Re: Greenhouse effect is immeasurible, untestable pseudo-science

[Will Janoschka]

On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 21:56:27, Claudius Denk
<claudi...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> On Jan 25, 1:32ĸpm, Sleepalot <sleepalo...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> > >On Jan 22, 12:19 pm, Poutnik <pout...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> > >> Sleepalot posted Tue, 22 Jan 2013 12:42:55 +0000
> >
> > Please note: whatever I said <here> was snipped.
> >
> > >> Denying existence of greenhouse effect
> > >> stands for denying of proveable and measureable effect
> > >> the gases absorb and emit IR radiation.
> >
> > >Global warming whackos always make this claim. ĸBut their own words
> > >betray them in that if this was true then they would never have to
> > >make this claim, they'd just present the proof and the measurements
> > >and the argument would be over.
> >
> > Indeed, that's why I got fed up of Poutnik - he produced nothing: no facts,
> > no links, no arguments - just claims.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >Global warming alarmism will never end because it is not limited by
> > >empirical methods its only limits are what people choose to believe,
> > >and belief has no limits.
>
> The whole global warming argument can be paraphrased as follows:
>
> AGW groupy:
> I believe in global warming.
>
> Skeptic:
> Why do you believe in global warming?
>
> AGW groupy:
> I really really believe in global warming.
>
> Skeptic:
> Okay, but why do you really really believe in global warming?
>
> AGW groupy:
> A lot of other people also believe in global warming.
>
> Skeptic:
> Do you know why they believe in global warming?
>
> AGW groupy:
> They really really believe in global warming?
>
> Skeptic:
> Are you suggesting that the fact that others believe it is the only
> reason you believe it?
>
> AGW groupy:
> You are a poo poo head.

No Radiative Heat, rather only radiation that is a function of
temperature!
No Heat effects from CO2! Never, ever been demonstrated by anyone!

No Greenhouse effect! Falsified in 1906, by Lord Kelvin et al!

No Greenhouse gasses! No gas stops convection, a requiremen of
greenhouse!
No Radiative forcing! Hansen buzzwords, no radiative heat!
No Positive feedbacks! More Hansen buzzwords, feedback of what
No Net heat increase! 0.6 Watt/m^2 is Hansen's Fantasy story!
No Climate Science! Piss poor Political science maybe!
No Science! Ever from Sam Wormley!
No!
I do deny that Climate Clowns use "any" science whatsoever!!!
As Ben says, the Clowns deny science. -will-

[DonH]

"Will Janoschka" <wil...@nospam.pobox.com> wrote in message
news:DmJ5SKFdRQph-p...@209-142-179-226.dyn.centurytel.net...

> On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 21:56:27, Claudius Denk
> <claudi...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>

>> On Jan 25, 1:32�pm, Sleepalot <sleepalo...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> > Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > >On Jan 22, 12:19 pm, Poutnik <pout...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>> > >> Sleepalot posted Tue, 22 Jan 2013 12:42:55 +0000
>> >
>> > Please note: whatever I said <here> was snipped.
>> >
>> > >> Denying existence of greenhouse effect
>> > >> stands for denying of proveable and measureable effect
>> > >> the gases absorb and emit IR radiation.
>> >

>> > >Global warming whackos always make this claim. �But their own words

# Well, as a layman, I can only go by what the majority of scientists claim,
after years of meticulous research.
How is the Arctic ice cap going - if it is going? And what will be the
consequences?
The accumulation of a host of facts, from various sources, indicate that
world air temperature is increasing, that erratic and extreme weather events
are becoming common, and that we just can't keep on pouring billions of
tonnes of chimney smoke (and vehicle exhaust gases) into the air, annually,
and expect nothing to happen.
Apart from AGW, the impact of seven billion humans, with massive
technology, is having immediate, and obvious, effect. The Amazon Jungle is
likely to be the next Sahara, and non-human species are under constant
threat of extinction - due to us.
But if you don't believe any of this, then so be it.
Will the species Homo Sap survive the present century?
We're likely too clever to do so, as the smart-arse ignorant win the
day.

[Sam Wormley]

On 1/27/13 1:26 PM, DonH wrote:
> "Will Janoschka"<wil...@nospam.pobox.com> wrote in message

>> >

Will doesn't care... about science or what's happening on the earth
due to human activity. Will could care less.

[Wally W.]

Sam,

You only harp on the supposed problem.

What solutions do you offer to your imagined problem other than to
counter "human activity" with massive "depopulation"?

If your goal is genocide, why don't your posts speak often and plainly
about it?

[Sam Wormley]

On 1/27/13 2:14 PM, Wally W. wrote:

>
> Sam,
>
> You only harp on the supposed problem.
>
> What solutions do you offer to your imagined problem other than to
> counter "human activity" with massive "depopulation"?
>
> If your goal is genocide, why don't your posts speak often and plainly
> about it?
>
>

I would like to see humans (and millions of other species) live
and thrive sustainably on the planet.

[Poutnik]

Will Janoschka posted Sun, 27 Jan 2013 11:57:21 -0600

>
> No Radiative Heat, rather only radiation that is a function of
> temperature!
> No Heat effects from CO2! Never, ever been demonstrated by anyone!
>
> No Greenhouse effect! Falsified in 1906, by Lord Kelvin et al!
>
> No Greenhouse gasses! No gas stops convection, a requiremen of
> greenhouse!
> No Radiative forcing! Hansen buzzwords, no radiative heat!
> No Positive feedbacks! More Hansen buzzwords, feedback of what
> No Net heat increase! 0.6 Watt/m^2 is Hansen's Fantasy story!
> No Climate Science! Piss poor Political science maybe!
> No Science! Ever from Sam Wormley!
> No!
> I do deny that Climate Clowns use "any" science whatsoever!!!
> As Ben says, the Clowns deny science. -will-

Do not be clown yourself....

--
Poutnik

[Wally W.]

How many humans?

A number achieved by what means over what time?

C'mon, Sam. Spill the beans on what you want for your fellow man.
Remember, it is Sunday: a day reserved for congeniality and
truth-telling.

How will the rate of accomplishing your "sustainable" population
affect the rate of global warming over the next century?

Do you have *anything* practical to say about AGW?

Or can you only say "the sky is falling"?

[Sam Wormley]

On 1/27/13 2:25 PM, Wally W. wrote:
>
> Do you have *anything* practical to say about AGW?
>

I would like to see us avoid a mass extinction.

[Wally W.]

On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 14:26:52 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote:

>On 1/27/13 2:25 PM, Wally W. wrote:
>>
>> Do you have *anything* practical to say about AGW?
>>

Apparently not.

> I would like to see us avoid a mass extinction.

Which means what?

Do you prefer culling?

What is the target number after the culling?

You snipped and didn't answer the question:

[Marvin the Martian]

On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 14:26:52 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote:

Damn.Worm's a goddamned Nutjob.

No proof that we put the CO2 in the air.
No proof that more CO2 causes more warming.
No proof that warming is bad (history says it is good, btw).

And he believes it as a matter of faith. Even No science at all.

This wacko is a disgrace to every real scientist out there.

[Claudius Denk]

Believers believe. Scientists measure and test.

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

He gave a number about a year or so ago and got a pile of crap over his
misanthropic viewpoint and desire to see the majority of humanity eliminated.

This vile little piece of shit prbobably longs for the days when the ovens
were running at full capacity.

[Sam Wormley]

On 1/27/13 3:03 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
> Damn.Worm's a goddamned Nutjob.
>
> No proof that we put the CO2 in the air.
> No proof that more CO2 causes more warming.
> No proof that warming is bad (history says it is good, btw).

Marvin is now sounding like many climate science deniers in
these newsgroups. Marvin won't read Franzen's paper which
develops very equations he has been demanding be posted!

