last decade, the IPCC documents, Google,
Wikipedia, or many other references for details.
________________________________________
If you think he is wrong about the logarithmic effect, you should post links
proving he is wrong, not just claim it. OTOH from your remarks you may not
even know the implications of a logarithmic increase ...
Roger Coppock
<webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> "Roger Coppock" <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote in message
[ . . . ]
> A single, snappy, and short answer would be,
> "You said the system was nonlinear, didn't you?"
>
> __________________________________________________
> No, he said it varied according to the logarithm.
A logarithm is a non-linear function.
Roger Coppock
school, didn't you Mr. Guy.
On Sep 28, 2:41 am, "I M @ good guy" <I...@good.guy> wrote:
[ . . . ]
> Oh, baloney, if there is no immediate response,
> how can there be a delayed response?
Like a fuse to dynamite: insignificant initial response
when you light the fuse, means, according to you Mr.
Guy, that there will never be a delayed response.
leona...@gmail.com
> On Sep 27, 11:42 pm, "b0onz" <y...@x.com> wrote:
> [ . . . ]
>
> > QUESTION:
>
> > Why would the first half doubling give 0.5ºC rise
> > while the second half doubling gives 3ºC or 6
> > times as much rise?
>
> A single, snappy, and short answer would be,
> "You said the system was nonlinear, didn't you?"
> To break it down further, here are
> TWO ANSWERS:
>
> 1) There is a delay between the application
> of CO2 to the atmosphere and the rise of
> global mean surface temperatures of about
> half a century.
•• Rationalization not science
> 2) The rising CO2 levels trigger positive
> feedbacks.
•• Feedbacks are bullshit
>
> Consult any climatology text written in the
> last decade, the IPCC documents, Google,
> Wikipedia, or many other references for details.
•• ROTFLMAO
•• Check out
http://bruderheim-rea.ca/warming10.htm
Ouroboros Rex
> On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 02:35:27 -0700 (PDT), Roger Coppock
> <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sep 27, 11:42 pm, "b0onz" <y...@x.com> wrote:
>> [ . . . ]
>>> QUESTION:
>>>
>>> while the second half doubling gives 3�C or 6
>>> times as much rise?
>>
>> A single, snappy, and short answer would be,
>> "You said the system was nonlinear, didn't you?"
>> To break it down further, here are
>> TWO ANSWERS:
>>
>> 1) There is a delay between the application
>> of CO2 to the atmosphere and the rise of
>> global mean surface temperatures of about
>> half a century.
>
>
> Oh, baloney, if there is no immediate response,
> how can there be a delayed response?
HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW
Gotta ove that denialist logic!
tunderbar
Another moving the goalposts from Roger.
Tom P
> <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sep 27, 11:42 pm, "b0onz" <y...@x.com> wrote:
>> [ . . . ]
>>> QUESTION:
>>>
>>> while the second half doubling gives 3�C or 6
>>> times as much rise?
>> A single, snappy, and short answer would be,
>> "You said the system was nonlinear, didn't you?"
>> To break it down further, here are
>> TWO ANSWERS:
>>
>> 1) There is a delay between the application
>> of CO2 to the atmosphere and the rise of
>> global mean surface temperatures of about
>> half a century.
>
>
> Oh, baloney, if there is no immediate response,
> how can there be a delayed response?
Very simple. The thermal inertia of the oceans. The oceans cover around
70% of the earth's surface, so at least this percentage of the radiative
forcing is absorbed in the sea water. Once the surface water starts
warming, ocean currents and upwelling mix the surface water with cold
water from the ocean depths. Given the amount of radiative forcing in
Wm-2 and the volume of the oceans in cubic metres, it is a matter of
highschool math to make some ballpark predictions about the net rate of
warming which are entirely consistent with the AGW model.
Bill Ward
> I M @ good guy wrote:
>> On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 02:35:27 -0700 (PDT), Roger Coppock
>> <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sep 27, 11:42 pm, "b0onz" <y...@x.com> wrote: [ . . . ]
>>>> QUESTION:
>>>>
>>>> Why would the first half doubling give 0.5ºC rise while the second
>>>> half doubling gives 3ºC or 6 times as much rise?
>>> A single, snappy, and short answer would be, "You said the system was
>>> nonlinear, didn't you?" To break it down further, here are
>>> TWO ANSWERS:
>>>
>>> 1) There is a delay between the application of CO2 to the atmosphere
>>> and the rise of global mean surface temperatures of about half a
>>> century.
>>
>>
>> Oh, baloney, if there is no immediate response,
>> how can there be a delayed response?
>
>
> Very simple. The thermal inertia of the oceans. The oceans cover around
> 70% of the earth's surface, so at least this percentage of the radiative
> forcing is absorbed in the sea water. Once the surface water starts
> warming, ocean currents and upwelling mix the surface water with cold
> water from the ocean depths. Given the amount of radiative forcing in
> Wm-2 and the volume of the oceans in cubic metres, it is a matter of
> highschool math to make some ballpark predictions about the net rate of
> warming which are entirely consistent with the AGW model.
The ice cores show the CO2 level correlates to the temperature 800 years
before. That's about the time delay in the ocean conveyor circulation,
which implies the temperature is driving the CO2 level. That's entirely
consistent with Henry's law.
Ouroboros Rex
> On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 20:35:37 +0200, Tom P wrote:
>
>> I M @ good guy wrote:
>>> On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 02:35:27 -0700 (PDT), Roger Coppock
>>> <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sep 27, 11:42 pm, "b0onz" <y...@x.com> wrote: [ . . . ]
>>>>> QUESTION:
>>>>>
>>>>> half doubling gives 3�C or 6 times as much rise?
>>>> A single, snappy, and short answer would be, "You said the system
>>>> was nonlinear, didn't you?" To break it down further, here are
>>>> TWO ANSWERS:
>>>>
>>>> 1) There is a delay between the application of CO2 to the
>>>> atmosphere and the rise of global mean surface temperatures of
>>>> about half a century.
