Mann's Phantom Hockey Stick
Jim McGinn
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5309
Here are some quotes:
"The scientific argument that humans have caused global warming - a major
underpinning of the "Kyoto Protocols" - suffered a major blow last week,
with the publication of a new study. The implications have not yet spread
very far beyond the rarified circles of specialists, but the gospel of
"anthropogenic" - human-caused - global warming has lost one of its
intellectual foundations."
"One of the things that every modeler learns, and one caution that everyone
in simulation needs to keep in mind, is that it is very easy to bias your
simulation to give the expected results."
"The "proxy" data Stockwell used were a collection of random numbers
generated to have similar bulk properties (technically, "red noise") to
those of the tree ring data. In other words, purely random numbers, when
conditioned by the methods of MBH98, still result in a hockey stick."
"The inevitable conclusion is that the hockey stick of Mann and others may
be an artifact of their statistical methods."
"Some of the best evidence that this global warming is caused by the actions
of humanity is revealed to be highly questionable. Stockwell's demonstration
calls the whole structure of anthropogenic global warming into question."
Jim
Roger Coppock
are causing the current warming one does not go to
paleoclimate studies. That CO2 traps infrared is a
directly measured result. No proxy data are needed.
Thomas Palm
news:FgGWf.10270$tN3....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net:
> I went to google and seached: Global Warming Statistician
>
> http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5309
>
> Here are some quotes:
Here is the most relevant quote:
"While I’m not a climate scientist..."
Nor is the David Stockwell he quotes, and neither are McIntyre and
McKitrick Stockwell gets his data from. This is just pseudoscience in a
nice, mathematical package. Real scientists have tested the method used by
Mann and tried different versions of it and found that the mathematical
details doesn't matter.
Of course, if you pick a large enough sample of randomly generated curves
you will find some that has some resemblance to reality. That's in the
nature of random numbers.
frugal earth dweller
>
> http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5309
>
> Here are some quotes:
>
something up? Is this a mental disease that affects all conservatives, or just
those who cling to the hope that is the bible?
Oops...that's fucked up as well.
Lloyd Parker
"Jim McGinn" <jimm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>I went to google and seached: Global Warming Statistician
>
>http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5309
>
Too bad you didn't find a scientific source. Note one of their links:
GOPINION
Conservative news aggregator with a fresh editorial twist
>Here are some quotes:
>
>"The scientific argument that humans have caused global warming - a major
>underpinning of the "Kyoto Protocols" - suffered a major blow last week,
>with the publication of a new study. The implications have not yet spread
>very far beyond the rarified circles of specialists, but the gospel of
>"anthropogenic" - human-caused - global warming has lost one of its
>intellectual foundations."
Totally false.
>
>"One of the things that every modeler learns, and one caution that everyone
>in simulation needs to keep in mind, is that it is very easy to bias your
>simulation to give the expected results."
>
>"The "proxy" data Stockwell used were a collection of random numbers
>generated to have similar bulk properties (technically, "red noise") to
>those of the tree ring data. In other words, purely random numbers, when
>conditioned by the methods of MBH98, still result in a hockey stick."
>
>"The inevitable conclusion is that the hockey stick of Mann and others may
>be an artifact of their statistical methods."
Which has been refuted repeatedly.
>
>"Some of the best evidence that this global warming is caused by the actions
>of humanity is revealed to be highly questionable. Stockwell's demonstration
>calls the whole structure of anthropogenic global warming into question."
A big lie.
>
>Jim
>
>
>
NobodyYouKnow
statistics. At least for Jim.
"Jim McGinn" <jimm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:FgGWf.10270$tN3....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
> I went to google and seached: Global Warming Statistician
Anybody know why statisticians tend to be as ignorant about Global Warming
science as geologists and state meteorologists? These three groups seem to
have the most wacko spin on the subject. Is it just a weak ego and a little
knowledge combining to produce a big delusion? i.e. that they are smarter
than the thousands of climate scientists that actually STUDY the subject?
Jim McGinn
"NobodyYouKnow" <TheVoice...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:MERWf.2569$m35.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
Thousands of scientists? Where are these thousands of scientists. They
exist only in your imagination.
The global warming hysteria is based on a statistics based argument. Much
to the chagrin of the tree huggers it turns out this argument is flawed.
The best evidence indicates GW is very moderate. And it may prove to be
beneficial.
Eric Swanson
A "modest" global cooling produced the Ice Ages, right?
Why would you think a similarly modest warming to be OK?
--
Eric Swanson --- E-mail address: e_swanson(at)skybest.com :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lloyd Parker
"Jim McGinn" <jimm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>"NobodyYouKnow" <TheVoice...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>news:MERWf.2569$m35.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
>> Google: A means for finding a tiny spec of crap among a flood of factual
>> statistics. At least for Jim.
>>
>> "Jim McGinn" <jimm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>> news:FgGWf.10270$tN3....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
>>> I went to google and seached: Global Warming Statistician
>>
>> Anybody know why statisticians tend to be as ignorant about Global Warming
>> science as geologists and state meteorologists? These three groups seem to
>> have the most wacko spin on the subject. Is it just a weak ego and a
>> little
>> knowledge combining to produce a big delusion? i.e. that they are smarter
>> than the thousands of climate scientists that actually STUDY the subject?
>
>Thousands of scientists? Where are these thousands of scientists. They
>exist only in your imagination.
