Re: A GUIDE TO GLOBAL WARMING FOR THOSE EDUCATED IN THE UNIVERSITY OF LIFE
Andre Jute
> A GUIDE TO GLOBAL WARMING FOR THOSE EDUCATED IN THE UNIVERSITY OF
> LIFE
> by Andre Jute
>
> Global warming is probably the most expensive and least productive job
> creation scheme in the history of the world. It starts with human
> guilt, always a reliable tool for those who want to control our lives.
> In this case the guilt is about the ease conferred by the motor car.
> The control freaks made the motor car into a symbol of evil. A whole
> bureaucracy with attendant scientific establishments and political
> lobbies full of grimfaced activists sprang up to "control the
> emissions". Unfortunately for them, the emissions of cars and trucks
> were technically easy to control and in no time at all this entire
> 1960/70s version of the bureacratic-academic-pressure group complex
> had very little to do except twiddle its thumbs and go before Congress
> to ask for more money.
>
> They needed a new crusade. This was "greenhouse gases", an enlargement
> of a nutty fringe concern about a hole in the ozone layer in the
> 1950/60s. The greenhouse gases are many and complex, but the
> bureacratic-academic-pressure group complex had no problem fixing on
> CO2 as the evil pinup of their next target. It isn't the most
> important greenhouse gas but what the hell, it was less risible to
> explain to people than that "cows farting out methane threaten our
> planet". Gradually this became a campaign against "global warming"
> driven by manmade CO2 emissions.
>
> Soon the canonical faith took shape: CO2 always drove global warming
> but man -- oh, all that Christian guilt! -- was especially
> destructive. In what seemed like minutes academics who wanted to be on
> television were forecasting terrible storms, droughts, famines, a
> rolling apocalypse, all due to manmade CO2. This was so successful a
> tale that soon politicians felt they had to act, and the United
> Nations set up the richly funded and humongously staffed IPCC, the
> Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Control. The IPCC was a glorious
> trough for all the snouts, including the littlest snouts, the
> scientists squealing around the ankles of the bureaucrats for
> handouts, called "research allocations". Every few years the IPCC
> issued an "Assessment", no less than a policy document for top
> politicians, presidents and prime ministers. Oh god, were the
> scientists ever in their heaven: they were driving worldwide policy!
>
> The scientists were guided by the experienced bureaucrats, of course,
> and soon a system arose of "consensus", because to quibble in public
> would endanger the political equilibrium and thus the funding. Nobody
> noticed that "consensus" is by definition against the principles of
> science, or that the intimidation and persecution of critics of
> "global warming" that soon followed from "consensus" was deeply
> inimical to the skepticism so essential to the continued conduct of
> true science. If there was "consensus" -- if everyone was by
> definition in agreement with the aims of the organisation and thus
> with the findings -- there was no need for due diligence, for "peer
> reviewers" who didn't know the authors of any article, for review of
> source data, for review of statistical methods, in fact for any of
> that superstructure of hardnosed questioning which meets a paper in
> any other branch of science except only the climate and environmental
> sciences.
>
> Never mind, nobody who mentioned these uncomfortable truths would long
> have a research grant, or a job, or any chance of being published, and
> thus promotion and career would be gone. The system had come a full
> circle. It was the richest closed shop on earth.
>
> All this "science" about Global Warming (the capitals arrived by
> stealth) was applied to making a variety of forecasts of how humans
> were driving the planet to hell in a handbasket by CO2 emissions,
> which in turn would cause global warming. These computer models were
> trumpeted in the media as if they had perfect reality and scientific
> respectability, but in fact they were based on very poor statistics
> and had such a low level of confidence even from their creators, Joe
> Public took only a decade or two to catch on that they were silly
> toys, the pretentions of "scientists" and bureaucrats protected from
> reality and scrutiny by new doctrines that environmentalist policies
> should not be measure by any cost-benefit analysis, and that the
> precautionary principle overrode all common sense and certainly the
> absence of proof (of course it overrode the absence of proof: the
> precautionary principle was designed specifically to override the
> absence of proof). Enviromentalism was the new religion and no heresy
> was permitted.
>
> A major test of a statistical model which presumes to predict the
> future is that it must, given a start date sometime in the past,
> accurately map the intervening known period. But none of the vaunted
> models of the future put forward by the IPCC as predictors of world
> temperature a century or two hence could map out the past reliably.
>
> These models fell down at many points and for many reasons. But, most
> strikingly, all fell down badly at two historical points. They are
> called the Medieval Warm Period, when for several centuries it was
> much warmer than it has been ever since, including in the 20th
> century, and the Little Ice Age, when shortly after the reign of
> Elizabeth the First and for the period covering the rise of the
> Industrial Revolution, people skated annually on the Thames.
>
> The IPCC case, built into its models, is that manmade CO2 drives
> global warming. But there was no exceptional CO2 emissions during the
> Medieval Warm Period when temperatures were substantially higher for
> centuries on end than they are today. And in the period that includes
> the start of the Industrial Revolution, with all that coal being
> burned and emitting CO2 like it was going out of fashion, instead of
> heat wave, we get a couple of centuries of freezing temperatures!
> Ouch! The models couldn't handle these "anomalies".
>
> The Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age are troublesome only
> for CO2-centric models, indicating that the underlying assumption of
> the model -- manmade CO2 drives global warming -- is faulty. Other
> models, of sun activity for instance, have no problem following the
> historical reality closely. That should long since have told the IPCC
> and its retinue of favoured "scientists" that they were staring into
> an infinite void of their own making. But by now the snouts were too
> deep in the trough.
>
> So now the useless forecasting models are given less public exposure.
> But they are not discarded. All those "climate scientists" don't start
> looking for useful work. By now Global Warming is not only an
> industry, it is a faith, with threats against "deniers" which sound
> appallingly like those of Muslim Mullahs against the Infidels.
>
> So, instead of looking for useful work, all those "scientists" start
> looking for ways of "getting rid of" the Medieval Warm Period and the
> Little Ice Age. If they could "lose" these inconvenient historical
> truths, then the temperatures of the 20th Century would no longer look
> modest by comparison to the Medieval Warm Period, and they would no
> longer have to explain how rising CO2 emissions "caused" the Little
> Ice Age. The ideal, to match the already announced IPCC scare story
> that the last decade of the 20th Century would be the hottest on
> record, was to recast past temperatures so that they were below the
> entire twentieth century and very much below the period 1990-2000. The
> result would look like a hockey-stick on its side, the hook pointing
> upwards. By now nobody (important -- those who did had their grants
> revoked) even asked whether it was scientific practice to cook the
> figures in order to support a bureaucratic idee fixe. The snouts were
> bolted into the trough: hundreds of millions in research grants for
> "global warming" were at stake.
>
> The first "scientist" to succeed in making a hockey stick was Michael
> Mann. He re-analysed old tree ring samples with a new algorithm and
> new methods of data selection. No one pointed out that tree rings are
> very uncertain proxies for temperature, or that the particular trees
> he selected are the most unreliable temperature proxies. No one
> examined his algorithm. No one pointed out that Mann selected his data
> to deliver a hockey stick. Mann had saved the world -- or at least the
> IPCC and Global Warming: Mann had produced the Hockey Stick.
>
> The IPCC immediately promoted Mann's deeply flawed study from a little
> local aberration in tree rings to a global rise in temperature over
> two millennia, most of the rise centred in the last decade of the
> twentieth century. It was "proof" that human CO2 emissions drove
> global temperature! Mann's hockey stick graph was the only one shown
> to presidents and prime ministers on which to base environmental
> policy costing trillions of taxpayers' money and shaping economies for
> decades to come because that sort of fundamental change is not easy to
> undo.
>
> You might ask, what happened to the historical evidence of the
> Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. Why, the IPCC declared
> them Euro-centric phenomena. Self-styled "scientists" told this lie in
> public. Anyone asking whether these multi-century historical events
> happened in the rest of the world was suddenly treated as if he
> committed a form of racism ("Euro-centrism"). The IPCC and its
> "climate scientists" simply ignored a huge literature proving that the
> Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age happened on every
> continent and in every ocean around the world at the same time. It was
> as if any paper which was published by anyone except one of the IPCC's
> accredited "climate scientists" not only wasn't true, but that it
> didn't exist, and more, had no right to exist.
>
> It took the IPCC seven years to discover that Mann's Hockey Stick is a
> broken crutch. Neither they nor any of the "scientific reviewers" ever
> asked to see Mann's raw data, no one checked his algorithm, no one
> checked anything. But two tenacious Canadians, McIntyre and McKittrick
> (who should get the Nobel Prize for this service to mankind), with the
> help of the US Senate extracted the basic data from a reluctant Mann
> and tried to replicate his hockey stick. They found his algorithm so
> biased, it would generate hockey sticks from random noise... (That
> just about defines zero reliability!) They found his specially
> selected data heavily biased towards data with an inherent hockey
> stick shape. When they updated the samples Mann worked with by going
> to some of the same trees, they couldn't duplicate the hockey stick.
> The Mann article in which the IPCC put such faith stood revealed as a
> sham on every level.
>
> Mann is discredited, but the IPCC still shows hockey-stick shaped
> graphs, adding a new wrinkle: it just cuts off graphs that are
> inconvenient in 1950, or whenever they start showing an
> "inappropriate" trend.
>
> ***
>
> The upshot of all these years of effort, all this money, all this
> time, all this publicity, all this waste, is that "global warming" is
> merely a matter of faith with "scientists" and bureaucrats with their
> noses shamelessly in the public trough. The models are a joke, the
> thousands of biased studies have proven nothing except that history is
> resistant to revision, and only the committed faihful can now fail to
> understand that the IPCC is political body which tells political lies
> to hang on to power and funding; absolutely nothing to do with honest
> science. The "consensus" maintained by intimidation is breaking down.
>
> The IPCC and all its scientists have failed to prove that there is
> global warming: The entire 20th century is cooler than the Medieval
> Warm Period. The last decade of the 20th century is cooler than
> centuries on end in the Medieval Warm Period.
>
> The IPCC and all its scientists have failed to prove that CO2 --
> either natural or manmade -- drives global warming: At a time of
> increasing CO2 output from coal during the beginning of the Industrial
> Revolution, there was the Little Ice Age for a couple of centuries.
>
> The IPCC and all its scientists have disgraced themselves by trying
> dishonesty to throw the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age,
> which are historical and scientific truths, into the dustbin of their
> bizarre ambition to prove a mirage.
>
> Copyright 2009 Andre Jute
Andre Jute
> Damn, Andre - a *bitchin'* fine article. I've been pointing out that the
> Global Warming Jihadis have been accusing dissenters of "Jewish
> physics" for years - if you're not with the program, you get no grant
> money, of course. And Algore's getting paid handsomely for his
> starring role in the hustle - hell, he buys carbon indulgences from
> *himself* every time he flies his private jet somewhere to collect
> a hundred grand for admonishing the ordinary folks to shiver (or
> swelter) in the dark and get rid of their cars. It's the grandest scam
> on the planet, maybe the slickest hustle of all time. I'm crossing
> this to AGA, where green weenies, watermelons, hippies, and
> otherwise clueless leftards congregate. Watch 'em froth!
>
> Lord Valve
> Globally Cool
Globally cool? More likely than not, my lord Valve. But I'd rather
global warming and feed the poor: one of the most striking lines in
any IPCC report (and I've read them all, of course) says quite bluntly
that up to 2% of global warming will be good for us economically and
agriculturally. Hey, let's have it then before the Chinese grab all
the good things that come with pollution!
Andre Jute
Supertro-- I mean Supercool
Rick N. Backer
off Andre. Jesus love you, Mother Mary thinks you're a wad.
"Andre Jute" <fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:29f53538-dedc-4a46...@g22g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Andre Jute
> Andre Jute wrote:
> > A GUIDE TO GLOBAL WARMING FOR THOSE EDUCATED IN THE UNIVERSITY OF
> > LIFE
> > by Andre Jute
>
> > Global warming is probably the most expensive and least productive job
> > creation scheme in the history of the world.
>
> England during the medieval warm period. The famous Vine Street in
> London is named because that is what it was full of at that time.
>
> The interesting thing is that the ice data shows CO2 emissions lag
> temperature increases by about 800 years. Oh look, its about 800 years
> since the medieval warm period, I guess we are about due for an increase
> in CO2.
>
> Cheers
>
> Ian
LOL. Don't expect the global warmies to smile: you're preaching heresy
right in their faces. -- AJ
Andre Jute
Halfway down even poor old Trev gives up arguing against the truth of
my compilation of facts, and just admits global warming is a religious
matter:
> I suggest you get with the programme and move on.
and then poor old Trev just gives up altogether:
> <SNIP> Bleating bullshit.
Poor Trev, totally out of his depth when confronted by the facts!
Andre Jute
Relentless rigour -- Gaius Germanicus Caesar
On Nov 18, 9:25 am, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au>
wrote:
> "Andre Jute" <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:5c496e50-cde7-43a6...@v15g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>
> >A GUIDE TO GLOBAL WARMING FOR THOSE EDUCATED IN THE UNIVERSITY OF
> > LIFE
> > by Andre Jute
>
> > Global warming is probably the most expensive and least productive job
> > creation scheme in the history of the world. It starts with human
> > guilt, always a reliable tool for those who want to control our lives.
> > In this case the guilt is about the ease conferred by the motor car.
> > The control freaks made the motor car into a symbol of evil. A whole
> > bureaucracy with attendant scientific establishments and political
> > lobbies full of grimfaced activists sprang up to "control the
> > emissions". Unfortunately for them, the emissions of cars and trucks
> > were technically easy to control and in no time at all this entire
> > 1960/70s version of the bureacratic-academic-pressure group complex
> > had very little to do except twiddle its thumbs and go before Congress
> > to ask for more money.
>
> > They needed a new crusade. This was "greenhouse gases", an enlargement
> > of a nutty fringe concern about a hole in the ozone layer in the
> > 1950/60s.
>
> **Not even close. The GHG problem was first mooted by Fourier and then
> Arrhenius in the 19th century. Both guys were exceptionally clever guys,
> whose legacies we all enjoy today.
>
> The greenhouse gases are many and complex, but the
>
> > bureacratic-academic-pressure group complex had no problem fixing on
> > CO2 as the evil pinup of their next target. It isn't the most
> > important greenhouse gas
>
> **Correct. It is the SECOND most important GHG. OTOH, it remains in the
> atmosphere for many decades, unlike the most important GHG, which has an
> atmospheric life measured in days. It is also the only GHG (apart from
> methane) which has dramatically increased over the last 150 years. And, make
> no mistake: A 30% increase is a substantial one.
>
> but what the hell, it was less risible to
>
> > explain to people than that "cows farting out methane threaten our
> > planet".
