To childish deniers: Global Warming is real, stop denying it
Harry Hope
http://www.examiner.com/x-17297-Rochester-Independent-Examiner~y2009m12d12-Global-Warming-is-real-stop-denying-it
December 12
Global Warming is real, stop denying it
By Thomas Mangan
According to a new McClatchy-Ipsos poll, 28% of Americans still refuse
to accept the overwhelming scientific evidence that global warming is
real.
The million dollar question is:
How many of them also believe that the world is flat?
It is a sound conservative fiscal principle that it is much less
expensive to solve a problem before it becomes a crisis.
However, before you can solve a problem you have to recognize that the
problem exists, and today�s conservatives aren�t very good at that.
They�re good at denial, but not good at science.
But it isn�t a smart idea to ignore the facts because they conflict
with your political and economic principles.
"No one can live an hour without both facts and principles.�
William James
It is a fact that the polar ice caps and glaciers world-wide are
melting.
It is also a fact that this is causing a dramatic rise in the sea
level.
According to scientists at the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric
Research, greenhouse gases have pushed Arctic temperatures to the
highest levels in at least 2,000 years.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN02547411
Reuters reports that this past September two German merchant ships
sailed from South Korea to Rotterdam, via the fabled Northeast
Passage, the treacherous Arctic sea-lane along the north coast of
Russia.
http://blogs.reuters.com/environment/2009/09/09/german-ships-navigate-northeast-passage-but-is-it-a-good-thing/
It was the first commercial navigation of the Northeast Passage in
recorded history.
Sailing from Asia to Europe via the Northeast Passage was first
attempted by mariners in 1553.
But ice always blocked the way until 2005, when warmer temperatures in
the Arctic opened the Northeast Passage for the first time ever.
A September 2009 NASA study confirms that global warming is causing
the Arctic and Antarctic polar ice sheets to melt, causing a
corresponding rise in the sea level world wide.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/03/060308211836.htm
The NASA scientists analyzed data from the Ice, Cloud and land
Elevation Satellite (ICESat), which uses a laser beam to measure the
elevation of ice sheets with unprecedented accuracy three times a
year.
In November 2008, scientists at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center
used data from the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE)
satellites to prove that glaciers in the Gulf of Alaska are melting
rapidly because of higher temperatures in the Arctic.
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/glacier_tech.html
It�s simple.
Higher temperatures melt the glaciers and the ice caps.
This raises the sea level, which causes low lying coastal areas to
disappear under the sea.
"Knowledge is demonstrative, necessary. Belief is only an opinion�
John Dewey
So if you think global warming is a hoax, please move to the Maldives,
a tropical island paradise nation in the Indian Ocean.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL07611784
Scientists estimate that sea levels will rise between two to three
feet by the year 2100.
Since 80 % of the 1,200 islands in the Maldives are only about 3 feet
above sea level, most of the island paradise will disappear under the
sea by the end of the century.
But we have more to lose than that.
According to the National Geographic Society, Ernest Hemingway�s The
Snows of Kilimanjaro will soon be gone forever.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/09/0923_030923_kilimanjaroglaciers.html
The glaciers, which Hemingway described as "wide as all the world,
great, high, and unbelievably white in the sun" have lost 82% of their
ice mass since 1912, when they were first measured.
Scientists predict that the legendary glaciers, which have capped
Africa's highest mountain for nearly 12,000 years, could disappear
entirely by 2020.
Maybe Hemingway should have written The Snowless Kilimanjaro.
If you don�t believe in global warming, what else are you willing to
give up besides snow-capped mountains and dazzlingly beautiful tropic
isles?
_______________________________________________________
Harry
ob on
"Harry Hope" <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:gk5ei5tkg346c56gt...@4ax.com...
>
> http://www.examiner.com/x-17297-Rochester-Independent-Examiner~y2009m12d12-Global-Warming-is-real-stop-denying-it
>
> December 12
>
> Global Warming is real, stop denying it
>
Yeah right!
Here's an interesting interiew ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvufOvneJMk&feature=player_embedded
This is just so enjoyable....
Wow...what a gem.....
Warmest Regards
B0n oz
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps
US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists
worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct
from natural variation."
Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
Claudius Denk
> http://www.examiner.com/x-17297-Rochester-Independent-Examiner~y2009m...
>
> December 12
>
> Global Warming is real, stop denying it
Global Warming may or may not be real, start debating it.
>
> By Thomas Mangan
>
> According to a new McClatchy-Ipsos poll, 28% of Americans still refuse
> to accept the overwhelming scientific evidence that global warming is
> real.
>
> The million dollar question is:
>
> How many of them also believe that the world is flat?
>
> It is a sound conservative fiscal principle that it is much less
> expensive to solve a problem before it becomes a crisis.
>
> However, before you can solve a problem you have to recognize that the
> problem exists, and today s conservatives aren t very good at that.
>
> They re good at denial, but not good at science.
>
> But it isn t a smart idea to ignore the facts because they conflict
> with your political and economic principles.
It's also not such a cool thing to create facts that confirm your
political and economic principles.
> It is a fact that the polar ice caps and glaciers world-wide are
> melting.
Why is it only you AGW whackos can see all of this dramatic "loss of
polar ice" crisis evidence? It's unfortunate us skeptics don't have
the same powers of perception that you AGW whackos have--or so you
tell us. I think this is a very obvious example of confirmation
bias.
Editor RadioTalkingPoints
rest of the planets in the solar system, or the mathematical equations
that will define how, when, where, and why all water molecules on the
planet will either condense, solidify or evaporate, and their
corresponding temperature impacts with their varying impacts on
atmospheric pressure and prevailing wind and the btu/luminescence
ratio that fluctuates contingent on the exact spacial coordinates of
the sun in relation to its current fluctuating state of thermonuclear
fusion reaction and weather patterns of cosmic fuel on the surface of
the sun, cosmic ray contant solar wind rates, or the predicted density
of the ozone level in both the lower and upper atmospheres, various
assorted aproximate 100 atmoshpheric chemicals and their resulting
impact with water vapor?
That's what people do who do not wear clothes in public, constantly
wondering what the weather is going to do next? All the marijuana
trees haunting liberals for burning their children alive, to the sound
of "Free Bird"?
An inconvenient truth, Al Gore inhaled, and so did Bill Clinton?
Uh, have you seen the winter storm Al Gore, and are you freezing your
buns off?
Still think that passage is "unfrozen"?
You quoted an article from 2003?
Your data is flawed?
Cap and trade and population "control" measures are unecessary and
will reverse all gains made by civilization because politicians are
not qualified to make such decisions, and depend on whoever can gain
the attention of their ear, even if it is solely based on monetary
gain, and not public policy?
You don't call "Cap and Traders" --- Fat Cat Bankers?
The people on Washington Wall Street still don't get it?
Have a great day, in the Palin war room?
Catoni
Still posting misleading opinionated articles from the popular
press, and lying....
Yes... the world has warmed a bit since coming out of the Little
Ice Age about 1850..... so what ? You say it shouldn't warm after the
Little Ice Age ends ?
You need to go back on your medication....
>""No one can live an hour without both facts and principles."
> William James
That's right Harry..... and it's about time you
started taking his advice. LOL
>"But ice always blocked the way until 2005, when warmer temperatures in
>the Arctic opened the Northeast Passage for the first time ever."
Leftist Deception
They only started keeping records of that
in 1972. Chances are excellent that the Northwest passage was ice
free during the Medieval Warm Perod, and the Roman Warm Period before
that, wamer then now and the other earlier warm periods warmer then
now.
>""Knowledge is demonstrative, necessary. Belief is only an opinion"
> -John Dewey
Now there's another good socialist humanist for
you...to bad Harry doesn't follow his adivce. One of the primary
people responsible for foisting what became the "Whole Language"
method of teaching reading on to children What a failure.
Dewey was a really smart guy... had a lot of knowledge in his head.
To bad he didn't have the wisdom to go along with it.
Oh... the Maldives.... yes...... more investiment going there...
new hotels.... resorts.... lot of money going there...people investing
in shoreline properties.
kilimanjaro
1. I guess maybe they missed the news that they will be
swimming soon.... ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha,
2. Or maybe they realise that catastrophic sea level rise is
a load of Alarmist crap.
My vote is for the second one.
Kilimanjaro... Harry Hope..... do you really enjoy making yourself
look like a fool ? ? ?
The summit of Kilimanjaro never gets above freezing.... so
it's kind of difficult for the glaciers to melt.
What is happening is that the natives having cut the forests down
all around the mountain in every direction has resulted in less
rainfall. The ice and snow is sublimating... (if you don't know what
that means... look it up.)
But lately... there may be more snow gathering on Kikimanjaro,
In May 2008 The Tanzanian Minister for Natural Resources, Ms Shamsa
Mwangunga, said that there were indications that snow cover on the
mountain was actually increasing.
"Tanzania: Minister - Ice Won't Vanish On Kili". The Citizen.
May 26, 2008. http://allafrica.com/stories/200805260817.html.
Kilimanjaro..... nothing to do with Gorebull Warming
Harry.....sorry.
Poor, poor Harry Hope........
David Hartung
This is very interesting.
Kevin Cunningham
Show us a paper that proves that global warming doesn't exist.
The biggest problem you scum have is no facts. See, drooler, you have
to have facts to publish and you have no facts. None.
When you come up with a fact, put it on this NG, I'll be waiting.
pyjamarama
> http://www.examiner.com/x-17297-Rochester-Independent-Examiner~y2009m...
>
>
> Global Warming is real, stop denying it
>
> By Thomas Mangan
>
> According to a new McClatchy-Ipsos poll, 28% of Americans still refuse
> to accept the overwhelming scientific evidence that global warming is
> real.
>
> The million dollar question is:
>
> How many of them also believe that the world is flat?
>
> It is a sound conservative fiscal principle that it is much less
> expensive to solve a problem before it becomes a crisis.
>
> However, before you can solve a problem you have to recognize that the
> problem exists, and today s conservatives aren t very good at that.
>
> They re good at denial, but not good at science.
>
> But it isn t a smart idea to ignore the facts because they conflict
> with your political and economic principles.
>
> "No one can live an hour without both facts and principles.
>
> William James
>
> It is a fact that the polar ice caps and glaciers world-wide are
> melting.
>
> It is also a fact that this is causing a dramatic rise in the sea
> level.
>
> According to scientists at the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric
> Research, greenhouse gases have pushed Arctic temperatures to the
>
> Reuters reports that this past September two German merchant ships
> sailed from South Korea to Rotterdam, via the fabled Northeast
> Passage, the treacherous Arctic sea-lane along the north coast of
>
> It was the first commercial navigation of the Northeast Passage in
> recorded history.
>
> Sailing from Asia to Europe via the Northeast Passage was first
> attempted by mariners in 1553.
>
> But ice always blocked the way until 2005, when warmer temperatures in
> the Arctic opened the Northeast Passage for the first time ever.
>
> A September 2009 NASA study confirms that global warming is causing
> the Arctic and Antarctic polar ice sheets to melt, causing a
>
> The NASA scientists analyzed data from the Ice, Cloud and land
> Elevation Satellite (ICESat), which uses a laser beam to measure the
> elevation of ice sheets with unprecedented accuracy three times a
> year.
>
> In November 2008, scientists at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center
> used data from the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE)
> satellites to prove that glaciers in the Gulf of Alaska are melting
>
> It s simple.
>
> Higher temperatures melt the glaciers and the ice caps.
>
> This raises the sea level, which causes low lying coastal areas to
> disappear under the sea.
>
> "Knowledge is demonstrative, necessary. Belief is only an opinion
>
> John Dewey
>
> So if you think global warming is a hoax, please move to the Maldives,
>
> Scientists estimate that sea levels will rise between two to three
> feet by the year 2100.
>
> Since 80 % of the 1,200 islands in the Maldives are only about 3 feet
> above sea level, most of the island paradise will disappear under the
> sea by the end of the century.
>
> But we have more to lose than that.
>
> According to the National Geographic Society, Ernest Hemingway s The
>
> The glaciers, which Hemingway described as "wide as all the world,
> great, high, and unbelievably white in the sun" have lost 82% of their
> ice mass since 1912, when they were first measured.
>
> Scientists predict that the legendary glaciers, which have capped
> Africa's highest mountain for nearly 12,000 years, could disappear
> entirely by 2020.
>
> Maybe Hemingway should have written The Snowless Kilimanjaro.
>
> If you don t believe in global warming, what else are you willing to
> give up besides snow-capped mountains and dazzlingly beautiful tropic
> isles?
>
> _______________________________________________________
>
> Harry
Lies, tricks, manipulated and destroyed data means you're simply not
credible, hairless.
Deal with it.
matt_sykes
> http://www.examiner.com/x-17297-Rochester-Independent-Examiner~y2009m...
>
>
> Global Warming is real, stop denying it
>
> By Thomas Mangan
>
> According to a new McClatchy-Ipsos poll, 28% of Americans still refuse
> to accept the overwhelming scientific evidence that global warming is
> real.
>
> The million dollar question is:
>
> How many of them also believe that the world is flat?
>
> It is a sound conservative fiscal principle that it is much less
> expensive to solve a problem before it becomes a crisis.
>
> However, before you can solve a problem you have to recognize that the
> problem exists, and today s conservatives aren t very good at that.
>
> They re good at denial, but not good at science.
>
> But it isn t a smart idea to ignore the facts because they conflict
> with your political and economic principles.
>
> "No one can live an hour without both facts and principles.
>
> William James
>
> It is a fact that the polar ice caps and glaciers world-wide are
> melting.
>
> It is also a fact that this is causing a dramatic rise in the sea
> level.
>
> According to scientists at the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric
> Research, greenhouse gases have pushed Arctic temperatures to the
>
> Reuters reports that this past September two German merchant ships
> sailed from South Korea to Rotterdam, via the fabled Northeast
> Passage, the treacherous Arctic sea-lane along the north coast of
>
> It was the first commercial navigation of the Northeast Passage in
> recorded history.
>
> Sailing from Asia to Europe via the Northeast Passage was first
> attempted by mariners in 1553.
>
> But ice always blocked the way until 2005, when warmer temperatures in
> the Arctic opened the Northeast Passage for the first time ever.
>
> A September 2009 NASA study confirms that global warming is causing
> the Arctic and Antarctic polar ice sheets to melt, causing a
>
> The NASA scientists analyzed data from the Ice, Cloud and land
> Elevation Satellite (ICESat), which uses a laser beam to measure the
> elevation of ice sheets with unprecedented accuracy three times a
> year.
>
> In November 2008, scientists at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center
> used data from the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE)
> satellites to prove that glaciers in the Gulf of Alaska are melting
>
> It s simple.
>
> Higher temperatures melt the glaciers and the ice caps.
>
> This raises the sea level, which causes low lying coastal areas to
> disappear under the sea.
>
> "Knowledge is demonstrative, necessary. Belief is only an opinion
>
> John Dewey
>
> So if you think global warming is a hoax, please move to the Maldives,
>
> Scientists estimate that sea levels will rise between two to three
> feet by the year 2100.
