Global warming OT)
andre...@aol.com
and others respond. Notice an article in the journal Science, that ice
melting in the poles could lead to overflow of coasts to a much
greater detriment than previously predicted. Of course this was
published in the gossip column "Science" and not in the more respected
literature that was previously quoted in this group by global warming
foes. So, take it with the due skepticism.
Bill Sornson
By John Coleman
January 28, 2009
The key players are now all in place in Washington and in state governments
across America to officially label carbon dioxide as a pollutant and enact
laws that tax we citizens for our carbon footprints. Only two details stand
in the way, the faltering economic times and a dramatic turn toward a colder
climate. The last two bitter winters have lead to a rise in public awareness
that CO2 is not a pollutant and is not a significant greenhouse gas that is
triggering runaway global warming.
How did we ever get to this point where bad science is driving big
government we have to struggle so to stop it?
The story begins with an Oceanographer named Roger Revelle. He served with
the Navy in World War II. After the war he became the Director of the
Scripps Oceanographic Institute in La Jolla in San Diego, California.
Revelle saw the opportunity to obtain major funding from the Navy for doing
measurements and research on the ocean around the Pacific Atolls where the
US military was conducting atomic bomb tests. He greatly expanded the
Institute's areas of interest and among others hired Hans Suess, a noted
Chemist from the University of Chicago, who was very interested in the
traces of carbon in the environment from the burning of fossil fuels.
Revelle tagged on to Suess studies and co-authored a paper with him in 1957.
The paper raises the possibility that the carbon dioxide might be creating a
greenhouse effect and causing atmospheric warming. It seems to be a plea for
funding for more studies. Funding, frankly, is where Revelle's mind was most
of the time.
Next Revelle hired a Geochemist named David Keeling to devise a way to
measure the atmospheric content of Carbon dioxide. In 1960 Keeling published
his first paper showing the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and
linking the increase to the burning of fossil fuels.
These two research papers became the bedrock of the science of global
warming, even though they offered no proof that carbon dioxide was in fact a
greenhouse gas. In addition they failed to explain how this trace gas, only
a tiny fraction of the atmosphere, could have any significant impact on
temperatures.
Now let me take you back to the1950s when this was going on. Our cities were
entrapped in a pall of pollution from the crude internal combustion engines
that powered cars and trucks back then and from the uncontrolled emissions
from power plants and factories. Cars and factories and power plants were
filling the air with all sorts of pollutants. There was a valid and serious
concern about the health consequences of this pollution and a strong
environmental movement was developing to demand action. Government accepted
this challenge and new environmental standards were set. Scientists and
engineers came to the rescue. New reformulated fuels were developed for
cars, as were new high tech, computer controlled engines and catalytic
converters. By the mid seventies cars were no longer big time polluters,
emitting only some carbon dioxide and water vapor from their tail pipes.
Likewise, new fuel processing and smoke stack scrubbers were added to
industrial and power plants and their emissions were greatly reduced, as
well.
But an environmental movement had been established and its funding and very
existence depended on having a continuing crisis issue. So the research
papers from Scripps came at just the right moment. And, with them came the
birth of an issue; man-made global warming from the carbon dioxide from the
burning of fossil fuels.
Revelle and Keeling used this new alarmism to keep their funding growing.
Other researchers with environmental motivations and a hunger for funding
saw this developing and climbed aboard as well. The research grants began to
flow and alarming hypothesis began to show up everywhere.
The Keeling curve showed a steady rise in CO2 in atmosphere during the
period since oil and coal were discovered and used by man. As of today,
carbon dioxide has increased from 215 to 385 parts per million. But, despite
the increases, it is still only a trace gas in the atmosphere. While the
increase is real, the percentage of the atmosphere that is CO2 remains tiny,
about .41 hundredths of one percent.
Several hypothesis emerged in the 70s and 80s about how this tiny
atmospheric component of CO2 might cause a significant warming. But they
remained unproven. Years have passed and the scientists kept reaching out
for evidence of the warming and proof of their theories. And, the money and
environmental claims kept on building up.
Back in the 1960s, this global warming research came to the attention of a
Canadian born United Nation's bureaucrat named Maurice Strong. He was
looking for issues he could use to fulfill his dream of one-world
government. Strong organized a World Earth Day event in Stockholm, Sweden in
1970. From this he developed a committee of scientists, environmentalists
and political operatives from the UN to continue a series of meeting.
Strong developed the concept that the UN could demand payments from the
advanced nations for the climatic damage from their burning of fossil fuels
to benefit the underdeveloped nations, a sort of CO2 tax that would be the
funding for his one-world government. But, he needed more scientific
evidence to support his primary thesis. So Strong championed the
establishment of the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change. This was not a pure climate study scientific organization, as we
have been lead to believe. It was an organization of one-world government UN
bureaucrats, environmental activists and environmentalist scientists who
craved the UN funding so they could produce the science they needed to stop
the burning of fossil fuels. Over the last 25 years they have been very
effective. Hundreds of scientific papers, four major international meetings
and reams of news stories about climatic Armageddon later, the UN IPCC has
made its points to the satisfaction of most and even shared a Nobel Peace
Prize with Al Gore.
