Global Warming Hysteria
Jim McGinn
http://www.chicagoboyz.net/archives/003763.html
Global Warming Hysteria, Part 2,346
Shannon Love
Recent work on antarctic ice cores has now given us a good record of
atmospheric composition over the last 650,00 years. The work shows that CO2
and other "greenhouse" gasses are now at their highest levels ever over that
period. All the news stories are quoting scientists saying that this new
information proves that human-emitted gasses are causing global warming.
They're wrong. In fact, the core samples might just show the opposite.
(Note: I'm working from secondary sources here as I can't bring myself to
plink down the $10 to get the actual paper from Science. If I get more
information later I will update this post.)
The fundamental problem is that the core samples show very little
correlation between levels of greenhouse gasses and global temperatures. For
example, the core samples showed conclusively that atmospheric gasses have
no effect on the cycles of ice ages. Since the last ice age, there have been
several periods of unusual global warming or cooling that also do not
correlate strongly with greenhouse gas levels.
Even the weak correlations that do exist may not tell us much, because a
changing climate changes the composition of the atmosphere. For example,
methane, which is about 23 times more powerful as a greenhouse gas than CO2,
arises from the decomposition of biomass by bacteria. Since warmer periods
sustain more biomass, they also create more methane. So methane levels rise
and fall with warming and cooling cycles even though the levels may have
little to do with driving the cycles themselves. Conversely, CO2 levels may
fall as a climate warms because an expanding biomass absorbs carbon. (Or
maybe increased biomass leads to increased CO2 production. There is a lot of
debate.) So as a general rule, we would expect warmer periods would produce
more greenhouse gasses than cooler periods just by creating more biomass.
The cause-and-effect relationship could be the exact reverse of that
portrayed by anthrogenic-global-warming advocates.
What the core samples really show is that atmospheric gasses are not the
primary drivers of global temperature change. Ice ages are the result of the
Milankovitch cycles in the precession of the earth's axis. Shorter term
climate changes, on the order of decades or centuries, correlate with
sunspot activity. Volcanos cause spikes of cooling followed by warming over
the span of a few years. In the climatological record, it is more likely
that atmospheric gas-level changes result from climate change than that the
gas levels drive the climate change. (Of course, feedback loops exist which
complicate any analysis.)
In order to determine whether human-emitted gasses drive climate change we
first have to eliminate the effects of all the natural drivers. In the main,
this has not been done. For example, even though we know that increased
sunspot activity correlates with increased temperature on earth, we do not
know why, even on a theoretical basis, this is so. None of the sophisticated
climate models on which the anthrogenic-global-warming hypothesis are based
account for sunspot activity at all. Interestingly enough, the last 30 years
of increasing global temperatures have also tracked 30 years of unusually
high sunspot activity.
One of the reasons I persist in viewing anthrogenic global warming as more
of a social and political phenomenon than a scientific one is the way in
which a kind of scientific-media-political complex bends every observation
to fit the hypothesis, with few if any qualifications. Every media story I
have read on the antarctic ice cores says that the cores show that humans
are causing global warming, when in fact the cores merely show that
greenhouse gas levels are high. To assert that the high levels of the gasses
cause warming one must first assume that the gasses drive the warming. (This
is a logical fallacy called begging the question.)
Even if information is included that would contradict the hypothesis, it is
often couched in terms that appear to support it. For example, the story
linked to above uses the lack of correlation between gas levels and ice ages
to attack those who argue that increased CO2 levels might fend off an
impending ice age. The fact that the lack of correlation shows that
atmospheric gasses are not primary drivers of major climate change isn't
even mentioned as a possibility.
I think that significant segments of the population are so invested in the
idea that industrial production must be placed under political control that
they will instantly glom onto any idea that gives them the slightest
justification for doing so. They try to panic the rest of the population
with predictions of cataclysm while vilifying anyone who questions the
premise. I think that cataclysmic anthrogenic global warming has all the
earmarks of a politically driven hysteria. I think it will turn out to be as
much of an exercise in mass self-deception as the "Energy Crisis" of the
'70s turned out to be.
The way that the results of the antarctic core sampling project have been
portrayed just reinforces my belief that this will be so.
Roger Coppock
CO2 forcing is directly measured. One doesn't need to look
indirect data like ice cores to confirm it. When one removes the
delay for the radioisotope temperature proxy, the correlation
between ice core CO2 and proxy temperature are very strong,
For other arguments, please see:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13
Can't you think of a better name for your sock puppet than
"Jim McGinn?"
Scott Nudds
"Jim McGinn" <jimm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote
> The fundamental problem is that the core samples show very little
> correlation between levels of greenhouse gasses and global temperatures.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vostok-ice-core-petit.png
In fact the greenhouse gas plot (green) tracks almost exactly with the
temperature change (blue).
Why do you feel a need to lie Mr. McGinn?
"Jim McGinn" <jimm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote
> For example, the core samples showed conclusively that atmospheric gasses
> have no effect on the cycles of ice ages
Why would they? Ice ages are driven by variance in the earth's orbit and
rotational precession.
Stupid... Stupid.. McGinn...
> Since the last ice age, there have been
> several periods of unusual global warming or cooling that also do not
> correlate strongly with greenhouse gas levels.
Sorry, that isn't true either.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png
Ho humm. I'm already tired of debunking your lies...
frugal earth dweller
>
But we're not hysterical about it.
We're starting to plan for it.
That you DON'T WANT US TO PLAN FOR IT
by trying to convince us IT ISN'T HAPPENING
is unbelievable.
It is you who is being hysterical in your attempt to DENY it.
Now I HATE YOUR GUTS! Happy?
Lloyd Parker
"Jim McGinn" <jimm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>http://www.chicagoboyz.net/archives/003763.html
How come not once have you quoted a scientific source? Do they use too many
big words for you? Do they confuse your little mind with facts?
>Global Warming Hysteria, Part 2,346
>
>Shannon Love
>Recent work on antarctic ice cores has now given us a good record of
>atmospheric composition over the last 650,00 years. The work shows that CO2
>and other "greenhouse" gasses are now at their highest levels ever over that
>period. All the news stories are quoting scientists saying that this new
>information proves that human-emitted gasses are causing global warming.