>
> Since 80 % of the 1,200 islands in the Maldives are only about 3 feet
> above sea level, most of the island paradise will disappear under the
> sea by the end of the century.
>
> But we have more to lose than that.
>
> According to the National Geographic Society, Ernest Hemingway s The
>
> The glaciers, which Hemingway described as "wide as all the world,
> great, high, and unbelievably white in the sun" have lost 82% of their
> ice mass since 1912, when they were first measured.
>
> Scientists predict that the legendary glaciers, which have capped
> Africa's highest mountain for nearly 12,000 years, could disappear
> entirely by 2020.
>
> Maybe Hemingway should have written The Snowless Kilimanjaro.
>
> If you don t believe in global warming, what else are you willing to
> give up besides snow-capped mountains and dazzlingly beautiful tropic
> isles?
>
> _______________________________________________________
>
> Harry
You must be toying with us, no one could surely believe what you
write!
Anyway, sure its warming. We are coming out of the LIA. Its not GH
gas warming, the troposphere isnt warm enough.
lab~rat >:-)
<petes...@SNIPITgmail.com> puked:
>
>Debate this, you stupid asshole: How fucking STUPID must one be before one
>thinks one's uniformed stupid asshole opinion of merit despite the fact that
>one is too willfully ignorant, aka stupid, to know that the warmth absorbing
>properties of CO2 were proven MORE THAN ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY FUCKING YEARS
>AGO?
>
>Well, Dr. Doofus? You see, without your help, those of us with thumbs will
>never know...
Wow, you regally take this over the top serious. Seems to me that you
have something at stake. Did you invest your last hundred bucks on
some Al Gore scam action?
I guess the question is whether or not we can or should be controlling
nature. How can you be so sure what the proper course is to "fix" the
earth? And in making the Earth better for us, couldn't we be simply
interfering with its evolution?
The answer is you don't know the fucking answer, so shut up and stop
pretending you're god or some shit.
--
lab~rat >:-)
Do you want polite or do you want sincere?
lab~rat >:-)
<sms...@mindspring.com> puked:
>On Dec 15, 12:53ÔøΩam, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> On Dec 14, 8:54ÔøΩpm, Harry Hope <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>> >http://www.examiner.com/x-17297-Rochester-Independent-Examiner~y2009m...
>>
>> > December 12
>>
>> > Global Warming is real, stop denying it
>>
>> Global Warming may or may not be real, start debating it.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > By Thomas Mangan
>>
>> > According to a new McClatchy-Ipsos poll, 28% of Americans still refuse
>> > to accept the overwhelming scientific evidence that global warming is
>> > real.
>>
>> > The million dollar question is:
>>
>> > How many of them also believe that the world is flat?
>>
>> > It is a sound conservative fiscal principle that it is much less
>> > expensive to solve a problem before it becomes a crisis.
>>
>> > However, before you can solve a problem you have to recognize that the
>> > problem exists, and today s conservatives aren t very good at that.
>>
>> > They re good at denial, but not good at science.
>>
>> > But it isn t a smart idea to ignore the facts because they conflict
>> > with your political and economic principles.
>>
>> It's also not such a cool thing to create facts that confirm your
>> political and economic principles.
>>
>> > It is a fact that the polar ice caps and glaciers world-wide are
>> > melting.
>>
>> Why is it only you AGW whackos can see all of this dramatic "loss of
>> polar ice" crisis evidence? ÔøΩIt's unfortunate us skeptics don't have
>> the same powers of perception that you AGW whackos have--or so you
>> tell us. ÔøΩI think this is a very obvious example of confirmation
>> bias.
>
>Show us a paper that proves that global warming doesn't exist.
>
>The biggest problem you scum have is no facts. See, drooler, you have
>to have facts to publish and you have no facts. None.
>
>When you come up with a fact, put it on this NG, I'll be waiting.
New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears
Posted By Marc Morano ÔøΩ Marc_...@EPW.Senate.Gov ÔøΩ 4:44 PM ET
Washington DC ÔøΩ An abundance of new peer-reviewed studies, analyses,
and data error discoveries in the last several months has prompted
scientists to declare that fear of catastrophic man-made global
warming ÔøΩbites the dustÔøΩ and the scientific underpinnings for alarm
may be ÔøΩfalling apart.ÔøΩ The latest study to cast doubt on climate
fears finds that even a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide would
not have the previously predicted dire impacts on global temperatures.
This new study is not unique, as a host of recent peer-reviewed
studies have cast a chill on global warming fears.
ÔøΩAnthropogenic (man-made) global warming bites the dust,ÔøΩ declared
astronomer Dr. Ian Wilson after reviewing the new study which has been
accepted for publication in the Journal of Geophysical Research.
Another scientist said the peer-reviewed study overturned ÔøΩin one fell
swoopÔøΩ the climate fears promoted by the UN and former Vice President
Al Gore. The study entitled ÔøΩHeat Capacity, Time Constant, and
Sensitivity of EarthÔøΩs Climate System,ÔøΩ was authored by Brookhaven
National Lab scientist Stephen Schwartz. (LINK)
ÔøΩEffectively, this (new study) means that the global economy will
spend trillions of dollars trying to avoid a warming of ~ 1.0 K by
2100 A.D.ÔøΩ Dr. Wilson wrote in a note to the Senate Environment &
Public Works Committee on August 19, 2007. Wilson, a former
operations astronomer at the Hubble Space Telescope Institute in
Baltimore MD, was referring to the trillions of dollars that would be
spent under such international global warming treaties like the Kyoto
Protocol.
ÔøΩPreviously, I have indicated that the widely accepted values for
temperature increase associated with a doubling of CO2 were far too
high i.e. 2 ÔøΩ 4.5 Kelvin. This new peer-reviewed paper claims a value
of 1.1 +/- 0.5 K increase for a doubling of CO2,ÔøΩ he added.
Climate fears reduced to ÔøΩchildrenÔøΩs gamesÔøΩ
Other scientists are echoing WilsonÔøΩs analysis. Former Harvard
physicist Dr. Lubos Motl said the new study has reduced proponents of
man-made climate fears to ÔøΩplaying the childrenÔøΩs game to scare each
other.ÔøΩ
ÔøΩRecall that most of the 1.1 degree - about 0.7 degrees - has already
occurred since the beginning of the industrial era. This fact itself
is an indication that the climate sensitivity is unlikely to be much
greater than 1 Celsius degree: the effect of most of the doubling has
already been made and it led to 0.7 K of warming,ÔøΩ Motl wrote in an
August 17, 2007 blog post. (LINK)
ÔøΩBy the end of the (CO2) doubling i.e. 560 ppm (parts per million)
expected slightly before (the year) 2100 -- assuming a
business-as-usual continued growth of CO2 that has been linear for
some time -- Schwartz and others would expect 0.4 C of extra warming
only - a typical fluctuation that occurs within four months and
certainly nothing that the politicians should pay attention to,ÔøΩ Motl
explained.
ÔøΩAs far as I can say, all the people who end up with 2 or even 3
Celsius degrees for the climate sensitivity are just playing the
children's game to scare each other, as [MIT climate scientist]
Richard Lindzen says, by making artificial biased assumptions about
positive feedbacks. There is no reasonable, balanced, and
self-consistent work that would lead to such a relatively high
sensitivity,ÔøΩ Motl concluded.
Overturning IPCC consensus ÔøΩin one fell swoopÔøΩ
The new study was also touted as ÔøΩoverturning the UN IPCC 'consensusÔøΩ
in one fell swoopÔøΩ by the American Enterprise InstituteÔøΩs (AEI) Joel
Schwartz in an August 17, 2007 blog post. (LINK)
ÔøΩNew research from Stephen Schwartz of Brookhaven National Lab
concludes that the EarthÔøΩs climate is only about one-third as
sensitive to carbon dioxide as the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change) assumes,ÔøΩ wrote AEIÔøΩs Schwartz, who hold a masterÔøΩs
degree in planetary science from the California Institute of
Technology.
The studyÔøΩs ÔøΩresult is 63% lower than the IPCCÔøΩs estimate of 3 degrees
C for a doubling of CO2 (2.0ÔøΩ4.5 degrees C, 2SD range). Right now
weÔøΩre about 41% above the estimated pre-industrial CO2 level of 270
ppm. At the current rate of increase of about 0.55% per year, CO2 will
double around 2070. Based on SchwartzÔøΩs results, we should expect
about a 0.6 degrees C additional increase in temperature between now
and 2070 due to this additional CO2. That doesnÔøΩt seem particularly
alarming,ÔøΩ AEIÔøΩs Schwartz explained.
ÔøΩIn other words, thereÔøΩs hardly any additional warming ÔøΩin the
pipelineÔøΩ from previous greenhouse gas emissions. This is in contrast
to the IPCC, which predicts that the EarthÔøΩs average temperature will
rise an additional 0.6 degrees C during the 21st Century even if
greenhouse gas concentrations stopped increasing,ÔøΩ he added.
ÔøΩAlong with dozens of other studies in the scientific literature,
[this] new study belies Al GoreÔøΩs claim that there is no legitimate
scholarly alternative to climate catastrophism. Indeed, if SchwartzÔøΩs
results are correct, that alone would be enough to overturn in one
fell swoop the IPCCÔøΩs scientific ÔøΩconsensusÔøΩ, the environmentalistsÔøΩ
climate hysteria, and the political pretext for the energy-restriction
policies that have become so popular with the worldÔøΩs environmental
regulators, elected officials, and corporations. The question is, will
anyone in the mainstream media notice?ÔøΩ AEIÔøΩs Schwartz concluded.
UK officially admits: Global warming has stopped!
Recent scientific studies may make 2007 go down in history as the
"tipping point" of man-made global warming fears. A progression of
peer-reviewed studies have been published which serve to debunk the
United Nations, former Vice President Al Gore, and the media
engineered ÔøΩconsensusÔøΩ on climate change.
Paleoclimate scientist Bob Carter, who has testified before the U.S.
Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works (LINK), noted in a June
18, 2007 essay that global warming has stopped.
ÔøΩThe accepted global average temperature statistics used by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based
warming has occurred since 1998. Oddly, this eight-year-long
temperature stasis has occurred despite an increase over the same
period of 15 parts per million (or 4 per cent) in atmospheric CO2.
Second, lower atmosphere satellite-based temperature measurements, if
corrected for non-greenhouse influences such as El Nino events and
large volcanic eruptions, show little if any global warming since
1979, a period over which atmospheric CO2 has increased by 55 ppm (17
%),ÔøΩ (LINK)
In August 2007, the UK Met Office was finally forced to concede the
obvious: global warming has stopped. (LINK) The UK Met Office
acknowledged the flat lining of global temperatures, but in an
apparent attempt to keep stoking man-made climate alarm, the Met
Office is now promoting more unproven dire computer model projections
of the future. They now claim climate computer models predict ÔøΩglobal
warming will begin in earnest in 2009ÔøΩ because greenhouse emissions
will then overtake natural climate variability.
Southern Hemisphere is COOLING
UN scientist Dr. Madhav L. Khandekar, a retired Environment Canada
scientist and an expert IPCC reviewer in 2007, explained on August 6,
2007 that the Southern Hemisphere is cooling. ÔøΩIn the Southern
Hemisphere, the land-area mean temperature has slowly but surely
declined in the last few years. The city of Buenos Aires in Argentina
received several centimeters of snowfall in early July, and the last
time it snowed in Buenos Aires was in 1918! Most of Australia
experienced one of its coldest months of June this year. Several other
locations in the Southern Hemisphere have experienced lower
temperatures in the last few years. Further, the sea surface
temperatures over world oceans are slowly declining since mid-1998,
according to a recent world-wide analysis of ocean surface
temperatures," Dr. Khandekar explained. (LINK)
Meteorologist Joseph Conklin, who launched the skeptical website
www.ClimatePolice.com in 2007, recently declared the ÔøΩglobal warming
movement [is] falling apart.ÔøΩ
ÔøΩA few months ago, a study came out that demonstrated global
temperatures have leveled off. But instead of possibly admitting that
this whole global warming thing is a farce, a group of British
scientists concluded that the real global warming wonÔøΩt start until
2009,ÔøΩ Conklin wrote in an August 10, 2007 blog post on his website.
(LINK)
Climate models made by unlicensed 'software engineers'
But the credibility of these computer model predictions took a
significant hit in June 2007 when Dr. Jim Renwick, a top UN IPCC
scientist, admitted that climate models do not account for half the
variability in nature and thus are not reliable. "Half of the
variability in the climate system is not predictable, so we donÔøΩt
expect to do terrifically well," Renwick conceded. (LINK)
Another high-profile UN IPCC lead author, Dr. Kevin Trenberth,
recently echoed RenwickÔøΩs sentiments about climate models by referring
to them as ÔøΩstory lines.ÔøΩ
ÔøΩIn fact there are no predictions by IPCC at all. And there never have
been. The IPCC instead proffers ÔøΩwhat ifÔøΩ projections of future
climate that correspond to certain emissions scenarios,ÔøΩ Trenberth
wrote in journal NatureÔøΩs blog on June 4, 2007. He also admitted that
the climate models have major shortcomings because ÔøΩthey do not
consider many things like the recovery of the ozone layer, for
instance, or observed trends in forcing agents. There is no estimate,
even probabilistically, as to the likelihood of any emissions scenario
and no best guess." (LINK)
IPCC reviewer and climate researcher Dr Vincent Gray, of New Zealand,
an expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports going
back to 1990 and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of
"Climate Change 2001," declared ÔøΩThe claims of the IPCC are dangerous
unscientific nonsenseÔøΩ in an April 10, 2007 article. (LINK)
ÔøΩAll [UN IPCC does] is make ÔøΩprojectionsÔøΩ and ÔøΩestimatesÔøΩ. No climate
model has ever been properly tested, which is what ÔøΩvalidationÔøΩ means,
and their ÔøΩprojectionsÔøΩ are nothing more than the opinions of
ÔøΩexpertsÔøΩ with a conflict of interest, because they are paid to
produce the models. There is no actual scientific evidence for all
these ÔøΩprojectionsÔøΩ and ÔøΩestimates,'ÔøΩ Gray noted.
In addtion, meteorologist Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, a scientific pioneer
in the development of numerical weather prediction and former director
of research at The Netherlands' Royal National Meteorological
Institute, recently compared scientists who promote computer models
predicting future climate doom to unlicensed ÔøΩsoftware engineers."
"I am of the opinion that most scientists engaged in the design,
development, and tuning of climate models are in fact software
engineers. They are unlicensed, hence unqualified to sell their
products to society," Tennekes wrote on February 28, 2007. (LINK)
Sampling of very recent inconvenient scientific developments for
proponents of catastrophic man-made global warming:
1) New peer-reviewed study finds global warming over last century
linked to natural causes: Published in Geophysical Research Letters:
Excerpt: ÔøΩTsonis et al. investigate the collective behavior of known
climate cycles such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the North
Atlantic Oscillation, the El Nino/Southern Oscillation, and the North
Pacific Oscillation. By studying the last 100 years of these cycles'
patterns, they find that the systems synchronized several times.