"The Physical Chemistry of Climate Change"

prepared from data from V. Robert Stull, Phillip J. Wyatt and N. Plaas,
Applied Optics, Vol. 3, No. 2, 1964 p. 243 and using information from
Kuo-Nan Liou, An Introduction to Atmospheric Radiation, Academic Press,
San Diego, 1980

by Fritz Franzen (hfra...@iastate.edu)

> http://edu-observatory.org/Franzen/GWPPT10.pdf

[Sam Wormley]

On 1/27/13 3:03 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:

> No proof that we put the CO2 in the air.

What the science says:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions-intermediate.htm

> No proof that more CO2 causes more warming.

What the science says:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/saturated-co2-effect-advanced.htm

> No proof that warming is bad (history says it is good, btw).

What the Science says:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives-advanced.htm

[Jeff-Relf.Me]

 
The lifespan of humanity is much like my own.
The more active I am, the harder I work, the sooner I die.

Many short, low⋅weight people, like George Burns and Sammy Davis, Jr.,
live to 100 because THEY EAT LESS.  Amazingly, this is true despite
chain⋅smoking alcoholism.  Tax away obesity, not cigarettes.

Not that it's best to live to 100, of course.

Further: Those who breed like silly rabbits, die like silly rabbits.
Historically, Afghans and Viet Cong have dropped like flies, for example.

In contrast, we Americans live longer because we've a division of labor;
e.g. bankers and doctors.  Taxes and regulations are the price we pay.

-- Regular Posters of Comp.OS.Linux.Advocacy and Sci.Physics.

[Claudius Denk]

> by Fritz Franzen (hfran...@iastate.edu)
>
>  >http://edu-observatory.org/Franzen/GWPPT10.pdf

Typically global warming cultists are too dullwitted to present an
argument that addresses the issue under discussion. Reread this
thread, starting with the first post, and make an effort to tailor
your post so that it addresses the issue under discussion.

[Sam Wormley]

On 1/27/13 3:27 PM, Claudius Denk wrote:
> Typically global warming cultists are too dullwitted to present an
> argument that addresses the issue under discussion. Reread this
> thread, starting with the first post, and make an effort to tailor
> your post so that it addresses the issue under discussion.

The thread subject says that the greenhouse effect is immeasurable.

What the science says...
> http://www.skepticalscience.com/does-greenhouse-effect-exist-intermediate.htm

> The atmosphere of the Earth is less able to absorb shortwave
> radiation from the Sun than thermal radiation coming from the
> surface. The effect of this disparity is that thermal radiation
> escaping to space comes mostly from the cold upper atmosphere, while
> the surface is maintained at a substantially warmer temperature. This
> is called the "atmospheric greenhouse effect", and without it the
> Earth's surface would be much colder.

> Most participants in climate debates can agree that the atmosphere's
> capacity to interact with thermal radiation helps maintain the
> Earth's surface temperature at a livable level. The Earth's surface
> is about 33 degrees Celsius warmer than required to radiate back all
> the absorbed energy from the Sun. This is possible only because most
> of this radiation is absorbed in the atmosphere, and what actually
> escapes out into space is mostly emitted from colder atmosphere.
>
> This absorption is due to trace gases which make up only a very small
> part of the atmosphere. Such gases are opaque to thermal radiation,
> and are called "greenhouse gases". The most important greenhouse
> gases on Earth are water vapor and carbon dioxide, with additional
> contributions from methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and others. If the
> atmosphere was simply a dry mix of its major constituents, Oxygen and
> Nitrogen, the Earth would freeze over completely.
>
> Observing the greenhouse effect in action
>
> The simplest direct observation of the greenhouse effect at work is
> atmospheric backradiation. Any substance that absorbs thermal
> radiation will also emit thermal radiation; this is a consequence of
> Kirchoff's law. The atmosphere absorbs thermal radiation because of
> the trace greenhouse gases, and also emits thermal radiation, in all
> directions. This thermal emission can be measured from the surface
> and also from space. The surface of the Earth actually receives in
> total more radiation from the atmosphere than it does from the Sun.
>
> The net flow of radiant heat is still upwards from the surface to the
> atmosphere, because the upwards thermal emission is greater than the
> downwards atmospheric backradiation. This is a simple consequence of
> the second law of thermodynamics. The magnitude of the net flow of
> heat is the difference between the radiant energy flowing in each
> direction. Because of the backradiation, the surface temperature and
> the upwards thermal radiation is much larger than if there was no
> greenhouse effect.
>
> Atmospheric backradiation has been directly measured for over fifty
> years. The effects of greenhouse gases stand out clearly in modern
> measurements, which are able to show a complete spectrum.

There's more:
> http://www.skepticalscience.com/does-greenhouse-effect-exist-intermediate.htm

[Sam Wormley]

On 1/27/13 3:15 PM, Claudius Denk wrote:
> Believers believe. Scientists measure and test.

Exactly! The American Physical Society has developed a policy
statement concerning global climate change:
> http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm

(Adopted by Council on November 18, 2007)
"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".

Climate Change Commentary
(adopted by Council on April 18, 2010)

"There is a substantial body of peer reviewed scientific research to
support the technical aspects of the 2007 APS statement. The purpose
of the following commentary is to provide clarification and
additional details".

[Sam Wormley]

On 1/27/13 11:57 AM, Will Janoschka wrote:
> No Greenhouse effect! Falsified in 1906, by Lord Kelvin et al!

[Claudius Denk]

On Jan 27, 1:40 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/27/13 3:15 PM, Claudius Denk wrote:
>
> > Believers believe.  Scientists measure and test.
>
>    Exactly! The American Physical Society has developed a policy
>    statement concerning global climate change:
>  >http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm

The subject under discussion here, you imbecile, is measuring and
testing of the "greenhouse effect." Policy is not the subject being
discussed here. Try to follow.

[Marvin the Martian]

Worm has posted this crap AT LEAST twice. Both times we took his silly
power point apart, and he RAN AWAY and changed the subject.

I don't have a cut and paste list like this WORM ASSHOLE. He can cut and
paste a lot faster than honest people can reply.

He posts his crap, and then if there is any debate about it he runs away
and post some different crap. He goes in a big circle of crap-posting.

He's too damned stupid or too damned dishonest to actually DISCUSS what
he's posting, so he just a damned spammer and liar.

And nowhere in his idiot power point does it explain the last 16 years of
non-warming, so his "hypothesis" doesn't even fit past observation. It's
a damned non-starter. Not just me but other's explained it to the Worm
before, but he just starts posting another cut and paste and then comes
back and post the same damned thing a month or two later.

No wonder some people believe the Worm to be a mindless spam-bot.

[Marvin the Martian]

aw fuck! That again!?

You mindless idiot spamming bastard!

[Sam Wormley]

On 1/27/13 4:04 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
> Worm has posted this crap AT LEAST twice. Both times we took his silly
> power point apart, and he RAN AWAY and changed the subject.

Marvin has yet to read the presentation or comment on any of its
specific content.

The Physical Chemistry of Climate Change

prepared from data from V. Robert Stull, Phillip J. Wyatt and N. Plaas,
Applied Optics, Vol. 3, No. 2, 1964 p. 243 and using information from
Kuo-Nan Liou, An Introduction to Atmospheric Radiation, Academic Press,
San Diego, 1980

by Fritz Franzen (hfra...@iastate.edu)

> http://edu-observatory.org/Franzen/GWPPT10.pdf

[Sam Wormley]

Do you find fault with the American Physical Society Policy Statement,
Marvin? If so, what part?

[Claudius Denk]

Thread isn't about policy statements, you ignorant ass. If you wish
to discuss this then go start your own thread.

[Sam Wormley]

On 1/27/13 5:48 PM, Claudius Denk wrote:

>
> Thread isn't about policy statements, you ignorant ass. If you wish
> to discuss this then go start your own thread.
>

WRT to the thread topic, Claudius,

[Marvin the Martian]

That thing... that worm thing... it just POSTS Crap. I think he's using a
bot.