>
>They're wrong. In fact, the core samples might just show the opposite.
Lie.
>
>(Note: I'm working from secondary sources here as I can't bring myself to
>plink down the $10 to get the actual paper from Science. If I get more
>information later I will update this post.)
>
>The fundamental problem is that the core samples show very little
>correlation between levels of greenhouse gasses and global temperatures.
Lie, and not really relevant anyway. If A caused B in the past, you're saying
C cannot cause B today. Illogic.
>For
>example, the core samples showed conclusively that atmospheric gasses have
>no effect on the cycles of ice ages. Since the last ice age, there have been
>several periods of unusual global warming or cooling that also do not
>correlate strongly with greenhouse gas levels.
We're talking about the current warming, not an ice age.
>
>Even the weak correlations that do exist may not tell us much, because a
>changing climate changes the composition of the atmosphere. For example,
>methane, which is about 23 times more powerful as a greenhouse gas than CO2,
>arises from the decomposition of biomass by bacteria.
And is in equilibrium, as it's a natural process.
>Since warmer periods
>sustain more biomass, they also create more methane. So methane levels rise
>and fall with warming and cooling cycles even though the levels may have
>little to do with driving the cycles themselves. Conversely, CO2 levels may
>fall as a climate warms because an expanding biomass absorbs carbon. (Or
>maybe increased biomass leads to increased CO2 production. There is a lot of
>debate.) So as a general rule, we would expect warmer periods would produce
>more greenhouse gasses than cooler periods just by creating more biomass.
>The cause-and-effect relationship could be the exact reverse of that
>portrayed by anthrogenic-global-warming advocates.
So explain how all the CO2 we're adding to the atmosphere does not trap heat.
And do so without violating the laws of thermodynamics.
>
>What the core samples really show is that atmospheric gasses are not the
>primary drivers of global temperature change.
No, were not. They are now.
>Ice ages are the result of the
>Milankovitch cycles in the precession of the earth's axis.
We're not talking about an ice age.
>Shorter term
>climate changes, on the order of decades or centuries, correlate with
>sunspot activity.
Sunspots are an 11-year cycle; the earth has been warming for 150 years.
>Volcanos cause spikes of cooling followed by warming over
>the span of a few years. In the climatological record, it is more likely
>that atmospheric gas-level changes result from climate change than that the
>gas levels drive the climate change. (Of course, feedback loops exist which
>complicate any analysis.)
Or that Martians are doing it.
CO2 traps heat. Fact.
>
>In order to determine whether human-emitted gasses drive climate change we
>first have to eliminate the effects of all the natural drivers. In the main,
>this has not been done.
Total lie.
>For example, even though we know that increased
>sunspot activity correlates with increased temperature on earth, we do not
>know why, even on a theoretical basis, this is so.
Don't have to; if you know the cycle you can account for it.
>None of the sophisticated
>climate models on which the anthrogenic-global-warming hypothesis are based
>account for sunspot activity at all.
Yes they do.
>Interestingly enough, the last 30 years
>of increasing global temperatures have also tracked 30 years of unusually
>high sunspot activity.
Not in the 1990s; the sun was fairly constant and the earth warmed.
>
>One of the reasons I persist in viewing anthrogenic global warming as more
>of a social and political phenomenon than a scientific one is
You're stupid.
>the way in
>which a kind of scientific-media-political complex bends every observation
>to fit the hypothesis, with few if any qualifications.
Big fat lie.
>Every media story I
>have read on the antarctic ice cores says that the cores show that humans
>are causing global warming, when in fact the cores merely show that
>greenhouse gas levels are high.
Lie.
>To assert that the high levels of the gasses
>cause warming one must first assume that the gasses drive the warming. (This
>is a logical fallacy called begging the question.)
No, one must understand a bit of science, which you do not.
>
>Even if information is included that would contradict the hypothesis, it is
>often couched in terms that appear to support it.
Lie.
>For example, the story
>linked to above uses the lack of correlation between gas levels and ice ages
>to attack those who argue that increased CO2 levels might fend off an
>impending ice age. The fact that the lack of correlation shows that
>atmospheric gasses are not primary drivers of major climate change isn't
>even mentioned as a possibility.
The fact that this is stupid...
>
>I think that significant segments of the population are so invested in the
>idea that industrial production must be placed under political control that
>they will instantly glom onto any idea that gives them the slightest
>justification for doing so.
Oh, I wondered when the "scientists are part of a big conspiracy" right-wing
propaganda would come.
>They try to panic the rest of the population
>with predictions of cataclysm while vilifying anyone who questions the
>premise. I think that cataclysmic anthrogenic global warming has all the
>earmarks of a politically driven hysteria. I think it will turn out to be as
>much of an exercise in mass self-deception as the "Energy Crisis" of the
>'70s turned out to be.
>
Idiot alert.
>The way that the results of the antarctic core sampling project have been
>portrayed just reinforces my belief that this will be so.
>
>
>
Your belief is as worthwhile as a belief in a flat earth. You are wrong, and
you are lying.
JohnnyCJohnny
were predicted over the past three decades are turning out to be true.
We are witnessing the realization that those warning of global warming
were correct, and now we know all those oil company shills were full of
BS all along.
No need to ge hysterical. Just sell any property you have in low lying
areas, especially coastal areas and get ready for more powerful storms
and work for a new energy technology that elminates fossil fuels.
Those are the rational approaches to take to global warming, not
hysterical.
Perhaps we should be hysterically laughing at the blockheads who tried
to convince us global warming was a farce or a communist plot to
destroy the American way of life. Well, that way of life will be
destroyed along with the the planet we live on if we don't wise up.