Further, in cases where the synchronous state was followed by an
increase in the coupling strength among the cycles, the synchronous
state was destroyed. Then a new climate state emerged, associated with
global temperature changes and El Nino/Southern Oscillation
variability. The authors show that this mechanism explains all global
temperature tendency changes and El Nino variability in the 20th
century. Authors: Anastasios A. Tsonis, Kyle Swanson, and Sergey
Kravtsov: Atmospheric Sciences Group, Department of Mathematical
Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee, Wisconsin,
U.S.A. See August 2, 2007 Science Daily ÔøΩ ÔøΩSynchronized Chaos:
Mechanisms For Major Climate ShiftsÔøΩ (LINK)
2) Belgian weather instituteÔøΩs (RMI) August 2007 study dismisses
decisive role of CO2 in warming: Excerpt: "Brussels: CO2 is not the
big bogeyman of climate change and global warming. This is the
conclusion of a comprehensive scientific study done by the Royal
Meteorological Institute, which will be published this summer. The
study does not state that CO2 plays no role in warming the earth. "But
it can never play the decisive role that is currently attributed to
it", climate scientist Luc Debontridder said. "Not CO2, but water
vapor is the most important greenhouse gas. It is responsible for at
least 75 % of the greenhouse effect. This is a simple scientific fact,
but Al Gore's movie has hyped CO2 so much that nobody seems to take
note of it." said Debontridder. "Every change in weather conditions is
blamed on CO2. But the warm winters of the last few years (in Belgium)
are simply due to the 'North-Atlantic Oscillation'. And this has
absolutely nothing to do with CO2," he added. (LINK)
3) Updated: September 27, 2007: New peer-reviewed study counters
global warming theory, finds carbon dioxide did not end the last Ice
Age. Excerpt: Deep-sea temperatures rose 1,300 years before
atmospheric CO2, ruling out the greenhouse gas as driver of meltdown,
says study in Science. Carbon dioxide did not cause the end of the
last ice age, a new study in Science suggests, contrary to past
inferences from ice core records. ÔøΩThere has been this continual
reference to the correspondence between CO2 and climate change as
reflected in ice core records as justification for the role of CO2 in
climate change,ÔøΩ said USC geologist Lowell Stott, lead author of the
study, slated for advance online publication Sept. 27 in Science
Express. ÔøΩYou can no longer argue that CO2 alone caused the end of the
ice ages.ÔøΩ Deep-sea temperatures warmed about 1,300 years before the
tropical surface ocean and well before the rise in atmospheric CO2,
the study found. The finding suggests the rise in greenhouse gas was
likely a result of warming and may have accelerated the meltdown ÔøΩ but
was not its main cause. < > ÔøΩThe climate dynamic is much more complex
than simply saying that CO2 rises and the temperature warms,ÔøΩ Stott
said. The complexities ÔøΩhave to be understood in order to appreciate
how the climate system has changed in the past and how it will change
in the future.ÔøΩ (LINK)
4) New peer-reviewed study finds clouds may greatly reduce global
warming: Excerpt: This study published on August 9, 2007 in the
Geophysical Research Letters finds that climate models fail test
against real clouds. "To give an idea of how strong this enhanced
cooling mechanism is, if it was operating on global warming, it would
reduce estimates of future warming by over 75 percent," Dr. Roy
Spencer said. "At least 80 percent of the Earth's natural greenhouse
effect is due to water vapor and clouds, and those are largely under
the control of precipitation systems. Until we understand how
precipitation systems change with warming, I don't believe we can know
how much of our current warming is manmade. Without that knowledge, we
can't predict future climate change with any degree of certainty,"
Spencer added. The paper was co-authored by University of Alabama
Huntsville's Dr. John R. Christy and Dr. W. Danny Braswell, and Dr.
Justin Hnilo of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA.
(LINK)
5) New peer-reviewed study finds that the solar system regulates the
earthÔøΩs climate - The paper, authored by Richard Mackey, was published
August 17, 2007 in the Journal of Coastal Research - Excerpt:
ÔøΩAccording to the findings reviewed in this paper, the variable output
of the sun, the sunÔøΩs gravitational relationship between the earth
(and the moon) and earthÔøΩs variable orbital relationship with the sun,
regulate the earthÔøΩs climate. The processes by which the sun affects
the earth show periodicities on many time scales; each process is
stochastic and immensely complex. (LINK) & (LINK)
6) New peer-reviewed study on Surface Warming and the Solar Cycle:
Excerpt: The study found that times of high solar activity are on
average 0.2 degrees C warmer than times of low solar activity, and
that there is a polar amplification of the warming. This result is the
first to document a statistically significant globally coherent
temperature response to the solar cycle, the authors note. Authors:
Charles D. Camp and Ka Kit Tung: Department of Applied Mathematics,
University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, U.S.A. Source:
Geophysical Research Letters (GRL) paper 10.1029/2007GL030207, 2007
(LINK) [EPW Blog Note: Despite the fact that one of the co-authorÔøΩs
protests this study being used to chill climate fears, this paper is
an important contribution to establishing the solar climate link.]
7) Update - August 29, 2007: SURVEY: LESS THAN HALF OF ALL PUBLISHED
SCIENTISTS ENDORSE GLOBAL WARMING THEORY - Excerpt: "Of 539 total
papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of
the consensus. If one considers 'implicit' endorsement (accepting the
consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%.
However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the
largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept
or reject the hypothesis. This is no 'consensus.'" (LINK) A July
2007 review of 539 abstracts in peer-reviewed scientific journals from
2004 through 2007 found that climate science continues to shift toward
the views of global warming skeptics. Excerpt: ÔøΩThere appears to be
little evidence in the learned journals to justify the climate-change
alarm.ÔøΩ (LINK)
8) Chinese scientists Lin Zhen-Shan, and Sun XianÔøΩs 2007 study,
published in the peer-reviewed Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics,
noted that CO2ÔøΩs impact on warming may be ÔøΩexcessively exaggerated.ÔøΩ
Excerpt: ÔøΩThe global climate warming is not solely affected by the CO2
greenhouse effect. The best example is temperature obviously cooling
however atmospheric CO2 concentration is ascending from 1940s to
1970s. Although the CO2 greenhouse effect on global climate change is
unsuspicious, it could have been excessively exaggerated. It is high
time to reconsider the trend of global climate change,ÔøΩ the two
scientists concluded. (LINK) & (LINK)
9) Updated: October 2, 2007: Danish National Space Center Study
concludes: ÔøΩThe Sun still appears to be the main forcing agent in
global climate change.ÔøΩ The report was authored by Physicist Henrik
Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen. (LINK) Several other recent
scientific studies and scientists have debunked a media hyped UK study
alleging there has not been a solar-climate link in the past 20 years.
UK Astrophysicist Piers Corbyn confirmed the Danish study and also
debunked the ÔøΩNo Solar-Climate Link StudyÔøΩ on July 14, 2007. Excerpt:
ÔøΩ[The study claiming to prove a] ÔøΩrefutationÔøΩ of the decisive role of
solar activity in driving climate is as valid as claiming a particular
year was not warm by simply looking at the winter half of data. The
most significant and persistent cycle of variation in the worldÔøΩs
temperature follows the 22-year magnetic cycle of the sunÔøΩs activity,ÔøΩ
Corbyn, who heads the UK based long-term solar forecast group Weather
Action, wrote. (LINK) Other studies and scientists have found also
confirmed the solar-climate link. (LINK) & (LINK) & (LINK)
10) A June 29, 2007 critique by Gerd Burger of BerlinÔøΩs Institute of
Meteorology in the peer-reviewed Science Magazine challenged a
previously touted study claiming the 20th century had been unusually
warm. Excerpt: ÔøΩBurger argues that [the 2006 temperature analysis by]
Osborn and Briffa did not apply the appropriate statistical tests that
link the proxy records to observational data, and as such, Osborn and
Briffa did not properly quantify the statistical uncertainties in
their analyses. Burger repeated all analyses with the appropriate
adjustments and concluded ÔøΩAs a result, the ÔøΩhighly significantÔøΩ
occurrences of positive anomalies during the 20th century disappear.ÔøΩ
(LINK) Burger's technical comments in Science Magazine state: ÔøΩOsborn
and Briffa (Reports, 10 February 2006, p. 841) identified anomalous
periods of warmth or cold in the Northern Hemisphere that were
synchronous across 14 temperature-sensitive proxies. However, their
finding that the spatial extent of 20th-century warming is exceptional
ignores the effect of proxy screening on the corresponding
significance levels. After appropriate correction, the significance of
the 20th-century warming anomaly disappears.ÔøΩ (LINK)
11) An April 2007 study revealed the EarthÔøΩs climate ÔøΩseesawingÔøΩ
during the last 10,000 years, according to Swedish researchers Svante
BjÔøΩrck, Karl Ljung and Dan Hammarlund of Lund University. Excerpt:
During the last 10,000 years climate has been seesawing between the
North and South Atlantic Oceans. As revealed by findings presented by
Quaternary scientists at Lund University, Sweden, cold periods in the
north have corresponded to warmth in the south and vice verse. These
results imply that Europe may face a slightly cooler future than
predicted by IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. < >
We can identify a persistent "seesaw" pattern. When the South Atlantic
was warm it was cold in the North Atlantic and vice versa. This is
most certainly related to large-scale ocean circulation in the
Atlantic Ocean. The main current system - "the Great Ocean Conveyor" -
is driven by sinking of dense, relatively cold and salty water in the
northern North Atlantic. This results in southward-flowing deep-water
that is replaced by warm surface water brought to high northern
latitudes from the tropics and ultimately from the South Atlantic,
says Svante BjÔøΩrck. < > Our results from Nightingale Island in the
Tristan da Cunha island group, between South Africa and Argentina, for
the first time give evidence of warming of the South Atlantic
associated with cooling in the north. This is a major breakthrough in
palaeoclimate research. (LINK)
12) An August 2007 NASA temperature data error discovery has lead to
1934 -- not the previously hyped 1998 -- being declared the hottest in
U.S. history since records began. Revised data now reveals four of the
top ten hottest years in the U.S. were in the 1930's while only three
of the hottest years occurred in the last decade. Excerpt: "NASA has
yet to own up fully to its historic error in misinterpreting US
surface temperatures to conform to the Global Warming hypothesis, as
discovered by Stephen McIntyre at ClimateAudit.org." (LINK) [EPW
Blog note: 80% of man-made CO2 emissions occurred after 1940. (LINK) ]
13) Numerous U.S. temperature collection data errors exposed by team
of researchers led by Meteorologist Anthony Watts in 2007 (LINK) -
ÔøΩThe (U.S.) National Climate Data Center (NCDC) is in the middle of a
scandal. Their global observing network, the heart and soul of
surface weather measurement, is a disaster. Urbanization has placed
many sites in unsuitable locations ÔøΩ on hot black asphalt, next to
trash burn barrels, beside heat exhaust vents, even attached to hot
chimneys and above outdoor grills! The data and approach taken by many
global warming alarmists is seriously flawed. If the global data were
properly adjusted for urbanization and station siting, and land use
change issues were addressed, what would emerge is a cyclical pattern
of rises and falls with much less of any background trend,ÔøΩ
Meteorologist Joseph Conklin wrote in an August 10, 2007 blog post.
(LINK)
14) Team of Scientists Question Validity Of A 'Global Temperature' ÔøΩ
The study was published in Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics.
Excerpt from a March 18, 2007 article in Science Daily: ÔøΩDiscussions
on global warming often refer to 'global temperature.' Yet the concept
is thermodynamically as well as mathematically an impossibility, says
Bjarne Andresen, a professor at The Niels Bohr Institute, University
of Copenhagen, who has analyzed this topic in collaboration with
professors Christopher Essex from University of Western Ontario and
Ross McKitrick from University of Guelph, Canada.ÔøΩ The Science Daily
article reads: "It is impossible to talk about a single temperature
for something as complicated as the climate of Earth", Bjarne Andresen
says, an expert of thermodynamics. "A temperature can be defined only
for a homogeneous system. Furthermore, the climate is not governed by
a single temperature. Rather, differences of temperatures drive the
processes and create the storms, sea currents, thunder, etc. which
make up the climate.ÔøΩ He explains that while it is possible to treat
temperature statistically locally, it is meaningless to talk about a
global temperature for Earth. The Globe consists of a huge number of
components which one cannot just add up and average. That would
correspond to calculating the average phone number in the phone book.
That is meaningless. Or talking about economics, it does make sense to
compare the currency exchange rate of two countries, whereas there is
no point in talking about an average 'global exchange rate.ÔøΩÔøΩ The
article concludes: ÔøΩThus claims of disaster may be a consequence of
which averaging method has been used, the researchers point out.ÔøΩ
(LINK)
15) Updated: September 26, 2007: New Report from the international
group Institute of PhysicsÔøΩ finds no ÔøΩconsensusÔøΩ on global warming.
Excerpt: As world leaders gathered in New York for a high-level UN
meeting on climate change, a new report by some of the world's most
renowned scientists urges policymakers to keep their eyes on the
"science grapevine", arguing that their understanding of global
warming is still far from complete. Recognizing that powerful
computer-based simulations are a key element in predicting climate
change, a new Institute of Physics (IOP) report, published on 26
September 2007, shows that leading climate-physicists' views on the
reliability of these models differ. The IOP is also urging world
leaders "to remain alert to the latest scientific thought on climate
change". (LINK)
16) A July 2007 analysis of peer-reviewed literature thoroughly
debunks fears of Greenland and the Arctic melting and predictions of a
frightening sea level rise. Excerpt: "Research in 2006 found that
Greenland has been warming since the 1880ÔøΩs, but since 1955,
temperature averages at Greenland stations have been colder than the
period between 1881-1955. A 2006 study found Greenland has cooled
since the 1930's and 1940's, with 1941 being the warmest year on
record. Another 2006 study concluded Greenland was as warm or warmer
in the 1930ÔøΩs and 40ÔøΩs and the rate of warming from 1920-1930 was
about 50% higher than the warming from 1995-2005. One 2005 study
found Greenland gaining ice in the interior higher elevations and
thinning ice at the lower elevations. In addition, the often media
promoted fears of GreenlandÔøΩs ice completely melting and a subsequent
catastrophic sea level rise are directly at odds with the latest
scientific studies." [See July 30, 2007 Report - Latest Scientific
Studies Refute Fears of Greenland Melt ÔøΩ (LINK) ]
17) Update - September 11, 2007: Antarctic ice GROWS to record levels.
