Definitive Link of CO2 Emissions to Global Warming Found
Dave
http://global-warming.accuweather.com/2009/06/definitive_link_of_co2_emissio.html
Best,
David Christainsen -Meteorologist
qqq_qqq
Wow David, your attitude really changed.
Q
--
Ultimately to survive we should blow up our Moon, the particles
in orbit that remain help to combat global warming.
Claudius Denk
> Accuweatherhttp://global-warming.accuweather.com/2009/06/definitive_link_of_co2_...
>
> Best,
> David Christainsen -Meteorologist
B.S. This was nothing but a press release: "These findings will be
published in the next edition of Nature, to be released on June 11,
2009."
This is a typical tactic of the AGW Industrial Complex. They give us
a press release about a paper that hasn't been published yet and
therefore can't be disputed. By the time the paper is available the
public has lost interest.
More propaganda. Nothing ever changes from these swindlers.
BDR529
The Swindle is dead, don't worry, see how Martin Durkin is exposed:
Martin Durkin, the liar who produced the Swindle, was interviewed by and
exposed by an Australian journalist, it is followed by an interesting
debate where you see how AGW denialism is clearly exposed:
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIjGynF4qkE
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goDsc9IaSQ8
Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoyqFNCoDRY
Part 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5gUd6y3zKU
Part 5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIsX5I6mVWo
Part 6: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RY_qEyHbj0
Part 7: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRnyHIheR0I
Part 8: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I24QOvMUUyw
In parts 1 and 2 you can see how Martin Durkin gets dragged into the
swamp. Part 3 to 8 are an interesting panel discussion where other AGW
deniers are confronted with the facts. In fact, Bob Carter and others
are exposed.
Many minutes of amusement, that's what it is. I call the "Global Warming
Swindle Debate" a victory for Australian journalism. Wish there was more
of this sort of science journalism around the world.
--
Our Lady of Blessed Acceleration, don't fail me now!
john fernbach
> Accuweatherhttp://global-warming.accuweather.com/2009/06/definitive_link_of_co2_...
>
> Best,
> David Christainsen -Meteorologist
Okay. I like the conclusions; I'm not sure just how they got there,
though.
RWood
Stop boring us, moron. You lost, sod off.
Ouroboros Rex
What's today's date, again? lol
chemist
Where is the link to the paper
chemist
If CO2 rises as the temperature rises then it could mean
that the CO2 is driven by the temperature.
Last Post
•• Those who would call others, "moron"
need only look in a mirror to see a real one.
•• Indeed Wood Block Head, you and your
AGW alarmist idiot buddies are the losers.
Put a down payment on the fur coat you
might need next winter
- -
In real science the burden of proof is always on
the proposer, never on the sceptics. So far
neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
iota of valid data for global warming nor have
they provided data that climate change is being
effected by commerce and industry, and not by
natural phenomena.
Yowie
news:4a315e21$0$201$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl
> The Swindle is dead, don't worry, see how Martin Durkin is exposed:
>
> Martin Durkin, the liar who produced the Swindle, was interviewed by
> and exposed by an Australian journalist, it is followed by an
> interesting debate where you see how AGW denialism is clearly exposed:
>
> Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIjGynF4qkE
> Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goDsc9IaSQ8
> Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoyqFNCoDRY
> Part 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5gUd6y3zKU
> Part 5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIsX5I6mVWo
> Part 6: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RY_qEyHbj0
> Part 7: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRnyHIheR0I
> Part 8: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I24QOvMUUyw
>
> In parts 1 and 2 you can see how Martin Durkin gets dragged into the
> swamp. Part 3 to 8 are an interesting panel discussion where other AGW
> deniers are confronted with the facts. In fact, Bob Carter and others
> are exposed.
>
> Many minutes of amusement, that's what it is. I call the "Global
> Warming Swindle Debate" a victory for Australian journalism. Wish
> there was more of this sort of science journalism around the world.
The show above was broadcast on the ABC roughly a year ago. On the first
night, the "The Great Global Warming Swindle" was broadcast, the second
night the above debate was broadcast in answer to the it. Both were
advertised together as aprt of a two part 'discussion' and before "The Great
Global Warming Swindle" was broadcast there was a quick introduction and an
explanation that it would be discussed by a panel of experts in front of a
particpating audience the next night. Part of the stated policy of the ABC
to have "fair and balanced journalism" hence both sides of the discussion
had to be broadcast as a package.
Both the ABC (Australian National Broadcaster) http://www.abc.net.au and to
a lesser extent SBS (Special Broadcasting Services) http://www.sbs.com.au/
which are funded out of taxpayers money (although SBS does have some
commercial sponsors as well) usually have *excellent* journalism. The debate
as shown on YouTube above is a common format that the ABC uses to discuss
controversial issues (they've done many other issues besides global
warming). If you are interested in their science journalism, look here:
http://www.abc.net.au/science/
You'll be able to download some video and podcast some of the radio
broadcasts. Robyn Williams is the science journalist that comes to mind, but
there are others. Dr Karl, for example, has done wonders in making science
more popular amongst Australia's youth.
