More bad news for alarmists

[AGWFacts]

As we have seen, the causation between increased atmospheric
greenhouses gases, such as carbon dioxide, and the global average
temperature has been well known and fully understood for over a
century. This is, of course, a "done deal:" an observed fact, not
in dispute among scientists.

Concerning atmospheric CO2 and global average temperature, the
figures for year 2011 are now in:

CO2 ppm: 391.57
Global Average Temperature: +58.136 f (14.52 c)

This means the correlation is +0.001859 stronger for year 2011
than in year 2010. That is, by year 2010 it was 0.90456 and by
year 2011 it was 0.90642 --- which the hysterical alarmists cannot
explain with anything other than "I don't know why it isn't, but
it isn't CO2!" Yet the world's physicists have explained why, and
have been doing so for over 170 years.

The strength of the correlation keeps getting stronger, until it
is now more than twice than that between smoking tobacco and lung
cancer:

1983 0.47281
1984 0.47709
1985 0.45130
1986 0.47198
1987 0.54202
1988 0.60647
1989 0.62679
1990 0.67580
1991 0.71290
1992 0.69761
1993 0.68473
1994 0.69754
1995 0.72699
1996 0.74302
1997 0.76602
1998 0.78856
1999 0.79621
2000 0.80385
2001 0.82058
2002 0.83653
2003 0.85106
2004 0.86092
2005 0.87287
2006 0.88202
2007 0.89068
2008 0.89026
2009 0.89728
2010 0.90456
2011 0.90642



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

[Sam Wormley]

Now don't any of you climate science deniers spout off, like
Marvin does, saying that correlation is not causation, because
in this case, CO2 increase *is the cause* of this rapid global
warmup!

[Tunderbar]

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

And 28 years of data is nothing in the greater scheme things. Tiny
tiny dataset = tiny tiny nothing.

[Tunderbar]

On Feb 7, 2:10 pm, AGWFacts <AGWFa...@ipcc.org> wrote:

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

correlation is not causation

[Monkey Clumps]

On Feb 7, 3:10 pm, AGWFacts <AGWFa...@ipcc.org> wrote:

<SNIP>

Why should anyone take you seriously when you are too fucking stupid
to understand what the word alarmist means? Dumbass.

[Claudius Denk]

Can you be so kind as to explain to your audience how you calculate
"strength of correlation?" It looks like a bogus quantity to me.

[Dawlish]

Can you be kind enough to analyse and explain the depth of you
delusion, denky?

[Dawlish]

Tell us something else that could have caused this increase - and if
you use 131/161 years of data, the correlation is much the same.

"And 28 years of data is nothing in the greater scheme things. Tiny
tiny dataset = tiny tiny nothing".

Please don't any denier ever talk about the global temperature rise
having stopped 13 years ago, or we'll set tuncy on you.

[Tunderbar]

Yeah, AGWMoron keeps doing that. It;s part of his arsenal of trollish
behaviors.

[be...@iwaynet.net]

On 2/7/2012 3:20 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:

> Now don't any of you climate science deniers spout off, like
> Marvin does, saying that correlation is not causation, because
> in this case, CO2 increase *is the cause* of this rapid global
> warmup!

HOLY SHIT! It's the old "proof by assertion" again! Damn! That gets us
every time. Come on, all you "deniers", pack up and leave. Wormley has
proved CO2 is the cause by simply saying so (once again). How can you
argue with that? I'm afraid the alarmists won't like us anymore if we
don't accept this "proof". What else can we do but finally give in.
Marvin, you there? Let's go.

[Tunderbar]

Tell me what caused the global warming since 15,000 years ago. We know
it wasn't SUVs.

Correlation is not causation, whether over 28 years or 131 years. You
could correlate the warming since the ice age to the number of humans,
and that still would mean fuck all.

>
> "And 28 years of data is nothing in the greater scheme things. Tiny
> tiny dataset = tiny tiny nothing".
>
> Please don't any denier ever talk about the global temperature rise
> having stopped 13 years ago, or we'll set tuncy on you.

You guys predicted that the globes temps would continue climbing along
with the CO2. It didn't happen, so we will keep reminding you of the
last 15 or 17 years. Remember, we are not trying to imply a climactic
shift or trend with the fact that temps have not risen in 15 years.
You guys predicted it would get warmer. It hasn't. And a 15 year
dataset that directly contradicts your predictions is a perfectly
valid argument. We are proving that you guys were and are DEAD WRONG.

You guys are using a 28 year dataset to imply a climactic shift or
trend. That is just scientifically and statistically wrong. Especially
when the numbers and the people choosing the numbers are
scientifically suspect.

http://mccrarey.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/climate-gate-cartoon-2.jpg

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

In sci.physics AGWFacts <AGWF...@ipcc.org> wrote:

> The strength of the correlation keeps getting stronger, until it

Most people know that correlation does not prove causation.

Evidently, you do not.

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

Irrelevant to the statement made.

[Peter Webb]

"Dawlish" <pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7158ed94-f5e2-497a...@l16g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...

______________________________________
Whatever caused the temperature increase from (say) 1850 to 1900, when
anthropogenic CO2 levels were negligible. Or indeed any of the previous
warmings or coolings.

Your argument makes no scientific sense. The truth or otherwise of your
theory of AGW warming is not determined by the absence of competing
theories. The crystal sphere model of the Universe was not correct simply
because it was the best theory available. That criterion (that there are no
currently known better theories) simply does not appear in the scientific
method, and nor should it.

The theory of AGW is supposedly a scientific theory. Yet you don't use
scientific arguments (the scientific method) to test it. That you do not and
apparently can not simply shows that your version of AGW is not a scientific
theory.

If you have scientific arguments for AGW (ie those of a type used in the
scientific method), you should post them. Posting "unscientific" arguments
just shows how "unscientific" AGW theory is.

[Jonathan]

"AGWFacts" <AGWF...@ipcc.org> wrote in message
news:bb03j7dn026agrcr3...@4ax.com...

> As we have seen, the causation between increased atmospheric
> greenhouses gases, such as carbon dioxide, and the global average
> temperature has been well known and fully understood for over a
> century. This is, of course, a "done deal:" an observed fact, not
> in dispute among scientists.

According to NASA, which has the largest concentration of
atmostpheric scientists and monitoring equipment in the world.

NASA Climate Q and A

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

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

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

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/climateqa/if-earth-has-warmed-and-cooled-throughout-history-what-makes-scientists-think-that-humans-are-causing-global-warming-now/

[George Webb Jr.]

Correlation is only causation when more guns = less crime.

Unlike the Leftist warmists, we pray to God, not scientists.

[Speedbump]

> http://mccrarey.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/climate-gate-cartoon-2...- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

GO SMOKE YOURSELF TO DEATH ASSHOLE

[Catoni]

Dawlish please note...cherrypicking ....

[Sam Wormley]

On 2/7/12 5:44 PM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> In sci.physics AGWFacts<AGWF...@ipcc.org> wrote:
>
>> The strength of the correlation keeps getting stronger, until it
>
> Most people know that correlation does not prove causation.
>

True, but in the case of this global warming, causation is
well understood--CO2 produced by human activity.

BTW, jimp, your manipulation of the "followups to"--How's
that working for you?

[Catoni]

"AGWFacts" in typical socialist/Marxist fashion...likes to twist the
meanings of words,.....change the language and meaning. It's one of
the "tools" they use to undermine society.

[Peter Webb]

"Sam Wormley" <swor...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2L6dneggp-_6aKzS...@mchsi.com...

> On 2/7/12 5:44 PM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> In sci.physics AGWFacts<AGWF...@ipcc.org> wrote:
>>
>>> The strength of the correlation keeps getting stronger, until it
>>
>> Most people know that correlation does not prove causation.
>>
>
> True, but in the case of this global warming, causation is
> well understood--CO2 produced by human activity.
>

Bullshit. The *only* experimental evidence that additional CO2 causes net
warming is this correlation, and as already agreed correlation does not
prove causation. Take away the correlation and there is no experimental
evidence at all. None.

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

In sci.physics Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/7/12 5:44 PM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> In sci.physics AGWFacts<AGWF...@ipcc.org> wrote:
>>
>>> The strength of the correlation keeps getting stronger, until it
>>
>> Most people know that correlation does not prove causation.
>>
>
> True, but in the case of this global warming,

So "global warming" is a special case?

> BTW, jimp, your manipulation of the "followups to"--How's
> that working for you?

Just fine, swormley1, for you see I use a real news client with a real
news server, which means that after I fix your idiotic Followup-To: headers
that don't adhere the the RFC's, neither complains about how screwed up
they are.

But why would I expect you or any of the other Google posting idiots who
have no clue what Followup-To: is for, or that USENET is ASCII, to have the
slightest clue what I am talking about?

[Sam Wormley]

On 2/7/12 10:57 PM, Peter Webb wrote:
> The *only* experimental evidence that additional CO2 causes net warming

> is this correlation.

Perhaps you would benefit from a bit of climate science basics, Peter.