At the same time, that Maurice Strong was busy at the UN, things were
getting a bit out of hand for the man who is now called the grandfather of
global warming, Roger Revelle. He had been very politically active in the
late 1950's as he worked to have the University of California locate a San
Diego campus adjacent to Scripps Institute in La Jolla. He won that major
war, but lost an all important battle afterward when he was passed over in
the selection of the first Chancellor of the new campus.
He left Scripps finally in 1963 and moved to Harvard University to establish
a Center for Population Studies. It was there that Revelle inspired one of
his students to become a major global warming activist. This student would
say later, "It felt like such a privilege to be able to hear about the
readouts from some of those measurements in a group of no more than a dozen
undergraduates. Here was this teacher presenting something not years old but
fresh out of the lab, with profound implications for our future!" The
student described him as "a wonderful, visionary professor" who was "one of
the first people in the academic community to sound the alarm on global
warming," That student was Al Gore. He thought of Dr. Revelle as his mentor
and referred to him frequently, relaying his experiences as a student in his
book Earth in the Balance, published in 1992.
So there it is, Roger Revelle was indeed the grandfather of global warming.
His work had laid the foundation for the UN IPCC, provided the anti-fossil
fuel ammunition to the environmental movement and sent Al Gore on his road
to his books, his movie, his Nobel Peace Prize and a hundred million dollars
from the carbon credits business.
What happened next is amazing. The global warming frenzy was becoming the
cause celeb of the media. After all the media is mostly liberal, loves Al
Gore, loves to warn us of impending disasters and tell us "the sky is
falling, the sky is falling". The politicians and the environmentalist loved
it, too.
But the tide was turning with Roger Revelle. He was forced out at Harvard at
65 and returned to California and a semi retirement position at UCSD. There
he had time to rethink Carbon Dioxide and the greenhouse effect. The man who
had inspired Al Gore and given the UN the basic research it needed to launch
its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was having second thoughts. In
1988 he wrote two cautionary letters to members of Congress. He wrote, "My
own personal belief is that we should wait another 10 or 20 years to really
be convinced that the greenhouse effect is going to be important for human
beings, in both positive and negative ways." He added, ".we should be
careful not to arouse too much alarm until the rate and amount of warming
becomes clearer."
And in 1991 Revelle teamed up with Chauncey Starr, founding director of the
Electric Power Research Institute and Fred Singer, the first director of the
U.S. Weather Satellite Service, to write an article for Cosmos magazine.
They urged more research and begged scientists and governments not to move
too fast to curb greenhouse CO2 emissions because the true impact of carbon
dioxide was not at all certain and curbing the use of fossil fuels could
have a huge negative impact on the economy and jobs and our standard of
living. I have discussed this collaboration with Dr. Singer. He assures me
that Revelle was considerably more certain than he was at the time that
carbon dioxide was not a problem.
Did Roger Revelle attend the Summer enclave at the Bohemian Grove in
Northern California in the Summer of 1990 while working on that article? Did
he deliver a lakeside speech there to the assembled movers and shakers from
Washington and Wall Street in which he apologized for sending the UN IPCC
and Al Gore onto this wild goose chase about global warming? Did he say that
the key scientific conjecture of his lifetime had turned out wrong? The
answer to those questions is, "I think so, but I do not know it for
certain". I have not managed to get it confirmed as of this moment. It's a
little like Las Vegas; what is said at the Bohemian Grove stays at the
Bohemian Grove. There are no transcripts or recordings and people who attend
are encouraged not to talk. Yet, the topic is so important, that some people
have shared with me on an informal basis.
Roger Revelle died of a heart attack three months after the Cosmos story was
printed. Oh, how I wish he were still alive today. He might be able to stop
this scientific silliness and end the global warming scam.
Al Gore has dismissed Roger Revelle's Mea culpa as the actions of senile old
man. And, the next year, while running for Vice President, he said the
science behind global warming is settled and there will be no more debate,
From 1992 until today, he and his cohorts have refused to debate global
warming and when ask about we skeptics they simply insult us and call us
names.
So today we have the acceptance of carbon dioxide as the culprit of global
warming. It is concluded that when we burn fossil fuels we are leaving a
dastardly carbon footprint which we must pay Al Gore or the
environmentalists to offset. Our governments on all levels are considering
taxing the use of fossil fuels. The Federal Environmental Protection Agency
is on the verge of naming CO2 as a pollutant and strictly regulating its use
to protect our climate. The new President and the US congress are on board.
Many state governments are moving on the same course.
We are already suffering from this CO2 silliness in many ways. Our energy
policy has been strictly hobbled by no drilling and no new refineries for
decades. We pay for the shortage this has created every time we buy gas. On
top of that the whole thing about corn based ethanol costs us millions of
tax dollars in subsidies. That also has driven up food prices. And, all of
this is a long way from over.
