Carbon Emissions Show Biggest Jump Ever Recorded

[Sam Wormley]

Carbon Emissions Show Biggest Jump Ever Recorded

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/05/science/earth/record-jump-in-emissions-in-2010-study-finds.html

"Emissions rose 5.9 percent in 2010, according to an analysis released
Sunday by the Global Carbon Project, an international collaboration of
scientists tracking the numbers. Scientists with the group said the
increase, a half-billion extra tons of carbon pumped into the air, was
almost certainly the largest absolute jump in any year since the
Industrial Revolution, and the largest percentage increase since 2003.

"The increase solidified a trend of ever-rising emissions that
scientists fear will make it difficult, if not impossible, to forestall
severe climate change in coming decades".

[$27 TRILLION to pay for Kyoto]

On Dec 7, 1:44 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Carbon Emissions Show Biggest Jump Ever Recorded
>

> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/05/science/earth/record-jump-in-emissi...

>
> "Emissions rose 5.9 percent in 2010, according to an analysis released
> Sunday by the Global Carbon Project, an international collaboration of
> scientists tracking the numbers. Scientists with the group said the
> increase, a half-billion extra tons of carbon pumped into the air, was
> almost certainly the largest absolute jump in any year since the
> Industrial Revolution, and the largest percentage increase since 2003.
>
> "The increase solidified a trend of ever-rising emissions that
> scientists fear will make it difficult, if not impossible, to forestall
> severe climate change in coming decades".

Wow! The I guess China as the major emitter better be required to
sign-on to any new agreement replacing the useless Kyoto accord, right?

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

the Kyoto Protocol is *nothing* but cap & trade,
which I prefer to call "free-er trade," as a large vehicle
for hedge funds, such as the one that Sen. Obama started
in 2003. and, you probably thought that
only Sen. Gore had his own hedgie!

> The I guess China as the major emitter better be required to
> sign-on to any new agreement replacing the useless Kyoto accord, right?

thus:
it is quite a bit easier to follow Morner's article
in http://21stcenturysciencetech.com, as it was written
for teh magazine, not a journal -- not peer-reviewed,
like the vast majority of his papers.

not teh same subject, of course, but
all of the usual slanders without bothering to read the ****.

anyway, Miskolczi is an excellent subject,
since it is comparing the Pippins of one GCMer
with the Delicious of others. Morner's is essentially,
"tidegauges versus reanalysis of satellite telemetry,"
where you get the "tilt" as in pinball.

[Surfer]

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/opinion/2011-11/23/content_14148308.htm

"....Climate change is a global issue of common concern to the
international community. In recent years, worldwide heat waves,
droughts, floods and other extreme climate events have occurred
frequently, making the impact of climate change increasingly
prominent..."

"....2007, China became the first developing country to formulate and
implement a national program to address climate change. In 2009, China
put forward the goal of action to reduce the per-unit GDP greenhouse
gas emission in 2020 by 40-45 percent as compared to that of 2005...."


"......This white paper is hereby issued to enable the international
community to fully understand China's policies and actions for
addressing climate change...."

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

Sen. Obama started CCX,
the Carbon Credit Exchange, under the Commodity Futures Board;
presumably, some of his campaign funds came around this.

I just "lucked in" to a catered public event at the local library,
a "special briefing" by the head of hte California EPA -- but
to which invitations were sent by mail, apparently,
not publically noticed.

therein, he told us that American companies had done so much,
compared to here, to "green" the Chinese economy, and that
the Chinese goment had simply been waiting to announce
the policies, for the USA to do so.

what he did not say is that,
due to our own environmental laws,
these things could not have been as readily accomplished, here.

[Jonathan]

"Sam Wormley" <swor...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:wP-dnVYZXoz8lkLT...@mchsi.com...

With China and others growing at some 10% a year, half the
planet yet to reach the industrial.age, and as oil and natural gas
keeps going up in price, guess what the energy of choice
will soon become....that's right....COAL.



Jonathan


Space Energy Inc
http://spaceenergy.com/

NASA'S SPACE SOLAR POWER
(SERT) PROGRAM
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10202&page=1

Space-Based Solar Power
As an Opportunity for Strategic Security
National Security Space Office
http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf



s

[Jonathan]

"$27 TRILLION to pay for Kyoto" <rande...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:95b23e45-a052-4026...@q30g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...

> Wow! The I guess China as the major emitter better be required to
> sign-on to any new agreement replacing the useless Kyoto accord, right?

I strongly feel global warming is mostly man-made, and something
needs to be done soon. But there's no way the solution is a group
of self-appointed scientists 'planning' our biosphere like it's some
cheap sci-fi plot.

The solution is political, not technological.

Our societal systems need to mimic the properties
of naturally evolving systems. Which finds a way through
internal self correcting mechanisms to live within it's means.
Properly managed free market democracies best mimic
nature.

It won't be scientists that save the day, but the mobs of
people over the world.rampaging for democracy.


Jonathan


s

[jacob navia]

China is responsible for 23.33% of the emissions, the
U.S. for 18.11%. The European Union arrives at the third
place with 14.04%.

Together they make 55,48% of the emitted CO2.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions

When you look at the tons per capita however, a different picture
emerges:

U.S.: 19.18
China: 4.91

The first country according to per capita emissions is
Australia, with 20.82, then the U.S. then Canada with 17.7

Data:
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/each-countrys-share-of-co2.html

In both tables, the U.S. is the second.

Obama has made a pact with China to block any progress in the
U.N. clima talks, so the world will go on warming until they
are covered by the rising ocean.

Since only the 99% is affected (the 1% doesn't care at all)
the clima will go on degrading and the 99% will suffer from
the consequences. Big corporations will go on making profits
warming or not.

[Last Post]

On Dec 7, 1:44 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Carbon Emissions Show Biggest Jump Ever Recorded
>

> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/05/science/earth/record-jump-in-emissi...

ø Nothing in the NYTimes is worth the ink

>
> "Emissions rose 5.9 percent in 2010, according to an analysis released
> Sunday by the Global Carbon Project, an international collaboration of
> scientists tracking the numbers.

ø 5.9% of what? Carbon dioxide doesn't stand still
long enough to really measure it.

> Industrial Revolution, and the largest percentage increase since 2003.

ø ROTFLMAO

> "The increase solidified a trend of ever-rising emissions that
> scientists fear will make it difficult, if not impossible, to forestall
> severe climate change in coming decades".

ø Those numbers really do not have any real input
into our climate whatsoever.

However we are nearing the end of the 1,600 yr
trend since the End of the last interglacial period.
So we can all look forward to lots of extreme
weather in the 20 to 30 years.

The summers will be longer asnd the summers
shorter.

— —
There are three types of people that you
can_not_talk_into_behaving_well. The
stupid, the religious fanatic, and the evil.

1- The stupid aren't smart enough to follow the
logic of what you say. You have to tell them
what is right in very simple terms. If they do
not agree, you will never be able to change
their mind.

2- The religious fanatic: If what you say goes
against their religious belief, they will cling
to that belief even if it means their death.

3- There is no way to reform evil- not in a
million years. There is no way to convince

anthropogenic_global_warming_alarmists,

terrorists, serial killers, paedophiles, and

predators to change their evil ways, They
knew what they were doing was wrong, but
knowledge didn't stop them. It only made
them more careful in how they went about
performing their evil deeds.˙

[gordo]

On Wed, 7 Dec 2011 18:31:22 -0500, "Jonathan" <Calli...@gmail.com>
wrote:

The politicians are in Durban now trying to find solutions. It is not
about democracy. It is about mitigation and reducing burning fossil
fuels. The largest cities of the world may provide some important
solutions. Late summer 2012 may provide some interesting exotic
weather systems .
>
>Jonathan
>
>
>s
>
>
>

[trigonometry1972@gmail.com |]

On Dec 7, 6:21 pm, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:

> "Jonathan" <Callinst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >I strongly feel global warming is mostly man-made, and something
> >needs to be done soon.
>

> Your 'feeling' doesn't constitute proof.  Hell, given your record for
> nonsense, it doesn't even constitute reasonable doubt.
>
> How'd we cause it and what do you propose we do?
>
> --
> "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
>  territory."
>                                       --G. Behn

Naw, Jonathan should plan to move to southern Alaska in his old age
as their will be too much mud further north.

And we will be long and safely gone into the ether of eternity.

Trig

[Jonathan]

"Fred J. McCall" <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7n70e7th9akalk3ip...@4ax.com...

> "Jonathan" <Calli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>I strongly feel global warming is mostly man-made, and something
>>needs to be done soon.
>>
>

> Your 'feeling' doesn't constitute proof. Hell, given your record for
> nonsense, it doesn't even constitute reasonable doubt.
>
> How'd we cause it

Thanks for replying

My source is NASA, and they claim there's no other
plausible explanation for the recent warming.
Maybe you should look at this chart.
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

I think NASA's opinion is pretty good for
many reasons...

"NASA currently has more than a dozen Earth science
spacecraft/instruments in orbit studying all aspects of the
Earth system (oceans, land, atmosphere, biosphere,
cyrosphere."

"In 2004, NASA's spending on climate science exceeded all
other Federal agencies, combined. NASA spent $1.3 billion
on climate science that year, out of a $1.9 billion total."
http://climate.nasa.gov/NasaRole/


Your source would be what?


>..and what do you propose we do?


My post already addressed that question.


Jonathan


s

[Jonathan]

"Last Post" <last...@primus.ca> wrote in message
news:f8fc839c-02ff-4994...@k23g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...

On Dec 7, 1:44ย am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Carbon Emissions Show Biggest Jump Ever Recorded
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/05/science/earth/record-jump-in-emissi...

รธ Nothing in the NYTimes is worth the ink

[Androcles]

"Jonathan" <Calli...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Wt-dnYYcatQjxXzT...@giganews.com...

|
| "Last Post" <last...@primus.ca> wrote in message
| news:f8fc839c-02ff-4994...@k23g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...

| On Dec 7, 1:44B am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
| > Carbon Emissions Show Biggest Jump Ever Recorded
| >
| > http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/05/science/earth/record-jump-in-emissi...
|

| C8 Nothing in the NYTimes is worth the ink

|
|
| Maybe you should look at this chart.
| http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
|
|

Yeah, it shows CO2 levels rise and then fall. So what?

[Bill Ward]

On Thu, 08 Dec 2011 19:39:24 -0500, Jonathan wrote:

> "Last Post" <last...@primus.ca> wrote in message

> news:f8fc839c-02ff-4994-a84f-
e88081...@k23g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...

> On Dec 7, 1:44Â am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Carbon Emissions Show Biggest Jump Ever Recorded
>>
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/05/science/earth/record-jump-in-
emissi...
>

> Þ Nothing in the NYTimes is worth the ink

>
>
> Maybe you should look at this chart.
> http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

So the Earth warms and cools. What evidence is there that CO2 has
anything to do with it? When the ocean warms, CO2 comes out. When it
cools, it goes back in. So what?

[bob haller]

On Dec 9, 2:11 am, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Jonathan" <Callinst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

> >"Fred J. McCall" <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:7n70e7th9akalk3ip...@4ax.com...