> Global Warning Podcasts by Professor John Chiang
> http://www.learnoutloud.com/Podcast-Directory/Science/Environment/Global-Warming-Podcast/21917
>
> This lower division course introduces global warming as both a scientific and social issue. We will introduce the physical science that sets the stage for the problem, from the basic concepts of climate (carbon cycle, greenhouse effect, climate feedbacks) through to the climate model projections of future climate changes and their impacts. Social scientific perspectives will be integrated throughout, including the history of climate science, the geographical and political-economic implications of fossil fuels and industrial production, and the challenges posed to existing regulatory and governance systems by the current and prospective impacts of global warming. Several guest lecturers will give in-depth reviews of specific topical issues, potential examples being climate models, carbon sequestration, and impacts on public health. We aim to provide students with a solid understanding and information base with which to analyze and evaluate ongoing developments and (often heated) deba
tes surrounding global climate change.
>
> Podcast Website:
> http://webcast.berkeley.edu/course_details.php?seriesid=1906978425
>

[erschro...@gmail.com]

Tell me what caused deaths 5000 years ago since we didn't have guns or
automobiles yet. You would apparently conclude since guns and
automobiles didn't cause deaths 5000 years ago, they can't be causing
any deaths today. Intelligent people would conclude, gee, maybe
different things caused deaths at different times.

>
> Correlation is not causation, whether over 28 years or 131 years. You
> could correlate the warming since the ice age to the number of humans,
> and that still would mean fuck all.
>
>
>
> > "And 28 years of data is nothing in the greater scheme things. Tiny
> > tiny dataset = tiny tiny nothing".
>
> > Please don't any denier ever talk about the global temperature rise
> > having stopped 13 years ago, or we'll set tuncy on you.
>
> You guys predicted that the globes temps would continue climbing along
> with the CO2. It didn't happen, so we will keep reminding you of the
> last 15 or 17 years.

Did. The 2000s are the warmest decade on record. You once again seem
to be demanding that the temp. of every place on earth at every time
and every date be warmer than it was at the same time and date last
year for GW to be occurring.

>Remember, we are not trying to imply a climactic
> shift or trend with the fact that temps have not risen in 15 years.

When you start with a false assumption, you're not likely to arrive at
a correct conclusion.

> You guys predicted it would get warmer. It hasn't.

You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

[erschro...@gmail.com]

And in typical Nazi fashion, you like to lie.

[erschro...@gmail.com]

On Feb 7, 5:26 pm, "BJAC...@teranews.com" <b...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
> On 2/7/2012 3:20 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>
> > Now don't any of you climate science deniers spout off, like
> > Marvin does, saying that correlation is not causation, because
> > in this case, CO2 increase *is the cause* of this rapid global
> > warmup!
>
> HOLY SHIT! It's the old "proof by assertion" again! Damn! That gets us
> every time. Come on, all you "deniers", pack up and leave. Wormley has
> proved CO2 is the cause by simply saying so (once again).

No, science says so, and a mass of accumulated data says so. And no
other possible cause is correlated with temp.

When only one cause is correlated with the effect, logic tells us that
cause is almost certainly causing the effect.

[erschro...@gmail.com]

On Feb 7, 11:57 pm, "Peter Webb" <r.peter.webb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Sam Wormley" <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:2L6dneggp-_6aKzS...@mchsi.com...
>
> > On 2/7/12 5:44 PM, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> >> In sci.physics AGWFacts<AGWFa...@ipcc.org>  wrote:

>
> >>> The strength of the correlation keeps getting stronger, until it
>
> >> Most people know that correlation does not prove causation.
>
> >   True, but in the case of this global warming, causation is
> >   well understood--CO2 produced by human activity.
>
> Bullshit. The *only* experimental evidence that additional CO2 causes net
> warming is this correlation, and as already agreed correlation does not
> prove causation. Take away the correlation and there is no experimental
> evidence at all. None.

Huh? That's all you've got for the Big Bang, evolution, etc. You
can't do controlled experiments on any of that.

[erschro...@gmail.com]

1. They weren't negligible.
2. The sun's output was changing then; it's not changing now.

>Or indeed any of the previous
> warmings or coolings.

Because a change in the earth's orbit, or massive volcanic action, or
a big increase in the sun's output, or a giant meteor hitting the
earth, might have happened in the last 50 years and we just didn't
notice?

>
> Your argument makes no scientific sense. The truth or otherwise of your
> theory of AGW warming is not determined by the absence of competing
> theories. The crystal sphere model of the Universe was not correct simply
> because it was the best theory available. That criterion (that there are no
> currently known better theories) simply does not appear in the scientific
> method, and nor should it.
>
> The theory of AGW is supposedly a scientific theory.

And you're supposedly an intelligent being.

>Yet you don't use
> scientific arguments (the scientific method) to test it. That you do not and
> apparently can not simply shows that your version of AGW is not a scientific
> theory.

OK, you tell me what "theory" means in science.

>
> If you have scientific arguments for AGW (ie those of a type used in the
> scientific method), you should post them. Posting "unscientific" arguments
> just shows how "unscientific" AGW theory is.

So why do almost all the world's scientists say otherwise? Are you
claiming you know more science than they do?

[k...@kymhorsell.com]

In sci.physics erschro...@gmail.com <erschro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 7, 7:50?pm, "Peter Webb" <r.peter.webb...@gmail.com> wrote:
...

>> Whatever caused the temperature increase from (say) 1850 to 1900, when
>> anthropogenic CO2 levels were negligible.
> 1. They weren't negligible.

...

Indeed, one of the arguments on the "skepical" side is that
agricultural practices are as cost effective at reducing
CO2 emissions than actual cuts to CO2 emissions from mv and power stns.
Ergo "bad" ag practices are equally "bad".

From the CET record we see an overall warming trend pre 1850
of .15 per century (almost an order of mag smaller than the global
value as measured by BEST and others) that might be put down to ag
practices in the region.

We know the average interglacial warming/cooling rates otherwise avg
around .01C per century, atlhough there may be tipping points where
that speeds up.


--
The post industrial period in the trend toward reglaciation began
circa fifteen years ago. With it has come heavy rain and snow and
and average global temps perhaps 5°C lower.
-- Last Post <last_p...@primus.ca>, Sun, 5 Feb 2012 09:42 -0800 (PST)

[AGWFacts]

> correlation is not causation

Idiot.

--
"I'd like the globe to warm another degree or two or three... and CO2 levels

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

[AGWFacts]

On Tue, 7 Feb 2012 12:14:29 -0800 (PST), Tunderbar

> And 28 years of data is nothing in the greater scheme things. Tiny
> tiny dataset = tiny tiny nothing.

[AGWFacts]

On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 14:20:19 -0600, Sam Wormley
<swor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Now don't any of you climate science deniers spout off, like
> Marvin does, saying that correlation is not causation, because
> in this case, CO2 increase *is the cause* of this rapid global
> warmup!

Obviously.

Causation, as I pointed out, has already been demonstrated--- many
decades ago.

[AGWFacts]

On Tue, 7 Feb 2012 12:46:21 -0800 (PST), Monkey Clumps
<spaceb...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Why should anyone take you seriously when you are too fucking stupid
> to understand what the word alarmist means? Dumbass.

a-larm-ist (n.) A person who needlessly alarms or attempts to
alarm others, as by inventing or spreading false or exaggerated
rumors of impending danger or catastrophe.

I therefore used the word correctly, idiot.

[AGWFacts]

On Tue, 7 Feb 2012 23:44:38 -0000, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com

wrote:

> On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 13:10:35 -0700, AGWFacts <AGWF...@ipcc.org> wrote:
>
> > As we have seen, the causation between increased atmospheric
> > greenhouses gases, such as carbon dioxide, and the global average
> > temperature has been well known and fully understood for over a
> > century. This is, of course, a "done deal:" an observed fact, not
> > in dispute among scientists.
> >
> > Concerning atmospheric CO2 and global average temperature, the
> > figures for year 2011 are now in:
> >
> > CO2 ppm: 391.57
> > Global Average Temperature: +58.136 f (14.52 c)
> >
> > This means the correlation is +0.001859 stronger for year 2011
> > than in year 2010. That is, by year 2010 it was 0.90456 and by
> > year 2011 it was 0.90642 --- which the hysterical alarmists cannot
> > explain with anything other than "I don't know why it isn't, but
> > it isn't CO2!" Yet the world's physicists have explained why, and
> > have been doing so for over 170 years.
> >

> > The strength of the correlation keeps getting stronger, until it

> Most people know that correlation does not prove causation.

Causation has already been demonstrated, Shit-for-brains. The
subject of this article is correlation.

[AGWFacts]

On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 22:09:11 -0600, Sam Wormley
<swor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 2/7/12 5:44 PM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

> > On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 13:10:35 -0700, AGWFacts <AGWF...@ipcc.org> wrote:
> >
> > > As we have seen, the causation between increased atmospheric
> > > greenhouses gases, such as carbon dioxide, and the global average
> > > temperature has been well known and fully understood for over a
> > > century. This is, of course, a "done deal:" an observed fact, not
> > > in dispute among scientists.
> > >
> > > Concerning atmospheric CO2 and global average temperature, the
> > > figures for year 2011 are now in:
> > >
> > > CO2 ppm: 391.57
> > > Global Average Temperature: +58.136 f (14.52 c)
> > >
> > > This means the correlation is +0.001859 stronger for year 2011
> > > than in year 2010. That is, by year 2010 it was 0.90456 and by
> > > year 2011 it was 0.90642 --- which the hysterical alarmists cannot
> > > explain with anything other than "I don't know why it isn't, but
> > > it isn't CO2!" Yet the world's physicists have explained why, and
> > > have been doing so for over 170 years.
> > >

> > > The strength of the correlation keeps getting stronger, until it

> > Most people know that correlation does not prove causation.