And, I am totally convinced there is no scientific basis for any of it.
Global Warming. It is the hoax. It is bad science. It is a high jacking of
public policy. It is no joke. It is the greatest scam in history.
John Coleman
1-29-09
andre...@aol.com
>
> read more »
As I said, Science is a gossip magazine so we shouldn't take their
articles seriously. OTOH, your reference most likely comes from a
highly respected peer reviewed journal on climatology, geophysics ore
geography.
Bill Sornson
{snip}
> As I said, Science is a gossip magazine so we shouldn't take their
> articles seriously. OTOH, your reference most likely comes from a
> highly respected peer reviewed journal on climatology, geophysics ore
> geography.
The author is a ground-breaking, board-certified meteorologist and the
founder of The Weather Channel. He knows his stuff.
FYI.
andre...@aol.com
I don't doubt it. That is the reason that his piece must have been
published in a leading scientific journal.
Bill Sornson
That you imply "Science" is an unbiased publication says more about your
agenda that its.
HTH (BKIW) BS
PS:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24934655-5017272,00.html
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2674E64F-802A-23AD-490B-BD9FAF4DCDB7
(check the updates, too)
And on and on it goes...
Bill Sornson
When a coast -- ANY coast -- floods due to melting ice, think how proud
you'll be.
Meantime, keep drinking the Koolaid.
BS
Dan O
DI
"Dan O" <danov...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:858e62d4-6f10-4306...@o40g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
Why? because he doesn't buy the propoganda BS that is being but out by the
likes if Al Gore
PatTX
: As I said, Science is a gossip magazine so we shouldn't take their
: articles seriously. OTOH, your reference most likely comes from a
: highly respected peer reviewed journal on climatology, geophysics ore
: geography.
Yes! John Coleman has a degree in Journalism from the University of
Illinois. Boy, that's certainly an impressive credential!
I know I would take everything he says as the ultimate authority on any
scientific matter!
Pat
PatTX
::
:: Dude, you are *such* a dumbass!
Well, his initials say it all. But, really, what we should wonder is just
why the Republican Party is investing so much of their time and efforts into
trying to debunk all the scientists on Global Warming. Geez, they found a
weatherman to align with their views!
Pat
Bill Sornson
Oh-Dan is one of the whinier ideologues to appear recently. Sticks his nose
in other people's exchanges, routinely attacking the "other side" personally
and snidely and then hiding under a rock until the next opportunity arises
weeks later.
I have a simple question for the GW Alarmists: if the earth is in such
peril, then why did President Obama take AIR FORCE ONE from Washington DC to
Williamsburg VA (less than 150 miles) a few days ago? Is he selfish,
elitist, hypocritical, or just plain (plane) unthinking?
He could have taken a chopper for a small fraction of the cost and --
gasp -- carbon footprint.
I eagerly await a reasonable answer. (Won't hold breath.)
BS (called)
Philip Holman
"Bill Sornson" <so...@noyb.com> wrote in message
news:gmnh37$fmm$1...@news.motzarella.org...
of climate change. Don't you think more scientifically based data would
be appropriate, unless you think the pres knows something we don't (I
doubt he does).
Phil H (not convinced of the reason for GW)
andre...@aol.com
> DI wrote:
> > "Dan O" <danover...@gmail.com> wrote in message
I have no idea about Obama's travel decisions, and I don't really
care, nor I see the relevance. All I said was that there was an
article in Science Journal stating that melting of ice is pretty
significant and worrisome. Just for background, there are two major
scientific journals that publish major scientific research from all
over the world. These journals combine the leading research from a
combination of scientific fields. They are not associated with Bush,
Gore, Obama or anyone else. They are peer reviewed journals that
publish leading research. They are Nature (GB) and Science (US).
Things that get published in those journals are considered the leading
scientific knowledge.
There are other journals that publish scientific knowledge but
specialize in one area. My point was that if someone wants to debate
scientific research they need to ground their knowledge on stuff
published in a respected journal in the field, with notes and
references. That is the way scientific knowledge is often debated. A
post by someone who disagrees, in the internet has as much meaning as
an add from weight watchers.
Woland99
> There are other journals that publish scientific knowledge but
> specialize in one area. My point was that if someone wants to debate
> scientific research they need to ground their knowledge on stuff
> published in a respected journal in the field, with notes and
> references. That is the way scientific knowledge is often debated. A
> post by someone who disagrees, in the internet has as much meaning as
> an add from weight watchers.
Andres - don't you know that global warming is
"just a theory"??? <wink> Bill is probably right when he
wants to limit discussion to "facts" which according to
him are publication by "ground-breaking meteorologist"
(ROFL ROFL ROFL).
Bill Sornson
> All I said was that there was an
> article in Science Journal stating that melting of ice is pretty
> significant and worrisome.
That why there's a new $MMM$ "Arctic Ice Cutter" in the Porkulous Bill?