Yowie
(followups set to science NGs only)
--
If you're paddling upstream in a canoe and a wheel falls off, how many
pancakes can you fit in a doghouse? None, icecream doesn't have bones.
Trevor Wilson
"chemist" <tom-b...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:75328b1f-ad44-4df0...@d25g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
**Duh. The link has been well established by historical records. Higher
temperatures = higher CO2 levels = higher temperatures = higher CO2 levels =
......................
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Last Post
wrote:
> "chemist" <tom-bol...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>
> news:75328b1f-ad44-4df0...@d25g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 11, 8:48 pm, john fernbach <fernbach1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 11, 2:25 pm, Dave <pchristain...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Accuweatherhttp://global-warming.accuweather.com/2009/06/definitive_link_of_co2_...
>
> > > Best,
> > > David Christainsen -Meteorologist
>
> > Okay. I like the conclusions; I'm not sure just how they got there,
> > though.
>
> If CO2 rises as the temperature rises then it could mean
> that the CO2 is driven by the temperature.
>
> **Duh. The link has been well established by historical records. Higher
> temperatures = higher CO2 levels = higher temperatures = higher CO2 levels =
•• NONSENSE!!! as usual from T Wilson.
<<kêllÿ>>
> David Christainsen -Meteorologist
You are definitely not a meteorologist. However, you are most
definitely a liar and deceiver.
Stop wasting everyone's time with your ridiculous posts on global
warming and Thiering - no one who knows your game is interested - do
what you promised you would do and answer Yowie's remaining 8
questions.
john fernbach
<spamtrap...@AT.frankenexpress.de> wrote:
> Last Post <last_p...@primus.ca> wrote:
> > On Jun 11, 7:09 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au>
> > wrote:
> > > "chemist" <tom-bol...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:75328b1f-ad44-4df0...@d25g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
> > > On Jun 11, 8:48 pm, john fernbach <fernbach1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 11, 2:25 pm, Dave <pchristain...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Accuweatherhttp://global-warming.accuweather.com/2009/06/definitive_link_of_co2_...
>
> > > > > Best,
> > > > > David Christainsen -Meteorologist
>
> > > > Okay. I like the conclusions; I'm not sure just how they got there,
> > > > though.
>
> > > If CO2 rises as the temperature rises then it could mean
> > > that the CO2 is driven by the temperature.
>
> > > **Duh. The link has been well established by historical records. Higher
> > > temperatures = higher CO2 levels = higher temperatures = higher CO2 levels =
>
> > •• NONSENSE!!! as usual from T Wilson.
>
>
> None of those AGW turds has managed to show me CO2 values since 1700, when the
> warming started at the end of Maunder Minimum.
Turds. Wow. You glib & silver-tongued rhetorician, you.
Turds. Man, oh man.
> They have nothing but dickey ice cores, that show distorted values.
>
> How many people had SUVs at those times to drive around and increase CO2?
=========================================
Peter Muehlbauer wrote:
This period is also invalid for their "industrial revolution"
argument. There
were no factories, that "polluted" the atmosphere at that time.
=============================================================
Fernbach replies:
Peter - This statement is factually wrong, isn't it? Or at least
highly misleading?
At least in England, the use of "sea coal" mined around Newcastle on
Tyne dates from the 1300s, if not before.
Admittedly, the use of coal in manufacturing was quite limited until
the early 1800s, when the cotton mills started to be powered by steam
engines. But the economic histories of England that I've read
indicate that coal was increasingly used to heat the houses and public
buildings of London well before 1700, and there were some British
industries -- glassmaking and beer brewing, for example -- that were
coal-powered even during the Maunder Minimum aka "Little Ice Age."
==============
Reference: From "Northeast England History Pages" online:
http://www.northeastengland.talktalk.net/page64.htm#FIRST
A brief quote:
WORLD'S FIRST RAILWAYS
Seventeenth Century colliery railways called "Newcastle Roads" enabled
mines to be opened further away from the Tyne and Wear. These were the
world?s first railways and were operated by horse drawn wagons called
chaldrons filled with coal.
SNIP
EARLY ENGINES
From 1580 deeper mines around Tyneside used horse-driven engines or
gin-gans to pump out water.
Standing Fire Engines of the type developed by Newcommen in 1712
appeared in the region around 1715 at Byker, Washington Fell and
Oxclose Collieries. Scotsman James Watt made improvements to this kind
of engine in 1769. In 1753 Michael Menzies of Chartershaugh Colliery
on Wearside invented a machine for raising coal called the Menzie.
MINE HAZARDS AND SAFETY
As mines got deeper, safety became a problem. In 1662 a petition about
mine safety was signed by 2,000 pitmen and handed to Parliament, as
colliery gas was claiming victims.
