American Physical Society destroys the consensus
Alim Nassor
Here's an excerpt...
The American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly
50,000 physicists, has reversed its stance on climate change and is
now proclaiming that many of its members disbelieve in human-induced
global warming. The APS is also sponsoring public debate on the
validity of global warming science. The leadership of the society had
previously called the evidence for global warming "incontrovertible."
Tom Gardner
"Alim Nassor" <alimn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:574cfe13-7b86-459c...@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Obviously, Exxon got to them! Their families are being held hostage on drill
platforms.
john fernbach
wrote:
> "Alim Nassor" <alimnas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> Obviously, Exxon got to them! Their families are being held hostage on drill
> platforms.
It's interesting that the APS web site, which I accessed a few minutes
ago (shortly after midnight, EDT, July 18, 2008) explicitly denies
that the organization's position has changed.
To wit:
APS Climate Change Statement
APS Position Remains Unchanged
The American Physical Society reaffirms the following position on
climate change, adopted by its governing body, the APS Council, on
November 18, 2007:
"Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the
atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate."
An article at odds with this statement recently appeared in an online
newsletter of the APS Forum on Physics and Society, one of 39 units of
APS. The header of this newsletter carries the statement that
"Opinions expressed are those of the authors alone and do not
necessarily reflect the views of the APS or of the Forum." This
newsletter is not a journal of the APS and it is not peer reviewed.
Read: APS Climate Change Statement
To check the APS web site where the above appears, click here:
http://www.aps.org/
Tom Gardner
"john fernbach" <fernba...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fe8ccd70-3a37-4a2d...@z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 17, 11:44 pm, "Tom Gardner" <tom(spamless)@ohiobrush.com>
wrote:
> "Alim Nassor" <alimnas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> Obviously, Exxon got to them! Their families are being held hostage on drill
> platforms.
It's interesting that the APS web site, which I accessed a few minutes
ago (shortly after midnight, EDT, July 18, 2008) explicitly denies
that the organization's position has changed.
<snip>
****************************
Why is the AGW crowd thing that numbers of scientists = truth? I'll concede
when I here of a single scientist that doesn't work for somebody else.
Tom Gardner
"Tom Gardner" <tom(spamless)@ohiobrush.com> wrote in message
news:9hVfk.30477$co7....@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com...
"hear" not here
Earl Evleth
fe8ccd70-3a37-4a2d...@z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com, "john
fernbach" <fernba...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the
> atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate."
Note that that is a conservative statement since there is no comment
about the relative importance of human activity.
I am a member (for over 50 years) of the American Chemical Society.
`
They have stated, as an organization
"Careful and comprehensive scientific assessments have clearly demonstrated
that the Earth零 climate system is changing rapidly in response to growing
atmospheric burdens of greenhouse gases and absorbing aerosol particles
(IPCC, 2007). There is very little room for doubt that observed climate
trends are due to human activities. The threats are serious and action is
urgently needed to mitigate the risks of climate change."
The society's weekly magazine, Chemical and Engineering News has had
an global warming stance. This causes some irritation among some members
who are antis which is reflected in the "letters" to the editor.
Censensus? Hard to say among the rank and file. Even most scientists
are not that well informed on the facts.
The consensus issue is of main importance among those who work
and published I the area.
Earl Evleth
Gardner" <tomsp...@ohiobrush.com> wrote:
> I'll concede
> when I hear of a single scientist that doesn't work for somebody else.
Does being retired count. I work for nobody and my pension is not
dependent on anything but being alive.
Whata Fool
That part, considering the present measured temperature trend,
is called covering your butt,
but,
at the end, that link says,
"Update 7/17/2008: After publication of this story, the APS responded with
a statement that its Physics and Society Forum is merely one unit within
the APS, and its views do not reflect those of the Society at large."
That is called, covering your candle butt at both ends.
Green Turtle
news:574cfe13-7b86-459c...@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Wow...the only meltdown occurring it seems is "many" scientists that now
starting to speak out that they do NOT agree with AGW. That above article is
amazing and shows how AGW is falling apart.
We are seeing ever increasing numbers of educated people in the science
community now starting to speak out. And, almost every day new information
comes out shows no warming trend like the AGW models predicted.
This is starting to turn into a tailspin for AGW....
Some of these people NOW HAVE to speak out, or those associations will be in
for a VERY rough ride credibility wise here...
Super Turtle
f-newguy
"Green Turtle" <Super...@greenpiece.com> wrote in message
news:XA0gk.115429$gc5.96765@pd7urf2no...
> "Alim Nassor" <alimn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:574cfe13-7b86-459c...@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>> http://www.dailytech.com/Myth+of+Consensus+Explodes+APS+Opens+Global+Warming+Debate/article12403.htm
>>
>> Here's an excerpt...
>> The American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly
>> 50,000 physicists, has reversed its stance on climate change and is
>> now proclaiming that many of its members disbelieve in human-induced
>> global warming. The APS is also sponsoring public debate on the
>> validity of global warming science. The leadership of the society had
>> previously called the evidence for global warming "incontrovertible."
>>
>
> Wow...the only meltdown occurring it seems is "many" scientists that now
> starting to speak out that they do NOT agree with AGW. That above article
> is
> amazing and shows how AGW is falling apart.
It is one guy.
It is an opinion piece, not a research paper. It is not peer reviewed.
It was written by Lord "Haw-Haw" Monckton. He has been a denier for a long
time, so this is nothing new.
The American Physical Society's position has not changed. Read the intro.
Sorry to burst your fantasy bubble.
> We are seeing ever increasing numbers of educated people in the science
> community now starting to speak out.
No, you aren't.
Ouroboros_Rex
> "Alim Nassor" <alimn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:574cfe13-7b86-459c...@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>> http://www.dailytech.com/Myth+of+Consensus+Explodes+APS+Opens+Global+Warming+Debate/article12403.htm
>>
>> Here's an excerpt...
>> The American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly
>> 50,000 physicists, has reversed its stance on climate change and is
>> now proclaiming that many of its members disbelieve in human-induced
>> global warming. The APS is also sponsoring public debate on the
>> validity of global warming science. The leadership of the society
>> had previously called the evidence for global warming
>> "incontrovertible."
>
> Wow...the only meltdown occurring it seems is "many" scientists that
> now starting to speak out that they do NOT agree with AGW. That above
> article is amazing and shows how AGW is falling apart.
No, it's just a lie from a lie site.
Ouroboros_Rex
> "Tom Gardner" <tom(spamless)@ohiobrush.com> wrote in message
> news:9hVfk.30477$co7....@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com...
>>
>> "john fernbach" <fernba...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:fe8ccd70-3a37-4a2d...@z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>> On Jul 17, 11:44 pm, "Tom Gardner" <tom(spamless)@ohiobrush.com>
>> wrote:
>>> "Alim Nassor" <alimnas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>
>>> Obviously, Exxon got to them! Their families are being held hostage
>>> on drill platforms.