>
> **Technically speaking, it is not cow's farts that are the problem. Most of
> their methane emissions occur through gut bacteria and is emitted from the
> other end of the animal.
>
> Gradually this became a campaign against "global warming"
>
> > driven by manmade CO2 emissions.
>
> **Hardly surprising. That's where the evidence leads. We caused the extra
> 30% of CO2 in the atmosphere. Therefore, it is our fault.
>
>
>
> > Soon the canonical faith took shape: CO2 always drove global warming
> > but man
>
> **Bollocks! No one said anything of the sort. There are and have been many
> drivers of climate on the planet. CO2 is ONE influence.
>
> -- oh, all that Christian guilt! -- was especially
>
> > destructive. In what seemed like minutes academics who wanted to be on
> > television were forecasting terrible storms, droughts, famines, a
> > rolling apocalypse, all due to manmade CO2.
>
> **It seems that they're not so wrong. We, here in Australia, see the effects
> all too clearly. As do those in the Southern US and many other areas.
>
> This was so successful a
>
> > tale that soon politicians felt they had to act, and the United
> > Nations set up the richly funded and humongously staffed IPCC, the
> > Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Control.
>
> **Not as richly funded as these guys:
>
> Exxon
> Shell
> Texaco
> BHP
> Et al
>
> There are VERY considerable resources behind the climate change deniers. No
> real science to speak of, but huge chunks of money. Enough money to get
> people to do and say anything. Naturally, the scientific illiterates and the
> religious morons will cling on to any hope and dream, rather than face the
> truth.
>
> The IPCC was a glorious
>
> > trough for all the snouts, including the littlest snouts, the
> > scientists squealing around the ankles of the bureaucrats for
> > handouts, called "research allocations". Every few years the IPCC
> > issued an "Assessment", no less than a policy document for top
> > politicians, presidents and prime ministers. Oh god, were the
> > scientists ever in their heaven: they were driving worldwide policy!
>
> **I see. Tell us about Prof Lindzen and his income of more than
> US$2,500.00/day, paid by the fossil fuel industry to lie. The same Lindzen
> who claimed that tobacco smoke was harmless. The fossil fuel industry is
> using EXACTLY the same tactics used by the tobacco industry for decades. It
> was a successful model and they have emulated it.
>
>
>
> > The scientists were guided by the experienced bureaucrats, of course,
>
> **Well, no, they weren't. The scientists sounded the alarm LONG before any
> politicians accepted the facts (the 19th contury, in fact). Don't let that
> little fact get in the way of your rhetoric though. Are you still reading
> from the fossil fool playbook?
>
> > and soon a system arose of "consensus", because to quibble in public
> > would endanger the political equilibrium and thus the funding.
>
> **Nope. What arose was a realisation amongst educated people that there is a
> significant problem. The uneducated and those with an agenda, dispute those
> facts.
>
> Nobody
>
> > noticed that "consensus" is by definition against the principles of
> > science, or that the intimidation and persecution of critics of
> > "global warming" that soon followed from "consensus" was deeply
> > inimical to the skepticism so essential to the continued conduct of
> > true science. If there was "consensus" -- if everyone was by
> > definition in agreement with the aims of the organisation and thus
> > with the findings -- there was no need for due diligence, for "peer
> > reviewers" who didn't know the authors of any article, for review of
> > source data, for review of statistical methods, in fact for any of
> > that superstructure of hardnosed questioning which meets a paper in
> > any other branch of science except only the climate and environmental
> > sciences.
>
> **Bollocks. Climate science IS peer-reviewed. Read the IPCC reports, for a
> start.
>
>
>
> > Never mind, nobody who mentioned these uncomfortable truths would long
> > have a research grant, or a job, or any chance of being published, and
> > thus promotion and career would be gone. The system had come a full
> > circle. It was the richest closed shop on earth.
>
> **Nope. This guy is MUCH richer (he earns roughly the same amount as 400 ~
> 500 scientists):
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/15/business/15pay.html?_r=1
>
> He earns enough to pay one prominent denier more than US$2,500.00 per day.
> There's a whole lot of cash in the oil (coal, gas, etc) industry.
>
>
>
> > All this "science" about Global Warming (the capitals arrived by
> > stealth) was applied to making a variety of forecasts of how humans
> > were driving the planet to hell in a handbasket by CO2 emissions,
> > which in turn would cause global warming. These computer models were
> > trumpeted in the media as if they had perfect reality and scientific
> > respectability, but in fact they were based on very poor statistics
>
> **Certainly, the figures are speculation, as we are headed into uncharted
> territory.
>
> > and had such a low level of confidence even from their creators, Joe
> > Public took only a decade or two to catch on that they were silly
> > toys, the pretentions of "scientists" and bureaucrats protected from
> > reality and scrutiny by new doctrines that environmentalist policies
> > should not be measure by any cost-benefit analysis, and that the
> > precautionary principle overrode all common sense and certainly the
> > absence of proof (of course it overrode the absence of proof: the
> > precautionary principle was designed specifically to override the
> > absence of proof). Enviromentalism was the new religion and no heresy
> > was permitted.
>
> **Not so. Unscientific gobbledegook is not permitted. Peer-reviewed science
> is always permitted.
>
>
>
> > A major test of a statistical model which presumes to predict the
> > future is that it must, given a start date sometime in the past,
> > accurately map the intervening known period. But none of the vaunted
> > models of the future put forward by the IPCC as predictors of world
> > temperature a century or two hence could map out the past reliably.
>
> **No need. We know the conditions of the past. We don't know the future.
>
>
>
> > These models fell down at many points and for many reasons. But, most
> > strikingly, all fell down badly at two historical points. They are
> > called the Medieval Warm Period, when for several centuries it was
> > much warmer than it has been ever since, including in the 20th
> > century
>
> **Over a localised area, yes. It was not a planet-wide event.
>
> , and the Little Ice Age, when shortly after the reign of
>
> > Elizabeth the First and for the period covering the rise of the
> > Industrial Revolution, people skated annually on the Thames.
>
> **And again.
>
>
>
> > The IPCC case, built into its models, is that manmade CO2 drives
> > global warming.
>
> **Bollocks. I suggest you actually READ the IPCC reports (IN FULL), before
> you make such idiotic and demonstrably false proclamations. The IPCC takes
> ALL the known climate drivers into account. That includes things like water
> vapour, methane, variations in Solar flux and a host of other stuff. The
> IPCC reports are mindbogglingly comprehensive. I am not surprised that you
> have failed to read them. They are, after all, highly scientific reports.
> Somethign you appear to lack familiarity with.
>
> But there was no exceptional CO2 emissions during the
>
> > Medieval Warm Period when temperatures were substantially higher for
> > centuries on end than they are today.
>
> **So fucking what? The PRESENT warming is due to excessive CO2 levels. That
> does not mean that CO2 was necessarily the driver of past climate change.
>
> And in the period that includes
>
> > the start of the Industrial Revolution, with all that coal being
> > burned and emitting CO2 like it was going out of fashion, instead of
> > heat wave, we get a couple of centuries of freezing temperatures!
> > Ouch! The models couldn't handle these "anomalies".
>
> **The dawn of the industrial revolution, saw a couple of things:
>
> 1) A GRADUAL increase in CO2 levels (not the massive and instant change you
> claim).
> 2) A huge increase in smoke, which actually blocks the effects of CO2.
>
>
>
> > The Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age are troublesome only
> > for CO2-centric models, indicating that the underlying assumption of
> > the model
>
> **No, they're not.
>
> - manmade CO2 drives global warming -- is faulty.
>
> **Repeat after me:
>
> CO2 IS _ONE_ DRIVER OF GLOBAL WARMING.
> CO2 IS _ONE_ DRIVER OF GLOBAL WARMING.
> CO2 IS _ONE_ DRIVER OF GLOBAL WARMING.
>
> There are many drivers of global warming. CO2 is one.
>
> Other
>
> > models, of sun activity for instance, have no problem following the
> > historical reality closely. That should long since have told the IPCC
> > and its retinue of favoured "scientists" that they were staring into
> > an infinite void of their own making. But by now the snouts were too
> > deep in the trough.
>
> **Bollocks. Read the IPCC reports and stop parroting the lies you've been
> fed. The IPCC reports exmine Solar variability.
>
>
>
> > So now the useless forecasting models are given less public exposure.
> > But they are not discarded. All those "climate scientists" don't start
> > looking for useful work. By now Global Warming is not only an
> > industry, it is a faith, with threats against "deniers" which sound
> > appallingly like those of Muslim Mullahs against the Infidels.
>
> **Nope. It's the scientists vs. the fossil fuel lobby and the idiots. It's
> not faith. It's science vs. money and stupidity.
>
>
>
> > So, instead of looking for useful work, all those "scientists" start
> > looking for ways of "getting rid of" the Medieval Warm Period and the
> > Little Ice Age. If they could "lose" these inconvenient historical
> > truths, then the temperatures of the 20th Century would no longer look
> > modest by comparison to the Medieval Warm Period, and they would no
> > longer have to explain how rising CO2 emissions "caused" the Little
> > Ice Age. The ideal, to match the already announced IPCC scare story
> > that the last decade of the 20th Century would be the hottest on
> > record, was to recast past temperatures so that they were below the
> > entire twentieth century and very much below the period 1990-2000. The
> > result would look like a hockey-stick on its side, the hook pointing
> > upwards. By now nobody (important -- those who did had their grants
> > revoked) even asked whether it was scientific practice to cook the
> > figures in order to support a bureaucratic idee fixe. The snouts were
> > bolted into the trough: hundreds of millions in research grants for
> > "global warming" were at stake.
>
> **Yadda, yadda, yadda. Read the damned IPCC reports and learn something.
> Read them IN FULL.
>
>
>
> > The first "scientist" to succeed in making a hockey stick was Michael
> > Mann. He re-analysed old tree ring samples with a new algorithm and
> > new methods of data selection. No one pointed out that tree rings are
> > very uncertain proxies for temperature, or that the particular trees
> > he selected are the most unreliable temperature proxies. No one
> > examined his algorithm. No one pointed out that Mann selected his data
> > to deliver a hockey stick. Mann had saved the world -- or at least the
> > IPCC and Global Warming: Mann had produced the Hockey Stick.
>
> **The MBH98 reconstruction has been dealt with many times. I suggest you get
> with the programme and move on.
>
> <SNIP> Bleating bullshit.
>
> --
> Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au
Trevor Wilson
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Halfway down even poor old Trev gives up arguing against the truth of
my compilation of facts, and just admits global warming is a religious
matter:
> I suggest you get with the programme and move on.
and then poor old Trev just gives up altogether:
**Nope. I just snipped your repetition.
I note that you are unable to address my points. I accept your admission
that I am correct.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Don Pearce
Any chance of you resetting your Outlook Express so it quotes
properly? You are screwing every thread you contribute to.
d
Trevor Wilson
"Don Pearce" <sp...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:4b058273....@news.eternal-september.org...
**Only to idiots who use Google Groups. I'll see what I can do. OE doesn't
like Google Groups for some reason.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Andre Jute
<tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
> "Andre Jute" <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:18a691f9-3944-4f06...@d9g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
> Halfway down even poor old Trev gives up arguing against the truth of
> my compilation of facts, and just admits global warming is a religious
> matter:
>
> > I suggest you get with the programme and move on.
>
> and then poor old Trev just gives up altogether:
>
> **Nope. I just snipped your repetition.
>
> I note that you are unable to address my points. I accept your admission
> that I am correct.
Dream on!
Andre Jute
>> >... we'll be screwed and nothing we can do
>> > will prevent this planet from hitting thermal runaway. A 7 degree
>> > C riseis not an unreasonable expectation. Much of the
>> > planet will be unihabitableas a result.
Andre Jute replied in a caring, sharing voice:
>> So, basically, according to you, Trevor, the four hoursemen of the
>> apocalypse are just turning the corner at the end of your block?
Wilson:
> **Well, it depends on timing. By the end of this century (which I am
> unlikely to see out), things will be getting extremely uncomfortable. A 2
> degree C rise seems certain.
You do know, don't you, Trevor, since you claim to have read all the
IPCC reports, that the IPCC *itself* has told us that a 2% temperature
rise would be beneficial to the earth and its plants and people. So
that's no problem, if one can believe these clowns.
> By the end of the next century, the rise will
> accelerate.
They couldn't forecast a cool decade directly after a hot decade, but
they want us to believe they can forecast a century ahead? Er, Trevor,
if some clown asked you to invest money on such a basis, what would
you say to him and how hard would you kick his arse?
> I hope they don't skid in the corner and fall before they get to you,
> and thereby deprive you of the satisfaction of being right.
>
> Will there be time to say farewell to you before they scythe you down
> or freeze you or frizzle you or whatever is this week's hobbyhorse of
> the trendy apocalyptics?
>
> **As you well know, things will happen slowly (on a human scale). On a
> geologic scale, the progress is simply breathtakingly fast.
Crap. We are a long, long way from any historical extreme of either
CO2 or temperature. See
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/02/11/a-2000-year-global-temperature-record/
Looks like those guys on the big black horses aren't coming for you
yet, Trev. I'm relieved; I know Patrick will be too. We don't when
them to start bush fires when they flash you off.
In fact, it looks like they're not coming until the Sun settles all
accounts on some day 5 billion years into the future.
Andre Jute
A little, a very little thought will suffice -- John Maynard Keynes
Ian Bell
I now, and I don't care. The STUPID thing is that it IS heresy.
Cheers
Ian
Peter Wieck
> I now, and I don't care. The STUPID thing is that it IS heresy.
Funny thing about heresy - that it is heretical does not necessarily
make it true or untrue. And, in the same way as it applies to the
existence of God (as we are in the realm of religion as only religion
is amenable to heresy) Pascal's Wager also applies to Global Warming.
God either exists or does not exist. Small modifications to one's
behavior based on the possibility of such existance costs very little
- almost nothing at all if one subscribes to the Social Contract in
any case. The alternative is not to be contemplated.
Global Warming does not have precisely the same consequences, of
course - but the sentiment is the similar. Now, as very most everyone
here has a) never missed a meal other than by choice and b) is
comfortably well fixed for the present and foreseeable future we are
mostly separated from any such consequences actual or apocryphal. As
is always the case in these things - the shortages will be divided
amongst the peasants. So why change? Why even discuss it or even think
about it. But small changes to one's behavior based on a possibility
may have significant consequences - and the cost of such changes are
again very nearly nil if one subscribes to the Social Contract in the
first place.
Peter WIeck
Melrose Park, PA
Trevor Wilson
> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>> >... we'll be screwed and nothing we can do
>>> > will prevent this planet from hitting thermal runaway. A 7 degree
>>> > C riseis not an unreasonable expectation. Much of the
>>> > planet will be unihabitableas a result.