Bill "psssst. Ice mass is growing, not shrinking" S.
Bill Sornson
> Bill is probably right when he
> wants to limit discussion to "facts" which according to
> him are publication by "ground-breaking meteorologist"
> (ROFL ROFL ROFL).
If Coleman is such a joke, why won't Al Gore debate him? (Or ANYONE.)
Bill "deafening silence goes here" S.
Andre Jute
Would you expect the Pope to debate skeptics of the Virgin Birth, eh
Bill? *Of course* Gore won't debate. He's the leader of a religion.
Scientists debate (when they haven't debauched their science for
politics) but high priests issue obiter dicta.
Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Thisthatandtheother
http://www.audio-talk.co.uk/fiultra/OTHER%20MATTERS%20ARISING.html
Woland99
Simply because Coleman IS a joke. Getting into debate requires
some degree of credibility it is something you EARN by producing
well researched papers. If I will decide tomorrow that Moon is made
out of blue cheese I may try all I want to get some top astronomers
to debate me but unless I can produce few peer reviewed papers
proving my point then well... you get the point.
If you never worked in science you probably believe that there is
some sort of conspiracy among them to bring in one world government
etc. It is about as probable that riders in Tour de France conspired
7 times in a row to let Lance win - because of .... well exactly why?
Why would ALL the scientist in the world want ONE world government.
Here you have people that fight to advance their own theories on
all other subject but suddenly they go hand in hand on GW....
Tom Sherman
> [...]
> Simply because Coleman IS a joke. Getting into debate requires
> some degree of credibility it is something you EARN by producing
> well researched papers. If I will decide tomorrow that Moon is made
> out of blue cheese I may try all I want to get some top astronomers
> to debate me but unless I can produce few peer reviewed papers
Indeed, everyone knows the moon is made of GREEN cheese.
--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
LOCAL CACTUS EATS CYCLIST - datakoll
Bill Sornson
> Getting into debate requires
> some degree of credibility it is something you EARN by producing
> well researched papers.
Like discredited hockey stick graphs and animated bears. (Oh, sorry, those
make for DOCUMENTARIES.)
As you said, ROTFL ROTFL ROTFL !
Ron Ruff
> >The last two bitter winters have lead to a rise in public awareness
> >that CO2 is not a pollutant and is not a significant greenhouse gas that is
> >triggering runaway global warming.
>
> climate change.
Ya... we've had spring here since xmas... guess that must prove
something.
Ron Ruff
> If Coleman is such a joke, why won't Al Gore debate him? (Or ANYONE.)
Who has enough time to debate all the idiots in the world?
Bill Sornson
Someone tell Still Clueless that Coleman's "local weather" is LoSoCal --
hardly home to "bitter winters". He was doubtless referring to recent
record-low temps all around the world; plus things like London blizzards,
French freezes and Arabian snow storms.
New phenomemon: global warming psychosis. It's nuts out there...
BS
Bill Sornson
How about just one -- ANY one? Jute is right: it's a religion, and thus
not fodder for contention.
A Muzi
>>> that CO2 is not a pollutant and is not a significant greenhouse gas that is
>>> triggering runaway global warming.
> Still Just Me wrote:
>> Another guy who doesn't know the difference between local weather and
>> climate change.
Ron Ruff wrote:
> Ya... we've had spring here since xmas... guess that must prove
> something.
Huh. Here too.
Until this week mostly minus 10~15F overnight for six weeks.
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Philip Holman
GW is a scientific phenomenon. Courtesy of Uncle Al............
"Science is empirical observation modeled by self-consistent math.
Newton led the charge. Science cannot be proven, but it can be
disproven with a single counter-example. The result is a growing body
of ever-improving knowledge that can be trusted to work in all of its
parts taken singulary and collectively.
This can be compared to religions, which are faith-based and precisely
not bound by empirical observation. Science and religion are
orthogonal concepts. If you want promised post mortem escrows of the
finest varieties, go religion. If you want your toilet to flush in
the here and now, go science.
Religion-based societies have low average age to mortality. One
posits they can't wait to cash in. US Baby Boomers are expected to
live an average 100 years - after all, it's worth sticking around.
Religion is faith - irrational belief held contrary to empirical
observation. The dysfunctional interface between fools in Church
anteing up to the collection plate as an earthquake hits and buries
them all dead under consecrated rubble is called "a test of faith."
God does things in His professional capacity that in His personal
capacity He loathes. Ha ha ha. Does the Pope look like he is in real
close and personal with the halfing faggot god-on-a-stick? He looks
like a dying old man to me.
How many cardinals, bishops... and baby-buggering priests (test of
faith!) does it require to pray on a fluorescent light? I can do it
by flipping a switch, no divine intervention necessary or desired.
That's the difference between religion and science.
Ain't that just the problem with religion? Pray and bleed your whole
life long and your shit still stinks."
Amusing yes?