Scientific journals. IPCC. NASA. EPA. NOAA. NAS. Scientific agencies of
most every western nation.
How many scientists work at Cato?
>
>The global warming hysteria is based on a statistics based argument.
You're a liar.
>Much
>to the chagrin of the tree huggers it turns out this argument is flawed.
>
>The best evidence indicates GW is very moderate. And it may prove to be
>beneficial.
>
>
You're a liar.
Jim McGinn
"Lloyd Parker" <lpa...@emory.edu> wrote
>>Thousands of scientists? Where are these thousands of scientists. They
>>exist only in your imagination.
>
> Scientific journals. IPCC. NASA. EPA. NOAA. NAS. Scientific agencies
> of
> most every western nation.
500 years ago the vast majority of scientist believed that the sun and all
of the heavens circled the earth, the center of the universe. If you had
asked them how they know this they could have produced mountains of
observational data that, they believed, supported or even proved this
conjecture.
> How many scientists work at Cato?
So you're suggesting that we should count scientists to determine the truth
of this issue. That doesn't work for me. I'll stick with analysis of the
evidence.
>
>>
>>The global warming hysteria is based on a statistics based argument.
>
> You're a liar.
You're a fool.
>
>>Much
>>to the chagrin of the tree huggers it turns out this argument is flawed.
>>
>>The best evidence indicates GW is very moderate. And it may prove to be
>>beneficial.
>>
>>
> You're a liar.
Would warmer winters not be beneficial?
Jim
Jim McGinn
"Eric Swanson" <swa...@NoScrewingAround.net> wrote
>>The global warming hysteria is based on a statistics based argument. Much
>>to the chagrin of the tree huggers it turns out this argument is flawed.
>>
>>The best evidence indicates GW is very moderate. And it may prove to be
>>beneficial.
>
> A "modest" global cooling produced the Ice Ages, right?
> Why would you think a similarly modest warming to be OK?
I think you answered your own question: CO2 insulates us from glaciation.
Coby Beck
>
> So you're suggesting that we should count scientists to determine the
> truth of this issue. That doesn't work for me. I'll stick with analysis
> of the evidence.
Sure you will. So where is your analysis of the proxy data the Mann et al
used? What's that? You just read some opinions on "the internets"?
"Jim McGinn", a mouse of his word.
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")
Coby Beck
>
> The global warming hysteria is based on a statistics based argument.
This is very revealing of your complete lack of competence on this issue.
Coby Beck
news:1143690431.1...@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Indeed. The proxies can be informative of the past, but they are not
explanatory of the present, nor predictive of the future.
Jim McGinn
"Coby Beck" <cb...@mercury.bc.ca> wrote
>> So you're suggesting that we should count scientists to determine the
>> truth of this issue. That doesn't work for me. I'll stick with analysis
>> of the evidence.
>
> Sure you will. So where is your analysis of the proxy data the Mann et al
> used? What's that? You just read some opinions on "the internets"?
I think the arguments of the statisticians completely invalidate Mann's
argument. You should address these arguments directly. Good luck.
Without Mann's argument there is no basis for catastrophic warming.
Coby Beck
>
> "Coby Beck" <cb...@mercury.bc.ca> wrote
>
>>> So you're suggesting that we should count scientists to determine the
>>> truth of this issue. That doesn't work for me. I'll stick with
>>> analysis of the evidence.
>>
>> Sure you will. So where is your analysis of the proxy data the Mann et
>> al used? What's that? You just read some opinions on "the internets"?
>
> I think the arguments of the statisticians completely invalidate Mann's
> argument. You should address these arguments directly. Good luck.
Please, present them! No climate audit cutnpaste, I'd like your personal
view, with links to the offending datasets.
> Without Mann's argument there is no basis for catastrophic warming.
Hardly. I think the most critical point to remember, if you are researching
this in the context of determining the validity of AGW theory, is that this
row is about a single study that was published 8 years ago. This is starting
to be ancient history. If you feel it is tainted, then simply discard it.
The fact is there are dozens of other reconstructions. These other
reconstructions do tend to show some more variability than MBH98, ie the
handle of the hockey stick is not as straight, but they *all* support the
general conclusions that the IPCC TAR came to in 2001: the late 20th century
warming is anamolous in the last one or two thousand years and the 1990's
are very likely warmer than any other time in the last one or two thousand
years.
Here is a nice superimposition of numerous global, hemispheric and regional
reconstructions for the last 2000 years
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
and the last 12000 years
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png
together with an averages. References are all presented at the bottom of the
pages. Regional variations are of course greater than global, so don't be
surprised by how wavy some of the lines in there are. Does the 20th century
stand out?
If we discard MBH89, where does that leave us? With the dozens of other
proxy reconstructions, some by the same team or involving members, some by
completely different people, some using tree rings, some using corals, some
using stalagtites, some using borehole measurements, all of which support
the general conclusions. And it is that general conclusion which is
important, not whether or not one Bristlecone pine was or was not included
correctly in a single 8 year old study.
The general conclusion is:
"Although each of the temperature reconstructions are different (due to
differing calibration methods and data used), they all show some similar
patterns of temperature change over the last several centuries. Most
striking is the fact that each record reveals that the 20th century is the
warmest of the entire record, and that warming was most dramatic after
1920."
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleolast.html
I also urge anyone worried about this study and what its conclusion means
for the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming to remember this: the study
of the past can be very informative, but it is not explanatory of the
present or predictive of the future.