>>
>> It's interesting that the APS web site, which I accessed a few
>> minutes ago (shortly after midnight, EDT, July 18, 2008) explicitly
>> denies
>> that the organization's position has changed.
>> <snip>
>> ****************************
>>
>> Why is the AGW crowd thing that numbers of scientists = truth?
See 'oregon petition'. lol
Tom Gardner
"Earl Evleth" <evl...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:C4A62B06.13306C%evl...@wanadoo.fr...
Since you've retired, what active "work" are you doing? ...spoiling
grandchildren doesn't count.
To counter your position, I have a retired cousin that was a chemical engineer
(your field) and his opinions are contrary to yours. You are both convinced you
are in the right camp.
Lloyd
> http://www.dailytech.com/Myth+of+Consensus+Explodes+APS+Opens+Global+...
>
> Here's an excerpt...
> The American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly
> 50,000 physicists, has reversed its stance on climate change and is
> now proclaiming that many of its members disbelieve in human-induced
> global warming. The APS is also sponsoring public debate on the
> validity of global warming science. The leadership of the society had
> previously called the evidence for global warming "incontrovertible."
That's a total lie, as another post here proves.
Now the question is, are you stupid enough to believe this, or immoral
enough to post it knowing it's a lie?
Lloyd
> "Alim Nassor" <alimnas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:574cfe13-7b86-459c...@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> >http://www.dailytech.com/Myth+of+Consensus+Explodes+APS+Opens+Global+...
>
> > Here's an excerpt...
> > The American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly
> > 50,000 physicists, has reversed its stance on climate change and is
> > now proclaiming that many of its members disbelieve in human-induced
> > global warming. The APS is also sponsoring public debate on the
> > validity of global warming science. The leadership of the society had
> > previously called the evidence for global warming "incontrovertible."
>
> Wow...the only meltdown occurring it seems is "many" scientists that now
> starting to speak out that they do NOT agree with AGW.
List them.
>That above article is
> amazing and shows how AGW is falling apart.
Really? How many scientific organizations are on one side? Hint --
you can count them on the fingers of no hand.
>
> We are seeing ever increasing numbers of educated people in the science
> community now starting to speak out.
Lie.
>And, almost every day new information
> comes out shows no warming trend like the AGW models predicted.
>
Lie.
> This is starting to turn into a tailspin for AGW....
So surely you can come up with a scientific organization that
disbelieves it, right?
Earl Evleth
Gardner" <tomsp...@ohiobrush.com> wrote:
>> Does being retired count. I work for nobody and my pension is not
>> dependent on anything but being alive.
>>
> Since you've retired, what active "work" are you doing? ...spoiling
> grandchildren doesn't count.
I consider myself on permanent vacation.
I worked completely off of computers when I worked so that is what I fool
around with now. We are both in our 70s but my wife is still actively
professionally in history. I do some minor work setting her computer
up right, her manuscripts. She had two books published this year
and is revising an article and working on another. We are Americans
by birth, but hold French citizenship and she writes some things directly
in French. Fooling around in Paris is a full time activity in any case.
> To counter your position, I have a retired cousin that was a chemical engineer
> (your field) and his opinions are contrary to yours.
I am a chemist, not an chemical engineer. A "theoretical" chemist in the
sense that modeled things by computer. I had some research activity
in combustion and atmospheric chemistry
>You are both convinced you are in the right camp.
>
One of us is right.
Tom Gardner
Actually, I believe you both have some elements of what will eventually be
known as fact. Your science background must make you a bit skeptical of
either side knowing the complete story about such a complex system. I would
be so much more amiable to the AGW folks is they stated what they DON'T
know. Sadly, they know everything about everything down to how much tax to
charge on a cow fart.
f-newguy
"Tom Gardner" <tom(nospam)@ohiobrush.com> wrote in message
news:BU6gk.2297$zv7...@flpi143.ffdc.sbc.com...
Haven't read IPCC 4AR, have you?
Whata Fool
>On 18/07/08 18:30, in article xt3gk.14659$xZ....@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com, "Tom
>Gardner" <tomsp...@ohiobrush.com> wrote:
>
>>> Does being retired count. I work for nobody and my pension is not
>>> dependent on anything but being alive.
>>>
>
>> Since you've retired, what active "work" are you doing? ...spoiling
>> grandchildren doesn't count.
>
>I consider myself on permanent vacation.
>
>I worked completely off of computers when I worked so that is what I fool
>around with now.
Not another "computer programmer", it seems every AGW nut is
a has-been computer programmer, a worthless vocation since Bill Gates
and windows does all the programming now.
f-newguy
"Whata Fool" <wh...@fool.ami> wrote in message
news:srg284925ks5oa73g...@4ax.com...
Good grief.
Tom Gardner
"f-newguy" <wha...@didyousay.com> wrote in message
news:HrmdnXzfSJ4OkxzV...@supernews.com...
I don't think they have ANY credibility. Why do you think they are the end-all?
Earl Evleth
Gardner" <tomn...@ohiobrush.com> wrote:
> Actually, I believe you both have some elements of what will eventually be
> known as fact. Your science background must make you a bit skeptical of
> either side knowing the complete story about such a complex system.
The only area I find which is still unclear is the cloud-albedo problem.
I covered this in some comment a while back, last year.
The GHG issue is pretty well tied up in a nice logical package.
> I would be so much more amiable to the AGW folks is they stated
> what they DON'T know.
We often don't know what we don't know! Research often opens up
new avenues of research which were not part of the "forethought
process. When these open up we realize how ignorant we were.
A very mature research area often does not have many new
avenues of research. I don't think climate research
is anywhere near that.
> Sadly, they know everything about everything down to how much tax to
> charge on a cow fart.
I read about some work to changing the genetic makeup of the
bacteria involved in converting cellulose to sugars, plus
methane byproduct so that methane is not produced. In fact
it is surprising that nature does not exploit this high energy
molecule and metabolize it to CO2 and water. The other
great surprise is that the animal kingdom has never exploited
cellulose for its food value and leaves it up to bacteria.
Earl Evleth
"Whata Fool" <wh...@fool.ami> wrote:
>> I worked completely off of computers when I worked so that is what I fool
>> around with now.
>
>
> Not another "computer programmer", it seems every AGW nut is
> a has-been computer programmer, a worthless vocation since Bill Gates
> and windows does all the programming now.
I was never a hot programmer, I never wrote a several thousand
step program but did create Frankenstein monsters from existing
subprograms. I started in the early 1960s and only used
Fortran.
Next, Bill Gates was not into programming scientifically useful
programs. In fact my home computer does not have a Fortran
compiler, nor does it run on Unix, people like Gates
where into package system in which people did not have to
write programs, just use them.
