a couple more real scientists not with the false "consensus"
tunderbar
version available here. (emphasis added):
Open Letter – Climate Change
Bundeskanzleramt
Frau Bundeskanzerlin Dr. Angela Merkel
Willy-Brandt-Strabe 1
10557 Berlin
#
Vizerprasident Dipl. Ing. Michael Limburg 14476 Grob Glienicke Richard-
Wagner-Str. 5a
E-mail: lim...@grafik-system.de
Grob Glienicke 26.07.09
To the attention of the Honorable Madam Angela Merkel, Chancellor of
Germany
When one studies history, one learns that the development of societies
is often determined by a zeitgeist, which at times had detrimental or
even horrific results for humanity. History tells us time and again
that political leaders often have made poor decisions because they
followed the advice of advisors who were incompetent or ideologues and
failed to recognize it in time. Moreover evolution also shows that
natural development took a wide variety of paths with most of them
leading to dead ends. No era is immune from repeating the mistakes of
the past.
Politicians often launch their careers using a topic that allows them
to stand out. Earlier as Minister of the Environment you legitimately
did this as well by assigning a high priority to climate change. But
in doing so you committed an error that has since led to much damage,
something that should have never happened, especially given the fact
you are a physicist. You confirmed that climate change is caused by
human activity and have made it a primary objective to implement
expensive strategies to reduce the so-called greenhouse gas CO2. You
have done so without first having a real discussion to check whether
early temperature measurements and a host of other climate related
facts even justify it.
A real comprehensive study, whose value would have been absolutely
essential, would have shown, even before the IPCC was founded, that
humans have had no measurable effect on global warming through CO2
emissions. Instead the temperature fluctuations have been within
normal ranges and are due to natural cycles. Indeed the atmosphere has
not warmed since 1998 – more than 10 years, and the global temperature
has even dropped significantly since 2003.
Not one of the many extremely expensive climate models predicted this.
According to the IPCC, it was supposed to have gotten steadily warmer,
but just the opposite has occurred.
More importantly, there's a growing body of evidence showing
anthropogenic CO2 plays no measurable role. Indeed CO2's capability to
absorb radiation is almost exhausted by today's atmospheric
concentrations. If CO2 did indeed have an effect and all fossil fuels
were burned, then additional warming over the long term would in fact
remain limited to only a few tenths of a degree.
The IPCC had to have been aware of this fact, but completely ignored
it during its studies of 160 years of temperature measurements and 150
years of determined CO2 levels. As a result the IPCC has lost its
scientific credibility. The main points on this subject are included
in the accompanying addendum.
In the meantime, the belief of climate change, and that it is manmade,
has become a pseudo-religion. Its proponents, without thought, pillory
independent and fact-based analysts and experts, many of whom are the
best and brightest of the international scientific community.
Fortunately in the internet it is possible to find numerous scientific
works that show in detail there is no anthropogenic CO2 caused climate
change. If it was not for the internet, climate realists would hardly
be able to make their voices heard. Rarely do their critical views get
published.
The German media has sadly taken a leading position in refusing to
publicize views that are critical of anthropogenic global warming. For
example, at the second International Climate Realist Conference on
Climate in New York last March, approximately 800 leading scientists
attended, some of whom are among the world's best climatologists or
specialists in related fields. While the US media and only the Wiener
Zeitung (Vienna daily) covered the event, here in Germany the press,
public television and radio shut it out. It is indeed unfortunate how
our media have developed - under earlier dictatorships the media were
told what was not worth reporting. But today they know it without
getting instructions.
Do you not believe, Madam Chancellor, that science entails more than
just confirming a hypothesis, but also involves testing to see if the
opposite better explains reality? We strongly urge you to reconsider
your position on this subject and to convene an impartial panel for
the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, one that is free of
ideology, and where controversial arguments can be openly debated. We
the undersigned would very much like to offer support in this regard.
Respectfully yours,
Prof. Dr.rer.nat. Friedrich-Karl Ewert EIKE
Diplom-Geologe
Universität. - GH - Paderborn, Abt. Höxter (ret.)