> >> "Jonathan" <Callinst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>I strongly feel global warming is mostly man-made, and something
> >>>needs to be done soon.
>
> >> Your 'feeling' doesn't constitute proof.  Hell, given your record for
> >> nonsense, it doesn't even constitute reasonable doubt.
>
> >> How'd we cause it
>
> >Thanks for replying
>
> >My source is NASA, and they claim there's no other
> >plausible explanation for the recent warming.
> >Maybe you should look at this chart.
> >http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
>

> Prove CO2 is responsible for climate change.  Hell, even show evidence
> that it is.  The evidence is that atmospheric CO2 concentration LAGS
> warming, not leads it.
>
> NASA says "...most of it is very likely human-induced and proceeding
> at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years."
>
> However, the change in temperature IS NOT STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT
> through the last decade, despite what CO2 concentrations have done
> during that same decade and preceding it.
>
> Oh, and NASA does *NOT* claim in the cite you gave that "there's no
> other plausible explanation for recent warming".
>
> Perhaps you should learn to read and think?

>
>
>
> >Your source would be what?
>

> My source for what?  I didn't make a claim.

>
>
>
> >>..and what do you propose we do?
>
> >My post already addressed that question.
>

> Well, no, it didn't, unless you think 'something' is a definitive
> action.

>
> --
> "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
>  territory."

>                                       --G. Behn- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

well things are definetely changing. just look at the wierd weather

when global warming floods new york the super wealthy will begin to
take notice and action. coming to work in boats and getting their 5
grand a pair shoes wet will force them to do something..

anyone with a aquarium knows if you try keeping too many fish the
aquarium becomes unstable and fish start dying....

aquariums have carrying capacity and so may our earth........

[bob haller]

On Dec 9, 3:11 am, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:

> bob haller <hall...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >well things are definetely changing. just look at the wierd weather
>

> Yeah, so?
>
> And just by the way, there's ALWAYS been 'weird weather'.  Never heard
> of the Dust Bowl Days?
>
> The sky is falling!  THE SKY IS FALLING!!!!!!!!!!

>
> --
> "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
>  territory."
>                                       --G. Behn

the dust bowl was caused by farming practices at the time, they plowed
everything........

when they went back to strips of farm land and strips of native
grasses things returned to normal..

[Brad Guth]

On Dec 7, 3:11 pm, "Jonathan" <Callinst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Sam Wormley" <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote in message

>
> news:wP-dnVYZXoz8lkLT...@mchsi.com...
>
> > Carbon Emissions Show Biggest Jump Ever Recorded
>

> >http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/05/science/earth/record-jump-in-emissi...

>
> > "Emissions rose 5.9 percent in 2010, according to an analysis released
> > Sunday by the Global Carbon Project, an international collaboration of
> > scientists tracking the numbers. Scientists with the group said the
> > increase, a half-billion extra tons of carbon pumped into the air, was
> > almost certainly the largest absolute jump in any year since the
> > Industrial Revolution, and the largest percentage increase since 2003.
>
> > "The increase solidified a trend of ever-rising emissions that scientists
> > fear will make it difficult, if not impossible, to forestall severe
> > climate change in coming decades".
>
> With China and others growing at some 10% a year, half the
> planet yet to reach the industrial.age, and as oil and natural gas
> keeps going up in price, guess what the energy of choice
> will soon become....that's right....COAL.
>
> Jonathan
>

> Space Energy Inchttp://spaceenergy.com/

>
> NASA'S SPACE SOLAR POWER

> (SERT) PROGRAMhttp://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10202&page=1

>
> Space-Based Solar Power
> As an Opportunity for Strategic Security

> National Security Space Officehttp://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessme...
>
> s

Yes, quite dirty, bloody, nasty and even lethal and toxic coal will
fuel the next hungry and greedy generations to come, plus negative
energy via liquid synfuels from deep shale, oily sand and coal are
going to more than double each of their energy unit carbon footprints,
to boot.

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

[erschro...@gmail.com]

On Dec 8, 8:13 pm, Bill Ward <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Dec 2011 19:39:24 -0500, Jonathan wrote:

> > "Last Post" <last_p...@primus.ca> wrote in message
> > news:f8fc839c-02ff-4994-a84f-
>
> e8808182f...@k23g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...

>
> > On Dec 7, 1:44Â am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Carbon Emissions Show Biggest Jump Ever Recorded
>
> >>http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/05/science/earth/record-jump-in-
> emissi...
>
> > Þ Nothing in the NYTimes is worth the ink
>
> > Maybe you should look at this chart.
> >http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
>
> So the Earth warms and cools.  What evidence is there that CO2 has
> anything to do with it?  When the ocean warms, CO2 comes out.  When it
> cools, it goes back in.  So what?

Oh just science -- thermodynamics, spectroscopy, atmospheric science,
climate science...

And the oceans are warming and CO2 is going IN, not coming out. What
does that tell you, Bill?

[erschro...@gmail.com]

On Dec 9, 2:11 am, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Jonathan" <Callinst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

> >"Fred J. McCall" <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:7n70e7th9akalk3ip...@4ax.com...

> >> "Jonathan" <Callinst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>I strongly feel global warming is mostly man-made, and something
> >>>needs to be done soon.
>
> >> Your 'feeling' doesn't constitute proof.  Hell, given your record for
> >> nonsense, it doesn't even constitute reasonable doubt.
>
> >> How'd we cause it
>
> >Thanks for replying
>
> >My source is NASA, and they claim there's no other
> >plausible explanation for the recent warming.
> >Maybe you should look at this chart.
> >http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
>

> Prove CO2 is responsible for climate change.  Hell, even show evidence
> that it is.  The evidence is that atmospheric CO2 concentration LAGS
> warming, not leads it.

Wrong. CO2 is accepted by almost all scientists as the primary cause
of the current warming.

Facts:

1. CO2 traps heat.
2. Trapped heat warms the earth.
3. The earth is warming.
4. Atmospheric CO2 is increasing.
5. Isotopic analysis and mass balance calculations show the increased
CO2 is mostly from fossil fuel use.
6. All other possible causes of warming have been investigated and
ruled out (solar output, cosmic rays, volcanoes, orbital changes,
etc.).

Now, what is the logical conclusion?

>
> NASA says "...most of it is very likely human-induced and proceeding
> at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years."
>
> However, the change in temperature IS NOT STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT
> through the last decade, despite what CO2 concentrations have done
> during that same decade and preceding it.

But it is statistically significant over any longer period of time.


>
> Oh, and NASA does *NOT* claim in the cite you gave that "there's no
> other plausible explanation for recent warming".

No, that's what you'd glean if you bothered to read the scientific
literature.

>
> Perhaps you should learn to read and think?

Perhaps you should read the scientific literature.

[k...@kymhorsell.com]

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
...

> Perhaps you should learn to read and think?

...


Some form of projection, obviously.


--
It has been calculated theoretically that, if there are no other
changes in the climate system, a doubling of the atmospheric CO2
concentration would cause less than 1 deg C of surface warming (about
1 deg. F). This is NOT a controversial statement -- it is well understood
by climate scientists. (As of 2008, we were about 40% to 45% of the
way toward a doubling of atmospheric CO2.)
-- Dr Roy W. Spencer, "Global Warming 101", 2008

[Quadibloc]

On Dec 7, 7:21 pm, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Jonathan" <Callinst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

> >I strongly feel global warming is mostly man-made, and something
> >needs to be done soon.
>

> Your 'feeling' doesn't constitute proof.  Hell, given your record for
> nonsense, it doesn't even constitute reasonable doubt.

Never mind _his_ reputation. That man-made carbon dioxide emissions
have implications for global climate is generally accepted by *the
scientific community*.

Which means that people who are "sceptical" about global warming
belong in the same loony bin with creationists.

The details aren't in yet, but the greenhouse effect is hard
scientific fact.

None the less, there _are_ two sides to this question. It isn't going
to do the world any good if China builds up its war machine on burning
coal while the Western democracies go back to a simpler time with the
energy they can get from wind and solar power.

So how do we keep the Western industrialized world strong and free,
while preventing global warming? Nuclear power.

John Savard

[Quadibloc]

On Dec 7, 4:31 pm, "Jonathan" <Callinst...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Our societal systems need to mimic the properties
> of naturally evolving systems. Which finds a way through
> internal self correcting mechanisms to live within it's means.

The way nature does this, though, is that creatures that are going in
the wrong direction die.

> Properly managed free market democracies best mimic
> nature.

Yes, they do - on one level. Where there is feedback, they mimic
nature. Where there is no feedback - such as in the case of
environmental pollution, the costs of which are not automatically
directly borne by the polluter - they don't.

You need the government directly bludgeoning people into not polluting
or otherwise not causing externalities to have that part work. To
expect otherwise is to put ideology ahead of common sense.

John Savard

[Marvin the Martian]

On Fri, 09 Dec 2011 09:00:31 -0800, Quadibloc wrote:

> On Dec 7, 7:21 pm, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "Jonathan" <Callinst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >I strongly feel global warming is mostly man-made, and something needs
>> >to be done soon.
>>
>> Your 'feeling' doesn't constitute proof.  Hell, given your record for
>> nonsense, it doesn't even constitute reasonable doubt.
>
> Never mind _his_ reputation. That man-made carbon dioxide emissions have
> implications for global climate is generally accepted by *the scientific
> community*.

It is funny how you idiots always talk about how you know what is or
isn't accepted in the scientific community when you don't know shit.
First of all, you're making one big bandwagon fallacy. Secondly, your
bandwagon fallacy is based on a lie that Al Gore told you. Al Gore, who
got a D in "earth science", his only science class.

A fallacy based on a laughably false premise. It doesn't get stupider
than that.

> Which means that people who are "sceptical" about global warming belong
> in the same loony bin with creationists.

Non Sequitor. Galileo had a idea that went against the scientific
community. Darwin had an idea that went against the scientific community.
Einstein (Lorentz & Fitzgarld, really) had an idea that went against the
scientific community. Lemaitre had an idea that went against the
scientific community.

Again, you gibber a silly non-sequitor based on a false premise.

> The details aren't in yet, but the greenhouse effect is hard scientific
> fact.

Utter bullshit. There is no predictive hypothesis; every hypothesis
failed to predict the last decade of non cooling. There has been a HUGE
amount of evidence that the whole thing is a damned fraud: faked data,
data that is altered by computer programs, use of peer review to suppress
the real climate science that shows CO2 has little to do with climate
change, the boycotting of journals that publish the truth...

It's a damned lie!

[Sam Wormley]

On 12/9/11 1:11 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
> Prove CO2 is responsible for climate change. Hell, even show evidence
> that it is. The evidence is that atmospheric CO2 concentration LAGS
> warming, not leads it.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

Scientific Evidence - Increasing Temperatures & Greenhouse Gases
http://www.whrc.org/resources/primer_fundamentals.html

Turns out CO2 rise is both a cause and an effect of warming
http://www.grist.org/article/co2-doesnt-lead-it-lags

Energy balance points to man-made climate change
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/48057

> A climate model based on the "global energy balance" has provided new
evidence for human-induced climate change, according to its creators.
Using this simple model, researchers in Switzerland conclude that it is
extremely likely (>95% probability) that at least 74% of the observed
warming since 1950 has been caused by human activity.

> Previously, climate scientists have used a technique called "optimal
fingerprinting" to pinpoint the causes of global warming. This involves
using complex models to simulate the climate response to different
"forcings". These include greenhouse gases, aerosols and ozone, as well
as natural factors such as solar and volcanic variability. The relative
contribution of each forcing is then assessed by a statistical
comparison of the model outputs to the real-life warming pattern.

> However, this method relies on the ability of climate models to
accurately simulate the response patterns to each forcing, and also
assumes that the responses can be scaled and added. Furthermore, changes
in the energy balance of the climate system are not explicitly

See: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/48057

[Dawlish]

You just keep telling yourself that. The nurses will be along soon.
What's your name again, so that you can tell them?