>>>
>>>
>>> Oh, baloney, if there is no immediate response,
>>> how can there be a delayed response?
>>
>>
>> Very simple. The thermal inertia of the oceans. The oceans cover
>> around 70% of the earth's surface, so at least this percentage of
>> the radiative forcing is absorbed in the sea water. Once the
>> surface water starts warming, ocean currents and upwelling mix the
>> surface water with cold water from the ocean depths. Given the
>> amount of radiative forcing in Wm-2 and the volume of the oceans in
>> cubic metres, it is a matter of highschool math to make some
>> ballpark predictions about the net rate of warming which are
>> entirely consistent with the AGW model.
>
> The ice cores show the CO2 level correlates to the temperature 800
...Part of the time.
> That's about the time delay in the ocean conveyor
> circulation, which implies the temperature is driving the CO2 level. ...
...same as the rest of the time, when it is after instead of before.
> That's entirely consistent with Henry's law.
Yep, just like the rest of the time.
alanm...@yahoo.com
Yes, and he's comparing logarithms to logarithms.
The increase from 280 to 400 parts per million gives a logarithm of
ln 400/280 = 0.357
ln 560/280 = 0.693
The log of the CO2 increase from 280 ppm is
.357/.693 = 51% of the increase to a doubling. Your non- linear
argument is junk. That was taken into consideration in boonz's
argument.
Feedback should also apply to that increase to 400 ppm , not just to
the 560 ppm, so that argument is junk.
You said the delay is 50 years. Why doesn't that argument apply to
the sun also. In previous posts, you argued that the downturn in
solar activity should result in an IMMEDIATE downturn in earth's
temperature, thus disproving Svensmark's hypothesis- A. McIntire
Bob Casanova
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by "leona...@gmail.com"
<leona...@gmail.com>:
>On Sep 28, 5:35�am, Roger Coppock <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote:
>> On Sep 27, 11:42�pm, "b0onz" <y...@x.com> wrote:
>> [ . . . ]
>>
>> > QUESTION:
>>
>> > Why would the first half doubling give 0.5�C rise
>> > while the second half doubling gives 3�C or 6
>> > times as much rise?
>>
>> A single, snappy, and short answer would be,
>> "You said the system was nonlinear, didn't you?"
>> To break it down further, here are
>> TWO ANSWERS:
>>
>> 1) There is a delay between the application
>> of CO2 to the atmosphere and the rise of
>> global mean surface temperatures of about
>> half a century.
>
>�� Rationalization not science
Observation is not rationalization.
>> 2) The rising CO2 levels trigger positive
>> feedbacks.
>
>�� Feedbacks are bullshit
Really? So you've never studied anything involving feedback
mechanisms, positive or negative? Here's a hint, Sparky:
feedback loops, positive and negative, are everywhere. To
call them "bullshit" is to expose your ignorance.
>> Consult any climatology text written in the
>> last decade, the IPCC documents, Google,
>> Wikipedia, or many other references for details.
>
>�� ROTFLMAO
Your ass just fell off...
>�� Check out
> http://bruderheim-rea.ca/warming10.htm
Oh, yes, *very* unbiased reporting. Has sea level risen?
Yes, so call the rise "insignificant", and say it's "over
the past century", when the data show that the rise was
mainly in the past couple of decades, and is increasing. Are
*most* glaciers disappearing? Yes, so emphasize the few that
aren't. Enjoy Wonderland.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
chemist
But it is regular and quantifiable,
You do not appear to understand simple maths
leona...@gmail.com
> I M @ good guy wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 02:35:27 -0700 (PDT), Roger Coppock
> > <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote:
>
> >> On Sep 27, 11:42 pm, "b0onz" <y...@x.com> wrote:
> >> [ . . . ]
> >>> QUESTION:
>
> >>> while the second half doubling gives 3ºC or 6
> >>> times as much rise?
> >> A single, snappy, and short answer would be,
> >> "You said the system was nonlinear, didn't you?"
> >> To break it down further, here are
> >> TWO ANSWERS:
>
> >> 1) There is a delay between the application
> >> of CO2 to the atmosphere and the rise of
> >> global mean surface temperatures of about
> >> half a century.
>
> > Oh, baloney, if there is no immediate response,
> > how can there be a delayed response?
>
> Very simple. The thermal inertia of the oceans.
•• Oceans? Inertia? LOL
> The oceans cover around
> 70% of the earth's surface, so at least this percentage of the radiative
> forcing is absorbed in the sea water.
•• ROTFLMAO - the sea water is primarily heated
by submarine volcanic action
> Once the surface water starts
> warming, ocean currents and upwelling mix the surface water with cold
> water from the ocean depths. Given the amount of radiative forcing in
> Wm-2 and the volume of the oceans in cubic metres, it is a matter of
> highschool math to make some ballpark predictions about the net rate of
> warming which are entirely consistent with the AGW model.
>
•• Is that your dream or your nightmare? It certainly is not fact.
The hotter the oceans, the more water vapor sent
heavenward and the heavier the precipitation. This
explains the large number of record-breaking
rainfalls we've been seeing in the past couple of
years - with as noted above, areas of the United
States getting 20 inches of rain in a day or so.
As for that dreaded greenhouse gas, CO2,
atmospheric levels of which now exceed 400
parts per million (ppm), it is important to note that
paleological records show that every time CO2
levels have exceeded 300 ppm there has been
an ice age. Every time - without exception.
The same records show that there have
been a series of ice ages over the past 5
million years, naturally occurring every
100,000 years, with about 90,000 years of
glaciation followed by about 12,000 years
of interglacial climate.
The last ice age ended about 12,000
years ago. Clearly we are in line for the
next period of glaciation.
leona...@gmail.com
> On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 04:14:08 -0700 (PDT), the following
> <leonard7...@gmail.com>:
>
>
>
> >On Sep 28, 5:35 am, Roger Coppock <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote:
> >> On Sep 27, 11:42 pm, "b0onz" <y...@x.com> wrote:
> >> [ . . . ]
>
> >> > QUESTION:
>
> >> > while the second half doubling gives 3ºC or 6
> >> > times as much rise?