Now he's pretending that he's not posted this idiot policy statement
before and we didn't tear it apart. The idiot didn't reply to our
criticism any of the times we took his cut and paste apart before. He
just posted something else from his list.

This worm is a jackass. He's here to spam, not discuss. And he's a bald
faced goddamned liar when he says no one has ever pointed out the faults
on his Power point or this APS statement before.

[Claudius Denk]

I used to believe in global warming. But when I started asking
questions I found that the answers just weren't there. Moreover,
there were a lot of simpletons telling me that my questions didn't
count. Global warming cultists aren't capable of addressing an
issue. They are just a bunch of dingbats.

[Sam Wormley]

On 1/27/13 6:56 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
> Now he's pretending that he's not posted this idiot policy statement
> before and we didn't tear it apart. The idiot didn't reply to our
> criticism any of the times we took his cut and paste apart before. He
> just posted something else from his list.
>
> This worm is a jackass. He's here to spam, not discuss. And he's a bald
> faced goddamned liar when he says no one has ever pointed out the faults
> on his Power point or this APS statement before.
>

Marvin, most of your posting are either name calling, similar
disparagements, or claims that are listed as climate science myths,
including the subject of this thread.

> Global Warming & Climate Change Myths
> http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
> http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php
> http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?f=taxonomy
>
> The goal of Skeptical Science is to explain what peer reviewed
> science has to say about global warming. When you peruse the many
> arguments of global warming skeptics, a pattern emerges. Skeptic
> arguments tend to focus on narrow pieces of the puzzle while
> neglecting the broader picture. For example, focus on Climategate
> emails neglects the full weight of scientific evidence for man-made
> global warming. Concentrating on a few growing glaciers ignores the
> world wide trend of accelerating glacier shrinkage. Claims of global
> cooling fail to realise the planet as a whole is still accumulating
> heat. This website presents the broader picture by explaining the
> peer reviewed scientific literature.
>
> Often, the reason for disbelieving in man-made global warming seem to
> be political rather than scientific. Eg - "it's all a liberal plot to
> spread socialism and destroy capitalism". As one person put it, "the
> cheerleaders for doing something about global warming seem to be
> largely the cheerleaders for many causes of which I disapprove".
> However, what is causing global warming is a purely scientific
> question. Skeptical Science removes the politics from the debate by
> concentrating solely on the science.
>
> About the Author

> Skeptical Science is maintained by John Cook, the Climate
> Communication Fellow for the Global Change Institute at the
> University of Queensland. He studied physics at the University of
> Queensland, Australia. After graduating, he majored in solar physics
> in his post-grad honours year. He is not a climate scientist.
> Consequently, the science presented on Skeptical Science is not his
> own but taken directly from the peer reviewed scientific literature.
> To those seeking to refute the science presented, one needs to
> address the peer reviewed papers where the science comes from (links
> to the full papers are provided whenever possible).
>
> CO2 and its effect on climate
> http://scienceofdoom.com/roadmap/co2/
>
> Swiss Re Scientific Arguments Against Climate Change Skeptics
> http://media.swissre.com/documents/rethinking_factsheet_climate_sceptic.pdf
> http://proclimweb.scnat.ch/portal/ressources/1183.pdf
>
> How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: Responses to the most common skeptical arguments on global warming
> http://www.grist.org/article/series/skeptics/

[Sam Wormley]

On 1/27/13 7:14 PM, Claudius Denk wrote:
> I used to believe in global warming. But when I started asking
> questions I found that the answers just weren't there.

The data of climate science is very robust. The IPCC resources
are a good overview.

> IPCC Fourth Assessment Report
> http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm
> https://www.ipcc.unibe.ch/publications/wg1-ar4/faq/wg1_faqIndex.html
>
> The IPCC is a scientific body. It reviews and assesses the most
> recent scientific, technical and socio-economic information produced
> worldwide relevant to the understanding of climate change. It does
> not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or
> parameters.
>
> Thousands of scientists from all over the world contribute to the
> work of the IPCC on a voluntary basis. Review is an essential part of
> the IPCC process, to ensure an objective and complete assessment of
> current information. IPCC aims to reflect a range of views and
> expertise. The Secretariat coordinates all the IPCC work and liaises
> with Governments. It is supported by WMO and UNEP and hosted at WMO
> headquarters in Geneva.
>
> The IPCC is an intergovernmental body. It is open to all member
> countries of the United Nations (UN) and WMO. Currently 195 countries
> are members of the IPCC. Governments participate in the review
> process and the plenary Sessions, where main decisions about the IPCC
> work programme are taken and reports are accepted, adopted and
> approved. The IPCC Bureau Members, including the Chair, are also
> elected during the plenary Sessions.
>
> Because of its scientific and intergovernmental nature, the IPCC
> embodies a unique opportunity to provide rigorous and balanced
> scientific information to decision makers. By endorsing the IPCC
> reports, governments acknowledge the authority of their scientific
> content. The work of the organization is therefore policy-relevant
> and yet policy-neutral, never policy-prescriptive.
>

[Claudius Denk]

On Jan 27, 5:19 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/27/13 7:14 PM, Claudius Denk wrote:
>
> > I used to believe in global warming.  But when I started asking
> > questions I found that the answers just weren't there.
>
>    The data of climate science is very robust.

Yes, I know. I am a climate scientist.

>    The IPCC resources
>    are a good overview.

Good for what?

[Marvin the Martian]

I've had a similar experience. It is not like I *want* to parboil the
environment. You ask these guys how it works and you get a pile of
glittery generalities. You investigate it yourself and ask questions, and
they try to bog you down in irrelevant side issues or start calling you a
"denier" or worse.

And NO ONE can answer your questions. They are unapologetic about using
bad data. They're good with the CRU e-mails and the obvious unethical,
unscientific advocacy. They openly STATE political policy and claim that
their political policy is SCIENCE. When it doesn't predict, they just
blow it off!! Then there is Worm, who lies to my face and acts surprised
I'm insulted by his goddamned bald faced lies. Or that eshrodinger
fellow, who didn't even know that the only thing that can change an
equilibrium constant is TEMPERATURE (a chem 101 factoid), but he plays
his "authority" as a chemistry teacher at a junior college.

It just gets OLD. These AGW guys have NO SHAME at all. I cant figure out
if that is because they're not intelligent enough to learn and realize
they're wrong, if AGW is some kind of religious belief to them, or if
they just lie.

[Sam Wormley]

It is an excellent resource for policy makers. Do you not agree?

[Sam Wormley]

On 1/27/13 7:22 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
> And NO ONE can answer your questions. They are unapologetic about using
> bad data.

There you go again, Marvin, claiming conclusion are based on bad data.

> What the science says...
> http://www.skepticalscience.com/CRU-tampered-temperature-data.htm


> The Independent Climate Change Email Review went back to primary data
> sources and were able to replicate CRU's results. This means not only
> was CRU not hiding anything, but it had nothing to hide. Though CRU
> neglected to provide an exact list of temperature stations, it could
> not have hid or tampered with data.