Later mine deaths included 69 at Fatfield (1708), 80 at Bensham
(1743), 39 at Fatfield (1767), 23 at Chartershaugh (1773), and 30 at
Picktree in 1794. Pit ponies used underground from 1750 were also
victims. Roof safety was another problem and pillars supporting roofs
were first recorded in the region at Charterhaugh Colliery in 1738.
COAL OWNERS
In 1547 Newcastle?s population was 10,000 and powerful merchants
called The Hostmen controlled the mines and coal export.
By 1615, 200 ships carried coal to London and another 200 supplied
other parts of the country. Newcastle had a virtual monopoly on e
xporting coal with considerable control over rival ports like
Sunderland.
SUNDERLAND COAL
Sunderland, described in 1559 as a little-used port, was a late
developer in exporting coal and was second to Newcastle.
By 1609 Sunderland exported 14,700 tons of coal a year and the
Newcastle merchants felt threatened enough to petition the king and
order a levy. By the mid 1600s, Sunderland was a major rival to
Newcastle.
North of the Tyne, Seaton Delaval was developed as a port by the
Delaval family from 1628 and nearby Blyth was a port of the 1600s
which developed further in 1722.
======================
2nd reference on British coal mining and coal use before 1700:
The History of the British Coal Industry: Volume 1: Before 1700:
Towards the Age of Coal: Before 1700 Vol 1 (Hardcover)
http://www.amazon.co.uk/History-British-Coal-Industry-Towards/dp/0198282826
Product Description
This is the eagerly awaited first volume of the definitive History of
the British Coal Industry. Well before 1700 Britain had become heavily
dependent upon coal for its fuel, and coalmining had taken its place
among the nation's staple industries. John Hatcher traces the
production and trade of coal from the intermittent small-scale
activity which prevailed in the Middle Ages to the rapid expansion and
rising importance which characterized the early modern era.
Thoroughly grounded in a formidable range of sources, the book
explores the economics and management of mining, the productivity and
profitability of colliery enterprise, and the progress of technology.
Dr Hatcher examines the owners and operators of collieries and the
sources of mining capital, as well as the colliers themselves, their
working conditions and earnings.
He argues that the spectacular growth of coal output in this period
was achieved more through evolutionary than revolutionary processes.
This is a scholarly, detailed, and comprehensive study, which will be
an essential source for all historians of the medieval and early
modern economy, and fascinating reading for anyone with an interest in
the British coal industry.
============================================================
Peter - You might look up the history of coal mining and coal use in
Germany, too. I can't seem to get much information on it tonight by
surfing the web, but at least one source I looked at indicated that
some German coal use was occurring in the 10th century AD, and that
there was a fair amount of German mining in the Middle Ages. But I
don't have details tonight.
Suffice it to say that SOME coal use was occurring in Europe even
before the onset of the Maunder Minimum and the Little Ice Age, which
suggests that "anthropogenic" CO2 emissions must have been slowly
rising from the early Middle Ages on. Admittedly fossil fuel
production didn't really take off in a major way until the 1800s.
> Their argument of linked temperature and CO2 in the last *150 years* is simply
> cherrypicking and coincidence.
>
> The last 10 years also prove their evidence wrong.
> No link.
> CO2 and temperatures diverged.
> Even Hansen's climate models exposed themselves as a hoax now.
> None of them was even partly close to reality.
>
> Their religious obedience permits them to have the balls to say "Ok, you are
> right."
>
> Their dogma of a link is busted.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Claudius Denk
boo-radley
Wrong again shithead!
Last Post
•• Poor, poor Boo-boo is offended by my very
realistic sig. He is losing his head.
•• In reviewing the ScienceDaily review of
"Carbon Emissions Linked To Global
Warming In Simple Linear Relationship"
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090610154453.htm
I noticed that Prof Damon Matthews
ASSumes that increased CO2 leads to
warming when it is actually a refrigerant,
thus he makes an ass of himself ~~ just
like poor Boo-boo.
•• Poor Boo-boo must realize that when he
calls someone wrong, he must be
prepared to defend himself ~~ something
of which he is not capable.
- -
The evidence from Mars destroys the notion that
humans are responsible for warming Earth. Mars
has global warming, but without a greenhouse
and without the participation of Martians.
Dr Habibullo Abdussamatov
marsprogram.jpl.nasa.gov/odyssey/newsroom/pressreleases/20031208a.html
Ouroboros Rex
> On Jun 11, 4:10 pm, RWood <rupert.w...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>> On Jun 12, 7:40 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> More propaganda. Nothing ever changes from these swindlers.
>>
>> Stop boring us, moron. You lost, sod off.
>
> �� Those who would call others, "moron"
> need only look in a mirror to see a real one.
Do you think we haven't seen your other posts, lenny?
> �� Indeed Wood Block Head,
Case in point.
Ouroboros Rex
Your sig is a ridiculous lie.
leona...@gmail.com
•• Prove it, sucker
Trevor Wilson
"Last Post" <last...@primus.ca> wrote in message
news:e4d459da-b67a-4a4b...@y17g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
**I accept and understand that you have no scientific qualifications. That,
however, is no excuse for ignoring the facts that have been presented.