>
> >> A single, snappy, and short answer would be,
> >> "You said the system was nonlinear, didn't you?"
> >> To break it down further, here are
> >> TWO ANSWERS:
>
> >> 1) There is a delay between the application
> >> of CO2 to the atmosphere and the rise of
> >> global mean surface temperatures of about
> >> half a century.
>
> >•• Rationalization not science
>
> Observation is not rationalization.
>
> >> 2) The rising CO2 levels trigger positive
> >> feedbacks.
>
> >•• Feedbacks are bullshit
>
> Really? So you've never studied anything involving feedback
> mechanisms, positive or negative?
Here's a hint, Sparky:
> feedback loops, positive and negative, are everywhere. To
> call them "bullshit" is to expose your ignorance.
•• They have only minimal effect here
>
> >> Consult any climatology text written in the
> >> last decade, the IPCC documents, Google,
> >> Wikipedia, or many other references for details.
>
> >•• ROTFLMAO
>
> >•• Check out
> > http://bruderheim-rea.ca/warming10.htm
>
> Oh, yes, *very* unbiased reporting. Has sea level risen?
•• Not at all!!!
> Yes, so call the rise "insignificant", and say it's "over
> the past century", when the data show that the rise was
> mainly in the past couple of decades, and is increasing.
•• Only in your nightmares. If it was rising
Southampton Beach and fire Island would be gone.
> Are
> *most* glaciers disappearing? Yes, so emphasize the few that
> aren't. Enjoy Wonderland.
•• More bullshit from an idiot jackass.
40 years ago I had a friend called Johnny
Casanova. He was a great comedian. You disgrace
his name
–– ––
In real science the burden of proof is always on
the proposer, never on the sceptics. So far
neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
iota of valid data for global warming nor have
they provided data that climate change is being
effected by commerce and industry, and not by
natural phenomena.
Peter Webb
> in cubic metres, it is a matter of highschool math to make some ballpark
> predictions about the net rate of warming which are entirely consistent
> with the AGW model.
>
That's really the problem with the AGW model. Just about any data can be
made consistent with it, because the model changes all the time.
Kangaroo Court Australia
>Revolution is nigh
Australia's de facto Bill of Rights (HREOCA1986) under threat from a
Corrupt, Racist White nation
Inquiry into Access to Justice.d.web.pdf
http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B2aSuWg5-JMZMGFlNzNjYzAtZjE5ZC00YzNlLTg0ZjQtOWUxN2M3YTRjZjkw&hl=en
Letter to Mr Charles Pham.web.pdf
http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B2aSuWg5-JMZNzY2YjNhNDYtZTkzYi00NmE0LWJhZWMtOGNhYTQ4ZDZiMTUx&hl=en
Senate.Enquiries.update.31July2009.web.pdf
http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B2aSuWg5-JMZNTk3OGU2NGQtYTc2MS00ZjI3LTlkZTItZDliMzAyMWI0ZjJl&hl=en
Judicial corruption exposes institutionalised racism that reaches all
up the way to the High Court Australia. An officer of the Royal
Australian Navy is left without medical care as he was harassed
victimised and unlawfully discriminated against as he exposed unsafe
working conditions in the Navy, that put public safety and lives at
risk.
He approached HREOC with a complaint under HREOCA1986 and RDA1975;
what he found was institutional racism, coverup and perverting of the
Human Rights Act, violating Australia's obligation under International
Treaties ICCPR and ICERD. The president of HREOC, John von Doussa
violated HREOAC1986 in refusing to investigate his White mates, and
then refusing to terminate the complaints so that it can be heard in
the Federal Courts.
More institutionalised racism occurred at the Administrative Appeals
Tribunal, where Senior Member John Handley proceeded to pervert
justice by fabricating documents and evidence.
Questions of Law will be asked of the validity of the HREOAC1986 and
RDA1975 as the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee,
chair and co-chair, Senators Barnett and Crossin indicated that
Inquiries into Access to Justice, Australia's Legal System and the
Role of Judges should not be of assistance to Australian Citizens of
ethnic backgrounds.
Institutionalised racism and corruption in the Judiciary have made
political prisoners of Aborigines such as Lex Wotton, dogwhistled to
corrupt police leading to Black Deaths in Custody, putting public
health and safety in jeopardy, and allowing a four (4) year old
Aborigines girl to die after having been refused medical care at a Qld
hospital, political assasination of Phuong Ngo, political assasination
of Frederick Toben.
They set them up to fail and when they fail, they call them inferior
and lock them up.
Racist and corrupt White nation inciting racial hatred and Black
Deaths in Custody, reduce the Black Man to fight for his basic human
rights
The High Court Australia has been labelled racist by Justice Michael
Kirby. The Australian Michael Pelley called the High Court racist and
hyprocrites. They are so afraid of the HREOCA1986, because even the
High Court Australia must obey an Act of Parliament.
Corrupt and racist Judiciary will fight with all its might and means
to deprive us of HREOCA1986, to deprive us of Habeas Corpus as we file
such writs for Lex Wotton, Phuong Ngo, and Frederick Toben. We might
not like their politics or ethnicity, but their loss of judicial
independence and fairness, and their experience of judicial abuse of
discretionary powers will greatly affect us all now and in the future.
Until Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee and Australian
Parliament secede from ICCPR and ICERD, even the High Court must obey
HREOCA1986. We must fight for HREOCA1986 even if the Corrupt changes
its name, because it is the only Bill of Rights we have."
administrator
http://kangaroocourtaustralia.com
iWitness: Judicial Corruption
http://iwitness.x24hr.com/judicial_corruption/
> If Institutionalised Racism kills, High Court Australia criminal? You
>bet
>
>http://img186.imageshack.us/img186/2137/75221326522959327217259.jpg
>
>
>
>http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/61/logohreoc.gif
>
><img src="http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/61/logohreoc.gif">
>
Request that UN Committee on Elimination of Racism to prosecute WHITE
Racist Nations, incl Australia
Request that UN Committee on Elimination of Racism to prosecute WHITE
Racist Nations, incl Australia
Cant the Whiteman be trusted with a signed Treaty?