Whata Fool
Tom Gardner
Cows actually derive much of their nutrition by digesting the bacteria in their
systems and these bacteria consume the cellulose in the fodder.
Whata Fool
Sure, MS never released a compiler, in a pigs eye.
And all the third party windows applications are not programs,
wow.
For those that don't know, the processor that Bill Gates did
write code for was the 8080A, which has a well organized instruction
set that can be easily memorized, and people were able to hand code
machine language from memory.
And then a program was written that would convert 8080A code
to 8086 code, and that made the transition easier.
AFAIK, there has been compilers for every language written for
the PC, whether MS developed them or bought them and distributed them,
or left some to third party vendors, I don't know.
Oh, don't tell me you don't have a PC?
Earl Evleth
Gardner" <tomsp...@ohiobrush.com> wrote:
> Cows actually derive much of their nutrition by digesting the bacteria in
> their
> systems and these bacteria consume the cellulose in the fodder.
>
Correct in part, they don't exactly digest the bacteria. Man also
contains, numerically more cells of intestinal bacteria
than own cells in our body. Bacteria cells are smaller
so the total mass does not exceed our cell mass!
To the bacteria in cows develop and do their work
without being destroyed.
But our guts are good homes for bacteria and they are
beneficial.
Our digestive systems can break down starches which
are polymeric sugars also. Bacteria are plants and
have cellulous cell wall materials. The mystery of
the animal kingdom is not developing the enzymes
to depolymerize cellulose to yield sugars. If we
had those in our system we could know on logs and
be content at least for our carbohydrate needs.
kdt...@yahoo.com
That is funny, Lloyd. Being a complete illiterate in mathematics as we
have completly proved here, it is not possible to explain to you that
people do not believe in commune. Individuals believe, and dishonest
and illiterate individuals 'believe' in anthropogenic global warming.
The greenie weenies are alot like the 'borg' on Star Trek, and only
think and speak in communal phrases and propaganda slogans.
According to the mental disease of AGW, anyone who disagrees is
incompetent or taking bribes from Exxon. Therefore their scientific
analysis can be ignored.
Here is a compilation of scientific papers to be ignored. Of course
the greenie weenies can relax, since they believe any dissent is
dishonest and done for the purpose of making Exxon rich.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb
If there were a solid scientific base, there would not be the
arguement about who believes, and what scientific organizations
'believe'.
Actual science does not depend upon the beliefs of those involved in
the political and personal aggrandizement of scientific organizations
who always keep their eye on the important thing which is their
funding.
Someday, facts will be determined in a proper courtroom, instead of
this constant referal to what scientists 'believe'.
The problem with AGW is in it's initial theoretical basis in regards
to energy recieved, and energy lost by the earth. This is called,
'energy budget' by the greenie weenies. It is depicted by Kiehl and
Trenberth, (Dancin Hansens boys), that the 'grenhouse gases' absorb
around 125Wm-2 and that clouds reflect back to earth another 25 or 30
Wm-2 to make the 160Wm-2 that supposedly brings the earth from about
0F (230Wm-2), to 57F (390Wm-2). This is utter nonsense. Do the math.
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/abstracts/files/kevin1997_1.html
1Wm-2 means 1 Joule per second of radiation energy traveling at the
velocity of light. Visible light and radiation from the sun are
traveling at c. Therefore outgoing radiation energy MUST TRAVEL AT THE
VELOCITY OF LIGHT in leaving the system in order for their to be a
balance and consistent temperature. Otherwise energy would accrue at
the rate of how many Joules per second are retained.
Earth radius about 6400 kilometers.
Mass of atmosphere about 10^21 grams.
This means that 1Wm-2 of retained radiation energy would be roughly
the equivelent.of the heat capacity of the entire atmosphere for 1degC
being retained in about 120 days. 4Wm-2 should raise the temperature
of the entire atmosphere in about 30 days.
So according to Kiehl and Trenberth and their cartoon, the retention
of calories in the incoming radiation should be increasing the
temperature of the atmosphere by 1degC in less than a day, since the
grenhouse gases supposedly stop outgoing radiation of 160 Joules per
second factored over the entire surface area of the earth.
THE CASE OF AGW IS SO HOAKY, A VALID ANALYSIS IS VERY DIFFICULT TO
BEGIN.
The organizations of scientists that allow this provable fraud of
greenhouse gases retaining energy and warming the earth as is depicted
in this state of the art theoretical depiction shall at some point
lose their accreditation and may also be sent to prison. This is a
simple fact. It may be only after the insane greenie weenies get their
way and destroy our economy, as their 'god' algore is so intent upon
doing. It can be clearly proved that they are incompetent at the
least, or guilty of direct and deliberate fraud.
KDeatherage
The ship of fools of the believers in AGW sails on,,,,
Next stop, the marina on 'No Paddle Island', up shit creek.
Kurt Lochner
.
>Being a complete illiterate in mathematics as we
With your previous "formulae" of "P/V=nRT", you meant?
--See subject header for details..
Sri Bodhi Prana
> > > >http://www.dailytech.com/Myth+of+Consensus+Explodes+APS+Opens+Global+...
>
> > > > Here's an excerpt...
> > > > The American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly
> > > > 50,000 physicists, has reversed its stance on climate change and is
> > > > now proclaiming that many of its members disbelieve in human-induced
> > > > global warming. The APS is also sponsoring public debate on the
> > > > validity of global warming science. The leadership of the society had
> > > > previously called the evidence for global warming "incontrovertible."
Wrong. The APS has not changed its stance. The "Daily Tech" fell for
that one hook, line and sinker. Here is the official position of the
American Physical Society:
http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm
"Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the
atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases
include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other
gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of
industrial and agricultural processes.
The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no
mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s
physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human
health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse
gases beginning now.
Because the complexity of the climate makes accurate prediction
difficult, the APS urges an enhanced effort to understand the effects
of human activity on the Earth’s climate, and to provide the
technological options for meeting the climate challenge in the near
and longer terms. The APS also urges governments, universities,
national laboratories and its membership to support policies and
actions that will reduce the emission of greenhouse gases."
Sri Bodhi Prana
Tom Gardner
What is the state of making commercially viable enzyme production? Your
statement that bacteria are plants with cellulous walls is not really correct,
the cell walls in non-plant bacteria are actually composed of amino acids and
peptidoglycan surrounded by a phospholipid membrane...this is not cellulous but
more along the lines of protein. Plant cell walls are composed of cellulous,
perhaps that's what you were thinking of.
kdt...@yahoo.com
> kdth...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > THE CASE OF AGW IS SO HOAKY, A VALID ANALYSIS IS VERY DIFFICULT TO
> > BEGIN.
>
> SI units of hoakyons. Do try harder next time, we need more laughyons.
The radius of the earth is 6400 km giving a surface area of 5.15 x
10^14 sq meters by 4pir^2.