Unfortunately for you, the following has been proven:
* The planet is undergoing a warming trend.
* The warming trend is occuring at a faster rate than at any time in the
last 600,000 years.
* CO2 levels have increased by around 30% since the start of the industrial
revolution.
* CO2 levels are increasing at a faster rate than at any time in the last
600,000 years.
* CO2 is a known GHG.
* Thanks to accurate, peer-reviewed science, we know that CO2 level rises
have both led and lagged temperature rises many times in the past 600,000
years. We know that CO2 levels and temperature rises are closely linked.
* The are no natural processes which can explain the full rise in planetary
temperatures that have been observed. If you would care to present what YOU
feel have caused the temperature rise (other than what has already been
taken into account by the IPCC and others), then feel free to present your
evidence.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
hda
You trust all publications in the papers, especially from
the government people?
All are measurements and suppositions, except for "CO2 is
known as GHG".
See also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_techniques
BDR529
Dawlish
> You trust all publications in the papers, especially from
> the government people?
All this post shows hda, is that you don't.
leona...@gmail.com
•• That means that hda is right on track.
Dawlish
wrote:
No; it means you agree with him. No more.
leona...@gmail.com
wrote:
> "Last Post" <last_p...@primus.ca> wrote in message
•• So you say, but that is just an example of your
ignorance
That,
> however, is no excuse for ignoring the facts that have been presented.
•• What facts??? You have presented NO facts.
> Unfortunately for you, the following has been proven:
>
> * The planet is undergoing a warming trend.
•• UNTRUE!!!
> * The warming trend is occuring at a faster rate than at any time in the
> last 600,000 years.
•• THERE IS NO WARMING TREND
If there is/was it would be tough to beat that of
10,000 years ago
> * CO2 levels have increased by around 30% since the start of the industrial
> revolution.
•• So what if it has??? The greater the population,
human and animal, the greater the need for CO2
to grow the food plants and to provide O2 for
people and animals to breathe. You do like to
breathe, don't you, Trevor??
CO2 + 2 H2O + photons → (CH2O)n + H2O + O2
carbon dioxide + water + light energy → carbohydrate + oxygen + water
> * CO2 levels are increasing at a faster rate than at any time in the last
> 600,000 years.
> * CO2 is a known GHG.
•• So what??? It is a trivial factor. Compare:-
H2O 12,387 ppm
CO2 385 ppm
> * Thanks to accurate, peer-reviewed science,
•• What peer reviewed science??
> we know that CO2 level rises
> have both led and lagged temperature rises many times in the past 600,000
> years.
•• You do not know that.
Cites??
> We know that CO2 levels and temperature rises are closely linked.
•• Another upside down MYTH
> * The are no natural processes which can explain the full rise in planetary
> temperatures that have been observed.
•• ROTFLMAO
If you would care to present what YOU
> feel have caused the temperature rise
•• WHAT TEMPERATURE RISE?????
(other than what has already been
> taken into account by the IPCC and others),
•• The IPCC report is a SCAM.
Dawlish
wrote:
>
> If you would care to present what YOU
>
> > feel have caused the temperature rise
Why Leonard? The scientific community doesn't feel that the IPCC
report is a "scam". The vast majority of climate scientsist don't
regard the IPCC report as a "scam". Governments of the world that are
advised by those scientists don't feel that the IPCC report is a
"scam" and neither do I. What you've written above wouldn't convince
any of those bodies or people and it doesn't convince me.
What could I write to convince you? The answer is nothing, so what's
the use in doing it? I'm fed up with putting arguments to people like
yourself and I write very little about GW these days as a result. It's
not worth it as the argument is effectively won. I feel that it is
very likely, 90% likely, that CO2 has driven the global temperature
rise over the last 50 years. The scientists behind the IPCC report
feel pretty much the same. Many climate scientists are 100% sure. Some
are a little less sure, but there are very, very, few who don't
understand that the world has warmed and is much more likely to
continue to warm, rather than begin to cool. That puts you in a tiny
minority.
You have every right to put your views, but thank goodness no-one's
listening to you and yours because in 2020, you'll all be (very
likely, again, nothing is certain) telling a tale that in 2009 you
never really believed that the world wouldn't warm, you were just
asking reasonable questions at the time.
Bill Carter
Leonard is a nutjob, he isn't capable of discussing the issues and
nobody takes him seriously.
hda
Honesty doesn't pay?
Global Cooling or Warming, so then what? Man can do nothing
about it. There is a problem of comprehension of magnitude.
In case of controlling the earth's CO2, megalomania with no
respect.
Just one question: what, to your opinion, will prevent
Global Cooling if happening.