> True, but in the case of this global warming, causation is
> well understood--CO2 produced by human activity.

And it has been well-understood for over 170 years. In year 1926
causation was completely understood.

> BTW, jimp, your manipulation of the "followups to"--How's
> that working for you?

Does not seem to be working. Heee.

[AGWFacts]

On Wed, 8 Feb 2012 15:57:32 +1100, "Peter Webb"
<r.peter...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> "Sam Wormley" <swor...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:2L6dneggp-_6aKzS...@mchsi.com...
> > On 2/7/12 5:44 PM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

> > > On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 13:10:35 -0700, AGWFacts <AGWF...@ipcc.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > As we have seen, the causation between increased atmospheric
> > > > greenhouses gases, such as carbon dioxide, and the global average
> > > > temperature has been well known and fully understood for over a
> > > > century. This is, of course, a "done deal:" an observed fact, not
> > > > in dispute among scientists.
> > > >
> > > > Concerning atmospheric CO2 and global average temperature, the
> > > > figures for year 2011 are now in:
> > > >
> > > > CO2 ppm: 391.57
> > > > Global Average Temperature: +58.136 f (14.52 c)
> > > >
> > > > This means the correlation is +0.001859 stronger for year 2011
> > > > than in year 2010. That is, by year 2010 it was 0.90456 and by
> > > > year 2011 it was 0.90642 --- which the hysterical alarmists cannot
> > > > explain with anything other than "I don't know why it isn't, but
> > > > it isn't CO2!" Yet the world's physicists have explained why, and
> > > > have been doing so for over 170 years.
> > > >

> > > > The strength of the correlation keeps getting stronger, until it

> >> Most people know that correlation does not prove causation.

> > True, but in the case of this global warming, causation is
> > well understood--CO2 produced by human activity.

> Bullshit. The *only* experimental evidence that additional CO2 causes net
> warming is this correlation

You mean "causation," idiot, not "correlation." Causation was
determined many decades ago---- before all of us now living were
born.

> and as already agreed correlation does not prove causation.

Nobody said it does.

> Take away the correlation and there is no experimental
> evidence at all. None.

There is over 170 years of experimental (i.e., observational and
computational) evidence. Stings, does it?

[k...@kymhorsell.com]

In sci.physics erschro...@gmail.com <erschro...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Feb 7, 11:57?pm, "Peter Webb" <r.peter.webb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "Sam Wormley" <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:2L6dneggp-_6aKzS...@mchsi.com...
>> > On 2/7/12 5:44 PM, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

>> >> In sci.physics AGWFacts<AGWFa...@ipcc.org> ?wrote:

>> >>> The strength of the correlation keeps getting stronger, until it
>> >> Most people know that correlation does not prove causation.

>> > ? True, but in the case of this global warming, causation is
>> > ? well understood--CO2 produced by human activity.

>> Bullshit. The *only* experimental evidence that additional CO2 causes net
>> warming is this correlation, and as already agreed correlation does not
>> prove causation. Take away the correlation and there is no experimental
>> evidence at all. None.
> Huh? That's all you've got for the Big Bang, evolution, etc. You
> can't do controlled experiments on any of that.

Hard to believe, but kooks seem to think a lot of physics that involves
collecting observations and fitting theories to them is not science.
Poor old Kepler. Life wasted. LOL.

--
[Outliars:]
> The global temperature in 1998 was such as outlier,
No. The temperature in 1998 [Webb elsewhere acks 1998 is the max
of the prev 130 data points]
does not deviate markedly from other members of
the sample in which it occurs. In fact several years since then have
experienced virtually identical temperatures (eg 2005).
So by this definition, 1998 was not an outlier at all.
[Even Webb knows 1998 was a once-in-100 year event, and the LOTI just for
the warm-end years 87 to 98 goes 24 33 19 36 36 14 14 21 37 28 37 57 --
so E(y) = 29.7, sd(y) = 11.8, and (57-29.7)/11.8 = 2.3].
-- Peter Webb <r.peter...@gmail.com>, 01 Feb 2012 13:53

[k...@kymhorsell.com]

In sci.physics AGWFacts <AGWF...@ipcc.org> wrote:

> On Tue, 7 Feb 2012 12:14:29 -0800 (PST), Tunderbar
> <tdco...@gmail.com> wrote:

...

>> And 28 years of data is nothing in the greater scheme things. Tiny
>> tiny dataset = tiny tiny nothing.
> Idiot.

I find it surprising, but many people do not remember anything from
their year 10 maths.

Among other useful things -- determine what is or is not an outlier,
for example -- we were taught about "sampling".

It comes as a surprise to many that you don't need the entire
dataset or even a majority of it to make informed decisions.
There are simple calculations even a high school senior can do
to decide whether a sample is "representative" of a population
and, if so, what that sample may tell them about the population as a whole.

Of course, on the flip side, making decisions from hand-selected
or obvious extreme values is also not the way to go.

Normally we'd expect informed individuals to understand that when
they are exposed to examples of it at least weekly for most of their lives.
E.g. those "opinion polls" and suchlike beloved of TV news and the papers.
They usually say something like "sample of 1000 people; percentages
accurate to within 3 points".

I know in highschool I was taught how to calculate that "3 points", but
many people forget. Or even forget that it's possible to calculate such
a thing.

--
"Global warming" refers to the global-average temperature increase
that has been observed over the last one hundred years or more. But to
many politicians and the public, the term carries the implication that
mankind is responsible for that warming.
-- Dr Roy W. Spencer, "Global Warming", 2008

I have never heard a precise definition of what "the earth is warming" is
supposed to mean.
Every other science defines its terms precisely. Not "climate science".
While they all say the earth is warming, I am not aware of a single
definition of this term, nor a scientific test which shows whether the earth
is in fact warming, cooling or staying the same.
-- "Peter Webb" <webbf...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au>, 19 May 2011 14:37 +1000

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

Works just fine as I set the Followup-To: header to be in accordance
with the RFC's, about which you haven't a clue as to either their existance
or content.

[Sam Wormley]

On 2/7/12 10:57 PM, Peter Webb wrote:

> Bullshit. The *only* experimental evidence that additional CO2 causes
> net warming is this correlation, and as already agreed correlation does
> not prove causation. Take away the correlation and there is no
> experimental evidence at all. None.

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

Well documented, Peter! You listen to too many naysayers instead
of looking at the climate science.

[Eric Stevens]

On Wed, 8 Feb 2012 08:48:43 -0800 (PST), "erschro...@gmail.com"
<erschro...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Feb 7, 5:26 pm, "BJAC...@teranews.com" <b...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
>> On 2/7/2012 3:20 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>>
>> > Now don't any of you climate science deniers spout off, like
>> > Marvin does, saying that correlation is not causation, because
>> > in this case, CO2 increase *is the cause* of this rapid global
>> > warmup!
>>
>> HOLY SHIT! It's the old "proof by assertion" again! Damn! That gets us
>> every time. Come on, all you "deniers", pack up and leave. Wormley has
>> proved CO2 is the cause by simply saying so (once again).
>
>No, science says so, and a mass of accumulated data says so. And no
>other possible cause is correlated with temp.

You haven't heard?

See
http://motls.blogspot.co.nz/2004/09/sunspots-correlations-with-temperature.html

>
>When only one cause is correlated with the effect, logic tells us that
>cause is almost certainly causing the effect.

But when there are two .... ?

>
>> How can you
>> argue with that? I'm afraid the alarmists won't like us anymore if we
>> don't accept this "proof". What else can we do but finally give in.
>> Marvin, you there? Let's go.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[erschro...@gmail.com]

On Feb 8, 3:47 pm, Eric Stevens <eric.stev...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Feb 2012 08:48:43 -0800 (PST), "erschroedin...@gmail.com"

>
> <erschroedin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Feb 7, 5:26 pm, "BJAC...@teranews.com" <b...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
> >> On 2/7/2012 3:20 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>
> >> > Now don't any of you climate science deniers spout off, like
> >> > Marvin does, saying that correlation is not causation, because
> >> > in this case, CO2 increase *is the cause* of this rapid global
> >> > warmup!
>
> >> HOLY SHIT! It's the old "proof by assertion" again! Damn! That gets us
> >> every time. Come on, all you "deniers", pack up and leave. Wormley has
> >> proved CO2 is the cause by simply saying so (once again).
>
> >No, science says so, and a mass of accumulated data says so.  And no
> >other possible cause is correlated with temp.
>
> You haven't heard?
>

> Seehttp://motls.blogspot.co.nz/2004/09/sunspots-correlations-with-temper...