Come join this petition, and save American Taxpayers' dollars on
useless UN rorts that only go to fuel terrorism through their
hypocrisy and abuse of UN process, and the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights.
<a
href="http://www.change.org/actions/view/
request_that_un_committee_on_elimination_of_racism_to_prosecute_white_racist_nations_incl_australia">change.org</
a>
<a
href="http://www.change.org/actions/view/
request_that_un_committee_on_elimination_of_racism_to_prosecute_white_racist_nations_incl_australia">Change.org</
a>
<blockquote>
The Hypocrisy of the UN Human Rights Bodies continues unabated. It
seems like the western world can do no wrong, and western countries
like Australia can ride rougshod over UN Human Rights Treaties, and at
the same time can dictate to less developed nations.
REF: G/SO AUS 215/4
http://rapidshare.com/files/101392885/OHCHR.23February2008.web.pdf.html
1. Communication to: Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human
Rights on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers
2. Submitted for consideration under International Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination
Kangaroo Court of Australia
http://kangaroocourtaustralia.com
Institutionalised Discrimination and Corruption in Australian Legal
System
Universal declaration on human rights
come join my group and help assist the OHCHR uphold its human rights
mandates
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=10385581643
Below and an account of Institutionalised racism within in the
Australian Judicial System and the High Court Australia:
https://publish.indymedia.org.uk/en/2009/07/435415.html
NB. i need the email address of the UN Secretary General
Torsten Schackel
Acting Secretary of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial
Discrimination
Human Rights Treaties Branch
Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights
Tel. +41.22.917.9614 - Fax +41.22.917.90.29
e-mail: tsch...@ohchr.org
Palais Wilson - 52, rue des Pâquis, CH-1201, Geneva, Switzerland
Mailing address: UNOG-OHCHR, CH-1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland
Joyce Fucio,
Administrative Assistant
Secretariat of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial
Discrimination
Treaties and Commission Branch
Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights
Tel. +41.22.917.94.09 - Fax +41.22.917.90.22
e-mail: jfu...@ohchr.org
Palais Wilson - 52, rue des Pâquis, CH-1201, Geneva, Switzerland
Mailing address: UNOG-OHCHR, CH-1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland
"Under Article 14 of International Convenant on the Elimination of All
Forms of Racial Discrimination, individuals can file submissions to
the International Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial
Discrimination if the country has signed the UN ICERD Treaty and allow
the Committee to hear such submissions.
The Committee has a moral obligation if not a legal obligation to
investigate and make recommendations. The Committee has a moral duty
if not legal obligation to return correspondence.
REF: G/SO AUS 215/4
http://rapidshare.com/files/101392885/OHCHR.23February2008.web.pdf.html
1. Communication to: Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human
Rights on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers
2. Submitted for consideration under International Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination
Kangaroo Court of Australia
http://kangaroocourtaustralia.com
Institutionalised Discrimination and Corruption in Australian Legal
System
The lack of correpondence from the Committee shed bad light on the UN
process as a whole and violates the Universal Declaration on Human
Rights.
We urge Mr Secretary General Mr Ban Ki-Moon to request that the
Committee carry out their duty and make Dignity and Justice for ALL
and not just some people."
</blockquote>
Australia's de facto Bill of Rights (HREOCA1986) under threat from a
Corrupt, Racist White nation
Judicial corruption exposes institutionalised racism that reaches all
up the way to the High Court Australia. An officer of the Royal
Australian Navy is left without medical care as he was harassed
victimised and unlawfully discriminated against as he exposed unsafe
working conditions in the Navy, that put public safety and lives at
risk.
He approached HREOC with a complaint under HREOCA1986 and RDA1975;
what he found was institutional racism, coverup and perverting of the
Human Rights Act, violating Australia's obligation under International
Treaties ICCPR and ICERD. The president of HREOC, John von Doussa
violated HREOAC1986 in refusing to investigate his White mates, and
then refusing to terminate the complaints so that it can be heard in
the Federal Courts.
More institutionalised racism occurred at the Administrative Appeals
Tribunal, where Senior Member John Handley proceeded to pervert
justice by fabricating documents and evidence.
Questions of Law will be asked of the validity of the HREOAC1986 and
RDA1975 as the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee,
chair and co-chair, Senators Barnett and Crossin indicated that
Inquiries into Access to Justice, Australia's Legal System and the
Role of Judges should not be of assistance to Australian Citizens of
ethnic backgrounds.
Institutionalised racism and corruption in the Judiciary have made
political prisoners of Aborigines such as Lex Wotton, dogwhistled to
corrupt police leading to Black Deaths in Custody, putting public
health and safety in jeopardy, and allowing a four (4) year old
Aborigines girl to die after having been refused medical care at a Qld
hospital, political assasination of Phuong Ngo, political assasination
of Frederick Toben.
They set them up to fail and when they fail, they call them inferior
and lock them up.
Racist and corrupt White nation inciting racial hatred and Black
Deaths in Custody, reduce the Black Man to fight for his basic human
rights
The High Court Australia has been labelled racist by Justice Michael
Kirby. The Australian Michael Pelley called the High Court racist and
hyprocrites. They are so afraid of the HREOCA1986, because even the
High Court Australia must obey an Act of Parliament.
Corrupt and racist Judiciary will fight with all its might and means
to deprive us of HREOCA1986, to deprive us of Habeas Corpus as we file
such writs for Lex Wotton, Phuong Ngo, and Frederick Toben. We might
not like their politics or ethnicity, but their loss of judicial
independence and fairness, and their experience of judicial abuse of
discretionary powers will greatly affect us all now and in the future.