#
Dr. Holger Thuß
EIKE President
European Institute for Climate and Energy
http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/
Signed by
Scientists
1 Prof. Dr.Ing. Hans-Günter Appel
2 Prof. Dr. hab. Dorota Appenzeller Professor of Econometrics and
Applied Mathematics, Vice Dean University Poznan, Poland
3 Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Bachmann Former Director of the Institute for
Vibration Engineering, FH Düsseldorf
4 Prof. Dr. Hans Karl Barth Managing Director World Habitat Society
GmbH - Environmental Services
5 Dipl. Biologist Ernst Georg Beck
6 Dr. rer.nat. Horst Borchert Physicist
7 Dipl. Biol. Helgo Bran Former BW parliamentarian Green Party
8 Prof. Dr. rer. nat. Gerhard Buse Bio-chemist
9 Dr.Ing Ivo Busko German Center for Aviation and Aeronautics e.V.
10 Dr.Ing Gottfried Class Nuclear Safety, Thermo-hydraulics
11 Dr.Ing Urban Cleve Nuclear physicist, thermodynamics energy
specialist
12 Dr.-Ing Rudolf-Adolf Dietrich Energy expert
13 Dipl.-Ing. Peter Dietze IPCC Expert Reviewer TAR
14 Dr. rer. nat Siegfried Dittrich Physical chemist
15 Dr. Theo Eichten Physicist
16 Ferroni Ferruccio Zurich President NIPCC-SUISSE
17 Dr. sc.agr. Albrecht Glatzle Agricultural biologist, Director
científico INTTAS, Paraguay
18 Dr. rer. nat. Klaus-Jürgen Goldmann Geologist
19 Dr. rer. nat. Josef Große-Wördem Physical chemist
20 Dipl. Geologist Heinisch Heinisch
21 Dr. rer.nat. Horst Herman Chemist
22 Prof. Dr. Hans-Jürgen Hinz Former University of Münster Institute
for Physical Chemistry
23 Dipl. Geologist Andreas Hoemann Geologist
24 Dipl. Geologist Siegfried Holler
25 Dr. rer.nat. Heinz Hug Chemiker
26 Dr. rer. nat. Bernd Hüttner Theoretical Physicist
27 Prof. Dr. Werner Kirstein Institute for Geography University
Leipzig
28 Dipl. Meteorologe Klaus Knüpffer METEO SERVICE weather research
GmbH
29 Dr. rer. hort. Werner Köster
30 Dr. rer.nat. Albert Krause Chemist
31 Drs. Hans Labohm IPCC AR4 Expert Reviewer Dipl. Business / science
journalist
32 Dr. Rainer Link Physicist
33 Dipl. Physicist Alfred Loew
34 Prof. Dr. Physicist Horst-Joachim Lüdecke University for
Engineering and business of Saarland
35 Prof. Dr. Horst Malberg University professor em. Meteorology and
Climatology / Former Director of the Institute for Meteorology of the
University of Berlin
36 Dr. rer.nat Wolfgang Monninger Geologist
37 Dipl. Meteorologist Dieter Niketta
38 Prof. Dr. Klemens Oekentorp Former director of the Geological-
Paleolontology Museum of the Westphalia Wilhelms-University Münster
39 Dr. Helmut Pöltelt Energy expert
40 Dipl. Meteorologist Klaus-Eckart Puls Meteorologist
41 Prof. Dr. Klaas Rathke Polytechnic OWL Dept. Höxter
42 rof. Dr.-Ing. Sc. D. Helmut Reihlen Director of the DIN German
Institute for
Standards and Norms i.R.