> Exhibit No. 1 of the climate conspiracy theory is a collection of
> emails stolen from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University
> of East Anglia (UEA), which appeared on the internet in November
> 2009. Though some of these "Climategate" emails can sound damning
> when quoted out of context, several inquiries have cleared the
> scientists. The most comprehensive inquiry, the Independent Climate
> Change Email Review, did something the media completely failed to do:
> it put the emails into context by investigating the main allegations.
> Its general findings (summarised here) were that the scientists'
> rigour and honesty are not in doubt, and their behaviour did not
> prejudice the advice given to policymakers, though they did fail to
> display the proper degree of openness.
>
> One set of allegations against CRU concern its main area of research,
> the instrumental temperature record CRUTEM. The CRUTEM analysis is
> very similar to those produced by independent groups such as NASA’s
> Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) and NOAA’s National
> Climatic Data Center (NCDC). Nevertheless, the contrarians allege
> that CRU manipulated data to fabricate a global warming trend; that
> CRU prevented critics from accessing the raw data and other
> information required to check its conclusions; and that CRU director
> Phil Jones failed to admit having cited fraudulent data twenty years
> ago. Thus they claim CRUTEM cannot be trusted.
>
> To create the CRUTEM surface temperature analysis, CRU scientists
> take temperature data from 4,138 stations, and for each station they
> calculate the mean temperature for 1961-1990 and temperature
> anomalies relative to that period. They then arrange all this data
> into a 5x5 degree grid. This process requires that adjustments be
> made to account for sources of error such as changing station
> locations or urban heat island effect.
>
> Following Climategate, several amateur climate bloggers have
> attempted their own analyses of global temperature trends, and
> arrived at very similar results to CRU, GISS, and NCDC. The Review
> took a similar approach, going back to primary sources and obtaining
> raw station data to see if it was possible for critics to replicate
> CRU’s results. They were able to acquire as much data as necessary
> from both the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) and the
> National Centre for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). They proceeded to
> write the computer code needed to analyse the data in the space of
> two days, without requiring any information from CRU.
>
> Thus the Review demonstrated that CRU was not hiding anything:
> sufficient data was available to replicate CRU’s results, and any
> competent researcher would be able to analyse it. Furthermore, they
> had nothing to hide: both adjusted and unadjusted data yielded very
> similar results to CRUTEM, and CRU’s homogenisation adjustments make
> no significant difference to the global average. Although the Review
> stopped short of drawing scientific conclusions, it appears that
> CRU’s conclusions are robust.
>
> Based on this, the Review concluded (its emphasis):
>
> CRU was not in a position to withhold access to [temperature] data or
> tamper with it. We demonstrated that any independent researcher can
> download station data directly from primary sources and undertake
> their own temperature trend analysis.
>
> On the allegation of biased station selection and analysis, we find
> no evidence of bias. Our work indicates that analysis of global land
> temperature trends is robust to a range of station selections and to
> the use of adjusted or unadjusted data. The level of agreement
> between independent analyses is such that it is highly unlikely that
> CRU could have acted improperly to reach a predetermined outcome.
> [1.3.1]
>
> This is stated more explicitly in Chapter 6:
>
> It is impossible for a third party to tamper improperly with the data
> unless they have also been able to corrupt the GHCN and NCAR sources.
> We do not consider this to be a credible possibility, and in any case
> this would be easily detectable by comparison to the original NMO
> records [6.4]
>
> The Review also considered the availability of metadata; that is,
> whether there was enough information available to identically
> replicate CRUTEM. As noted above, the computer code was no problem.
> Getting an exact list of temperature stations included in CRUTEM was
> more of an issue. Such a list was provided with the first version of
> CRUTEM in 1986, but CRU neglected to update it in the latest version,
> CRUTEM3, published in 2006.

> An up-to-date list was not released until October 2007, in response
> to an FoI request. Even then, the Review Team found it was not
> straightforward to identify all the stations, due to a lack of
> standardisation. However, 90% could be matched with stations in the
> GHCN database, and CRU informed them that the remaining 10% could be
> obtained from other sources such as the relevant National
> Meteorological Office. As a “test case”, the Review did obtain data
> directly from the Japanese NMO.
>
> The Review makes the following criticism of CRU:
>
> CRU should have made available an unambiguous list of the stations
> used in each of the versions of [CRUTEM] at the time of publication.
> We find that CRU’s responses to reasonable requests for information
> were unhelpful and defensive. [1.3.1]
>
> The inquiry also briefly dealt with the allegation “that Jones was
> complicit in malpractice in failing to respond appropriately to
> allegations of fraud made against […] Professor Wei-Chyung Wang”,
> whose data Jones cited in a 1990 paper on the urban heat island
> effect. The allegedly “fabricated” claim was that few if any of a
> certain selection of Chinese weather stations had moved over time.
> Wang’s university investigated and rejected the accusation of fraud.
> Meanwhile, Jones responded within one year with a peer-reviewed
> analysis confirming the original conclusions. In any case, this was
> only one paper and does not change anything we know about the urban
> heat island effect.
>
> The overall implication of the allegations was to cast doubt on the
> extent to which CRU’s work in this area could be trusted and should
> be relied upon and we find no evidence to support that implication.
> [1.3.1]
>
> Despite being heralded as “the final nail in the coffin of
> anthropogenic global warming”, Climategate has not even invalidated
> CRU's results, let alone the conclusions of the climate science
> community. In any case, the entire work of CRU comprises only a small
> part of the large body of evidence for anthropogenic global warming.
> That mountain of evidence cannot be explained away by the behaviour
> of a few individuals.

[Claudius Denk]

Sure, in the same sense that Bernie Madoff is an excellent financial
advisor.

[Will Janoschka]

On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 19:26:13, "DonH" <donlhu...@bigpond.com>

wrote:

> "Will Janoschka" <wil...@nospam.pobox.com> wrote in message
> news:DmJ5SKFdRQph-p...@209-142-179-226.dyn.centurytel.net...
> > On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 21:56:27, Claudius Denk

> > <claudi...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> >
> >> On Jan 25, 1:32ĸpm, Sleepalot <sleepalo...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >> > Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >On Jan 22, 12:19 pm, Poutnik <pout...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> >> > >> Sleepalot posted Tue, 22 Jan 2013 12:42:55 +0000
> >> >
> >> > Please note: whatever I said <here> was snipped.
> >> >
> >> > >> Denying existence of greenhouse effect
> >> > >> stands for denying of proveable and measureable effect
> >> > >> the gases absorb and emit IR radiation.
> >> >

> >> > >Global warming whackos always make this claim. ĸBut their own words

> > No Greenhouse effect! Falsified in 1906, by Lord Kelvin et al!
> >

> > No Greenhouse gasses! No gas stops convection, a requiremen of
> > greenhouse!
> > No Radiative forcing! Hansen buzzwords, no radiative heat!
> > No Positive feedbacks! More Hansen buzzwords, feedback of what
> > No Net heat increase! 0.6 Watt/m^2 is Hansen's Fantasy story!
> > No Climate Science! Piss poor Political science maybe!
> > No Science! Ever from Sam Wormley!
> > No!
> > I do deny that Climate Clowns use "any" science whatsoever!!!
> > As Ben says, the Clowns deny science. -will-
>
> # Well, as a layman, I can only go by what the majority of scientists claim,
> after years of meticulous research.

Sorry! No research only much consideration of blaming the coal
industry
You are thinking science, but dealing with politics!

> How is the Arctic ice cap going - if it is going? And what will be the
> consequences?

The Arctic has no ice cap, only a bunch of solidified water,
it is ocean with icebergs. Antarctica is a land mass with lots of
ice like Greenland and the Himalayas, a way different thing!

> The accumulation of a host of facts, from various sources, indicate that
> world air temperature is increasing, that erratic and extreme weather events
> are becoming common, and that we just can't keep on pouring billions of
> tonnes of chimney smoke (and vehicle exhaust gases) into the air, annually,
> and expect nothing to happen.

So far, from the Earth, We have no evidence to show threat to

Earth, that cannot accommodate seven billion stupid earthlings .

> Apart from AGW, the impact of seven billion humans, with massive
> technology, is having immediate, and obvious, effect. The Amazon Jungle is
> likely to be the next Sahara, and non-human species are under constant
> threat of extinction - due to us.

I agree, Earthlings foul the nest always, as per the nature of
earthlings.
This is no reason for you to pay an idiotic "carbon tax".

> But if you don't believe any of this, then so be it.
> Will the species Homo Sap survive the present century?
> We're likely too clever to do so, as the smart-arse ignorant
> win the day.
>

This planet has tried to rid itself of Homo Saps for a long time.
A failure of the Planet, the Universe, and God!. Sleep well!,
however, some still survive!, nasty critters! Worry!