[Sam Wormley]

On 12/9/11 7:35 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
> The Dust Bowl was caused by a prolonged drought. Otherwise it would
> have happened much earlier. It's not like that was the first year
> they farmed the place, after all.

Had humans not ravished the land the dust bowl would not have happened
in the 30s.

[Sam Wormley]

On 12/7/11 8:21 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote:

>
> Your 'feeling' doesn't constitute proof. Hell, given your record for
> nonsense, it doesn't even constitute reasonable doubt.
>

> How'd we cause it and what do you propose we do?

[Sam Wormley]

On 12/9/11 12:05 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
> It is funny how you idiots always talk about how you know what is or
> isn't accepted in the scientific community when you don't know shit.
> First of all, you're making one big bandwagon fallacy. Secondly, your
> bandwagon fallacy is based on a lie that Al Gore told you.

[Marvin the Martian]

Humm...

"The model, driven by observational records of climate forcings, surface
temperature and ocean heat uptake, was run many thousands of times with
different parameter combinations. The combinations that best matched the
observations were then fed through the model a second time in order to
simulate the climate response to each individual forcing."

In other words, it is yet ANOTHER example of fitting a spanning set of
basis functions to a curve, and then extrapolating that curve to the
future to get the (desired) results.

In short, another bunch of idiots think that if they do a Fourier fit to
a given wave function over a given time period, that the wave function
will predict the future. No, it won't. Every undergrad EE major KNOWS
this to be an error, but making this STUPID BLUNDER is SOP for the AGW
frauds, because YOU CAN PREDICT ANY DAMNED THING YOU WANT.

And Wormley, ONCE AGAIN you totally missed the point I made about post
hoc fallacies and bandwagon fallacies and you GIBBERED something
irrelevant into the conversation. This idiot post you made just comes out
of NOWHERE. Don't you get tired of being the fool of sci.physics?

[Jonathan]

"Fred J. McCall" <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:drc3e7dsbcko0o3ka...@4ax.com...

> "Jonathan" <Calli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Fred J. McCall" <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:7n70e7th9akalk3ip...@4ax.com...
>>> "Jonathan" <Calli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>I strongly feel global warming is mostly man-made, and something
>>>>needs to be done soon.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Your 'feeling' doesn't constitute proof. Hell, given your record for
>>> nonsense, it doesn't even constitute reasonable doubt.
>>>
>>> How'd we cause it
>>
>>Thanks for replying
>>
>>My source is NASA, and they claim there's no other
>>plausible explanation for the recent warming.
>>Maybe you should look at this chart.
>>http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
>>
>

> Prove CO2 is responsible for climate change.

Thanks for replying, these debates are fun.

So you're saying it's a big coincidence that greenhouse gasses
spiked, climate warmed and the Industrial age exploded
....all at the same time?

That's like saying it's a big coincidence that Twin Towers
happened to explode just as those jets rammed into them.

No proof is needed for what is plainly obvious. If you
want to claim there's no connection between a 757
hitting the Twin Towers and their destruction, then
the burden of proof falls on...you.

> Hell, even show evidence
> that it is. The evidence is that atmospheric CO2 concentration LAGS
> warming, not leads it.

Provide a link please to that claim please.

>
> NASA says "...most of it is very likely human-induced and proceeding
> at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years."

And that bolsters your argument h o w e x a c t l y?

>
> However, the change in temperature IS NOT STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT

Then why is the ice melting then? And provide a link to your data please.
I have data below showing it's a very significant rate.

> through the last decade, despite what CO2 concentrations have done
> during that same decade and preceding it.
>

> Oh, and NASA does *NOT* claim in the cite you gave that "there's no
> other plausible explanation for recent warming".

Yes they do, on the last line below, read it and weep~

"NASA Earth Observatory Q and A"

"If Earth has warmed and cooled throughout history, what
makes scientists think that humans are causing global
warming now?

"The first piece of evidence that the warming over the past
few decades isn't part of a natural cycle is how fast the change
is happening. The biggest temperature swings our planet has
experienced in the past million years are the ice ages. Based
on a combination of paleoclimate data and models, scientists
estimate that when ice ages have ended in the past, it has taken
about 5,000 years for the planet to warm between 4 and 7 degrees
Celsius. The warming of the past century-0.7 degrees Celsius-is
roughly eight times faster than the ice-age-recovery warming
on average."

"The second reason that scientists think the current warming
is not from natural influences is that, over the past century,
scientists from all over the world have been collecting data
on natural factors that influence climate-things like changes
in the Sun's brightness, major volcanic eruptions, and cycles
such as El Niño and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.
/These observations have failed to show any long-term changes
that could fully account for the recent, rapid warming of
Earth's temperature."/
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/climateqa/



EIGHT TIMES certainly is statistically significant

Let's review quickly, the highest concentration of Co2 in
650,000 years, a rate of warming 8 times faster than in
the last 1,000,000 years. And all in the last 50 years
or so, most of it in the last 20 years.

Hmmm.....what a mystery....NOT

On my side is most of the scientists of the world, NASA
with their fleet of high tech instruments and dozens of
climate specialists, and shear common sense.

On your side it's just ...you.



Jonathan


s

[Jonathan]

"Quadibloc" <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:af224ccf-8c75-42f7...@f36g2000prj.googlegroups.com...

> So how do we keep the Western industrialized world strong and free,
> while preventing global warming? Nuclear power.

By spreading freedom and democracy!
So more can ...afford...solutions such as
nuclear power, space solar power etc.

As things stand now, the second explosion
of the Industrial Age (China et al) will be
increasingly powered by...coal.


> John Savard

[Jonathan]

"Marvin the Martian" <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote in message
news:mbadncpT-5tv0H_T...@giganews.com...

> On Fri, 09 Dec 2011 09:00:31 -0800, Quadibloc wrote:

>
> It is funny how you idiots always talk about how you know what is or
> isn't accepted in the scientific community when you don't know shit.
> First of all, you're making one big bandwagon fallacy. Secondly, your
> bandwagon fallacy is based on a lie that Al Gore told you. Al Gore, who
> got a D in "earth science", his only science class.

I get my opinions on this topic mostly from here....

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/climateqa/
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/


NASA accounts for some 3/4ths of all US govt spending
on studying climate change most years. They operate
a fleet of the highest tech instruments around, and have
the largest concentration of climate scientists in the world.
And their motives or political agenda isn't that strong
either way. It has shifted left somewhat since Bush left
office, but the change is marginal.

But let's forget debating the facts and figures either way
for a minute. And answer this question instead.

Should we develop the ability to manage our biosphere
or just let Nature takes it's course, and hope it all
works out???

Once that is answered, then we can start wondering
what we need to do about it, if anything. I think the
answer is spreading free-market democracies across
the globe. As such systems best mimic natural processes
which settle on the optimum solutions...all by themselves.

We don't need to find an 'big fix' for climate change.
We need to build a world that fixes...itself.


Jonathan


s

[Jonathan]

"Brad Guth" <brad...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c17446f2-ba4b-4aac...@n7g2000prb.googlegroups.com...

Remember the Beijing Olympics? Clouds of choking coal emissions
so bad Chinese cities have to put spittoons in the streets to keep
the sidewalks from becoming blackened with spit.

"Twenty-six percent of all deaths in China are from
respiratory disease."

http://books.google.com/books?id=10gh6j463nAC&pg=PT520&lpg=PT520&dq=china+coal+spitting&source=bl&ots=B_P1DQ0PPv&sig=nxgz8fAa88y2raFZjtlrWua88hA&hl=en&ei=9bbiTvfhDM_4sQK55uj0BQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&sqi=2&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=china%20coal%20spitting&f=false


Our standard of living is some 6 times higher than in China.
What happens when China and other third world nations
begin to catch up? I think the trends for the next 20 or 30
years, when it comes to greenhouse gasses, is rather scary.

My hobby is the non-linear math of Complexity Science
and people should keep in mind the difference between
linear and non-linear change is the difference between
geometric and exponential rates of change.

And the 'tipping point' between those two types
of change is when the rate of change becomes
fast enough to generate 'unintended consequences'.
Such as sudden methane releases for instance.

And once those kinds of events become reality, so
that there is clear 'proof' no one can deny, well
it's too late.

Those unintended consequences are the hallmark
of any panic or impending exponential rates of change.
My stock trading strategy is entirely built around this
phenomena...panics. Since a panic is always an
over reaction, creating the opportunity.

For instance, in the stock market, when the rate
of change of price is high enough, then things like
automated stop loss orders begin kicking in, and
the price swing can quickly cascade out of control
so that everyone that ...can sell...sells.

Like the Big Crash of Oct 08, which sent the entire
world into an economic depression.

And what scares me the most, is that the oil market
can crash just like the stock market did.

A panic is a panic is a panic is a panic.

Every week I watch a 'complex adaptive system'
get pushed to it's own tipping point. I've watched
hundreds of them cycle, I know exactly how they behave
when they're about to break, and just what to look for.

It took just seven business days for the stock market
to totally collapse in a panic. The oil market can go
just the same way. The oil market is almost thin enough
a good rumor could take it down. That's how close
our world is to the abyss today.

A GOOD FUCKING RUMOR!

And once the panic begins, no amount of fixes
like a strategic reserve can stop it, in fact the fixes
only adds fuel to the panic. The last two great
stock market crashes came just a couple of days
after their respective ..."Rescue Bills".



Jonathan

[Marvin the Martian]

On Fri, 09 Dec 2011 20:22:05 -0500, Jonathan wrote:

> "Marvin the Martian" <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote in message
> news:mbadncpT-5tv0H_T...@giganews.com...
>> On Fri, 09 Dec 2011 09:00:31 -0800, Quadibloc wrote:
>
>
>> It is funny how you idiots always talk about how you know what is or
>> isn't accepted in the scientific community when you don't know shit.
>> First of all, you're making one big bandwagon fallacy. Secondly, your
>> bandwagon fallacy is based on a lie that Al Gore told you. Al Gore, who
>> got a D in "earth science", his only science class.
>
>
> I get my opinions on this topic mostly from here....
>
> http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/climateqa/
> http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
>
>
> NASA accounts for some 3/4ths of all US govt spending on studying
> climate change most years. They operate a fleet of the highest tech
> instruments around, and have the largest concentration of climate
> scientists in the world. And their motives or political agenda isn't
> that strong either way. It has shifted left somewhat since Bush left
> office, but the change is marginal.

So, basically, you don't understand science at all, much less the science
of climate change, and you're going with the guys who get the most money
for the predetermined answer to tell you what to think.

And saying that Hansen, who leads the NASA climate change fraud, is not
only unbiased but not a hard over lunatic is a bit of a stretch; he's
the guy who wanted to put "deniars" on trial for crimes against humanity
and nature, and execute a death sentence upon them to shut them up.

Sort of like screaming for Burno to be burnt at the stake.

Never mind that e-mail thing which some of the NASA "climate scientist"
were caught up in, or the whole issue of picking data sources to show
warming over time that NASA got caught doing.

< snip stupid question about controlling the environment >

You have to understand it first before you can control it.

[Brad Guth]

On Dec 9, 5:59 pm, "Jonathan" <Callinst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Brad Guth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message

> http://books.google.com/books?id=10gh6j463nAC&pg=PT520&lpg=PT520&dq=c...

When did you first realize our government was corrupted and out of
control?

For myself it was roughly 1966

[Jonathan]

"Bill Ward" <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote in message
news:b8-dnbYyYdVK_XzT...@giganews.com...