JohnnyCJohnny
are literally billions of tons of carbon dioxide that are trapped in
the glaciers, ice sheets and permafrost in the artic regions that will
be released as warming continues, thus causing a feedback loop that
will cause even more warming. We have set this warming monster in
motion, now we will face the consquences. Would you be interested in
buying some low land in Florida? If you don't think global warming is
real and Florida will stay above water, then it should be a good
investment for someone like you, but don't blame us if you get sunk by
ocean water, literally, as global warming progresses this Century.
coco
Jim McGinn wrote:
> http://www.chicagoboyz.net/archives/003763.html
> Global Warming Hysteria, Part 2,346
>
> Shannon Love
> Recent work on antarctic ice cores has now given us a good record of
> atmospheric composition over the last 650,00 years. The work shows that CO2
> and other "greenhouse" gasses are now at their highest levels ever over that
> period. All the news stories are quoting scientists saying that this new
> information proves that human-emitted gasses are causing global warming.
>
> They're wrong. In fact, the core samples might just show the opposite.
>
> (Note: I'm working from secondary sources here as I can't bring myself to
> plink down the $10 to get the actual paper from Science. If I get more
> information later I will update this post.)
Yes, the Bush administration has things well in hand!:
Jim McGinn
"JohnnyCJohnny" <joh...@patmedia.net> wrote in message
news:1143728129.6...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> The thing a lot of global warming deniers fail to grasp is that there
> are literally billions of tons of carbon dioxide that are trapped in
> the glaciers, ice sheets and permafrost in the artic regions that will
> be released as warming continues
references?
Jim McGinn
"frugal earth dweller" <remember@easter_island.disaster> wrote in message
news:MPG.1e9556779...@text.giganews.com...
>> Global Warming Hysteria,
>>
> But we're not hysterical about it.
>
> We're starting to plan for it.
>
> That you DON'T WANT US TO PLAN FOR IT
> by trying to convince us IT ISN'T HAPPENING
> is unbelievable.
I'm just looking at the facts. And the facts don't add up.
>
> It is you who is being hysterical in your attempt to DENY it.
>
> Now I HATE YOUR GUTS! Happy?
Considering you inability to address evidence I think it's inevitable.
Jim
Jim McGinn
> What hysteria? The fact is the dire warning about global warming that
> were predicted over the past three decades are turning out to be true.
> We are witnessing the realization that those warning of global warming
> were correct,
We are witnessing it now? We've seen, what, half a degree of warming over
the last 100 years? This is the emergency?
and now we know all those oil company shills were full of
> BS all along.
>
> No need to ge hysterical. Just sell any property you have in low lying
> areas, especially coastal areas and get ready for more powerful storms
> and work for a new energy technology that elminates fossil fuels.
> Those are the rational approaches to take to global warming, not
> hysterical.
>
> Perhaps we should be hysterically laughing at the blockheads who tried
> to convince us global warming was a farce or a communist plot to
> destroy the American way of life. Well, that way of life will be
> destroyed along with the the planet we live on if we don't wise up.
What, are you suggesting that GW may cause the planet to explode?
Jim
JohnnyCJohnny
> "JohnnyCJohnny" <joh...@patmedia.net> wrote in message
> news:1143728129.6...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > The thing a lot of global warming deniers fail to grasp is that there
> > are literally billions of tons of carbon dioxide that are trapped in
> > the glaciers, ice sheets and permafrost in the artic regions that will
> > be released as warming continues
>
> references?
No reference required, just common sense. You do agree that vast
quantities of carbon dioxide are froson in glaciers, ice sheets and
permafrost. Well naturally, if they're going to melt they will release
their CO2 into the atmosphere and guess what effect that will have?
More warming! Perhaps dramatically more as this process feeds upon
itself and the atmosphere really heats up.
Phil Hays
>references?
Methane Hydrates
--
Phil Hays
--
Clues for sale or rent,
Hints for just fifty cents.
No trolls, no spam, no twits.
Only fools smoke them cigarettes.
Jim McGinn
> Jim McGinn wrote:
>> "JohnnyCJohnny" <joh...@patmedia.net> wrote in message
>> news:1143728129.6...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> > The thing a lot of global warming deniers fail to grasp is that there
>> > are literally billions of tons of carbon dioxide that are trapped in
>> > the glaciers, ice sheets and permafrost in the artic regions that will
>> > be released as warming continues
>>
>> references?
>
> No reference required, just common sense. You do agree that vast
> quantities of carbon dioxide are froson in glaciers, ice sheets and
> permafrost.
Sounds like whacko speculation to me.
Well naturally, if they're going to melt they will release
> their CO2 into the atmosphere and guess what effect that will have?
> More warming! Perhaps dramatically more as this process feeds upon
> itself and the atmosphere really heats up.
Gee, I don't know if I can stand another 1/2 degree of increase
intemperature. The Sky is Falling!
Jonathan Kirwan
<Spampos...@comcast.net> wrote:
>"Jim McGinn" wrote:
>
>>references?
>
>www.google.com
>
>Methane Hydrates
clathrate(s), as well.
Jon
Lloyd Parker
"Jim McGinn" <jimm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>"frugal earth dweller" <remember@easter_island.disaster> wrote in message
>news:MPG.1e9556779...@text.giganews.com...
>>> Global Warming Hysteria,
>>>
>> But we're not hysterical about it.
>>
>> We're starting to plan for it.
>>
>> That you DON'T WANT US TO PLAN FOR IT
>> by trying to convince us IT ISN'T HAPPENING
>> is unbelievable.
>
>I'm just looking at the facts. And the facts don't add up.
Cato doesn't have the facts. IPCC, NASA, EPA, NAS --- that's where you'd find
facts.
But you want to be skeptical of what thousands of scientists report, yet you
swallow hook, line, and sinker what a right-wing political think-tank says.
Coby Beck
news:8nVWf.43451$_S7....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "frugal earth dweller" <remember@easter_island.disaster> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1e9556779...@text.giganews.com...
>>> Global Warming Hysteria,
>>>
>> But we're not hysterical about it.
>>
>> We're starting to plan for it.
>>
>> That you DON'T WANT US TO PLAN FOR IT
>> by trying to convince us IT ISN'T HAPPENING
>> is unbelievable.
>
> I'm just looking at the facts. And the facts don't add up.
You're looking at some random article on the web about a scientific study
written by some guy who told you up front he had not even read it. THAT
doesn't add up.