The scientific basis ( http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm )
for the dangers we face and their cause is about much more than a few
tree-rings and the temperature during the Medieval Warm Period.
Jim McGinn
"Coby Beck" <cb...@mercury.bc.ca> wrote
>>> Sure you will. So where is your analysis of the proxy data the Mann et
>>> al used? What's that? You just read some opinions on "the internets"?
>>
>> I think the arguments of the statisticians completely invalidate Mann's
>> argument. You should address these arguments directly. Good luck.
>
> Please, present them!
I have already.
> No climate audit cutnpaste, I'd like your personal view, with links to the
> offending datasets.
>
>> Without Mann's argument there is no basis for catastrophic warming.
>
> Hardly. I think the most critical point to remember, if you are
> researching this in the context of determining the validity of AGW theory,
> is that this row is about a single study that was published 8 years ago.
> This is starting to be ancient history. If you feel it is tainted, then
> simply discard it.
I have discarded it. And it turns out there is nothing else.
>
> The fact is there are dozens of other reconstructions. These other
> reconstructions do tend to show some more variability than MBH98, ie the
> handle of the hockey stick is not as straight, but they *all* support the
> general conclusions that the IPCC TAR came to in 2001: the late 20th
> century warming is anamolous in the last one or two thousand years and the
> 1990's are very likely warmer than any other time in the last one or two
> thousand years.
The problem with the climatologists, as well as the GW whackos, is that they
are quite happy to discuss the result of their model and they are unwilling
to discuss the very real limitations of statistics and computer modelling.
>
> Here is a nice superimposition of numerous global, hemispheric and
> regional reconstructions for the last 2000 years
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
> and the last 12000 years
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png
> together with an averages. References are all presented at the bottom of
> the pages. Regional variations are of course greater than global, so don't
> be surprised by how wavy some of the lines in there are. Does the 20th
> century stand out?
Yes, it's the only century for which we have reasonably accurate data.
Previous centuries are constructed from tree ring analysis and are,
understandably, unreliable.
>
> If we discard MBH89, where does that leave us? With the dozens of other
> proxy reconstructions, some by the same team or involving members, some by
> completely different people, some using tree rings, some using corals,
> some using stalagtites, some using borehole measurements, all of which
> support the general conclusions. And it is that general conclusion which
> is important, not whether or not one Bristlecone pine was or was not
> included correctly in a single 8 year old study.
Yes, unfortunately for you the general conclusion is that there is no basis
for catastrophic GW. You are seeing the kings new clothes.
>
> The general conclusion is:
>
> "Although each of the temperature reconstructions are different (due to
> differing calibration methods and data used), they all show some similar
> patterns of temperature change over the last several centuries. Most
> striking is the fact that each record reveals that the 20th century is the
> warmest of the entire record, and that warming was most dramatic after
> 1920."
> http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleolast.html
>
> I also urge anyone worried about this study and what its conclusion means
> for the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming to remember this: the study
> of the past can be very informative, but it is not explanatory of the
> present or predictive of the future.
>
> The scientific basis (
> http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm ) for the dangers we
> face and their cause is about much more than a few tree-rings and the
> temperature during the Medieval Warm Period.
Yeah, its about collective hysteria.
Jim
Eric Swanson
jimm...@sbcglobal.net says...
But, it's not time for the glaciers to return, according to those who have
considered the question. If we burn up all the fossil fuel, then the CO2
is removed over a few thousand years, then the glaciers kick in as projected,
there's no benefit. Besides, AGW might cause colder conditions around the
North Atlantic if the THC shuts down.
H2-PV NOW
Jim McGinn wrote:
> I went to google and seached: Global Warming Statistician
>
> http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5309
>
> Here are some quotes:
>
hell, who pop up frequently to try to create some illusionary
"controversy about the science", who are paid for by FELONY FRAUD
ORGANIZED CRIME GANGS run by R.I.C.O. crimelords in the energy
business.
Not only is CLIMATE SCIENCE smarter than the trolls, but CRIMINAL
INVESTIGATION SCIENCE is advanced enough to track and monitor organized
crime operating hundreds of front websites and ORGANIZED CRIME SEPTIC
TANKS.
IN SCIENCE there is ONE and only ONE penalty for science hoaxing --
ostracism. They are thrown out for life, outcasts whom NOBODY will
accociate with for life. There is no mercy, no commuting the sentence,
no repeals.
AT LEAST THREE "whitecoats" employed by CATO are known to have
committed mutiple felony science hoaxes. BY siding with them, giving
rich salaries, a soapbox for public propagation, CATO is likewise
expelled from the community of humanity for life without appeal,
without mercy, without possiblity of parole. It's over and done.
When you throw out the KNOWN FELONY FRAUDS, and all who associate with
them continuing past the exposure of their CRIMES, there is nobody
credible left in science who disputes the evidence of Global Warming
caused by Human Produced Greenhouse Gases. There are many independent
trails of evidence which buttress and support the consensus and nothing
whatsoever as a plausable alternative hypothesis which answers all the
evidence.
You didn't come here to learn what you obviously don't know about the
evidence about Global Warming. You came here with a link leading to an
ORGANIZED CRIME WEBSITE, after getting a hot enema of oilman gushing
stiff pipeline of propaganda up the bum. Do you know Jeff Gannon
personally? Did he ever "have his way with you"? You seem such a
Bareback Mountin' kind of a useful idiot cowboy, I just had to ask.