Don't let feelings, speculation and a collective attitude
make you fed up. You know what Cargo Cult Science means,
right ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult_science
leona...@gmail.com
> On Jun 13, 5:29 pm, "leonard7...@gmail.com" <leonard7...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > If you would care to present what YOU
>
> > > feel have caused the temperature rise
>
> Why Leonard? The scientific community doesn't feel that the IPCC
> report is a "scam".
•• ROTFLMAO.
>The vast majority of climate scientsist don't
> regard the IPCC report as a "scam".
•• How about providing some proof to support your whining
> Governments of the world that are
> advised by those scientists don't feel that the IPCC report is a
> "scam" and neither do I.
•• Those 52 fascist bureaucrats appointed by their governments, wrote
a report created to provide a basis for global warming. Those
scientists that were assigned data collection duties, were ignored if
their reports did not
reflect a global warming trend
>What you've written above wouldn't convince
> any of those bodies or people and it doesn't convince me.
•• ROTFLMAO
Nobody, least of all me, gives a tinker's dam
what you or any other AGW alarmist fools
thinks or cares. They and you are wo.rthless.
> What could I write to convince you? The answer is nothing, so what's
> the use in doing it? I'm fed up with putting arguments to people like
> yourself and I write very little about GW these days as a result. It's
> not worth it as the argument is effectively won. I feel that it is
> very likely, 90% likely, that CO2 has driven the global temperature
> rise over the last 50 years. The scientists behind the IPCC report
> feel pretty much the same. Many climate scientists are 100% sure. Some
> are a little less sure, but there are very, very, few who don't
> understand that the world has warmed and is much more likely to
> continue to warm, rather than begin to cool. That puts you in a tiny
> minority.
•• I pity deluded fools such as you.
leona...@gmail.com
> Leonard is a nutjob, he isn't capable of discussing the issues and
> nobody takes him seriously.
•• ROTFLMAO
Who cares what AGW alarmist fools think.
Certainly none have a first clue about science.
leona...@gmail.com
•• Great cite!!!!
Bill Carter
> On Jun 13, 1:49 pm, Bill Carter <apl...@atown.com> wrote:
>
>> Leonard is a nutjob, he isn't capable of discussing the issues and
>> nobody takes him seriously.
>
> Who cares what AGW alarmist fools think.
> Certainly none have a first clue about science.
Where's your science leonard?
RWood
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
leonard78...., your and your fellow-nutcases have simply lost the
argument. No doubt by 2020- 2025 or thereabouts some of you will have
conveniently died and will no longer be answerable for your ignorant
rantings. But make no mistake, you'll still be ridiculed - and of
those of you who are still around, very few will have the moral
courage or decency to admit you were horribly and hopelessly wrong.
hda
A sufi teacher was expelling a seeker from the group.
"Isn't there anything I can do to stay in the group?"
The teacher said,"Yes there is, but you can't do it."
"I'll do anything." said the seeker. So the master
said,"Take a bag of walnuts and go stand at the
gate of the market. Then offer every passerby
a walnut if he will kick you in the butt."
What A. Fool
wrote:
>leona...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Jun 13, 1:49 pm, Bill Carter <apl...@atown.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Leonard is a nutjob, he isn't capable of discussing the issues and
>>> nobody takes him seriously.
>>
>> •• ROTFLMAO
>> Who cares what AGW alarmist fools think.
>> Certainly none have a first clue about science.
>
>Where's your science leonard?
What is your object, are you really fearful of catastrophe
caused by CO2?
On any given day, most locations outside the tropics, the
temperature can easily vary within a 30 degree or even a 40
degree range.
Why would any scientific model require that the sum
of all 365 days each year should always be the same?
Do any AGW supporters understand how silly this is,
the sum of the temperatures for all 365 days of the year
must be the same every year for no warming and no
cooling to be claimed.
And even more bizarre, every location in the world
must conform to this absurd restriction in order not to
trigger your extreme concern.
Trevor Wilson
<leona...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7cbb7b66-a9e9-4bcb...@r10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 13, 5:24 am, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au>
wrote:
> "Last Post" <last_p...@primus.ca> wrote in message
>
> news:e4d459da-b67a-4a4b...@y17g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 11, 7:09 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "chemist" <tom-bol...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:75328b1f-ad44-4df0...@d25g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
> > On Jun 11, 8:48 pm, john fernbach <fernbach1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 11, 2:25 pm, Dave <pchristain...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Accuweatherhttp://global-warming.accuweather.com/2009/06/definitive_link_of_co2_...
>
> > > > Best,
> > > > David Christainsen -Meteorologist
>
> > > Okay. I like the conclusions; I'm not sure just how they got there,
> > > though.
>
> > If CO2 rises as the temperature rises then it could mean
> > that the CO2 is driven by the temperature.
>
> > **Duh. The link has been well established by historical records. Higher
> > temperatures = higher CO2 levels = higher temperatures = higher CO2
> > levels
> > =
>
> - -
> In real science the burden of proof is always on
> the proposer, never on the sceptics. So far
> neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
> iota of valid data for global warming nor have
> they provided data that climate change is being
> effected by commerce and industry, and not by
> natural phenomena.