No, I haven't heard that a blog by a denialist trumps papers in
scientific journals. Did the voice in your head tell you that?

>
>
>
> >When only one cause is correlated with the effect, logic tells us that
> >cause is almost certainly causing the effect.
>
> But when there are two .... ?

There aren't. Hint: a blog is not a scientific source.

[Peter Webb]

<erschro...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:671d725a-3177-4dd8...@m5g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...

___________________________________
OK, how about from AD 0 to AD 1200?

2. The sun's output was changing then; it's not changing now.

_____________________________________
So, climate change for the last 100 million years was driven by changes by
the sun's output, with no anthropological component, but for the last 100
years the mechnanism which drove climate change for 100 million years
stopped entirely and by an amazing co-incidence was entirely replaced by
anthropogenic causes?

>Or indeed any of the previous
> warmings or coolings.

Because a change in the earth's orbit, or massive volcanic action, or
a big increase in the sun's output, or a giant meteor hitting the
earth, might have happened in the last 50 years and we just didn't
notice?

______________________________________________
No, I doubt it. Do you have evidence that every previous warming and cooling
was caused by one of these? What about the temperature chnages from AD 1000
to AD 1200 - what caused them?

>
> Your argument makes no scientific sense. The truth or otherwise of your
> theory of AGW warming is not determined by the absence of competing
> theories. The crystal sphere model of the Universe was not correct simply
> because it was the best theory available. That criterion (that there are
> no
> currently known better theories) simply does not appear in the scientific
> method, and nor should it.
>
> The theory of AGW is supposedly a scientific theory.


And you're supposedly an intelligent being.

__________________________________
Am.

>Yet you don't use
> scientific arguments (the scientific method) to test it. That you do not
> and
> apparently can not simply shows that your version of AGW is not a
> scientific
> theory.

OK, you tell me what "theory" means in science.

___________________________________________________
It must be falsifiable to be a scientific theory (consult any textbook on
the scientific method if you don't know what that means). Yours is not.

>
> If you have scientific arguments for AGW (ie those of a type used in the
> scientific method), you should post them. Posting "unscientific" arguments
> just shows how "unscientific" AGW theory is.

So why do almost all the world's scientists say otherwise? Are you
claiming you know more science than they do?

______________________________________________
Why are scientists ever wrong? That's a complicated question, but the fact
is that they often are.

[Peter Webb]

<erschro...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8eddec44-28fa-4152...@f5g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...

____________________________________
Absolute bullshit, and if you think that evolution is no better supported by
experimental evidence than is AGW you need to learn a little bit about
evolution. It is massively supported by independent experimental evidence in
paleontology, epidemiology, animal husbandry, microbiology, genetic
sequencing, taxonomy and species distribution.

You aren't going to prove AGW by claiming that it theory of evolution
doesn't have excellent experimental support. It does. If you don't believe
this, start a new thread where you claim that there is poor of no evidence
for the theory of evolution and I would be delighted to respond. In the mean
time, you are supposed to be providing evidence for AGW, not complaining
that the theory of evolution doesn't have good experimental evidence. It
just shows you as a crank.

[Peter Webb]

"AGWFacts" <AGWF...@ipcc.org> wrote in message
news:s7d5j7l3ield81enq...@4ax.com...

No, I mean "correleation".

> Causation was
> determined many decades ago---- before all of us now living were
> born.

No. Unless you can provide evidence.

>
>> and as already agreed correlation does not prove causation.
>
> Nobody said it does.
>
>> Take away the correlation and there is no experimental
>> evidence at all. None.
>
> There is over 170 years of experimental (i.e., observational and
> computational) evidence. Stings, does it?
>

What, specifically?

You are making things up. Again.

[Eric Stevens]

On Wed, 8 Feb 2012 14:34:04 -0800 (PST), "erschro...@gmail.com"
<erschro...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Feb 8, 3:47 pm, Eric Stevens <eric.stev...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>> On Wed, 8 Feb 2012 08:48:43 -0800 (PST), "erschroedin...@gmail.com"
>>
>> <erschroedin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Feb 7, 5:26 pm, "BJAC...@teranews.com" <b...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
>> >> On 2/7/2012 3:20 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>>
>> >> > Now don't any of you climate science deniers spout off, like
>> >> > Marvin does, saying that correlation is not causation, because
>> >> > in this case, CO2 increase *is the cause* of this rapid global
>> >> > warmup!
>>
>> >> HOLY SHIT! It's the old "proof by assertion" again! Damn! That gets us
>> >> every time. Come on, all you "deniers", pack up and leave. Wormley has
>> >> proved CO2 is the cause by simply saying so (once again).
>>
>> >No, science says so, and a mass of accumulated data says so.  And no
>> >other possible cause is correlated with temp.
>>
>> You haven't heard?
>>
>> Seehttp://motls.blogspot.co.nz/2004/09/sunspots-correlations-with-temper...
>
>No, I haven't heard that a blog by a denialist trumps papers in
>scientific journals. Did the voice in your head tell you that?

I didn't cite that as a scholarly source but as a simple account
suitable for people who had never previously heard of the theory. If
you want to know more (and I assume you don't) look up Svensmark, the
Cern 'Cloud' experiment and related papers. It's all there and its
respectable.

>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> >When only one cause is correlated with the effect, logic tells us that
>> >cause is almost certainly causing the effect.
>>
>> But when there are two .... ?
>
>There aren't. Hint: a blog is not a scientific source.

This is not scholastic head-butting. This is science (or should be).
Go and do some homework.
>
>

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[erschro...@gmail.com]

On Feb 8, 6:18 pm, "Peter Webb" <r.peter.webb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> <erschroedin...@gmail.com> wrote in message

>
> news:8eddec44-28fa-4152...@f5g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 7, 11:57 pm, "Peter Webb" <r.peter.webb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Sam Wormley" <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:2L6dneggp-_6aKzS...@mchsi.com...
>
> > > On 2/7/12 5:44 PM, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> > >> In sci.physics AGWFacts<AGWFa...@ipcc.org> wrote:
>
> > >>> The strength of the correlation keeps getting stronger, until it
>
> > >> Most people know that correlation does not prove causation.
>
> > > True, but in the case of this global warming, causation is
> > > well understood--CO2 produced by human activity.
>
> > Bullshit. The *only* experimental evidence that additional CO2 causes net
> > warming is this correlation, and as already agreed correlation does not
> > prove causation. Take away the correlation and there is no experimental
> > evidence at all. None.
>
> Huh?  That's all you've got for the Big Bang, evolution, etc.
> ____________________________________
> Absolute bullshit, and if you think that evolution is no better supported by
> experimental evidence than is AGW you need to learn a little bit about
> evolution.

There are no controlled experiments, just like with AGW. Yes, there's
plenty of evidence just like there is for AGW.


Hint: Your refusal to accept evidence does not mean there is no
evidence.

>It is massively supported by independent experimental evidence in
> paleontology, epidemiology, animal husbandry, microbiology, genetic
> sequencing, taxonomy and species distribution.
>
> You aren't going to prove AGW by claiming that it theory of evolution
> doesn't have excellent experimental support. It does.

Just correlation though -- you can't "prove" causation without doing
controlled experiments.

>If you don't believe
> this, start a new thread where you claim that there is poor of no evidence
> for the theory of evolution and I would be delighted to respond. In the mean
> time, you are supposed to be providing evidence for AGW, not complaining
> that the theory of evolution doesn't have good experimental evidence. It
> just shows you as a crank.

Both have massive amounts of evidence, which is why both theories are
accepted by almost all scientists.

But you're arguing evolution, which is accepted by almost all
scientists, has a lot of evidence behind it (and that's why it's
accepted), but AGW, which is also accepted by almost all scientists,
doesn't have a lot of evidence behind it. In other words, scientists
are fickle.

Do you have anything to back that up?

[erschro...@gmail.com]

On Feb 8, 11:45 pm, Eric Stevens <eric.stev...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Feb 2012 14:34:04 -0800 (PST), "erschroedin...@gmail.com"

>
>
>
> <erschroedin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Feb 8, 3:47 pm, Eric Stevens <eric.stev...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 8 Feb 2012 08:48:43 -0800 (PST), "erschroedin...@gmail.com"
>
> >> <erschroedin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On Feb 7, 5:26 pm, "BJAC...@teranews.com" <b...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
> >> >> On 2/7/2012 3:20 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>
> >> >> > Now don't any of you climate science deniers spout off, like
> >> >> > Marvin does, saying that correlation is not causation, because
> >> >> > in this case, CO2 increase *is the cause* of this rapid global
> >> >> > warmup!
>
> >> >> HOLY SHIT! It's the old "proof by assertion" again! Damn! That gets us
> >> >> every time. Come on, all you "deniers", pack up and leave. Wormley has
> >> >> proved CO2 is the cause by simply saying so (once again).
>
> >> >No, science says so, and a mass of accumulated data says so.  And no
> >> >other possible cause is correlated with temp.
>
> >> You haven't heard?
>
> >> Seehttp://motls.blogspot.co.nz/2004/09/sunspots-correlations-with-temper...
>
> >No, I haven't heard that a blog by a denialist trumps papers in
> >scientific journals.  Did the voice in your head tell you that?
>
> I didn't cite that as a scholarly source but as a simple account
> suitable for people who had never previously heard of the theory. If
> you want to know more (and I assume you don't) look up Svensmark, the
> Cern 'Cloud' experiment and related papers. It's all there and its
> respectable.