> On Thu, 08 Dec 2011 19:39:24 -0500, Jonathan wrote:
>
>> "Last Post" <last...@primus.ca> wrote in message
>> news:f8fc839c-02ff-4994-a84f-
> e88081...@k23g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...

>> On Dec 7, 1:44Ã, am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Carbon Emissions Show Biggest Jump Ever Recorded
>>>
>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/05/science/earth/record-jump-in-
> emissi...
>>

>> Ãfž Nothing in the NYTimes is worth the ink

>>
>>
>> Maybe you should look at this chart.
>> http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
>
> So the Earth warms and cools. What evidence is there that CO2 has
> anything to do with it? When the ocean warms, CO2 comes out. When it
> cools, it goes back in. So what?

That chart shows in the last fifty years Co2 has suddenly spiked
to the highest level in the last 650,000 years. What do you think
caused that spike? If it's not the massive increases of Co2 emissions
from the rise of the Industrial Age, then what?


Here's some of the evidence, more than enough

[Jonathan]

"Quadibloc" <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message

news:f34a8519-6e9a-4ba8...@d12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...

On Dec 7, 4:31 pm, "Jonathan" <Callinst...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Our societal systems need to mimic the properties
> > of naturally evolving systems. Which finds a way through
> > internal self correcting mechanisms to live within it's means.

> The way nature does this, though, is that creatures that are going in
> the wrong direction die.

But in a civilized system, only bad ideas, or bad actions
might be culled, not people. It's the cyclic process that
matters. Where the output is fed back into the input
in an iterative loop.

Where two opposing entities are /repetitively/ judged by an
independent third party.


Genetics v Mutation ...by natural selection
Rule of law v Freedom ...by elections
Producer v Consumer....by markets

Subcritical v Supercritical.....critically interacting.
Static v Chaotic .....dynamically interacting

> > Properly managed free market democracies best mimic
> > nature.

> Yes, they do - on one level. Where there is feedback, they mimic
> nature. Where there is no feedback - such as in the case of
> environmental pollution, the costs of which are not automatically
> directly borne by the polluter - they don't.

Like with HIV, it can be dormant for so long there's little
immediate feedback, and it can get out of control.
If the output doesn't feed back, it's not a naturally
evolving system, but a 'disease' like a dictatorship.

We need to find a way to restore the feedback so
such a damaged system can return to health.
For instance with earlier detection of the disease
or more legitimate elections. The point is that
nature shows the way to solve any real world
problem...by itself.

> You need the government directly bludgeoning people into not polluting
> or otherwise not causing externalities to have that part work. To
> expect otherwise is to put ideology ahead of common sense.

The process works best when the various scales
of governing, from voter to local to national, are
fairly equal in power or the effect they have.




John Savard

[Sam Wormley]

On 12/9/11 8:48 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
> So, basically, you don't understand science at all, much less the science
> of climate change, and you're going with the guys who get the most money
> for the predetermined answer to tell you what to think.
>

Ironic comment coming from a denier of the climate science, Marvin.
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

> Certain facts about Earth's climate are not in dispute:

> The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.2 Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many JPL-designed instruments, such as AIRS. Increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response.

> Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that the Earth’s climate responds to changes in solar output, in the Earth’s orbit, and in greenhouse gas levels. They also show that in the past, large changes in climate have happened very quickly, geologically-speaking: in tens of years, not in millions or even thousands.3

> The evidence for rapid climate change is compelling:

See: http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

[Sam Wormley]

On 12/8/11 7:13 PM, Bill Ward wrote:
> So the Earth warms and cools. What evidence is there that CO2 has
> anything to do with it? When the ocean warms, CO2 comes out. When it
> cools, it goes back in. So what?

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

Scientific Evidence - Increasing Temperatures & Greenhouse Gases
http://www.whrc.org/resources/primer_fundamentals.html

Turns out CO2 rise is both a cause and an effect of warming
http://www.grist.org/article/co2-doesnt-lead-it-lags

[Ray Fischer]

Bill Ward <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 08 Dec 2011 19:39:24 -0500, Jonathan wrote:
>
>> "Last Post" <last...@primus.ca> wrote in message
>> news:f8fc839c-02ff-4994-a84f-
>e88081...@k23g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...

>> On Dec 7, 1:44Â am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Carbon Emissions Show Biggest Jump Ever Recorded
>>>
>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/05/science/earth/record-jump-in-
>emissi...
>>

>> Þ Nothing in the NYTimes is worth the ink

>>
>>
>> Maybe you should look at this chart.
>> http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
>

>So the Earth warms and cools. What evidence is there that CO2 has
>anything to do with it?

You deniers sure are stupid.

--
Ray Fischer | None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.
rfis...@sonic.net | Goethe

[Peter Webb]

"Jonathan" <Calli...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9o-dnfRJyr6rSH_T...@giganews.com...

On "average". But you cannot compare a peak rate with an average.

How fast is the change happening, exactly, and how is this worked out?

If you define the rate of change as being the temperature chnange over the
last 100 years, how do you calculate it for periods more than (about) 160
years ago when data is not available?

Or is the claim that the temperature change over the last 100 years is
higher than over any 100 years in the last 160?

Because if this is the specific claim, its very unimpressive. And its also
wrong; the 100 years from 1898 to 1998 warned faster than the 100 years from
1910 to 2010.

> "The second reason that scientists think the current warming
> is not from natural influences is that, over the past century,
> scientists from all over the world have been collecting data
> on natural factors that influence climate-things like changes
> in the Sun's brightness, major volcanic eruptions, and cycles
> such as El Niño and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.
> /These observations have failed to show any long-term changes
> that could fully account for the recent, rapid warming of
> Earth's temperature."/
> http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/climateqa/
>

Ohh, the old "we couldn't find any other reason, so this must be it"
argument, so beloved of astrologers and pseudo-scientists.

The truth or otherwise of scientific theories is determined using the
"scientific method". You should read up on it. Despite what astrologers and
AGW Believers would like think, the argument that "its the best idea we
could come up with" doesn't appear at all.


>

[k...@kymhorsell.com]

In sci.physics Ray Fischer <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote:
...

> You deniers sure are stupid.

Hands up anyone that's seen relatives or others of a "conservative"
bent deny a cancer diagnosis, or that smoking 8 hours a day had anything to
do with it.

It's not really "stupid" since reason has nothing to do with it --
denial is more an unconscious or fear response.

--
[Surface conditions are determined only by surface conditions:]
Global warming is about warming the surface of the planet, not some
hypothetical upper region of the atmosphere where no one gives a shit [...]
-- mar...@ontomars.org, 25 Jul 2011

[Unum]

On 12/9/2011 1:11 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
> "Jonathan"<Calli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Fred J. McCall"<fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:7n70e7th9akalk3ip...@4ax.com...
>>> "Jonathan"<Calli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I strongly feel global warming is mostly man-made, and something
>>>> needs to be done soon.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Your 'feeling' doesn't constitute proof. Hell, given your record for
>>> nonsense, it doesn't even constitute reasonable doubt.
>>>
>>> How'd we cause it
>>
>> Thanks for replying
>>
>> My source is NASA, and they claim there's no other
>> plausible explanation for the recent warming.

>> Maybe you should look at this chart.
>> http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
>>
>

> Prove CO2 is responsible for climate change. Hell, even show evidence

This is very readily available. Satellite observations show a drop
in emitted radiation from the Earth that is consonant with the
increase in CO2 concentration. Here's an illustrated explanation
for you;
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm

> that it is. The evidence is that atmospheric CO2 concentration LAGS
> warming, not leads it.

Show that evidence. Make sure it isn't refuted by this;
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

> NASA says "...most of it is very likely human-induced and proceeding
> at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years."
>

> However, the change in temperature IS NOT STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT

> through the last decade, despite what CO2 concentrations have done
> during that same decade and preceding it.

What does 10 years have to do with anything, cherrypicker? CO2 is
not the only thing influencing global temperature. But the trend
over the past 150 years of steadily increasing industrialization
is clearly up.

> Oh, and NASA does *NOT* claim in the cite you gave that "there's no
> other plausible explanation for recent warming".
>

> Perhaps you should learn to read and think?

Says the person who doesn't appear to know anything about the subject.

>>
>> Your source would be what?
>>
>
> My source for what? I didn't make a claim.
>
>>
>>> ..and what do you propose we do?
>>
>> My post already addressed that question.
>>
>
> Well, no, it didn't, unless you think 'something' is a definitive
> action.

Is there something specific in his NASA cite you want to take
issue with?

.

[erschro...@gmail.com]

Hmmm... is right.

"Greenhouse gases provide the largest contribution to this warming,
responsible for a temperature increase of 0.85 °C, with approximately
half of this greenhouse warming offset by the negative forcing of
aerosols. On the other hand, the contribution of solar and volcanic
forcing was close to zero."

How does crow taste?

[erschro...@gmail.com]

On Dec 9, 9:48 pm, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Dec 2011 20:22:05 -0500, Jonathan wrote:
> > "Marvin the Martian" <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote in message
> >news:mbadncpT-5tv0H_T...@giganews.com...
> >> On Fri, 09 Dec 2011 09:00:31 -0800, Quadibloc wrote:
>
> >> It is funny how you idiots always talk about how you know what is or
> >> isn't accepted in the scientific community when you don't know shit.
> >> First of all, you're making one big bandwagon fallacy. Secondly, your
> >> bandwagon fallacy is based on a lie that Al Gore told you. Al Gore, who
> >> got a D in "earth science", his only science class.
>
> > I get my opinions on this topic mostly from here....
>
> >http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/climateqa/
> >http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
>
> > NASA accounts for some 3/4ths of all US govt spending on studying
> > climate change most years. They operate a fleet of the highest tech
> > instruments around, and have the largest concentration of climate
> > scientists in the world. And their motives or political agenda isn't
> > that strong either way. It has shifted left somewhat since Bush left
> > office, but the change is marginal.
>
> So, basically, you don't understand science at all, much less the science
> of climate change, and you're going with the guys who get the most money
> for the predetermined answer to tell you what to think.

Basically, you think that because you don't like what the science has
found, it can all be dismissed as fraud, hoax, conspiracy, and
socialism. Basically, you're an idiot.

>
> And saying that Hansen, who leads the NASA climate change fraud, is not
> only unbiased  but not a hard over lunatic is a bit of a stretch; he's
> the guy who wanted to put "deniars" on trial for crimes against humanity
> and nature, and execute a death sentence upon them to shut them up.

Lie. He never said that.

>
> Sort of like screaming for Burno to be burnt at the stake.
>
> Never mind that e-mail thing which some of the NASA "climate scientist"
> were caught up in, or the whole issue of picking data sources to show
> warming over time that NASA got caught doing.

Lie. 7 investigations cleared all of them.

[Jonathan]

"Peter Webb" <r.peter...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:jbup2r$n60$2...@news.albasani.net...

>


> Ohh, the old "we couldn't find any other reason, so this must be it"
> argument,

Well that's one way to put it. The correct way would be to say
there's no other possible explanation for the observations.
But maybe you have one?

> so beloved of astrologers and pseudo-scientists.
>
> The truth or otherwise of scientific theories is determined using the
> "scientific method". You should read up on it.

I'll let you lecture the dozens of NASA climate scientists on the
finer points of the scientific method.


s


>
>>
>

[Last Post]

On Dec 8, 7:39 pm, "Jonathan" <Callinst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Last Post" <last_p...@primus.ca> wrote in message
>
> news:f8fc839c-02ff-4994...@k23g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...