Excerpt: While the news focus has been on the lowest ice extent since
satellite monitoring began in 1979 for the Arctic, the Southern
Hemisphere (Antarctica) has quietly set a new record for most ice
extent since 1979. This can be seen on this graphic from this
University of Illinois site The Cryosphere Today, which updated snow
and ice extent for both hemispheres daily. The Southern Hemispheric
areal coverage is the highest in the satellite record, just beating
out 1995, 2001, 2005 and 2006. Since 1979, the trend has been up for
the total Antarctic ice extent. < > This winter has been an especially
harsh one in the Southern Hemisphere with cold and snow records set in
Australia, South America and Africa. (LINK) & (LINK) A February 2007
study reveals Antarctica is not following predicted global warming
models. Excerpt: ÔøΩA new report on climate over the world's
southernmost continent shows that temperatures during the late 20th
century did not climb as had been predicted by many global climate
models." The research was led by David Bromwich, professor of
professor of atmospheric sciences in the Department of Geography, and
researcher with the Byrd Polar Research Center at Ohio State
University. [See: Antarctic temperatures disagree with climate model
predictions - (LINK) ]
18) Update - September 14, 2007: A soon to be released survey finds
Polar Bear population rising in warmer part of the Arctic. Excerpt:
Fears that two-thirds of the worldÔøΩs polar bears will die off in the
next 50 years are overblown, says [Arctic biologist] Mitchell Taylor,
the Government of NunavutÔøΩs director of wildlife research. ÔøΩI think
itÔøΩs naÔøΩve and presumptuous,ÔøΩ Taylor said. < > The Government of
Nunavut is conducting a study of the [southern less ice region of the]
Davis Strait bear population. Results of the study wonÔøΩt be released
until 2008, but Taylor says it appears there are some 3,000 bears in
an area - a big jump from the current estimate of about 850 bears.
ÔøΩThatÔøΩs not theory. ThatÔøΩs not based on a model. ThatÔøΩs observation of
reality,ÔøΩ he says. And despite the fact that some of the most dramatic
changes to sea ice is seen in seasonal ice areas such as Davis Strait,
seven or eight of the bears measured and weighed for the study this
summer are among the biggest on record, Taylor said. ÔøΩDavis Strait is
crawling with polar bears. It's not safe to camp there. They're fat.
The mothers have cubs. The cubs are in good shape,ÔøΩ Taylor said,
according to a September 14, 2007 article. (LINK) [EPW Blog Note: In a
classic case of observed reality versus unproven computer model
predictions, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service estimates that the polar
bear population is currently at 20,000 to 25,000 bears, up from as low
as 5,000-10,000 bears in the 1950s and 1960s. A 2002 U.S. Geological
Survey of wildlife in the Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain noted that the
polar bear populations ÔøΩmay now be near historic highs.ÔøΩ ]
19) Even the alarmist UN has cut sea level rise estimates dramatically
since 2001 and has reduced manÔøΩs estimated impact on the climate by
25%. Meanwhile a separate 2006 UN report found that cow emissions are
more damaging to the planet than all of the CO2 emissions from cars
and trucks. (LINK)
20) Update - September 10, 2007: New study claims UN IPCC peer-review
process is "an illusion." A September 2007 analysis of the IPCC
(Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) scientific review process
entitled ÔøΩPeer Review? What Peer Review?ÔøΩ by climate data analyst John
McLean, revealed very few scientists are actively involved in the UN's
peer-review process. According to the analysis, ÔøΩThe IPCC would have
us believe that its reports are diligently reviewed by many hundreds
of scientists and that these reviewers endorse the contents of the
report. Analyses of reviewer comments show a very different and
disturbing story.ÔøΩ The paper continued: "In [the IPCC's] Chapter 9,
the key science chapter, the IPCC concludes that 'it is very highly
likely that greenhouse gas forcing has been the dominant cause of the
observed global warming over the last 50 years.' The IPCC leads us to
believe that this statement is very much supported by the majority of
reviewers. The reality is that there is surprisingly little explicit
support for this key notion. Among the 23 independent reviewers just 4
explicitly endorsed the chapter with its hypothesis, and one other
endorsed only a specific section. Moreover, only 62 of the IPCCÔøΩs 308
reviewers commented on this chapter at all." The analysis concluded:
ÔøΩThe IPCC reports appear to be largely based on a consensus of
scientific papers, but those papers are the product of research for
which the funding is strongly influenced by previous IPCC reports.
This makes the claim of a human influence self-perpetuating and for a
corruption of the normal scientific process.ÔøΩ (LINK)
21) A May 2007 Senate Environment & Public Works report detailed a
sampling of scientists who were once believers in man-made global
warming and who now are skeptical. [See May 15, 2007 report: Climate
Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made
Global Warming - Now Skeptics: Growing Number of Scientists Convert to
Skeptics After Reviewing New Research ÔøΩ (LINK) ]
22) An upcoming Fall 2007 blockbuster U.S. Senate report is set to be
released that will feature a sampling of peer-reviewed studies and
hundreds of scientists (many current and former UN scientists) who
have spoken out recently against Gore, the UN, and the media
engineered climate ÔøΩconsensus.ÔøΩ Please keep checking this blog for
updates.
Prominent scientists speak out to calm CO2 emission fears
Many prominent scientists have spoken out in 2007 to debunk many fears
relating to increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Climatologist
Dr. Timothy Ball recently explained that one of the reasons climate
models are failing is because they overestimate the warming effect of
CO2 in the atmosphere. Ball described how CO2ÔøΩs warming impact
diminishes. ÔøΩEven if CO2 concentration doubles or triples, the effect
on temperature would be minimal. The relationship between temperature
and CO2 is like painting a window black to block sunlight. The first
coat blocks most of the light. Second and third coats reduce very
little more. Current CO2 levels are like the first coat of black
paint,ÔøΩ Ball explained in a June 6, 2007 article in Canada Free Press.
(LINK)
Boston College paleoclimatologist Dr. Amy Frappier recently explained
how carbon dioxide in the atmosphere can cease to have a warming
impact. Frappier noted in a February 1, 2007 article in Boston
CollegeÔøΩs newspaper The Heights, that greenhouse gas concentrations in
the atmosphere do not consistently continue to have a warming effect
on Earth, but the impact of the gases instead stabilize and cease
having a warming effect.
"At some point the heat-trapping capacity of [CO2] and its effect gets
saturated," said Frappier, "and you don't have increased heating."
(LINK) "The geologic record shows that many millions of years ago, CO2
levels were indeed higher - in some cases many times higher - than
today," Frappier, who believes mankind is having an impact on the
climate, explained. According the article, Frappier criticizes Gore
because ÔøΩthe movie (An Inconvenient Truth) fails to mention any
ancient incongruity between carbon dioxide and temperature.ÔøΩ
Spitting outside has ÔøΩsame effectÔøΩ as doubling CO2
In May 2007, the ÔøΩfather of meteorologyÔøΩ Dr. Reid Bryson, the founding
chairman of the Department of Meteorology at University of Wisconsin,
dismissed fears of increased man-made CO2 in the atmosphere.
ÔøΩYou can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling
carbon dioxide,ÔøΩ Bryson, who has been identified by the British
Institute of Geographers as the most frequently cited climatologist in
the world, said. (LINK) ÔøΩAll this argument is the temperature going up
or not, itÔøΩs absurd. Of course itÔøΩs going up. It has gone up since the
early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because weÔøΩre coming
out of the Little Ice Age, not because weÔøΩre putting more carbon
dioxide into the air,ÔøΩ Bryson added.
Environmental economist Dennis Avery, co-author with climate scientist
Dr. Fred Singer of the new book "Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500
Years," explained the impact man-made CO2 has had on global
temperatures. "The earth has warmed only a net 0.2 degrees C of net
warming since 1940. Human-emitted CO2 gets the blame for only half of
thatÔøΩor 0.1 degree C of warming over 65 years! We've had no warming at
all since 1998. Remember, too, that each added unit of CO2 has less
impact on the climate. The first 40 parts per million of human-emitted
CO2 added to the atmosphere in the 1940s had as much climate impact as
the next 360 ppm," Avery wrote in August 2007. The book, "Unstoppable
Global Warming Every 1500 Years," details more than 100 scientific
studies with more than 300 co-authors revealing how solar activity is
linked to the Earth's natural temperature cycles.
"How do the Greens project a mind-numbing surge of global warming from
this New Math on Global Warming?" Avery asked, calling the new
scientific research debunking climate fears a "real crisis" for Gore
and the proponents of man-made catastrophic global warming. (LINK)
ÔøΩTemperature drives CO2ÔøΩ
Ivy League geologist Dr. Robert Giegengack, the chair of Department of
Earth and Environmental Science at the University of Pennsylvania,
recently spoke out against fears of rising CO2 impacts promoted by
Gore and others. Giegengack does not even consider global warming
among the top ten environmental problems.
ÔøΩIn terms of [global warmingÔøΩs] capacity to cause the human species
harm, I donÔøΩt think it makes it into the top 10,ÔøΩ Giegengack said in
an interview in the May/June 2007 issue of the Pennsylvania Gazette.
(LINK) Giegengack also noted ÔøΩfor most of EarthÔøΩs history, the globe
has been warmer than it has been for the last 200 years. It has rarely
been cooler.ÔøΩ (LINK) ÔøΩ[Gore] claims that temperature increases solely
because more CO2 in the atmosphere traps the sunÔøΩs heat. ThatÔøΩs just
wrong ÔøΩ ItÔøΩs a natural interplay. As temperature rises, CO2 rises, and
vice versa,ÔøΩ Giegengack explained. ÔøΩItÔøΩs hard for us to say that CO2
drives temperature. ItÔøΩs easier to say temperature drives CO2,ÔøΩ he
added. (LINK) "The driving mechanism is exactly the opposite of what
Al Gore claims, both in his film and in that book. It's the
temperature that, through those 650,000 years, controlled the CO2; not
the CO2 that controlled the temperature," he added. (LINK)
ÔøΩCertain ÔøΩfeedback loopsÔøΩ naturally control the levels of greenhouse
gases in the atmosphere. A warmer temperature drives gases out of
solution in the ocean and releases them,ÔøΩ he continued. ÔøΩ[Today,
humans] are putting 6.5 billion tons of fossil-fuel carbon into the
atmosphere, and only 3.5 billion is staying there, so 3 billion tons
is going somewhere else. In the past, when the EarthÔøΩs climate rose,
CO2 came out of the ocean, the soils, and the permafrost. Today as
temperatures rise, excess CO2 is instead going into those and other
reservoirs. This reversed flux is very important. Because of this, if
we reduced the rate at which we put carbon into the atmosphere, it
wonÔøΩt reduce the concentration in the atmosphere; CO2 is just going to
come back out of these reservoirs ... If we were to stop manufacturing
CO2 tomorrow, we wouldnÔøΩt see the effects of that for generations,ÔøΩ
Giegengack said.
Man-made CO2 equivalent to linoleum on first floor of 100 story
building
Meteorologist Joseph DÔøΩAleo, the first Director of Meteorology at The
Weather Channel and former chairman of the American Meteorological
SocietyÔøΩs (AMS) Committee on Weather Analysis and Forecasting,
explained how miniscule mankindÔøΩs CO2 emissions are in relation to the
atmosphere.
ÔøΩIf the atmosphere was a 100 story building, our annual anthropogenic
CO2 contribution today would be equivalent to the linoleum on the
first floor,ÔøΩ DÔøΩAleo wrote in an August 15, 2007 blog on his website
www.IceCap.US. (LINK)
ÔøΩCarbon dioxide is 0.000383 of our atmosphere by volume (0.038%). Only
2.75% of atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic in origin. The amount we
emit is said to be up from 1% a decade ago. Despite the increase in
emissions, the rate of change of atmospheric carbon dioxide at Mauna
Loa remains the same as the long term average (+0.45%/year). We are
responsible for just 0.001% of this atmosphere. If the atmosphere was
a 100 story building, our anthropogenic CO2 contribution today would
be equivalent to the linoleum on the first floor. This is likely
because the oceans are a far more important sink for excess carbon
dioxide than generally accepted,ÔøΩ he explained.
NASA's James Hansen calls climate skeptics ÔøΩcourt jestersÔøΩ
In the face of this growing surge of scientific research and the
increasing number of scientists speaking out, NASA scientist James
Hansen wrote this past week that skeptics of a predicted climate
catastrophe were engaging in ÔøΩdeceitÔøΩ and were nothing more than
ÔøΩcourt jesters.ÔøΩ
ÔøΩThe contrarians will be remembered as court jesters. There is no
point to joust with court jesters. They will always be present,ÔøΩ
Hanson wrote on August 16, 2007. (LINK) & (LINK) & (LINK) [EPW Blog
Note: It is ironic to have accusations of ÔøΩdeceitÔøΩ coming from a man
who conceded in a 2003 issue of Natural Science that the use of
ÔøΩextreme scenarios" to dramatize global warming ÔøΩmay have been
appropriate at one timeÔøΩ to drive the public's attention to the issue
--- a disturbing admission by a prominent scientist. (LINK) Also worth
noting is HansenÔøΩs humorous allegation that he was muzzled by the
current Administration despite the fact he did over 1400 on-the-job
media interviews. (LINK) ]
If the scientific case is so strong for predictions of catastrophic
man-made global warming, why do its promoters like Hansen and his
close ally Gore feel the need to resort to insults and intimidation
when attempting to silence skeptics? [EPW Blog Note: Gore and Hansen
are not alone - See: EPA to Probe E-mail Threatening to ÔøΩDestroyÔøΩ
Career of Climate Skeptic - LINK ]
Media continues to ignore growing scientific evidence
The mainstream mediaÔøΩs response to these recent scientific
developments casting significant doubt on warming fears has been ÔøΩ
utter silence.
In fact, the media is continuing to promote the unfounded
scaremongering of both Gore and actor Leonardo DiCaprio. Both
Newsweek (LINK) and NBC Nightly News (LINK) thoroughly embarrassed
themselves recently with ÔøΩnewsÔøΩ items on global warming. [EPW Blog
Note: NewsweekÔøΩs cover article featured such shoddy reporting that the
magazine was forced to debunk itself in the very next issue, as one of
its own editors slapped the magazine down for a ÔøΩhighly contrivedÔøΩ and
ÔøΩ fundamentally misleadingÔøΩ article on global warming. See: (LINK) ]
Man_of_Mind
>
> Peter Principle posted:
--
>> Debate this, you stupid asshole: How fucking STUPID must one be before one
>> thinks one's uniformed stupid asshole opinion of merit despite the fact that
>> one is too willfully ignorant, aka stupid, to know that the warmth absorbing
>> properties of CO2 were proven MORE THAN ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY FUCKING YEARS
>> AGO?
>>
>> Well, Dr. Doofus? You see, without your help, those of us with thumbs will
>> never know...
>
> Wow, you regally take this over the top serious
*>LOL!<* Slipped in some Freud and you can't reach your
nice big glass of STFU?
Or, did you think that by insinuating that which you cannot
hope to prove, creating doubts where none can exist, and acting
like a bratty, sniveling right-wing retarded ideologue, you
can expect to have any effect upon the scientific conclusions?
Examples follow..
> Seems to me [..]
> I guess the question is [..]
> How can you be so sure [..]
> The answer is you don't know the fucking answer [..]