>
> Andre Jute replied in a caring, sharing voice:
>>> So, basically, according to you, Trevor, the four hoursemen of the
>>> apocalypse are just turning the corner at the end of your block?
>
> Wilson:
>> **Well, it depends on timing. By the end of this century (which I am
>> unlikely to see out), things will be getting extremely uncomfortable. A 2
>> degree C rise seems certain.
>
> You do know, don't you, Trevor, since you claim to have read all the
> IPCC reports, that the IPCC *itself* has told us that a 2% temperature
> rise would be beneficial to the earth and its plants and people.
**"a 2% temperature rise"? Really? Cite the page number and which report.
Explain what 2% implies. Is that 2% relative to Absolute zero? ie: 2%
of -273 degrees.
Further: 2 degrees C rise will certainly benefit SOME occupants of this
planet. No doubt about that. The people of Greenland will be the big
winners. The people of Southern Australia, much of the US, Africa, Southern
Europe will be screwed however. The animals that cannot move too far, nor
fast, nor evolve quickly, will have big problems.
Oh yeah: Cite the page numbers where the IPCC claims that a "2% (whatever
the Hell that means) temperature rise would be beneficial to the earth and
its plants and people".
So
> that's no problem, if one can believe these clowns.
>
>> By the end of the next century, the rise will
>> accelerate.
>
> They couldn't forecast a cool decade directly after a hot decade, but
> they want us to believe they can forecast a century ahead?
**I suggest you study up on the term: "trend". The TREND is to higher
temperatures. Fluctuations over days, months or even a decade do not
necessarily represent a trend.
Er, Trevor,
> if some clown asked you to invest money on such a basis, what would
> you say to him and how hard would you kick his arse?
**I already have invested my money into the fact of global warming.
>
>> I hope they don't skid in the corner and fall before they get to you,
>> and thereby deprive you of the satisfaction of being right.
>>
>> Will there be time to say farewell to you before they scythe you down
>> or freeze you or frizzle you or whatever is this week's hobbyhorse of
>> the trendy apocalyptics?
>>
>> **As you well know, things will happen slowly (on a human scale). On a
>> geologic scale, the progress is simply breathtakingly fast.
>
> Crap. We are a long, long way from any historical extreme of either
> CO2 or temperature. See
> http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/02/11/a-2000-year-global-temperature-record/
>
**You don't do much research, before you type, do you?
These guys own the World Climate Report site:
http://www.westernfuels.org/index.cfm
BTW: They accept that CO2 is a GHG.
> Looks like those guys on the big black horses aren't coming for you
> yet, Trev. I'm relieved; I know Patrick will be too. We don't when
> them to start bush fires when they flash you off.
**I realise that English may not be your first language, but, perhaps you
could re-state what you are trying to say in some kind of English that most
of us are familiar with.
>
> In fact, it looks like they're not coming until the Sun settles all
> accounts on some day 5 billion years into the future.
**Global warming will not end life on this planet. It will make it far less
comfortable though.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Andre Jute
Trevor Wilson wrote:
> >> **Well, it depends on timing. By the end of this century (which I am
> >> unlikely to see out), things will be getting extremely uncomfortable. A 2
> >> degree C rise seems certain.
Andre Jute replied helpfully:
> > You do know, don't you, Trevor, since you claim to have read all the
> > IPCC reports, that the IPCC *itself* has told us that a 2% temperature
> > rise would be beneficial to the earth and its plants and people.
Wilson:
> **"a 2% temperature rise"? Really? Cite the page number and which report.
Jute:
But, my dear Trevor, you're the one who claims to have read the IPCC
reports and to have such faith in them. Now we catch you being totally
ignorant a pivotal passage!
Here's a hint. The year is 2001 and the passage you're searching for
reads:
“in many developed countries, net economic gains are projected for
global mean temperature increases up to roughly 2% Celsius.”
Of course, that's what the scientists said in the main body of the
report. By the time the lying bureaucrats of the IPCC finished with
it, in the Summary for Policy Makers this positive statement had been
weaseled round to say the very opposite: “an increase in global mean
temperature of up to a few degrees C would produce a mixture of
economic gains and losses in developed countries”. That negative
statement is not what the scientists said: that's entirely a
bureacratic, political invention.
Wilson:
> Explain what 2% implies. Is that 2% relative to Absolute zero? ie: 2%
> of -273 degrees.
Jute:
Trying some weaseling of your own, eh Trevor?
> Further: 2 degrees C rise will certainly benefit SOME occupants of this
> planet. No doubt about that. The people of Greenland will be the big
> winners. The people of Southern Australia, much of the US, Africa, Southern
> Europe will be screwed however.
Totally unsupported, unfounded speculation. The US, Southern Europe
and quite a bit of Africa is nicely "developed", thank you. You're
like some religious fundamentalist, Trevor, lashing out with denials
at anything that even remotely undermines your faith in your
irrational religion of global warming, even when spoken by its high
priests.
>The animals that cannot move too far, nor
> fast, nor evolve quickly, will have big problems.
Animals die all the time. Climate change is the norm. It is natural.
There's more weaseling and chiseling from our Trev but I'm getting
bored with him, so I snipped it. The above example does perfectly by
itself to illuminate his gross ignorance and his asinine stubbornness,
not to mention his religious fervour for global warming.
Andre Jute
Global Warming is like Scientology, only with less science
Trevor Wilson
Trevor's ignorance of his own bible is hanging out again:
Trevor Wilson wrote:
> >> **Well, it depends on timing. By the end of this century (which I am
> >> unlikely to see out), things will be getting extremely uncomfortable. A
> >> 2
> >> degree C rise seems certain.
Andre Jute replied helpfully:
> > You do know, don't you, Trevor, since you claim to have read all the
> > IPCC reports, that the IPCC *itself* has told us that a 2% temperature
> > rise would be beneficial to the earth and its plants and people.
Wilson:
> **"a 2% temperature rise"? Really? Cite the page number and which report.
Jute:
But, my dear Trevor, you're the one who claims to have read the IPCC
reports and to have such faith in them. Now we catch you being totally
ignorant a pivotal passage!
**I see no such passage.
Here's a hint. The year is 2001 and the passage you're searching for
reads:
�in many developed countries, net economic gains are projected for
global mean temperature increases up to roughly 2% Celsius.�
**There is no such passage. Further: "2% Celcius" makes no sense. Try and
explain it in English.
Of course, that's what the scientists said in the main body of the
report. By the time the lying bureaucrats of the IPCC finished with
it, in the Summary for Policy Makers this positive statement had been
weaseled round to say the very opposite: �an increase in global mean
temperature of up to a few degrees C would produce a mixture of
economic gains and losses in developed countries�. That negative
statement is not what the scientists said: that's entirely a
bureacratic, political invention.
**Here is YOUR claim:
"You do know, don't you, Trevor, since you claim to have read all the
IPCC reports, that the IPCC *itself* has told us that a 2% temperature
rise would be beneficial to the earth and its plants and people. So
that's no problem, if one can believe these clowns."
YOu need to cite the PAGE NUMBERS that refer to the following:
"2% temperature rise"
and
"would be beneficial to the earth and its plants and people"
Cite the damned page numbers.
Wilson:
> Explain what 2% implies. Is that 2% relative to Absolute zero? ie: 2%
> of -273 degrees.
Jute:
Trying some weaseling of your own, eh Trevor?
**Actually, it is you who continue to obfuscate. Cite the damned page
numbers.
> Further: 2 degrees C rise will certainly benefit SOME occupants of this
> planet. No doubt about that. The people of Greenland will be the big
> winners. The people of Southern Australia, much of the US, Africa,
> Southern
> Europe will be screwed however.
Totally unsupported, unfounded speculation.
**Well, no, it's not. We're already witnessing the effects right now.
The US, Southern Europe
and quite a bit of Africa is nicely "developed", thank you. You're
like some religious fundamentalist, Trevor, lashing out with denials
at anything that even remotely undermines your faith in your
irrational religion of global warming, even when spoken by its high
priests.
>The animals that cannot move too far, nor
> fast, nor evolve quickly, will have big problems.
Animals die all the time. Climate change is the norm. It is natural.
**Sure it is, but the rate at which it is occuring is beyond anything we
have experienced.
There's more weaseling and chiseling from our Trev but I'm getting
bored with him, so I snipped it.
**Of course you snipped it. You can't answer the questions, nor can you cite
the requested page numbers. SOP for you.
The above example does perfectly by
itself to illuminate his gross ignorance and his asinine stubbornness,
not to mention his religious fervour for global warming.
I'll replace your snippage:
--
> Wilson:
>> **Well, it depends on timing. By the end of this century (which I am
>> unlikely to see out), things will be getting extremely uncomfortable. A 2
>> degree C rise seems certain.
>
> You do know, don't you, Trevor, since you claim to have read all the
> IPCC reports, that the IPCC *itself* has told us that a 2% temperature
> rise would be beneficial to the earth and its plants and people.
**"a 2% temperature rise"? Really? Cite the page number and which report.
Explain what 2% implies. Is that 2% relative to Absolute zero? ie: 2%
of -273 degrees.
Further: 2 degrees C rise will certainly benefit SOME occupants of this
planet. No doubt about that. The people of Greenland will be the big
winners. The people of Southern Australia, much of the US, Africa, Southern
Europe will be screwed however. The animals that cannot move too far, nor
fast, nor evolve quickly, will have big problems.
Oh yeah: Cite the page numbers where the IPCC claims that a "2% (whatever
the Hell that means) temperature rise would be beneficial to the earth and
---
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
William Asher
news:he23sr$2ms$2...@localhost.localdomain:
You have a problem that is common to nearly all climate skeptics, total
ignorance of known physics. While it is all fine to postulate that the
rise in atm. CO2 is due to something else than burning of fossil fuels,
you cannot ignore physics in explaining what that might be. If the CO2
is coming out of the ocean, as you suggest implicitly, the isotopic
signature is wrong. That's one major flaw in your argument. Even if you
can resolve the isotope problem, which is highly unlikely, the second is
that if it came out of the ocean, there is a major upwelling unaccounted
for that is responsible, or one that is known has intensified enough to
ventilate more deep-ocean CO2. There is no evidence that any of the
large eastern boundary upwellings have intensified in the last 200 years,
and with the advent of satellite measurements of sea surface temperature,
we know for a fact there are no new upwelling areas. So there is no way
you can get CO2 out of the ocean, and even if you did the isotopic
composition would be wrong.
So until you can resolve those issues, you are really sounding like a
crackpot rather than a heretic.
--
Bill Asher
Andre Jute
> Ian Bell <ruffreco...@yahoo.com> wrote innews:he23sr$2ms$2...@localhost.localdomain:
All that gobbledygook, my dear Asher, is just another way of saying,
"We can't prove CO2 causes temperature rise, but we'd really, really,
really, really like it to be guilty." The last time the *will* of a
bunch of scientists became a political matter, before the current
global warming scam, it was called Lysenkoism. Look it up, sonny.
Bullshit, however you dress it up in undigested scientific-sounding
guano, is still bullshit.
Andre Jute
"in many developed countries, net economic gains are projected for
What the lying IPCC bureaucrats published:
"an increase in global mean temperature of up to a few degrees C would
produce a mixture of economic gains and losses in developed countries"
Poor Trevor Wilson claims:
> **There is no such passage.
Oh yes there is. IPCC 2001b:SPM:4 Look it up, if you know how.
Andre Jute
No more Trevor, please, until you first learn to use google -- at
least that!
Trevor Wilson
> What the scientists wrote:
> "in many developed countries, net economic gains are projected for
> global mean temperature increases up to roughly 2 [degrees] Celsius"
>
> What the lying IPCC bureaucrats published:
> "an increase in global mean temperature of up to a few degrees C would
> produce a mixture of economic gains and losses in developed countries"
>
> Poor Trevor Wilson claims:
>> **There is no such passage.
>
> Oh yes there is. IPCC 2001b:SPM:4 Look it up, if you know how.
**There is no such passage which says what you ORIGINALLY claimed. I note
that you have adjusted your claim.
>
> Andre Jute
> No more Trevor, please, until you first learn to use google -- at
> least that!
**Here you your claim:
"You do know, don't you, Trevor, since you claim to have read all the
IPCC reports, that the IPCC *itself* has told us that a 2% temperature
rise would be beneficial to the earth and its plants and people."
I note that you fundamentally altered that original claim. Address that
clain the questions I made WRT to it. I note your continued inability
address my points and questions. They are repeated below:
---
Andre Jute
wrote:
> "Andre Jute" <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:9edb25da-fa8d-46e7...@h14g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>
> > What the scientists wrote:
> > "in many developed countries, net economic gains are projected for
> > global mean temperature increases up to roughly 2 [degrees] Celsius"
>
> > What the lying IPCC bureaucrats published:
> > "an increase in global mean temperature of up to a few degrees C would
> > produce a mixture of economic gains and losses in developed countries"
>
> > Poor Trevor Wilson claims:
> >> **There is no such passage.
>
> > Oh yes there is. IPCC 2001b:SPM:4 Look it up, if you know how.
>
> **There is no such passage which says what you ORIGINALLY claimed. I note
> that you have adjusted your claim.
You can blow all the moke you like, pal, but I am under no obligation
to explain the IPCC to you just because you don't like what their
scientists wrote, or even the watered down version the bureaucrats
published in the SPM. Once more, for God, King and Country, heh-heh:
What the scientists wrote:
"in many developed countries, net economic gains are projected for
global mean temperature increases up to roughly 2 [degrees] Celsius"
What the IPCC bureaucrats watered it down to:
"an increase in global mean temperature of up to a few degrees C would
produce a mixture of economic gains and losses in developed countries"
Poor Trevor Wilson claims:
> **There is no such passage.
Oh yes there is. IPCC 2001b:SPM:4 -- look it up, if you know how.
You're now in the position of some obsessed self-flagellator who, not
liking what is in the authenticated text, denies the gospel.
Enjoy!
Yup, either the IPCC books are the gospel, dear old Trev, or you're
global warming denier. Which is it?
Andre Jute
Charisma is the art of infuriating the undeserving by merely existing
elegantly
William Asher
> The last time the *will* of a
> bunch of scientists became a political matter, before the current
> global warming scam, it was called Lysenkoism. Look it up, sonny.
Actually, the last time the will of a bunch of scientists became a
political matter was Reagan's SDI. Now that was money down a rat hole.
--
Bill Asher
William Asher
> On Nov 19, 5:16�am, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au>
> wrote:
>> "Andre Jute" <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:9edb25da-fa8d-46e7...@h14g2000pri.googlegroups.com
>> ...