> On Dec 7, 1:44Â am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Carbon Emissions Show Biggest Jump Ever Recorded
>
> >http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/05/science/earth/record-jump-in-emissi...
>

> ø Nothing in the NYTimes is worth the ink

>
> Maybe you should look at this chart.http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

ø ROTFLMAO
Gustav Schmidt and any other gov honcho
does pretty drawings meaning nothing.

However Sir Sam those charts have zero
significance

— —
There are three types of people that you
can_not_talk_into_behaving_well. The
stupid, the religious fanatic, and the evil.

1- The stupid aren't smart enough to follow the
logic of what you say. You have to tell them
what is right in very simple terms. If they do
not agree, you will never be able to change
their mind.

2- The religious fanatic: If what you say goes
against their religious belief, they will cling
to that belief even if it means their death.

3- There is no way to reform evil- not in a
million years. There is no way to convince

anthropogenic_global_warming_alarmists,

terrorists, serial killers, paedophiles, and

predators to change their evil ways, They
knew what they were doing was wrong, but
knowledge didn't stop them. It only made
them more careful in how they went about
performing their evil deeds.˙

[Sam Wormley]

On 12/11/11 12:41 PM, Last Post wrote:
> those charts have zero significance

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

How so?

[Last Post]

On Dec 9, 9:50 am, "erschroedin...@gmail.com"
<erschroedin...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Dec 9, 2:11 am, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > "Jonathan" <Callinst...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > >"Fred J. McCall" <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > >news:7n70e7th9akalk3ip...@4ax.com...

> > >> "Jonathan" <Callinst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >>>I strongly feel global warming is mostly man-made, and something
> > >>>needs to be done soon.

ø Total nonsense!!!!!

> > >> Your 'feeling' doesn't constitute proof.  Hell, given your record for
> > >> nonsense, it doesn't even constitute reasonable doubt.
>
> > >> How'd we cause it
>
> > >Thanks for replying
>
> > >My source is NASA, and they claim there's no other
> > >plausible explanation for the recent warming.

> > >Maybe you should look at this chart.
> > >http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

ø Gustav Schmidt and Hansen both well known liars

>
> > Prove CO2 is responsible for climate change.  Hell, even show evidence

> > that it is.  The evidence is that atmospheric CO2 concentration LAGS
> > warming, not leads it.
>

> Wrong.  CO2 is accepted by almost all scientists as the primary cause
> of the current warming.

Wrong again Lloyd!!!!

> Facts:

ø Lloyd Lloyd, you have no facts
>
> 1. CO2 traps heat.

ø Tyndall was the first to correctly measure the
infrared absorptive powers of the gases nitrogen,
oxygen, water vapour, carbon dioxide, ozone,
methane, etc. He concluded that water vapour is
the strongest absorber of radiant heat in the
atmosphere and is the principal gas controlling air
temperature. Absorption by the bulk of the other
gases is negligible.

> 2. Trapped heat warms the earth.

ø wrong again Lloyd

> 3. The earth is warming.

ø Wrong again Lloyd
We are 1,600 years into the next Ice Age
We expect the polar ice to start moving toward
the Equator between 2020 and 2050

> 4. Atmospheric CO2 is increasing.

ø So what — the rise is miniscule and we need
for the crops.

> 5. Isotopic analysis and mass balance calculations show the increased
> CO2 is mostly from fossil fuel use.

ø Isotopic bullshit — man made CO2 equals a
mere 3.5% of the total.

> 6. All other possible causes of warming have been investigated and
> ruled out (solar output, cosmic rays, volcanoes, orbital changes,
> etc.).
>
ø NONSENSE

>
> > NASA says "...most of it is very likely human-induced and proceeding
> > at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years."

ø NASA/ Hansen is full of shit

>
> > However, the change in temperature IS NOT STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT
> > through the last decade, despite what CO2 concentrations have done
> > during that same decade and preceding it.
>

> But it is statistically significant over any longer period of time.

ø Nonsense

>
> > Oh, and NASA does *NOT* claim in the cite you gave that "there's no
> > other plausible explanation for recent warming".

[Last Post]

ø Bullshit, Worm.

[Marvin the Martian]

The top graph is bogus; you can't compare CO2 levels in ice core data on
a polar glacier to the levels of CO2 on a tropical island near a fucking
volcano in the middle of the pacific ocean. That's just stupid. They
should be ashamed to even print that graph.

The rest of the website is one big post hoc fallacy. The argument in
brief is "climate change exists, ergo it is caused by humans". I've
explained to you a zillion times what a post hoc fallacy is, and you're
too damned stupid to understand it, so I'm not point this out for your
benefit but rather for the casual third party who is following this
thread.

That they would post such non-science shows that Hansen has turned NASA
into a propaganda tool. NASA is totally discredited. They are simply not
a reliable source.

Keep in mind that at one time the Sahara Desert was once green.

http://www.livescience.com/4180-sahara-desert-lush-populated.html

Climate changes without human interaction. Post hoc fallacy.

[Sam Wormley]

On 12/11/11 3:26 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:

> http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

> The top graph is bogus; you can't compare CO2 levels in ice core data on
> a polar glacier to the levels of CO2 on a tropical island near a fucking
> volcano in the middle of the pacific ocean. That's just stupid. They
> should be ashamed to even print that graph.

Here are more detailed graphs, Marvin.

http://www.globalchange.gov/HighResImages/1-Global-pg-13.jpg
http://www.planetforlife.com/images/keeling2.gif

http://www.planetforlife.com/co2history/index.html

You should take the time to learn why you are wrong... and try
not to get so angry, Marvin.

[Marvin the Martian]

On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 15:48:21 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote:

> On 12/11/11 3:26 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
>
>> http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
>
>> The top graph is bogus; you can't compare CO2 levels in ice core data
>> on a polar glacier to the levels of CO2 on a tropical island near a
>> fucking volcano in the middle of the pacific ocean. That's just stupid.
>> They should be ashamed to even print that graph.
>
> Here are more detailed graphs, Marvin.
>
> http://www.globalchange.gov/HighResImages/1-Global-pg-13.jpg

Same damned stupid mistake as the first one, with the added stupidity of
added data points that are pure wishful thinking.

> http://www.planetforlife.com/images/keeling2.gif

50 years of volcano data. This is totally irrelevant.

> http://www.planetforlife.com/co2history/index.html

Same damned fraud. They compare ice core data with the CO2 on the top of
a volcano, with faked data points added.

That's not science, that's propaganda.

> You should take the time to learn why you are wrong... and try not to
> get so angry, Marvin.

People who pose as "science" and make gibbering non-science argument with
faked data on graphs piss me off, yes. And they should shame you to even
trot it out, but either you really have no clue as to why this is crap-
science, or you have no shame.

[Sam Wormley]

On 12/11/11 6:50 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
> 50 years of volcano data. This is totally irrelevant.

CO2 levels are measured by hundreds of stations scattered across 66
countries which all report the same rising trend.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-measurements-uncertainty.htm

[Sam Wormley]

On 12/11/11 6:50 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
> 50 years of volcano data. This is totally irrelevant.

Global CO2 vs Mauna Loa CO2
http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/co2_global_mauna_loa.gif

[Sam Wormley]

On 12/11/11 6:50 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
> People who pose as "science" and make gibbering non-science argument with
> faked data on graphs piss me off, yes. And they should shame you to even
> trot it out, but either you really have no clue as to why this is crap-
> science, or you have no shame.

As usual, Marvin, you are blinded by your unfounded biases. There
is only science. Politicians coined the terms "crap-science" and
"junk-science" for scientific results they don't want to hear.

Sound like you need a bit of self-education with respect to basic
climate science, Marvin.

Global Warning Podcasts by Professor John Chiang

http://www.learnoutloud.com/Podcast-Directory/Science/Environment/Global-Warming-Podcast/21917

This lower division course introduces global warming as both a
scientific and social issue. We will introduce the physical science that
sets the stage for the problem, from the basic concepts of climate
(carbon cycle, greenhouse effect, climate feedbacks) through to the
climate model projections of future climate changes and their impacts.
Social scientific perspectives will be integrated throughout, including
the history of climate science, the geographical and political-economic
implications of fossil fuels and industrial production, and the
challenges posed to existing regulatory and governance systems by the
current and prospective impacts of global warming. Several guest
lecturers will give in-depth reviews of specific topical issues,
potential examples being climate models, carbon sequestration, and
impacts on public health. We aim to provide students with a solid
understanding and information base with which to analyze and evaluate
ongoing developments and (often heated) debates surrounding global
climate change.

Podcast Website:
http://webcast.berkeley.edu/course_details.php?seriesid=1906978425

[Jeff-Relf.Me]

Over giga·years, long·term, the earth/cosmos is cooling.
Short·Term, relatively speaking, evolution affects the atmosphere/climate.

Until about 305 million years ago, for example, before fungi learned 
to digest lignin (trees)*, CO₂ levels diminished and O₂ levels shot up,
cooling the planet.  The coal we use today came from that era.
[ *: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carboniferous#Rocks_and_coal ]

As we burn that coal, the opposite is happening:
O₂ levels are dropping and CO₂ is rising, heating the planet.
For centuries now, the ice caps have been melting, it's easy to see.

So enjoy the heat now, while you can, it won't last.

Yet again, the bottom line is:

  Science is sober, Religion is drunk.
  Drunk is more fun, but it might kill and/or anger you and yours.
  Those who breed like rabbits, die like rabbits.

[Jonathan]

"Brad Guth" <brad...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8363020a-1a49-499e...@v31g2000prg.googlegroups.com...

> When did you first realize our government was corrupted and out of
> control?

> For myself it was roughly 1966

1982.

However, in 1999 I realized that too little corruption (evil)
is just as bad as too much. Whether socialist or fascist
the tragic endings are the same.

A complex adaptive system/evolution requires the dynamic
balance between the static and chaotic (order and disorder)
[good and evil] to exist at all.

When the components find that balance, then the
whole is at it's greatest potential to produce justice
and a better future.


s

[AGWFacts]

On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 15:26:15 -0600, Marvin the Martian
<mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:

> On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 12:50:08 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote:
>
> > On 12/11/11 12:41 PM, Last Post wrote:

> >> those charts have zero significance

> > http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
> > How so?

> The top graph is bogus

Now, your next step is to write a paper on the subject and send it
to a refereed peer-reviewed science journal and tell them about
it. It is your civic duty to the world. What the hell are you
waiting for?! Start here:
http://www.ametsoc.org/pubs/journals/jcli/



--
"I'd like the globe to warm another degree or two or three... and CO2 levels
to increase perhaps another 100ppm - 300ppm." -- cato...@sympatico.ca

[AGWFacts]

On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 15:48:21 -0600, Sam Wormley

Or he can correct all of the world's scientists by writing a paper
on the subject and submitting it to a science journal.

[Marvin the Martian]

On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 12:49:11 -0700, AGWFacts wrote:

> On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 15:48:21 -0600, Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 12/11/11 3:26 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
>
>> > http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
>
>> > The top graph is bogus; you can't compare CO2 levels in ice core data
>> > on a polar glacier to the levels of CO2 on a tropical island near a
>> > fucking volcano in the middle of the pacific ocean. That's just
>> > stupid. They should be ashamed to even print that graph.
>
>> Here are more detailed graphs, Marvin.
>>
>> http://www.globalchange.gov/HighResImages/1-Global-pg-13.jpg
>> http://www.planetforlife.com/images/keeling2.gif
>>
>> http://www.planetforlife.com/co2history/index.html
>>
>> You should take the time to learn why you are wrong... and try not
>> to get so angry, Marvin.
>
> Or he can correct all of the world's scientists by writing a paper on
> the subject and submitting it to a science journal.