>
> **I accept and understand that you have no scientific qualifications.
.. So you say, but that is just an example of your
ignorance
**It is a conclusion drawn from observed facts. You demonstrate ignorance.
Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that you are ignorant.
That,
> however, is no excuse for ignoring the facts that have been presented.
.. What facts??? You have presented NO facts.
**See? You display nothing but ingorance.
> Unfortunately for you, the following has been proven:
>
> * The planet is undergoing a warming trend.
.. UNTRUE!!!
**Supply your proof which contradicts the observed evidence.
> * The warming trend is occuring at a faster rate than at any time in the
> last 600,000 years.
.. THERE IS NO WARMING TREND
If there is/was it would be tough to beat that of
10,000 years ago
**Supply your proof which contradicts the observed evidence.
> * CO2 levels have increased by around 30% since the start of the
> industrial
> revolution.
.. So what if it has???
**CO2 is a known, proven GHG.
The greater the population,
human and animal, the greater the need for CO2
to grow the food plants and to provide O2 for
people and animals to breathe. You do like to
breathe, don't you, Trevor??
**[SIGH] YOur scientific ignorance is showing (yet again). Where do you
think most of the O2 comes from?
CO2 + 2 H2O + photons ? (CH2O)n + H2O + O2
carbon dioxide + water + light energy ? carbohydrate + oxygen + water
> * CO2 levels are increasing at a faster rate than at any time in the last
> 600,000 years.
> * CO2 is a known GHG.
.. So what??? It is a trivial factor. Compare:-
H2O 12,387 ppm
CO2 385 ppm
**A "trivial" amount of Polonium can kill you. Why do you imagine that,
because an element exists in small quantities, that it's effects are,
somehow, non-existent. CO2 is responsible for between 9 - 26% of Solar
forcing. Water vapour is the biggest inflence, but CO2 is a far more
effective GHG, by mass, that water vapour.
> * Thanks to accurate, peer-reviewed science,
.. What peer reviewed science??
**The peer-reviewed science that established all the facts I listed. The
peer-reviewed science that you have, thus far, managed to avoid reading.
> we know that CO2 level rises
> have both led and lagged temperature rises many times in the past 600,000
> years.
.. You do not know that.
Cites??
**Of course. I also know that you are so mind-numbingly ignorant, that you
not only cannot be bothered finding the science for yourself, but anything I
do supply you'll manage to avoid reading. I've dealt with ignorance such as
yours for decades. You are a complete waste of skin. Find the fucking
information for yourself. You've not managed to provide any evidence to
support your fairy tales. I see no reason to waste my time to prove anything
to you.
> We know that CO2 levels and temperature rises are closely linked.
.. Another upside down MYTH
**Nope. Fact. Check the science.
> * The are no natural processes which can explain the full rise in
> planetary
> temperatures that have been observed.
.. ROTFLMAO
If you would care to present what YOU
> feel have caused the temperature rise
.. WHAT TEMPERATURE RISE?????
**The temperature rise that this planet has undergone in the last 100-odd
years.
(other than what has already been
> taken into account by the IPCC and others),
.. The IPCC report is a SCAM.
**Prove it. Supply your proof that demonstrates everything in the IPCC
reports are wrong.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Bill Ward
> On Jun 13, 5:29 pm, "leonard7...@gmail.com" <leonard7...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>> If you would care to present what YOU
>>
>> > feel have caused the temperature rise
>
>
> Why Leonard? The scientific community doesn't feel that the IPCC report
> is a "scam". The vast majority of climate scientsist don't regard the
> IPCC report as a "scam". Governments of the world that are advised by
> those scientists don't feel that the IPCC report is a "scam" and neither
> do I. What you've written above wouldn't convince any of those bodies or
> people and it doesn't convince me.
>
> What could I write to convince you? The answer is nothing, so what's the
> use in doing it?
First you need to understand enough physics to explain the mechanism that
you think allows CO2 to cause the surface to warm. Simply pointing
vaguely to authorities doesn't convince anyone who is able and willing to
think for him/herself. When you can give a coherent explanation in your
own words, and can answer questions about it, someone might consider your
argument. Until then, you're just noise, not signal.
You can start by responding to the argument that the surface is cooled
primarily by convection rather than radiation, because outgoing surface
LWIR is absorbed by water vapor within a few meters, forcing the
troposphere into local thermodynamic equilibrium (LTE). That blocks all
net radiative transfer except for the unaffected 10u window, preventing
CO2 from having any significant radiative effect in the troposphere. In
the stratosphere, it's a coolant.
Here's a link to an explanation of the above, with confirming
experimental evidence:
<http://www.landshape.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=introduction>
(by Dr. Noor van Andel)
<begin quote>
In the standard theory, absorption by the atmosphere increases with an
increase in the amount of greenhouse gases, so the net upward flux is
hindered, increasing the atmospheric and surface temperatures. In the
[Miskolczi] case of the relationship ED = SU·[1-Ta], there is no net
upward IR heat flow other than that which passes through the IR window,
which is much less dependent on increased greenhouse gas concentration.