>>
>> > What the scientists wrote:
>> > "in many developed countries, net economic gains are projected for
>> > global mean temperature increases up to roughly 2 [degrees]
>> > Celsius"
>>
Full quote from the draft:
�Published estimates indicate that increases in global mean temperature
would produce net economic losses in many developing countries for all
magnitudes of warming studied, and that the losses would be greater in
magnitude the higher the level of warming. In many developed countries,
net economic gains are projected for global mean temperature increases up
to roughly 2�C. Mixed or neutral net effects are projected in developed
countries for temperature increases in the approximate range of 2 to 3�C,
and net losses for larger temperature increases. The projected
distribution of economic impacts is such that it would increase the
disparity in well being between developed countries and developing
countries, with the disparity growing with higher temperatures. The more
damaging impacts estimated for developing countries reflects, in part,
their lesser adaptive capacity.�
(IPCC 2001b:Summary for Policymakers, original government draft, 2.6.,
SE:301)
Here's what the IPCC actually published:
"Notwithstanding the limitations expressed above, based on a few
published estimates, increases in global mean temperature would produce
net economic losses in many developing countries for all magnitudes of
warming studied (low confidence), and losses would be greater in
magnitude the higher the level of warming (medium confidence). In
contrast, an increase in global mean temperature of up to a few �C would
produce a mixture of economic gains and losses in developed countries
(low), with economic losses for larger temperature increases (medium
confidence). The projected distribution of economic impacts is such that
it would increase the disparity in well-being between developed countries
and developing countries, with disparity growing for higher projected
temperature increases (medium confidence). The more damaging impacts
estimated for developing countries reflects, in part, their lesser
adaptive capacity relative to developed countries. [7.2.3]"
from Section 2.8 of the Summary for Policymakers from IPCC, TAR, WG2
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg2/005.htm
Not quite as rosy an assessment as some suggest, especially considering
that the "less than 2 C increase" in the draft is less than what is now
projected to happen under any realistic CO2 emission control strategy.
And in the final report, unlike the draft, the IPCC rates all of those
estimates as low confidence. These changes are the result of the
politicians watering down the conclusions of the scientists.
--
Bill Asher
Don Pearce
<tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>
>"Don Pearce" <sp...@spam.com> wrote in message
>news:4b058273....@news.eternal-september.org...
>> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 10:24:18 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
>> <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Andre Jute" <fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:18a691f9-3944-4f06...@d9g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>>>EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
>>>Halfway down even poor old Trev gives up arguing against the truth of
>>>my compilation of facts, and just admits global warming is a religious
>>>matter:
>>>> I suggest you get with the programme and move on.
>>>
>>>and then poor old Trev just gives up altogether:
>>>
>>>**Nope. I just snipped your repetition.
>>>
>>>I note that you are unable to address my points. I accept your admission
>>>that I am correct.
>>
>> Any chance of you resetting your Outlook Express so it quotes
>> properly? You are screwing every thread you contribute to.
>
>**Only to idiots who use Google Groups. I'll see what I can do. OE doesn't
>like Google Groups for some reason.
No, I'm talking about the lack of a ">" at the beginning of quoted
lines and the presence of "**" at the beginning of your text (as you
just did on that reply). That is what screws up threaded news readers.
I don't receive any feeds from Google Groups users - I have them
excluded.
d
Ian Bell
> Ian Bell <ruffr...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:he23sr$2ms$2...@localhost.localdomain:
>
>> Andre Jute wrote:
>>> On Nov 18, 2:30 pm, Ian Bell <ruffreco...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The interesting thing is that the ice data shows CO2 emissions lag
>>>> temperature increases by about 800 years. Oh look, its about 800
>>>> years since the medieval warm period, I guess we are about due for
>>>> an increase in CO2.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers
>>>>
>>>> Ian
>>> LOL. Don't expect the global warmies to smile: you're preaching
>>> heresy right in their faces. -- AJ
>>
>> I now, and I don't care. The STUPID thing is that it IS heresy.
>
> You have a problem that is common to nearly all climate skeptics, total
And you have a problem that is common to nearly all climate alarmists, a
persistent need to to personally vilify skeptics. These internet
'discussions' go nowhere.
While it is all fine to postulate that the
> rise in atm. CO2 is due to something else than burning of fossil fuels,
> you cannot ignore physics in explaining what that might be. If the CO2
> is coming out of the ocean, as you suggest implicitly, the isotopic
> signature is wrong. That's one major flaw in your argument. Even if you
> can resolve the isotope problem, which is highly unlikely, the second is
> that if it came out of the ocean, there is a major upwelling unaccounted
> for that is responsible, or one that is known has intensified enough to
> ventilate more deep-ocean CO2. There is no evidence that any of the
> large eastern boundary upwellings have intensified in the last 200 years,
> and with the advent of satellite measurements of sea surface temperature,
> we know for a fact there are no new upwelling areas. So there is no way
> you can get CO2 out of the ocean, and even if you did the isotopic
> composition would be wrong.
>
> So until you can resolve those issues, you are really sounding like a
> crackpot rather than a heretic.
>
See what I mean? As soon as you learn to be civil I will have a
conversation with you.
Cheers
Ian
Tom Sherman °_°
the purpose of government is to make those with capital richer, while
suppressing labor.
--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.
Patrick Turner
> On Nov 18, 3:26 am, Lord Valve <detri...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > Damn, Andre - a *bitchin'* fine article. I've been pointing out that the
> > Global Warming Jihadis have been accusing dissenters of "Jewish
> > physics" for years - if you're not with the program, you get no grant
> > money, of course. And Algore's getting paid handsomely for his
> > starring role in the hustle - hell, he buys carbon indulgences from
> > *himself* every time he flies his private jet somewhere to collect
> > a hundred grand for admonishing the ordinary folks to shiver (or
> > swelter) in the dark and get rid of their cars. It's the grandest scam
> > on the planet, maybe the slickest hustle of all time. I'm crossing
> > this to AGA, where green weenies, watermelons, hippies, and
> > otherwise clueless leftards congregate. Watch 'em froth!
>
> > Lord Valve
> > Globally Cool
>
> Globally cool? More likely than not, my lord Valve. But I'd rather
> global warming and feed the poor: one of the most striking lines in
> any IPCC report (and I've read them all, of course) says quite bluntly
> that up to 2% of global warming will be good for us economically and
> agriculturally. Hey, let's have it then before the Chinese grab all
> the good things that come with pollution!
>
> Andre Jute
> Supertro-- I mean Supercool
Its of no surprise that LV and our dear Andre concur on global warming
and give their version of benefits acruing from it.
Then why are the Chinese so intent on not bothering to copy what
Detroit produced or what BMW produced, and to try to go straight to
electric cars?
The Chinese also want 300 nuclear power stations. They are quite
prepared to pay for them. The chinese are not proud of the infamous
pollution hanging over most big Chinese cities. The majority of the
800 million workers in China with a frugal way of life will beaver
away for another 20 years to build up their nation while the US
crumbles. They enjoy the challenge. I saw a report about their
developments on nuclear power station technology which suggest they
will be very safe, very cheap, and easy to build in a variety of
sizes. Well you may ask why chinese amps are so bad; all the bright
chinese lads are working on the nation's real challenges.
The last thing most people want is global warming and I suspect those
who are global warming skeptics such as LV and Andre are already well
outnumbered. I recommend they sit back and go with the flow if they
wish to enjoy a better future than the past, and not talk about how
they think they are being swindled by a bunch scams and false
arguments, and having thus hating to pay huge bills in future for
electricity, food, water and oil.
Meanwhile In Oz, they have added another grade of danger days for
bushfires. In many places they have roadside graded signs with
adjustable arrows pointing to low, medium, high and "EXTREME" on the
far right of the red scale. But now it has "CATASTROPHIC" added to the
scale where the authorities can say nobody should stay at home to try
to stop a fire should it occur near your house. Fires killed 173 in
Victoria last season and it might happen again this season.
And in many places in SE Oz, fresh November records have been set for
hot weather well over 30C and 40C for the last couple of springtime
weeks. It was about 39C in my shed today, and I had to quit. In many
areas of Oz there has not been any real relief from the last drought
lasting many years and we are set for the next Elnino cycle, or
drought cycle complete with no rain and extreme temperatures. So Oz is
being fried right now, and the yearly food production trend is DOWN.
There ain't enough rain and its too hot.
The poor could always be well fed if the amount of food in the world
was equitably distributed. The average fat American or Australian eats
twice the amount that the poor eat, and the American wastes enough to
feed a poor person. And he eats far too much meat. At present, grain
stockpiles around the world are on the decline, and I cannot see how
food supplies will increase with rise in T.
Food production relies on oil for fertilizer, pesticides, and tractor
fuel. Notice how American oil production has gone down and the US
relies on the Middle East. That isn't something anyone likes in the
US, considering how some members of Saudi Arab families behave. So all
private transport by oil burners should be shut down and only
electrics allowed if there are nuclear stations to power them. The oil
should be saved for food production only, unless of course we discover
how to make electric tractors, and produce all those chemicals without
oil. But there'd be riots if baricades went across highways. So
business must lead with changes that are profitable so ppl are weaned
off coal and oil if we want the weather to stop getting worse, but
change will be too slow.
But maybe the GW doubters subconsciously WANT all those hordes of
little brown poor people to damn well starve. Its understandable
because every man wants his genes to be spread better than any other
man's genes, and if the other man starves, then your kids do better in
the future because they inherit more of the world. But I hear the
Chinese and other emerging countries are buying up vast tracts of
arrable land in poor countries to boost their food supplies. If the
land is owned by the Chinese, or western multinational companies they
control the production, and the poor in the little afro nation get a
pittance for sweating in the fields, and they stay poor and hungry.
The talks at Copenhagen will be yet more aspirational talks. I doubt
many large CO2 production facilities like coal fired power stations,
aluminium plants and private car transport will be closed down. I've
heard the Chinese policy is "first get rich, then clean up" but I
think the weather will worsen for much human activity, and we won't be
able to addapt to the speed of weather changes. We don't know any way
to remove the CO2 we put up there.
Of course the Chinese produce a huge amount of cheap junk eagerly
purchased by Americans and Australians. The Chinese cannot afford to
clean up their act because Americans and Australians don't pay them
enough for their goods. Meanwhile the Chinese goods could be MUCH
cheaper if the western middle men and store owners didn't take such a
huge %, but they do; for anything made in China costing $20 in a shop
here, the Chinese maybe get only $2.
Oh how some in China must hate us. Jolida amps fetch huge prices in US
and Oz stores, but the Chinese factory gets so little. But we tell
them to stop polluting......
We are a species that rarely prevents anything. We act after a crisis,
and never to prevent one. All for a good deal which is so often a good
swindle. And when a solution to a crisis is applied, then after the
crisis is over we set ourselves up for another one because we are
stuck in our ways. The Global Finance Crisis is an example and the
banks and money cunts are already arming up to fight the proposed new
regulations considered by governments.
Here there are all these industry lobbyists trying to get government
compensation for carbon pollution, or get exemptions to schemes for
carbon reductions. The whole process is to be voted on soon by the
Senate. It looks like the proposed legislation will be rejected by the
Senate for the second time, and this could bring on an election. Then
the People decide.
Bring it on.
But I have no faith in the process. Nobody really wants to bite the
bullet.
If you turn off the cabon tap in any society now it would be fucked.
Patrick Turner.
snip a considerably long read ....
AMuzi
f u cn rd ths u cn rd gurglgoops
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Bill Sornson
But who would want to?
Don's right. Trevor's posts are all-but-unreadable because it's nearly
impossible to discern new text from old (never mind attribution).
Bill "Jute's more patient than I" S.
William Asher
> See what I mean? As soon as you learn to be civil I will have a
> conversation with you.
Tut tut, I thought since you were so preenily snarky you could take a
little ribbing. Anyway, this is going to work out great, because I won't
have a conversation with you until you learn science.
--
Bill Asher
William Asher
> I disagree. SDI was corporate welfare for the well connected. After
> all, the purpose of government is to make those with capital richer,
> while suppressing labor.
That was why it got funded, but it got started because Teller woke up with
a woody for the first time in years and had to do something with it. So he
used it to dial Reagan.
--
Bill Asher
AMuzi
>>>> snip
>>>>> snip
>>>>>> snip
>>>>>>> snip
>> Don Pearce wrote:
>>> No, I'm talking about the lack of a ">" at the beginning of quoted
>>> lines and the presence of "**" at the beginning of your text (as you
>>> just did on that reply). That is what screws up threaded news
>>> readers. I don't receive any feeds from Google Groups users - I have
>>> them excluded.
> AMuzi wrote:
>> f u cn rd ths u cn rd gurglgoops
Bill Sornson wrote:
> But who would want to?
> Don's right. Trevor's posts are all-but-unreadable because it's nearly
> impossible to discern new text from old (never mind attribution).
> Bill "Jute's more patient than I" S.
Well, that's a different subject; 'content'.
Or lack thereof.
Bill Sornson
Ian Bell
You just can't help yourself can you. 'Conversation' over.
Cheers
Ian
William Asher
news:niqbg5ps9ivth6075...@4ax.com:
> On 19 Nov 2009 04:18:01 GMT, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Ian Bell <ruffr...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>>news:he23sr$2ms$2...@localhost.localdomain:
>>
>>> Andre Jute wrote:
>>>> On Nov 18, 2:30 pm, Ian Bell <ruffreco...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The interesting thing is that the ice data shows CO2 emissions lag
>>>>> temperature increases by about 800 years. Oh look, its about 800
>>>>> years since the medieval warm period, I guess we are about due for
>>>>> an increase in CO2.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>
>>>>> Ian
>>>>
>>>> LOL. Don't expect the global warmies to smile: you're preaching
>>>> heresy right in their faces. -- AJ
>>>
>>>
>>> I now, and I don't care. The STUPID thing is that it IS heresy.
>>
>>You have a problem that is common to nearly all climate skeptics,
>>total ignorance of known physics. While it is all fine to postulate
>>that the rise in atm. CO2 is due to something else than burning of
>>fossil fuels, you cannot ignore physics in explaining what that might
>>be. If the CO2 is coming out of the ocean, as you suggest implicitly,
>>the isotopic signature is wrong. That's one major flaw in your
>>argument.
>
> Not so.
>
> Let's us take a simplified model of the expected CO2 partial pressure
> balance between ocean and atmosphere and, for the purpose of
> illustration, magically remove all other CO2 sources.
>
> Now induce a perturbation, from what ever means or source, to the
> ocean, in this case to cause an out gassing. Atmospheric CO2 will rise
> until balance is reestablished.
>
> Now, introduce an alternate source of CO2 emission. That alternate
> source will provide some portion of the CO2 that would otherwise come
> from the oceanic out gassing and if it has an identifiable signature
> it will 'show up' as being the atmosphere, since that is where it is
> directly vented, but it's fallacious to argue that is the 'cause' of
> atmospheric increase.
>
> Or, put another way, regardless of the driver the 'man made' CO2
> signature will always show up in the atmosphere because that's where
> it's directly vented.