1Wm-2 therefore for the entire surface area is 5.15 E14 Joules per
second.
The atmosphere is calculated to be 5.3 x 10^21 grams
Dry air has the heat capacity of 29 Joules per mole per degree C.
Air, 80% N2 and 20% O2 has the molar weight of about 29 grams.
5.3E21 divided by 29 grams equals 1.82E20 moles.
1.82E20 moles at 29 Joules per mole per degree =
5.3E21 Joules, heat capacity or the heat energy that must be absorbed
in order for this total mass to raise it's temperature 1degC.
5.3E21 Joules divided by 5.15E14 Joules per second = 1.0E9 seconds
1,0E9 seconds divided by 3600 seconds in an hour, divided by 24 hours
in 1 day = 115.7 days
Of course this is a rough figuring of the actual heat to raise the
temperature of the atmosphere since most of the atmosphere is within 8
kilometers or so of the suface.
Mathematically illiterate greenie weenies and their organizations of
'scientists' that believe, will lose their accreditation for their
failure to critique and reject the HOAKY theoretical conjectures of
Dancin Hansen and his little underlings that must report their false
findings in favor of his postulate of AGW. This is a simple fact of
life which cannot be changed.
KDeatherage
The ship of fools of the believers in anthropogenic global warming
sails on,,,
Next stop, the marina on No Paddle Island, up Shit Creek
V for Vendicar
Rumor Debunked: No Flip-Flop on Global Warming Andrea Thompson
Senior Writer
LiveScience.com
Fri Jul 18, 2:10 PM ET
Claims are floating around the blogosphere that the American Physical
Society,
the leading professional organization for physicists, has reversed its
position
on global warming.
But on its Web site, the APS has reaffirmed that it supports the consensus
view
that human-caused greenhouse gas emissions are warming the planet.
Part of the statement the society adopted on Nov. 18, 2007, states:
"Emissions
of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in
ways
that affect the Earth's climate."
Stories of the supposed policy reversal began popping up after an article by
Christopher Monckton, a politician and a former policy advisor in Margaret
Thatcher's administration, submitted an article in an online newsletter of
the
APS Forum on Physics and Society. The article claimed that the
Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had overestimated the Earth's climate
sensitivity
to carbon dioxide (or how much the global average temperature will change
given
a certain amount of carbon dioxide entering the atmosphere).
In the article, Monckton, the 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, also
claims
that changes in solar activity are behind the warming trend of the past few
decades, an idea that has been refuted by several climate scientists.
A note in red lettering above the article states that it has not been
peer-reviewed and that "its conclusions are in disagreement with the
overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community. The Council of the
American Physical Society disagrees with this article's conclusions."
On their homepage, the APS has now placed a statement that reaffirms its
2007
position statement on global warming, which also states, "The evidence is
incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring." It adds that mitigation
efforts
must be taken immediately.
V for Vendicar
<kdt...@yahoo.com> wrote
> 5.3E21 Joules divided by 5.15E14 Joules per second = 1.0E9 seconds
> 1,0E9 seconds divided by 3600 seconds in an hour, divided by 24 hours
> in 1 day = 115.7 days
Measured temperature rise over the last 150 years - .74'C
Here are the global average temperatures since 1958. "o" = trend line.
Look at all those "o"'s lined up there. The trend is up, Up, UP.
And most recently the rate of increase is about 2'C per century.
View with mono spaced font.
1958 14.08 *******o***************
1959 14.06 ********o************
1960 13.99 *********o******
1961 14.08 **********o************
1962 14.04 ***********o********
1963 14.08 ************o**********
1964 13.79 **===========o
1965 13.89 *********====o
1966 13.97 **************o
1967 14.00 ***************o*
1968 13.96 **************==o
1969 14.08 *****************o*****
1970 14.03 ******************o
1971 13.90 **********=========o
1972 14.00 *****************===o
1973 14.14 ********************o******
1974 13.92 ***********==========o
1975 13.95 *************=========o
1976 13.84 ******=================o
1977 14.13 ************************o*
1978 14.02 ******************=======o
1979 14.09 ***********************===o
1980 14.18 ***************************o**
1981 14.27 ****************************o*******
1982 14.05 ********************========o
1983 14.26 *****************************o*****
1984 14.09 ***********************=======o
1985 14.06 *********************==========o
1986 14.13 **************************======o
1987 14.27 *********************************o**
1988 14.31 **********************************o****
1989 14.19 ******************************=====o
1990 14.38 ************************************o*******
1991 14.35 ************************************o****
1992 14.12 *************************============o
1993 14.14 ****************************===========o
1994 14.24 **********************************=====o
1995 14.38 ****************************************o***
1996 14.30 **************************************===o
1997 14.40 ******************************************o**
1998 14.57 *******************************************o*************
1999 14.33 ****************************************===o
2000 14.33 ****************************************====o
2001 14.48 *********************************************o*****
2002 14.56 **********************************************o*********
2003 14.55 ***********************************************o*******
2004 14.49 ************************************************o**
2005 14.62 *************************************************o**********
2006 14.54 **************************************************o****
2007 14.57 ***************************************************o*****
-------------------------------------------> Temperature
Correlation Coefficient .8529209
Lloyd
Look, Fool, any day you want to compare your scientific education and
expertise to mine, and that includes math, post yours.
>it is not possible to explain to you that
> people do not believe in commune. Individuals believe, and dishonest
> and illiterate individuals 'believe' in anthropogenic global warming.
You are a liar.
> The greenie weenies are alot like the 'borg' on Star Trek, and only
> think and speak in communal phrases and propaganda slogans.
>
> According to the mental disease of AGW, anyone who disagrees is
> incompetent or taking bribes from Exxon. Therefore their scientific
> analysis can be ignored.
Well, some are liars, like you.
> Here is a compilation of scientific papers to be ignored. Of course
> the greenie weenies can relax, since they believe any dissent is
> dishonest and done for the purpose of making Exxon rich.http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&Cont...
Oh great, a Republican press release.
We've pointed you to EVERY, repeat, EVERY scientific organization in
the world, all the scientific journals, IPCC, etc.
>
> If there were a solid scientific base, there would not be the
> arguement about who believes, and what scientific organizations
> 'believe'.
Yes they would. There are still creationists around.
> Actual science does not depend upon the beliefs of those involved in
> the political and personal aggrandizement of scientific organizations
> who always keep their eye on the important thing which is their
> funding.
Correct. So the fact that you disagree with AGW makes no more
difference than if you swore atoms didn't exist.
>
> Someday, facts will be determined in a proper courtroom, instead of
> this constant referal to what scientists 'believe'.