Until Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee and Australian
Parliament secede from ICCPR and ICERD, even the High Court must obey
HREOCA1986. We must fight for HREOCA1986 even if the Corrupt changes
its name, because it is the only Bill of Rights we have."
administrator
http://kangaroocourtaustralia.com
iWitness: Judicial Corruption
http://iwitness.x24hr.com/judicial_corruption/
=
Tom P
> On Sep 28, 2:35 pm, Tom P <werot...@freent.dd> wrote:
>> I M @ good guy wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 02:35:27 -0700 (PDT), Roger Coppock
>>> <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sep 27, 11:42 pm, "b0onz" <y...@x.com> wrote:
>>>> [ . . . ]
>>>>> QUESTION:
>>>>> while the second half doubling gives 3�C or 6
>>>>> times as much rise?
>>>> A single, snappy, and short answer would be,
>>>> "You said the system was nonlinear, didn't you?"
>>>> To break it down further, here are
>>>> TWO ANSWERS:
>>>> 1) There is a delay between the application
>>>> of CO2 to the atmosphere and the rise of
>>>> global mean surface temperatures of about
>>>> half a century.
>>> Oh, baloney, if there is no immediate response,
>>> how can there be a delayed response?
>> Very simple. The thermal inertia of the oceans.
>
>
>> The oceans cover around
>> 70% of the earth's surface, so at least this percentage of the radiative
>> forcing is absorbed in the sea water.
>
> by submarine volcanic action
>
Really? So why is the surface water so much warmer than lower down?
Below 500 metres the temperature drops to nearly 4�c.
See http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/earth/Water/temp.html and
think again about what you wrote.
T.
>> Once the surface water starts
>> warming, ocean currents and upwelling mix the surface water with cold
>> water from the ocean depths. Given the amount of radiative forcing in
>> Wm-2 and the volume of the oceans in cubic metres, it is a matter of
>> highschool math to make some ballpark predictions about the net rate of
>> warming which are entirely consistent with the AGW model.
>>
> �� Is that your dream or your nightmare? It certainly is not fact.
Last Post
> leonard7...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sep 28, 2:35 pm, Tom P <werot...@freent.dd> wrote:
> >> I M @ good guy wrote:
>
> >>> On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 02:35:27 -0700 (PDT), Roger Coppock
> >>> <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Sep 27, 11:42 pm, "b0onz" <y...@x.com> wrote:
> >>>> [ . . . ]
> >>>>> QUESTION:
> >>>>> while the second half doubling gives 3ºC or 6
> >>>>> times as much rise?
> >>>> A single, snappy, and short answer would be,
> >>>> "You said the system was nonlinear, didn't you?"
> >>>> To break it down further, here are
> >>>> TWO ANSWERS:
> >>>> 1) There is a delay between the application
> >>>> of CO2 to the atmosphere and the rise of
> >>>> global mean surface temperatures of about
> >>>> half a century.
> >>> Oh, baloney, if there is no immediate response,
> >>> how can there be a delayed response?
> >> Very simple. The thermal inertia of the oceans.
>
>
> >> The oceans cover around
> >> 70% of the earth's surface, so at least this percentage of the radiative
> >> forcing is absorbed in the sea water.
>
> > by submarine volcanic action
>
> Really? So why is the surface water so much warmer than lower down?
>
•• Where????
The world's oceans are being heated by
underwater tectonic activity - underwater
volcanic eruptions and blisteringly hot magma
seeping up from cracks in the sea floor.
The heated ocean water creates high levels of
CO2 that it sends aloft along with huge amounts
of moisture. That moisture becomes precipitation
— rain in the spring, summer, and fall, and snow
in the winter. Increased amounts of moisture in
the upper atmosphere equals increased amounts
of precipitation.
The hotter the oceans, the more water vapor sent
heavenward and the heavier the precipitation. This
explains the large number of record-breaking
rainfalls we've been seeing in the past couple of
years — with as noted above, areas of the United
States getting 20 inches of rain in a day or so.
"Geoscientist Naoto Hirano's team believes that
the source of these volcanoes is melted rock from
the upper mantle, which has been squeezed
through cracks in the tectonic plate above. This
type of [activity produces] tiny volcanoes, possibly
now active, on the old, cold subducting Pacific
plate,' said Hirano from his office at the Scripps
Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, California.
'This petit spot volcano theory suggests that this
type of eruption can occur wherever the oceanic
plate is flexed. These small volcanoes may be
widespread on ocean floors where the mantle just
under the crust is squeezed out by tectonic forces
when one plate moves under another, the
researchers explained.
"Dubbed "petit spots", these new types of
volcanoes are difficult to spot using satellite
technology. Specific geophysical and sampling
expeditions would have to be carried out in order
to locate them,' Hirano explained."
*** Scientists working in the southern Atlantic Ocean
have found a 407 degree centigrade hydrothermal
vent, the hottest yet known on an ocean floor.
Expedition leader Andrea Koschinsky of
International University in Bremen, Germany, and
her team found the hydrothermal vent just south of
the equator on the Mid-Atlantic Ridge at a depth of
2,990 meters. The vent is located on the
Mid-Atlantic Ridge, where the African and South
American continental plates are moving apart at
the relatively sedate rate of 3.2 centimeter a year.
In the Pacific, by comparison, the Pacific and
Nazca plates are speeding apart at some 15
centimeters per year.
*** German-American researchers discovered more
hydrothermal activity at the Gakkel Ridge in the
Arctic Ocean than anyone ever imagined. The
Gakkel ridge is a gigantic volcanic mountain
chain stretching beneath the Arctic Ocean. With
its deep valleys 5,500 meters beneath the sea
surface and its 5,000 meter- high summits,
Gakkel ridge is far mightier than the Alps. Two
research icebreakers, the USCGC Healy from the
United States and the German PFS Polarstern,
joined forces in the international expedition
AMORE (Arctic Mid-Ocean Ridge Expedition). In
attendance were scientists from the Max Planck
Institute for Chemistry and other international
institutions.