Tell you what, why don't you STFU, and quit acting so "regally" and
"over the top serious" about something you *CLEARLY* have "something
at stake" in this matter.. (eg SESSOMS CONSTRUCTION CO INC)
--Isn't that why/where you're posting from, in Fart Louder_Wail?
Man_of_Mind
>
> Harry Hope was quoting from:
>>
>> http://www.examiner.com/x-17297-Rochester-Independent-Examiner~y2009m12d12-Global-Warming-is-real-stop-denying-it
Have any direct proof of that, pygmy_drama?
--Nah, didn't think so.. *>LOL!<*
lab~rat >:-)
<baron.v...@gmail.com> puked:
>le brat was whimpering futilely because of the reply from:
>>
>> Peter Principle posted:
David Hartung
> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 05:12:41 -0800 (PST), Kevin Cunningham
> <sms...@mindspring.com> puked:
>
>>> On Dec 14, 8:54 pm, Harry Hope <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://www.examiner.com/x-17297-Rochester-Independent-Examiner~y2009m...
>>>> December 12
>>>> Global Warming is real, stop denying it
>>> Global Warming may or may not be real, start debating it.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> By Thomas Mangan
>>>> According to a new McClatchy-Ipsos poll, 28% of Americans still refuse
>>>> to accept the overwhelming scientific evidence that global warming is
>>>> real.
>>>> The million dollar question is:
>>>> How many of them also believe that the world is flat?
>>>> It is a sound conservative fiscal principle that it is much less
>>>> expensive to solve a problem before it becomes a crisis.
>>>> However, before you can solve a problem you have to recognize that the
>>>> problem exists, and today s conservatives aren t very good at that.
>>>> They re good at denial, but not good at science.
>>>> But it isn t a smart idea to ignore the facts because they conflict
>>>> with your political and economic principles.
>>> It's also not such a cool thing to create facts that confirm your
>>> political and economic principles.
>>>
>>>> It is a fact that the polar ice caps and glaciers world-wide are
>>>> melting.
>>> Why is it only you AGW whackos can see all of this dramatic "loss of
>>> the same powers of perception that you AGW whackos have--or so you
>>> bias.
>> Show us a paper that proves that global warming doesn't exist.
>>
>> The biggest problem you scum have is no facts. See, drooler, you have
>> to have facts to publish and you have no facts. None.
>>
>> When you come up with a fact, put it on this NG, I'll be waiting.
>
> http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=84e9e44a-802a-23ad-493a-b35d0842fed8
>
> New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears
>
>
> Washington DC – An abundance of new peer-reviewed studies, analyses,
> and data error discoveries in the last several months has prompted
> scientists to declare that fear of catastrophic man-made global
> may be “falling apart.” The latest study to cast doubt on climate
> fears finds that even a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide would
> not have the previously predicted dire impacts on global temperatures.
> This new study is not unique, as a host of recent peer-reviewed
> studies have cast a chill on global warming fears.
My guess is that this will change no one's opinion.
Igor
>
> >http://www.examiner.com/x-17297-Rochester-Independent-Examiner~y2009m...
>
> > December 12
>
> > Global Warming is real, stop denying it
>
> Global Warming may or may not be real, start debating it.
>
Global warming is FACT. You may or may not be a moron. Start
debating it.
Igor
> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 05:12:41 -0800 (PST), Kevin Cunningham
> <sms...@mindspring.com> puked:
>
>
>
>
>
> >> On Dec 14, 8:54Êpm, Harry Hope <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >> >http://www.examiner.com/x-17297-Rochester-Independent-Examiner~y2009m...
>
> >> > December 12
>
> >> > Global Warming is real, stop denying it
>
> >> Global Warming may or may not be real, start debating it.
>
> >> > By Thomas Mangan
>
> >> > According to a new McClatchy-Ipsos poll, 28% of Americans still refuse
> >> > to accept the overwhelming scientific evidence that global warming is
> >> > real.
>
> >> > The million dollar question is:
>
> >> > How many of them also believe that the world is flat?
>
> >> > It is a sound conservative fiscal principle that it is much less
> >> > expensive to solve a problem before it becomes a crisis.
>
> >> > However, before you can solve a problem you have to recognize that the
> >> > problem exists, and today s conservatives aren t very good at that.
>
> >> > They re good at denial, but not good at science.
>
> >> > But it isn t a smart idea to ignore the facts because they conflict
> >> > with your political and economic principles.
>
> >> It's also not such a cool thing to create facts that confirm your
> >> political and economic principles.
>
> >> > It is a fact that the polar ice caps and glaciers world-wide are
> >> > melting.
>
> >> Why is it only you AGW whackos can see all of this dramatic "loss of
> >> the same powers of perception that you AGW whackos have--or so you
> >> bias.
>
> >Show us a paper that proves that global warming doesn't exist.
>
> >The biggest problem you scum have is no facts. See, drooler, you have
> >to have facts to publish and you have no facts. None.
>
> >When you come up with a fact, put it on this NG, I'll be waiting.
>
>
> New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears
>
>
> Washington DC Ð An abundance of new peer-reviewed studies, analyses,
> and data error discoveries in the last several months has prompted
> scientists to declare that fear of catastrophic man-made global
> may be Òfalling apart.Ó The latest study to cast doubt on climate
> fears finds that even a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide would
> not have the previously predicted dire impacts on global temperatures.
> This new study is not unique, as a host of recent peer-reviewed
> studies have cast a chill on global warming fears.
>
> astronomer Dr. Ian Wilson after reviewing the new study which has been
> accepted for publication in the Journal of Geophysical Research.
> swoopÓ the climate fears promoted by the UN and former Vice President
> Al Gore. The study entitled ÒHeat Capacity, Time Constant, and
> Sensitivity of EarthÕs Climate System,Ó was authored by Brookhaven
> National Lab scientist Stephen Schwartz. (LINK)
>
> spend trillions of dollars trying to avoid a warming of ~ 1.0 K by
> Public Works Committee on August 19, 2007. Wilson, a former
> operations astronomer at the Hubble Space Telescope Institute in
> Baltimore MD, was referring to the trillions of dollars that would be
> spent under such international global warming treaties like the Kyoto
> Protocol.
>
> temperature increase associated with a doubling of CO2 were far too
> of 1.1 +/- 0.5 K increase for a doubling of CO2,Ó he added.
>
> Climate fears reduced to ÔchildrenÕs gamesÕ
>
> Other scientists are echoing WilsonÕs analysis. Former Harvard
> physicist Dr. Lubos Motl said the new study has reduced proponents of
> other.Ó
>
> ÒRecall that most of the 1.1 degree - about 0.7 degrees - has already
> occurred since the beginning of the industrial era. This fact itself
> is an indication that the climate sensitivity is unlikely to be much
> greater than 1 Celsius degree: the effect of most of the doubling has
> August 17, 2007 blog post. (LINK)
>
> expected slightly before (the year) 2100 -- assuming a
> business-as-usual continued growth of CO2 that has been linear for
> some time -- Schwartz and others would expect 0.4 C of extra warming
> only - a typical fluctuation that occurs within four months and
> explained.
>
> ÒAs far as I can say, all the people who end up with 2 or even 3
> Celsius degrees for the climate sensitivity are just playing the
> children's game to scare each other, as [MIT climate scientist]
> Richard Lindzen says, by making artificial biased assumptions about
> positive feedbacks. There is no reasonable, balanced, and
> self-consistent work that would lead to such a relatively high
>
> Overturning IPCC consensus Ôin one fell swoopÕ
>
> The new study was also touted as Òoverturning the UN IPCC 'consensusÕ
> in one fell swoopÓ by the American Enterprise InstituteÕs (AEI) Joel
> Schwartz in an August 17, 2007 blog post. (LINK)
>
> concludes that the EarthÕs climate is only about one-third as
> sensitive to carbon dioxide as the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on
> degree in planetary science from the California Institute of
> Technology.
>
> C for a doubling of CO2 (2.0Ð4.5 degrees C, 2SD range). Right now
> weÕre about 41% above the estimated pre-industrial CO2 level of 270
> ppm. At the current rate of increase of about 0.55% per year, CO2 will
> about a 0.6 degrees C additional increase in temperature between now
> alarming,Ó AEIÕs Schwartz explained.
>
> ÒIn other words, thereÕs hardly any additional warming Ôin the
> pipelineÕ from previous greenhouse gas emissions. This is in contrast
> to the IPCC, which predicts that the EarthÕs average temperature will
> rise an additional 0.6 degrees C during the 21st Century even if
>
> ÒAlong with dozens of other studies in the scientific literature,
> [this] new study belies Al GoreÕs claim that there is no legitimate
> scholarly alternative to climate catastrophism. Indeed, if SchwartzÕs
> results are correct, that alone would be enough to overturn in one
> climate hysteria, and the political pretext for the energy-restriction
> regulators, elected officials, and corporations. The question is, will
>
> UK officially admits: Global warming has stopped!
>
> Recent scientific studies may make 2007 go down in history as the
> "tipping point" of man-made global warming fears. A progression of
> peer-reviewed studies have been published which serve to debunk the
> United Nations, former Vice President Al Gore, and the media
>
> Paleoclimate scientist Bob Carter, who has testified before the U.S.
> Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works (LINK), noted in a June
> 18, 2007 essay that global warming has stopped.
>
> Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based
> warming has occurred since 1998. Oddly, this eight-year-long
> temperature stasis has occurred despite an increase over the same
> period of 15 parts per million (or 4 per cent) in atmospheric CO2.
> Second, lower atmosphere satellite-based temperature measurements, if
> corrected for non-greenhouse influences such as El Nino events and
> large volcanic eruptions, show little if any global warming since
> 1979, a period over which atmospheric CO2 has increased by 55 ppm (17
>
> In August 2007, the UK Met Office was finally forced to concede the
> obvious: global warming has stopped. (LINK) The UK Met Office
> acknowledged the flat lining of global temperatures, but in an
> apparent attempt to keep stoking man-made climate alarm, the Met
> Office is now promoting more unproven dire computer model projections
> warming will begin in earnest in 2009Ó because greenhouse emissions
> will then overtake natural climate variability.
>
> Southern Hemisphere is COOLING
>
> UN scientist Dr. Madhav L. Khandekar, a retired Environment Canada
> scientist and an expert IPCC reviewer in 2007, explained on August 6,
> Hemisphere, the land-area mean temperature has slowly but surely
> declined in the last few years. The city of Buenos Aires in Argentina
> received several centimeters of snowfall in early July, and the last
> time it snowed in Buenos Aires was in 1918! Most of Australia
> experienced one of its coldest months of June this year. Several other
> locations in the Southern Hemisphere have experienced lower
>
> read more »-
There's a big difference between AGW and plain old GW. GW is fact.
AGW and its extent is still subject to debate.
Man_of_Mind
>
> le brat was pretending to be knowledgeable about:
>>> When you come up with a fact, put it on this NG, I'll be waiting.
>>
>> http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=84e9e44a-802a-23ad-493a-b35d0842fed8
OMFG! You're citing Inhofe's blog? *>LOL!<*
> My guess is that this will change no one's opinion.
Nor will it change the actual science..
--Would you like a nice big glass of STFU now?
pyjamarama
> pygmy_drama-rama was pointlessly sniveling for attention from:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Harry Hope was quoting from:
>
See Jones, Mann, East Anglia.
SMACK!!
Man_of_Mind
>
> Man_of_Mind restored the original text/context ignored by:
>>
>> le brat was whimpering futilely because of the reply from:
>>>
>>> Peter Principle posted:
>.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=84e9e44a-802a-23ad-493a-b35d0842fed8
Le's see, that's Inhofe's blog, supported by the American Enterprise
Institute. I wonder how much money they still get from Exxon-Mobile?
Meanwhile, in the real world..
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN02547411
"Arctic now warmest in 2000 years, researchers say"
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/03/060308211836.htm
"NASA Survey Confirms Climate Warming Impact On Polar Ice Sheets"
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL07611784
"Maldives warns global warming threatening islands"
--See subject header for details..
Man_of_Mind
>
> Man_of_Mind was amused by the knee-jerk reactions posted by:
>>
>> pygmy_drama-rama was pointlessly sniveling for attention from:
>>>
>>> Harry Hope was quoting from:
>>>>
Oh, you mean HadCRUT? Which version?
Too bad you can't substantiate that past your usual
regurgitation of right-wing pabulum and rhetoric, hunh..
Example follows..
http://mediamatters.org/research/200912080053
"On the December 8 edition of Fox News' Special Report,
correspondent James Rosen advanced the claim that
"climate-gate" revealed that "some leading proponents
of global warming [...] destroyed" raw temperature data.
In fact, according to the scientists, the raw data is still
available at the meteorological services where they obtained
it and Climate Research Unit director Phil Jones said the CRU
simply did not keep copies for "less than 5 percent of its
original station data" in its database because those
"stations had several discontinuities or were affected
by urbanization trends."
--"The original data is curated at the met services where it originated"
pyjamarama
>
>
>
>
>
> > Man_of_Mind was amused by the knee-jerk reactions posted by:
>
> >> pygmy_drama-rama was pointlessly sniveling for attention from:
>
> >>> Harry Hope was quoting from:
>
Basement-dwelling moron Kurt Lochner pissed and moaned right on cue:
> Too bad you can't substantiate that past your usual
> regurgitation of right-wing pabulum and rhetoric, hunh..
>
Isn't it time to change your name again, Lochner?
Still comfy in mommy's basement?
David Hartung
If there are new peer reviewed studies that cast doubt on the existence
of AGW, then it would seem possible that science does not support the
hypothesis that mankind is warming the planet to a dangerous lever, right?
Man_of_Mind
>
> Man_of_Mind was amused by the manufactured doubts posted by:
>>
>> Vapid Fartung writhed in denials along with:
>>>
>>> le brat was pretending to be knowledgeable about:
>>>>> When you come up with a fact, put it on this NG, I'll be waiting.
>>>>
>>>> http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=84e9e44a-802a-23ad-493a-b35d0842fed8
>>
>> OMFG! You're citing Inhofe's blog? *>LOL!<*
>>
>>> My guess is that this will change no one's opinion.
>>
>> Nor will it change the actual science..
>>
>> --Would you like a nice big glass of STFU now?
>
> If there are new peer reviewed studies that cast doubt on
> the existence of AGW,
There aren't..
--Thus, your speculation has no scientific basis..
Man_of_Mind
>
>>
>> pygmy_drama-rama continued pointlessly sniveling for attention:
>>>
>>> Man_of_Mind was amused by the knee-jerk reactions posted by:
>>>>
>>>> pygmy_drama-rama was pointlessly sniveling for attention from:
>>>>>
>>>>> Harry Hope was quoting from:
>>>>>>
>> regurgitation of right-wing pabulum and rhetoric, hunh..
>>
>>
>> http://mediamatters.org/research/200912080053
>>
>> "On the December 8 edition of Fox News' Special Report,
>> correspondent James Rosen advanced the claim that
>> "climate-gate" revealed that "some leading proponents
>> of global warming [...] destroyed" raw temperature data.