>
> The problem with AGW is in it's initial theoretical basis in regards
> to energy recieved, and energy lost by the earth. This is called,
> 'energy budget' by the greenie weenies. It is depicted by Kiehl and
> Trenberth, (Dancin Hansens boys), that the 'grenhouse gases' absorb
> around 125Wm-2 and that clouds reflect back to earth another 25 or 30
> Wm-2 to make the 160Wm-2 that supposedly brings the earth from about
> 0F (230Wm-2), to 57F (390Wm-2). This is utter nonsense. Do the math.http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/abstracts/files/kevin1997_1.html
>
> 1Wm-2 means 1 Joule per second of radiation energy traveling at the
> velocity of light. Visible light and radiation from the sun are
> traveling at c. Therefore outgoing radiation energy MUST TRAVEL AT THE
> VELOCITY OF LIGHT in leaving the system in order for their to be a
> balance and consistent temperature. Otherwise energy would accrue at
> the rate of how many Joules per second are retained.
>
> Earth radius about 6400 kilometers.
> Mass of atmosphere about 10^21 grams.
> This means that 1Wm-2 of retained radiation energy would be roughly
> the equivelent.of the heat capacity of the entire atmosphere for 1degC
> being retained in about 120 days. 4Wm-2 should raise the temperature
> of the entire atmosphere in about 30 days.
>
> So according to Kiehl and Trenberth and their cartoon, the retention
> of calories in the incoming radiation should be increasing the
> temperature of the atmosphere by 1degC in less than a day, since the
> grenhouse gases supposedly stop outgoing radiation of 160 Joules per
> second factored over the entire surface area of the earth.
>
> THE CASE OF AGW IS SO HOAKY, A VALID ANALYSIS IS VERY DIFFICULT TO
> BEGIN.
>
CO2 traps energy. That is a proven fact, you blithering idiot.
> The organizations of scientists that allow this provable fraud of
> greenhouse gases retaining energy and warming the earth as is depicted
> in this state of the art theoretical depiction shall at some point
> lose their accreditation and may also be sent to prison. This is a
> simple fact. It may be only after the insane greenie weenies get their
> way and destroy our economy, as their 'god' algore is so intent upon
> doing. It can be clearly proved that they are incompetent at the
> least, or guilty of direct and deliberate fraud.
>
Yeah, every scientist, every scientific organization is pulling a
fraud, and only a complete and utter fool like you sees through it.
> KDeatherage
> The ship of fools of the believers in AGW sails on,,,,
> Next stop, the marina on 'No Paddle Island', up shit creek.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/tree/browse_frm/thr...
f-newguy
"Tom Gardner" <tom(spamless)@ohiobrush.com> wrote in message
news:Q3egk.30578$co7....@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com...
That's nice.
> Why do you think they are the end-all?
Not the point. You said: "Sadly, they know everything about everything."
If you had actually read the 4AR, you would know they make no such claim
(even allowing for your hyperbole). In fact the report is couched in
carefully defined qualifers describing levels of confidence in the
conclusions. There are many admissions of uncertainty.
kdt...@yahoo.com
>
'> > Here is a compilation of scientific papers to be ignored. Of
course
'> > the greenie weenies can relax, since they believe any dissent is
'> > dishonest and done for the purpose of making Exxon rich.http://
epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&Cont...
'>
'> Oh great, a Republican press release.
These are accredited scientists. This is not a 'press release'. This
here is a clear case in point where your mental disease allows you
your dishonety. Perhaps you would like therefore to press criminal
charges for fraud against this 'press release' which you claim to be
puposefully fraudulent to promote false propaganda.
PUT UP OR SHUT UP.
If this is false propaganda put out by political interest, it is a
very serious crime in being associated with the US Senate..
You enjoy far too much the allowance to commit such slander behind the
complacency of people and the communal dishonesty of your creed of
illiterate and incompetent idiots who have succeeded in gainin a
postition in the academic world, and who dominate theoretical science,
and who have no valid theoretical science.
>
'> We've pointed you to EVERY, repeat, EVERY scientific organization
in
'> the world, all the scientific journals, IPCC, etc.
This is nonsense. We have a petition of 30,000 scientists who disagree
which includes 9000 PHDs. Besides these very specific scientists who
have submitted papers to the US government. Paid for by Exxon and the
illiterate creationists, I presume?
So you agree, someone in all of this should go to prison for fraud,
instead of just relying on propaganda slogans of Algore for our
scientific beliefs.
'> Correct. So the fact that you disagree with AGW makes no more
'> difference than if you swore atoms didn't exist.
'> > 1Wm-2 means 1 Joule per second of radiation energy traveling at
the
'> > velocity of light. Visible light and radiation from the sun are
'> > traveling at c. Therefore outgoing radiation energy MUST TRAVEL
AT THE
'> > VELOCITY OF LIGHT in leaving the system in order for their to be
a
'> > balance and consistent temperature. Otherwise energy would accrue
at
'> > the rate of how many Joules per second are retained.
>
'> > Earth radius about 6400 kilometers.
'> > Mass of atmosphere about 10^21 grams.
'> > This means that 1Wm-2 of retained radiation energy would be
roughly
'> > the equivelent.of the heat capacity of the entire atmosphere for
1degC
'> > being retained in about 120 days. 4Wm-2 should raise the
temperature
'> > of the entire atmosphere in about 30 days.
Why cannot you directly respond to my accurate accounting of the
radiation energy and the actual application of the Boltzman-Stefan
equation? Because you are mathematically illiterate.
Radiation travels at the velocity of light. Energy is a quantity and
is allways bound by the conservation of energy. A solar collector
collects radiation energy from the sun. This energy is travelling at
c. The earth is warmed mainly by the visible light from the sun, since
the sun radiates about 50% of it's energy from the sun and because the
atmosphere is opaque to the infrared frequencies.
So how do photovaltic cells work, Lloyd? Because they recieve a
specific quantity of energy traveling from the sun at c, and their
efficiency of converting this radiation energy to electrical energy.
You are truly mechanically incompetent, since you cannot even account
for the energy gained by solar cells.
The energy being recieved is traveling at c. At the velocity of light,
radiation energy travels from the earth to the moon in about 1.35
seconds.
The radiation energy from the earth must also leave the system and
radiate into space at the velocity of light, or else the energy in the
system will increase according to the deficit. 1Wm-2 of deficit of
radiation energy leaving the system is exactly defined as I have said,
the energy for the heat capacity of the mass of entire atmosphere in
about 120 days. This energy is not being retained, and is not being
absorbed in the ocean. The basic theory of the 'energy budget' is
purely invalid and fraud, designed only to the false end conclusion
that CO2 from humans affects climate.
This basic theory of Kiehl and Trenberth, commissioned and paid for by
the ultimate charlatan, Dancin Hansen, is invalid and criminal fraud.
Because it is so invalid, any valid chemist does not know how to
criticise.
It is only your intimidation and repitition of propaganda phrases such
as that 'all scientists already agree', that has brought this fraud
thus far. Be ready for the let down, when you actually get your freaky
little puds involved in our real lives, twits.