The Story of Jeff Gannon, White House Credentialed Press Corps:
http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/02/man-called-jeff.html
Notice YOU MUST BE OVER 21 and REPUBLICAN to view this dirty picture of
a Whitehouse "Excort" in the nude.
XXX over 21! http://americablog.blogspot.com/bdnud.jpg
UNDERNEWS: ALL JEFF GANNON ALL THE TIME
One White House reporter expressed revulsion over the fact that it was
[Ari] ... AND GEORGE ARCHIBALD WASHINGTON TIMES, 1989: A
homosexual prostitution ring ...
http://prorev.com/2005/02/all-jeff-gannon-all-time.htm
The Washington Note: Comment on The White House's "Don't Ask, Don ...
Does anything happen in this White House without Rove's approval? ...
Let's see, a male prostitute gained access to the WH under an assumed
name. ...
www.thewashingtonnote.com/mt/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=319
The Washington Note Archives
If he was already a prostitute, why not be one in the White House
... hope that a tawdry tale involving homosexual prostitution will
shock the
nation into ...
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/000319.html
http://tinyurl.com/dwh6a
Results about 47,900 for Whitehouse homosexual prostitutes "Washington
Times".
The Child Prostitution Sex Ring Involving the Bush Whitehouse
HOMOSEXUAL CHILD PROSTITUTION RING INVOLVING GEORGE BUSH SR. ...
We now turn to some news stories that appeared in the Washington Times
more
than a decade ...
www.voxfux.com/features/bush_child_sex_coverup/article_archive.htm -
The Child Prostitution Ring that Reached Bush Whitehouse
BUSH CHILD PROSTITUTION COVER-UP - - - VOXFUX. ... The Washington
Times, Pg. A3 July 26, 1989 Headline: Secret Service furloughs
third White
House guard ...
http://www.voxfux.com/features/bush_child_sex_coverup/franklin.htm
The Franklin Coverup Scandal The Child sex ring that reached Bush ...
Boy prostitutes 15 years old (and younger) were taking midnight tours
of the ... Photographer for White House child sex ring arrested after
Thompson suicide ...
http://www.thelawparty.com/FranklinCoverup/franklin.htm
Homosexual Prostitution Inquiry Ensnares VIPs With Reagan, Bush Sr.
1989 Washington Times: Homosexual Prostitution Inquiry Ensnares VIPs
With Reagan, ... The byline reads, Call Boys Took Midnight Tour Of The
White House.
...
http://www.freepressinternational.com/franklin_121304_decamp_9h182g20...
Whiskey Bar: Pieces of the Puzzle
... credit card clients of a homosexual prostitution ring now under
investigation ... The focus on private White House tours came after
he Washington Times ...
http://billmon.org/archives/001692.html - 15k - Cached - Similar pages
:: Libertythink :: Encouraging Cognitive Liberty in an Age of ...
1989: Bush matriarch says White House manwhores no big deal ... That
investigation centered on a homosexual call-boy service that operated
out of a house on ...
http://www.libertythink.com/2005/02/1989-bush-matriarch-says-white-ho...
''Call Boys Took Midnight Tour of White House."
he Times reported, ``A homosexual prostitution ring is under ... The
Washington Times reported in an article titled ``White House Mute on
Call Boy
Scandal ...
http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/03-09-05/discussion.cgi.82.html
H2-PV NOW
Jim McGinn wrote:
> Thousands of scientists? Where are these thousands of scientists. They
> exist only in your imagination.
What's true is under the Information Superhighway lives the trolls from
Jim McGinn
"Eric Swanson" <swa...@NoScrewingAround.net> wrote
>>>>The global warming hysteria is based on a statistics based argument.
>>>>Much
>>>>to the chagrin of the tree huggers it turns out this argument is flawed.
>>>>
>>>>The best evidence indicates GW is very moderate. And it may prove to be
>>>>beneficial.
>>>
>>> A "modest" global cooling produced the Ice Ages, right?
>>> Why would you think a similarly modest warming to be OK?
>>
>>I think you answered your own question: CO2 insulates us from glaciation.
>
> But, it's not time for the glaciers to return,
Meteor impacts and volcanoes are thought to cause catastrophic cooling.
They are largely unpredictable.
according to those who have
> considered the question. If we burn up all the fossil fuel, then the CO2
> is removed over a few thousand years, then the glaciers kick in as
> projected,
> there's no benefit. Besides, AGW might cause colder conditions around the
> North Atlantic if the THC shuts down.
speculation.
H2-PV NOW
Jim McGinn wrote:
> "Eric Swanson" <swa...@NoScrewingAround.net> wrote
> > A "modest" global cooling produced the Ice Ages, right?
> > Why would you think a similarly modest warming to be OK?
>
> I think you answered your own question: CO2 insulates us from glaciation.
What's true is under the Information Superhighway lives the trolls from
H2-PV NOW
Jim McGinn wrote:
> I think the arguments of the statisticians completely invalidate Mann's
> argument. You should address these arguments directly. Good luck.
What's true is under the Information Superhighway lives the trolls from
Jim McGinn
H2-PV NOW
Jim McGinn wrote:
> I have one word of advice for you: de-caf.
I have one word for you, bumboy: PRISON.
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".
Eric Swanson
jimm...@sbcglobal.net says...
>
>
>"Eric Swanson" <swa...@NoScrewingAround.net> wrote
>
>>>>>The global warming hysteria is based on a statistics based argument.