Phil H
Andre Jute
> "Bill Sornson" <so...@noyb.com> wrote in message
>
> news:gmpo6e$70d$1...@news.motzarella.org...> Ron Ruff wrote:
> >> Bill Sornson wrote:
> >>> If Coleman is such a joke, why won't Al Gore debate him? (Or
> >>> ANYONE.)
>
> >> Who has enough time to debate all the idiots in the world?
>
> > How about just one -- ANY one? Jute is right: it's a religion, and
> > thus not fodder for contention.
>
> Jute right?
It would be nice to think Bill is giving me a blanket endorsement...
But I imagine Bill is referring to this exchange:
*******
Bill:
> If Coleman is such a joke, why won't Al Gore debate him? (Or ANYONE.)
Andre Jute:
Would you expect the Pope to debate skeptics of the Virgin Birth, eh
Bill? *Of course* Gore won't debate. He's the leader of a religion.
Scientists debate (when they haven't debauched their science for
politics) but high priests issue obiter dicta.
********
folks are rarely right when they rely on their emotions.
Oh, I agree with you, Phil. Relentless rigour is called for to defend
ourselves against the damage done by emotionally immature greens and
other impressionables.
> GW is a scientific phenomenon. Courtesy of Uncle Al............
Eh? How can something become a scientific "phenomenon" by the action
of a politician who is so ignorant of it he refuses to debate it? How
can any scientific fact rest on the sneer that "it is all settled", on
the popularity contest of "consensus" rather than on specific facts?
Why does any scientific claim require deliberate lies to uphold it,
like Michael Mann's "hockey stick", which turned an entire IPCC report
into one large lie (the hockey stick graph, encapsulating the lie, was
the only graphic shown to policymakers in the summary).
Nah, religions commit that sort of immorality, not scientists.
> "Science is empirical observation modeled by self-consistent math.
> Newton led the charge. Science cannot be proven, but it can be
> disproven with a single counter-example. The result is a growing body
> of ever-improving knowledge that can be trusted to work in all of its
> parts taken singulary and collectively.["]
Very nice Einstein-Popper summary. They lived by it. Do you? It is
quite clear that the global warmers don't.
> This can be compared to religions, which are faith-based and precisely
> not bound by empirical observation. Science and religion are
> orthogonal concepts.
Orthogonal? Do you mean antagonistic or adversarial?
> If you want promised post mortem escrows of the
> finest varieties, go religion. If you want your toilet to flush in
> the here and now, go science.
My plumber will be ever so flattered to be called a scientist -- until
he hears that being called a scientist likewise equates him with
superfluous, superannuated Marxists shouting in the streets for a new
Kyoto. He has too much sense and dignity to want to be associated with
that scum.
> Religion-based societies have low average age to mortality. One
> posits they can't wait to cash in.
This may be political correctness but as a scientific observation it
stinks. The link is between religion-based societies and poverty. The
religion doesn't cause the infant deaths, the poverty does.
>US Baby Boomers are expected to
> live an average 100 years - after all, it's worth sticking around.
>
> Religion is faith - irrational belief held contrary to empirical
> observation. The dysfunctional interface between fools in Church
> anteing up to the collection plate as an earthquake hits and buries
> them all dead under consecrated rubble is called "a test of faith."
> God does things in His professional capacity that in His personal
> capacity He loathes. Ha ha ha. Does the Pope look like he is in real
> close and personal with the halfing faggot god-on-a-stick? He looks
> like a dying old man to me.
Er, Phil, is still your version of science, or are you now merely
foaming at the mouth with emotion?
> How many cardinals, bishops... and baby-buggering priests (test of
> faith!) does it require to pray on a fluorescent light? I can do it
> by flipping a switch, no divine intervention necessary or desired.
> That's the difference between religion and science.
>
> Ain't that just the problem with religion? Pray and bleed your whole
> life long and your shit still stinks."
>
> Amusing yes?
But science, nope.
>
> Phil H
Nice hearing from you, Phil. Always worth a giggle. But you'd better
leave the science to calm and experienced people like me.
Andre Jute
Charisma is the talent of infuriating the undeserving by merely
existing elegantly
Woland99
I do not know what is your background and if you ever worked
doing scientific research. I have a degree in Physics from
the University of Warsaw. One of my friend worked there for
Polish Physical Society. One of her tasks was to organize
nearly ENDLESS stream of letters from crackpots ready to
disprove Einstein or provide you with General Theory of
Life Universe and Everything would send in. In some cases
those folks demonstrated quite a command of scientific
terminology or even ability to do mathematics. Yet all of
those "theories" were gibberish - at best based on circular
logic, misrepresentation of experimental data. At worst they
showed signs of schizoprenia.
Science has certain ways of dealing with new ideas precisely
to PROTECT itself from defending the current paradigm against
such pseudo-science. If ANY of scientists in the Instititute
of Theoretical Physics were obliged to spend time on EDUCATING
all those amateurs about errors in their reasoning that would
mean full time job for them.