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")
Jim McGinn
"Coby Beck" <cb...@mercury.bc.ca> wrote
>> I'm just looking at the facts. And the facts don't add up.
>
> You're looking at some random article on the web about a scientific study
> written by some guy who told you up front he had not even read it. THAT
> doesn't add up.
If you want to be take seriously in a scientific discussion you should make
an effort to address content and avoid politics.
Jim
Coby Beck
>
> "Coby Beck" <cb...@mercury.bc.ca> wrote
>
>>> I'm just looking at the facts. And the facts don't add up.
>>
>> You're looking at some random article on the web about a scientific study
>> written by some guy who told you up front he had not even read it. THAT
>> doesn't add up.
I note you have no explanation for the disparity between what you claim to
do and what you doo doo.
> If you want to be take seriously in a scientific discussion you should
> make an effort to address content and avoid politics.
By all means, you should start one.
Michael Tobis
well-mixed, but **only local temperature** at the time of ice
formation, be it in Greenland or Antarctica.
There are interesting lags and leads to figure out, in both
hemispheres. The higher-freequency (<1000 yr) signals don't match up
that well between Antarctica and Greenland. There's much to work out
about all this as yet.
On longer time scales the three signals (two polar temperatures and
global CO2 concentrations) track far too well to be plausibly
coincidental, even absent strong phsyical reasoning linking the two.
There is no way to balance the energy budget on the glacial cycle
without greenhouse effect changes playing a dominant role, and no
paleoclimatologist working on the last million years of climate
suggests otherwise as far as I know.
Of course, there is still a lot of junk science. It's not that hard to
tell the difference. Just follow this link for good advice:
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=158798&cid=13301230
mt
Scott Nudds
"JohnnyCJohnny" <joh...@patmedia.net> wrote
> Perhaps we should be hysterically laughing at the blockheads who tried
> to convince us global warming was a farce or a communist plot to
> destroy the American way of life.
No, you should be planning to hold them accountable for their crimes against
Humanity.
I will supply the rope if you have a tree.
Alexi Tekhasski
news:MPG.1e9556779...@text.giganews.com...
I guess you still have a bootload of rotten batteries and extra generator from
the stash you planned for "year-2000" computer "disaster", right?
Lloyd Parker
Scott Nudds
"Jim McGinn" <jimm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote
> Sounds like whacko speculation to me.
A lot of science appears to be whacko specuation to you Jimbo.
I told you that your diet of road kill stew wasn't goinna do your brain any
good.
You didn't listen.
Scott Nudds
"Jim McGinn" <jimm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote
> We are witnessing it now? We've seen, what, half a degree of warming over
> the last 100 years? This is the emergency?
Wrong again Jimbo. The warming observed is about 1.5'F most of which has
occurred over the last 30 years.
Do try and keep up.
"Jim McGinn" <jimm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote
> What, are you suggesting that GW may cause the planet to explode?
No, just your head.
Alexi Tekhasski
news:1143781678.1...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
No, the difference is not that clear. The comparative list is far from complete,
and is very biased. For example, the following entries are missing:
GOOFUS got educated in "earth science" where his mathematics teacher never got himself
beyond linear differential equations in most primitive form, such that anything else was taught
as "mathematical curiosity"
GALLANT worked and made personal contributions at a finest facility where scientists were
at forefront in every scientific field including nonlinear dynamics.
GOOFUS took classes in oceanography with a teacher who done himself estimations of CO2
fluxes to the best ability of current methods, and always meant the numbers to be just an
illustration
of general ideas in carbon cycle. But the basic class of theory of measurements and error analysis
was not in curriculum of GOOFUS
GALLANT worked one period in his time in experimental physics, knows how to calculate error
margins, and would never recommend anyone to take any actions based on data that have +-80%
accuracy.
I think the list can be expanded further.
Cheers,
-aap
H2-PV NOW
You are given LEGAL NOTICE that you are aiding and abetting an
ORGANIZED CRIME FELONY FRAUD operation, that you have joined in an
"enterprise" as defined by law, have committed one or more acts of
fraud using WIRES or U.S. Mail in collaboration with the illegal
enterprise. From this date forward any further actions on your part to
aid this enterprise are legally considered prima facia premeditated,
willful intent to violate FEDERAL LAW.
SEPPtic Tank is an ORGANIZED CRIME front operation headed by lifelong
career-criminal S. Fred Singer.
In 1994 Singer wrote a science hoax piece for big tobacco. The piece
was submitted to RJ Reynolds lawyers pre-publication. The piece was
short some "peer-reviewers" so a request was made for some names of
tame "whitecoats" willing to lie for money to sign off on the document.
Ultimately a bunch of names appeared on this science hoax document, as
well as inside it's pages. The whole thing became evidence in the
FEDERAL trial of the Big Seven Tobacco Companies in the late 1990s. The
documents were produced by subpoena (a turm meaning "under pain", like
we will hurt you bad if you don't comply). The evidence passed due
process of law in a trial admitted as evidence. The judge ordered the
evidence posted online for 10 years at Big Tobacco's expense -- oh,
year, the Tobacco Companies also agreed to pay $246,000,000,000.00 too.
Fred Singer is corrupt and I have seen the evidence from the trial that
proved he is corrupt. He is an ORGANIZED CRIME figure who uses science
hoaxes for corporate clients to falsify the state of knowledge on
subjects his clients need confused and obfuscated.
SEPP was organized in the premises of a Sun Myung Moon-owned office
suite. Moon is also a career criminal who was convicted of tax evasion
and money laundering, sent to FREDERAL PRISON, and is a known felon
convict.
FRED SINGER's SEPPtic Tank moved to the offices of Charles G. Koch
Summer Fellows Program at the Koch-owned George Mason University.
Killer Charles G. Koch and brother Killer David Koch operate KOCH
INDUSTRIES, which itself has been convicted of the largest fine in
corporate history -- $35,000,000.00 for pollution of air, lands and
waters of six states.
http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2000/January/019enrd.htm
http://www.motherjones.com/news/special_reports/mojo_400/51_koch.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37628-2004Jul8.html
http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/981d17e5ab07246f8525686500621079?OpenDocument
Charges G. Koch co-founded CATO Inst., David Koch sits on it's board
watching the family interests, and SINGER, MILLOY, MICHAELS, LINDZEN &
BALLING are all organized crime figures on the payrolls of a known
ORGANIZED CRIME ring founded by known ORGANIZED CRIME Lords.