It is only the illiteracy of the greenie wienie climatologists and
their lack of understanding of the concepts of heat capacity and their
inability to account for these basics of chemistry and physics, that
allows this rinky dink and invalid, and hoaky psuedo science to
continue and thrive.
Then the psychological disease of predicting the apocalypse from CO2
and the obssesion with controllling other people's lives is the only
actual basis for AGW.
'> CO2 traps energy. That is a proven fact, you blithering idiot.
So why not use it in double paned glass or insulation? Because it has
no such actual property, which you seek to demonstrate in your fraud
exhibits to bolster your superstition.
"CO2 traps energy"". I thought the communal phrase was "CO2 traps IR"
When asked for some direct evidence, Lloyd, you submitted the hoax
exhibit done with fish tanks. In your exhibit, the light from the
lamps must be shielded from the fish tanks by glass plates filled with
water. Why do you suppose the exibit does not work if the glass is
warmed by these infrareds? When the visible light is absorbed by the
cardboard, it is re-emitted in very high energy infrareds.
Your exhibit in no way demonstrates the property of CO2 to 'trap
heat'.
Two glass bulbs in a room, one filled with CO2 will reach exactly the
same temperature. When changing temperature, there will be a very
slight difference in time to the new temperatures due to differences
in heat capactiy, which is the quantity of heat that must be absorbed
by the molecules.
It is this heat capacity which causes differences in entropy for
different substances. According to the third law of thermodynamics,
entropy is zero at zero degrees K. There are no exceptions to the
third law. Even by a careful understanding of the third law, the
concept that CO2 inordinately absorbs heat energy is shown to be
invalid.
Your inability to understand the need of proper controls to be applied
to your fish tank exhibit in order to draw final conclusions, is proof
of your inability to understand the concept of science. You are far
too enthralled with your SUPERSTITION that CO2 is going to cause the
apocalypse of global warming to be interested in actual science.
'> Yeah, every scientist, every scientific organization is pulling a
'> fraud, and only a complete and utter fool like you sees through it.
You verge upon the truth, but then again show your dishonety by saying
that I am the only one that see's through it.
It is funny to see the greenie wienies say this to every one who has
enough sense to reject this bullshit.
It is only this form of psychological intimidation that has gained you
credence in the scientific organizations to which you refer for your
scientific basis. Good luck with your hoaky assed bullshit in hell, or
against some real opposition instead of the mealy mouthed and
intimidated scientists who are willing to stake their life and
reputaion upon their communal beliefs.
Oh, by the way Lloyd. I am one that enjoys the truth and relies upon
PROOF of what I consider to be the truth. You have proved that you do
not understand that in the perfect gas law, the relationship of the
pressure to the volume is an inverse relationship which is written, P/
V, or PV = constant.
KDeatherage
The ship of fools of the believers in AGW sails on,,,,
Next stop, the marina on 'No Paddle Island', up shit creek.
V for Vendicar
<kdt...@yahoo.com> wrote
> We have a petition of 30,000 scientists who disagree
> which includes 9000 PHDs.
Hahahahahzahaha... And the signatories include Batman and Wonder Woman,
and many of the signatories were dead when they apparently signed. Einstein
signed. So did Issac Newton.
And ten there are some dog catchers, some sanitary engineers, etc. etc.
etc.
All "scientists" apparently.
Hay wait, Batman is a scientist.... Isn't he?
URAh MMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNN
Lloyd
> On Jul 21, 1:03 pm, Lloyd <lpar...@emory.edu> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 20, 9:27 am, kdth...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> '> > Here is a compilation of scientific papers to be ignored. Of
> course
> '> > the greenie weenies can relax, since they believe any dissent is
> '> > dishonest and done for the purpose of making Exxon rich.http://
> epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&Cont...
> '>
> '> Oh great, a Republican press release.
>
> These are accredited scientists. This is not a 'press release'. This
You cited Inhofe's office. That's a Republican press release.
> here is a clear case in point where your mental disease allows you
> your dishonety. Perhaps you would like therefore to press criminal
> charges for fraud against this 'press release' which you claim to be
> puposefully fraudulent to promote false propaganda.
>
> PUT UP OR SHUT UP.
>
> If this is false propaganda put out by political interest, it is a
> very serious crime in being associated with the US Senate..
>
No it isn't. Congressmen enjoy immunity from anything said on the
floor.
> You enjoy far too much the allowance to commit such slander behind the
> complacency of people and the communal dishonesty of your creed of
> illiterate and incompetent idiots who have succeeded in gainin a
> postition in the academic world, and who dominate theoretical science,
> and who have no valid theoretical science.
>
>
>
> '> We've pointed you to EVERY, repeat, EVERY scientific organization
> in
> '> the world, all the scientific journals, IPCC, etc.
>
> This is nonsense. We have a petition of 30,000 scientists who disagree
You've fallen for a hoax. Why aren't those 30,000 scientists
publishing in scientific journals? Goodness, 30,000 is more than
enough to influence every scientific organization in the world -- why
do all of them still disagree with you?
Yes, which is less in air than in a vacuum.
>Energy is a quantity and
> is allways bound by the conservation of energy. A solar collector
> collects radiation energy from the sun. This energy is travelling at
> c. The earth is warmed mainly by the visible light from the sun, since
> the sun radiates about 50% of it's energy from the sun and because the
> atmosphere is opaque to the infrared frequencies.
>
So if the atmosphere is opaque to IR, then you've just admitted the IR
emitted by the earth is trapped and can't escape.
> So how do photovaltic cells work, Lloyd? Because they recieve a
> specific quantity of energy traveling from the sun at c, and their
> efficiency of converting this radiation energy to electrical energy.
> You are truly mechanically incompetent, since you cannot even account
> for the energy gained by solar cells.
>
> The energy being recieved is traveling at c.
Not after it enters the atmosphere.
>At the velocity of light,
> radiation energy travels from the earth to the moon in about 1.35
> seconds.
>
> The radiation energy from the earth must also leave the system and
> radiate into space at the velocity of light, or else the energy in the
> system will increase according to the deficit.
Which it's been doing.
Because they're other things much better at doing that than CO2.
>Because it has
> no such actual property, which you seek to demonstrate in your fraud
> exhibits to bolster your superstition.
>
> "CO2 traps energy"". I thought the communal phrase was "CO2 traps IR"
> When asked for some direct evidence, Lloyd, you submitted the hoax
> exhibit done with fish tanks. In your exhibit, the light from the
> lamps must be shielded from the fish tanks by glass plates filled with
> water. Why do you suppose the exibit does not work if the glass is
> warmed by these infrareds? When the visible light is absorbed by the
> cardboard, it is re-emitted in very high energy infrareds.
>
> Your exhibit in no way demonstrates the property of CO2 to 'trap
> heat'.