Your ENTIRE point rest on the assumption that there is
CONSPIRACY among virtually all scientist that work on
modelling the climate changes. And you have absolutely ZERO
proof that such conspiracy exists. People like you ridicule
global warming by talking about "tinfoil hats" and in a split
second they switch to talking about "world wide conspiracy
of scientists to establish one world government". Do you
see any IRONY in that situation.
How do you propose such conspiracy works? Who controls it?
In many cases science is funded by state grants - that would
imply that there is conspiracy between governments of diff
countries to MERGE into one world governing body.
I agree that interpreting scientifc data - especially for
systems where we have no control over parameters - like data
about Earth climate is NOT a trivial task. and world is neither
black nor white - almost never one side has all the truth.
But I also believe that pure delusion about science conspiring
to bring in world government is worth considering as voice in
this debate - there is enough plurality in science as it is
to save us from dogma. If you wamt place in that debate then
start bringing us some models that are based on observed data
and not a bunch of absurd accusations.
Woland99
> One world order, one world order, one world order!!!
>
> Now where's my tinfoil hat got to?
I meant to say of course:
I agree that interpreting scientifc data - especially for
systems where we have no control over parameters - like data
about Earth climate is NOT a trivial task. and world is neither
black nor white - almost never one side has all the truth.
But I also believe that pure delusion about science conspiring
this debate - there is enough plurality in science as it is
Robert Chung
> Why does any scientific claim require deliberate lies to uphold it,
> like Michael Mann's "hockey stick", which turned an entire IPCC report
> into one large lie (the hockey stick graph, encapsulating the lie, was
> the only graphic shown to policymakers in the summary).
Hmmm. Speaking of deliberate lies, here's the link to the policymakers'
summary:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf
1. There are 11 graphs in that summary.
2. None of them are Michael Mann's.
Dan O
> >news:858e62d4-6f10-4306...@o40g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
> >> On Feb 7, 8:21 pm, "Bill Sornson" <so...@noyb.com> wrote:
> >>> andresm...@aol.com wrote:
> >>>> This is just to toss some fuel into the fire and see how my
> >>>> namesake and others respond. Notice an article in the journal
> >>>> Science, that ice melting in the poles could lead to overflow of
> >>>> coasts to a much greater detriment than previously predicted. Of
> >>>> course this was published in the gossip column "Science" and not
> >>>> in the more respected literature that was previously quoted in
> >>>> this group by global warming foes. So, take it with the due
> >>>> skepticism.
>
> >>> When a coast -- ANY coast -- floods due to melting ice, think how
> >>> proud you'll be.
>
> >>> Meantime, keep drinking the Koolaid.
>
> >>> BS
>
> >> Dude, you are *such* a dumbass!
>
> > Why? because he doesn't buy the propoganda BS that is being but out
> > by the likes if Al Gore
>
> Oh-Dan is one of the whinier ideologues to appear recently. Sticks his nose
> in other people's exchanges, routinely attacking the "other side" personally
> and snidely and then hiding under a rock until the next opportunity arises
> weeks later.
>
I post here all the time, but you only seem to take interest in OT
political nut-job stuff.
Other people's exchanges: This is not your personal smart-ass message
system. It's worldwide, baby (and eternal).
Let's see: I refer to you as "Bill". You refer to me (and anyone
else who crosses you) using every snide distortion calculated to
offend that your adolescent mind can think up. Who is snidely
personal?
Let's see: My msg headers include a real email address. Yours is
spoofed. You whine endlessly if anyone trims anything you post, and
whine some more because you didn't see context that went into your
killfile. Who's hiding under a rock?
So, Bill, if I am indeed "one of the whinier" anythings anywhere,
surely you can quote something "whiny" from me, eh? (I can quote
endless examples of your snide, whining hypocrisy, but may just let
the Usenet archive speak for itself.)
Main Entry:
snide
Pronunciation:
\ˈsnīd\
Function:
adjective
Etymology:
origin unknown
Date:
circa 1859
1 a: false , counterfeit b: practicing deception : dishonest <a snide
merchant>2: unworthy of esteem : low <a snide trick>3: slyly
disparaging : insinuating <snide remarks>
— snide·ly adverb
— snide·ness noun
Andre Jute
wrote:
You're citing the 2007 summary. By then the cock had crowed many times
for poor Michael Mann. By then the whole world knew he is a liar and
an incompetent. That is why he isn't in the 2007 summary.
I'm surprised, dear Robert, that you don't know to look in the 2001
IPCC assessments for Michael Mann, seeing that you (supported by Ben
Weiner) several times tried to pretend here on RBT that Mann's
crimininally untruthful hockey stick graph is science and the final
word on the subject. Try here:
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/005.htm
the page headed "Climate 2001: The Scientific Basis: Summary for
Policymakers",in short what everything else is based on, Mann's hockey
stick lie, and notice that the caption to the hockey stick graph:
"Figure 1: Variations of the Earth's surface temperature over the last
140 years and the last millennium"
is another gross lie as Mann's figures were claimed by him to relate
only to North America and in fact relate mostly to Colorada, and in
detail, even after massive cooking of the numbers as exposed by
McIntyre and McKittrick, are accounted for 93% by data taken by
Graybill on only 15 trees of a type declared unsuitable as a climate
proxy by everyone, as pointedly noted by the Wegman report to the
Senate on the scandal.