>
>> Even if you
>>can resolve the isotope problem, which is highly unlikely, the second
>>is that if it came out of the ocean, there is a major upwelling
>>unaccounted for that is responsible, or one that is known has
>>intensified enough to ventilate more deep-ocean CO2. There is no
>>evidence that any of the large eastern boundary upwellings have
>>intensified in the last 200 years, and with the advent of satellite
>>measurements of sea surface temperature, we know for a fact there are
>>no new upwelling areas.
>
> Only if you can show the model is flawless with no unknowns.
>
> I submit that the 'missing carbon' problem is prima facie evidence
> there is, at the very least, 'something' unknown.
>
> Good luck.
>
>> So there is no way
>>you can get CO2 out of the ocean, and even if you did the isotopic
>>composition would be wrong.
>>
>>So until you can resolve those issues, you are really sounding like a
>>crackpot rather than a heretic.
>
> And you're sounding like a 'true believer' rather than the
> investigative skeptic all scientists should be.
There is a *huge* difference between being a skeptic and completely
failing to recognize the difference between a physically plausible theory
that fits the available empirical evidence and wild speculation
constructed simply to provide an alternative scenario without regard to
how it might fit into the available observations.
Your theory above fits into the latter category. Mass balance
calculations for the total anthropogenic CO2 source are not off by large
margins, so the expected atmospheric isotopic composition is known and
matches the observations. This provides nearly incontravertible evidence
that there are no additional sources of CO2 that are driving the
atmospheric increase. Specifically, if the ocean was the source for the
atmospheric increase, the measured atmospheric isotopic signature would
not match the calculations based on anthropogenic CO2 emissions. There
would also be no way to explain why the oceans are gaining CO2.
The isotopic issue explained:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-
that-recent-cosub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/
http://tinyurl.com/r5pau
Ocean CO2 mass balance:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/06/how-much-of-the-
recent-cosub2sub-increase-is-due-to-human-activities/
http://tinyurl.com/2nzry9
As for the "missing sink," terrestrial biologists are closing the hole.
http://www.nature.com/climate/2007/0708/full/climate.2007.35.html
Anyway, yeah, I'm skeptical of most arguments put forth by climate
skeptics because they tend ot to be well grounded in physics, chemistry,
and ignore most of the available data. Now if someone were to come along
and demonstrate that CO2 didn't absorb IR radiation because god has put
little "afdbs" around each CO2 molecule in the troposphere or that CO2 in
the atmosphere only emitted longwave blackbody radiation upwards due to
little space aliens holding the molecules in position, I would rethink my
position on the effect of anthropogenic CO2 on climate. But you heretics
aren't at that level of sophistication in your theory, although many of
your ideas are as realistic as the two I've proposed.
Oh, and tell Ian he still needs to solve the isotope problem and the
circulation problem. I would myself but he turns out to have remarkably
thin skin for a self-professed heretic. Imagine if Gallileo had just
gone off in a sulk the first time someone told him he was wrong. Well, I
guess it's getting hard to find decent heretics these days.
--
Bill Asher
RonSonic
>
>All that gobbledygook, my dear Asher, is just another way of saying,
>"We can't prove CO2 causes temperature rise, but we'd really, really,
>really, really like it to be guilty." The last time the *will* of a
>bunch of scientists became a political matter, before the current
>global warming scam, it was called Lysenkoism. Look it up, sonny.
>
>Bullshit, however you dress it up in undigested scientific-sounding
>guano, is still bullshit.
Thought you'd be interested in another area of Al Gore's scientific expertise,
geothermal energy:
"People think about geothermal energy - when they think about it at all - in
terms of the hot water bubbling up in some places, but two kilometers or so down
in most places there are these incredibly hot rocks, 'cause the interior of the
earth is extremely hot, several million degrees, and the crust of the earth is
hot."
"Several million degrees."
Ron
Dan O
Dan O
"Hot Rocks" :-) "Baby, baby, baby, you're out of time."
Michael Press
sp...@spam.com (Don Pearce) wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 10:24:18 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
> <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Andre Jute" <fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:18a691f9-3944-4f06...@d9g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> >EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
> >Halfway down even poor old Trev gives up arguing against the truth of
> >my compilation of facts, and just admits global warming is a religious
> >matter:
> >> I suggest you get with the programme and move on.
> >
> >and then poor old Trev just gives up altogether:
> >
> >**Nope. I just snipped your repetition.
> >
> >I note that you are unable to address my points. I accept your admission
> >that I am correct.
>
> Any chance of you resetting your Outlook Express so it quotes
> properly? You are screwing every thread you contribute to.
There is no chance. It is most likely that Outlook
Express cannot be cured. Some remedies work sometimes,
but in no configuration will it always quote properly.
Funny thing is that most users of Outlook Express
adamantly refuse to post properly quoted messages. Some
simply say "Tough. I will not change. I like it this
way." Others are passive, and shrug saying, "I do not
feel like doing anything about it." Some try to fix
things, fail, and continue to post badly formatted messages.
--
Michael Press
Michael Press
<f802353e-0916-47fa...@u16g2000pru.googlegroups.com>,
Andre Jute <fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Trevor Wilson wrote:
> >> >... we'll be screwed and nothing we can do
> >> > will prevent this planet from hitting thermal runaway. A 7 degree
> >> > C riseis not an unreasonable expectation. Much of the
> >> > planet will be unihabitableas a result.
>
> Andre Jute replied in a caring, sharing voice:
> >> So, basically, according to you, Trevor, the four hoursemen of the
> >> apocalypse are just turning the corner at the end of your block?
>
> Wilson:
> > **Well, it depends on timing. By the end of this century (which I am
> > unlikely to see out), things will be getting extremely uncomfortable. A 2
> > degree C rise seems certain.
>
> You do know, don't you, Trevor, since you claim to have read all the
> IPCC reports, that the IPCC *itself* has told us that a 2% temperature
> rise would be beneficial to the earth
2% of what? Degrees Kelvin? A 6 deg C rise?
--
Michael Press
Trevor Wilson
"Michael Press" <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:rubrum-61061A....@news.albasani.net...
**Sadly, Andre has failed to clarify what he trying to tell us. Most likely
due to his failure to understand science.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Unknown
"Michael Press" <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:rubrum-C70E91....@news.albasani.net...
Google "OE Quotefix". It works
Fred
Andre Jute
I'm not a averse to a little hyperbole. But "several million?" Now
*that* is global warming!
God, that guy Gore is a gasbag. Imagine the damage he would have done
if the hanging chads had swung his way.
Andre Jute
A little, a very little thought will suffice -- John Maynard Keynes
Andre Jute
wrote:
> "Michael Press" <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>
> news:rubrum-61061A....@news.albasani.net...
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article
> > Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> Trevor Wilson wrote:
> >> >> >... we'll be screwed and nothing we can do
> >> >> > will prevent this planet from hitting thermal runaway. A 7 degree
> >> >> > C riseis not an unreasonable expectation. Much of the
> >> >> > planet will be unihabitableas a result.
>
> >> Andre Jute replied in a caring, sharing voice:
> >> >> So, basically, according to you, Trevor, the four hoursemen of the
> >> >> apocalypse are just turning the corner at the end of your block?
>
> >> Wilson:
> >> > **Well, it depends on timing. By the end of this century (which I am
> >> > unlikely to see out), things will be getting extremely uncomfortable. A
> >> > 2
> >> > degree C rise seems certain.
>
> >> You do know, don't you, Trevor, since you claim to have read all the
> >> IPCC reports, that the IPCC *itself* has told us that a 2% temperature
> >> rise would be beneficial to the earth
>
> > 2% of what? Degrees Kelvin? A 6 deg C rise?
>
> **Sadly, Andre has failed to clarify what he trying to tell us. Most likely
> due to his failure to understand science.
>
> --
> Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au
You're lying again, Wilson. I told you days ago already that the 2%
was a misprint for 2 degrees Celsius. I repeat the text of a post I
sent nearly three days ago:
****
What the scientists wrote:
"in many developed countries, net economic gains are projected for
global mean temperature increases up to roughly 2 [degrees] Celsius"
What the lying IPCC bureaucrats published:
"an increase in global mean temperature of up to a few degrees C would
produce a mixture of economic gains and losses in developed countries"
Poor Trevor Wilson claims:
> **There is no such passage.
Oh yes there is. IPCC 2001b:SPM:4 Look it up, if you know how.
Andre Jute
Andre Jute
> AMuzi wrote:
> > Don Pearce wrote:
> >> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 10:49:35 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
> >> <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>
> >>>news:4b058273....@news.eternal-september.org...
> >>>> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 10:24:18 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
> >>>> <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>
> >>>>>news:18a691f9-3944-4f06...@d9g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> >>>>> EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
> >>>>> Halfway down even poor old Trev gives up arguing against the
> >>>>> truth of my compilation of facts, and just admits global warming
> >>>>> is a religious matter:
> >>>>>> I suggest you get with the programme and move on.
> >>>>> and then poor old Trev just gives up altogether:
>
> >>>>> **Nope. I just snipped your repetition.
>
> >>>>> I note that you are unable to address my points. I accept your
> >>>>> admission that I am correct.
> >>>> Any chance of you resetting your Outlook Express so it quotes
> >>>> properly? You are screwing every thread you contribute to.
> >>> **Only to idiots who use Google Groups. I'll see what I can do. OE
> >>> doesn't like Google Groups for some reason.
>
> >> No, I'm talking about the lack of a ">" at the beginning of quoted
> >> lines and the presence of "**" at the beginning of your text (as you
> >> just did on that reply). That is what screws up threaded news
> >> readers. I don't receive any feeds from Google Groups users - I have
> >> them excluded.
>
> > f u cn rd ths u cn rd gurglgoops
>
> But who would want to?
>
> Don's right. Trevor's posts are all-but-unreadable because it's nearly
> impossible to discern new text from old (never mind attribution).
>
> Bill "Jute's more patient than I" S.
Trevor Wilson isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer. Straightening
out his head will be a multi-year project. It is not for those with
attention spans shorter than a decade or two.
Ye-ess.
Andre Jute
Every helpful
Trevor Wilson
**Wrong. You said nothing of the sort, as your post proves. I do, now,
accept that you misprinted the 2% claim several times and failed to make an
appropriate correction several times. What you actually did, was to lie
about the position of the IPCC.
****
What the scientists wrote:
"in many developed countries, net economic gains are projected for
global mean temperature increases up to roughly 2 [degrees] Celsius"
What the lying IPCC bureaucrats published:
"an increase in global mean temperature of up to a few degrees C would
produce a mixture of economic gains and losses in developed countries"
Poor Trevor Wilson claims:
> **There is no such passage.
Oh yes there is. IPCC 2001b:SPM:4 Look it up, if you know how.
Andre Jute
No more Trevor, please, until you first learn to use google -- at
least that!
**How about you try to admit your mistakes/lies and we can get somewhere? I
further note your inability to address my previous points and questions
about this matter. SOP for you. You'll lie until you get found out. Then
you'll just pretend your lies never existed.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Andre Jute
what the IPCC reported to policymakers:
"These changes are the result of the politicians watering down the
When bureaucrats and politicians can adjust what the scientists say up
or down, or invert the scientific finding to say exactly the opposite,
the IPCC Assessments are no longer scientific studies but political
documents.
In fact, they haven't been scientific studies since in the first one
as bureaucratic interference with the truth goes back all the way to
the original sin when the scientists said quite clearly that they saw
no evidence of manmade global warming -- and the bureaucrats reported
that the global warming was manmade!
Global warming was always a bureaucratic, political lie. But it was
only later that the scientists were corrupted into supporting the
bureaucratic lies.
Andre Jute
Never more brutal than he has to be -- Nelson Mandela
On Nov 19, 6:27 am, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> from Section 2.8 of the Summary for Policymakers from IPCC, TAR, WG2http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg2/005.htm
Andre Jute
> On Nov 18, 1:42 pm, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > A GUIDE TO GLOBAL WARMING FOR THOSE EDUCATED IN THE UNIVERSITY OF
> > LIFE
> > by Andre Jute
>
> > Global warming is probably the most expensive and least productive job
> > creation scheme in the history of the world.
>
> Andre starts his long post by stating the obvious in similar fashion
> as when cities became unmangable because of the piles of horse manure.
> People welcomed cars which put those in the horse transport business
> out of a job.
> A car became a lot cheaper to own than a horse. And a waching machine
> a lot easier to deal with than a slave or servant.
>
> So we have freedom from horse manure, but never any shortage of
> bullshit.
>
> Andre goes on to explain how a study of the Medieval Warm period and
> Little Ice Age show that wide temp changes had no relation to changes
> in CO2, even when they should have. The onset of the industrial
> revolution spewd much CO2 but T fell.
>
> BUT, the effect of mankind and the effect of early industrial
> revolution on CO2 levels were totally insignificant. Any changes to
> CO2 by mankind before 1900 was totally insignificant, as was the
> efects of deforestation and other evironmental rape. The rape really
> got underway in the 20th century.
You should get the facts before you start on this sort of argument,
Patrick. CO2 concentrations have been ten times (10x !) higher than
they are now, and the earth didn't burn. At the beginning of the
industrial revolution there was lots of CO2, quite the opposite of
what you claim, and there was an Ice Age.
Nor is manmade CO2 in any way more dangerous than any other CO2,
however made. In fact, manmade CO2 is a small fraction of all CO2, and
the effect of CO2 on temperature declines logarithmically, so that any
damage CO2 could do to temperature (which hasn't been proven!) will be
a tiny, tiny increment. Read this again: Virtually all the damage that
CO2 can do (if any) has already been done. Double the manmade CO2, ten
times, twenty, will have a marginal effect on temperature increase.
The rest of your post is riddled with similar ignorance and a whole
dunnyload of irrelevances. Come back when you have the facts. I'm
really not interested in your feelings or cod-economics or trendy
concerns. Science is about facts, not emotions.
Andre Jute
Visit Andre's books at
http://www.audio-talk.co.uk/fiultra/THE%20WRITER'S%20HOUSE.html
> So whatever caused the MWP and LIA may have had nothing whatsoever to
> do with CO2 IMHO.
>
> Today, mankind's pollution activities including CO2 is hundreds or
> more times the levels of 1850.
>
> I have heard several pll say that the world is now buring in the
> eqivalent of 1,000 barrels of oil a second, or a super tanker full
> every 20 minutes, presumably including coal burning.
>
> A barrel of oil is 158 litres. So that's ( 1,000 x 158L x 86,400
> seconds ) litres per day.
>
> Or roughly 13.6 billion litres per day.
>
> Since there are about 6.2 billion ppl on the planet, each person uses
> 2.2 Litres of fuel daily.