> Two glass bulbs in a room, one filled with CO2 will reach exactly the
> same temperature. When changing temperature, there will be a very
> slight difference in time to the new temperatures due to differences
> in heat capactiy, which is the quantity of heat that must be absorbed
> by the molecules.
>
> It is this heat capacity which causes differences in entropy for
> different substances.
Heat capacity of the different phases, divided by T, integrated over
temperature range. Also the heat of fusion and vaprorization. Look at
how third-law entropies are calculated.
>According to the third law of thermodynamics,
> entropy is zero at zero degrees K.
Only of a perfect crystal.
>There are no exceptions to the
> third law.
Yes, everything that is not a perfect crystal is an "exception."
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/tree/browse_frm/thr...
Looney, looney, looney (sung to the tune of Louie, Louie, Louie)
Tartarus
> Algore
This usage alone marks you at a dittohead, and calls into question
your judgment on any matter you bring up.
Tartarus
kdt...@yahoo.com
> On Jul 26, 8:04 am, kdth...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > On Jul 21, 1:03 pm, Lloyd <lpar...@emory.edu> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 20, 9:27 am, kdth...@yahoo.com wrote:
disagree
>
'> You've fallen for a hoax. Why aren't those 30,000 scientists
'> publishing in scientific journals? Goodness, 30,000 is more than
'> enough to influence every scientific organization in the world --
why
'> do all of them still disagree with you?
>
>
>'> > Radiation travels at the velocity of light.
>
> Yes, which is less in air than in a vacuum.
This is a very minute difference. If not restricted, the radiation
leaves the vicinity of the earth quickly. If restricted, it remains
in the system. You evade the simple mechanics of the quantity of the
energy in the system and the effect of any deficit in emitted to
recieved radiation. But that is normal everyday mental masturbation
for a charlatan and greenie wienie such as yourself.
Maybe you should just go back to adding up chunks of Wm-2 like Dancin
Hansen does and evade any actual mathematics of physics. He is able to
do this on his one FREE hand, and always comes up with a number less
than 5 for his calculations on radiative forcing. What he does with
his other hand while on the public payroll is a matter of pure
conjecture.
'> > c.
'> >The earth is warmed mainly by the visible light from the sun,
since
'> > the sun radiates about 50% of it's energy from the sun and
because the
'> > atmosphere is opaque to the infrared frequencies.
>
'> So if the atmosphere is opaque to IR, then you've just admitted the
IR
'> emitted by the earth is trapped and can't escape.
An opaque material absorbs and re-emits infrared. A screen that is
opaque would still emit radiation and show somewhat the image of a
heat source behind it. You demonstrate well your inability to grasp
basic concepts and your perpetual need to avoid the truth as you seek
to retain you invalid theoretics.
Air is transparent to visible light frequencies. Most of visible light
passes through air without being absorbed and re-emitted. This is not
true of frequencies 2um and less energy. These frequencies are
absorbed and re-emitted by the individual molecules, and fact which
can be readily proved by proper application of science with absolutely
no need for the opinions of the scientific organizations upon which
you place your entire scientific case.
'> > The energy being recieved is traveling at c.
>
'> Not after it enters the atmosphere.
The difference in c in air and vacuo is minute compared to the
difference in not leaving the system of the earth at all which is only
about 13,000 kilometers diameter.
>
'> >At the velocity of light,
'> > radiation energy travels from the earth to the moon in about 1.35
'> > seconds.
'>
'> > The radiation energy from the earth must also leave the system
and
'> > radiate into space at the velocity of light, or else the energy
in the
'> > system will increase according to the deficit.
>
'> Which it's been doing.
The calculated deficit of AGW is pure baloney. The calculations from
the supposed Planck curve is pure baloney. Enjoy your baloney diet in
hell, and quit trying to sell it to the public as something that it is
not. Which is pure baloney.
>
'> > '> CO2 traps energy. That is a proven fact, you blithering
idiot.
'>
'> > So why not use it in double paned glass or insulation?
>
'> Because they're other things much better at doing that than CO2.
Here you avoid simplicity itself. So show us the data of the air space
in double paned glass in which CO2 can be shown to have ANY value
greater than normal air at "trapping heat energy". You cannot. You are
not a scientist. You are not even an individual who has any interest
in facts which do not satiate your insane compulsion to screw with
other peoples lives according to your superstition that anthropogenic
CO2 affects the climate.
>
'> >According to the third law of thermodynamics,
'> > entropy is zero at zero degrees K.
'>
'> Only of a perfect crystal.
'>
'> >There are no exceptions to the
'> > third law.
'>
'> Yes, everything that is not a perfect crystal is an "exception."
Now you are insane. Evertything is a crystal near absolute zero. The
most fundamental concept of the the third law is that there are no
exceptions. Some substances are said to have residual entropy near
absolute zero, but the fact is there are no exceptions. Phase change
may affect entropy as a substance is cooling. But the entropy of a gas
is still the value of it's heat capacity, which for any monatomic gas
is 3/2R. This is the total absorbed energy which is latent to the
radiation field and is mostly the energy of the kinetic motions which
must be absorbed in order for the molecules to have velocity or
motion.
But since you live in the greenie wienie reality, you presume you can
distort this fact and continue with your insanity which you justify
because you share it with other insane greenie wienies.
So enjoy your time schoolboy, in your detached reality. Enjoy your
visions from algores movie of the ice melting and how you must disrupt
innocent peoples lives according to your superstitions.
KDeatherage
The ship of fools of the believers in anthropogenic global warming
sails on,,,
Next stop, the marina on No Paddle Island, up Shit Creek
kdt...@yahoo.com
It is merely a parody of Igore from the movie 'Young Frankenstein'.
So when algore's movie was judged to have several invalid points which
a judge in Britain ordered guidance when shown in public schools, this
does not affect his credibility?
Normal greenie wienie selective logic and dishonesty. Enjoy the god of
your religion, algore.
He represents the clique of dishonest charlatans of climatology well
with their delusions of grandeur and psychological disease like rabies
that makes them a very real threat to normal people.
KD
Whata Fool
>On Jul 26, 1:37?pm, Tartarus <tarta...@rome.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 26, 6:04?am, kdth...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>> > Algore
>>
>> This usage alone marks you at a dittohead, and calls into question
>> your judgment on any matter you bring up.
>>
>> Tartarus
>
>It is merely a parody of Igore from the movie 'Young Frankenstein'.
>KD
I think that should be Igor,
Ignore Igore
Try that in Pig Latin.
Kurt Lochner
>
> Tartarus wrote:
> >
> >kdt...@yahoo.com sniveled the usual right-wing polemics:
> >
> > >Algore
> >
> > This usage alone marks you at a dittohead, and calls into question
> > your judgment on any matter you bring up.
>So when algore's movie was judged to have several invalid points [..]
No, it wasn't..