You prove your stupidity every time you repeat your silly "all the
world's scientist" lie.

[Brad Guth]

On Dec 12, 6:53 am, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >For myself it was roughly 1966
>

> So you've been nuts for 45 years, then?
>
> --
> "Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
>  only stupid."
>                             -- Heinrich Heine

At least I didn't turn myself into a ZNR approved parrot, brown-nosed
clown or FUD-master on behalf of always sucking up to the mainstream
status-quo, so I was never qualified for the “Grand Cross of the
German Eagle” or possibly even the “Gold Iron Cross” to go along with
the “Blood Order” that Zionist Jews seem to drool over, as most
certainly you were more than qualified.

If you silly guys and gals think the killings of mostly innocent
humans and the systematic environmental trashing of our Earth, as well
as creating as much global inflation as possible, are just too funny
to not allow or perpetrate, then no doubt anything off-world is going
to become ZNR fair game.

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

[Brad Guth]

On Dec 12, 5:42 pm, "Jonathan" <Callinst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Brad Guth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message

I agree, that what little corruption is left is kind of the cookie
crumbs of the mostly public funded jar, because all the really good
cookies of crime and corruption have already been taken and consumed
by those truly in charge of whomever we elect or appoint.

Perhaps it's past due that we the evil villagers with each of our fist
full of burning sticks take charge, and if need be burn down the
castles of those evil robber barons oppressing and misguiding us.

So, it's kind of evil against evil, and may the best bad guys win, and
of course only the evil victors get to interpret and publish their
version of history.

[Brad Guth]

On Dec 6, 10:44 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Carbon Emissions Show Biggest Jump Ever Recorded
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/05/science/earth/record-jump-in-emissi...
>

> "Emissions rose 5.9 percent in 2010, according to an analysis released
> Sunday by the Global Carbon Project, an international collaboration of
> scientists tracking the numbers. Scientists with the group said the
> increase, a half-billion extra tons of carbon pumped into the air, was
> almost certainly the largest absolute jump in any year since the
> Industrial Revolution, and the largest percentage increase since 2003.
>
> "The increase solidified a trend of ever-rising emissions that
> scientists fear will make it difficult, if not impossible, to forestall
> severe climate change in coming decades".

But you and your robber baron oligarchs and Rothschild friends don't
really care, now do they.

Why don't you and other parrots of your status-quo kind ever support
the likes of William Mook (aka Mokenergy)?

[Jonathan]

>"Brad Guth" <brad...@gmail.com> wrote in message

>news:c964444c-44c4-447d...@d17g2000prl.googlegroups.com...

> I agree, that what little corruption is left is kind of the cookie
>crumbs of the mostly public funded jar, because all the really good
>cookies of crime and corruption have already been taken and consumed
> by those truly in charge of whomever we elect or appoint.

When I moved to Florida I noticed an example of what you
mean. Schools involve huge sums of money, and down here
many of the 'charter schools', where public school funds are
diverted to private companies, are owned by family and
friends of politicians...insiders. It's just terrible.

An example, there's this Florida state legislator that chairs
most of the state education committees. Turns out his...sister
owns a large chain of charter schools. And they have to pay
some $12 million a year in impact fees to the various municipalities.
So this politician wrote legislation that zeros out each and every
impact fee his sister's company would have to pay. Essentially
a $12 million dollar a year gift to his sister at taxpayer expense.
Of course, everyone knows his sister is the straw man
owner, it's ...his charter school. Or will when he leaves
office.

When the Miami Herald caught him and made a splash about it
he was completely unapologetic. He said there's nothing illegal
at all about writing legislation that enriches his family or friends.

And he's right, the reason is in Florida the law about
conflict of interest states it's only illegal if it enriches his
family....and no one else.... Which is a loophole you
could drive a space shuttle through. Other charter schools
also got breaks from that bill, so it's OK to steal.

Florida politics is corrupt to the bone. I believe you can trace
the source of the current world wide depression directly to
Florida. From the mortgage flipping industry pioneered
in my home town of Miami.

>Perhaps it's past due that we the evil villagers with each of our fist
>full of burning sticks take charge, and if need be burn down the
>castles of those evil robber barons oppressing and misguiding us.

Look around the world to what the Internet and smart phones
are doing. People are getting fed up and are ..massing.
The power of collective action is starting to sink in
around the world.

I firmly believe a One World Government is forming.
But from the people rising up and electronically connecting
in a global network movement freedom, democracy
and justice.

From the Arab Spring to Occupy Wall Street.
In Syria some 15,000 people have died in just
months fighting for freedom. That's a Vietnam like
casualty rate. When the interim govt in Egypt
drops the ball, a 100,000 people show up the
next day to protest. It's really quite a spectacle
of change we're witnessing.

And the rich and powerful are realizing that collective
action can overwhelm almost ...anything in it's path.

>So, it's kind of evil against evil, and may the best bad guys win, and
of course only the evil victors get to interpret and publish their
>version of history.

When I look around the world at the major obstacles
to a better future, I see two huge roadblocks.
Iran and China.

When those two go to democracy, the remaining
dictators will quickly fall. It's exceedingly rare to find
an example of two functioning democracies ever
going to war with each other.


Jonathan

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

yes, but on alt.global-warming, a "newsgroup,"
we get to discuss stuff with varying degrees of formality. for
instance,
how can people seriously consider the albedo
of the Arctic Ocean, without knowing the angle of total reflectance
of water?

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

nah-nah, we is the 97 per cent!,
quoth AGWfactotum and Dawlish, the programmer. but,
is it the bottom 97 or the top?

taht is the question taht is always begged,
that the outliers can often have valid critiques or ideas
of their own.

> You prove your stupidity every time you repeat your silly "all the
> world's scientist"

so, how can people seriously consider the albedo

[William Mook]

Global warming is a hoax designed to support a new carbon tax as a
means to regulate oil consumption and maintain revenue streams for the
oligarchs in the post-oil world.

We can live a very good life if we get rid of politicians bureaucrats
regulators armies and police and get on with it letting the engineers
go.

I love this house
http://images.elephantjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/buckyfuller.jpg

Its a 16 meter diameter dome that consists of 30 pieces of glass each
2.2 meters in diameter - made using techniques that produce
windsheilds and 35 'Y' shaped pieces of metal - each with 2.2 m legs
- made using techniques that produce body panels.

Two floors that each fold into an 7.2 meter long and 2.2 meter wide
strip and fold out to a 7.2 meter diameter circle.

The first floor is placed on the ground and leveled. It is then
folded out into a 7.2 meter diameter circle and leveled. A set of
jacks are attached to the first floor. The second floor is placed on
these jacks. It too is folded out into a 7.2 meter diameter circle.
Jacks are installed on the second floor. Built into the second floor
is an articulated spiral stair case. The edge of the stairs are
released from the floor. The foot of the stair is attached to the
first floor with clips. The top set of Y units is installed on the
jacks along with the first dome window. The top floor jacks are
powered up raising the first dome section. A second row of Y units
and domes are installed and tied to the second floor. A self
contained fiberglass bathroom toilet set is attached to fixtures in
the second floor. Wiring, flexible piping and drains pass beneath the
stairs. These are attached to fixtures on the first floor and
tested. The jacks are then powered up to raise the second floor 1.2
meters above the first floor. A third row of Y units and circular
windows is attached. The second floor is then raised 2.4 meters above
the first floor. The top of the stairs slides along the stairwell
causing the stairs to fold. Columns built into the structure are
folded out and secured to tie the two floors together. These also
pass wiring and drains between floors. A self contained bathroom/
kitchen unit is installed in prewired fixtures on the first floor.
The fourth row of Y units and windows is attached and secured to the
first floor completing the unit. Two of the 30 windows are arranged
into dilating automatic doors, that have fold out steps to enter the
dhome.

http://www.openideo.com/open/create-an-inspirational-logo-for-openideo/inspiration/mechanical-inspiration-the-opening-iris-/gallery/pjid1.jpg/

The unit is also equipped with built in informational appliances -
projection displays and holographic sound system allow a variety of
interesting features. The windows can be made transparent opaque or
anything in between. They can also be made to glow in any color. As
the second floor is unfolded atop the first the base of roll away
screens built into the second floor are attached to the first so that
when the two floos separate, walls with roll away doors are
automatically created.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6nvUYkmEEQ

Foldaway and inflatable furnishing, along with all fabrics, decor,
cups plates, appliances, etc., come with the home. A small petrol
generator operates all the tools and systems and can be wired to a
power connection coming to the site, or operate stand alone after
erection to power the house. A water treatment system combined with
zero flow toilets and urinals eliminate the need for sewage hookup.

Generator
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paCBAWjkjmg

The tools and other equipment is part of the package and may be used
to disassemble and repackage the house for transport.

Toilet
http://www.greenbuildingsupply.com/Public/Energy-WaterConservation/WatersavingToilets/index.cfm

while minimizing water flow.

The system is designed to collect rain water or river water, ultra-
filter it, and supply the kitchen with potable water. A special flash
evaporator attachment can be used to filter seawater or water
contaminated with industrial waste. This requires added energy which
the generator can supply, however, fuel usage roughly doubles. There
is also brine and wastewater discharge that must be thought through.

The composting toilets provide compost suitable for home gardening and
growing vegetables and fruits. Garden water supply may need
additional filtration.

876 square feet of usable floor space - all comes in a single shipping
container and can be installed by four people in six hours without any
special equipment on an unprepared reasonably flat site.

The cost is $210,000 plus delivery.

Delivery in sixteen weeks.

We're working on windmills and solar panels that will supplement and
displace the generator as well as biofuel and synfuel systems that
provide fuel for the generator and automobile.

[Sam Wormley]

On 12/14/11 7:14 PM, William Mook wrote:
> Global warming is a hoax designed to support a new carbon tax as a
> means to regulate oil consumption and maintain revenue streams for the
> oligarchs in the post-oil world.

Global warming is an observable.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

Scientific Evidence - Increasing Temperatures & Greenhouse Gases
http://www.whrc.org/resources/primer_fundamentals.html

Turns out CO2 rise is both a cause and an effect of warming
http://www.grist.org/article/co2-doesnt-lead-it-lags

Energy balance points to man-made climate change
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/48057

> A climate model based on the "global energy balance" has provided new
evidence for human-induced climate change, according to its creators.
Using this simple model, researchers in Switzerland conclude that it is
extremely likely (>95% probability) that at least 74% of the observed
warming since 1950 has been caused by human activity.

> Previously, climate scientists have used a technique called "optimal
fingerprinting" to pinpoint the causes of global warming. This involves
using complex models to simulate the climate response to different
"forcings". These include greenhouse gases, aerosols and ozone, as well
as natural factors such as solar and volcanic variability. The relative
contribution of each forcing is then assessed by a statistical
comparison of the model outputs to the real-life warming pattern.

> However, this method relies on the ability of climate models to
accurately simulate the response patterns to each forcing, and also
assumes that the responses can be scaled and added. Furthermore, changes
in the energy balance of the climate system are not explicitly

See: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/48057

[William Mook]

Earth's temperature varies. The claims made that human CO2 production
cause a monotonic increase in global temperatures due to a monotonic
increase in CO2 levels is bogus. Global warming advocates going back
to Keeling have routinely falsified figures and suppressed valid data
that did not support their thesis.

Dr. Ivar Giaever Nobelist resigned as a Fellow from the American
Physical Society (APS) on September 13, 2011 in disgust over the
group's promotion of man-made global warming fears.

The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth has been
suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after a hacker broke
into the computers at the University of East Anglia's Climate Research
Unit (aka CRU) and released 61 megabytes of confidential files onto
the internet.