>>>>>Much
>>>>>to the chagrin of the tree huggers it turns out this argument is flawed.
>>>>>
>>>>>The best evidence indicates GW is very moderate. And it may prove to be
>>>>>beneficial.
>>>>
>>>> A "modest" global cooling produced the Ice Ages, right?
>>>> Why would you think a similarly modest warming to be OK?
>>>
>>>I think you answered your own question: CO2 insulates us from glaciation.
>>
>> But, it's not time for the glaciers to return,
>
>Meteor impacts and volcanoes are thought to cause catastrophic cooling.
>They are largely unpredictable.
Both are also rare, compared to the recurrent Ice Ages, IMHO.
>according to those who have
>> considered the question. If we burn up all the fossil fuel, then the CO2
>> is removed over a few thousand years, then the glaciers kick in as
>> projected,
>> there's no benefit. Besides, AGW might cause colder conditions around the
>> North Atlantic if the THC shuts down.
>
>speculation.
No, shutdown of the THC has happened before and a weakening of the THC appears
to be underway, as seen in several data sets.
Jim McGinn
"Eric Swanson" <swa...@NoScrewingAround.net> wrote
> No, shutdown of the THC has happened before
What does that tell you?
Jim
Eric Swanson
jimm...@sbcglobal.net says...
>
>
>"Eric Swanson" <swa...@NoScrewingAround.net> wrote
>
>> No, shutdown of the THC has happened before
>
>What does that tell you?
No, what does that tell you? Could it be that it happened before, but under
circumstances which do not apply today, but which may be happening anyway due
to a different combinations of conditions?
Lloyd Parker
"Jim McGinn" <jimm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lpa...@emory.edu> wrote
>
>>>Thousands of scientists? Where are these thousands of scientists. They
>>>exist only in your imagination.
>>
>> Scientific journals. IPCC. NASA. EPA. NOAA. NAS. Scientific agencies
>> of
>> most every western nation.
>
>500 years ago the vast majority of scientist believed that the sun and all
>of the heavens circled the earth, the center of the universe.
And since people believed evil spirits caused disease, I assume you don't
believe anything medicine tells you either.
>If you had
>asked them how they know this they could have produced mountains of
>observational data that, they believed, supported or even proved this
>conjecture.
>
>> How many scientists work at Cato?
>
>So you're suggesting that we should count scientists to determine the truth
>of this issue. That doesn't work for me. I'll stick with analysis of the
>evidence.
Which you're unqualified to do.
Jim McGinn
"Lloyd Parker" <lpa...@emory.edu> wrote
>>So you're suggesting that we should count scientists to determine the
>>truth
>>of this issue. That doesn't work for me. I'll stick with analysis of the
>>evidence.
>
> Which you're unqualified to do.
Any college graduate that has had a class in statistics is qualified. You
GW whackos have nothing but emotion. There is no science here.
Jim McGinn
"Eric Swanson" <swa...@NoScrewingAround.net> wrote
>>> No, shutdown of the THC has happened before
>>
>>What does that tell you?
>
> No, what does that tell you? Could it be that it happened before, but
> under
> circumstances which do not apply today, but which may be happening anyway
> due
> to a different combinations of conditions?
If it happens let me know. In the meantime don't get your panties in a wad.
Lloyd Parker
Yet you throw in loonies like Singer with no dicussion of their limitations.
>>
>> Here is a nice superimposition of numerous global, hemispheric and
>> regional reconstructions for the last 2000 years
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
>> and the last 12000 years
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png
>> together with an averages. References are all presented at the bottom of
>> the pages. Regional variations are of course greater than global, so don't
>> be surprised by how wavy some of the lines in there are. Does the 20th
>> century stand out?
>
>Yes, it's the only century for which we have reasonably accurate data.
>Previous centuries are constructed from tree ring analysis and are,
>understandably, unreliable.
>
1. False.
2. We have other data, such as ice cores.
>>
>> If we discard MBH89, where does that leave us? With the dozens of other
>> proxy reconstructions, some by the same team or involving members, some by
>> completely different people, some using tree rings, some using corals,
>> some using stalagtites, some using borehole measurements, all of which
>> support the general conclusions. And it is that general conclusion which
>> is important, not whether or not one Bristlecone pine was or was not
>> included correctly in a single 8 year old study.
>
>Yes, unfortunately for you the general conclusion is that there is no basis
>for catastrophic GW.
Liar.
>You are seeing the kings new clothes.
>
>>
>> The general conclusion is:
>>
>> "Although each of the temperature reconstructions are different (due to
>> differing calibration methods and data used), they all show some similar
>> patterns of temperature change over the last several centuries. Most
>> striking is the fact that each record reveals that the 20th century is the
>> warmest of the entire record, and that warming was most dramatic after
>> 1920."
>> http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleolast.html
>>
>> I also urge anyone worried about this study and what its conclusion means
>> for the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming to remember this: the study
>> of the past can be very informative, but it is not explanatory of the
>> present or predictive of the future.
>>
>> The scientific basis (
>> http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm ) for the dangers we
>> face and their cause is about much more than a few tree-rings and the
>> temperature during the Medieval Warm Period.
>
>Yeah, its about collective hysteria.
>
>Jim
>
>
And you're about collective diarrhea of the mouth.