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=361
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Singer-1993-1994.html
http://www.atlasusa.org/highlight_archive/1995/H1995-02-Environment.html
Dr. Singer. SEPP's address is 4084 University Drive, Suite 101,
Fairfax, VA 22030 (Tel. 703-934-6932).
http://snipurl.com/og9j
Results about 172 for 4084 University Drive, Suite 101 Fairfax, VA
22030 Koch.
http://snipurl.com/og9o
Results about 92 for 4084 University Drive, Suite 101 Fairfax, VA
22030 SEPP.
http://snipurl.com/og9s
Resultsabout 149 for 4084 University Drive, Suite 101 Fairfax, VA 22030
IHS | "Institute for Humane Studies"
http://snipurl.com/oga1
Results about 581 for Fred Singer Koch IHS | "Institute for Humane
Studies".
http://snipurl.com/ogai
Science, Economics, and Environmental Policy: A Critical Examination
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Singer-Nightline.html
Documenting the Corruption of S. Fred Singer
http://snipurl.com/ogay
Results about 333 for "Science, Economics, and Environmental Policy: A
Critical Examination".
JohnnyCJohnny
Jim McGinn wrote:
> "JohnnyCJohnny" <joh...@patmedia.net> wrote in message
> news:1143727733.4...@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> > What hysteria? The fact is the dire warning about global warming that
> > were predicted over the past three decades are turning out to be true.
> > We are witnessing the realization that those warning of global warming
> > were correct,
>
> We are witnessing it now? We've seen, what, half a degree of warming over
> the last 100 years? This is the emergency?
>
We can talk at the end of the 21st Century, when large portions of
low-lying cities have been abandoned and as well as many low lying
coastal areas. That is what we have in store for us if we continue
burning fossil fuels and increasing the green-house effect. The
latest CO2 observations are in and they do not look good, CO2 is now at
381 ppm, or 100 ppm more than when the Industrial Revolution started,
see:
JohnnyCJohnny
point at which we set off a feed-back loop that causes dramatic global
warming. At some point the melting ice caps and permafrost will
release so much CO2 into the atmosphere that we will see a dramatic
increase in CO2 and then temperature, which will release even more CO2
into the atmosphere, creating an immense feed-back loop that warms up
the earth.
All this whinning about only rising 1 F to 1.5 F is moot. When the
feed-back loop kicks in we will rise quickly in temperature. Most of
the predicted increased in temperature due to greenhouse CO2 will
probably occur rather quickly as the atomsphere reaches a tipping point
and released massive amounts of CO2 and warms rapidly.
Jim McGinn
>
> Jim McGinn wrote:
>> "JohnnyCJohnny" <joh...@patmedia.net> wrote in message
>> news:1143727733.4...@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>> > What hysteria? The fact is the dire warning about global warming that
>> > were predicted over the past three decades are turning out to be true.
>> > We are witnessing the realization that those warning of global warming
>> > were correct,
>>
>> We are witnessing it now? We've seen, what, half a degree of warming
>> over
>> the last 100 years? This is the emergency?
>>
>
> We can talk at the end of the 21st Century, when large portions of
> low-lying cities have been abandoned and as well as many low lying
> coastal areas. That is what we have in store for us if we continue
> burning fossil fuels and increasing the green-house effect.
Evidence? Proof? References? This is all in your imagination. Evidence of
catastrophic global warming doesn't exist.
The
> latest CO2 observations are in and they do not look good, CO2 is now at
> 381 ppm, or 100 ppm more than when the Industrial Revolution started,
> see:
There is zero evidence that increased CO2 will result in catastrophic global
warming. Zero. It's all hysteria.
>
> http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo.php
>
Jim McGinn
> BTW, nobody knows for sure, but we are probably not far away from the
> point at which we set off a feed-back loop that causes dramatic global
> warming.
How do you get from nobody knowing to probably going to happen. This is the
kind of nonsense logic that underlies all the hysteria.
At some point the melting ice caps and permafrost will
> release so much CO2 into the atmosphere that we will see a dramatic
> increase in CO2 and then temperature, which will release even more CO2
> into the atmosphere, creating an immense feed-back loop that warms up
> the earth.
>
> All this whinning about only rising 1 F to 1.5 F is moot. When the
> feed-back loop kicks in we will rise quickly in temperature. Most of
> the predicted increased in temperature due to greenhouse CO2 will
> probably occur rather quickly as the atomsphere reaches a tipping point
> and released massive amounts of CO2 and warms rapidly.
>
This is the problem. A tendency to speculate based on conjecture piled atop
conjecture piled atop conjecture . . . ad infinitum. From a scientific
perspective there is absolutely no sound science that indicates. The only
drama I see is in the models and the models have an extremely low level of
confidence. (You can "prove" anything with a model.) Everything else is
based on tipping point nonsense. Bad science.
JohnnyCJohnny
Jim McGinn wrote:
> "JohnnyCJohnny" <joh...@patmedia.net> wrote in message
> news:1143987085.9...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
> > BTW, nobody knows for sure, but we are probably not far away from the
> > point at which we set off a feed-back loop that causes dramatic global
> > warming.
>
> How do you get from nobody knowing to probably going to happen. This is the
> kind of nonsense logic that underlies all the hysteria.
>
Nobody can predict exactly when the tipping point WILL happen. Just
like a weatherman cannot predict exactly which cloud formations will go
over the heat feeding feedback loop tipping point and become a full
blown thunderstorn. But we can observe the rising CO2 levels (which
are rising) and rising temperatures (which are rising) and observe the
melting ice caps and permafrost (both of which are melting and
releasing CO2). It's only a matter of time before the 2.5 ppm
increases in CO2 recorded yearly excallate higher, perhaps 5 to 10 ppm
each year as the ice caps and permafrost melt and release massive
amounts of CO2 that have been locked up for millions of years. Once
that happens, the temperatures will quickly follow suit higher and the
process will feed upon itself, just as a thunderstorm feeds on heat.