When you read some of those files – including 1079 emails and 72
documents – you realise just why the boffins at CRU might have
preferred to keep them confidential. As Andrew Bolt puts it, this
scandal could well be "the greatest in modern science". These emails –
exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory
– suggest:

Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly
illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance
to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in
their public claims and much more.

One of the emails has a gentle gloat over the death in 2004 of John L
Daly (one of the first climate change sceptics, founder of the Still
Waiting For Greenhouse site), commenting:

"In an odd way this is cheering news."

But perhaps the most damaging revelations – the scientific equivalent
of the Telegraph's MPs' expenses scandal – are those concerning the
way Warmist scientists may variously have manipulated or suppressed
evidence in order to support their cause.

Here are a few tasters.

Manipulation of evidence:

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real
temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd
from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up:

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the
moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in
the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more
warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is
inadequate.

Suppression of evidence:

Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?

Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family
crisis.

Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have
his new email address.

We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.

Fantasies of violence against prominent Climate Sceptic scientists:

Next
time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted
to beat
the crap out of him. Very tempted.

Attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm
Period (MWP):

……Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen
NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available
nearly 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather
than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/
regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the
putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean
reconstruction available that far back….

And, perhaps most reprehensibly, a long series of communications
discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer
review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in
which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank,
whose views do not have a scrap of authority.

“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not
publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a
solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I
think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate
peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in
the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers
in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or
request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the
editorial board…What do others think?”

“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing
more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome
editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The
responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a
few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words
with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to
discuss in Nice !”

Hadley CRU has form in this regard. In September – I wrote the story
up here as "How the global warming industry is based on a massive lie"
- CRU's researchers were exposed as having "cherry-picked" data in
order to support their untrue claim that global temperatures had risen
higher at the end of the 20th century than at any time in the last
millenium. CRU was also the organisation which – in contravention of
all acceptable behaviour in the international scientific community –
spent years withholding data from researchers it deemed unhelpful to
its cause. This matters because CRU, established in 1990 by the Met
Office, is a government-funded body which is supposed to be a model of
rectitude. Its HadCrut record is one of the four official sources of
global temperature data used by the IPCC.

I asked in my title whether this will be the final nail in the coffin
of Anthropenic Global Warming. This was wishful thinking, of course.
In the run up to Copenhagen, we will see more and more hysterical (and
grotesquely exaggerated) stories such as this in the Mainstream Media.
And we will see ever-more-virulent campaigns conducted by eco-fascist
activists, such as this risible new advertising campaign by Plane
Stupid showing CGI polar bears falling from the sky and exploding
because kind of, like, man, that's sort of what happens whenever you
take another trip on an aeroplane.

The world is currently cooling; electorates are increasingly reluctant
to support eco-policies leading to more oppressive regulation, higher
taxes and higher utility bills; the tide is turning against Al Gore's
Anthropogenic Global Warming theory. The so-called "sceptical" view –
which is some of us have been expressing for quite some time: see, for
example, the chapter entitled 'Barbecue the Polar Bears' in WELCOME TO
OBAMALAND: I'VE SEEN YOUR FUTURE AND IT DOESN'T WORK – is now also,
thank heaven, the majority view.

Unfortunately, we've a long, long way to go before the public mood
(and scientific truth) is reflected by our policy makers. There are
too many vested interests in AGW, with far too much to lose either in
terms of reputation or money, for this to end without a bitter fight.

But to judge by the way – despite the best efforts of the MSM not to
report on it – the CRU scandal is spreading like wildfire across the
internet, this shabby story represents a blow to the AGW lobby's
credibility from which it is never likely to recover.

UPDATE: I write about this subject a lot and the threads below my
posts often contain an impressive range of informed opinion from
readers with solid scientific backgrounds (plus lots of cheap swipes
from Libtards – but, hey, their discomfort and rage are my joy).

Here are a few links:

Interview in the Spectator with Australian geology Professor Ian
Plimer re his book Heaven And Earth. Plimer makes the point that CO2
is not a pollutant – CO2 is plant food, and that climate change is an
ongoing natural process.

An earlier scandal at the Climate Research Unit, this time involving
"cherry-picked" data samples.

A contretemps with a Climate Bully who wonders whether I have a
science degree. (No I don't. I just happen to be a believer in
empiricism and not spending taxpayers' money on a problem that may
well not exist)

59 per cent of UK population does not believe in AGW. The Times
decides they are "village idiots"

Comparing "Climate Change" to the 9/11 and the Holocaust is despicable
and dumb

Copenhagen: a step closer to one-world government?

UK Government blows £6 million on eco-propaganda ad which makes
children cry

and a very funny piece by Damian Thompson comparing the liberal
media's coverage of Watergate with its almost non-existent coverage of
Climategate

[Sam Wormley]

On 12/15/11 4:47 AM, William Mook wrote:
> The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth has been
> suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after a hacker broke
> into the computers at the University of East Anglia's Climate Research
> Unit (aka CRU) and released 61 megabytes of confidential files onto
> the internet.

Among the observables are increasing
o Fossil Fuel Burning, 30+ GTonnes/yr dumped into the atmosphere.
o Increasing concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.
o Rising Global temperature
o Decreasing Ice
o Increasing Sea Level
o Decreasing Ocean pH

Swiss Re Scientific Arguments Against Climate Change Skeptics

http://physicsandphysicists.blogspot.com/2011/01/swiss-re-scientific-arguments-against.html

Climate sceptic arguments and their scientific background
http://proclimweb.scnat.ch/portal/ressources/1183.pdf

Climate change: How do we know?
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

where is your own analysis, mister Wormley?... the part
that he excerpted from the CRU mails, on the journal,
Climate Research, was pretty bad; how did the God-am Seven
of investigations, address this?

> This lower division course introduces global warming as both a ...

> lecturers will give in-depth reviews of specific topical issues,
> potential examples being climate models, carbon sequestration, and
> impacts on public health. We aim to provide students with a solid
> understanding and information base with which to analyze and evaluate
> ongoing developments and (often heated) debates surrounding global
> climate change.

>  http://webcast.berkeley.edu/course_details.php?seriesid=1906978425

about hte bedrock of Greenland,
rising, that is the only thing that may address the assertion
of the Man from NOAA, that GrIS and AnIS have only risen/
accumulated frozen water, since the beginning of measurement
(although he didn't mention it). thanks.

as for sealevel, there is no-better authority
than Morner -- some of you do cast aspersions, though,
perhaps refuted by his overview article/vitae,
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2011/Winter-2010/Morner.pdf
(please, excerpt some thing that you wish to contend .-)

> Of course it rises

about the angle of total reflection
of water, poleward of the arctic & antarctic circles,
viz albedo; what do the GCMers say --
and what do polar bears know?

[William Mook]

You're not getting it Sam! You're brainwashed. So, I'll make this
simple and concise;

The data is bogus Sam. The Keeling curve is false. Keeling lied.

Let that sink in.

KEELING LIED!

So, any data derived from that lie is wrong.

They did it for the money.

Just like the politicians, the crooked bankers, the corrupt military,
perverted bureaucrats and all the rest.

Its time to dismantle the Green Mafia, and all other organized crime
syndicates track them all down, and kill them.

EVERY LAST ONE WITHOUT REMORSE OR EXCEPTION

Its going to be a tough job, but it needs doing.

Its the only way we will survive.

As Max Keiser said - its the reason God made Guillotines.

[William Mook]

On Dec 15, 12:13 pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> where is your own analysis, mister Wormley?...  the part
> that he excerpted from the CRU mails, on the journal,
> Climate Research, was pretty bad; how did the God-am Seven
> of investigations, address this?
>
> > This lower division course introduces global warming as both a ...
> >  lecturers will give in-depth reviews of specific topical issues,
> > potential examples being climate models, carbon sequestration, and
> > impacts on public health. We aim to provide students with a solid
> > understanding and information base with which to analyze and evaluate
> > ongoing developments and (often heated) debates surrounding global
> > climate change.
> >  http://webcast.berkeley.edu/course_details.php?seriesid=1906978425
>
> about hte bedrock of Greenland,
> rising, that is the only thing that may address the assertion
> of the Man from NOAA, that GrIS and AnIS have only risen/
> accumulated frozen water, since the beginning of measurement
> (although he didn't mention it).  thanks.
>
> as for sealevel, there is no-better authority
> than Morner -- some of you do cast aspersions, though,

> perhaps refuted by his overview article/vitae,http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2011/Winter-2010/Morne...

> (please, excerpt some thing that you wish to contend .-)
>
> > Of course it rises
>
> about the angle of total reflection
> of water, poleward of the arctic & antarctic circles,
> viz albedo; what do the GCMers say --
> and what do polar bears know?

The only way Sam will get over his brain washing is for everyone to
wear the following T-shirt

KEELING LIED
He did it for the money

[Sam Wormley]

On 12/15/11 12:06 PM, William Mook wrote:
> The data is bogus Sam. The Keeling curve is false. Keeling lied.

CO2 levels are measured by hundreds of stations scattered across 66
countries which all report the same rising trend.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-measurements-uncertainty.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/co2_global_mauna_loa.gif

[Sam Wormley]

On 12/15/11 12:07 PM, William Mook wrote:

> The only way Sam will get over his brain washing is for everyone to
> wear the following T-shirt
>
> KEELING LIED
> He did it for the money

[AGWFacts]

On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 12:48:13 -0700, AGWFacts <AGWF...@ipcc.org>

wrote:

> On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 15:26:15 -0600, Marvin the Martian
> <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 12:50:08 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote:
> >
> > > On 12/11/11 12:41 PM, Last Post wrote:
>
> > >> those charts have zero significance
>
> > > http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
> > > How so?
>
> > The top graph is bogus

> Now, your next step is to write a paper on the subject and send it
> to a refereed peer-reviewed science journal and tell them about
> it. It is your civic duty to the world. What the hell are you
> waiting for?! Start here:
> http://www.ametsoc.org/pubs/journals/jcli/

So, "Marvin the Martian," how's that paper coming along?

[AGWFacts]

On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 18:56:57 -0600, Marvin the Martian
<mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:

Okay, I give up: what "'all the world's scientist' lie?"

[Brad Guth]

On Dec 14, 3:47 pm, "Jonathan" <Callinst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >"Brad Guth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message

A corrupt democracy like we currently have will only bankrupt the
likes of China and Iran.

There's nothing wrong with a good dictatorship. Of course coming up
with a "GOOD" anything nowadays is a wee bit problematic, or it well
most certainly become problematic once those Semitic oligarchs and
Rothschilds get done with it.

Giving whomever we elect to lead us with sufficient executive
authority, as to move ahead regardless of whatever others may think we
should be doing, is a kind of an elected dictatorship that we could
learn to live with.

Question is; who do you trust? and what amounts are you willing to
pay?

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

[Marvin the Martian]

On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 13:59:46 -0700, AGWFacts wrote:

> On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 12:48:13 -0700, AGWFacts <AGWF...@ipcc.org> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 15:26:15 -0600, Marvin the Martian
>> <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
>>
>> > On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 12:50:08 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote:
>> >
>> > > On 12/11/11 12:41 PM, Last Post wrote:
>>
>> > >> those charts have zero significance
>>
>> > > http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
>> > > How so?
>>
>> > The top graph is bogus
>
>> Now, your next step is to write a paper on the subject and send it to a
>> refereed peer-reviewed science journal and tell them about it. It is
>> your civic duty to the world. What the hell are you waiting for?! Start
>> here:
>> http://www.ametsoc.org/pubs/journals/jcli/
>
> So, "Marvin the Martian," how's that paper coming along?