>>
>> In fact, according to the scientists, the raw data is still
>> available at the meteorological services where they obtained
>> it and Climate Research Unit director Phil Jones said the CRU
>> simply did not keep copies for "less than 5 percent of its
>> original station data" in its database because those
>> "stations had several discontinuities or were affected
>> by urbanization trends."
>>
>> --"The original data is curated at the met services where it originated"
>
Keep telling on yourself with your petty personal attacks..
--Your sniveling insults have no effect, so STFU..
Not Sure
> http://www.examiner.com/x-17297-Rochester-Independent-Examiner~y2009m...
>
>
> Global Warming is real, stop denying it
Sure it is :). Keep stamping your feet and crying your eyes out and
maybe someday we'll believe it.
>
> By Thomas Mangan
>
> According to a new McClatchy-Ipsos poll, 28% of Americans still refuse
> to accept the overwhelming scientific evidence that global warming is
> real.
>
> The million dollar question is:
>
> How many of them also believe that the world is flat?
>
> It is a sound conservative fiscal principle that it is much less
> expensive to solve a problem before it becomes a crisis.
>
> However, before you can solve a problem you have to recognize that the
> problem exists, and today s conservatives aren t very good at that.
>
> They re good at denial, but not good at science.
>
> But it isn t a smart idea to ignore the facts because they conflict
> with your political and economic principles.
>
> "No one can live an hour without both facts and principles.
>
> William James
>
> It is a fact that the polar ice caps and glaciers world-wide are
> melting.
>
> It is also a fact that this is causing a dramatic rise in the sea
> level.
>
> According to scientists at the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric
> Research, greenhouse gases have pushed Arctic temperatures to the
> highest levels in at least 2,000 years.http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN02547411
>
> Reuters reports that this past September two German merchant ships
> sailed from South Korea to Rotterdam, via the fabled Northeast
> Passage, the treacherous Arctic sea-lane along the north coast of
> Russia.http://blogs.reuters.com/environment/2009/09/09/german-ships-navigate...
>
> It was the first commercial navigation of the Northeast Passage in
> recorded history.
>
> Sailing from Asia to Europe via the Northeast Passage was first
> attempted by mariners in 1553.
>
> But ice always blocked the way until 2005, when warmer temperatures in
> the Arctic opened the Northeast Passage for the first time ever.
>
> A September 2009 NASA study confirms that global warming is causing
> the Arctic and Antarctic polar ice sheets to melt, causing a
> corresponding rise in the sea level world wide.http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/03/060308211836.htm
>
> The NASA scientists analyzed data from the Ice, Cloud and land
> Elevation Satellite (ICESat), which uses a laser beam to measure the
> elevation of ice sheets with unprecedented accuracy three times a
> year.
>
> In November 2008, scientists at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center
> used data from the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE)
> satellites to prove that glaciers in the Gulf of Alaska are melting
> rapidly because of higher temperatures in the Arctic.http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/glacier_tech.html
>
> It s simple.
>
> Higher temperatures melt the glaciers and the ice caps.
>
> This raises the sea level, which causes low lying coastal areas to
> disappear under the sea.
>
> "Knowledge is demonstrative, necessary. Belief is only an opinion
>
> John Dewey
>
> So if you think global warming is a hoax, please move to the Maldives,
> a tropical island paradise nation in the Indian Ocean.http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL07611784
>
> Scientists estimate that sea levels will rise between two to three
> feet by the year 2100.
>
> Since 80 % of the 1,200 islands in the Maldives are only about 3 feet
> above sea level, most of the island paradise will disappear under the
> sea by the end of the century.
>
> But we have more to lose than that.
>
> According to the National Geographic Society, Ernest Hemingway s The
> Snows of Kilimanjaro will soon be gone forever.http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/09/0923_030923_kilimanja...
>
> The glaciers, which Hemingway described as "wide as all the world,
> great, high, and unbelievably white in the sun" have lost 82% of their
> ice mass since 1912, when they were first measured.
>
> Scientists predict that the legendary glaciers, which have capped
> Africa's highest mountain for nearly 12,000 years, could disappear
> entirely by 2020.
>
> Maybe Hemingway should have written The Snowless Kilimanjaro.
>
> If you don t believe in global warming, what else are you willing to
> give up besides snow-capped mountains and dazzlingly beautiful tropic
> isles?
>
> _______________________________________________________
>
> Harry
lab~rat >:-)
>> http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority
>>.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=84e9e44a-802a-23ad-493a-b35d0842fed8
>
>Le's see, that's Inhofe's blog, supported by the American Enterprise
>Institute. I wonder how much money they still get from Exxon-Mobile?
>
>Meanwhile, in the real world..
>
>http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN02547411
>
>"Arctic now warmest in 2000 years, researchers say"
>
>http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/03/060308211836.htm
>
>"NASA Survey Confirms Climate Warming Impact On Polar Ice Sheets"
>
>http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL07611784
>
>"Maldives warns global warming threatening islands"
>
>--See subject header for details..
Cool, so let's agree that there's global warming. None of what you
posted puts it at human's feet.
Personally, I like the environment. And if we were in another mindset
politically, I would be on this very group discussing how we should
control emissions, not cut down the rain forest, create alternative
energy sources, etc.
I'm for all of that. What I'm NOT for is oppressive government
control of how we live. I think that a lot of people are like me,
want to do right by the environment, but bristle at the idea of cap
and trade.
And I don't care what you say, it's arrogant for us to believe that we
not only can, but should, manipulate climate based on a dizzying array
of suggestions, many that run contrary to each other.
Lamont Cranston
> "Harry Hope" <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:gk5ei5tkg346c56gt...@4ax.com...
>>
>> http://www.examiner.com/x-17297-Rochester-Independent-Examiner~y2009m12d12-Global-Warming-is-real-stop-denying-it
>>
>>
>> Global Warming is real, stop denying it
>>
>
>
>
>
> Here's an interesting interiew ...
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvufOvneJMk&feature=player_embedded
>
> This is just so enjoyable....
>
> Wow...what a gem.....
>
>
>
>
> Warmest Regards
>
> B0n oz
>
> "It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of
> perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of
> thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet
> been detected that is distinct from natural variation."
> Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University,
> Townsville
Yet another non-climatologist being relied on for climatology expertise.
David Hartung
I'm not speculating, I am responding to a posted article which made that
exact statement.
Last Post
wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 21:53:21 -0800 (PST), Claudius Denk
>
> <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >On Dec 14, 8:54 pm, Harry Hope <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >>http://www.examiner.com/x-17297-Rochester-Independent-Examiner~y2009m...
>
>
> >> Global Warming is real, stop denying it
>
>
> thinks one's uniformed stupid asshole opinion of merit despite the fact that
> one is too willfully ignorant, aka stupid, to know that the warmth absorbing
> properties of CO2 were proven MORE THAN ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY FUCKING YEARS
> AGO?
•• My oh MY – such hysterical screaming
How many times have 19th century theories
been refuted? ANS: Lots of times.
CO2 does not remain in the atmosphere long
enough to warm anything. As soon as the
cloud bank meets a cold front it rains and
CO2 hits the earth asnd becomes fertilizer
> http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
> © 1999 by the American Psychological Association
> December 1999 Vol. 77, No. 6, 1121-1134
•• Since when does psychology ave any
connection to Geophysics?
—— ——
There are three types of people that you
can_not_talk_into_behaving_well. The
stupid, the religious fanatic, and the evil.
1- The stupid aren't smart enough to follow the
logic of what you say. You have to tell them
what is right in very simple terms. If they do
not agree, you will never be able to change
their mind.
2- The religious fanatic: If what you say goes
against their religious belief, they will cling to
that belief even if it means their death.
3- There is no way to reform evil- not in a
million years. There is no way to convince
the anthropogenic global warming alarmists,
the terrorists, serial killers, paedophiles, and
predators to change their evil ways, They
knew what they were doing was wrong, but
knowledge didn't stop them. It only made
them more careful in how they went about
performing their evil deeds.
David Hartung
> Keep telling on yourself with your petty personal attacks..
>
> --Your sniveling insults have no effect, so STFU..
You might wish to follow your own advice. You engage in personal attacks
as much as anyone else.
Last Post
> http://www.examiner.com/x-17297-Rochester-Independent-Examiner~y2009m...
>
> December 12
>
> Global Warming is real, stop denying it
•• Bullshit
>
> By Thomas Mangan
>
> According to a new McClatchy-Ipsos poll, 28% of Americans still refuse
> to accept the overwhelming scientific evidence that global warming is
> real.
•• There is NO "overwhelming scientific
evidence that global warming is real."
> The million dollar question is:
>
> How many of them also believe that the world is flat?
•• Probably only Thomas Mangan, Harry
Hopeless and Algore
>
> It is a sound conservative fiscal principle that it is much less
> expensive to solve a problem before it becomes a crisis.
>
> However, before you can solve a problem you have to recognize that the
> problem exists, and today s conservatives aren t very good at that.
•• ROTFLMAO
Sorry Bud but Mangan and the AGW
alarmists are today's flat earthers
•• THE REST OF THE ALARMIST BULLSHIT SNIPPED
pyjamarama
All Lochner has is personal attacks...
And a stupefyingly failed ideology.
Although to be fair, it neatly matches his failure as a human being.
That's the ultimate irony of leftism.
Last Post
•• Then why can't Algore and all the AGW
alarmists debate the "FACTS"?
•• Those who would call others, "moron"
need only look in a mirror to see a real one.
Siobhan Medeiros
> On Dec 15, 1:58 am, Peter Principle <petesfe...@SNIPITgmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 21:53:21 -0800 (PST), Claudius Denk
>
> > <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > >On Dec 14, 8:54 pm, Harry Hope <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > >>http://www.examiner.com/x-17297-Rochester-Independent-Examiner~y2009m...
>
> > >> December 12
>
> > >> Global Warming is real, stop denying it
>
> > >Global Warming may or may not be real, start debating it.
>
> > Debate this, you stupid asshole: How fucking STUPID must one be before one
> > thinks one's uniformed stupid asshole opinion of merit despite the fact that
> > one is too willfully ignorant, aka stupid, to know that the warmth absorbing
> > properties of CO2 were proven MORE THAN ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY FUCKING YEARS
> > AGO?
>
> •• My oh MY – such hysterical screaming
> How many times have 19th century theories
> been refuted? ANS: Lots of times.
Oh, so you think evolution, plate tectonics, electric current have all
been "refuted"? Good to know!\
Retard.
>
> CO2 does not remain in the atmosphere long
> enough to warm anything. As soon as the
> cloud bank meets a cold front it rains and
> CO2 hits the earth asnd becomes fertilizer
Fuck, you're stupid. Nothing remotely like that happens. GASES are
not washed out by rainfall, PARTICULATES are. If what you said was
true, we'd all be breathing vacuum after a rainstorm.
>
> >http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
> > © 1999 by the American Psychological Association
> > December 1999 Vol. 77, No. 6, 1121-1134
>
> •• Since when does psychology ave any
> connection to Geophysics?
>
> —— ——
> There are three types of people that you
> can_not_talk_into_behaving_well. The
> stupid, the religious fanatic, and the evil.
>
> 1- The stupid aren't smart enough to follow the
> logic of what you say. You have to tell them
> what is right in very simple terms. If they do
> not agree, you will never be able to change
> their mind.
>
That's you.
> 2- The religious fanatic: If what you say goes
> against their religious belief, they will cling to
> that belief even if it means their death.
>
That's also you.
> 3- There is no way to reform evil- not in a
> million years. There is no way to convince
> the anthropogenic global warming alarmists,
> the terrorists, serial killers, paedophiles, and
> predators to change their evil ways, They
> knew what they were doing was wrong, but
> knowledge didn't stop them. It only made
> them more careful in how they went about
> performing their evil deeds.
That's probably not you. You're not smart enough to be evil and still
stay out of jail.
Siobhan Medeiros
> Man_of_Mind wrote:
> > Vapid Fartung writhed in denials:
>
> >> Man_of_Mind was amused by the manufactured doubts posted by:
>
> >>> Vapid Fartung writhed in denials along with:
>
> >>>> le brat was pretending to be knowledgeable about:
> > ----
> >>>>>> When you come up with a fact, put it on this NG, I'll be waiting.
>
>
> >>> OMFG! You're citing Inhofe's blog? *>LOL!<*
>
> >>>> My guess is that this will change no one's opinion.
>
> >>> Nor will it change the actual science..
>
> >>> --Would you like a nice big glass of STFU now?
>
> >> If there are new peer reviewed studies that cast doubt on
> >> the existence of AGW,
>
> > There aren't..
>
> > --Thus, your speculation has no scientific basis..
>
> I'm not speculating, I am responding to a posted article which made that
> exact statement.
Rightard blogs don't count as sources. Let's see the actual "studies"
the poster claims exists.
Siobhan Medeiros
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Man_of_Mind was amused by the knee-jerk reactions posted by:
>
> >> pygmy_drama-rama was pointlessly sniveling for attention from:
>
> >>> Harry Hope was quoting from:
>
Ah, but that's just a fact. Won't stop the rightards from bleating
about destroyed data.
Siobhan Medeiros
Translation: Man of Mind just showed me for an ignorant fool, so I'll
just make a few insults because I think it looks so clever.
David Hartung
Statements from a Senate blog, even a conservative one, have at least as
much credibility as those made by places such as Mediamatters and Salon.
The funny thing about truth is the fact that you refusal to accept it
doesn't change its truthfulness.
Claudius Denk
> On Dec 15, 12:53 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 14, 8:54 pm, Harry Hope <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > December 12
>
> > > Global Warming is real, stop denying it
>
>
>
> > > According to a new McClatchy-Ipsos poll, 28% of Americans still refuse
> > > to accept the overwhelming scientific evidence that global warming is
> > > real.
>
> > > The million dollar question is:
>
> > > How many of them also believe that the world is flat?
>
> > > It is a sound conservative fiscal principle that it is much less
> > > expensive to solve a problem before it becomes a crisis.
>
> > > However, before you can solve a problem you have to recognize that the
> > > problem exists, and today s conservatives aren t very good at that.
>
> > > They re good at denial, but not good at science.
>
> > > But it isn t a smart idea to ignore the facts because they conflict
> > > with your political and economic principles.
>
> > political and economic principles.
>
> > > It is a fact that the polar ice caps and glaciers world-wide are
> > > melting.
>
> > polar ice" crisis evidence? It's unfortunate us skeptics don't have
> > the same powers of perception that you AGW whackos have--or so you
> > tell us. I think this is a very obvious example of confirmation
> > bias.
>
> Show us a paper that proves that global warming doesn't exist.
Show me a paper that proves that bigfoot doesn't exist.
>
> The biggest problem you scum have is no facts. See, drooler, you have
> to have facts to publish and you have no facts. None.
You only refer to facts in abstraction.
>
> When you come up with a fact, put it on this NG, I'll be waiting.