In other words, the upward radiation in the atmosphere depends almost
entirely on the transmissivity of the air and only to a very minor degree
on the amount of greenhouse gases.
<end quote>
There's a lot more explanatory material in the link.
Now if you can present and defend a substantive, convincing argument
against that concept, I'll be glad to discuss it with you.
If you can't, then your belief in AGW is religious, not scientific.
Science does not have high priests whose dogma must be accepted without
question. Science depends entirely on logical explanations based on
observations.
> I'm fed up with putting arguments to people like
> yourself and I write very little about GW these days as a result. It's
> not worth it as the argument is effectively won. I feel that it is very
> likely, 90% likely, that CO2 has driven the global temperature rise over
> the last 50 years. The scientists behind the IPCC report feel pretty
> much the same. Many climate scientists are 100% sure. Some are a little
> less sure, but there are very, very, few who don't understand that the
> world has warmed and is much more likely to continue to warm, rather
> than begin to cool. That puts you in a tiny minority.
Votes don't count in science. The best explanation does.
> You have every right to put your views, but thank goodness no-one's
> listening to you and yours because in 2020, you'll all be (very likely,
> again, nothing is certain) telling a tale that in 2009 you never really
> believed that the world wouldn't warm, you were just asking reasonable
> questions at the time.
Are you sure that's not what you're thinking? Otherwise, where did the
idea come from?
Bill Ward
Bingo. That's exactly it. That's why skepticism is so vilified. They
need to prevent the truth coming out until it's too late, because the
damage is already done.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Votes don't count in science."
nor does your ignorance...
Bill Carter
The usual completely brainless remarks. Is your name leonard?
Bill Carter
> On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 10:01:40 -0700, Dawlish wrote:
>
>> On Jun 13, 5:29 pm, "leonard7...@gmail.com" <leonard7...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> If you would care to present what YOU
>>>
>>>> feel have caused the temperature rise
>>
>> Why Leonard? The scientific community doesn't feel that the IPCC report
>> is a "scam". The vast majority of climate scientsist don't regard the
>> IPCC report as a "scam". Governments of the world that are advised by
>> those scientists don't feel that the IPCC report is a "scam" and neither
>> do I. What you've written above wouldn't convince any of those bodies or
>> people and it doesn't convince me.
>>
>> What could I write to convince you? The answer is nothing, so what's the
>> use in doing it?
>
> First you need to understand enough physics to explain the mechanism that
> you think allows CO2 to cause the surface to warm. Simply pointing
That has been definitively explained here many times.
> Here's a link to an explanation of the above, with confirming
> experimental evidence:
>
> <http://www.landshape.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=introduction>
> (by Dr. Noor van Andel)
Garbage that has been refuted here repeatedly.
> Now if you can present and defend a substantive, convincing argument
> against that concept, I'll be glad to discuss it with you.
No you won't, you aren't capable of discussing the science and you
have demonstrated it many times.
> If you can't, then your belief in AGW is religious, not scientific.
> Science does not have high priests whose dogma must be accepted without
> question. Science depends entirely on logical explanations based on
> observations.
You have no science, only beliefs.
What A. Fool
wrote:
You can't read?
Can anybody reference raw daily anomaly data for any
station between 30 and 60 degrees North Latitude, rather than
the hundredths of a degree shown for months or years, the
daily anomaly can be large numbers, rarely only 1 or 2 degrees
above or below normal.
What A. Fool
wrote:
>Bill Ward wrote:
Only retorts from a slur baby.
Bill Ward
That's all he's got. He has to silently snip the concepts I posted
because he doesn't know enough physics to respond to them. I think
people realize he's nothing but a desperate poseur, trying to appear
knowledgeable.
Oh, and he's lying about the "definitively explained many times bit". He
doesn't post a link, because it never happened. Same with the "refuted
here many times" claim. Only in his dreams...
If he ever actually posts something credible, please let me know - I
don't see his posts unless someone responds to them. He's in the same
category as Lloyd, tailsucker, Morgan and Q, true believers, immune to
heresy.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
poor bill ward, his ego is so damaged he is reduced to this bs, what a
joke...
Claudius Denk
> Claudius Denk wrote:
> > On Jun 11, 11:25 am, Dave <pchristain...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> Accuweatherhttp://global-warming.accuweather.com/2009/06/definitive_link_of_co2_...
>
> >> Best,
> >> David Christainsen -Meteorologist
>
> > published in the next edition of Nature, to be released on June 11,
> > 2009."
>
> > This is a typical tactic of the AGW Industrial Complex. They give us
> > a press release about a paper that hasn't been published yet and
> > therefore can't be disputed. By the time the paper is available the
> > public has lost interest.
>
> > More propaganda. Nothing ever changes from these swindlers.