>
> Its very difficult to see how 2.2L per day by everyone is causing GW,
> but each year it becomes 803L, or about 600Kg and the weight of CO2
> produced is about 1,200Kg. ( C + O2 = CO2 ).
>
> The weight of the atmosphere is 5.3 E18 Kg, or 5.3 x
> 1,000,000,000,000,000 tonnes.
> If we divide this by 6.2 x 1,000,000,000 people we get 0.86 x
> 1,000,000 tonnes of air per person.
>
> So everyone has 860,000 tonnes of air in which to fart in any way they
> want to.
>
> At present weight of CO2 per person at 380PPM = 325 tonnes.
>
> http://micpohling.wordpress.com/2007/03/30/math-how-much-co2-by-weigh...
>
> If each person is adding 1.2 tonnes a year, it is adding 0.37% of what
> is already there.
>
> Before 1850 when the world population may have been 2 billion, the CO2
> per person was MUCH less because there was at least 3 times the weight
> of air per person, and the amount of CO2 each person produced maybe
> 120Kg per year, not 1,200Kg as it may be now, so each man sent up
> 0.012 of what was already there, assuming the CO2 % was around 250PPM.
>
> Its difficult to see how a 0.37% CO2 increase each year could make any
> change to temperature.
>
> But I ain't no expert on the air, but there is a formula for finding
> out the temperature of a given amount of air exposed to solar
> radiation and with a given amount of CO2 present and water vapour
> etc.
>
> But after another 100 years we look like increasing CO2 despite the
> word fests and C trading and population will grow and the CO2 increase
> compounds and maybe we could easily double what's already there now.
>
> If what we send up mainly stays up there then are we not in huge
> trouble?
>
> The problem with CO2 is that its like shit that won't rot, and nobody
> wants to stop shitting or carry the can.
>
> Patrick Turner.
>
>
>
> > The Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age are troublesome only
> > for CO2-centric models, indicating that the underlying assumption of
> > the model -- manmade CO2 drives global warming -- is faulty. Other
> > models, of sun activity for instance, have no problem following the
> > historical reality closely. That should long since have told the IPCC
> > and its retinue of favoured "scientists" that they were staring into
> > an infinite void of their own making. But by now the snouts were too
> > deep in the trough.
>
> > So now the useless forecasting models are given less public exposure.
> > But they are not discarded. All those "climate scientists" don't start
> > looking for useful work. By now Global Warming is not only an
> > industry, it is a faith, with threats against "deniers" which sound
> > appallingly like those of Muslim Mullahs against the Infidels.
>
> > So, instead of looking for useful work, all those "scientists" start
> > looking for ways of "getting rid of" the Medieval Warm Period and the
> > Little Ice Age. If they could "lose" these inconvenient historical
> > truths, then the temperatures of the 20th Century would no longer look
> > modest by comparison to the Medieval Warm Period, and they would no
> > longer have to explain how rising CO2 emissions "caused" the Little
> > Ice Age. The ideal, to match the already announced IPCC scare story
> > that the last decade of the 20th Century would be the hottest on
> > record, was to recast past temperatures so that they were below the
> > entire twentieth century and very much below the period 1990-2000. The
> > result would look like a hockey-stick on its side, the hook pointing
> > upwards. By now nobody (important -- those who did had their grants
> > revoked) even asked whether it was scientific practice to cook the
> > figures in order to support a bureaucratic idee fixe. The snouts were
> > bolted into the trough: hundreds of millions in research grants for
> > "global warming" were at stake.
>
> > The first "scientist" to succeed in making a hockey stick was Michael
> > Mann. He re-analysed old tree ring samples with a new algorithm and
> > new methods of data selection. No one pointed out that tree rings are
> > very uncertain proxies for temperature, or that the particular trees
> > he selected are the most unreliable temperature proxies. No one
> > examined his algorithm. No one pointed out that Mann selected his data
> > to deliver a hockey stick. Mann had saved the world -- or at least the
> > IPCC and Global Warming: Mann had produced the Hockey Stick.
>
> > The IPCC immediately promoted Mann's deeply flawed study from a little
> > local aberration in tree rings to a global rise in temperature over
> > two millennia, most of the rise centred in the last decade of the
> > twentieth century. It was "proof" that human CO2 emissions drove
> > global temperature! Mann's hockey stick graph was the only one shown
> > to presidents and prime ministers on which to base environmental
> > policy costing trillions of taxpayers' money and shaping economies for
> > decades to come because that sort of fundamental change is not easy to
> > undo.
>
> > You might ask, what happened to the historical evidence of the
> > Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. Why, the IPCC declared
> > them Euro-centric phenomena. Self-styled "scientists" told this lie in
> > public. Anyone asking whether these multi-century historical events
> > happened in the rest of the world was suddenly treated as if he
> > committed a form of racism ("Euro-centrism"). The IPCC and its
> > "climate scientists" simply ignored a huge literature proving that the
> > Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age happened on every
> > continent and in every ocean around the world at the same time. It was
> > as if any paper which was published by anyone except one of the IPCC's
> > accredited "climate scientists" not only wasn't true, but that it
> > didn't exist, and more, had no right to exist.
>
> > It took the IPCC seven years to discover that Mann's Hockey Stick is a
> > broken crutch. Neither they nor any of the "scientific reviewers" ever
> > asked to see Mann's raw data, no one checked his algorithm, no one
> > checked anything. But two tenacious Canadians, McIntyre and McKittrick
> > (who should get the Nobel Prize ...
>
> > read more »
Andre Jute
> In article
> <f802353e-0916-47fa-974b-1610c2923...@u16g2000pru.googlegroups.com>,
2 [degrees] Celsius. The "2%" is a misprint from copying and pasting
between incompatible programs. I corrected the misprint nearly three
days ago but the clown Wilson is so keen to prove me a liar that he
absolutely forbids me to make a correction.... Here it is again,
though I don't expect Wilson to address the point that the IPCC
scientists themselves said that increased temperature could be
beneficial; poor Trevor is in denial:
**********
What the scientists wrote:
"in many developed countries, net economic gains are projected for
global mean temperature increases up to roughly 2 [degrees] Celsius"
What the lying IPCC bureaucrats published:
"an increase in global mean temperature of up to a few degrees C would
produce a mixture of economic gains and losses in developed countries"
Poor Trevor Wilson claims:
> **There is no such passage.
Oh yes there is. IPCC 2001b:SPM:4 Look it up, if you know how.
Andre Jute
No more Trevor, please, until you first learn to use google -- at
least that!
**********
Bill Sornson
> On Nov 20, 3:49 pm, RonSonic <ronso...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>> Thought you'd be interested in another area of Al Gore's scientific
>> expertise, geothermal energy:
>>
>> "People think about geothermal energy - when they think about it at
>> all - in terms of the hot water bubbling up in some places, but two
>> kilometers or so down in most places there are these incredibly hot
>> rocks, 'cause the interior of the earth is extremely hot, several
>> million degrees, and the crust of the earth is hot."
>>
>> "Several million degrees."
> I'm not a averse to a little hyperbole. But "several million?" Now
> *that* is global warming!
>
> God, that guy Gore is a gasbag. Imagine the damage he would have done
> if the hanging chads had swung his way.
Don't have to imagine it; we're living it today.
> Andre Jute
> A little, a very little thought will suffice -- John Maynard Keynes
Bill S.
"The global warming scare is being used as a political tool to increase
government control over American lives, incomes and decision making." --
Harrison Schmitt
Bill Sornson
You're delusional (even more so than usual). Don was addressing Trevor, who
posts incoherently despite the fact that hundreds use OE with no issues
whatsoever.
Why you would butt in to their exchange is nearly as questionable as your
clearly incorrect statements about Outlook Express.
HTH(BKIW), BS
Andre Jute
wrote:
> "Andre Jute" <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> "in many developed countries, net economic gains are projected for
> global mean temperature increases up to roughly 2 [degrees] Celsius"
>
> What the lying IPCC bureaucrats published:
> "an increase in global mean temperature of up to a few degrees C would
> produce a mixture of economic gains and losses in developed countries"
>
> Poor Trevor Wilson claims:
>
> > **There is no such passage.
>
> Oh yes there is. IPCC 2001b:SPM:4 Look it up, if you know how.
>
> Andre Jute
> No more Trevor, please, until you first learn to use google -- at
> least that!
>
> **How about you try to admit your mistakes/lies and we can get somewhere? I
> further note your inability to address my previous points and questions
> about this matter. SOP for you. You'll lie until you get found out. Then
> you'll just pretend your lies never existed.
>
> --
> Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au
Okay, Trevor, you're in denial: the IPCC said a temperature increase
could be a good thing! You feel they've betrayed you. Now you want to
blow smoke over the affair rather than acknowledge the truth. That's
up to you. Just don't expect me to help you deny the truth that the
IPCC and global warming itself is about politics, not science. As you
pal Asher says, "These changes are the result of the politicians
watering down the conclusions of the scientists." In other words,
making the benefit from a rise in temperature sound less attractive to
politicians.
Andre Jute
God, putting down global warmies is like shooting fish in a bowl
Trevor Wilson
**Nope. The IPCC said (to paraphrase) that a small temperature increase
*could* be a good thing, for *some* populations. SOME, SOME, SOME. Not ALL.
You feel they've betrayed you.
**Not at all. I feel that you have either failed to read the IPCC reports,
or you are manufacturing a meaning that is not there.
Now you want to
> blow smoke over the affair rather than acknowledge the truth. That's
> up to you. Just don't expect me to help you deny the truth that the
> IPCC and global warming itself is about politics, not science.
**Of course it's about science.
As you
> pal Asher says, "These changes are the result of the politicians
> watering down the conclusions of the scientists." In other words,
> making the benefit from a rise in temperature sound less attractive to
> politicians.
**You can spin the facts any way you see fit. The truth is something else
entirely.
I note your refusal to answer my questions and address my previous points.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Trevor Wilson
**Where did Patrick (or anyone else) suggest that the Earth was going to
burn due to excessive CO2 levels? Be precise in your answer.
At the beginning of the
> industrial revolution there was lots of CO2, quite the opposite of
> what you claim, and there was an Ice Age.
**Bollocks.
>
> Nor is manmade CO2 in any way more dangerous than any other CO2,
> however made.
**Strawman.
In fact, manmade CO2 is a small fraction of all CO2
**30% is NOT a small fraction. It is a considerable fraction.
, and
> the effect of CO2 on temperature declines logarithmically, so that any
> damage CO2 could do to temperature (which hasn't been proven!) will be
> a tiny, tiny increment.
**Does it? Let's see your proof of that. Solid scientific evidence will be
adequate.
Read this again: Virtually all the damage that
> CO2 can do (if any) has already been done. Double the manmade CO2, ten
> times, twenty, will have a marginal effect on temperature increase.
**As above. Supply your proof. Good, solid scientific or experimental data
(peer-reviewed, of course) will be suitable.
>
> The rest of your post is riddled with similar ignorance and a whole
> dunnyload of irrelevances. Come back when you have the facts. I'm
> really not interested in your feelings or cod-economics or trendy
> concerns. Science is about facts, not emotions.
**Indeed it is. Your posts have been, thus far, completely devoid of
Trevor Wilson
> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 10:49:35 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
> <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Don Pearce" <sp...@spam.com> wrote in message
>> news:4b058273....@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 10:24:18 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
>>> <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Andre Jute" <fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:18a691f9-3944-4f06...@d9g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>>>> EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
>>>> Halfway down even poor old Trev gives up arguing against the truth
>>>> of my compilation of facts, and just admits global warming is a
>>>> religious matter:
>>>>> I suggest you get with the programme and move on.
>>>>
>>>> and then poor old Trev just gives up altogether:
>>>>
>>>> **Nope. I just snipped your repetition.
>>>>
>>>> I note that you are unable to address my points. I accept your
>>>> admission that I am correct.
>>>
>>> Any chance of you resetting your Outlook Express so it quotes
>>> properly? You are screwing every thread you contribute to.
>>
>> doesn't like Google Groups for some reason.
>
> No, I'm talking about the lack of a ">" at the beginning of quoted
> lines and the presence of "**" at the beginning of your text (as you
> just did on that reply). That is what screws up threaded news readers.
> I don't receive any feeds from Google Groups users - I have them
> excluded.
**I have incorporated the suggested software (OE Quotefix) into my system.
Hopefully, this will satisfy.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Patrick Turner
I did mention that all I write is only my opinion. The "facts" are
obscured for most people investigating anthropocentric causes of
global warming. The last book about GW was by James Lovelock and he
said nothing about temperatures being low while CO2 was at say 4,500
PPM, ie, ten times more than now.
>
> Nor is manmade CO2 in any way more dangerous than any other CO2,
> however made. In fact, manmade CO2 is a small fraction of all CO2, and
> the effect of CO2 on temperature declines logarithmically, so that any
> damage CO2 could do to temperature (which hasn't been proven!) will be
> a tiny, tiny increment. Read this again: Virtually all the damage that
> CO2 can do (if any) has already been done. Double the manmade CO2, ten
> times, twenty, will have a marginal effect on temperature increase.
So you say, but there are many would disagree, and from what I see
happening right before my very eyes there is global warming, and the
rate of CO2 increase is huge, and man-made compared to times when CO2
rose or fell naturally.
It would be smart for our species to drop our addiction to carbon
burning. But there's a price to make the change, and once people learn
the price, they'll be much less enthusiastic, and many will just say
"Fuck it all, me first, and fuck anyone else tells me what to do."
Noble logic and altruism will be junked in favour of just trying to
survive with no regard for the future generations.
But many will back some investments in alternatives to carbon. If
electric cars become viable because of Peak Oil and its resulting high
oil prices, then we'll be forced off carbon for transport. But high
oil prices also mean high food prices.
Some of the research into solar power plants look promising at the ANU
right now. They have a cheaply constucted experimental dish there
about 25 metres in dia which focuses the sun onto a pod above the dish
and maximum power output is about 50kW. The heat at 1,200C is high
enough to disassociate N and H in amonia, and the H can be burnt to
drive a turbine. Or you can just boil wated for a turbine. Overall
efficiency is 45% and much higher than solar voltaic cells. So if I
need 1kW/hr every hour to live, then the dish would support about 23
people. If the dish cost is $230,000, then 23 people can pay $10,000
each for one.
Oz is BIG, and there is room for millions of dishes like this one.
I see the alternative technology right before my very eyes and I like
what I see.
>
> The rest of your post is riddled with similar ignorance and a whole
> dunnyload of irrelevances. Come back when you have the facts. I'm
> really not interested in your feelings or cod-economics or trendy
> concerns. Science is about facts, not emotions.
You can always dismiss the figures I mentioned.
I like to boil global issues down into what is the the average
individual personal effect of our own activities upon "our own bit of
the world". I wish the experts on the subject would present their
findings it to make it clearer for us to understand.