So no, I'm not surprised that by 2007 the IPCC, egg dripping from its
face, no longer wanted to know Michael Mann.
Michael Mann by himself had made the IPCC forever a joke whose word
isn't worth shit and whose "science" needs to quarantined from real
science lest its dishonest methods infect everyone. As I wrote
recently: "...how can anyone trust the IPCC's models, which were tuned
(let's keep it polite!) to track the Medieval Warm Period and the
Little Ice Age, and then retuned to track Mann's now disgraced flat
hockey stick and to provide a peak at the end of the 20th century, and
now that the MWP and LIA are reinstated, will be returned to track
them again. A model that easy is anyone's whore. No wonder the IPCC
and its "scientists" spread syphilis to the truth of whatever it
touches. "
Thank you, dear Robert, for another opportunity to lay the lies of
Michael Mann and the disgrace of the IPCC once more before RBT and the
world.
Oh, by the way, how did you ever think you would get away with the
kindergarten debating trick of trying to claim I cited the wrong paper
or the wrong year? Were you born lying scum, Robert Chung, or did you
go to night school to learn how to be lying scum?
Andre Jute
Relentless rigour against the enemies of society
Andre Jute
> On Mon, 9 Feb 2009 19:23:50 -0800 (PST), Andre Jute
>
> <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >Why does any scientific claim require deliberate lies to uphold it,
> >like Michael Mann's "hockey stick", which turned an entire IPCC report
> >into one large lie (the hockey stick graph, encapsulating the lie, was
> >the only graphic shown to policymakers in the summary).
>
This is what I mean by global warming being a religious crusade for
it's little hanger's on like Robert Chung and the anonymus "Still Just
Me'.
The Fat Mullah Al Gore has spoken and declared the Hockey Stick the
only law, and anyone who asks to see the statistics behind it, and
excoriates them, is an heretic who should be shouted down.
Yo, dumbo, Michael Mann's hockey stick graph is essential to proving
that there is global warming by removing the Medieval Warm Period and
the Little Ice Age because while they remain in the data temperatures
in living memory are by comparison neither high nor abnormal nor out
of band nor dangerous, in fact rather normal and dull -- and cool into
the bargain! But, as we all now now, Michael Mann's hockey stick graph
is one big lie. The IPCC, by pretending it was true and furthermore
that it had worldwide relevance (which even the incompetent and
untruthful Mann never tried to get away with), told some very big
whoppers. When Mann's hockey stick farce was exposed, the IPCC lost
whatever shreds of credibility it had left. And all the proof that
there isn't any global warming is contained in this paragraph: if the
IPCC's "consensus of scientists" feel that it is necessary to lie, to
abuse and persecute critics and doubters, why, then it is because they
too know that there is no global warming.
Now let's see this wanker Still Just Me's elegant contribution to
science again:
> You seem to have a hockey stick stuck up your ass.
See this hockey stick, sonny? The sensible people of the world, who
never believed this global warming crap, are in the process of ramming
it up the arse of the Fat Mullah of Global Warming, and all his
religious little disaster-chanters like you, and the IPCC. The
Indians, for instance, are already demanding that the IPCC be held
accountable for the lies it has told, the money it has cost, the
damage it has done. Fat Al might have his hundred million made from
trading carbon credits -- and that might have been the sole imperative
of his conversion to the cause -- but his credibilty lies in shards.
Who stands up now for Fat Al, the hanging chad of environmentalism?
Andre Jute
No wool over my eyes -- I leave that style to the fashion victims
among the baaing greens
Woland99
> No need to rephrase - you said it well before. The fact is that every
> post Snorti makes about Global Warming is from some right wing whack
> job - the extreme types who foam at the mouth as they rave about the
> impending "one world order".
There is such thing as certain degree of conservatism in science.
People do not jump up immediately and embrace the newest ideas -
there is certain "inertia" built in the whole process and the
augmenting/improving prevailing paradigm is usually chosen over
discarding it for something new and different. But it is insulting
to everything that science aspires to be to imply that any scientist
would knowingly discard or suppress convincing experimental data
in order to maintain status quo. I guess eople that advance such
point of view do it because it may something that they know from
their own playbook. Just a speculation. But if you ever been to
any scientific conference where everybody sits on the edge of
their chair, ready to punch holes in presentation by other person
t=you would know how ridiculous such accusation is.
Michael Press
"Philip Holman" <pho...@wbhsi.net> wrote:
Quoting Alan "Uncle Al" Schwartz, eh?
--
Michael Press
Robert Chung
> So no, I'm not surprised that by 2007 the IPCC, egg dripping from its
> face, no longer wanted to know Michael Mann.