Basically, your argument is that you're so fucking stupid that you need
peer reviewers (usually grad students) to give you a thumbs up or down on
the science. You are saying you have no capacity to evaluate the science
on your own.

Well enough, you confess to being a dumb ass.

There are two very good reasons I don't write a paper on it: The
Climategate e-mails prove that the peer review process has been subverted
for propaganda purposes. Papers that debunk the lie never pass peer
review, regardless of the science. The other good reason is, as my
graduate advisor pointed out, obvious and not new science. The obvious
and not new science never gets published. For example, we saw a paper
that violated conservation of momentum. Communication with the author
revealed that the author was pretty damned clueless about Newton's second
law. My advisor wrote a paper, complete with mathematical analysis, that
showed that the published paper violated conservation of momentum. It
never got published, of course, as it was obvious and not new.

If you had any REAL science experience, you'd know that a lot of crap
passes peer review. People who cry "peer review" are ignorant folks who
need a someone's grad student to tell them what to think and thus are
uninteresting folks.

I note, however, for all you illogical cries about publishing the papers,
you are not able to address the science. Pathetic. you need to STFU and
let the people to tell you what to think speak - only they don't want to
because they know they'd just embarrass themselves.

[Sam Wormley]

On 12/15/11 7:03 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
> There are two very good reasons I don't write a paper on it: The
> Climategate e-mails prove that the peer review process has been subverted
> for propaganda purposes. Papers that debunk the lie never pass peer
> review, regardless of the science.

Gee, that's too bad, Marvin. What you need is some climatology science
background.

Global Warning Podcasts by Professor John Chiang

http://www.learnoutloud.com/Podcast-Directory/Science/Environment/Global-Warming-Podcast/21917

This lower division course introduces global warming as both a

scientific and social issue. We will introduce the physical science that
sets the stage for the problem, from the basic concepts of climate
(carbon cycle, greenhouse effect, climate feedbacks) through to the
climate model projections of future climate changes and their impacts.
Social scientific perspectives will be integrated throughout, including
the history of climate science, the geographical and political-economic
implications of fossil fuels and industrial production, and the
challenges posed to existing regulatory and governance systems by the
current and prospective impacts of global warming. Several guest

lecturers will give in-depth reviews of specific topical issues,
potential examples being climate models, carbon sequestration, and
impacts on public health. We aim to provide students with a solid
understanding and information base with which to analyze and evaluate
ongoing developments and (often heated) debates surrounding global
climate change.

Podcast Website:
http://webcast.berkeley.edu/course_details.php?seriesid=1906978425

[Bill Snyder]

On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 19:03:17 -0600, Marvin the Martian

All mouth all the time; no evidence, ever. Could be your .sig.

--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]

[d w]

please, check Morner's article -- an overview
of his decades of work on the subject at INQUA,
which is *not* solely dvoted to sealevel, as I'd misconstrued ...
I was like, "what's the Q., for?"

in some respects, there is really no "where," thereinat "global"
warming,
although mayhap the climate is changing very quickly.

> Let’s start a petition

thus:
the number of small, island nations makes the UN vulnerable
to manipulation, as happened with whaling -- however you feel
about eating that, I'm sure it's tasty -- and seems to have occured
with "sealevel rise" per Morner's rather definitive study (and,
strangely, I didn't realize that INQUA was not a sealevel-specific
thing,
but concerned with the Quaternary Period of the last 2-million years
of glaciation, formerly known as "the Pleistocene;" however,
he was the president of the commission thereunto,
that did concern itself with sealevel, isostasy etc.) and here, it
is:
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2011/Winter-2010/Morner.pdf
NB, love or hatred of LaRouche is an entirely seperate entry to the
blog!

thus:
did you see the recent study, showing that the extent of permafrost
was quite a bit less, either in the Medieval Warm Period, or
during the glacial period before the Eemian interglacial
(the interglacial preceding the Holocene --
you are/were then !-)

thus:
that is, over the totality of Gauss's survey
of the contested border of Allsace-Lorraine,
of local concavities (valleys) and convexities
(mountains), there was always a vertexial deficit,
indicating an eventual, global, positive curvature.
of course, he already knew about Kepler's orbital constraints,
the sine qua non of "curvature of space"
(sic, often "spacetime").
Hubble did not believe that the Doppler shifts
to the red of supragalactic objects, necessarily were --
I mean, that they *were* Doppler shifts;
that is just the "farthest out" interpretation.
there is no absolute vacuum, period,
no matter what Einstein thought about it, nor even Pascal.

[AGWFacts]

On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 05:12:03 -0800 (PST), Brad Guth
<brad...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Dec 12, 6:53 am, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > >For myself it was roughly 1966

> > So you've been nuts for 45 years, then?

> At least I didn't turn myself into a ZNR approved parrot, brown-nosed
> clown or FUD-master on behalf of always sucking up to the mainstream
> status-quo, so I was never qualified for the “Grand Cross of the
> German Eagle” or possibly even the “Gold Iron Cross” to go along with
> the “Blood Order” that Zionist Jews seem to drool over, as most
> certainly you were more than qualified.
>
> If you silly guys and gals think the killings of mostly innocent
> humans and the systematic environmental trashing of our Earth, as well
> as creating as much global inflation as possible, are just too funny
> to not allow or perpetrate, then no doubt anything off-world is going
> to become ZNR fair game.

Hysterical paranoid net.kook

[Brad Guth]

> to increase perhaps another 100ppm - 300ppm." -- caton...@sympatico.ca

So you think the best available science that's mostly public funded is
"Hysterical paranoid net.kook" worthy.

Is this why you can't honestly research and/or communicate on behalf
of anything pertaining to our moon or the planet Venus?

Would you be a happy camper if I became a brown-nosed clown like
yourself and other ZNR approved rednecks?

I bet you wouldn't be bothered the least bit if Greenland lost an
average km3 of ice per day.

Do you have any solutions other than doing nothing, or doing the 95%
culling of all humans?

[Last Post]

On Dec 7, 1:44 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Carbon Emissions Show Biggest Jump Ever Recorded
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/05/science/earth/record-jump-in-emissi...

ø Indeed Worm, it is past time you learned that
the fascist NYTimes is no place for real science.
Global warming is a fascist plot. Algore is fascist
too.

> "Emissions rose 5.9 percent in 2010, according to an analysis released
> Sunday by the Global Carbon Project, an international collaboration of
> scientists tracking the numbers. Scientists with the group said the
> increase, a half-billion extra tons of carbon pumped into the air, was
> almost certainly the largest absolute jump in any year since the
> Industrial Revolution, and the largest percentage increase since 2003.
>
> "The increase solidified a trend of ever-rising emissions that
> scientists fear will make it difficult, if not impossible, to forestall
> severe climate change in coming decades".

ø Utter nonsense
Between 1820 and 1865 CO2 emissions
fluctuated 23 times between 400 and 550 ppm.
Try and beat that, sucker.

FoS Pre-industrial CO2.pdf

ø Add that to the fact that Tyndall proved that
CO2 has ZERO thermal effect. So where is the
global warming to come from in future years?

It will come NOWHERE for 90,000 years or
more?

— —
There are three types of people that you
can_not_talk_into_behaving_well. The
stupid, the religious fanatic, and the evil.

1- The stupid aren't smart enough to follow the
logic of what you say. You have to tell them
what is right in very simple terms. If they do
not agree, you will never be able to change
their mind.

2- The religious fanatic: If what you say goes
against their religious belief, they will cling
to that belief even if it means their death.

3- There is no way to reform evil- not in a
million years. There is no way to convince

anthropogenic_global_warming_alarmists,

terrorists, serial killers, paedophiles, and

predators to change their evil ways, They
knew what they were doing was wrong, but
knowledge didn't stop them. It only made
them more careful in how they went about
performing their evil deeds.˙

[Sam Wormley]

On 12/17/11 1:11 PM, Last Post wrote:
> Indeed Worm, it is past time you learned that
> the fascist NYTimes is no place for real science.
> Global warming is a fascist plot. Algore is fascist
> too.

It's hard to fit observables into your fascist plot, bubba.

[Brad Guth]

On Dec 17, 11:22 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/17/11 1:11 PM, Last Post wrote:
>
> > Indeed Worm, it is past time you learned that
> > the fascist NYTimes is no place for real science.
> > Global warming is a fascist plot. Algore is fascist
> > too.
>
>    It's hard to fit observables into your fascist plot, bubba.
>
>    Among the observables are increasing
>      o Fossil Fuel Burning, 30+ GTonnes/yr dumped into the atmosphere.
>      o Increasing concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.
>      o Rising Global temperature
>      o Decreasing Ice
>      o Increasing Sea Level
>      o Decreasing Ocean pH
>
>    Swiss Re Scientific Arguments Against Climate Change Skeptics
>

> http://physicsandphysicists.blogspot.com/2011/01/swiss-re-scientific-...

>
>    Climate sceptic arguments and their scientific background
>      http://proclimweb.scnat.ch/portal/ressources/1183.pdf
>
>    Climate change: How do we know?
>      http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

7 billion humans roughly equates to an extra 7 big and nasty volcanoes
continuously blowing smoke, ash and flowing volumes of lava. Other
than that, supposedly we humans don't hardly negative impact a darn
thing.
http://www.geo.mtu.edu/volcanoes/world.html
http://www.geocodezip.com/v2_activeVolcanos.asp

Of course you know that I was onto GW and AGW issues as of years
before your NASA boss ever told you and other brown-nosed clowns what
to do in your spare time.

So, what's your list of solutions other than parroting whatever your
boss has to say?

[Brad Guth]

Sounds like you're not going to vote republican.

[T. Keating]

On Sat, 17 Dec 2011 12:27:05 -0800 (PST), Brad Guth
<brad...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Dec 17, 11:22 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 12/17/11 1:11 PM, Last Post wrote:
>>
>> > Indeed Worm, it is past time you learned that
>> > the fascist NYTimes is no place for real science.
>> > Global warming is a fascist plot. Algore is fascist
>> > too.
>>
>>    It's hard to fit observables into your fascist plot, bubba.
>>
>>    Among the observables are increasing
>>      o Fossil Fuel Burning, 30+ GTonnes/yr dumped into the atmosphere.
>>      o Increasing concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.
>>      o Rising Global temperature
>>      o Decreasing Ice
>>      o Increasing Sea Level
>>      o Decreasing Ocean pH
>>
>>    Swiss Re Scientific Arguments Against Climate Change Skeptics
>>
>> http://physicsandphysicists.blogspot.com/2011/01/swiss-re-scientific-...
>>
>>    Climate sceptic arguments and their scientific background
>>      http://proclimweb.scnat.ch/portal/ressources/1183.pdf
>>
>>    Climate change: How do we know?
>>      http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
>
>7 billion humans roughly equates to an extra 7 big and nasty volcanoes

humanities CO2 emissions are more like 7,000 to 70,000 big and nasty
volcanoes..

[Brad Guth]

That seems a wee bit extreme, although I might buy into 70 volcanoes
worth, because we're talking of continuous volcanic spewing, and
there's actually much more contributing to AGW than CO2. Dry and
clean CO2 is kind of inert/harmless, but the wet and sooty kind of CO2
is downright nasty.

[Sam Wormley]

On 12/17/11 2:53 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
> Dry and clean CO2 is kind of inert/harmless, but the wet and sooty kind of CO2
> is downright nasty.

Brad is so stooopid, he thinks there is wet and dry CO2!