43 Prof. Dr. Oliver Reiser University of Regensburg
44 Dipl. Physicist Wolfgang Riede Physicists ETH
45 Dipl.- Mineralogist Sabine Sauerberg Geoscientist
46 Prof. Jochen Schnetger Chemist
47 Prof. Dr. Sigurd Schulien University instructor
48 Dr. rer.nat. Franz Stadtbäumer Geologist
49 Dr. rer.nat. Gerhard Stehlik Physical chemist
50 Dipl. Ing. (BA) Norman Stoer System administrator
51 Dr. rer.nat.habil Lothar Suntheim Chemist
52 Dipl.-Ing. Heinz Thieme Technical assessor
53 Dr. phil. Dipl. Wolfgang Thüne Mainz Ministry of Environment
Meteorologist
54 Dr. rer. oec. Ing. Dietmar Ufer Energy economist, Institute for
Energy
Leipzig
55 Prof. Dr. Detlef von Hofe Former managing director of the DVS
56 Dipl Geographist Heiko Wiese Meteorologist
57 Dr.rer.nat. Erich Wiesner Euro Geologist
58 Dr.rer.nat. Ullrich Wöstmann Geologist
59 Prof. em. Dr. Heinz Zöttl Soil Sciences
60 Dr.rer.nat. Zucketto Chemist
61 Dr. rer.nat. Ludwig Laus Geologist
[End Translation of full German scientist letter]
#
erschro...@gmail.com
> Full Text of Translated Letter By 60 plus German Scientists: - German
> version available here. (emphasis added):
>
> Open Letter – Climate Change
>
> Bundeskanzleramt
> Frau Bundeskanzerlin Dr. Angela Merkel
> Willy-Brandt-Strabe 1
> 10557 Berlin
> #
> Vizerprasident Dipl. Ing. Michael Limburg 14476 Grob Glienicke Richard-
> Wagner-Str. 5a
Wrote a book: Rock Grouting: With Emphasis on Dam Sites
Really a climate scientist there.
> EIKE
> Diplom-Geologe
> Universität. - GH - Paderborn, Abt. Höxter (ret.)
> #
> Dr. Holger Thuß
> EIKE President
> European Institute for Climate and Energy
>
> http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/
> Signed by
> Scientists
> 1 Prof. Dr.Ing. Hans-Günter Appel
> 2 Prof. Dr. hab. Dorota Appenzeller Professor of Econometrics and
> Applied Mathematics, Vice Dean University Poznan, Poland
> 3 Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Bachmann Former Director of the Institute for
> Vibration Engineering, FH Düsseldorf
> 4 Prof. Dr. Hans Karl Barth Managing Director World Habitat Society
> GmbH - Environmental Services
"World Habitat Society GmbH, WHS, is a business start-up from the
University of Paderborn. The team of WHS is assembled from
geographers, cartographers, ecologists, tourism professionals,
computer scientists, journalists and other keen thinkers."
Hey, you've got a bunch of Inhofe's list. Wonder how many are
creationists like him too?
Here's a comment on your "list":
Typical denier list. Let’s see who’s on it:
Professor of Econometrics and Applied Mathematics
Former Director of the Institute for Vibration Engineering
Managing Director World Habitat Society GmbH – Environmental Services
Dipl. Biologist
Physicist (hey they got one physicist!)
Former BW parliamentarian
Bio-chemist
German Center for Aviation and Aeronautics
Nuclear Safety, Thermo-hydraulics
Nuclear physicist, thermodynamics energy specialist
Energy expert
20% of the way through the list and at most they got 1 guy who might
have some level of expertise in climate science.
Reminds me of the Oregon Petition and Inhofe’s list. A bunch of non-
experts signing a piece of paper. Big freaking whoop. Seriously, is
some random list and Watts’ debunked garbage the best you can do?
http://www.dirkbradshaw.com/?p=13762
tunderbar
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
It's all good. Nice try though.
