Don't let climate doubters fool you. Climate-change science is clear.
Harry Hope
Dec 12, 2009
Don't let the climate doubters fool you
By Alan I. Leshner
...........................................................................................................
Climate-change science is clear: The concentration of atmospheric
carbon dioxide - derived mostly from the human activities of
fossil-fuel burning and deforestation - stands at 389 parts per
million (ppm).
We know from studying ancient Antarctic ice cores that this
concentration is higher than it has been for at least the past 650,000
years.
Exhaustive measurements tell us that atmospheric carbon dioxide is
rising by 2 ppm every year and that the global temperature has
increased by about 1.1 degrees Fahrenheit over the past century.
Multiple lines of other evidence, including reliable thermometer
readings since the 1880s, reveal a clear warming trend.
The broader impacts of climate change range from rapidly melting
glaciers and rising sea levels to shifts in species ranges.
Thousands of respected scientists at an array of institutions
worldwide agree that major health and economic impacts are likely
unless we act now to slow greenhouse gas emissions.
Already, sea levels are estimated to rise by 1 to 2 meters by the end
of this century.
Some scientists have said that average temperatures could jump by as
much as 4 degrees Fahrenheit if the atmospheric carbon dioxide level
reaches 450 ppm.
We may face even more dangerous impacts at 550 ppm, and above that
level, devastating events.
U.S. crop productivity would be affected, while European communities
might suffer increased fatalities because of intensely hot summers.
Doubters insist that the earth is not warming.
This is in stark contrast to the consensus of 18 of the world's most
respected scientific organizations, who strongly stated in an Oct. 21
letter to the U.S. Senate that human-induced climate change is real.
Still, the doubters try to leverage any remaining points of scientific
uncertainty about the details of warming trends to cast doubt on the
overall conclusions shared by traditionally cautious, decidedly
non-radical science organizations such as the National Academy of
Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science,
which represents an estimated 10 million individual scientists through
262 affiliated societies.
Doubters also make selective use of the evidence, noting that the
warming of the late 1990s did not persist from 2001 to 2008, while
ignoring the fact that the first decade of the 21st century looks like
it will be the warmest one on record.
None of these tactics changes the clear consensus of a vast majority
of scientists, who agree that the Earth is warming as greenhouse gas
levels rise.
The public and policymakers should not be confused by a few private
e-mails that are being selectively publicized and, in any case, remain
irrelevant to the broad body of diverse evidence on climate change.
Selected language in the messages has been interpreted by some to
suggest unethical actions such as data manipulation or suppression.
To be sure, investigations are appropriate whenever questions are
raised regarding the transparency and rigor of the scientific process
or the integrity of individual scientists.
We applaud that the responsible authorities are conducting those
investigations.
But it is wrong to suggest that apparently stolen emails, deployed on
the eve of the Copenhagen climate summit, somehow refute a century of
evidence based on thousands of studies.
Ms. Palin also errs by claiming that America can't afford to reduce
greenhouse gases.
The highly regarded Stern Commission revealed that inaction could cost
us the equivalent of between 5 and 20 percent of global gross domestic
product per year.
In contrast, the price of slowing emissions was estimated to be 1
percent of GDP.
China, meanwhile, reportedly is investing heavily in clean energy
technologies.
Now, policymakers must decide whether to act on the evidence or to
avoid facing one of the most crucial issues of our generation.
__________________________________________________________
Fossil fuel corporations and their allies battle the truth about
global warming.
http://www.naturalnews.com/027681_Exxon_climate_skeptics.html
Harry
Claudius Denk
> http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/opinion/x962895436/Dont-let-the-cli...
>
> Dec 12, 2009
>
> Don't let the climate doubters fool you
>
> By Alan I. Leshner
>
>
> Climate-change science is clear:
Hot air is clear also. Before you try to convince us its clear you
should address the issues that all climatologists are hiding from: Why
CO2? Where's the evidence? And why is it that when we ask these
questions you AGW fanatics suddenly become more concerned with
removing microphones from our hands than you are answering these most
pertinent questions?
Did you see that youtube video where that Irish documentary director
was hushed by authorities? What was your opinion of that? Are you
not outraged?
Killing, Inc.
> http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/opinion/x962895436/Dont-let-the-cli...
>
> Dec 12, 2009
>
http://climatechangefraud.com/the-money-trail
http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2009/11/30/the-climategate-money-trail/
http://joannenova.com.au/2009/07/climate-money/
And numerous others at:
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=climate+scientists+money+trail&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-701
Have a nice day.