[Will Janoschka]

On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 20:19:14, Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid> wrote:

>
> Will Janoschka posted Sun, 27 Jan 2013 11:57:21 -0600

>
>
> >
> > No Radiative Heat, rather only radiation that is a function of
> > temperature!
> > No Heat effects from CO2! Never, ever been demonstrated by anyone!
> >
> > No Greenhouse effect! Falsified in 1906, by Lord Kelvin et al!
> >
> > No Greenhouse gasses! No gas stops convection, a requiremen of
> > greenhouse!
> > No Radiative forcing! Hansen buzzwords, no radiative heat!
> > No Positive feedbacks! More Hansen buzzwords, feedback of what
> > No Net heat increase! 0.6 Watt/m^2 is Hansen's Fantasy story!
> > No Climate Science! Piss poor Political science maybe!
> > No Science! Ever from Sam Wormley!
> > No!
> > I do deny that Climate Clowns use "any" science whatsoever!!!
> > As Ben says, the Clowns deny science. -will-
>

> Do not be clown yourself....
>
Which of the above can you disagree?

[Will Janoschka]

On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 21:44:48, Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 1/27/13 11:57 AM, Will Janoschka wrote:
> > No Greenhouse effect! Falsified in 1906, by Lord Kelvin et al!
>
>
> What the science says...
> >

What total nonsense!
No Heat effects from CO2! Never, ever been demonstrated!

No Greenhouse effect! Falsified in 1906, by Lord Kelvin!

No Greenhouse gasses! No gas prevents convection!

No Radiative forcing! Hansen weird buzzwords!

No Positive feedbacks! Hansen plural buzzwords!

No Net heat increase! 0.6 Watt/m^2 is Hansen's faker!

No Climate Science! Piss poor Political science maybe!

No Science! Ever from Sam Wormley.

[Sam Wormley]

On 1/27/13 6:56 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
> That thing... that worm thing... it just POSTS Crap. I think he's using a
> bot.

Climate change: Oh, it's real. (8 talks)
> http://www.ted.com/playlists/78/climate_change_oh_it_s_real.html

[Will Janoschka]

On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 19:40:25, Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 1/27/13 1:26 PM, DonH wrote:
> > "Will Janoschka"<wil...@nospam.pobox.com> wrote in message
>
> >> >

> >> >No Radiative Heat, rather only radiation that is a function of
> >> >temperature!

> >> >No Heat effects from CO2! Never, ever been demonstrated by anyone!

> >> >
> >> >No Greenhouse effect! Falsified in 1906, by Lord Kelvin et al!
> >> >

> >> >No Greenhouse gasses! No gas stops convection, a requiremen of
> >> >greenhouse!
> >> >No Radiative forcing! Hansen buzzwords, no radiative heat!
> >> >No Positive feedbacks! More Hansen buzzwords, feedback of what

> >> >No Net heat increase! 0.6 Watt/m^2 is Hansen's Fantasy story!

> >> >No Climate Science! Piss poor Political science maybe!

> >> >No Science! Ever from Sam Wormley!

> >> >No!
> >> >I do deny that Climate Clowns use "any" science whatsoever!!!
> >> >As Ben says, the Clowns deny science. -will-
>
>

> > # Well, as a layman, I can only go by what the majority of scientists claim,
> > after years of meticulous research.

> > How is the Arctic ice cap going - if it is going? And what will be the
> > consequences?

> > The accumulation of a host of facts, from various sources, indicate that
> > world air temperature is increasing, that erratic and extreme weather events
> > are becoming common, and that we just can't keep on pouring billions of
> > tonnes of chimney smoke (and vehicle exhaust gases) into the air, annually,
> > and expect nothing to happen.

> > Apart from AGW, the impact of seven billion humans, with massive
> > technology, is having immediate, and obvious, effect. The Amazon Jungle is
> > likely to be the next Sahara, and non-human species are under constant
> > threat of extinction - due to us.

> > But if you don't believe any of this, then so be it.
> > Will the species Homo Sap survive the present century?
> > We're likely too clever to do so, as the smart-arse ignorant win the
> > day.
> >
> >
>

> Will doesn't care... about science or what's happening on the earth
> due to human activity. Will could care less.
>
I care about science, you do not. Try to disprove or falsify, any of
my above
Fuck earthlings!!!!

[Will Janoschka]

On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 20:26:52, Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 1/27/13 2:25 PM, Wally W. wrote:
> >
> > Do you have *anything* practical to say about AGW?
> >
>
> I would like to see us avoid a mass extinction.
>
>
Do not worry Sam, you will be first!!!

[Will Janoschka]

On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 21:03:59, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org>
wrote:

> On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 14:26:52 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote:
>
> > On 1/27/13 2:25 PM, Wally W. wrote:
> >>
> >> Do you have *anything* practical to say about AGW?
> >>
> >>
> > I would like to see us avoid a mass extinction.
>

> Damn.Worm's a goddamned Nutjob.
>
> No proof that we put the CO2 in the air.
> No proof that more CO2 causes more warming.
> No proof that warming is bad (history says it is good, btw).
>

> And he believes it as a matter of faith. Even No science at all.
>
> This wacko is a disgrace to every real scientist out there.

True indeed. How is that Earththing on Mars doing?

[Will Janoschka]

On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 21:17:32, Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 1/27/13 3:03 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
> > Damn.Worm's a goddamned Nutjob.
> >
> > No proof that we put the CO2 in the air.
> > No proof that more CO2 causes more warming.
> > No proof that warming is bad (history says it is good, btw).
>

> Marvin is now sounding like many climate science deniers in
> these newsgroups. Marvin won't read Franzen's paper which
> develops very equations he has been demanding be posted!
>

> "The Physical Chemistry of Climate Change"
>
> prepared from data from V. Robert Stull, Phillip J. Wyatt and N. Plaas,
> Applied Optics, Vol. 3, No. 2, 1964 p. 243 and using information from
> Kuo-Nan Liou, An Introduction to Atmospheric Radiation, Academic Press,
> San Diego, 1980
>
> by Fritz Franzen (hfra...@iastate.edu)
>
> > http://edu-observatory.org/Franzen/GWPPT10.pdf
>

Fritz Franzen? Sam, you have reached an alltime low! (

[Will Janoschka]

On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 21:36:28, Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 1/27/13 3:27 PM, Claudius Denk wrote:
> > Typically global warming cultists are too dullwitted to present an
> > argument that addresses the issue under discussion. Reread this
> > thread, starting with the first post, and make an effort to tailor
> > your post so that it addresses the issue under discussion.
>

> The thread subject says that the greenhouse effect is immeasurable.
>
> What the science says...

What the fuck is radiant heat??????

[tj Frazir]

meterless moron.
gov co2 target is 275 PPM.
35 % plant mass.

250 PPM is no pant mass.

how much food was grown per year for the last 20 ?

co2 and plant mass is so low forest turn brown.
not enouph co2 in savana to grow anything.

You dont see a co2 meter on tv because Sam dont want you to know its ass
backwards.
the gov will run earth out of co2 .
then you all die.

im going to go see sam face to face.

http://community.webtv.net/GravityPhysics/WhaleSteamEngineA

[tj Frazir]

and im going to ram a co2 meter up your stupid ass.
it will be assalt 1.
im flying over to dot your eye motherfucker.

http://community.webtv.net/GravityPhysics/WhaleSteamEngineA

[Will Janoschka]

No wonder some people believe the Worm to be a mindless spam-bot.

[Will Janoschka]

[Will Janoschka]

[Will Janoschka]

On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 21:44:48, Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 1/27/13 11:57 AM, Will Janoschka wrote:

> > No Greenhouse effect! Falsified in 1906, by Lord Kelvin et al!
>
>

[tj Frazir]

sam will allways know what the co2 is.
Ill strap a $ 100 co2 meter calibraited at 300 PPM to his head after i
dot his eyes.