Desertphile
<tdco...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Full Text of Translated Letter By 60 plus German Scientists: - German
> version available here. (emphasis added):
>
> Open Letter – Climate Change
Germany science organizations that say humans caused global
climate change:
- Alfred Wegener Institute, Bremerhaven
- Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research, Research
Unit Potsdam
- Bundesanstalt für Geowissenschaften und Rohstoffe (BGR),
Hannover
- Centre for Environmental Research Leipzig-Halle Ltd. (UFZ),
Department of Hydrogeology, Research Group of Palaeoclimatology,
Halle
- Center for Marine Environmental Sciences, University of Bremen,
Bremen
- Center for Tropical Marine Ecology (ZMT), Bremen
- Climate Dynamics and Landscape Evolution, Potsdam
- Department of Geography, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg
- Department of Geosciences, University of Bremen, Bremen
- Fachbereich Geowissenschaften, Universität Bremen, Bremen
- Faculty for Physics and Geoscience, Institute for Geophysics and
Geology, University of Leipzig, Leipzig
- Forschungsstelle Radiometrie, Heidelberger Akademie der
Wissenschaften, Heidelberg
- GeoConsult Rein, Oppenheim
- GeoForschungsZentrum, Potsdam
- GEOMAR Research Center for Marine Geosciences, Kiel
- German Advisory Council on Global Change
- German Research Centre for Geosciences, Potsdam
- Heidelberg Academy of Sciences, Institute of Environmental
Physics, University of Heidelberg
- Heidelberg Academy of Sciences, MPI fur Kernphysik,
Saupfercheckweg, Heidelberg
- Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, Heidelberg
- IFM-GEOMAR, Kiel
- Institut für Geowissenschaften, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität
Mainz, Mainz
- Institut für Geowissenschaften, Universitat Kiel, Kiel
- Institute of Geological Sciences, Freie Universitat Berlin,
Berlin
- Institute for Geology, Technical University for Mining and
Technology, Freiberg
- Institute for Geosciences, University of Mainz, Mainz
- Institute of Geography, Stuttgart
- Institut und Museum für Geologie und Paläontologie, Universität
Göttingen, Göttingen
- Leibniz Institute for Baltic Sea Research, Warnemunde
- Meteorologisches Institut, Universitat Hamburg, Hamburg
- Potsdam-Institut fur Klimafolgen-forschung, Potsdam
- Research Centre Julich, Sedimentary Systems, Julich
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
"I can't wait till next year when the house starts un funding the EPA!" -- Nutcase in alt.global-warming
Desertphile
More silence from "tunderbar." LOL!
spudnik
who don't happen to be cyberclimatologists (or,
what I occaisionally refer to as the Rectal Display Unit .-)
thus:
by etymology -- just rip that page out
of your OE under E -- you certainly are a part
of that conspiracy, as am I.
doctor Morner seems to be quite qualified as an observer
of tide gauges & such, so why don't you link to one
of his essays at http://21stcenturysciencetech.com?
thus: I'd never read of "geothermal wells going cold," although
I had thought of it. anyway, every technology has so
many problems, that none can be panaceas ... go
to the Netherlands U. and ask about the problems
of windpower ... and what is the bottomline power-factor
for wind & drag with respect to delta-velocity -- that is,
show the elements of the aerodynamical proof.
thus: I just, that there are no datasets that show global (or
"overall") warming, based on the few that i happened
to have studied in the literature; that is,
show me, if otherwise, using a truly comprehensive,
possibly raw time-series.
thus: an indicator of the cyclicity of vulcanism,
with respect to the ~100Kyear cycle of glaciation
in the Quaternary Period, is the rather regular formations
of the Basin and Range in the southwest USA,
which of course includes the Sierra Nevada.
thus: let's take these potential controversies (or conspiracies, iff
you're part of the Believerist or Denierist factions) in order.
for students of the Quaternary Period, Sun is the greatest
factor in (at least) the timing of the interglacials, "you are/were
here."
clearly, volcanoes are the greatest emmitters of several kinds
of substances, possible including FreonsTM.
as for the actual "import" of CO2 emmissions, maybe
that guy who was fired by NASA for supposedly not conforming
to the '70s NSF mandate [*] on the *soi-dissant* parity
of "cooling" and "warming" -- according to a bizarre,
commonplace, and totally naieve interpretation
of Svente Ahrrenius' 1896 coinage of "glass house effects,"
for which he gave no model of any glass house
at any particular lattitude, and you didn't either (a-hem,
mister or ms. climataologist/computerscientist).