Uh, first, CERN found gamma rays did NOT produce the large particles
needed to form clouds. Try reading the CERN report rather than what
right-wing web sites say about it.

Second, Svensmark's idea has been refuted by several papers, mainly by
showing there's absolutely no correlation between cosmic rays and
temperature.

Have you actually READ any of the science?

[erschro...@gmail.com]

On Feb 8, 6:11 pm, "Peter Webb" <r.peter.webb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> <erschroedin...@gmail.com> wrote in message

The earth wasn't warming then like it is now.

>
> 2. The sun's output was changing then; it's not changing now.
>
> _____________________________________
> So, climate change for the last 100 million years was driven by changes by
> the sun's output, with no anthropological component, but for the last 100
> years the mechnanism which drove climate change for 100 million years
> stopped entirely and by an amazing co-incidence was entirely replaced by
> anthropogenic causes?

Actually, yes. But for 100 million years, there was NO source of CO2
besides the oceans warming and releasing CO2, or volcanoes. Now there
is. So why should anyone be surprised that now there's a new cause
for warming, since we know CO2 can cause warming?

>
> >Or indeed any of the previous
> > warmings or coolings.
>
> Because a change in the earth's orbit, or massive volcanic action, or
> a big increase in the sun's output, or a giant meteor hitting the
> earth, might have happened in the last 50 years and we just didn't
> notice?
> ______________________________________________
> No, I doubt it. Do you have evidence that every previous warming and cooling
> was caused by one of these? What about the temperature chnages from AD 1000
> to AD 1200 - what caused them?

They were negligible compared to today's changes, but I'd guess solar
output.

But since you brought it up, you tell me.

>
>
>
> > Your argument makes no scientific sense. The truth or otherwise of your
> > theory of AGW warming is not determined by the absence of competing
> > theories. The crystal sphere model of the Universe was not correct simply
> > because it was the best theory available. That criterion (that there are
> > no
> > currently known better theories) simply does not appear in the scientific
> > method, and nor should it.
>
> > The theory of AGW is supposedly a scientific theory.
>
> And you're supposedly an intelligent being.
> __________________________________
> Am.
>
> >Yet you don't use
> > scientific arguments (the scientific method) to test it. That you do not
> > and
> > apparently can not simply shows that your version of AGW is not a
> > scientific
> > theory.
>
> OK, you tell me what "theory" means in science.
>
> ___________________________________________________
> It must be falsifiable to be a scientific theory (consult any textbook on
> the scientific method if you don't know what that means). Yours is not.

Sure it is. If you can prove, with evidence, CO2 does not trap heat,
or that CO2 hasn't increased in the atmosphere, or that the CO2 in the
atmosphere isn't from fossil fuels, you will have falsified the
current theory. But wishing it doesn't make it so.

>
>
>
> > If you have scientific arguments for AGW (ie those of a type used in the
> > scientific method), you should post them. Posting "unscientific" arguments
> > just shows how "unscientific" AGW theory is.
>
> So why do almost all the world's scientists say otherwise?  Are you
> claiming you know more science than they do?
> ______________________________________________
> Why are scientists ever wrong? That's a complicated question, but the fact
> is that they often are.

So almost all the world's scientists are wrong and you're right? Do
you know what "chutzpah" means?

[Peter Webb]

<erschro...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:09378180-97d2-469f...@ge5g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...

______________________________
How, specifically?

>
> 2. The sun's output was changing then; it's not changing now.
>
> _____________________________________
> So, climate change for the last 100 million years was driven by changes by
> the sun's output, with no anthropological component, but for the last 100
> years the mechnanism which drove climate change for 100 million years
> stopped entirely and by an amazing co-incidence was entirely replaced by
> anthropogenic causes?

Actually, yes. But for 100 million years, there was NO source of CO2
besides the oceans warming and releasing CO2, or volcanoes. Now there
is.

______________________________________
And the temperature has gone up and down.

So why should anyone be surprised that now there's a new cause
for warming, since we know CO2 can cause warming?

__________________________________
Why should anyone be surprised if the earth's temperature goes up and down,
when it has for 100 million years or more?

>
> >Or indeed any of the previous
> > warmings or coolings.
>
> Because a change in the earth's orbit, or massive volcanic action, or
> a big increase in the sun's output, or a giant meteor hitting the
> earth, might have happened in the last 50 years and we just didn't
> notice?
> ______________________________________________
> No, I doubt it. Do you have evidence that every previous warming and
> cooling
> was caused by one of these? What about the temperature chnages from AD
> 1000
> to AD 1200 - what caused them?

They were negligible compared to today's changes, but I'd guess solar
output.

________________________________
*What* was neglibible compared to todays changes? What chnage in temperature
over what period? What is your claim, exactly?

But since you brought it up, you tell me.

________________________________
I think that whatever drove climate chnage in the past is what is driving it
today. I don't know what that is, but nor am I required to present an
alternative theory (or have one).

________________________________________________
I don't think you do understand the concept of falsifiability, it is not an
critique of a chain of logic, it has to be experimental.

But more generally, you have to establish that additional CO2 on net warms
the atmosphere. Your argument looks only at the greenhouse gas effect. There
are obviously many other ways in which CO2 can affect climate, most notably
through vegetation growth rates. You lot need to show experimentally that
the warming effects dominate the cooling effect, and there is *no*
experimental evidence this is true.

> > scientific method), you should post them. Posting "unscientific"
> > arguments
> > just shows how "unscientific" AGW theory is.
>
> So why do almost all the world's scientists say otherwise? Are you
> claiming you know more science than they do?
> ______________________________________________
> Why are scientists ever wrong? That's a complicated question, but the fact
> is that they often are.

So almost all the world's scientists are wrong and you're right? Do
you know what "chutzpah" means?

______________________________________
This the best you can do?

[Peter Webb]

<erschro...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7cfb3203-d6b0-4d12...@w19g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...

On Feb 8, 6:18 pm, "Peter Webb" <r.peter.webb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> <erschroedin...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:8eddec44-28fa-4152...@f5g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 7, 11:57 pm, "Peter Webb" <r.peter.webb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Sam Wormley" <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:2L6dneggp-_6aKzS...@mchsi.com...
>
> > > On 2/7/12 5:44 PM, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> > >> In sci.physics AGWFacts<AGWFa...@ipcc.org> wrote:
>
> > >>> The strength of the correlation keeps getting stronger, until it
>
> > >> Most people know that correlation does not prove causation.
>
> > > True, but in the case of this global warming, causation is
> > > well understood--CO2 produced by human activity.
>
> > Bullshit. The *only* experimental evidence that additional CO2 causes
> > net
> > warming is this correlation, and as already agreed correlation does not
> > prove causation. Take away the correlation and there is no experimental
> > evidence at all. None.
>
> Huh? That's all you've got for the Big Bang, evolution, etc.
> ____________________________________
> Absolute bullshit, and if you think that evolution is no better supported
> by
> experimental evidence than is AGW you need to learn a little bit about
> evolution.

There are no controlled experiments, just like with AGW.

________________________________
So, now you are changing your claim. And I did not ask for "controlled
experiments". You stated that there is no more evidence for evolution than
there is for AGW. There is not.

Yes, there's
plenty of evidence just like there is for AGW.

______________________________
Ridiculous.

Hint: Your refusal to accept evidence does not mean there is no
evidence.

>It is massively supported by independent experimental evidence in
> paleontology, epidemiology, animal husbandry, microbiology, genetic
> sequencing, taxonomy and species distribution.
>
> You aren't going to prove AGW by claiming that it theory of evolution
> doesn't have excellent experimental support. It does.

Just correlation though -- you can't "prove" causation without doing
controlled experiments.

_________________________________________
Total and absolute bullshit. Firstly, you are inventing the fact that you
were asked to "prove causation", or that somehow I am asking for "controlled
experiments", I have not done that either. . I am not. I am simply asking
for "evidence that additional CO2 on balance warms the earth", a far simpler
thing I would have thought.

>If you don't believe
> this, start a new thread where you claim that there is poor of no evidence
> for the theory of evolution and I would be delighted to respond. In the
> mean
> time, you are supposed to be providing evidence for AGW, not complaining
> that the theory of evolution doesn't have good experimental evidence. It
> just shows you as a crank.


Both have massive amounts of evidence, which is why both theories are
accepted by almost all scientists.

____________________________________
That's simply not true, and not your original claim. Your original claim was
that AGW was as well proven experimentally as evolution, and that is simply
rubbish. You can compare yourself to this as much as you like, but AGW comes
off looking very bad indeed in comparison. Where are the indendent
verifications of core parts of the theory as are found for evolution in

paleontology, epidemiology, animal husbandry, microbiology, genetic

sequencing, taxonomy and species distribution? Well?