Lloyd Parker
"Jim McGinn" <jimm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>"Coby Beck" <cb...@mercury.bc.ca> wrote
>
>>> So you're suggesting that we should count scientists to determine the
>>> truth of this issue. That doesn't work for me. I'll stick with analysis
>>> of the evidence.
>>
>> Sure you will. So where is your analysis of the proxy data the Mann et al
>> used? What's that? You just read some opinions on "the internets"?
>
>I think the arguments of the statisticians completely invalidate Mann's
>argument.
Because you're an idiot.
>You should address these arguments directly. Good luck.
>
>Without Mann's argument there is no basis for catastrophic warming.
>
>
(1) the data has been shown in numerous studies, and (2) that's a false
statement on its face.
Jim McGinn
"Lloyd Parker" <lpa...@emory.edu> wrote
>>The problem with the climatologists, as well as the GW whackos, is that
>>they
>>are quite happy to discuss the result of their model and they are
>>unwilling
>>to discuss the very real limitations of statistics and computer modelling.
>>
>
> Yet you throw in loonies like Singer with no dicussion of their
> limitations.
Be my guest.
>>Yes, it's the only century for which we have reasonably accurate data.
>>Previous centuries are constructed from tree ring analysis and are,
>>understandably, unreliable.
>>
>
> 1. False.
> 2. We have other data, such as ice cores.
Ice cores provide info on atmospheric composition, not on temperature, you
mental retard.
Jim
Jim McGinn
"Lloyd Parker" <lpa...@emory.edu> wrote in message
news:e0jvfm$d5i$2...@leto.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <QR1Xf.64826$dW3....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>,
> "Jim McGinn" <jimm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>"Coby Beck" <cb...@mercury.bc.ca> wrote
>>
>>>> So you're suggesting that we should count scientists to determine the
>>>> truth of this issue. That doesn't work for me. I'll stick with
>>>> analysis
>>>> of the evidence.
>>>
>>> Sure you will. So where is your analysis of the proxy data the Mann et
>>> al
>>> used? What's that? You just read some opinions on "the internets"?
>>
>>I think the arguments of the statisticians completely invalidate Mann's
>>argument.
>
> Because you're an idiot.
Science is complicated. I suggest you leave it to smart people.
>
>
>>You should address these arguments directly. Good luck.
>>
>>Without Mann's argument there is no basis for catastrophic warming.
>>
>>
> (1) the data has been shown in numerous studies
References?
, and (2) that's a false
> statement on its face.
I'm supposedly going to take a whacko's word for it?
Eric Swanson
jimm...@sbcglobal.net says...
Smile, your ignorance is showing!
-----------
Nature 438, 655-657 (1 December 2005) | doi:10.1038/nature04385
Slowing of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation at 25 N
H. L. Bryden, H. R. Longworth and S. A. Cunningham
-------------------
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 32, L21606, doi:10.1029/2005GL023861, 2005
Arctic Ocean change heralds North Atlantic freshening
M. Karcher, R. Gerdes, F. Kauker, C. K”berle, I. Yashayaev
Coby Beck
>
> "Coby Beck" <cb...@mercury.bc.ca> wrote
>
>>>> Sure you will. So where is your analysis of the proxy data the Mann et
>>>> al used? What's that? You just read some opinions on "the internets"?
>>>
>>> I think the arguments of the statisticians completely invalidate Mann's
>>> argument. You should address these arguments directly. Good luck.
>>
>> Please, present them!
>
> I have already.
Excellent! Perfect timing. And perfect placement I might add, inserting
this before I made it more explicit what I want from you. (Unfortunately
you left that bit in the quoted text below, loss a few bonus points
there...) Plus, no one is actually reading your posts carefully any more, so
this is almost plausible, and certainly not worth the effort from for any
casual onlooker.
I however, insist that you have not presented any specific problems with the
Hockey Stick. A simple link to a previous posting or a cutnpaste will
quickly put me in my place. I am interested in your criticisms, in your own
words, of the Mann et al study behind the infamous hockey stick. Which
datasets do you think were not well correlated with 20th century
temperatures? Which regions during which years do you feel are under
represented? Please provide a link and description so I can go check it out
myself. Also, do tell, what were the statistical errors MBH made (don't
forget, in your own words!)
>> No climate audit cutnpaste, I'd like your personal view, with links to
>> the offending datasets.
>>
>>> Without Mann's argument there is no basis for catastrophic warming.
>>
>> Hardly. I think the most critical point to remember, if you are
>> researching this in the context of determining the validity of AGW
>> theory, is that this row is about a single study that was published 8
>> years ago. This is starting to be ancient history. If you feel it is
>> tainted, then simply discard it.
>
> I have discarded it. And it turns out there is nothing else.
This misconception is easily rebuked. Oh look! I already did it in the
very posting you are replying to!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleolast.html
>>
>> The fact is there are dozens of other reconstructions. These other
>> reconstructions do tend to show some more variability than MBH98, ie the
>> handle of the hockey stick is not as straight, but they *all* support the
>> general conclusions that the IPCC TAR came to in 2001: the late 20th
>> century warming is anamolous in the last one or two thousand years and
>> the 1990's are very likely warmer than any other time in the last one or
>> two thousand years.