(I like Emacs .-)
> Sun Worshippers Say "It's The Sun! It's The Sun" "No It's Not! It's Not
> Happening" "Maybe It Is Happening, But It's Volcanoes" "It's A Big
> Socialist Lie!!" "Peer Reeview Is A Conspiracy!" "More Carbon Is Good For
> Us" "Carbon Emissions Are Harmless!" "It's Not Happening And It's
> Volcanoes"
--les ducs d'oil sont Beyondeesh Peak-petroleumeeshTM
avec Henry "Capitan Taxx, serving the hedge-fund industry since '91"
Waxmann,
my Congressman from SoCal!... http://tarpley.net
--Lumiere, Un Histoire!
http://wlym.com
--Machiavelli vs. Aristotle
The troubles of that time included the war of the Papacy against the
sovereignty of the Republic of Florence. Out of this, an important,
but not top-ranking Florentine official of credentials related to
those of such heirs of Nicholas of Cusa as Leonardo da Vinci, Niccolo
Machiavelli, emerged to become the leading strategic thinker of
Sixteenth-century Europe. Machiavelli's influence as the virtual
founder of modern military strategy, fostered the design of forms of
resistance to the Habsburg tyranny which obstructed and drained the
efforts of the Habsburgs, a frustration leading into the stubborn,
but, speaking practically, failed Council of Trent.
http://larouchepub.com/lar/2010/3749pre_what_makes_sense.html
Last Post
wrote:
> In message <4d03828...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, nonononononononoonoo b o
> <x...@yzx.com> writes
>
> >Full Text of Translated Letter By 60 plus German Scientists: - German
> >version available here. (emphasis added):
>
ø What is a "climatologist"
It is a make believe title.
> I'll go with the 97% of climate experts who say that AGW is happening:
ø Indeed Sapient Putz your 97% is exactly 52
including politicians, and some that might be
behind bars in a few years
Ø The issue is really irrelevant.
Nobody can control the wind
Nobody can control the rain or snow
Nobody can control climate.
Global temps are within natural variations.
Oceans heating are a prelude to glaciation.
Get used to it!!
— —
| In real science the burden of proof is always
| on the proposer, never on the skeptics. So far
| neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
| iota of valid data for global warming nor have
| they provided data that climate change is being
| effected by commerce and industry, and not by
| natural causes.
spudnik
by humans & otherwise, but not the misnomer, or
nonsequiter, or oxymoron of "global" warming ...
a fundamental ****-up of Ahrrenius' 1896 mere coinage,
glass house gasses -- pretty much all of them, anyway.
we are defintely abetting the change of climate!
Sapient Fridge
<01c46fe9-5b6f-41c5...@p1g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, Last
Post <last...@primus.ca> writes
>On Dec 11, 10:39 am, Sapient Fridge <use_reply_addr...@spamsights.org>
>wrote:
>> In message <4d03828...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, nonononononononoonoo b o
>> <x...@yzx.com> writes
>>
>> >Full Text of Translated Letter By 60 plus German Scientists: - German
>> >version available here. (emphasis added):
>>
>> Most of whom aren't climatologists
>
>ø What is a "climatologist"
> It is a make believe title.
Words have to start somewhere :-) I should have said meteorologist
>> I'll go with the 97% of climate experts who say that AGW is happening:
>
>ø Indeed Sapient Putz your 97% is exactly 52
> including politicians, and some that might be
> behind bars in a few years
Ooh, insults and lies instead of science. What a master debater you
are.
>Ø The issue is really irrelevant.
> Nobody can control the wind
> Nobody can control the rain or snow
> Nobody can control climate.
>
> Global temps are within natural variations.
>
> Oceans heating are a prelude to glaciation.
>
>0
Got any science to back that up?
Let's look at a previous AGW denier prediction, from 2008:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23583376-5013480,00.html
"Disconcerting as it may be to true believers in global warming, the average temperature on Earth has remained steady or slowly declined during the
past decade, despite the continued increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, and now the global temperature is falling
precipitously."