But you're arguing evolution, which is accepted by almost all
scientists, has a lot of evidence behind it (and that's why it's
accepted), but AGW, which is also accepted by almost all scientists,
doesn't have a lot of evidence behind it. In other words, scientists
are fickle.

Do you have anything to back that up?

__________________________________________
Well, the fickle bit is something you said. The only thing in that which I
said is that AGW doesn't have a lot of evidence to back it up (in fact it
has none, other than correlation). And to prove me wrong, you simply show me
the experimental evidence that additional CO2 warms the planet.

[Eric Stevens]

I've been following it for years. The thing about science is that
nobody has the last word. Svensmark never claimed that he did. Here is
what Svensmark has to say about the current state of affairs:
http://tinyurl.com/6ur92x2

"The correlations that have been found so far are on long time
scales star formation rates (million of years). On shorter time
scales solar modulation of cosmic rays. Numerous proxies of climate
seems to be correlated with changes in cosmic rays (14C or 10Be for
example) – stalagmites, ice-rafted debris, tree-rings, corals etc."

[Monkey Clumps]

On Feb 8, 12:43 pm, AGWFacts <AGWFa...@ipcc.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Feb 2012 12:46:21 -0800 (PST), Monkey Clumps
>
>
>

> <spacebrai...@yahoo.com> wrote:

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

So the ones who *don't* see AGW as an impending disaster are the
alarmists to you? How does that work with your definition? Actually
don't bother explaining. It's pretty clear that you are a hopeless
idiot. Typical greentard probably smokes so much dope he can longer
string two logical thoughts together.

[erschro...@gmail.com]

On Feb 9, 12:06 pm, "Peter Webb" <r.peter.webb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> <erschroedin...@gmail.com> wrote in message

>

> > > Tell us something else that could have caused this increase
> > > ______________________________________
> > > Whatever caused the temperature increase from (say) 1850 to 1900, when
> > > anthropogenic CO2 levels were negligible.
>
> > 1. They weren't negligible.
>
> > ___________________________________
> > OK, how about from AD 0 to AD 1200?
>
> The earth wasn't warming then like it is now.
>
> ______________________________
> How, specifically?

Not as much, not as fast.

>
>
>
> > 2. The sun's output was changing then; it's not changing now.
>
> > _____________________________________
> > So, climate change for the last 100 million years was driven by changes by
> > the sun's output, with no anthropological component, but for the last 100
> > years the mechnanism which drove climate change for 100 million years
> > stopped entirely and by an amazing co-incidence was entirely replaced by
> > anthropogenic causes?
>
> Actually, yes.  But for 100 million years, there was NO source of CO2
> besides the oceans warming and releasing CO2, or volcanoes.  Now there
> is.
> ______________________________________
> And the temperature has gone up and down.

Actually up since 1860 or so, except for a brief pause in the 1970s
caused by aerosols.

>
>  So why should anyone be surprised that now there's a new cause
> for warming, since we know CO2 can cause warming?
> __________________________________
> Why should anyone be surprised if the earth's temperature goes up and down,
> when it has for 100 million years or more?

Because it's not going up and down now, just up. And the change is
much more rapid than it ever has been except when something drastic
happened, like a meteor impact.

>
>
>
> > >Or indeed any of the previous
> > > warmings or coolings.
>
> > Because a change in the earth's orbit, or massive volcanic action, or
> > a big increase in the sun's output, or a giant meteor hitting the
> > earth, might have happened in the last 50 years and we just didn't
> > notice?
> > ______________________________________________
> > No, I doubt it. Do you have evidence that every previous warming and
> > cooling
> > was caused by one of these? What about the temperature chnages from AD
> > 1000
> > to AD 1200 - what caused them?
>
> They were negligible compared to today's changes, but I'd guess solar
> output.
> ________________________________
> *What* was neglibible compared to todays changes? What chnage in temperature
> over what period? What is your claim, exactly?

The changes in earth's temp has been much slower than it is today.

>
> But since you brought it up, you tell me.
> ________________________________
> I think that whatever drove climate chnage in the past is what is driving it
> today.

And you base this on what scientific evidence?

>I don't know what that is, but nor am I required to present an
> alternative theory (or have one).

Aha, I see. NO scientific evidence.

So do an experiment to falsify the above established scientific
principles.

>
> But more generally, you have to establish that additional CO2 on net warms
> the atmosphere.

Been done.

>Your argument looks only at the greenhouse gas effect.

Yeah, I guess when we're talking about atoms, we just look at matter
too.

>There
> are obviously many other ways in which CO2 can affect climate, most notably
> through vegetation growth rates.

Yes, that's why only half the CO2 we put into the atmosphere stays
there. The other goes to sinks -- oceans, plants, soil.

>You lot need to show experimentally that
> the warming effects dominate the cooling effect, and there is *no*
> experimental evidence this is true.

Yes there is. Tell you what, you tell me what scientific journals
you'd searched.

>
> > > scientific method), you should post them. Posting "unscientific"
> > > arguments
> > > just shows how "unscientific" AGW theory is.
>
> > So why do almost all the world's scientists say otherwise? Are you
> > claiming you know more science than they do?
> > ______________________________________________
> > Why are scientists ever wrong? That's a complicated question, but the fact
> > is that they often are.
>
> So almost all the world's scientists are wrong and you're right?  Do
> you know what "chutzpah" means?
> ______________________________________
> This the best you can do?

When you've presented no evidence? You should be glad anyone deigns
to debate with you at all.

Come back with some scientific evidence, or don't come back.

[erschro...@gmail.com]

On Feb 9, 4:03 pm, Eric Stevens <eric.stev...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Feb 2012 08:42:34 -0800 (PST), "erschroedin...@gmail.com"

I repeat, have you read any of the scientific papers?

[erschro...@gmail.com]

Controlled experiments are the only way you can establish causation.

>
>  Yes, there's
> plenty of evidence just like there is for AGW.
> ______________________________
> Ridiculous.
>

Have you read any scientific journals?

> Hint:  Your refusal to accept evidence does not mean there is no
> evidence.
>
> >It is massively supported by independent experimental evidence in
> > paleontology, epidemiology, animal husbandry, microbiology, genetic
> > sequencing, taxonomy and species distribution.
>
> > You aren't going to prove AGW by claiming that it theory of evolution
> > doesn't have excellent experimental support. It does.
>
> Just correlation though -- you can't "prove" causation without doing
> controlled experiments.
> _________________________________________
> Total and absolute bullshit. Firstly, you are inventing the fact that you
> were asked to "prove causation", or that somehow I am asking for "controlled
> experiments", I have not done that either. . I am not. I am simply asking
> for "evidence that additional CO2 on balance warms the earth", a far simpler
> thing I would have thought.

Have you read any scientific journals?

>
> >If you don't believe
> > this, start a new thread where you claim that there is poor of no evidence
> > for the theory of evolution and I would be delighted to respond. In the
> > mean
> > time, you are supposed to be providing evidence for AGW, not complaining
> > that the theory of evolution doesn't have good experimental evidence. It
> > just shows you as a crank.
>
> Both have massive amounts of evidence, which is why both theories are
> accepted by almost all scientists.
> ____________________________________
> That's simply not true, and not your original claim. Your original claim was
> that AGW was as well proven experimentally as evolution, and that is simply
> rubbish.

So why do almost all scientists support it?

>You can compare yourself to this as much as you like, but AGW comes
> off looking very bad indeed in comparison.

So why do almost all scientists support it?

> Where are the indendent
> verifications of core parts of the theory as are found for evolution in
> paleontology, epidemiology, animal husbandry, microbiology, genetic
> sequencing, taxonomy and species distribution? Well?

Have you read any scientific journals?

>
> But you're arguing evolution, which is accepted by almost all
> scientists, has a lot of evidence behind it (and that's why it's
> accepted), but AGW, which is also accepted by almost all scientists,
> doesn't have a lot of evidence behind it.  In other words, scientists
> are fickle.
>
> Do you have anything to back that up?
> __________________________________________
> Well, the fickle bit is something you said. The only thing in that which I
> said is that AGW doesn't have a lot of evidence to back it up (in fact it
> has none, other than correlation). And to prove me wrong, you simply show me
> the experimental evidence that additional CO2 warms the planet.

No, you've said evolution has a lot of evidence to back it up, and AGW
does not. But almost all scientists accept both. So you're saying
scientists just randomly choose which theories to support.

[Eric Stevens]

Of course I have. Had you read any relevant papers before you made
your claim "no other possible cause is correlated with temp"?

If you had, your claim about"no other possible cause ... " is
dishonest. If you hadn't then you had better go away and read some.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Peter Webb]

<erschro...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ebffb639-5d3e-44ca...@m5g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...

____________________________________
If you don't believe that evolution is "caused" by "natural selection", or
that this connection has not been "established", start a thread on why you
don't believe in evolution through natural selection. In the mean time, you
are supposed to be providing evidence for AGW theories, not complaining that
you don't believe that evolution through natural selection has been
established.

>
> Yes, there's
> plenty of evidence just like there is for AGW.
> ______________________________
> Ridiculous.
>

Have you read any scientific journals?

___________________________________
Provide some experimental evidence - any experimental evidence - that

additional CO2 warms the planet.