When and how rapidly this acceleration will occur is not clear, but
don't fool yourself, when the CO2 is released by the melting ice caps
and permafrost the CO2 levels will naturally rise.
Jim McGinn
"JohnnyCJohnny" <joh...@patmedia.net> wrote
>> > BTW, nobody knows for sure, but we are probably not far away from the
>> > point at which we set off a feed-back loop that causes dramatic global
>> > warming.
>>
>> How do you get from nobody knowing to probably going to happen. This is
>> the
>> kind of nonsense logic that underlies all the hysteria.
>>
>
> Nobody can predict exactly when the tipping point WILL happen.
Yep. And consequently your speculations about what might happen are
worthless.
Jim
H2-PV NOW
Jim McGinn wrote:
> Evidence? Proof? References? This is all in your imagination. Evidence of
> catastrophic global warming doesn't exist.
> There is zero evidence that increased CO2 will result in catastrophic global
> warming. Zero. It's all hysteria.
You are given LEGAL NOTICE that you are aiding and abetting an
JohnnyCJohnny
the rising sea levels at the end of this Century. The trends are on
the side of the people who believe in global warming. CO2 levels, air
temperatures and ocean levels are all rising. If the ice caps melt in
any significant way we can write off low lying coastal areas. New
Orleans last summer was probably the first shot across the bow by
mother nature. We will abandon cities like New Orleans as this century
wears on and then probably Miami, portions of New York, etc. If you
sell coastal property, best to sell it before it is swamped.
Jim McGinn
>I will respond accordingly when most of Florida is under water due to
> the rising sea levels at the end of this Century. The trends are on
> the side of the people who believe in global warming.
30 years ago the trends were on the side of the people who believed in
global cooling:
Science magazine (Dec. 10, 1976) warned of "extensive Northern
Hemisphere glaciation."
Science Digest (February 1973) reported that "the world's climatologists
are agreed" that we must "prepare for the next ice age."
The Christian Science Monitor ("Warning: Earth's Climate is Changing
Faster than Even Experts Expect," Aug. 27, 1974) reported that glaciers
"have begun to advance," "growing seasons in England and Scandinavia are
getting shorter" and "the North Atlantic is cooling down about as fast as an
ocean can cool."
Newsweek agreed ("The Cooling World," April 28, 1975) that
meteorologists "are almost unanimous" that catastrophic famines might result
from the global cooling that The New York Times (Sept. 14, 1975) said "may
mark the return to another ice age."
The Times (May 21, 1975) also said "a major cooling of the climate is
widely considered inevitable" now that it is "well established" that the
Northern Hemisphere's climate "has been getting cooler since about 1950."
> CO2 levels, air
> temperatures and ocean levels are all rising. If the ice caps melt in
> any significant way we can write off low lying coastal areas. New
> Orleans last summer was probably the first shot across the bow by
> mother nature. We will abandon cities like New Orleans as this century
> wears on and then probably Miami, portions of New York, etc. If you
> sell coastal property, best to sell it before it is swamped.
So, we should just ignore the fact that there is no scientific basis for
these conclusion?
H2-PV NOW
Jim McGinn wrote:
> So, we should just ignore the fact that there is no scientific basis for
> these conclusion?
You are given LEGAL NOTICE that you are aiding and abetting an
H2-PV NOW
Jim McGinn wrote:
> So, we should just ignore the fact that there is no scientific basis for
> these conclusion?
You are given LEGAL NOTICE that you are aiding and abetting an
Coby Beck
>
>
> 30 years ago the trends were on the side of the people who believed in
> global cooling:
>
> Science magazine (Dec. 10, 1976) warned of "extensive Northern
> Hemisphere glaciation."
>
> Science Digest (February 1973) reported that "the world's climatologists
> are agreed" that we must "prepare for the next ice age."
>
> The Christian Science Monitor ("Warning: Earth's Climate is Changing
> Faster than Even Experts Expect," Aug. 27, 1974) reported that glaciers
> "have begun to advance," "growing seasons in England and Scandinavia are
> getting shorter" and "the North Atlantic is cooling down about as fast as
> an
> ocean can cool."
>
> Newsweek agreed ("The Cooling World," April 28, 1975) that
> meteorologists "are almost unanimous" that catastrophic famines might
> result
> from the global cooling that The New York Times (Sept. 14, 1975) said "may
> mark the return to another ice age."
>
> The Times (May 21, 1975) also said "a major cooling of the climate is
> widely considered inevitable" now that it is "well established" that the
> Northern Hemisphere's climate "has been getting cooler since about 1950."
You should cite your sources Jim. This is a cutnpaste from George Will's
recent editorial in the WaPo:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/31/AR2006033101707.html
You are both quite mistaken.
It is true that there were some predictions of an "emminent ice age" in the
1970's but what does this tell us about today's warnings?
A very cursory comparison of then and now reveals a huge difference. Today,
you have a widespread scientific consensus supported by national academies
and all the major scientific institutions solidy behind the warning that the
temperature is rising, anthropogenic CO2 is the cause and the warming will
worsen unless we reduce emissions. In the 1970's, there was a book in the
popular press, a few articles in popular magazines, and a small amount of
scientific speculation based on the recently discovered glacial cycles and
the recent slight cooling trend from air pollution blocking the sunlight. No
daily headlines. No avalanche of scientific articles. No United Nations
treaties and commissions. No G8 summits on the dangers.
There quite simply is no comparison, I'm sure you could find better evidence
of a "consensus" of a coming alien invasion.
Real Climate has discussed this (
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94 ), and William Connelly has made
it a hobby to gather everything that was written about global cooling at the
time ( http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/ ).
JohnnyCJohnny
I will not deny that there is a certain amount of hysteria regarding
global warming. Just as there is about terrorism, which is
statistically a very unlikely way to die, but something people worry
about irrationally. However, my concern with global warming is that as
the climate warms it will release CO2 stored for millions of years in
the ice caps and permafrost and glaciers, and that will have a huge
feedback loop effect and accellerate global warming tremendously. The
potential is there for this to happen and for warming to occur rather
dramatically.