So how did that prediction work out then?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/28/global-temperatures-2010-record
"Global warming pushes 2010 temperatures to record highs"
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100616134641.htm
"May 2010 Global Temperature Is Warmest on Record; Spring and January-May Also Post Record Breaking Temps"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/12/2010-global-temperatures-a-dea.shtml
"2010 Global temperatures 'a dead heat' with 1998"
Not so well. In fact the prediction was completely wrong.
--
sapient_...@spamsights.org ICQ #17887309 * Save the net *
Grok: http://spam.abuse.net http://www.cauce.org * nuke a spammer *
Find: http://www.samspade.org http://www.netdemon.net * today *
Kill: http://mail-abuse.com http://au.sorbs.net http://spamhaus.org
k...@kymhorsell.com
> In message
> <01c46fe9-5b6f-41c5...@p1g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, Last
> Post <last...@primus.ca> writes
>> Nobody can control the wind
>> Nobody can control the rain or snow
>> Nobody can control climate.
>> Global temps are within natural variations.
>> Oceans heating are a prelude to glaciation.
Maybe "nobody can control the climate" is partly the point even
though as it's used it tries to confuse control and responsibility-for.
While even climate-change skeptics agree that human agency
can *change* the climate, I think it's reasonable to say
the changes are not controlled.
Even taking some actions now is not guaranteed to stop the trends
that have been set in motion, let alone settle things back to
where they were in 1850 or where they would have been not if co2
levels hadn't been almost doubled by human activities.
An old "it isn't human activity" also hinged on the difference between
control and "uncontrol". GW can't be in any way due to human agency,
so the argument went, because to be that it would be possible to
reverse the change via human agency (and the implication being that
was not possible).
Of course, if you try to say to the judge "I could not have murdered
the deceased, m'ld, because if I had I surely would be able to
re-animate the corpse" that might not work as a defence. Maybe
evidence for an instanity plee.
--
[Make my case for me please:]
[...] I want you to acknowledge that AGW is only one possible reason
for temperature increase, out of a number of possible reasons.
-- No Pressure <no.pressu...@gmail.com>, 7 Dec 2010 02:31:55 -0800
Sapient Fridge
<use_repl...@spamsights.org> writes
>In message
><01c46fe9-5b6f-41c5...@p1g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
>Last Post <last...@primus.ca> writes
>>On Dec 11, 10:39 am, Sapient Fridge <use_reply_addr...@spamsights.org>
>>wrote:
>>> In message <4d03828...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, nonononononononoonoo b o
>>> <x...@yzx.com> writes
>>>
>>> >Full Text of Translated Letter By 60 plus German Scientists: - German
>>> >version available here. (emphasis added):
>>>
>>> Most of whom aren't climatologists
>>
>>ø What is a "climatologist"
>> It is a make believe title.
>
>Words have to start somewhere :-) I should have said meteorologist
Actually I retract that, you are talking a load of bollocks as usual.
The correct word *is* climatologist:
http://www.agriculture.purdue.edu/usda/careers/climatologist.html
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-does-a-climatologist-do.htm
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/climatologist
Last Post
wrote:
> In message
> <01c46fe9-5b6f-41c5-86e5-6946af830...@p1g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, Last
> Post <last_p...@primus.ca> writes
>
> >On Dec 11, 10:39 am, Sapient Fridge <use_reply_addr...@spamsights.org>
> >wrote:
> >> In message <4d03828...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, nonononononononoonoo b o
> >> <x...@yzx.com> writes
>
> >> >Full Text of Translated Letter By 60 plus German Scientists: - German
> >> >version available here. (emphasis added):
>
> >> Most of whom aren't climatologists
>
> > It is a make believe title.
>
> Words have to start somewhere :-) I should have said meteorologist
ø Nonsense.
>
> >> I'll go with the 97% of climate experts who say that AGW is happening:
>
> > Indeed Sapient Putz your 97% is exactly 52
> > including politicians, and some that might be
> > behind bars in a few years
>
> Ooh, insults and lies instead of science. What a master debater you
ø Yes Putz, you are attempting to cover your
ignorance and idiocy with insults, but I am
flame proof. Check with the IPCC press
office for the number of scientists that
signed on to AP#4 or google
sci.environment or National Post
> > The issue is really irrelevant.