> Hint: Your refusal to accept evidence does not mean there is no
> evidence.
>

Hint: The fact that you have provided no evidence probably does mean you
don't know of any.

> >It is massively supported by independent experimental evidence in
> > paleontology, epidemiology, animal husbandry, microbiology, genetic
> > sequencing, taxonomy and species distribution.
>
> > You aren't going to prove AGW by claiming that it theory of evolution
> > doesn't have excellent experimental support. It does.
>
> Just correlation though -- you can't "prove" causation without doing
> controlled experiments.
> _________________________________________
> Total and absolute bullshit. Firstly, you are inventing the fact that you
> were asked to "prove causation", or that somehow I am asking for
> "controlled
> experiments", I have not done that either. . I am not. I am simply asking
> for "evidence that additional CO2 on balance warms the earth", a far
> simpler
> thing I would have thought.

Have you read any scientific journals?

_____________________________________
So, have you got any scientific evidence that additional CO2 on balance
warms the earth? If so, why won't you tell us what it is?

>
> >If you don't believe
> > this, start a new thread where you claim that there is poor of no
> > evidence
> > for the theory of evolution and I would be delighted to respond. In the
> > mean
> > time, you are supposed to be providing evidence for AGW, not complaining
> > that the theory of evolution doesn't have good experimental evidence. It
> > just shows you as a crank.
>
> Both have massive amounts of evidence, which is why both theories are
> accepted by almost all scientists.
> ____________________________________
> That's simply not true, and not your original claim. Your original claim
> was
> that AGW was as well proven experimentally as evolution, and that is
> simply
> rubbish.

So why do almost all scientists support it?

___________________________________
You are supposed to be telling me that. Don't you know?

>You can compare yourself to this as much as you like, but AGW comes
> off looking very bad indeed in comparison.

So why do almost all scientists support it?

___________________________
I don't even know if almost all scientists support it. I doubt that most
scientists have ever been asked.

> Where are the indendent
> verifications of core parts of the theory as are found for evolution in
> paleontology, epidemiology, animal husbandry, microbiology, genetic
> sequencing, taxonomy and species distribution? Well?

Have you read any scientific journals?

_____________________________
So, you don't have this kind of experimental evidence for AGW, and that's
why you aren't posting it?

>
> But you're arguing evolution, which is accepted by almost all
> scientists, has a lot of evidence behind it (and that's why it's
> accepted), but AGW, which is also accepted by almost all scientists,
> doesn't have a lot of evidence behind it. In other words, scientists
> are fickle.
>
> Do you have anything to back that up?
> __________________________________________
> Well, the fickle bit is something you said. The only thing in that which I
> said is that AGW doesn't have a lot of evidence to back it up (in fact it
> has none, other than correlation). And to prove me wrong, you simply show
> me
> the experimental evidence that additional CO2 warms the planet.

No, you've said evolution has a lot of evidence to back it up, and AGW
does not.

__________________________________
I said that.

But almost all scientists accept both. So you're saying
scientists just randomly choose which theories to support.

___________________________________
No, I said that evolution has a huge amount of supporting evidence - and I
listed some of the principle areas - but the theory that additional CO2
will on balance warm the atmosphere has none. You still have provided zero
evidence that additional CO2 warms the planet, despite my repeated requests
for same, in crank style you just continually avoid the question.

[Peter Webb]

<erschro...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:33fa6cf8-0af9-4e24...@g27g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...

On Feb 9, 12:06 pm, "Peter Webb" <r.peter.webb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> <erschroedin...@gmail.com> wrote in message

>
> > > Tell us something else that could have caused this increase
> > > ______________________________________
> > > Whatever caused the temperature increase from (say) 1850 to 1900, when
> > > anthropogenic CO2 levels were negligible.
>
> > 1. They weren't negligible.
>
> > ___________________________________
> > OK, how about from AD 0 to AD 1200?
>
> The earth wasn't warming then like it is now.
>
> ______________________________
> How, specifically?

Not as much, not as fast.

________________________________
*Specifically.* You have to make this at least look like a scientific
statement which can in principle be shown to be true or false. Is your claim
(for example) that there was no 10 year period during AD 0 to AD 1200 in
which the temperatures rose as fast as they have in the last 10 years? If
that is not your claim, what is?

>
>
>
> > 2. The sun's output was changing then; it's not changing now.
>
> > _____________________________________
> > So, climate change for the last 100 million years was driven by changes
> > by
> > the sun's output, with no anthropological component, but for the last
> > 100
> > years the mechnanism which drove climate change for 100 million years
> > stopped entirely and by an amazing co-incidence was entirely replaced by
> > anthropogenic causes?
>
> Actually, yes. But for 100 million years, there was NO source of CO2
> besides the oceans warming and releasing CO2, or volcanoes. Now there
> is.
> ______________________________________
> And the temperature has gone up and down.

Actually up since 1860 or so, except for a brief pause in the 1970s
caused by aerosols.

______________________________________
Well no, 2011 was cooler than 2010, so it has in fact gone up and down.

>
> So why should anyone be surprised that now there's a new cause
> for warming, since we know CO2 can cause warming?
> __________________________________
> Why should anyone be surprised if the earth's temperature goes up and
> down,
> when it has for 100 million years or more?

Because it's not going up and down now, just up.

______________________________
Except for the years it went down.

And the change is
much more rapid than it ever has been except when something drastic
happened, like a meteor impact.

_______________________________
Interesting claim. How do you calculate how rapid the change is at any time
(ie what is the exact claim that you are making), and where's your evidence
your statement is true?

>
>
>
> > >Or indeed any of the previous
> > > warmings or coolings.
>
> > Because a change in the earth's orbit, or massive volcanic action, or
> > a big increase in the sun's output, or a giant meteor hitting the
> > earth, might have happened in the last 50 years and we just didn't
> > notice?
> > ______________________________________________
> > No, I doubt it. Do you have evidence that every previous warming and
> > cooling
> > was caused by one of these? What about the temperature chnages from AD
> > 1000
> > to AD 1200 - what caused them?
>
> They were negligible compared to today's changes, but I'd guess solar
> output.
> ________________________________
> *What* was neglibible compared to todays changes? What chnage in
> temperature
> over what period? What is your claim, exactly?

The changes in earth's temp has been much slower than it is today.

_________________________________________
You mean today Feb 10th? Or do you mean the change over the last year? or
decade? What is your claim, exactly? Or are you intentionally trying to
leave it so vague that it is not testable, so you can't be proved wrong?

>
> But since you brought it up, you tell me.
> ________________________________
> I think that whatever drove climate chnage in the past is what is driving
> it
> today.

And you base this on what scientific evidence?

_______________________________________________
Not evidence; Occam's Razer.

>I don't know what that is, but nor am I required to present an
> alternative theory (or have one).

Aha, I see. NO scientific evidence.

__________________________________
No, plenty of evidence, no *theory*. You seem unaware of the difference.

______________________________________________
My assumption is confirmed. You don't understand the concept.

>
> But more generally, you have to establish that additional CO2 on net warms
> the atmosphere.

Been done.

_____________________________________
Great. This is what I have been asking for. What is it?

>Your argument looks only at the greenhouse gas effect.

Yeah, I guess when we're talking about atoms, we just look at matter
too.

_______________________________________
You might. Physicists probably look at electromagnetic fields and other
things as well.

>There
> are obviously many other ways in which CO2 can affect climate, most
> notably
> through vegetation growth rates.

Yes, that's why only half the CO2 we put into the atmosphere stays
there. The other goes to sinks -- oceans, plants, soil.

_______________________________________
Indeed.

>You lot need to show experimentally that
> the warming effects dominate the cooling effect, and there is *no*
> experimental evidence this is true.

Yes there is.

____________________________________
So you keep saying.

Tell you what, you tell me what scientific journals
you'd searched.

__________________________________
But again you don't tell us what it is! You must have avoided this question
10 times in this post alone; why do you keep refusing to tell us what that
evidence is?

>
> > > scientific method), you should post them. Posting "unscientific"
> > > arguments
> > > just shows how "unscientific" AGW theory is.
>
> > So why do almost all the world's scientists say otherwise? Are you
> > claiming you know more science than they do?
> > ______________________________________________
> > Why are scientists ever wrong? That's a complicated question, but the
> > fact
> > is that they often are.
>
> So almost all the world's scientists are wrong and you're right? Do
> you know what "chutzpah" means?
> ______________________________________
> This the best you can do?

When you've presented no evidence?

__________________________________
I'm not proposing an alternate theory. I'm asking for evidence of yours.
Which you can't or won't supply.

You should be glad anyone deigns
to debate with you at all.

Come back with some scientific evidence, or don't come back.

_________________________________________
Evidence for what, exactly?

*You claim* that there is experimental evidence which shows that additional
CO2 on balance warms the planet. This is the central tenet of AGW. What is
that evidence? Why won't you tell us? Is it a secret that only Believers are
supposed to know or something?

[AGWFacts]

On Wed, 8 Feb 2012 18:30:51 -0000, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
wrote:

> On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 10:46:19 -0700, AGWFacts <AGWF...@ipcc.org> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 22:09:11 -0600, Sam Wormley
> > <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >

> > > BTW, jimp, your manipulation of the "followups to"--How's
> > > that working for you?
> >
> > Does not seem to be working. Heee.