BTW, I just watched "The Little Ice Age" on the History Channel, which
affected Europe from the 14th to mid 19th Centuries. Just a 1 to 2 C
drop in global temperatures caused major havoc. I see it as
inevitable, barring the dimming of the sun or huge volcanic eruptions,
that we will see dramatic warming later this Century and many low lying
areas will be flooded. If the ice caps melt, the Oceans will rise at
least 30 feet. Most of Florida will be under water. New Orleans, bye,
see you in the Gulf of Mexico. New York City, kiss low lying areas
goodbye.
Jim McGinn
People who make "scientific" arguments based on concensus don't understand
science.
Jim McGinn
"JohnnyCJohnny" <joh...@patmedia.net> wrote
<snip>
> . . . my concern with global warming is that as
> the climate warms it will release CO2 stored for millions of years in
> the ice caps and permafrost and glaciers, and that will have a huge
> feedback loop effect and accellerate global warming tremendously. The
> potential is there for this to happen and for warming to occur rather
> dramatically.
Speculative nonsense. There is no scientific basis for this paranoia.
JohnnyCJohnny
Jim McGinn wrote:
> "JohnnyCJohnny" <joh...@patmedia.net> wrote
>
> <snip>
>
> > . . . my concern with global warming is that as
> > the climate warms it will release CO2 stored for millions of years in
> > the ice caps and permafrost and glaciers, and that will have a huge
> > feedback loop effect and accellerate global warming tremendously. The
> > potential is there for this to happen and for warming to occur rather
> > dramatically.
>
> Speculative nonsense. There is no scientific basis for this paranoia.
>
This is not speculation. This is exactly how nature has warmed the
earth coming out of ice ages. The ice sheets melted back towards the
poles and released CO2 into the atmosphere causing more warming. It is
not speculation, it is a FACT that there is tremendous amounts of CO2
locked up in the ice sheets. If they melt, they will release their
massive stores of CO2 into the atmosphere and if the past is a guide
the earth will warm, perhaps dramtically as the effect feeds back on
itself. Do you understand what a feedback loop is?
H2-PV NOW
McGinn's FRAUD: Re: Global Warming Hysteria
JohnnyCJohnny
> People who make "scientific" arguments based on concensus don't understand
> science.
No, you do not understand science; to make such an absurd statement
proves as much. Science is almost always by consensus, especially when
dealing with emerging science controversies. There are usually
differences of opinion, even regarding more established sciences.
There are usually two or more schools of thought on a topic of science
and it is only by consensus that science makes up its mind which one is
more scientifically based upon scientific evidence.
For years the two schools of thought regarding man's influence on
global temperatures were pretty evenly divided. Now the consensus is
clearly on the side of scientists who believe mankind is dumping so
much CO2 into the atmosphere that it is causing the planet to warm up
unnaturally and potentially with devastating impacts, which is probably
why shills like you try to dismiss the concept of scientific concensus,
because it is no longer on your side at all. Most mainstream
scientists now acknowledge recent global warming is human caused. The
oil industry is now relying on fiction writers like John Grishim to
make their case.
You weaken your arguments against global warming when you make utterly
unscientific and ignorant statements such as "People who make
'scientific' arguments based on concensus don't understand science."
Thanks for proving to us that you are clueless regarding how science
works. Are you paid by the fossil fuels industry to come onto the
USENET and spread disinformation?
Lloyd Parker
disappears into another dimension or something?
Lloyd Parker
"Jim McGinn" <jimm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>"JohnnyCJohnny" <joh...@patmedia.net> wrote in message
>news:1144016066.7...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>I will respond accordingly when most of Florida is under water due to
>> the rising sea levels at the end of this Century. The trends are on
>> the side of the people who believe in global warming.
>
>30 years ago the trends were on the side of the people who believed in
>global cooling:
False. And repeating a lie doesn't make it more believable, despite what you
and Goebbels believe.
Lloyd Parker
"Jim McGinn" <jimm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>People who make "scientific" arguments based on concensus don't understand
>science.
>
>
So we should ignore that evolution is accepted by most scientists? That the
Big Bang is?
An explanation becomes a theory when it is accepted by science.
>
JohnnyCJohnny
You are dealing with the same mentality as those other "hot button"
scientific issues. The funny thing is, a guy like McGinn would have
been comfortably within the global warming debate about two decades
ago, but now he just looks like a fool who hasn't kept up with time.
He apparently does not realize that we have two decades of data and a
lot of scientists who have come to the conclusion that global warming
is occuring, all since his rightwing anti-science views were first
formed in the 1980s. There is an overwhelming consensus amongst
mainstream scientists that global warming is real and is occuring and
is due to man's influence. At this point, global warming denyers would
be better off just downplaying the impact of global warming, rather
than denying it outright, because they look like idiots. Everyone can
see the data and that the world is actually warming, sea leveals and
CO2 levels are both rising.
Jim McGinn
"JohnnyCJohnny" <joh...@patmedia.net> wrote
> Now the consensus is
> clearly on the side of scientists who believe mankind is dumping so
> much CO2 into the atmosphere that it is causing the planet to warm up
> unnaturally and potentially with devastating impacts,
Do you think we should deliberately ignore the possibility that the
concensus that we will probably experience catastrophic GW in the near
future is the inadvertent result of a misplaced trust in computer models?
> Are you paid by the fossil fuels industry to come onto the
> USENET and spread disinformation?
I wish.
Jim
Global Warming @ARMY.com
Jim McGinn wrote:
> Do you think we should deliberately ignore the possibility that the
> concensus that we will probably experience catastrophic GW in the near
> future is the inadvertent result of a misplaced trust in computer models?
There are six main trails of conclusive evidence which make
anthropogenic (Man-Made) definate beyond any reasonable doubt.
Each one of these trails confirms all of the others.
+++ Coral Bleaching in 1998. It never was worse than that during any
time since apes stood upright. There would be massive fossil beds of
corals to testify to higher sea temperatures. The best fossils are all
within 6,000 years old and they are clear and unambiguous. There never
was a worse coral bleaching event in the last 6,000 years than 1998.