> > Nobody can control the wind
> > Nobody can control the rain or snow
> > Nobody can control climate.
>
> > Global temps are within natural variations.
>
> > Oceans heating are a prelude to glaciation.
>
> Got any science to back that up?
ø The historic evidence is there do your own home work.
>
> Let's look at a previous AGW denier prediction, from 2008:
>
> http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23583376-5013480,0...
>
> "Disconcerting as it may be to true believers in
global warming, the average temperature on
Earth has remained steady or slowly declined
during the past decade, despite the continued
increase in the atmospheric concentration of
carbon dioxide, and now the global temperature
is falling precipitously."
>
> So how did that prediction work out then?
ø No prediction, it is right on target.
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/28/global-temperatures...
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100616134641.htp
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/12/2010-global-temperature...
ø The above 3 only post AGW propaganda
>
> "2010 Global temperatures 'a dead heat' with 1998"
>
ø Not so well. In fact the prediction was completely wrong.
1998 was not as warm as 1934 and possibly much cooler.
In spite of the work of Hansen, Schmidt, Jones, NOAA etc.
Global temps are declining steadily — not like the artificial
NOAA co2 curve, zig zagging naturally but generally down.
ø The last interglacial period ended 1,500 years ago and we
are in the last countdown to reglaciation. I expect the polar
ice to begin creeping slowly toward the Equator
somewhere after 2020 and before 2100.
—— ——
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.˙
Last Post
> In sci.skeptic Sapient Fridge <use_reply_addr...@spamsights.org> wrote:> In message
> > <01c46fe9-5b6f-41c5-86e5-6946af830...@p1g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, Last
> > Post <last_p...@primus.ca> writes
> ...
> >> Nobody can control the wind
> >> Nobody can control the rain or snow
> >> Nobody can control climate.
> >> Global temps are within natural variations.
> >> Oceans heating are a prelude to glaciation.
> > Got any science to back that up?
>
> ...
>
> Maybe "nobody can control the climate" is partly the point even
> though as it's used it tries to confuse control and responsibility-for.
ø If you can control you are responsible
>
> While even climate-change skeptics agree that human agency
> can *change* the climate, I think it's reasonable to say
> the changes are not controlled.
ø Not_in_any_way_ true!
>
> Even taking some actions now is not guaranteed to stop the trends
> that have been set in motion, let alone settle things back to
> where they were in 1850
Preindustrial CO2
CO2 levels between 1820 and 1850 exceed
anything recorded since 1960
1950 level = 500 ppm
Link <FoS>
or where they would have been not if co2
> levels hadn't been almost doubled by human activities.
ø
even if co2
>
> An old "it isn't human activity" also hinged on the difference between
> control and "uncontrol". GW can't be in any way due to human agency,
> so the argument went, because to be that it would be possible to
> reverse the change via human agency (and the implication being that
> was not possible).
>
> Of course, if you try to say to the judge "I could not have murdered
> the deceased, m'ld, because if I had I surely would be able to
> re-animate the corpse" that might not work as a defence. Maybe
> evidence for an instanity plee.
>
> --
> [Make my case for me please:]
> [...] I want you to acknowledge that AGW is only one possible reason
> for temperature increase, out of a number of possible reasons.
> -- No Pressure <no.pressure.at....@gmail.com>, 7 Dec 2010 02:31:55 -0800
Last Post
Corrected post
> ...
ø Not_in_any_way_ true!
Preindustrial CO2
Link <FoS>
ø even if co2 was tripled there would be no
thermal effect
> An old "it isn't human activity" also hinged on the difference
between
> control and "uncontrol". GW can't be in any way due to human
agency,
> > so the argument went, because to be that it would be possible to
> > reverse the change via human agency (and the implication being that
> > was not possible).
ø It is not humanly possible
>
>
> > [Make my case for me please:]
> > [...] I want you to acknowledge that AGW is only one possible reason
> > for temperature increase, out of a number of possible reasons.
> > -- No Pressure <no.pressure.at....@gmail.com>, 7 Dec 2010 02:31:55 -0800
ø AGW can in no way affect global temperatures.