Ah, so what you're saying is, the AR4 does not depend on Mann's hockey
stick--yet they still come to the conclusion that AGW is real. Okay, I can
live with that.
Andre Jute
wrote:
The only thing sensible people can conclude about the IPCC is that it
is an institution created to find climate change, and that it will lie
and twist and turn to find climate change and protect the jobs
involved regardless of whether there is any real science pointing to
global warming or its absence. The IPCC from the beginning was a C
Northcote Parkinson nightmare of work expanding to fill the time
available for it. The Michael episode merely put the final nail into
the coffin of an already discredited organization. No one can ever
trust an organization which put MIchael center-stage and told the
world to build policies on his lies. No one can ever trust an
organization who built even bigger lies on Mann's lies. How come not
one of those 2500 "consensus" scientists and all the "peer reviewers"
ever asked to see Mann's raw data in order to attempt to duplicate his
findings? The answer is that they all know what is expected of them,
and it isn't science, it is compliance.
Here is my original again, for you to answer the many other points in
it, if you can, dear Robert:
****
So no, I'm not surprised that by 2007 the IPCC, egg dripping from its
face, no longer wanted to know Michael Mann.
Michael Mann by himself had made the IPCC forever a joke whose word
isn't worth shit and whose "science" needs to quarantined from real
science lest its dishonest methods infect everyone. As I wrote
recently: "...how can anyone trust the IPCC's models, which were tuned
(let's keep it polite!) to track the Medieval Warm Period and the
Little Ice Age, and then retuned to track Mann's now disgraced flat
hockey stick and to provide a peak at the end of the 20th century, and
now that the MWP and LIA are reinstated, will be returned to track
them again. A model that easy is anyone's whore. No wonder the IPCC
and its "scientists" spread syphilis to the truth of whatever it
touches. "
Thank you, dear Robert, for another opportunity to lay the lies of
Michael Mann and the disgrace of the IPCC once more before RBT and the
world.
Oh, by the way, how did you ever think you would get away with the
kindergarten debating trick of trying to claim I cited the wrong paper
or the wrong year? Were you born lying scum, Robert Chung, or did you
go to night school to learn how to be lying scum?
Andre Jute
Relentless rigour against the enemies of society
****
Tom Sherman
> On Mon, 9 Feb 2009 19:23:50 -0800 (PST), Andre Jute
>
>> Why does any scientific claim require deliberate lies to uphold it,
>> like Michael Mann's "hockey stick", which turned an entire IPCC report
>> into one large lie (the hockey stick graph, encapsulating the lie, was
>> the only graphic shown to policymakers in the summary).
>
>
>
Philip Holman
"Michael Press" <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:rubrum-0B15F2....@news.sf.sbcglobal.net...
Phil H
Bill Sornson
> This is just to toss some fuel into the fire and see how my namesake
> and others respond. Notice an article in the journal Science, that ice
> melting in the poles could lead to overflow of coasts to a much
> greater detriment than previously predicted. Of course this was
> published in the gossip column "Science" and not in the more respected
> literature that was previously quoted in this group by global warming
> foes. So, take it with the due skepticism.
There was a report just the other day that the sensors were faulty and
there's 193,000 more square MILES of ice than had been reported. (Size of
California is all.)
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601110&sid=aIe9swvOqwIY
Also, NASA's satellite devoted to study global warming gases CRASHED INTO
THE ANTARCTIC today:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=av6QSiI5BuOI&refer=us
(Can't make this shit up.)
Maybe Al can make a graph about it:
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/23/gore-pulls-slide-of-disaster-trends/
But Oslo has an idea:
http://blogs.reuters.com/environment/2009/02/24/ice-age-or-global-warming/
Bill "keep 'fueling the fire', Andre -- we need the warmth!" S.
russell...@yahoo.com
> andresm...@aol.com wrote:
> > This is just to toss some fuel into the fire and see how my namesake
> > and others respond. Notice an article in the journal Science, that ice
> > melting in the poles could lead to overflow of coasts to a much
> > greater detriment than previously predicted. Of course this was
> > published in the gossip column "Science" and not in the more respected
> > literature that was previously quoted in this group by global warming
> > foes. So, take it with the due skepticism.
>
> There was a report just the other day that the sensors were faulty and
> there's 193,000 more square MILES of ice than had been reported. (Size of
> California is all.)
>
> http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601110&sid=aIe9swvOqwIY
But this was only for the real time reporting from January through mid
February. Historic numbers are not affected. Some quotes from the
article you referenced but did not read apparently.
“Although we believe that data prior to early January are reliable, we
will conduct a full quality check.’’
The recent error doesn’t change findings that Arctic ice is
retreating, the NSIDC said.
The center said real-time data on sea ice is always less reliable than
archived numbers because full checks haven’t yet been carried out.
Historical data is checked across other sources, it said.
Bill Sornson
> This is just to toss some fuel into the fire and see how my namesake
> and others respond.
Now the greens are attacking George Will for this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/13/AR2009021302514.html