I might bring a stalk of corn for him to wiegh and make him explain why
earthsplant mass was 45 % .
befor sam kills any more ppeople because he thinks he can,,,sam will
get the shit kicked out of him face to face.
potato state..il land on campus.

http://community.webtv.net/GravityPhysics/WhaleSteamEngineA

[tj Frazir]

meterless factless puke.
go post in greenand stupid.
you dont know why c4 plants are near dead.

you dont have a co2 meter..
your at war with co2 without a meter ??
Ill bust your fucking face .
Ill just fly over and see your punk ass face to face and see if a
billinaire can pound the fuck out of you and walk away.
i bet you 20 million i can.
your dean will sit on you for me dumbfuck for cash.
ill drive up in a $ 90,000 squad car and tossthe first cop the keys
,,,read his report.

http://community.webtv.net/GravityPhysics/WhaleSteamEngineA

[Wally W.]

On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 15:44:48 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote:


> There's more:

You always have more, Sam.

Try posting better.

[Wally W.]

It depends what policy one wants.

What policy do *you* want, Sam?

[Wally W.]

On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 17:52:21 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote:

>On 1/27/13 5:48 PM, Claudius Denk wrote:
>
>>
>> Thread isn't about policy statements, you ignorant ass. If you wish
>> to discuss this then go start your own thread.
>>
>
> WRT to the thread topic, Claudius,
>
>
> What the science says...

When all else fails, come bad to the subject in the off-topic thread.

Trimmed alt.global-warming.

Post there instead. Don't cross-post your AGW crap here.

[Wally W.]

On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 15:34:43 -0500, Wally W. wrote:

>On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 14:26:52 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote:
>
>>On 1/27/13 2:25 PM, Wally W. wrote:
>>>
>>> Do you have *anything* practical to say about AGW?
>>>
>

>Apparently not.

>
>
>> I would like to see us avoid a mass extinction.
>

>Which means what?
>
>Do you prefer culling?
>
>What is the target number after the culling?
>
>You snipped and didn't answer the question:
>
>How will the rate of accomplishing your "sustainable" population
>affect the rate of global warming over the next century?

<crickets>

Tell us, Sam. How quickly would culling 93% of the world's population
stop global warming?

Would the oceans still rise over the beach-front homes of the Master
Race until 2100?

[Marvin the Martian]

On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 19:16:31 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote:

> On 1/27/13 6:56 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
>> Now he's pretending that he's not posted this idiot policy statement
>> before and we didn't tear it apart. The idiot didn't reply to our
>> criticism any of the times we took his cut and paste apart before. He
>> just posted something else from his list.
>>
>> This worm is a jackass. He's here to spam, not discuss. And he's a bald
>> faced goddamned liar when he says no one has ever pointed out the
>> faults on his Power point or this APS statement before.
>>
>>

> Marvin, most of your posting are either name calling, similar
> disparagements, or claims that are listed as climate science myths,
> including the subject of this thread.

You're a jackass.

Admit that you posted that before, admit that we had rebuttals to it, and
admit that you ignored them and changed the subject.

Instead you lied your ass off and said I never read it. I read it at
least twice, you damned liar. At LEAST twice, and I replied. Talking to
you is like talking to a brick wall, because you're so damned STUPID.
You're a troll, a spammmer, and a waste of everyone's time. You're not
here to discuss, but to spam.

[Wally W.]

Are you so insistent on paving the way for new policies, but can't
articulate *what* policy you want?

[Sleepalot]

Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 1/27/13 3:15 PM, Claudius Denk wrote:
>> Believers believe. Scientists measure and test.
>
> Exactly! The American Physical Society has developed a policy
> statement concerning global climate change:
> > http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm
>
> (Adopted by Council on November 18, 2007)
> "Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing

Did the APS poll it's 50,000 members?

I'll give you a clue: Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever resigned
from the APS over that "policy statement".

Another clue? Dr Hal Lewis resigned from the APS over that "policy statement".

Another clue? Dr Hal Lewis raised a 260 member petition - despite APS
obstruction - against that "policy statement": the APS ignored it.

[Sam Wormley]

I'll give you a clue--what are the observables in climate that is
showing a rapidly warming planet?

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'll give you a clue--what are the observables in climate that is
> showing a rapidly warming planet?

Nothing, and for quite a while now, ass hat.

[Claudius Denk]

Well, I've been observing the fact that you guys get all hot and
bothered when anybody asks you to demonstrate some reproducible
experimental evidence that CO2 can cause atmospheric warming.

[emoneyjoe]

On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 22:49:46 -0600, Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com>

Weather stations at major airports.


What is next for climate scientists,
building a fire under the thermometers?

[AM]

On 1/27/2013 8:22 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 17:14:02 -0800, Claudius Denk wrote:
>
>> On Jan 27, 4:56 pm, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:

>>> On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 15:48:28 -0800, Claudius Denk wrote:
>>>> On Jan 27, 3:32 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 1/27/13 4:07 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
>>>

>>>>>> On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 15:40:33 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> On 1/27/13 3:15 PM, Claudius Denk wrote:
>>>>>>>> Believers believe. Scientists measure and test.
>>>
>>>>>>> Exactly! The American Physical Society has developed a
>>>>>>> policy statement concerning global climate change:
>>>>>>> >http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm
>>>
>>>>>>> (Adopted by Council on November 18, 2007)
>>>>>>> "Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are

>>>>>> You mindless idiot spamming bastard!
>>>

>>>>> Do you find fault with the American Physical Society Policy
>>>>> Statement,
>>>>> Marvin? If so, what part?
>>>

>>>> Thread isn't about policy statements, you ignorant ass. If you wish
>>>> to discuss this then go start your own thread.
>>>

>>> That thing... that worm thing... it just POSTS Crap. I think he's using
>>> a bot.
>>>

>>> Now he's pretending that he's not posted this idiot policy statement
>>> before and we didn't tear it apart. The idiot didn't reply to our
>>> criticism any of the times we took his cut and paste apart before. He
>>> just posted something else from his list.
>>>
>>> This worm is a jackass. He's here to spam, not discuss. And he's a bald
>>> faced goddamned liar when he says no one has ever pointed out the
>>> faults on his Power point or this APS statement before.
>>

>> I used to believe in global warming. But when I started asking

>> questions I found that the answers just weren't there. Moreover, there
>> were a lot of simpletons telling me that my questions didn't count.
>> Global warming cultists aren't capable of addressing an issue. They are
>> just a bunch of dingbats.
>
> I've had a similar experience. It is not like I *want* to parboil the
> environment. You ask these guys how it works and you get a pile of
> glittery generalities. You investigate it yourself and ask questions, and
> they try to bog you down in irrelevant side issues or start calling you a
> "denier" or worse.
>
> And NO ONE can answer your questions. They are unapologetic about using
> bad data. They're good with the CRU e-mails and the obvious unethical,
> unscientific advocacy. They openly STATE political policy and claim that
> their political policy is SCIENCE. When it doesn't predict, they just
> blow it off!! Then there is Worm, who lies to my face and acts surprised
> I'm insulted by his goddamned bald faced lies. Or that eshrodinger
> fellow, who didn't even know that the only thing that can change an
> equilibrium constant is TEMPERATURE (a chem 101 factoid), but he plays
> his "authority" as a chemistry teacher at a junior college.
>
> It just gets OLD. These AGW guys have NO SHAME at all. I cant figure out
> if that is because they're not intelligent enough to learn and realize
> they're wrong, if AGW is some kind of religious belief to them, or if
> they just lie.
>

Personally, I think believers in so called man made GW just use it as an
excuse for central govt control over peoples lives. AGW makes a good
front story for that don't you think ?

[Sleepalot]

Weather stations down coal mines.

[Sleepalot]

The planet isn't rapidly warming - or even slowly warming.

[Sleepalot]

Claudius Denk <claudi...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>Well, I've been observing the fact that you guys get all hot and
>bothered when anybody asks you to demonstrate some reproducible
>experimental evidence that CO2 can cause atmospheric warming.

That's bang on.