ø Global warming is a myth and does not exist. On
the other hand "Climate Change" is functioning
as it has for 5 million years or more.
—— ——
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.
Absorption_by_the_bulk_of_the_other_gases_is_negligible.
Sapient Fridge
<e885104c-c6d5-45a1...@j25g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
Last Post <last...@primus.ca> writes
>On Dec 12, 2:23 am, Sapient Fridge <use_reply_addr...@spamsights.org>
>wrote:
>> In message
>> <01c46fe9-5b6f-41c5-86e5-6946af830...@p1g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, Last
>> Post <last_p...@primus.ca> writes
>>
>> >On Dec 11, 10:39 am, Sapient Fridge <use_reply_addr...@spamsights.org>
>> >wrote:
>> >> In message <4d03828...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, nonononononononoonoo b o
>> >> <x...@yzx.com> writes
>>
>> >> >Full Text of Translated Letter By 60 plus German Scientists: - German
>> >> >version available here. (emphasis added):
>>
>> >> Most of whom aren't climatologists
>>
>> > What is a "climatologist"
>> > It is a make believe title.
>>
>> Words have to start somewhere :-) I should have said meteorologist
>
>ø Nonsense.
Actually I was correct originally, the word *is* climatologist:
http://www.agriculture.purdue.edu/usda/careers/climatologist.html
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-does-a-climatologist-do.htm
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/climatologist
>> >> I'll go with the 97% of climate experts who say that AGW is happening:
>>
>> > Indeed Sapient Putz your 97% is exactly 52
>> > including politicians, and some that might be
>> > behind bars in a few years
>>
>> Ooh, insults and lies instead of science. What a master debater you
>
>ø Yes Putz, you are attempting to cover your
> ignorance and idiocy with insults,
You are the one throwing ignorance and insults. I see no science in
your posts, none at all. At least I back up what I say with links and
references, you just produce insults and unsupported assertions. Just
like the creationists.
> but I am
> flame proof. Check with the IPCC press
> office for the number of scientists that
> signed on to AP#4 or google
> sci.environment or National Post
>
>> > The issue is really irrelevant.
>> > Nobody can control the wind
>> > Nobody can control the rain or snow
>> > Nobody can control climate.
>>
>> > Global temps are within natural variations.
>>
>> > Oceans heating are a prelude to glaciation.
>>
>> Got any science to back that up?
>
>ø The historic evidence is there do your own home work.
So you haven't got anything to back it up with? I thought not.
>> Let's look at a previous AGW denier prediction, from 2008:
>>
>> http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23583376-5013480,0...
>>
>> "Disconcerting as it may be to true believers in
> global warming, the average temperature on
> Earth has remained steady or slowly declined
> during the past decade, despite the continued
> increase in the atmospheric concentration of
> carbon dioxide, and now the global temperature
> is falling precipitously."
>>
>> So how did that prediction work out then?
>
>ø No prediction, it is right on target.
Got anything to back that up? Nope, I thought not. Again.
>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/28/global-temperatures...
>> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100616134641.htp
>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/12/2010-global-temperature...
>
>ø The above 3 only post AGW propaganda
So you think the worlds climatologists are now lying about the 2010
global temperature? I think you need some evidence for your pathetic
conspiracy theories.
>> "2010 Global temperatures 'a dead heat' with 1998"
>>
>ø Not so well. In fact the prediction was completely wrong.
> 1998 was not as warm as 1934 and possibly much cooler.
> In spite of the work of Hansen, Schmidt, Jones, NOAA etc.
> Global temps are declining steadily — not like the artificial
> NOAA co2 curve, zig zagging naturally but generally down.
Nope, 1998 was the hottest year on record - except for 2010. Do some
research.
>ø The last interglacial period ended 1,500 years ago and we
> are in the last countdown to reglaciation. I expect the polar
> ice to begin creeping slowly toward the Equator
> somewhere after 2020 and before 2100.
Yeh right. Got any science to back that up?
Nope, it's yet another unsupported assertion. You're full of it.