>
> The Swindle is dead, don't worry, see how Martin Durkin is exposed:
>
> Martin Durkin, the liar who produced the Swindle, was interviewed by and
> exposed by an Australian journalist, it is followed by an interesting
> debate where you see how AGW denialism is clearly exposed:
>
> Part 1:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIjGynF4qkE
> Part 2:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goDsc9IaSQ8
> Part 3:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoyqFNCoDRY
> Part 4:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5gUd6y3zKU
> Part 5:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIsX5I6mVWo
> Part 6:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RY_qEyHbj0
> Part 7:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRnyHIheR0I
> Part 8:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I24QOvMUUyw
>
> In parts 1 and 2 you can see how Martin Durkin gets dragged into the
> swamp. Part 3 to 8 are an interesting panel discussion where other AGW
> deniers are confronted with the facts. In fact, Bob Carter and others
> are exposed.
>
> Many minutes of amusement, that's what it is. I call the "Global Warming
> Swindle Debate" a victory for Australian journalism. Wish there was more
> of this sort of science journalism around the world.
>
> --
> Our Lady of Blessed Acceleration, don't fail me now!- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I don't know what it is you think you see. What I saw here was a
clear victory for the skeptics.
BDR529
Translation: I don't know what to say so I fabricate another lie.
What A. Fool
The only victory this skeptic wants is warmer temperatures,
but the warmers can't deliver, Mother Nature is in charge.
Bill Carter
Your 'concepts' have been shown to be fraudulent - several times.
> Oh, and he's lying about the "definitively explained many times bit". He
> doesn't post a link, because it never happened. Same with the "refuted
> here many times" claim. Only in his dreams...
Text posted to the newsgroups never goes away. Several long threads
in alt.global-warming were devoted to Miskolczi's misconceptions, anyone
who cares can google for them.
> If he ever actually posts something credible, please let me know - I
> don't see his posts unless someone responds to them. He's in the same
> category as Lloyd, tailsucker, Morgan and Q, true believers, immune to
> heresy.
Yawn.
leona...@gmail.com
•• Indeed, Carter you asleep from head to. toe.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
wrote:"In real science"
On Jun 14, 11:48 am, Bill Carter <apl...@atown.com> wrote:"If he ever
actually posts something credible, please let me know - I don't see
his posts unless someone responds to them"
laughing, in real science bs like bill wards post, is not something
you should even attempt to validate, so if you could please correlate
these two statements with out more bs it would do the both of you some
good, until then you two are a joke....
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
so bill ward feels its ok to criticize, and yet he hide behinds his
filter, kind of chicken manure like on his part don’t you think?
kd
> Accuweatherhttp://global-warming.accuweather.com/2009/06/definitive_link_of_co2_...
>
> Best,
> David Christainsen -Meteorologist
F---ing idiot.
This only serves as proof that you have no actual science at all.
Since you refer to this as definitive link.
This study is only theoretical outlays from computer models.
No facts have been determined from any application of science as your
headline reads.
Go suck a greenie weenie and get rich with your investements in
greenie weenie futures, and leave the rest of us the hell alone,
dweeb.
KD
What A. Fool
Which people is it that laugh at all other people,
idiots or imbeciles?
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
> On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 09:56:58 -0700 (PDT), columbiaaccidentinvestigation
>
> >On Jun 14, 8:55 am, "leonard7...@gmail.com" <leonard7...@gmail.com>
> >wrote:"In real science"
>
> >On Jun 14, 11:48 am, Bill Carter <apl...@atown.com> wrote:"If he ever
> >actually posts something credible, please let me know - I don't see
> >his posts unless someone responds to them"
>
> >laughing, in real science bs like bill wards post, is not something
> >you should even attempt to validate, so if you could please correlate
> >these two statements with out more bs it would do the both of you some
> >good, until then you two are a joke....
>
> Which people is it that laugh at all other people,
> idiots or imbeciles?
well if bill ward, and leonard are going to post contradictory
information is it not helpful to others to point out the
contradictions, and if i find those same contradictions humorous and
ironic why not laugh at their foolishness.
hda
Frustrated myopic laughing undercover Columbia Incident
Accident government employees. who can't get lost in orbit.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
laughing undercover Columbia Incident Accident government employees.
who can't get lost in orbit"
On Jun 14, 8:55 am, "leonard7...@gmail.com" <leonard7...@gmail.com>
wrote:"In real science"
On Jun 14, 11:48 am, Bill Carter <apl...@atown.com> wrote:"If he ever
actually posts something credible, please let me know - I don't see
his posts unless someone responds to them"
moving beyond your weak attempt at an insult, if you think that bill
wards and leonoards words frustrate me, you are fooling yourself, as
much as they are kidding themselves when they pretend to engage in an
open-minded objective civil discussion....
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
is it that laugh at all other people, idiots or imbeciles?"
im not laughing all other people, unless you incorrectly think people
like you make up the entire population. (WOW THAT WOULD BE REALLY
SCARY)