>
> The problem with the climatologists, as well as the GW whackos, is that
> they
Lets have a quick boo at who it is you are dismissing as GW whackos, so we
can better decide if myabe you are an Anti-GW whacko:
NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm
National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
http://books.nap.edu/collections/global_warming/index.html
State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
http://www.socc.ca/permafrost/permafrost_future_e.cfm
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OAR/globalwarming.nsf/content/index.html
The Royal Society of the UK (RS)
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=3135
American Geophysical Union (AGU)
http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/climatechangeresearch_2003.html
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
http://eo.ucar.edu/basics/cc_1.html
American Meteorological Society (AMS)
http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/jointacademies.html
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)
http://www.cmos.ca/climatechangepole.html
Every major scientific institute dealing with climate, ocean, and/or
atmosphere agrees that the climate is warming rapidly and the primary cause
is human CO2 emissions.
On top of that list, see also this joint statement that specifically and
unequivocally endorses the work and conclusions of the IPCC Third Assessment
report, issued by
- Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
- Royal Society of Canada
- Chinese Academy of Sciences
- Academié des Sciences (France)
- Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
- Indian National Science Academy
- Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
- Science Council of Japan
- Russian Academy of Sciences
- Royal Society (United Kingdom)
- National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf
and this one that includes the above signers plus:
- Australian Academy of Sciences
- Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
- Caribbean Academy of Sciences
- Indonesian Academy of Sciences
- Royal Irish Academy
- Academy of Sciences Malaysia
- Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
- Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
http://www.royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id=13619
So, we must balance that list against the impressive works of "Jim McGinn",
fake person on Usenet. Tough call.
> are quite happy to discuss the result of their model and they are
> unwilling to discuss the very real limitations of statistics and computer
> modelling.
References?
>> Here is a nice superimposition of numerous global, hemispheric and
>> regional reconstructions for the last 2000 years
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
>> and the last 12000 years
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png
>> together with an averages. References are all presented at the bottom of
>> the pages. Regional variations are of course greater than global, so
>> don't be surprised by how wavy some of the lines in there are. Does the
>> 20th century stand out?
>
> Yes, it's the only century for which we have reasonably accurate data.
> Previous centuries are constructed from tree ring analysis and are,
> understandably, unreliable.
Well, we do that best we can. I suppose you figure that faced with
imperfect knowledge we should just do what feels good? Don't assess the
evidence that we can get?
>> If we discard MBH89, where does that leave us? With the dozens of other
>> proxy reconstructions, some by the same team or involving members, some
>> by completely different people, some using tree rings, some using corals,
>> some using stalagtites, some using borehole measurements, all of which
>> support the general conclusions. And it is that general conclusion which
>> is important, not whether or not one Bristlecone pine was or was not
>> included correctly in a single 8 year old study.
>
> Yes, unfortunately for you the general conclusion is that there is no
> basis for catastrophic GW.
Do you have a reference for this? I provided quite a bit for the opposite
view, surely we must look at all the evidence, no?
>> The general conclusion is:
See? Like this:
>> "Although each of the temperature reconstructions are different (due to
>> differing calibration methods and data used), they all show some similar
>> patterns of temperature change over the last several centuries. Most
>> striking is the fact that each record reveals that the 20th century is
>> the warmest of the entire record, and that warming was most dramatic
>> after 1920."
>> http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleolast.html
>>
>> I also urge anyone worried about this study and what its conclusion means
>> for the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming to remember this: the
>> study of the past can be very informative, but it is not explanatory of
>> the present or predictive of the future.
>>
>> The scientific basis (
>> http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm ) for the dangers we
>> face and their cause is about much more than a few tree-rings and the
>> temperature during the Medieval Warm Period.
>
> Yeah, its about collective hysteria.
That's quite the scientific rebuttal there Jim! Hope you didn't spend too
much time researching it, LOL!
Coby Beck
>
> Meteor impacts and volcanoes are thought to cause catastrophic cooling.
> They are largely unpredictable.
How do you know this? Surely it is not by examining proxies, you just
dismissed proxy evidence as "unreliable".
Coby Beck
> Ice cores provide info on atmospheric composition, not on temperature, you
> mental retard.
Right, and ocean sediment cores only tell us about mud.
Jim McGinn
"Coby Beck" <cb...@mercury.bc.ca> wrote
> no one is actually reading your posts carefully any more,
You know this how?
> I however, insist that you have not presented any specific problems with
> the Hockey Stick. A simple link to a previous posting or a cutnpaste will
> quickly put me in my place. I am interested in your criticisms, in your
> own words, of the Mann et al study behind the infamous hockey stick.
> Which datasets do you think were not well correlated with 20th century
> temperatures? Which regions during which years do you feel are under
> represented? Please provide a link and description so I can go check it
> out myself. Also, do tell, what were the statistical errors MBH made
> (don't forget, in your own words!)
There's a computational concept referred to as the butterfly effect. Very
small errors in data add up to very large difference in model output. For
example, if the confidence level of two data point is plus or minus .05% for
each of them and they are multiplied then the result has a confidence of
plus or minue 1%. And this is just one operation. Models require,
literally, thousands of operations to produce an output. So, unless the
data is very very clean the confidence of these model is extremely low. In
fact it's so low that its ridiculous to even bother to measure it. And this
all assumes that assumptions that underlye the model are accurate.
Unfortunately this means that the model can't be relied upon.
>
>>> No climate audit cutnpaste, I'd like your personal view, with links to
>>> the offending datasets.
>>>
>>>> Without Mann's argument there is no basis for catastrophic warming.
>>>
>>> Hardly. I think the most critical point to remember, if you are
>>> researching this in the context of determining the validity of AGW
>>> theory, is that this row is about a single study that was published 8
>>> years ago. This is starting to be ancient history. If you feel it is
>>> tainted, then simply discard it.