I happen to think that when you do divide the world up into 6.2
billion parts so that you have 1 part per person, it becomes easier to
visualize our own individual impact. But because our own slice of the
world appears to be so fucking huge, then many will say it just
doesn't matter if we clear all the forrest and burn all the fossil
fuel under our feet. They will ignore the facts and figures which are
inconvenient truths.
Anyone is free to dismiss the figures. The maths irk them. But were
you to confine a given amount of air within an experimental greenhouse
and you add CO2 to that air, then the average temperature of that air
+ added CO2 will rise.
Much investigation has been done on this phenomena and some maths
develeoped for the relationship between % of CO2 and the average T.
In the distant past I believe man had an insignificant effect on CO2
levels and resulting climate changes. And this includes 60,000 years
of aboriginal occupation of Oz where they often started bushfires to
clear out forests to prevent major high intensity fires. Vast amounts
of CO2 would have been generated. Now the aboriginals have a
negligible effect compared to the much greater natural bushfires which
occur. But the natural big fires always did occur, started by
lightning strikes. Nobody was around to video those aboriginals caught
in the wrong place at the wrong time when a major bushfire burnt them
to a cinder like the rest of the many animals caught when bushfires
rage fiercely as they did last season. The present bushfire caused CO2
is much less than the perpetual other output of fossil fuel use. I
percieve man's effect on CO2 levels is greater than nature's effects
when measured when there were not many men around.
Anyway, who is right about this issue remains to be seen, and I won't
be around for longer than 40 years maximum.
Perhaps we should ride our bikes to a cafe somewhere in Canberra in
2049 and we can discuss matters further.
By then we might both look back and see that we were both wrong on the
issue, and that some other set of problems have become the scientific-
political issues of the day.
I might bet a schooner that the cafe might need good air conditioning
because it would be very warm outside, maybe like Dubai is now.
And maybe 1/2 the trees which have recently been planted in Canberra's
gardens and streets and at the new arboterium have died due to heat
stress and that bushfires have much reduced forest in surrounding
ranges. I might bet a schooner the Australian ski season has become
much shorter and that the snow line has risen several hundred meters
so in some years almost no snow falls.
BTW, trying to win any argument with dear Trevor is somewhat
pointless.
In fact trying to win any argument about global warming here could be
pointless because it has almost nothing to do with tubecraft. Its
almost worse than arguing about religion. But using tubes is
greenhouse unfriendly, and the International Greenhouse Police Force
which might be established soon with a branch office in a bunker near
you soon might knock on your door late one evening to smash your
vacuum tubes. So in the future, hide your amps well. People in police
forces can be a bit dumb. The rotating/sliding bookcase would be a
good investment, and no doubt you have a lot of books.
Cordially, and angst free,
Patrick Turner.
> > > read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Don Pearce
<tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
Nearly. Just delete the double stars from the start of your lines and
you are there.
d
Andre Jute
> I did mention that all I write is only my opinion. The "facts" are
> obscured for most people investigating anthropocentric causes of
> global warming.
Taking care of the environment isn't about opinion, it is about
science. And the science is absent. You've been deliberately lied to
about CO2 and global warming, Patrick.
You can download the conspiracies of the so-called "scientists" who
lied to you. Download these files and read their e-mails as they plot
to lie to you:
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=U44FST89
Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Amps at
http://www.audio-talk.co.uk/fiultra/
"wonderfully well written and reasoned information for the tube audio
constructor"
John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
"an unbelievably comprehensive web site containing vital gems of
wisdom"
Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review
Andre Jute
wrote:
One can lead a horse to water; one cannot make him drink. -- Andre Jute
Andre Jute
Eh? Your "questions and previous points" refer to a misprint that I
corrected three days ago. But for the tenth or twelfth time you demand
that I answer you. I'm not obliged to say the same thing over and over
until even the dullest bonehead understands. I've made all the points
I intend to make. Time to move on to the very tasty lies exposed in
the e-mails of these clowns who planted so many dumb ideas in your
head: http://www.megaupload.com/?d=U44FST89
Enjoy!
Andre Jute
Oh what a beautiful day!
Patrick Turner
> On Nov 22, 8:27 am, Patrick Turner wrote:
>
> > I did mention that all I write is only my opinion. The "facts" are
> > obscured for most people investigating anthropocentric causes of
> > global warming.
>
> Taking care of the environment isn't about opinion, it is about
> science. And the science is absent. You've been deliberately lied to
> about CO2 and global warming, Patrick.
So you keep saying.
I find rather difficult to not accept that so many scientists have
agreed global warming here now and being caused by CO2 from men and
their wives.
>
> You can download the conspiracies of the so-called "scientists" who
> lied to you. Download these files and read their e-mails as they plot
> to lie to you:
>
> http://www.megaupload.com/?d=U44FST89
I'l have a look at that but I am not likely to take notice of what i
conclude might be a conspiracy theory.
The religious of the world might say I have committed at least
thousands of mortal sins and if I die now without declaring faith to
God the father, son and holy ghost and seeking their forgiveness with
grovelling to a priest about all the roots outside marriage that I
have had and paying with donations to the Church I am SURE to burn in
Hell for Eternity.
But God, whatever he, she or it is put me here with a set of uncaring
chances that goverrn my life. I seek to do good WITHOUT FEARING DIVINE
punishment which I believe is a total nonsense or utterly purified
bullshit. In other words, religion is a con, a means of domination of
most by a few, just like nationalism, or communism etc. I will still
try to treat men and women around me well WITHOUT all the bullshit of
ideology or religion.
Ideas about Gobal warming due to men's activities could be a complete
con with no more validity than a heaven and hell theory for life after
death. And to be sure some ideas about GW would be utter BS. Just
which ideas is open to conjecture. I don't think its a black and white
issue. There is still much outright denial amoung many ppl than
warming is occuring, and the scientific modelling is not perfect at
all. We sis think the universe we observe was expanding but at a rate
which was reducing so that eventually it would come to a stand still
in billions of years then reverse its motion due to gravity then
collapse back into itself again.
The the scientists discovered that the rate of universe expansion s
INCREASING which means all we observe is moving further apart and we'd
have no chance of visiting anywhere outside our tiny speck of a place
in space unless we develop rockets capable of speeds exceeding the
speed of light. Who cares what the universe is like when none of
those ideas about the universe affect crop production yields down here
on terra firma?
Well, we know scientists can agree to be be quite wrong about
something until someone discovers enough evidence which prooves
otherwise.
What I do know is what I see around me and there's no sign of global
cooling. There is plenty of evidence that mankind's increased presense
on Earth at an ever higher standard of living involving a HUGE
increase of energy inputs and raw materials will strain shit out of
the natural environment and huge numbers of species will become
extinct much much sooner than if mankind had never evolved. Global
warming is only one problem EVERY species faces. Loss of natural
habitat is another.
At the present rate of so called "progress" in mankind's lifestyle and
population growth, how long do you believe un-checked "progress" can
contunue?
Do you think that in 1,000 years the Earth could support 6,200 billion
people?
What policy changes would governments have to make to facilitate
"business as usual" for the next 1,000 years?
Do you think any policy changes should be made NOW? ( And no need to
include policies of shooting disagreeable ppl)
Thought and questions are what religions and conspiracists seek to
supress. Mao said democracy grows from the barrel of a gun. What a
bastard Mao was. Of course Bhudda sat around fatly and told us to
contemplate. he had a good following without shooting anyone, so his
ideas are somewhat benign and tolerable.
While contemplation is underway, truth is obscure; it truth was so
obvious contemplation would not be necessary. In life there are many
uncertainties, so there is plenty to question and contemplate.
Are you at peace within yourself when faced with so many
uncertainties?
Can you be serene while knowing the infinite information of the
universe cannot be fully understood because you have only a finite
number of brain cells?
Today I rode 83km in warm humid weather with 8 good men between 20 and
75 and two extraordinary young women.
We all naturally know humour is the key to our differences of opinion.
Not a single sour word was heard for 4 hours on hilly terrain and in
the cafe.
I remain serene while knowing the infinite possibilities of divine
intercourse with either of the two beautiful young women will not be
experienced by this declining finite body of mine.
Beauty has been uncaringly spattered around in my own little part of
the universe. That I see it, and enjoy its presence sustains me more
than knowing if I am right or not about global warming.
I like being stressed like our ancestors were during a hunt or trek
across unknown lands left free after an ice age and for survival of my
tribe. I like heightened senses while knowing the slightest error or
lack of concentration might send me hurtling down a mountain side with
a broken neck. Or that unless I watch myself I electrocute myself on a
triode amp. I'd prefer the scientists get something right sometime,
and maybe if they are not turned on by the excitement of their
activities they come to all sorts of stupid conclusions.
To me it remains very possible we hasten the Earth to respond to us
and all other flora and fauna by making it much hotter than we'd like.
There could be a trend in the opposite direction where the Earth tries
to freeze life to a minimum with an ice age but to me that looks like
a much less likely outcome for the next 1,000 years.
If each of us SOON spends a years's wages of our 45 years of earnings
from work in trying to wean ourselves off carbon is benign over the
longer term of say 1,000 years. Do you honestly believe that we have
another 1,000 years where we can burn fossil fuels at the same or
increasing rates with no problems?
Its difficult to get anyone to agree to spending for the future
because they see it as wastefulness. Nobody likes paying taxes either.
Many people don't believe in paying for superannuation and life
insurance. They don't like putting something aside for the future. I
am one such person because my wages are 1/5 of average weekly
earnings. But wealthy people on AWE or 50 grand a year can live like a
fat king AND easily afford super and insurance and taxes and carbon
fibre bicycles worth $7,000. But after the global financial crisis
many super funds crashed and people's nest eggs for their lifestyle
after retirement were wiped out. Had opportunities for green
expenditure on solar plants and greening of their housing been more
available they'd have been considered more seriously and ppl would
still have what they'd spent, and they'd save having to pay big bills
in retirement for energy.
I might be a lone voice in the wilderness, but I don't mind.
BTW, the file size at
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=U44FST89
seems to be a 61MB download.
I expect the answer to the question whether or not greenhouse warming
is anthropcentric should be answerable in 10 pages of plain text.
Meanwhile I can think for myself a bit as time allows.
Patrick Turner.
Peter Wieck
> I expect the answer to the question whether or not greenhouse warming
> is anthropcentric should be answerable in 10 pages of plain text.
Fewer than that. But the conclusion would be the same whatever the
cause - the environment we presently live and require to thrive is in
trouble. Irrespective of the source of causes. But, you are looking
for common sense - which isn't.
> Meanwhile I can think for myself a bit as time allows.
A dangerous activity, a threat to all and sundry and one that requires
a considerable strength of will.
Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA
Ben C
> On Nov 22, 10:01�pm, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 22, 8:27�am, Patrick Turner wrote:
>>
>> > I did mention that all I write is only my opinion. The "facts" are
>> > obscured for most people investigating anthropocentric causes of
>> > global warming.
>>
>> Taking care of the environment isn't about opinion, it is about
>> science. And the science is absent. You've been deliberately lied to
>> about CO2 and global warming, Patrick.
>
> So you keep saying.
> I find rather difficult to not accept that so many scientists have
> agreed global warming here now and being caused by CO2 from men and
> their wives.
>>
>> You can download the conspiracies of the so-called "scientists" who
>> lied to you. Download these files and read their e-mails as they plot
>> to lie to you:
>>
>> http://www.megaupload.com/?d=U44FST89
>
> I'l have a look at that but I am not likely to take notice of what i
> conclude might be a conspiracy theory.
It's not exactly a conspiracy theory, but nor does one get the
impression of an objective open-minded scientific community seeking the
truth.
I don't know if you remember Paul Hudson's article on BBC news which we
flamed each other about a bit here at the time. The climate scientists
were having rather similar exchanges,
Someone apparently doing a PhD at Stanford writes:
"You may be aware of this already. Paul Hudson, BBC's reporter on
climate change, on Friday wrote that there's been no warming since
1998, and that pacific oscillations will force cooling for the next
20-30 years. It is not outrageously biased in presentation as are
other skeptics' views."
Some of them rubbish the article, others engage with it a bit more
intelligently. This is all fine, and interesting to read-- at least
they're discussing global warming (but I'm afraid I do get the feeling
many of them are just searching for excuses).
Then the notorious Michael Mann responds with:
"extremely disappointing to see something like this appear on BBC.
its particularly odd, since climate is usually Richard Black's beat
at BBC (and he does a great job). from what I can tell, this guy was
formerly a weather person at the Met Office.
We may do something about this on RealClimate, but meanwhile it
might be appropriate for the Met Office to have a say about this, I
might ask Richard Black what's up here?"
WTF is that all about? Why is it any of Michael Mann's business what the
BBC reports, or the Met Office says?
It's not that the article was naive or just plain stupid (as some RBTers
also cast it at the time). Look at this exchange:
"Saying it is natural variability is not an explanation. What are
the physical processes? Where did the heat go? [...]"
Mann responds:
"Kevin, that's an interesting point. As the plot from Gavin I sent
shows, we can easily account for the observed surface cooling in
terms of the natural variability seen in the CMIP3 ensemble (i.e.
the observed cold dip falls well within it). So in that sense, we
can "explain" it. But this raises the interesting question, is there
something going on here w/ the energy & radiation budget which is
inconsistent with the modes of internal variability that leads to
similar temporary cooling periods within the models. I'm not sure
that this has been addressed--has it?"
Right, there clearly is a discussion, so why can't we have it in public?
Why the outrage? Why the need to ask Richard Black what's up, or to get
the Met Office to say something?
It's pretty obvious the "scientific consensus" is a clique and, from the
media response to the whole leaked email story, who works for the clique
and who doesn't.
Bill Sornson
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 15:57:16 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
>> **I have incorporated the suggested software (OE Quotefix) into my
>> system. Hopefully, this will satisfy.
> Nearly. Just delete the double stars from the start of your lines and
> you are there.
None of which has anything to do with OE, with or without Quotefix.
BS
AMuzi
Your 'electric car' uses power made from coal oil and gas
(despite Ms Pelosi's belief, natural gas is indeed a
hydrocarbon. Really).
Not only that, but inherent energy conversion and
transmission losses mean you're using more energy overall
hence more pollution than just burning gasoline AEBE.
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Tom Ace
> Not only that, but inherent energy conversion and
> transmission losses mean you're using more energy overall
> hence more pollution than just burning gasoline AEBE.
But AE isn't E. There are efficiencies of scale at large power
plants.
Do you dispute the claims of higher efficiency at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Roadster#Energy_efficiency
?
Tom Ace
Trevor Wilson
**Indeed. However, natural gas is less polluting, for the amount of
electrical energy produced. Considerably less than coal, for instance.
>
> Not only that, but inherent energy conversion and
> transmission losses mean you're using more energy overall
> hence more pollution than just burning gasoline AEBE.