I've just proposed a quick, cheap and simple way to prove the existence
of the "Greenhouse effect" and pushed a warmist right over the edge (which
I enjoy).

[Will Janoschka]

On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 19:44:29, Sleepalot <sleep...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

So what is your proposal?
>

[Marvin the Martian]

Exactly. They say we're warming the climate with CO2, then propose a
solution that doesn't lower CO2 by one molecule. They want a tax on our
"carbon footprint" - taxing our gasoline, our home heating fuel, limiting
our right to travel, taxing meat out of existence...

The science is junk and the political pay off is tyrannical power. It is
an obvious fraud where fear tactics are being used to scare people into
slavery.

[Sleepalot]

I say this ...
<http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-1-1-figure-1.html>
...makes a testable prediction that can be proved or disproved
with one thermometer.

(I'll tell you in 12 hrs or so.)

[Sam Wormley]

On 1/29/13 5:55 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
> They say we're warming the climate with CO2...

Yes, this has been shown. And here is a tutorial on the basic physics
of climate change.
> http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/hafemeister.cfm

[Sam Wormley]

On 1/29/13 2:02 AM, Claudius Denk wrote:
> Well, I've been observing the fact that you guys get all hot and
> bothered when anybody asks you to demonstrate some reproducible
> experimental evidence that CO2 can cause atmospheric warming.

Here is a nice tutorial on the basic physics of climate change.
> http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/hafemeister.cfm

[tj Frazir]

co2 over corn drops to 200 PPM by noon.

WORLD FOOD TONS 2.7 BT down to 2.2 BT.

Yu cant grow crops without co2.
More co2 makes plants grow faster bigger .

Plants eat 11 TRillin ton co2 per yers where does that come from ?

http://community.webtv.net/GravityPhysics/WhaleSteamEngineA

[tj Frazir]

where do the plants get 11 trillion ton co2 to eat evry year ?

http://community.webtv.net/GravityPhysics/WhaleSteamEngineA

[tj Frazir]

Co2 is the magic gas that makes plants grow
Address:http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:I8NK9G2WwNQJ:http://www.churchmilitant.tv/cia/04GlobalWarming/15.pdf+co2+sarvation+PPM+corn&hl=en&ct=clnk

http://community.webtv.net/GravityPhysics/WhaleSteamEngineA

[tj Frazir]

Usa 1 billon acre forest puts 60 billon ton co2 into the ground a year.
Usa 1 billon acre farm puts 37 billion ton co2 into the ground in 1
year.

The planets plants eat 11 trillion ton co2 per year. Where does that
come from ?
how much is left ?

http://community.webtv.net/GravityPhysics/WhaleSteamEngineA

[tj Frazir]

You cant grow corn at 275 PPM.
try it.

http://community.webtv.net/GravityPhysics/WhaleSteamEngineA

[tj Frazir]

You meterless morons dont kow what co2 level is. You have the gov
propaganda number and dont know shit.
How was the crops last year ?
Not good hu ?

Plants ate 11 Trillion ton year and man makes 20 billion ton and will
waist corn just to get co down to 200 PPM over the fields.
and not let a forest fire burn.

So where is 11 trillion ton co2 to feed the plants from ?
IF you dont read a co2 meter and let the gov lie about it..earth will
use co2 up till no crops grow.

The gov war on co2 is a war on crops.

http://community.webtv.net/GravityPhysics/WhaleSteamEngineA

[Wally W.]

Evasive much, Sam?

You made no comment on the underlying evil.

Or is evil in the eye of the beholder, depending on whether one will
be a genocidee or (thinks they) will be a genocider?

How many useful idiots will be surprised to find themselves in the
genocidee line?

[Wally W.]

Sam, you said global warming was *an* observable.

You never responded to the question: where can one go right now to
*observe* the global temperature?

Now you morph to "observables in climate that is showing a rapidly
warming planet."

Are you admitting you were wrong to say global warming is *an*
observable.

Your morphed statement above still doesn't acknowledge the amount of
inference needed to arrive at a global composite temperature.

Nor do you mention the variety of ways to roll all the temporal,
spatial and temperature data into a single value.

Your posts do little other than reinforce the idea that it isn't the
figures that lie; it is the liars that are figuring.

[Will Janoschka]

On Wed, 30 Jan 2013 03:59:50, Sleepalot <sleep...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

> wil...@nospam.pobox.com (Will Janoschka) wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 19:44:29, Sleepalot <sleep...@yahoo.co.uk>
> >wrote:
> >
> >> Claudius Denk <claudi...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Well, I've been observing the fact that you guys get all hot and
> >> >bothered when anybody asks you to demonstrate some reproducible
> >> >experimental evidence that CO2 can cause atmospheric warming.
> >>
> >> That's bang on.
> >>
> >> I've just proposed a quick, cheap and simple way to prove the existence
> >> of the "Greenhouse effect" and pushed a warmist right over the edge (which
> >> I enjoy).
> >>
> >So what is your proposal?
> >>
>
> I say this ...
> <http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-1-1-figure-1.html>

> ....makes a testable prediction that can be proved or disproved

> with one thermometer.
>
> (I'll tell you in 12 hrs or so.)
>

Hey Guy, I have a a do-able lab experiment that can destroy any
greenhouse effect with no prediction. Can we discuss? and improve!

[Sleepalot]

wil...@nospam.pobox.com (Will Janoschka) wrote:

>Hey Guy, I have a a do-able lab experiment that can destroy any
>greenhouse effect with no prediction. Can we discuss? and improve!

I can see a way to improve it: get rid of "with no prediction", because
"can destroy any greenhouse effect" _is_ a prediction.

[Sleepalot]

Kiehl &Trenberth predicts that ground receiving 198 W/m2 solar will absorb
167 W/m2 and emit 390 W/m2.

(Obviously absurd, and easily testable.)

[Claudius Denk]

Let us know if you need any assistance with the big words.

[Will Janoschka]

On Wed, 30 Jan 2013 03:59:50, Sleepalot <sleep...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

> wil...@nospam.pobox.com (Will Janoschka) wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 19:44:29, Sleepalot <sleep...@yahoo.co.uk>
> >wrote:
> >
> >> Claudius Denk <claudi...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Well, I've been observing the fact that you guys get all hot and
> >> >bothered when anybody asks you to demonstrate some reproducible
> >> >experimental evidence that CO2 can cause atmospheric warming.
> >>
> >> That's bang on.
> >>
> >> I've just proposed a quick, cheap and simple way to prove the existence
> >> of the "Greenhouse effect" and pushed a warmist right over the edge (which
> >> I enjoy).
> >>
> >So what is your proposal?
> >>
>
> I say this ...
> <http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-1-1-figure-1.html>

> ....makes a testable prediction that can be proved or disproved

> with one thermometer.
>
> (I'll tell you in 12 hrs or so.)
>
>

Do you mean that silly PP graph that shows more thermal radiation
leaving
than is coming in from the Sun? This will force your ground
thermometer to
decrease in indicated Kelvin. This wil not deter for one moment. Do
you
think you are dealing with stupid scammer-politicans. Disabuse
yourself!
More later! -will-

[Will Janoschka]

On Wed, 30 Jan 2013 11:56:58, Sleepalot <sleep...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

Sorry, I truly cannot destroy what does not exist! I meant only to
destroy
the claim of existance of that, that does not exist! My plan is to
use
the method of Bill Thompson, with orders more precision, so that
even Fat Silvante will agree. 1906.-2013. -will-

[Will Janoschka]

On Wed, 30 Jan 2013 13:29:12, Sleepalot <sleep...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

Yes and "ZZZ" against these bastards,

Why not plan a scientific assassination of all
these bastards. No conspiracy at all, keep
everything open and accessable to everyone.
Time to kick ass! -will-

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

yeah, you can use it to count the number of times,
that you've quantumfied any God-am thing --
your own!

the thing about CO2
-- whether or not it is a significant glass "house" gas --
is that it is truly a "metric" of the work
that humans impose upon the biosphere,
for good & ill.