>>
>> I have discarded it. And it turns out there is nothing else.
>
> This misconception is easily rebuked. Oh look! I already did it in the
> very posting you are replying to!
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png
> http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleolast.html
More hockey stick nonsense.
Arguments of authority carry no weight with me.
>
> Every major scientific institute dealing with climate, ocean, and/or
> atmosphere agrees that the climate is warming rapidly and the primary
> cause is human CO2 emissions.
This proves only that humans are sheep.
So, you're effectively admitting that your own belief in GW is based on
authority, not rationality. I see this as a scientific issue and not as an
ideological issue.
>
>> are quite happy to discuss the result of their model and they are
>> unwilling to discuss the very real limitations of statistics and computer
>> modelling.
>
> References?
>
>>> Here is a nice superimposition of numerous global, hemispheric and
>>> regional reconstructions for the last 2000 years
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
>>> and the last 12000 years
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png
>>> together with an averages. References are all presented at the bottom of
>>> the pages. Regional variations are of course greater than global, so
>>> don't be surprised by how wavy some of the lines in there are. Does the
>>> 20th century stand out?
>>
>> Yes, it's the only century for which we have reasonably accurate data.
>> Previous centuries are constructed from tree ring analysis and are,
>> understandably, unreliable.
>
> Well, we do that best we can. I suppose you figure that faced with
> imperfect knowledge we should just do what feels good? Don't assess the
> evidence that we can get?
The very real limits associated with any and all computer models need to be
explicit, not hidden.
>
>>> If we discard MBH89, where does that leave us? With the dozens of other
>>> proxy reconstructions, some by the same team or involving members, some
>>> by completely different people, some using tree rings, some using
>>> corals, some using stalagtites, some using borehole measurements, all of
>>> which support the general conclusions. And it is that general conclusion
>>> which is important, not whether or not one Bristlecone pine was or was
>>> not included correctly in a single 8 year old study.
>>
>> Yes, unfortunately for you the general conclusion is that there is no
>> basis for catastrophic GW.
>
> Do you have a reference for this? I provided quite a bit for the opposite
> view, surely we must look at all the evidence, no?
It's not necessary or possible to invalidate a premise that has yet to be
established. IOW, the burden of proof is on the GW alarmist.
>
>>> The general conclusion is:
>
> See? Like this:
>
>>> "Although each of the temperature reconstructions are different (due to
>>> differing calibration methods and data used), they all show some similar
>>> patterns of temperature change over the last several centuries. Most
>>> striking is the fact that each record reveals that the 20th century is
>>> the warmest of the entire record, and that warming was most dramatic
>>> after 1920."
>>> http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleolast.html
Hardly surprising since the all use the same data.
>>>
>>> I also urge anyone worried about this study and what its conclusion
>>> means for the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming to remember this:
>>> the study of the past can be very informative, but it is not explanatory
>>> of the present or predictive of the future.
>>>
>>> The scientific basis (
>>> http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm ) for the dangers we
>>> face and their cause is about much more than a few tree-rings and the
>>> temperature during the Medieval Warm Period.
>>
>> Yeah, its about collective hysteria.
>
> That's quite the scientific rebuttal there Jim! Hope you didn't spend too
> much time researching it, LOL!
Admit it Coby, without the hockey stick you guys don't have a puck to stand
on. There is no smoking gun for GW. Just a lot of speculation based on
speclation based on speculation . . . ad infinitum.
KenStahl
> there is no rotation or vibration either.
Is that why you prefer corncobs up your ass, retard?
H2-PV NOW
Jim McGinn wrote:
> If it happens let me know. In the meantime don't get your panties in a wad.
Your position is well understood. Global Warming is proved by six
independent trails of evidence. Each one by itself proves Global
Warming is real, it is here now, it is damaging.
Arguments about computer models is only to bamboozle the gullible.
Corals are incapable of lying. When the sea waters reach their heat
death temperature then they die. Coral colonies dated to be over 800
years old have been dying from heat stress this past year. No
temperatures in over 800 years ever reached their heat death
temperatures before, or they would have already gone extinct back then.
No models necessary. No cloud cover ambiguity needed. The corals
worldwide have announced global warming in terms which cannot be
denied.
Jim McGinn keeps arguing from CATO, from SEPP, from FRED SINGER, all
known ORGANIZED CRIME OPERATIONS SERVING ENERGY FOSSIL FUEL CLIENTS.
The goal is to create illusion that there is an "ongoing controversy",
but the only controversy comes from ORGANIZED CRIME sites and known
science hoaxers.
Arguing the details with McGinn only creates an illusion that some
scientific debate continues, which is the goal of ORGANIZED CRIME.
There are SIX TRAILS of evidence, and any doubt theory on Global
Warming must provide alternative explanations for all six
SIMULTANEOUSLY.
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.
Scott Nudds
"KenStahl" <kens...@fastmail.us> wrote
> Is that why you prefer corncobs up your ass, retard?
This is the forth reference I seen from you about this kind of use for
corn. Did you abuse yourself with corncobs as a child? Is this the reason
for your fixation?
H2-PV NOW
Jim McGinn wrote:
> Any college graduate that has had a class in statistics is qualified. You
> GW whackos have nothing but emotion. There is no science here.
You are given LEGAL NOTICE that you are aiding and abetting an