Here's a fact: AGW advocates are science illiterates.
fost...@gmail.com
>
> Show us a paper that proves that global warming doesn't exist.
>
Show me a paper that says the moon is not made out of blue cheese.
Show me a paper that says Bigfoot doesn't exist.
Show me a paper that says the moon landing was not faked.
Show me a paper that says Bush caused 9/11 through a controlled
explosion.
Better yet, show me a paper with Barry Obama's birth certificate!!
Man_of_Mind
>
> Man_of_Mind restored the hilarious bitch-slappings administered to:
>>
>> le brat cowardly deleted and bleated, in response to:
>>>
>>> Man_of_Mind restored the original text/context ignored by:
>>>>
>>>> le brat was whimpering futilely because of the reply from:
>>>>>
>>>>> Peter Principle posted:
------
>>>>>> Debate this, you stupid asshole: How fucking STUPID must one be before one
>>>>>> thinks one's uniformed stupid asshole opinion of merit despite the fact that
>>>>>> one is too willfully ignorant, aka stupid, to know that the warmth absorbing
>>>>>> properties of CO2 were proven MORE THAN ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY FUCKING YEARS
>>>>>> AGO?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> never know...
>>>>>
>>>>> Wow, you regally take this over the top serious
>>>>
>>>> *>LOL!<* Slipped in some Freud and you can't reach your
>>>> nice big glass of STFU?
>>>>
>>>> Or, did you think that by insinuating that which you cannot
>>>> hope to prove, creating doubts where none can exist, and acting
>>>> like a bratty, sniveling right-wing retarded ideologue, you
>>>> can expect to have any effect upon the scientific conclusions?
>>>>
>>>> Examples follow..
>>>>
>>>>> Seems to me [..]
>>>>
>>>>> I guess the question is [..]
>>>>
>>>>> How can you be so sure [..]
>>>>
>>>>> The answer is you don't know the fucking answer [..]
>>>>
>>>> Tell you what, why don't you STFU, and quit acting so
>>>> "regally" and "over the top serious" about something
>>>> you *CLEARLY* have "something at stake" in this matter..
>>>> (eg SESSOMS CONSTRUCTION CO INC)
>>>>
>>>> --Isn't that why/where you're posting from, in Fart Louder_Wail?
>>>
>>> http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority
>>> .Blogs&ContentRecord_id=84e9e44a-802a-23ad-493a-b35d0842fed8
>>
>> Le's see, that's Inhofe's blog, supported by the American Enterprise
>> Institute. I wonder how much money they still get from Exxon-Mobile?
>>
>> Meanwhile, in the real world..
>>
>> http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN02547411
>>
>> "Arctic now warmest in 2000 years, researchers say"
>>
>> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/03/060308211836.htm
>>
>> "NASA Survey Confirms Climate Warming Impact On Polar Ice Sheets"
>>
>> http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL07611784
>>
>> "Maldives warns global warming threatening islands"
>>
>> --See subject header for details..
>
> Cool, so let's agree that there's global warming.
And?
> None of what you posted puts it at human's feet.
Your attempt to move the goal-posts is noted and laughed at..
> Personally, I like the environment. And if we were in another mindset
> politically, I would be on this very group discussing how we should
> control emissions, not cut down the rain forest, create alternative
> energy sources, etc.
>
> I'm for all of that.
That's refreshing to hear of, despite your fallacy arguments,
like this next one..
> What I'm NOT for is oppressive government control of how we live.
Gee, we just got through with eight years of W. Bush and
you're still fscking whining about that, and maybe the eight
years of the "contract on America" by an over-zealous bunch
of pompous right-wing monkey-boys pretending to have our
best interests at heart?
And you're still buying into that failed political ideology?
WTF? Over..
> I think that a lot of people are like me, want to do right by
> the environment, but bristle at the idea of cap and trade.
Well, it's going to take more than 'cap-and-trade' as best I
can estimate the problem, but I suspect that if you were
personally confronted by your own demise by extinction on this
volatile ball of rock, water and oxygen, you'd probably quit
whining your strident rhetoric, post-haste..
> And I don't care what you say,
So I've noted..
> it's arrogant for us to believe that we not only can, but should,
> manipulate climate based on a dizzying array of suggestions,
That conveniently neglects to mention that we already *HAVE*
manipulated the planetary ecological systems, however unintentional
it may have been, due to head-strong neglect or ambitious ignorance..
--Which is neither 'polite', nor 'sincere', on your behalf..
Man_of_Mind
>
> Man_of_Mind was amused by the manufactured doubts posted by:
>>
>> Vapid Fartung writhed in denials:
>>>
>>> Man_of_Mind was amused by the manufactured doubts posted by:
>>>>
----
>>>> OMFG! You're citing Inhofe's blog? *>LOL!<*
>>>>
>>>>> My guess is that this will change no one's opinion.
>>>>
>>>> Nor will it change the actual science..
>>>>
>>>> --Would you like a nice big glass of STFU now?
>>>
>>> If there are new peer reviewed studies that cast doubt on
>>> the existence of AGW,
>>
>> There aren't..
>>
>> --Thus, your speculation has no scientific basis..
>
> I'm not speculating
Yes, you are simply bloviating a failed political ideology
like a brown-shirted harlot parroting words to win favor
with those whom may grace you with a pittance for your
continued efforts to disseminate false witnessing..
You have no valid scientific evidence on your side..
> I am responding to a posted article which made that exact statement.
Which had nothing scientifically valid as a basis..
--Inhofe is a joke, why must you always be the punch-line?
Man_of_Mind
>
> Man_of_Mind restored the hilarious bitch-slappings given to:
>>
>> pygmy_drama-rama continued pointlessly sniveling for attention:
>>>
>>> Man_of_Mind elicited another knee-jerk from:
>>>>
>>>> pygmy_drama-rama continued pointlessly sniveling for attention:
>>>>>
>>>>> Man_of_Mind was amused by the knee-jerk reactions posted by:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> pygmy_drama-rama was pointlessly sniveling for attention from:
>>>>>>> Lies, tricks, manipulated and destroyed data
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Have any direct proof of that, pygmy_drama?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --Nah, didn't think so.. *>LOL!<*
>>>>>
>>>>> See Jones, Mann, East Anglia.
>>>>
>>>> Oh, you mean HadCRUT? Which version?
>>>>
>>>> Too bad you can't substantiate that past your usual
>>>> regurgitation of right-wing pabulum and rhetoric, hunh..
>>>>
>>>> Example follows..
>>>>
>>>> http://mediamatters.org/research/200912080053
>>>>
>>>> "On the December 8 edition of Fox News' Special Report,
>>>> correspondent James Rosen advanced the claim that
>>>> "climate-gate" revealed that "some leading proponents
>>>> of global warming [...] destroyed" raw temperature data.
>>>>
>>>> In fact, according to the scientists, the raw data is still
>>>> available at the meteorological services where they obtained
>>>> it and Climate Research Unit director Phil Jones said the CRU
>>>> simply did not keep copies for "less than 5 percent of its
>>>> original station data" in its database because those
>>>> "stations had several discontinuities or were affected
>>>> by urbanization trends."
>>>>
>>>> --"The original data is curated at the met services where it originated"
>>>
>>> Basement-dwelling moron
>>
>>
>> --Your sniveling insults have no effect, so STFU..
>
> You might wish to follow your own advice
You feel like you could cast the first stone, David?
> You engage in personal attacks as much as anyone else.
While you resort to vague insinuations and unprovable
negative claims, as you distribute a manufactured sort
of doubt that hasn't a valid scientific basis in reality..
--I'd prefer not to be a quisling like yourself, David..
Man_of_Mind
>
> Man_of_Mind continued exploiting the malignant ignorance posted by:
>>
>> pygmy_drama-rama continued pointlessly sniveling for attention:
>> >
>>> Man_of_Mind was amused by the knee-jerk reactions posted by:
>>>>
>>>> pygmy_drama-rama was pointlessly sniveling for attention from:
>>>>>
>>>>> Harry Hope was quoting from:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.examiner.com/x-17297-Rochester-Independent-Examiner~y2009m...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> December 12
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Global Warming is real, stop denying it
>>>>> Lies, tricks, manipulated and destroyed data
>>>>
>>>> Have any direct proof of that, pygmy_drama?
>>>>
>>>> --Nah, didn't think so.. *>LOL!<*
>>>
>>> See Jones, Mann, East Anglia.
>>
>> Oh, you mean HadCRUT? Which version?
>>
>> Too bad you can't substantiate that past your usual
>> regurgitation of right-wing pabulum and rhetoric, hunh..
>>
>> Example follows..
>>
>> http://mediamatters.org/research/200912080053
>>
>> "On the December 8 edition of Fox News' Special Report,
>> correspondent James Rosen advanced the claim that
>> "climate-gate" revealed that "some leading proponents
>> of global warming [...] destroyed" raw temperature data.
>>
>> In fact, according to the scientists, the raw data is still
>> available at the meteorological services where they obtained
>> it and Climate Research Unit director Phil Jones said the CRU
>> simply did not keep copies for "less than 5 percent of its
>> original station data" in its database because those
>> "stations had several discontinuities or were affected
>> by urbanization trends."
>>
>> --"The original data is curated at the met services where it originated"
>
> Ah, but that's just a fact. Won't stop the rightards from bleating
> about destroyed data.
Nope, but it's by letting them expose their ambitious ignorance
that we have their self-centered hypocrisy and fascist tendencies
out in the open..
--And their resulting self-destruction is thus assured..
David Hartung
> Vapid Fartung was still writhing in denials:
>>
>> Man_of_Mind was amused by the manufactured doubts posted by:
>>>
>>> Vapid Fartung writhed in denials:
>>>>
>>>> Man_of_Mind was amused by the manufactured doubts posted by:
>>>>>
>>>>> Vapid Fartung writhed in denials:
> ----
>>>>> OMFG! You're citing Inhofe's blog? *>LOL!<*
>>>>>
>>>>>> My guess is that this will change no one's opinion.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nor will it change the actual science..
>>>>>
>>>>> --Would you like a nice big glass of STFU now?
>>>>
>>>> If there are new peer reviewed studies that cast doubt on
>>>> the existence of AGW,
>>>
>>> There aren't..
>>>
>>> --Thus, your speculation has no scientific basis..
>>
>> I'm not speculating
>
> Yes, you are simply bloviating a failed political ideology
> like a brown-shirted harlot parroting words to win favor
> with those whom may grace you with a pittance for your
> continued efforts to disseminate false witnessing..
>
> You have no valid scientific evidence on your side..
From what I read, it is very possible that I do have science on my
side. As has often been pointed out on this forum, the jury is still out.
>> I am responding to a posted article which made that exact statement.
>
> Which had nothing scientifically valid as a basis..
It appears to me that you don't know that.
David Hartung
Whereas I prefer to think for myself, rather than to follow the latest
political fad.
Man_of_Mind
>
>>
>> Vapid Harlot again bore false witness about:
>>>
>>> Man_of_Mind restored the hilarious bitch-slappings given to:
>>>>
>>>> pygmy_drama-rama continued pointlessly sniveling for attention:
>>>>>
>>>>> Man_of_Mind elicited another knee-jerk from:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> pygmy_drama-rama continued pointlessly sniveling for attention:
I look forward to that happening for you, sometime soon..
> rather than to follow the latest political fad.
Yeah, like that failed political ideology of yours..
--Oh the huge manatee..
Man_of_Mind
>
>>
>> Vapid Fartung was still writhing in denials:
>>>
>>> Man_of_Mind was amused by the manufactured doubts posted by:
>>>>
>>>> Vapid Fartung writhed in denials:
>>>>>
>>>>> Man_of_Mind was amused by the manufactured doubts posted by:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Vapid Fartung writhed in denials:
>>>>>> OMFG! You're citing Inhofe's blog? *>LOL!<*
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My guess is that this will change no one's opinion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nor will it change the actual science..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --Would you like a nice big glass of STFU now?
>>>>>
>>>>> If there are new peer reviewed studies that cast doubt on
>>>>> the existence of AGW,
>>>>
>>>> There aren't..
>>>>
>>>> --Thus, your speculation has no scientific basis..
>>>
>>> I'm not speculating
>>
>> Yes, you are simply bloviating a failed political ideology
>> like a brown-shirted harlot parroting words to win favor
>> with those whom may grace you with a pittance for your
>> continued efforts to disseminate false witnessing..
>>
>> You have no valid scientific evidence on your side..
>
> From what I read,
Which is but 'false doctrine'..
> it is very possible that I do have science on my side.
From what I've read of your 'science', you're wrong..
> As has often been pointed out on this forum,
That would be a false appeal to a belief (eg fallacy argument)
> the jury is still out.
Nope.. You've been misled, again, by a failed political ideology..
>>> I am responding to a posted article which made that exact statement.
>>
>> Which had nothing scientifically valid as a basis..
>
> It appears to me that you don't know that.
You're not as acquainted with science as you would prefer to believe..
--Nor are you degreed in any field of science, to begin with..
David Hartung
> --Nor are you degreed in any field of science, to begin with..
Correct, I have no degree beyond High School. Do you, and what in?
Man_of_Mind
>
> Man_of_Mind restored the text/context deleted by:
>>
>> Vapid Fartung was still writhing in denials:
>>>
>>> Man_of_Mind was again amused by the regurgitated pabulum from:
>>>>
>>>> Vapid Fartung was still writhing in denials:
>>>>>
>>>>> Man_of_Mind was amused by the manufactured doubts posted by:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Vapid Fartung writhed in denials:
>>>>>>> If there are new peer reviewed studies that cast doubt on
>>>>>>> the existence of AGW,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There aren't..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --Thus, your speculation has no scientific basis..
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not speculating
>>>>
>>>> Yes, you are simply bloviating a failed political ideology
>>>> like a brown-shirted harlot parroting words to win favor
>>>> with those whom may grace you with a pittance for your
>>>> continued efforts to disseminate false witnessing..
>>>>
>>>> You have no valid scientific evidence on your side..
>>>
>>> From what I read,
>>
>> Which is but 'false doctrine'..
>>
>>> it is very possible that I do have science on my side.
>>
>> From what I've read of your 'science', you're wrong..
>>
>>> As has often been pointed out on this forum,
>>
>> That would be a false appeal to a belief (eg fallacy argument)
>>
>>> the jury is still out.
>>
>> Nope.. You've been misled, again, by a failed political ideology..
>>
>>>>> I am responding to a posted article which made that exact statement.
>>>>
>>>> Which had nothing scientifically valid as a basis..
>>>
>>> It appears to me that you don't know that.
>>
>> You're not as acquainted with science as you would prefer to believe..
>>
>
> Correct, I have no degree beyond High School. Do you,
Yes..
> and what in?
Physics..
--And I still work for the Dean of Research..
David Hartung
>> Correct, I have no degree beyond High School. Do you,
>
> Yes..
>
>> and what in?
>
> Physics..
>
> --And I still work for the Dean of Research..
Very cool!
What field of physics, and are you familiar with the names Richard
Hartung, and Walter Hartung?