The scientists had expected that the Gakkel ridge
would exhibit "anemic" magmatism. Instead, they
found "surprisingly strong magmatic activity in the
west and the east of the ridge and one of the
strongest hydrothermal activities ever seen at mid-
ocean ridges." The Gakkel ridge extends about
1,800 kilometers beneath the Arctic Ocean from
north of Greenland to Siberia, and is the northern-
most portion of the mid-ocean ridge system. To
their surprise, the researchers found high levels of
volcanic activity. Indeed, magmatism was
"dramatically" higher than expected.
Hydrothermal hot springs on the seafloor were
also far more abundant than predicted. "We
expected this to be a hydrothermally dead ridge,
and almost every time our water measurement
instrument came up, they showed evidence of
hydrothermal activity, and once we even 'saw'
an active hot spring on the sea floor," said Dr.
Jonathan Snow, the leader of the research group
from the Max Planck Institute.
Remember, that "magmatism" is red hot magma
seeping up from the ocean floor. It's like putting
a burner under a pot of water.
In short, heated oceans are warming the globe
and setting up a scenario that includes among its
consequences more and increasingly violent
hurricanes, tornadoes, and blizzards.
> Seehttp://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/earth/Water/temp.htmland
> think again about what you wrote.
>
> T.
>
> >> Once the surface water starts
> >> warming, ocean currents and upwelling mix the surface water with cold
> >> water from the ocean depths. Given the amount of radiative forcing in
> >> Wm-2 and the volume of the oceans in cubic metres, it is a matter of
> >> highschool math to make some ballpark predictions about the net rate of
> >> warming which are entirely consistent with the AGW model.
>
> > •• Is that your dream or your nightmare? It certainly is not fact.
>
> > The hotter the oceans, the more water vapor sent
> > heavenward and the heavier the precipitation. This
> > explains the large number of record-breaking
> > rainfalls we've been seeing in the past couple of
> > years - with as noted above, areas of the United
> > States getting 20 inches of rain in a day or so.
>
> > As for that dreaded greenhouse gas, CO2,
> > atmospheric levels of which now exceed 400
> > parts per million (ppm), it is important to note that
> > paleological records show that every time CO2
> > levels have exceeded 300 ppm there has been
> > an ice age. Every time - without exception.
>
> > The same records show that there have
> > been a series of ice ages over the past 5
> > million years, naturally occurring every
> > 100,000 years, with about 90,000 years of
> > glaciation followed by about 12,000 years
> > of interglacial climate.
>
> > The last ice age ended about 12,000
> > years ago. Clearly we are in line for the
> > next period of glaciation.
–– ––
Either way short term or long term the data
doesn't support man made global warming?
short term
http://junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/RSSglobe.html
long term
http://junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Moberg2005.html
Bob Casanova
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by "leona...@gmail.com"
<leona...@gmail.com>:
>On Sep 28, 11:18�pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 04:14:08 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by "leonard7...@gmail.com"
>> <leonard7...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Sep 28, 5:35�am, Roger Coppock <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote:
>> >> On Sep 27, 11:42�pm, "b0onz" <y...@x.com> wrote:
>> >> [ . . . ]
>>
>> >> > QUESTION:
>>
>> >> > Why would the first half doubling give 0.5�C rise
>> >> > while the second half doubling gives 3�C or 6
>> >> > times as much rise?
>>
>> >> A single, snappy, and short answer would be,
>> >> "You said the system was nonlinear, didn't you?"
>> >> To break it down further, here are
>> >> TWO ANSWERS:
>>
>> >> 1) There is a delay between the application
>> >> of CO2 to the atmosphere and the rise of
>> >> global mean surface temperatures of about
>> >> half a century.
>>
>> >�� Rationalization not science
>>
>> Observation is not rationalization.
>>
>> >> 2) The rising CO2 levels trigger positive
>> >> feedbacks.
>>
>> >�� Feedbacks are bullshit
>>
>> Really? So you've never studied anything involving feedback
>> mechanisms, positive or negative?
>
>
>Here's a hint, Sparky:
>> feedback loops, positive and negative, are everywhere. To
>> call them "bullshit" is to expose your ignorance.
>
>
>�� They have only minimal effect here
Wrong again. Climate is pretty much nothing *but* feedback
loops.
>> >> Consult any climatology text written in the
>> >> last decade, the IPCC documents, Google,
>> >> Wikipedia, or many other references for details.
>>
>> >�� ROTFLMAO
>>
>> >�� Check out
>> > � �http://bruderheim-rea.ca/warming10.htm
>>
>> Oh, yes, *very* unbiased reporting. Has sea level risen?
>
>�� Not at all!!!
It has according to your reference. Are you saying your
reference is wrong?
>> Yes, so call the rise "insignificant", and say it's "over
>> the past century", when the data show that the rise was
>> mainly in the past couple of decades, and is increasing.
>
>�� Only in your nightmares. If it was rising
> Southampton Beach and fire Island would be gone.
Here's another hint: "Rising" doesn't mean "has risen
catastrophically".
>> Are
>> *most* glaciers disappearing? Yes, so emphasize the few that
>> aren't. Enjoy Wonderland.
>
>�� More bullshit from an idiot jackass.
Really? How about a reference to a peer-reviewed paper
showing that most glaciers are either stable or increasing.
Good luck with that.
> 40 years ago I had a friend called Johnny
> Casanova. He was a great comedian. You disgrace
> his name
Pitiful attempt at ad hominem; I'm sure you're capable of
better. But at least I use my real name instead of hiding
behind an alias.
>In real science the burden of proof is always on
>the proposer, never on the sceptics.
Correct, and I'm surprised you're aware of that. And the
evidence has been presented and is clear: The planet is
warming at a greater rate than at any time since the end of
the Wurm glaciation, and the greatest warming has been since
the advent of major use of fossil fuels. And both chemistry
and physics agree that this is to be expected for the gases
in question. And that's what science has to say on the
subject. The only remaining question among those not
scientifically illiterate is the extent of the contribution
from man-made sources; the contribution is real.
> So far
>neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
>iota of valid data for global warming nor have
>they provided data that climate change is being
>effected by commerce and industry, and not by
>natural phenomena.