> Works just fine as I set the Followup-To: header to be in accordance
> with the RFC's, about which you haven't a clue as to either their existance
> or content.

You want sci.physics to be free of physics. net.k00k


--
"I am not ignorant simply because I choose to believe one
theory over another." -- Madison Murphy

[AGWFacts]

Svensmark was demonstrated wrong over a decade ago, but his
assertions were never taken as valid by any scientist: what he
claimed would happen has never een seen happening, and what was
observed for many decades was and is contrary to his claims.

Sources:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682611000691

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0706/0706.4294v1.pdf

http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Solar_Irradiance.txt

http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Solrad.jpg

http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarConstant

http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Climax.jpg

http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Changes_In_Solar_Brightness_Too_Weak_To_Explain_Global_Warming_999.html

http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn12234-suns-activity-rules-out-link-to-global-warming.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7327393.stm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090511122425.htm

http://www.mpg.de/english/illustrationsDocumentation/documentation/pressReleases/2004/pressRelease20040802/

http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/07/no-link-between.html

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=42

> > Cern 'Cloud' experiment and related papers. It's all there and its
> > respectable.

CERN says the opposite, and also says Eric Stevens is full of
shit. Sources:

http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/Home/Archive/Cern_study_gives_insight_into_cloud_formation.html?cid=30994792

> Uh, first, CERN found gamma rays did NOT produce the large particles
> needed to form clouds. Try reading the CERN report rather than what
> right-wing web sites say about it.

CERN emphatically stressed that the CLOUD experiment showed the
exact opposite of what FOX "News" ordered its obeyers to believe.

> Second, Svensmark's idea has been refuted by several papers, mainly by
> showing there's absolutely no correlation between cosmic rays and
> temperature.

The hypothesis was rejected even before the correlation divereged
and ended.

> Have you actually READ any of the science?

His answer is "Yes! On FOX 'News!'"

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

In sci.physics AGWFacts <AGWF...@ipcc.org> wrote:

> On Wed, 8 Feb 2012 18:30:51 -0000, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
> wrote:
>

<snip huge pile of previously snipped irrelevant crap pasted back in by
the illierate moron>

>> Works just fine as I set the Followup-To: header to be in accordance
>> with the RFC's, about which you haven't a clue as to either their existance
>> or content.
>
> You want sci.physics to be free of physics. net.k00k

I want sci.pyhics posts to have physics content.

You want sci.physics to be your private blog to post any crap you feel like
posting.

Constantly pasting back in irrelevant crap previously snipped shows
yow have some severe brain chemical problems that require professional
diagnosis.

[AGWFacts]

On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 01:11:14 -0000, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
wrote:

> On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 17:53:33 -0700, AGWFacts <AGWF...@ipcc.org> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 8 Feb 2012 18:30:51 -0000, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
> > wrote:
> >

> > > Works just fine as I set the Followup-To: header to be in accordance
> > > with the RFC's, about which you haven't a clue as to either their existance
> > > or content.
> >
> > You want sci.physics to be free of physics. net.k00k

> I want sci.pyhics posts to have physics content.

And yet you bitch and complain when it does. net.k00k indeed.

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

In sci.physics AGWFacts <AGWF...@ipcc.org> wrote:

> On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 01:11:14 -0000, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
> wrote:
>

<snip 92 lines of irrelevant crap pasted in by our poster boy for mental
aberrations>

>> I want sci.pyhics posts to have physics content.
>
> And yet you bitch and complain when it does. net.k00k indeed.
>

Nope, the problem is that you have no clue what the word "physics" means,
which seems appropriate for someone claiming to be posting from ipcc.org.

Is it the voices in your head that are telling you to keep pasting in hundreds
of lines of irrelevant crap every time you post?

[k...@kymhorsell.com]

In sci.physics Dawlish <pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
...
> Tell us something else that could have caused this increase - and if
> you use 131/161 years of data, the correlation is much the same.
>
> "And 28 years of data is nothing in the greater scheme things. Tiny
> tiny dataset = tiny tiny nothing".
>
> Please don't any denier ever talk about the global temperature rise
> having stopped 13 years ago, or we'll set tuncy on you.


Well, it's "quite difficult" to find something that tracks avg global
temps to start with. It woud be amusing to see the denier graph of
the causal agent that tracks the warming, turns on a dime at 1998
(otherwise the max of prev 100+ years), and then declines until now,
but further, is projected to induce 5C of cooling in the future.

--
[confusing the warming records and warming trends:]
And BTW, by your logic, the 1998 hot year (supposedly hottest EVAHH)
just proved hot years are rare. Does that sound right to you?
Yes, take time and think it through.
-- Ron House <rho...@smartchat.net.au>, Bris, 09 Dec 2010 23:31:38

[AGWFacts]

On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 18:46:17 -0000, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
wrote:

> On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 08:56:03 -0700, AGWFacts <AGWF...@ipcc.org> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 01:11:14 -0000, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
> > wrote:
> >

> > > I want sci.pyhics posts to have physics content.
> >
> > And yet you bitch and complain when it does. net.k00k indeed.

> Nope, the problem is that you have no clue what the word "physics" means,

Yet you have seen over and over and over again that I do. How do
you explain your odd behavior?

> which seems appropriate for someone claiming to be posting from ipcc.org.
>
> Is it the voices in your head that are telling you to keep pasting in hundreds
> of lines of irrelevant crap every time you post?

You are campaigning for Usenet Kook Of The Month in the wrong
newsgroups, net.k00k

[AGWFacts]

On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 21:02:25 +0000 (UTC), k...@kymhorsell.com
wrote:

> In sci.physics Dawlish <pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> ...

> > Tell us something else that could have caused this increase - and if
> > you use 131/161 years of data, the correlation is much the same.
> >
> > "And 28 years of data is nothing in the greater scheme things. Tiny
> > tiny dataset = tiny tiny nothing".
> >
> > Please don't any denier ever talk about the global temperature rise
> > having stopped 13 years ago, or we'll set tuncy on you.

> Well, it's "quite difficult" to find something that tracks avg global
> temps to start with.

Indeed. Even the wrong answer "It's the sun!" would not work
because of the many other forcings involved. But scientists can,
and they have, found something that does track global average
temperature very well: atmospheric CO2.

> It woud be amusing to see the denier graph of
> the causal agent that tracks the warming, turns on a dime at 1998
> (otherwise the max of prev 100+ years), and then declines until now,

They do not even try to do that any more, once gosmic rays ceased
being correlated with the current global temperature anomaly some
18+ years ago.

> but further, is projected to induce 5C of cooling in the future.


--

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

In sci.physics AGWFacts <AGWF...@ipcc.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 18:46:17 -0000, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
> wrote:

<snip a hundred or so lines of useless crap pasted in by our poster boy
for mental illness>

>> Nope, the problem is that you have no clue what the word "physics" means,
>
> Yet you have seen over and over and over again that I do. How do
> you explain your odd behavior?

Nope, what I have seen over and over and over again is you pasting in
hundreds of lines of garbage like a small, spoiled child.

How do you explain behaviour so odd it borders on mental illness?

[tj Frazir]

40,000 jap nukes melted the poles and killed 100 million and 30 million
americans.
and counting.
The fallout fucked the magnetic poles by melting them.
The fallout is 100 quadrillion cuires for 100 years and will heat the
sky 2 deg .
NASA SAID
IN 1971

whats the LAW about 1971 that says nuke manipulatin of the weather for
world population controle ??

GW is bullshit that hides the nuke fallout damage from 2000 nuke test.

ALLLLLL YOU stupid fuckers make me sick.
ID line you GW motherfuckers up and march you into a reactor.

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

[tj Frazir]

read this you fucking liers.
Im dumping whale 7 on japan.
fuck wallstreet... by handing out engiines to the greedy fuckers.

270 HP 300 MPG 4 cylindr steam fired water rockets driving a slide vane
rotor with a inner hub rotor cam.

tooo simple of an engine.

im gona bustt some laws to do it.
fuck the god damb gov.

Id love to send obama to africa in a box.

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

[AGWFacts]

On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 21:08:13 -0000, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
wrote:

On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 11:29:45 -0700, AGWFacts <AGWF...@ipcc.org>

wrote:

> On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 18:46:17 -0000, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
> wrote:
>

> > Nope, the problem is that you have no clue what the word "physics" means,
>
> Yet you have seen over and over and over again that I do. How do
> you explain your odd behavior?
>

> > which seems appropriate for someone claiming to be posting from ipcc.org.
> >
> > Is it the voices in your head that are telling you to keep pasting in hundreds
> > of lines of irrelevant crap every time you post?
>
> You are campaigning for Usenet Kook Of The Month in the wrong
> newsgroups, net.k00k

> Nope, what I have seen over and over and over again is you pasting in

Still the wrong newsgroups, k00k.

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

In sci.physics AGWFacts <AGWF...@ipcc.org> wrote:

Nothing what so ever other than to paste in over a hundred lines of crap.

Seek help for your mental problems.