1998 came within two degrees of killing 90% of all the nurseries of the
ocean. Any event which ever killed 90% of the nurseries of the ocean
are recorded in fossil beds -- it happened five times in global
history, and the last time was 65,000,000 years ago, when the Alverez
Asteroid struck near Yucatan.
So we have established without doubt that 1998 is as hot as it can get
with higher oceanic life surviving. Fortunately for the oceans, vicious
storms have been relieving the heat content of the seas sufficiently so
that oceanic life is continuing, although 2002 was also a bad year for
coral bleaching. We have to pray for hurricanes to save us from death
of higher life in the seas.
+++ Another trail leading to the inescapable conclusion of Man-Made
global warming is the flooding rate in Bangladesh. This one is far more
complex, and has plenty of superficial confounding-appearance data.
First, there was a massive earthquake in the 1950s which changed river
course and land elevations. Second there was a political change when
"east" Pakistan became independent. Govt records are likely confused
and may still reside physically divided between countries. Third, the
generalized poverty means that good science and good archives are hard
to maintain.
Despite these illusions of confounding, the history of the area is not
a blank. It has been highly densely populated for centuries. India has
kept better records of the area. It has always had some flooding of
intermittant amounts and intervals. The poorest population gets the
floodplains because nobody else wanted them -- they adapted to short
flooding of mild levels of localized nature and could move out of the
way.
The cultures celebrate the changes of the seasons in various traditions
and festivals. The melting of the Himalaya snows is fairly predictable
and steady, just like the monsoons arrive within days of a calendar
date each year. Deforestation below the treeline does not completely
explain earlier dates of annual melting above the treeline.
Severe flooding began after 1954. It first occurred an average of ten
year intervals. In the recent time span it has progressively increased
in frequency, secondly to about every 6 years, now to every other year.
Blame Game has put the cause on upstream deforestation, but there is
earlier snowmelt each year.
That snowmelt was separated from the monsoons by time, and the two peak
water flows were separated by time. Now the snowmelt coincides by date
with the monsoons and record-breaking historically severe flooding is
the result. Nothing this severe is known for hundreds of years, and the
frequency of repetition is a physical impact requiring a physical
explanation.
The flooding is confirmed by the greenhouse gases causing Global
Warming. One must provide an alternate explanation for the trapped heat
to escape the system. Unless one can do that, the provisional
explanation, Man-Made Global Warming, stands unchallenged.
+++ Massive retreats of glaciers and icepacks. One must explain the the
sudden rate of increased meltaway. Global Warming explains this effect
without sweeping any data under the rug. Greenhouse Gases are trapping
heat in the system.
+++ Increased temperatures recorded across the globe by every measuring
means available on the planet. Records are broken with regularity. The
coral bleaching limit shows these are not representative of cyclic
heating events, but are anomalous in the geological record. Nothing
like this has happened in 65,000,000 years of fossil evidence. All the
direct and proxy temperature measures agree within acceptable errors
ranges.
+++ El Nino is a direct effect of sea surface heat accumulation. While
El Nino leaves poor records in the fossil archives, the known observed
rate was averaging 7 years between El Nino events. With greater recent
measured thermal storage in the sea surface, the El Nino events have
been forced to 2-3 year intervals. Physical events require physical
exlanations. The explanation which fits the measurements is Global
Warming from Man-Made Greenhouse Gases.
+++ Storm intensity and frequency is directly related to heat fuel
stored in the tropical oceans. Currently there is peak for all
recorded history of 25% more total hurricanes, more severe hurricanes
and closer frequency of hurricane-level storms. Add that to 500
tornadoes on land in the USA in May 2003 and you see tangible proof of
heat-engines at work disposing of surplus heat according to the best
modern physics theories.
NOBODY has a comprehensive alternate explanation which explains ALL of
this data, and any explanation which fails to explain ALL of the data
may be downrated as attempted Leprechans at work.
Besides the main trails there are many minor trails of evidence, all
confirming, none positively disconfirming the Man-Made Greenhouse Gases
Explanation.
All of the attempted counter-explanations deal with one trail at a
time, such as land-use changes and deforestation upstream from
Bangladesh. All they prove of a certainty is there are piggish humans
who care nothing about the downstream misery of those less fortunate,
thereby strengthening the case against the organized crime rings
falsifying science and committing felony frauds to piggishly injure
downstream less-fortunates. That evidence confirms criminal psychology,
but does not injure the measured recorded and reliable evidence of
increased frequency beyond the power of deforestation only to cause.
Global Warming @ARMY.com
Jim McGinn wrote:
> Do you think we should deliberately ignore the possibility that the
> concensus that we will probably experience catastrophic GW in the near
> future is the inadvertent result of a misplaced trust in computer models?
You should not trust known organized crime figures to provide your
science lessons.
Lloyd Parker
"Jim McGinn" <jimm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>"JohnnyCJohnny" <joh...@patmedia.net> wrote
>
>> Now the consensus is
>> clearly on the side of scientists who believe mankind is dumping so
>> much CO2 into the atmosphere that it is causing the planet to warm up
>> unnaturally and potentially with devastating impacts,
>
>Do you think we should deliberately ignore the possibility that the
>concensus that we will probably experience catastrophic GW in the near
>future is the inadvertent result of a misplaced trust in computer models?
>
If that happens, nothing lost. If, OTOH, we do nothing and the worst happens,
we're screwed. Isn't it better to prepare?
You're in New Orleans. There's a cat 5 hurricane coming towards you. Now it
may turn, or the levees may hold. Wouldn't you be better off assuming the
worst and evacuating, however?
Jim McGinn
"Lloyd Parker" <lpa...@emory.edu> wrote
>>Do you think we should deliberately ignore the possibility that the
>>concensus that we will probably experience catastrophic GW in the near
>>future is the inadvertent result of a misplaced trust in computer models?
>>
>
> If that happens, nothing lost. If, OTOH, we do nothing and the worst
> happens,
> we're screwed. Isn't it better to prepare?
It's better to follow standard scientific practices than it is to flow with
the hysteria.