Holding your fingers in your ears with your eyes squeezed
tightly shut doesn't make the evidence, which is extensive,
go away.
Last Post
> On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 03:21:21 -0700 (PDT), the following
> <leonard7...@gmail.com>:
>
>
>
> >On Sep 28, 11:18 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 04:14:08 -0700 (PDT), the following
> >> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by "leonard7...@gmail.com"
> >> <leonard7...@gmail.com>:
>
> >> >> > QUESTION:
>
> >> >> > Why would the first half doubling give 0.5ºC rise
> >> >> > while the second half doubling gives 3ºC or 6
> >> >> > times as much rise?
>
> >> >> A single, snappy, and short answer would be,
> >> >> "You said the system was nonlinear, didn't you?"
> >> >> To break it down further, here are
> >> >> TWO ANSWERS:
>
> >> >> 1) There is a delay between the application
> >> >> of CO2 to the atmosphere and the rise of
> >> >> global mean surface temperatures of about
> >> >> half a century.
>
> >> >•• Rationalization not science
>
> >> Observation is not rationalization.
•• In th is case i9t is bullshit.
>
> >> >> 2) The rising CO2 levels trigger positive
> >> >> feedbacks.
>
> >> >•• Feedbacks are bullshit
>
> >> Really? So you've never studied anything involving feedback
> >> mechanisms, positive or negative?
•• In this case it is just an excuse for rationalization
>
> >Here's a hint, Sparky:
> >> feedback loops, positive and negative, are everywhere. To
> >> call them "bullshit" is to expose your ignorance.
>
> >•• They have only minimal effect here
>
> Wrong again. Climate is pretty much nothing *but* feedback
> loops.
•• So you say but you have no real proof
> >> >> Consult any climatology text written in the
> >> >> last decade, the IPCC documents, Google,
> >> >> Wikipedia, or many other references for details.
>
> >> >•• ROTFLMAO
•• IPCC documents have been shredded page by
page and none more flagrant than Mann's hockey
stick
>
> >> >•• Check out
> >> > http://bruderheim-rea.ca/warming10.htm
>
> >> Oh, yes, *very* unbiased reporting. Has sea level risen?
>
> >•• Not at all!!!
>
> It has according to your reference. Are you saying your
> reference is wrong?
>
> >> Yes, so call the rise "insignificant", and say it's "over
> >> the past century", when the data show that the rise was
> >> mainly in the past couple of decades, and is increasing.
>
> >•• Only in your nightmares. If it was rising
> > Southampton Beach and fire Island would be gone.
>
> Here's another hint: "Rising" doesn't mean "has risen
> catastrophically".
•• Southampten Beach is a sandbar east of Fire Island NY.
It is so low that a storm like Hurricane Hazel could it
wash it away but the houses on it are quite secure even
with the high tides.
> >> Are
> >> *most* glaciers disappearing? Yes, so emphasize the few that
> >> aren't. Enjoy Wonderland.
> >•• More bullshit from an idiot jackass.
> Really? How about a reference to a peer-reviewed paper
> showing that most glaciers are either stable or increasing.
> Good luck with that.
>
> > 40 years ago I had a friend called Johnny
> > Casanova. He was a great comedian. You disgrace
> > his name
>
> Pitiful attempt at ad hominem; I'm sure you're capable of
> better. But at least I use my real name instead of hiding
> behind an alias.
•• ROTFLMAO
> >In real science the burden of proof is always on
> >the proposer, never on the sceptics.
>
> Correct, and I'm surprised you're aware of that. And the
> evidence has been presented and is clear: The planet is
> warming at a greater rate than at any time since the end of
> the Wurm glaciation, and the greatest warming has been since
> the advent of major use of fossil fuels. And both chemistry
> and physics agree that this is to be expected for the gases
> in question. And that's what science has to say on the
> subject. The only remaining question among those not
> scientifically illiterate is the extent of the contribution
> from man-made sources; the contribution is real.
•• What an ignoramus!!!
10 or 15 years from now you will be looking
for a fur coat
>
So far
neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
iota of valid data for global warming nor have
they provided data that climate change is being
effected by commerce and industry, and not by
natural phenomena.
> Holding your fingers in your ears with your eyes squeezed
> tightly shut doesn't make the evidence, which is extensive,
> go away.
•• So far you have not shown me any evidence
except a long screed void of science.
•• So I'll give you one .....
The world's oceans are being heated by
underwater tectonic activity - underwater
volcanic eruptions and blisteringly hot magma
seeping up from cracks in the sea floor.
The heated ocean water creates high levels of
CO2 that it sends aloft along with huge amounts
of moisture. That moisture becomes precipitation
— rain in the spring, summer, and fall, and snow
in the winter. Increased amounts of moisture in
the upper atmosphere equals increased amounts
of precipitation.
The hotter the oceans, the more water vapor sent
heavenward and the heavier the precipitation. This
explains the large number of record-breaking
rainfalls we've been seeing in the past couple of
years — with as noted above, areas of the United
States getting 20 inches of rain in a day or so.
As for that dreaded greenhouse gas, CO2,
atmospheric levels of which now exceed 400
parts per million (ppm), it is important to note that
paleological records show that every time CO2
levels have exceeded 300 ppm there has been
an ice age. Every time — without exception.
The same records show that there have been a
series of ice ages over the past 5 million years,
naturally occurring every 100,000 years, with
about 90,000 years of glaciation followed by
about 12,000 years of interglacial climate.
The last ice age ended about 12,000 years
ago. Clearly we are in line for the next period of
glaciation.
—— ——
Suffice it to say that unless Al Gore has
managed to repeal a demonstrated law
of nature, the iceman cometh.
The befuddled Gore keeps blathering about how
the oceans are being heated by global warming,
instead of the warming being created by the
oceans, as the facts clearly show.
On his Web site <iceagenow.com>, Robert W.
Felix provides the following information about
ocean warming as a result of hydrothermic
activity under the seas.
been discovered far from the tectonic-plate
boundaries (like mid-oceanic ridges) that often
spawn volcanoes, earthquakes, and other
geologic activity.