> Time to kick ass!

thus:
Writing in the daily trade publication American Banker on Jan. 17,
[[Hoenig,]] [[http://www.americanbanker.com/bankthink/banking- safety-
net-makes-wall-street-dangerous-1055949- 1.html?
zkPrintable=1&nopagination=1]] who served as chairman of the Kansas
City Federal Reserve (1991-2011), proposed a simple solution to the
problem of "too big to fail" banks: Remove the "safety net" of Federal
insurance from non-bank activities, since without it the largest banks
would shrink drastically, as investors demand that these banks hold
stronger assets. Hoenig called for the restoration of the Glass-
Steagall Act, Franklin Roosevelt's 1933 legislation which "served the
United States from the Great Depression until 1999." Glass-Steagall
was introduced into the new Congress as H.R. 129, "The Return to
Prudent Banking Act," by Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio).

On Jan. 16, Dallas Fed Chairman Fisher, speaking to the Committee for
the Republic in Washington, D.C., opened his remarks by referencing
the American Revolution against the British, declaring, "I shall speak
forth my sentiments freely, and without reserve. This is no time for
ceremony ... [it] is one of awful moment to this country."

Fisher said, "Everyone and his sister knows that financial
institutions
http://larouchepub.com/other/2013/4004gl-st_thunderbolt.html

thus:
the curvature of space was discovered (forensically)
by Eratosthenes, and by Gauss
(with his little theodolite,
working for the government of France,
surveying Alsace-Lorraine .-)

> If Paul looks out of the window, will find that
> all the stars are fast rotating around his ship,
> as if centripetal forces would be exerted on them.
> Other explanation he could find would be that in
> his frame an inertial movement could be a circular one
> as well instead a linear one! -

thus:
Because the quantum efficiency of Hubble's detectors is
quite low at 300 nm nobody is actually looking for blue shift and
would
ignore any if found. We don't look for what we don't expect to find.

thus:
without cogeneration of (say) hot water,
PVs are horrible elements of urban heat-islanding,
not the IPCC gives a floating object.

thus:
revived fignewton, even though
it can easily be interpreted in terms of waves;
just do it!

[Will Janoschka]

Did you say something?

[Sleepalot]

wil...@nospam.pobox.com (Will Janoschka) wrote:

>On Wed, 30 Jan 2013 11:56:58, Sleepalot <sleep...@yahoo.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>> wil...@nospam.pobox.com (Will Janoschka) wrote:
>>
>> >Hey Guy, I have a a do-able lab experiment that can destroy any
>> >greenhouse effect with no prediction. Can we discuss? and improve!
>>
>> I can see a way to improve it: get rid of "with no prediction", because
>> "can destroy any greenhouse effect" _is_ a prediction.
>
>Sorry, I truly cannot destroy what does not exist! I meant only to
>destroy the claim of existance of that, that does not exist!

Ah, sorry, yes.

> My plan is to use
>the method of Bill Thompson, with orders more precision, so that
>even Fat Silvante will agree. 1906.-2013. -will-

I'm not familiar with that. Can you point me towards more information?

[Sleepalot]

wil...@nospam.pobox.com (Will Janoschka) wrote:

>Yes and "ZZZ" against these bastards,
>
>Why not plan a scientific assassination of all
>these bastards. No conspiracy at all, keep
>everything open and accessable to everyone.
>Time to kick ass! -will-
>

Will, you don't get to decide what words like "assassination" mean:
that would be the task of the Judge at your trial.

"Assassination" means "murder".

Also, secrecy is not a necessary condition for a conspiracy to exist.

And before conspiracy comes solicitation to murder.

In short, and in my opinion, your words may well constitute a serious
criminal offence in the UK.

[And further, such a clumsy approach suggests you work with British
Intelligence!]

I understand, of course, that what you mean is, you want to demolish their
pseudo-scientific work.

[Sleepalot]

So you're another who discourages experiments. Interesting.

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

yes; I didn't say, nothing.

> > the thing about CO2
> > -- whether or not it is a significant glass "house" gas --
> > is that it is truly a "metric" of the work
> > that humans impose upon the biosphere,
> > for good & ill.

> > without cogeneration of (say) hot water,
> > PVs are horrible elements of urban heat-islanding,
> > not the IPCC gives a floating object.

> Did you say something?

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

oops.

> > > is that it is truly a "metric" of the work
> > > that humans impose upon the biosphere,
> > > for good & ill.
> > > without cogeneration of (say) hot water,
> > > PVs are horrible elements of urban heat-islanding,

> > > not THAT the IPCC gives a floating object.

[emoneyjoe]

On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 16:06:38 +0000, Sleepalot <sleep...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

No, he said scientific, but the warmists
are already doing it by publishing BS that
never comes true.

[Will Janoschka]

On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 15:05:00, Sleepalot <sleep...@yahoo.co.uk>

I can look more.
I hope you can understand this I have more details.
It was a hand out homework problem from my 1962 thermodynamics class.

It was called a four surface thermal radiation heat transfer
demonstration
and was claimed to be a demo that Lord Kelvin used to show how thermal

radiation also obeys all the laws of thermodynamics, and that a
thermal radiator
cannot, by itself, transfer heat to a warmer thermal radiator
especially a warmer
radiator that determines the temperature of the cooler radiator.

The idea is to make an experiment in which thermal radiation is the
dominant transfer method and all others minor, measurable, and can
account for all other heat transfer during the demonstration.

We demonstrate the mathematics and geometry necessary to correctly
determine the radiative heat transfer between three objects and four
surfaces A cold black surface that we can measure the heat
transferred to,
perhaps by the boil off rate of a cold liquid at its boiling point and
constant
pressure. A equal black warm surface with a measurable and
controllable
heat input. And a third black two faced plate of lesser surface area
placed
in some geometry intercepting radiation on one surface from the warm
surface and emitting equal of radiation to the colder surface. The
temperature
of the middle plate will be completely determined by the geometry,the
applicable
mathematics, and of course limited by the laws.

Our demonstration is but a approximation of the partially
transmitting, partially
absorbing atmosphere, between the earth and space. We will show that
although the amount of heat needed to maintain the temperature of the
warm surface did decrease with the introduction of the smaller plate,
the
reduction is only determined by the reduction of total transmittance
by the
intervening object. The final temperature of the plate is independant
of the
amount of the reduction of total transmittance. the mathematics will
show
that all radiation absorbed by the plate is exactly emitted to the
cold
plate with no radiation to the warmer surface although the total
emittiance
from either side is equal.

[Will Janoschka]

On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 16:06:38, Sleepalot <sleep...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

Yes scientific assassination only. These bastards deserve no easy
death.

[Will Janoschka]

On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 16:09:39, Sleepalot <sleep...@yahoo.co.uk>

Not at all, I wish to help! Do not underestimate the determination
of these folk. That 324 w/sq meter returning was a a knowledgeable
and direct falsehood, intended to fool the public and government,
for profitr. -will-

[Sleepalot]

It's not a meaningful (and relatively benign) phrase like character
assassination (which is a compound noun made of two nouns).

Since it has no meaning, then sinister meaning can be applied to it
(by the prosecution).

I looked it up in the OED, and there're two ways it can be taken as
sinister.
1. adjective + noun, killing with a scientific style eg., polonium poisoning
as opposed to beating with a club.

2. noun + noun , where a scientific is a synonym for a scientist.

So the sentence could be understood as "why not have a scientist
assassination of all these bastards", when what was meant was
"why not demolish these bastards' false science papers."

[emoneyjoe]

On Fri, 01 Feb 2013 00:47:30 +0000, Sleepalot <sleep...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

No, unless there is more than those
words to go on, the meaning can only
be destroy his writing by proving it wrong.


This is very important in science,
every invention and even every law
of physics may prove somebody
wrong.

In fact, I have had great success
in looking at things in reverse, that
proves somebody was wrong.