You might have a hard time believing this, but I do have great respect
for those involved in research, but I also see what I perceive to be
inconsistencies in the information put out to the public. This is why I
am a skeptic.
lab~rat >:-)
<baron.v...@gmail.com> puked:
>
>> What I'm NOT for is oppressive government control of how we live.
>
>Gee, we just got through with eight years of W. Bush
There it is, I knew you could do it. Congratulations, you have
officially set the bar low so this current band of douchebags can do
no wrong in your eyes.
Seriously, if you thought what Bush did was bad, why would you defend
others for doing much much more of the exact same thing?
--
lab~rat >:-)
Do you want polite or do you want sincere?
lab~rat >:-)
<petes...@SNIPITgmail.com> puked:
>>Wow, you regally take this over the top serious.
>
>Wow, you're really an ignorant stupid asshole denier who can't so much as
>even address the FACTS, much less refute anything. Boy, howdy, what a shock!
>
>Now, stupid asshole ignorant denier, can you address the FACT that CO2 does,
>indeed absorb heat or are you every bit as stupid, ignorant and cowardly as
>the moron you play here so ably every day?
>
>Well?
Why is it that you goofy bastards come up with a question that no one
wants to debate and feel like you won when no one engages you?
>
><tap, tap, tap>
I don't respond to anyone in the next bathroom stall. Save it for
Barney Frank...
lab~rat >:-)
<d_ha...@hotmail.com> puked:
So we're clear, the link to that blog I posted has an entire list of
studies that are referenced by link. The fact that they are cataloged
in a blog doesn't negate the fact that they exist.
Man_of_Mind
>
> Man_of_Mind restored the text/context deleted by:
>>
>> Vapid Fartung continued writhing in denials:
>>>
>>> Man_of_Mind restored the text/context deleted by:
>>>>
>>>> Vapid Fartung was still writhing in denials:
>>>>>
>>>>> Man_of_Mind was again amused by the regurgitated pabulum from:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Vapid Fartung was still writhing in denials:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Man_of_Mind was amused by the manufactured doubts posted by:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Vapid Fartung writhed in denials:
>>>>>>>>> If there are new peer reviewed studies that cast doubt on
>>>>>>>>> the existence of AGW,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There aren't..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --Thus, your speculation has no scientific basis..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm not speculating
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, you are simply bloviating a failed political ideology
>>>>>> like a brown-shirted harlot parroting words to win favor
>>>>>> with those whom may grace you with a pittance for your
>>>>>> continued efforts to disseminate false witnessing..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You have no valid scientific evidence on your side..
>>>>>
>>>>> From what I read,
>>>>
>>>> Which is but 'false doctrine'..
>>>>
>>>>> it is very possible that I do have science on my side.
>>>>
>>>> From what I've read of your 'science', you're wrong..
>>>>
>>>>> As has often been pointed out on this forum,
>>>>
>>>> That would be a false appeal to a belief (eg fallacy argument)
>>>>
>>>>> the jury is still out.
>>>>
>>>> Nope.. You've been misled, again, by a failed political ideology..
>>>>
>>>>>>> I am responding to a posted article which made that exact statement.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which had nothing scientifically valid as a basis..
>>>>>
>>>>> It appears to me that you don't know that.
>>>>
>>>> You're not as acquainted with science as you would prefer to believe..
>>>>
>>>> --Nor are you degreed in any field of science, to begin with..
>>>
>>
>> Yes..
>>
>>> and what in?
>>
>> Physics..
>>
>> --And I still work for the Dean of Research..
>
> Very cool!
It's always challenging..
> What field of physics,
I did my senior project in computer-aided imaging analysis
of electrocardiograms. I'm currently researching a paper
on gravity waves using radiometric data from several probes
that used 'slingshot' trajectories around the outer planets..
> are you familiar with the names Richard
> Hartung, and Walter Hartung?
We've had this conversation before. I'm not familiar
with your relatives' work, but have seen some mentions..
> You might have a hard time believing this, but I do have
> great respect for those involved in research,
You have a funny way of expressing that..
Example follows..
> I also see what I perceive to be inconsistencies in the
> information put out to the public.
Well, that would be a direct result of your own preferences
as to what you've chosen to read about global warming and
climate changes. Essentially, we're placing about 30 billion
tons of excess CO2 into the lower atmosphere, per year. And
it's not just CO2 that's getting added, but suffice to say,
it is the cause of a warming trend that is having some very
startling effects upon the Earth.
For you to say "the jury's still out" and "inconsistencies"
as to these documented, juried, peer-reviewed and published
scientific conclusions, you appear to have been hoodwinked
into accepting a false doctrine..
> This is why I am a skeptic.
Nope, I'm not buying into your beliefs when all the science
that I understand about this matter contradicts what I've
seen you regurgitate.. What you see as "inconsistencies"
is merely your own lack of knowledge, otherwise you wouldn't
be so easily recognized as repeating the disinformation
and manufactured doubt being perpetuated by several groups
that have the most to lose..
--Your beliefs are not considered scientific, as yet..
Man_of_Mind
>
> Man_of_Mind restored the hilarious bitch-slappings administered to:
>>
>> le brat again cowardly deleted and bleated, in response to:
>>>
>>> Man_of_Mind restored the hilarious bitch-slappings administered to:
>>>>
>>>> le brat cowardly deleted and bleated, in response to:
>>>>>
>>>>> Man_of_Mind restored the original text/context ignored by:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> le brat was whimpering futilely because of the reply from:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Peter Principle posted:
>>
>> you're still fscking whining about that, and maybe the eight
>> years of the "contract on America" by an over-zealous bunch
>> of pompous right-wing monkey-boys pretending to have our
>> best interests at heart?
>>
>> And you're still buying into that failed political ideology?
>>
>> WTF? Over..
>
I see that you're again trying to delete/bleat your way
past the inconsistent manner in which you display your
beliefs in a failed political ideology..
Example follows (eg ad hominem insult)
> you have officially set the bar low so this current band
> of douchebags can do no wrong in your eyes.
I do not share your abject lack of critical reasoning..
> Seriously, if you thought what Bush did was bad
There's no comparison, as you've dishonestly insinuated..
--Which proves again that you're neither polite nor sincere..
*us*
> Show us a paper that proves that global warming doesn't exist.
All they'd need is one study that confirmed global cooling,
but they don't have it, and don't have the wherewithal to
acquire it.
David Hartung
>>> Physics..
>>>
>>> --And I still work for the Dean of Research..
>>
>> Very cool!
>
> It's always challenging..
>
>> What field of physics,
>
> I did my senior project in computer-aided imaging analysis
> of electrocardiograms. I'm currently researching a paper
> on gravity waves using radiometric data from several probes
> that used 'slingshot' trajectories around the outer planets..
Sounds fascinating
> > are you familiar with the names Richard
>> Hartung, and Walter Hartung?
>
> We've had this conversation before. I'm not familiar
> with your relatives' work, but have seen some mentions..
You must have been using another name, my apologies.
Not a problem
One small thing I have learned over the years is that if I am patient,
the truth will usually become obvious.
Last Post
> On Dec 15, 10:17 am, Last Post <last_p...@primus.ca> wrote:
> > •• My oh MY – such hysterical screaming
> > How many times have 19th century theories
> > been refuted? ANS: Lots of times.
>
> Oh, so you think evolution, plate tectonics, electric current have all
> been "refuted"? Good to know!\
>
•• ROTFLMAO
So you cherry picked 3 live ones but even
they have been "modified"
>
> > CO2 does not remain in the atmosphere long
> > enough to warm anything. As soon as the
> > cloud bank meets a cold front it rains and
> > CO2 hits the earth asnd becomes fertilizer
>
> Fuck, you're stupid. Nothing remotely like that happens. GASES are
> not washed out by rainfall, PARTICULATES are. If what you said was
> true, we'd all be breathing vacuum after a rainstorm.
•• ROTFLMAO
Medeiros — Indeed you are a laugh a minute.
Your knowledge of chemistry and physics would
not pass an 8th grade student in Vancouver BC
who paid the teacher or did you screw him??
— —
> > There are three types of people that you
> > can_not_talk_into_behaving_well. The
> > stupid, the religious fanatic, and the evil.
>
> > 1- The stupid aren't smart enough to follow the
> > logic of what you say. You have to tell them
> > what is right in very simple terms. If they do
> > not agree, you will never be able to change
> > their mind.
>
> That's you.
•• Sorry babe— my degrees refute that
>
> > 2- The religious fanatic: If what you say goes
> > against their religious belief, they will cling to
> > that belief even if it means their death.
>
> That's also you
•• HO Ho ho that's rich!!
>
> > 3- There is no way to reform evil- not in a
> > million years. There is no way to convince
> > the anthropogenic global warming alarmists,
> > the terrorists, serial killers, paedophiles, and
> > predators to change their evil ways, They
> > knew what they were doing was wrong, but
> > knowledge didn't stop them. It only made
> > them more careful in how they went about
> > performing their evil deeds.
>
> That's probably not you. You're not smart enough to be evil and still
> stay out of jail.
•• Oh, just another oh so clever one, citing a snippet
from a signature, divorced from context and
without any reference to the subject.
lab~rat >:-)
<baron.v...@gmail.com> puked:
>
>> Seriously, if you thought what Bush did was bad
>
>There's no comparison, as you've dishonestly insinuated..
Is that a fact or an opinion?
Siobhan Medeiros
> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 17:17:49 -0600, David Hartung
The fact that they were listed in Inhofe's blog means that they aren't
believable. This article is essentially one giant list of bullshit.
Man_of_Mind
>
> Man_of_Mind restored the hilarious bitch-slappings administered to:
>>
>>>
>>> Man_of_Mind restored the hilarious bitch-slappings administered to:
>>>>
>>>> le brat again cowardly deleted and bleated, in response to:
>>>>>
>>>>> Man_of_Mind restored the hilarious bitch-slappings administered to:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> le brat cowardly deleted and bleated, in response to:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Man_of_Mind restored the original text/context ignored by:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> le brat was whimpering futilely because of the reply from:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Peter Principle posted:
>>
>> There's no comparison, as you've dishonestly insinuated..
>>
>
--Is that rhetorical question polite or sincere?
lab~rat >:-)
<baron.v...@gmail.com> puked:
I typed it politely, but take it any way you want.
lab~rat >:-)
<petes...@SNIPITgmail.com> puked:
>On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 09:14:40 -0500, "lab~rat >:-)" <ch...@cheeze.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 19:42:28 -0600, Peter Principle
>><petes...@SNIPITgmail.com> puked:
>>
>>>>Wow, you regally take this over the top serious.
>>>
>>>Wow, you're really an ignorant stupid asshole denier who can't so much as
>>>even address the FACTS, much less refute anything. Boy, howdy, what a shock!
>>>
>>>Now, stupid asshole ignorant denier, can you address the FACT that CO2 does,
>>>indeed absorb heat or are you every bit as stupid, ignorant and cowardly as
>>>the moron you play here so ably every day?
>>>
>>>Well?
>>
>>Why is it that you goofy bastards come up with a question that no one
>>wants to debate and feel like you won when no one engages you?
>
>Why is it you ignorant stupid asshole deniers fart out absurd, easily
>debunked BULLSHIT, then, after your idiot.babble is thoroughly refuted, yo
>wonder why anyone would bring up such idiocy?
>
>Well, guess what, moron. I agree! Only an ignorant stupid asshole would
>posit that CO2 doesn't absorb heat.
>
>NEWSFLASH FOR LYING STUPID ASSHOLES: It was you deniers morons who tried to
>stupidly claim CO2 doesn't absorb heat. We have a word for that in science.
>LIE.
>
>Now, denier buffoon, should you desire to back away from the ledge of bat
>shit crazy ignorance and acknowledge the well know FACT that CO2
>does,indeed, absorb heat, do.
>
>If all you have is stupid asshole cowardly evasions, well, go ahead and post
>that. In these tough times we can use all of the laughs we can get...
You want a real laugh? Review the thread and find where I was making
your question an issue. Then post it so you can humiliate me in front
of all usenet. Up for the challenge, Bozo?
lab~rat >:-)
<sbm...@shaw.ca> puked:
>> So we're clear, the link to that blog I posted has an entire list of
>> studies that are referenced by link. ÔøΩThe fact that they are cataloged
>> in a blog doesn't negate the fact that they exist.
>> --
>> lab~rat ÔøΩ>:-)
>> Do you want polite or do you want sincere?
>
>The fact that they were listed in Inhofe's blog means that they aren't
>believable. This article is essentially one giant list of bullshit.
Of course it is. It's about global warming. Both sides are full of
shit. One side is privately funded and the other side is government
funded. I'm not inclined to believe crackpot theories from either
side 100%.
Man_of_Mind
>
> Man_of_Mind was amused by the lackey posting from Sessoms Construction:
>>
>> le brat continued cowardly deleting and bleating:
>>>
>>> Man_of_Mind restored the hilarious bitch-slappings administered to:
>>>>
>>>> le brat again cowardly deleted and bleated, in knee-jerk fashion to:
>>>>>
>>>>> Man_of_Mind restored the hilarious bitch-slappings administered to:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> le brat again cowardly deleted and bleated, in response to:
But it's still just a rhetorical question..
--Thanks for clearing that up..
lab~rat >:-)
<baron.v...@gmail.com> puked:
Right, you can't prove an opinion. So it was silly of you to type it.
Last Post
>
> "No one can live an hour without both facts and principles.
>
> William James
•• Poor Harry Hopeless, posts 100 lines
of drivel without a fact in the load
and no principles in the load
fost...@gmail.com
>
> December 12
>
> Global Warming is real, stop denying it
During the Middle Ages they took a poll that found 28% didn't believe
that blood letting cured diseases!!!!
The nerve of those ignorant fucks!!!!!!
It was a consensus of Middle Age scientists that blood letting
worked!!!!
Blood letting cures people!!! It's real!!! Stop denying it you
fucktards!!!
buzz
> "ob on" <l...@sss.com> wrote in message news:4b271ecb$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au
>> "Harry Hope" <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>> news:gk5ei5tkg346c56gt...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>> http://www.examiner.com/x-17297-Rochester-Independent-Examiner~y2009m12d12-Global-Warming-is-real-stop-denying-it
>>>
>>> December 12
>>>
>>> Global Warming is real, stop denying it
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Here's an interesting interiew ...
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvufOvneJMk&feature=player_embedded
>>
>> This is just so enjoyable....
>>
>> Wow...what a gem.....
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Warmest Regards
>>
>> B0n oz
>>
>> "It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of
>> perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of
>> thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet
>> been detected that is distinct from natural variation."
>> Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University,
>> Townsville
>
> Yet another non-climatologist being relied on for climatology expertise.
Almost as dependable as those so-called scientists that have been
cooking the data, right?
Barack Hussein Obama...MMM MMM MMM
Send HIM to Pakistan to fight Osama...MMM MMM MMM
Simple-minded dummycrats (the lying party that birthed the KKK) and
liberals...morons electing morons.