In 1979, Genevieve Woillard, a climate
paleologist in France, concluded from detailed
studies that the shift from a warm, interglacial
climate to ice age conditions at the beginning of
the last ice age, some 100,000 years ago, took
"less than 20 years". Her observations of the
decline of European forests led her to conclude
we may be in a similar period of rapid climatic
change.
Research has shown that this 20-year period is
one in which Mother Nature wreaks havoc on
humanity.
If the unchallenged results of the work of Woillard
and others who studied past ice ages are any
indication of the pace of glaciation, once it starts,
the transition period is a mere 20 years or so. And
we may be well into that 20-year period now
Woillard estimated that the period before that final
20 years — when the earth began gearing up for
an end to the interglacial period — could be as
long as 150 years and as short as 75 years."
According to Woillard's studies and those of other
paleological climate researchers, the transition
between interglacial and glacial periods is one of
increasing violence — more volcanic eruptions,
storms, earthquakes, and other natural disasters.
We are being bombarded with horror stories about
how the arctic regions are warming and the polar
bears are disappearing (actually their numbers
have increased by some 20,000) but we are not
informed by Mr. Gore and his acolytes as to how a
warming arctic region can continue to send more
and more record breaking cold waves southward,
creating the incredibly frigid weather much of the
northern U.S. is shivering under.
Last Post
•• Why bother to notice?? <GG>
Bob Casanova
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Last Post
<last...@primus.ca>:
<snip>
Yeah, Sparky; whatever you say...
Leonard
On 9/29/09 12:10 PM, in article 7iepp3F...@mid.individual.net, "Tom P"
<wero...@freent.dd> wrote:
> leona...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Sep 28, 2:35 pm, Tom P <werot...@freent.dd> wrote:
>> �� Oceans? Inertia? LOL
>>
>>> The oceans cover around
>>> 70% of the earth's surface, so at least this percentage of the radiative
>>> forcing is absorbed in the sea water.
>>
>> �� ROTFLMAO - the sea water is primarily heated
>> by submarine volcanic action
>>
>
> Really? So why is the surface water so much warmer than lower down?
> Below 500 metres the temperature drops to nearly 4�c.
>
** Why are you so stupid?
They teach kids in the 4th grade about convection
>
>>> Once the surface water starts
>>> warming, ocean currents and upwelling mix the surface water with cold
>>> water from the ocean depths. Given the amount of radiative forcing in
>>> Wm-2 and the volume of the oceans in cubic metres, it is a matter of
>>> highschool math to make some ballpark predictions about the net rate of
>>> warming which are entirely consistent with the AGW model.
** ROTFLMAO Tom appears to have dropped
his brains in the toilet. He could not pass 4th
grade without learning about convection. Now
he is writing about radiative forcing without
understanding the basics of mechanics
>>>
>> �� Is that your dream or your nightmare? It certainly is not fact.
Leonard
On 9/29/09 5:35 PM, in article 5ou4c5dve65to2bvs...@4ax.com,
"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
** But in this case the feedbacks are insignificant
as in trivial or perhaps non existent
>> Here's a hint, Sparky:
>>> feedback loops, positive and negative, are everywhere. To
>>> call them "bullshit" is to expose your ignorance.
>>
>> �� They have only minimal effect here
>
> Wrong again. Climate is pretty much nothing *but* feedback
> loops.
**ROTFLMAO Your last comment is why I called
them bullshit. I have yet to see an article from
you that actually made sense.
>>>>> Consult any climatology text written in the
>>>>> last decade, the IPCC documents, Google,
>>>>> Wikipedia, or many other references for details.
>>>
>>>> �� ROTFLMAO
>>>
>>>> �� Check out
>>>> � �http://bruderheim-rea.ca/warming10.htm
>>>
>>> Oh, yes, *very* unbiased reporting. Has sea level risen?
>>
>> �� Not at all!!!
>
> It has according to your reference. Are you saying your
> reference is wrong?
>
>>> Yes, so call the rise "insignificant", and say it's "over
>>> the past century", when the data show that the rise was
>>> mainly in the past couple of decades, and is increasing.
>>
>> �� Only in your nightmares. If it was rising
>> Southampton Beach and fire Island would be gone.
** Just last week, Jim Hansen, who in 1988
forecast in an interview that Manhattan's west
side highway would be under water, caught in
a lie extended his lie another 20 or 30 years
> Here's another hint: "Rising" doesn't mean "has risen
> catastrophically".
�� "has risen catastrophically" Another of your
bullshit terms. Without any rise a strong
nor'easter could wash Westhampton Beach
away
>
>>> Are
>>> *most* glaciers disappearing? Yes, so emphasize the few that
>>> aren't. Enjoy Wonderland.
>>
>> �� More bullshit from an idiot jackass.
>
> Really? How about a reference to a peer-reviewed paper
> showing that most glaciers are either stable or increasing.
> Good luck with that.
** I agree that is true
>> 40 years ago I had a friend called Johnny
>> Casanova. He was a great comedian. You disgrace
>> his name
>
> Pitiful attempt at ad hominem; I'm sure you're capable of
> better. But at least I use my real name instead of hiding
> behind an alias.
>
>> In real science the burden of proof is always on
>> the proposer, never on the sceptics.
>
> Correct, and I'm surprised you're aware of that. And the
> evidence has been presented and is clear: The planet is
> warming at a greater rate than at any time since the end of
> the Wurm glaciation, and the greatest warming has been since
> the advent of major use of fossil fuels. And both chemistry
> and physics agree that this is to be expected for the gases
> in question. And that's what science has to say on the
> subject. The only remaining question among those not
> scientifically illiterate is the extent of the contribution
> from man-made sources; the contribution is real.
** 10 lines of alarmist bullshit
Oh, just another oh so clever one, citing a snippet
from a signature, divorced from context and
without any reference to the subject.
�� ��
In real science the burden of proof is always on
the proposer, never on the sceptics. So far