--And you're relying upon a misquote of the APS statement..
old_sys...@yahoo.com
accurate article article at:
http://www.newscientist.com/blog/environment/2008/07/now-will-you-publish-my-paper-showing.html
And then Monckton and Robert Ferguson at SPPI did their usual thing.
For good technical discussions of Monckton's errors, see RealClimate:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/07/once-more-unto-the-bray/
V for Vendicar
<kdt...@yahoo.com> wrote
> So when algore's movie was judged to have several invalid points...
It wasn't and you are a LIAR.
V for Vendicar
<kdt...@yahoo.com>
> This is a very minute difference. If not restricted, the radiation
> leaves the vicinity of the earth quickly. If restricted, it remains
i> n the system.
And warms the earth. BBBBZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT You lose. Thank you for
playing. We have a delicious parting gift for you in the back room. Don't
trip on your way out.
MMMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOONNNNNNN
Benj
<Execute_The_Traitor_In_The_White_Ho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> <kdth...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> > We have a petition of 30,000 scientists who disagree
> > which includes 9000 PHDs.
<snip usual "Vendicar" blathering crap with absolutely nothing of
value added>
I see you still are playing in the schoolyard "V". Are you EVER going
to grow up?
The adults are trying to have a scientific discussion about data here.
Go outside and play.
Catoni
No, it wasn't..
Yes is was !!! :)
Claudius Denk
> >So when algore's movie was judged to have several invalid points [..]
>
> No, it wasn't..
Al Gore's movie is a travesty of science.
Catoni
>No, it wasn't..
Oh yes it was.......notice the words "misleading in nine
respects" . And how about "Nine inaccuracies"??
Hmmm I wonder what those words could mean???
Mr. Justice Burton declared the case a victory for the claimant. Al
Gore's film lost the case.
Justice Burton stated... "I conclude that the claimant
substantially won this case by virtue of my finding that, but for
the new guidance note, the film would have been distributed in breach
of sections 406 and 407 of the 1996 Education Act".[28]
Al Gore's film is "unfit for schools because it is politically biased
and contains serious scientific inaccuracies and 'sentimental mush'.
That was the original charge brought to the court.
The Court found that the film was misleading in nine respects and
that the Guidance Notes drafted by the Education Secretary's advisors
served only to exacerbate the political propaganda in the film.
In order for the film to be shown, the Government must first amend
their Guidance Notes to Teachers to make clear that ...
1.) The Film is a political work and promotes only one side of the
argument.
2.) If teachers present the Film without making this plain they may
be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of
political indoctrination.
3.) Nine inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention
of school children.
UKPRwire, Wed Nov 21 2007] New Party member Stewart Dimmock scored a
notable victory last month in the High Court when judgement was
handed
down on the Government's decision to distribute Al Gore's An
Inconvenient Truth to all secondary schools in England. The court
flagged up nine clear cut inaccuracies in the film and required the
Government to make an interim payment of £60,000... ($121,185.00
U.S.) towards Mr Dimmock's legal bill.
Poetic Justice
Liberals thought the Poseidon Adventure was a Documentary too, huh.
V for Vendicar
"Benj" <bja...@iwaynet.net> wrote
> I see you still are playing in the schoolyard "V".
Yup. When in Rome ...
"Benj" <bja...@iwaynet.net> wrote
> Are you EVER going to grow up?
Always. Just as soon as I find someone with an IQ over 45.
You don't rate.
"Benj" <bja...@iwaynet.net> wrote
> The adults are trying to have a scientific discussion about data here.
One "adult" has been caught lying.
And that :"adult" is YOU, my stupid little Child..
Whata Fool
And American Pie was to set morals examples.
And the Jerry Springer show is "upper class" etiquette.
V for Vendicar
> >So when algore's movie was judged to have several invalid points [..]
"Catoni" <cato...@sympatico.ca> wrote
> Yes is was !!! :)
Catoni is right for a change. Well known liars and scientific illiterates
like Catoni here, judged that many of the points were invalid.
But then Catoni belongs to the Libertarian Pedophile Party so who gives a
flying fuck what the brain dead MORON thinks.
V for Vendicar
"Catoni" <cato...@sympatico.ca> wrote
> 1.) The Film is a political work and promotes only one side of the
> argument.
Not an inaccuracy.
"Catoni" <cato...@sympatico.ca> wrote
> 2.) If teachers present the Film without making this plain they may
> be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of
> political indoctrination.
Not an inaccuracy.
Sorry CATO, you are caught Lying again.
V for Vendicar
"Claudius Denk" <claudi...@sbcglobal.net> wrote
> Al Gore's movie is a travesty of science.
Is that why Scientists call it a "paragon" of scientific communcation with
the public.
Ahahaahahahaha... Scientists are VERY Impressed by Gore. You can include
me in that list.
V for Vendicar
I remember seeing the original at the theater when it first came out. I
thought the little boys friendshp with the Rat was very strange.
Oh wait... That was "Ben".
V for Vendicar
"Whata Fool" <wh...@fool.ami> wrote
> And American Pie was to set morals examples.
AmeriKKKan pie, is an AmeriKKKan movie illustrating some aspects of
AmeriKKKan culture.
I skipped through the film on fast rewind, stopping whenever Alyson
Hannigan - Band Camp Girl - was in a scene.
She's a major cutie, and needs to come visit me more often.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Alyson_Hannigan_and_Alexis_Denisof.jpg
Steve Thomas
your even more of a looooooooser than i thought! as well as being a
congenital LLLLLLLLLLLLLIIIIIIIIIIAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRR and a
FUCKIN
MMMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Poetic Justice
Ouroboros_Rex
>>> So when algore's movie was judged to have several invalid points
>>> [..]
>
>
>
>> No, it wasn't..
>
> Oh yes it was.......notice the words "misleading in nine
> respects" . And how about "Nine inaccuracies"??
> Hmmm I wonder what those words could mean???
>
> Mr. Justice Burton declared the case a victory for the claimant. Al
> Gore's film lost the case.
>
> Justice Burton stated... "I conclude that the claimant
> substantially won this case by virtue of my finding that, but for
> the new guidance note, the film would have been distributed in breach
> of sections 406 and 407 of the 1996 Education Act".[28]
>
>
> Al Gore's film is "unfit for schools because it is politically biased
> and contains serious scientific inaccuracies and 'sentimental mush'.
> That was the original charge brought to the court.
And thrown out.
john fernbach
If you go back and read the actual decision that was posted online,
you'll see
that the justice did critize Gore for the famous 9 inaccuracies.
However, he
upheld the validity of Gore's general argument regarding climate
change.
At least one of the 9 "errors," Justice Burton also wrote, consisted
of
Gore making statements in the film about polar ice caps melting that
went
beyond the findings of the IPCC. In other words, the judge took the
IPCC
findings as the gold standard on the issue.
Steve Thomas
>
> - Show quoted text -
Bullshit lie from KKKommie DhimmiKKK-rat Ouroboros Rex