**Not so much. There are a raft of issues that need to be considered:
* Transmission efficiency: Typically around 3% per 1,000km. IOW: Bugger all.
* Conversion efficiency: Even a coal fired power station can convert energy
at around 50% efficiency. MUCH better than an IC engine (which, AT BEST is
around 45%, for Deisel and 35% for petrol), which is usually around 15 ~ 20%
'round town for a petrol engine. Much less for something like a Toyota Land
Cruiser (petrol).
* Electric and hybrid cars recover a fair chunk of wasted energy in the form
of regenerative braking. Around 80%. IC engines waste this energy.
* Modern electric motors convert electrical energy into kinetic energy at
efficiencies typically around 90%.
* Electric motors, since they deliver maximum torque at zero RPM (and up)
are perfectly suited for city motoring.
* Batteries are around 70% efficient at storing energy.
* Electric power can be generated by many, non-CO2 emission sources, such as
nukes, geo-thermal, wind, Solar, tidal, et al.
Even if power is supplied by the most polluting source imaginable (coal
fired), electric vehicles make more sense than petrol IC engines FOR CITY
MOTORING. For open road driving, the equation changes. Modern, small
capacity, direct injection Deisel is the marginal winner. Assuming the use
of coal fired power is the only source of electricity.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Trevor Wilson
**I am repeating my questions, since you failed miserably (as usual) to
repsond:
Unknown
"Bill Sornson" <so...@noyb.com> wrote in message news:4b09...@news.x-privat.org...
It'll take Trevor a while to get used to OE working the way it's supposed
to. He's been using ** to separate his responses from the post he's replying
to for a long time because his copy of OE is broken and wouldn't add the
> characters to the previous post until he fixed it with OE Quotefix. I've
had a couple of copies of OE fail that way, even though the feature is
turned on in the internet options menus. Probably caused by a corrupt
registry.
Fred
Bill Sornson
I suppose that's the case...although it could just be his settings? (Tools,
Options, Send, Plain Text Settings.) Does Quotefix even add the '>'
delineators on its own? (I use it for the color coding; makes it much
easier -- and OK, prettier -- to follow threads. At least ones that aren't
all jacked up by weird quoting.)
Bill "such pressing concerns" S.
Dan O
The mere fact that you would use Outlook Express at all says enough.
Unknown
"Dan O" <danov...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:fd7247c1-0b22-4dca...@u18g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
I'm delighted to discover how AWESOME you are, Dan! Get back to me
when you get over yourself! Or should I have said, if. . .
Fred
Unknown
"Bill Sornson" <so...@noyb.com> wrote in message news:4b0a...@news.x-privat.org...
With Quotefix installed, you can still turn the '>' indenting off and on as you
describe. But without it, you can't turn it on when OE is broken. You can
change the settings all you want, but OE refuses to indent and add the > no
matter what you do. To me, everything else Quotefix offers is fluff ;-).
Fred
Trevor Wilson
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 15:45:18 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
>
> <snip>
>>
>> **Strawman.
>>
>> In fact, manmade CO2 is a small fraction of all CO2
>>
>> **30% is NOT a small fraction. It is a considerable fraction.
>
**Fantasy? Try fact. Before humans began buring stupendous amounts of fossil
fuels, the CO2 levels were approximately 280ppm. Now those figures are 30%
higher.
>
> For one, the oceans contain at least 50 times as much CO2 as the
> atmosphere and it's argued that may be 100 times too low an estimate.
**Strawman. No one argues that. A bigger concern is what will happen to that
dissolved CO2 as the oceans warm.
>
> That fact alone makes the statement you're arguing with 'true'.
**It says nothing of the sort.
>
> For atmospheric CO2, as of 2000 'man made' CO2 represented less than
> 3.5%.
**Prove it. Cite your science. In your science, I epxect you to present the
data which shows:
* How you arrive at the figure.
* The total amount of CO2 emitted by humans in the last 150 years.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
William Asher
news:tqpmg5d1q4t6fmirh...@4ax.com:
>> Mass balance
>>calculations for the total anthropogenic CO2 source are not off by
>>large margins,
>
> Just by over half that emitted.
>
No. Look, you *want* to believe there's a problem. In that sense you
are a typical skeptic and won't even begin to consider whether you might
be wrong, and the guys who do this for a living are right.
My statement meant that the estimates of total amount of fossil fuels
burned since the start of the industrial revolution are not off by huge
amounts, and certainly modern numbers are quite good. That constrains
the total amount of isotopically different CO2 injected into the
atmosphere. Whatever sinks are operating don't distinguish between an
anthropogenically-generated CO2 molecule and one from the natural cycle,
so they remove each proportionally to the air concentration.
Furthermore, these sinks also operate on the CO2 in the atmosphere as a
whole, not only on the anthropogenic CO2. That means the isotopic
concentrations in the atmosphere are changing in proportion to the total
anthropogenic emissions (which are known), regardless if the sinks are
quantified since the things removing CO2 don't care. In other words,
even if there is a missing sink, which there isn't, it doesn't affect the
isotopic ratio of the atmosphere. Only the anthropogenic emissions do
that, and the atmospheric isotope composition is changing exactly as
predicted by the anthropogenic emissions. This fact provides nearly
incontravertible proof (to anyone but climate skeptics, anyway) that the
rise in atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic in origin.
Climate change is a bitter pill for people like you to swallow, and I
know there is no amount of logic or data anyone could provide to you to
get you to even consider for an instant whether the whole theory is
essentially correct. It's not a rational issue with you. I'm probably
not the first person to tell you this though.
Ian is lucky to have someone like you on his side, he couldn't even get
this far providing silly objections to something that has been
demonstrated to the satisfaction of guys like Lindzen and Christy. I
mean really, you are suggesting that something even these hardened
climate skeptics, one of whom is a chaired professor at MIT, accept as
being true is in fact wrong? I find that preposterous.
--
Bill Asher
William Asher
> TABLE 1.
>
> The Important Greenhouse Gases (except water vapor)
> U.S. Department of Energy, (October, 2000)
>
> Carbon Dioxide (CO2) in parts per billion
>
> Pre Industrial 288,000
> Natural increase 68,520
> Man increase 11,880
> Total 368,400
>
> 11,880/368,400 is 3.225%
>
> Note: That's the DOE. What the web page makes of it is another matter.
The data in that table from the site you link is disingenuous. The raw
data come from CDIAC, here:
http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html
Notice that CDIAC does not partition the increase in CO2 from the pre-
industrial level into an anthropogenic and "natural" fraction and they
never did. That partitioning was done by the author of the website you
provide the link to and he does not explain how he gets his partitioning
numbers. I suspect he made his numbers up, or got them from some other
equally reliable website.
If this is the extent of your evidence, you are eating thin gruel indeed.
Really, you need to go back and set up a simple dilution model for the
atmosphere, enter in the numbers your buddy claims along with the isotopic
compositions of the sources and explain how the atmospheric isotopic carbon
composition can be what it is today if the "natural" emissions are as large
as the geocraft wingnut says they are. But you won't will you? You know
why you won't? Because you don't know how, and even if you did know how
and set up the problem it would show you that you can't get it to work
without making bizarre assumptions about the sources and sinks that can't
be supported by any observations.
--
Bill Asher
William Asher
news:25hpg5lnq2co3nqpk...@4ax.com:
> On 24 Nov 2009 17:55:31 GMT, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>If this is the extent of your evidence, you are eating thin gruel
>>indeed. Really, you need to go back and set up a simple dilution
>>model for the atmosphere, enter in the numbers your buddy claims along
>>with the isotopic compositions of the sources and explain how the
>>atmospheric isotopic carbon composition can be what it is today if the
>>"natural" emissions are as large as the geocraft wingnut says they
>>are. But you won't will you? You know why you won't? Because you
>>don't know how, and even if you did know how and set up the problem it
>>would show you that you can't get it to work without making bizarre
>>assumptions about the sources and sinks that can't be supported by any
>>observations.
>
> This is the wrong place for you to shoot for top jackass as there's
> too many around here with an insurmountable head start on it.
>
You could have just said: "You're right, I won't." I don't take huge
pleasure in being correct, although I normally am when I say things like
that to climate skeptics.
Anyway, if you ever find a reference for that partitioning of the
increase in atm. CO2 that can be traced to something more reliable than
"some guy on the internet," do let me know.
--
Bill Asher
William Asher
news:991sg5p7a5c0b3ic1...@4ax.com:
> To wit, I am not going to play in your "I'm smart and you're not" game
> as arguments stand or fall on their own merit.
This is another way to state "I can't do the math so I'm not going to"
isn't it? If you did do the math, you would not be having this argument,
you would move on to some other skeptic myth. I mean, even poor old Ian,
who started this, bowed out when first challenged.
> http://www.co2science.org/articles/V12/N31/EDIT.php
Oh great, the same guy who publishes a delusional opinion piece on
climate change in 2001 is now your chief reference using a paper in
"Energy and Fuels?" Couldn't you at least have found a reference or two
from the mad Pole Jaworski?
> http://www.cprm.gov.br/33IGC/1345952.html
His global carbon cycle budget is low by a huge amount (total atmospheric
CO2 flux is on order of 200 GtC/yr, not 140). Given that error, I doubt
the rest of his calculations. (A total flux that is too low would give
the conclusions he gets, by the way.)
http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/kling/ca
rbon_cycle/carbon_cycle.jpg
The peer-reviewed literature on CO2 increase being anthropogenic is
decades old. This is a very very very tired skeptic myth. If Lindzen
doesn't even argue the point any longer, neither should you. Skeptics,
whenever possible, need to preserve some intellectual credibility.
--
Bill Asher
Norman
> flipper <flip...@fish.net> wrote innews:991sg5p7a5c0b3ic1...@4ax.com:
>
> > To wit, I am not going to play in your "I'm smart and you're not" game
> > as arguments stand or fall on their own merit.
>
> This is another way to state "I can't do the math so I'm not going to"
> isn't it? If you did do the math, you would not be having this argument,
> you would move on to some other skeptic myth. I mean, even poor old Ian,
> who started this, bowed out when first challenged.
>
> >http://www.co2science.org/articles/V12/N31/EDIT.php
>
> Oh great, the same guy who publishes a delusional opinion piece on
> climate change in 2001 is now your chief reference using a paper in
> "Energy and Fuels?" Couldn't you at least have found a reference or two
> from the mad Pole Jaworski?
>
Ah, more guilt by association. So someone who once opposed AGW
can't continue to oppose AGW? How about a bunch of researchers
whose work is cited by nearly every paper purporting to demonstrate
evidence for AGW being found to have lied, falsified data, & engaged
in illegal concealment? Is that evidence for or against AGW?
> >http://www.cprm.gov.br/33IGC/1345952.html
>
> His global carbon cycle budget is low by a huge amount (total atmospheric
> CO2 flux is on order of 200 GtC/yr, not 140). Given that error, I doubt
> the rest of his calculations. (A total flux that is too low would give
> the conclusions he gets, by the way.)
>
> http://tinyurl.com/3hqzq6
>
> http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/klin...
> rbon_cycle/carbon_cycle.jpg
>
Odd, that I see more evidence for 140 than 200 in your unsourced,
uncited .jpeg. but do go on.
> The peer-reviewed literature on CO2 increase being anthropogenic is
> decades old. This is a very very very tired skeptic myth. If Lindzen
> doesn't even argue the point any longer, neither should you. Skeptics,
> whenever possible, need to preserve some intellectual credibility.
>
Yes, and the peer reviewed literature on all CO2 increase being
anthopogenic is probably every bit as sound & meaningful as:
; Reads Harry's regional timeseries and outputs the 1600-1992 portion
; with missing values set appropriately. Uses mxd, and just the
; "all band" timeseries
;****** APPLIES A VERY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION FOR DECLINE*********
;
yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
valadj=
[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$
2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,'Oooops!'
We just haven't seen their fudge factors yet.
Ben C
[...]
>> The peer-reviewed literature on CO2 increase being anthropogenic is
>> decades old. �This is a very very very tired skeptic myth. �If Lindzen
>> doesn't even argue the point any longer, neither should you. �Skeptics,
>> whenever possible, need to preserve some intellectual credibility. �
>>
>
> Yes, and the peer reviewed literature on all CO2 increase being
> anthopogenic is probably every bit as sound & meaningful as:
>
> ; Reads Harry's regional timeseries and outputs the 1600-1992 portion
> ; with missing values set appropriately. Uses mxd, and just the
> ; "all band" timeseries
> ;****** APPLIES A VERY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION FOR DECLINE*********
> ;
> yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
> valadj=
> [0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$
> 2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
> if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,'Oooops!'
>
>
> We just haven't seen their fudge factors yet.
Looks interesting.
I think those numbers in the valadj array _are_ the fudge factor. You
can see where it's used further down the script:
;
; APPLY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION
;
yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,x)
densadj=densadj+yearlyadj
It looks like interpol just stretches valadj so it's the right length to
be added to densadj. Then it's just added on, and plotted on some kind
of graph in what follows.
Quite what they're up to here is hard to say for sure without a bit more
investigation. At a guess I'd say it looks rather like a script to make
a very artificially fudged graph of temperatures between 1400 and about
1999 based on tree rings.
I must say, given the amount we're paying these guys, their coding
standards are a little sloppy. Presumably full technical support for
users of these scripts was included in the price?
Andre Jute
But morality, honesty, respect for truth, and straight up transparent
science, aren't even on offer from these guys. I don't think that
after the Hadley Hack it matters how many magnitudes they fudged the
results: in the end it is their petty attitudes and their illegal and
immoral resistance to falsifiability that will sink them. Those are
easier crimes for politicians and the man in the street to understand
than even gross fudge factors in arcane formulae.
You might also consider that the fudge factors are deliberately
undocumented, and deliberately not asked about by "peer reviewere"
because everyone already knew they were crook; that's the whole point
of conducting the conspiracy in the secret e-mails now exposed rather
than in the correspondence columns of the appropriate journals, which
is what honest scientist do with controversial material.
Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Bicycles at
http://www.audio-talk.co.uk/fiultra/BICYCLE%20%26%20CYCLING.html
Bill Sornson
> Your appeal to authority was a fallacy the first, second, third, et al
> times you tried it and will be a fallacy no matter how many more times
> you try it but if you're shooting for insane along with top jackass
> keep doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result.
Speaking of "jackass", look who finally surfaced:
http://greenhellblog.com/2010/02/24/al-gore-found-junkscience-gets-exclusive-photos-of-mia-alarmist/
Qui si parla Campagnolo
Bill Sornson
Off topic.
HTH!
Neil Brooks
Is there booze in every global climate change thread, Bill?
Seems like.....
Tim McNamara
<ffc866fa-5d8f-4859...@g28g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
A palina.
--
"I wear the cheese, it does not wear me."