Blue
> http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/opinion/x962895436/Dont-let-the-climate-doubters-fool-you
>
> Dec 12, 2009
>
> Don't let the climate doubters fool you
>
> By Alan I. Leshner
>
> ...........................................................................................................
>
> Climate-change science is clear:
Good, we don't need Climate scientists then.
> The concentration of atmospheric
> carbon dioxide - derived mostly from the human activities of
> fossil-fuel burning and deforestation - stands at 389 parts per
> million (ppm).
omg if we don't put our co2 in the air, then all the plants will die!
all our green food will die, all our cows and sheep that eat green
food will die, the whole planet will be a brown smoking hole
if we don't feed the plants with our co2.
> We know from studying ancient Antarctic ice cores that this
> concentration is higher than it has been for at least the past 650,000
> years.
doubt man was around to burn a fire back then, what was he a shrew or summint.
Perhaps T Rex was rubbing a couple of sticks together.
How did plants ever grow so big for all those dinos to eat until
we came along to make some co2 for them.
> Exhaustive measurements tell us that atmospheric carbon dioxide is
> rising by 2 ppm every year
This figures are skewed, they're now measuring the backs of fatter cars.
> and that the global temperature has
> increased by about 1.1 degrees Fahrenheit over the past century.
oh nooos I'm burning up.
> Multiple lines of other evidence, including reliable thermometer
> readings since the 1880s, reveal a clear warming trend.
mmm MWP can't break free of Europe but thermo are all over the
frigin place in 1880. I love dem antique satafrights too.
> The broader impacts of climate change range from rapidly melting
> glaciers and rising sea levels to shifts in species ranges.
that's been going on since year dot and perfect natural. well not man made.
> Thousands of respected scientists at an array of institutions
> worldwide agree that major health and economic impacts are likely
> unless we act now to slow greenhouse gas emissions.
so many people on this planet you say boo and you killed a few mill.
> Already, sea levels are estimated to rise by 1 to 2 meters by the end
> of this century.
sea levels been creeping up since last ice age, nothing to do with man,
maybe dem nasty cave men though. the ones with fat adapted noses.
they really hated ice.
> Some scientists have said that average temperatures could jump by as
> much as 4 degrees Fahrenheit if the atmospheric carbon dioxide level
> reaches 450 ppm.
what is the average temperature of a kettle just turned on.
> We may face even more dangerous impacts at 550 ppm, and above that
> level, devastating events.
when water comes boil and there's steam there are too things connected
going in the same direction, but you don't say the steam is heating
the water.
> U.S. crop productivity would be affected, while European communities
> might suffer increased fatalities because of intensely hot summers.
i think them giant ancient plants have sucked all the co2 out
the air and it's our job to put it back for normal plant growth
lest our oxygen runs out.
> Doubters insist that the earth is not warming.
it's gone from summer to winter derr.
> This is in stark contrast to the consensus of 18 of the world's most
> respected scientific organizations, who strongly stated in an Oct. 21
> letter to the U.S. Senate that human-induced climate change is real.
yeah cities got warmer.
> Still, the doubters try to leverage any remaining points of scientific
> uncertainty about the details of warming trends to cast doubt on the
> overall conclusions shared by traditionally cautious, decidedly
> non-radical science organizations such as the National Academy of
> Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science,
> which represents an estimated 10 million individual scientists through
> 262 affiliated societies.
Every last one of them getting a grant for playing with neg feedback
models and chucking out Emprical data.
> Doubters also make selective use of the evidence, noting that the
> warming of the late 1990s did not persist from 2001 to 2008, while
> ignoring the fact that the first decade of the 21st century looks like
> it will be the warmest one on record.
"the results are in, there is no doubt, we know a warm planet
equals man made co2 cos we our models say so"
> None of these tactics changes the clear consensus of a vast majority
> of scientists, who agree that the Earth is warming as greenhouse gas
> levels rise.
lets see now, great consenus proof of the past.
world is flat, oh no, no one was that dumb.
erm the sun doens't have spots, er.
The sun goes round the sun.
There is a god.
America is the end of the world.
> The public and policymakers should not be confused by a few private
> e-mails that are being selectively publicized and, in any case, remain
> irrelevant to the broad body of diverse evidence on climate change.
"if we use climate change they can't seperate it from natural climate change"
isn't that misleading, yeah good innit," emai number 5
> Selected language in the messages has been interpreted by some to
> suggest unethical actions such as data manipulation or suppression.
"don't tell congress about me grant, hehe"
> To be sure, investigations are appropriate whenever questions are
> raised regarding the transparency and rigor of the scientific process
> or the integrity of individual scientists.
"I'm just off to the john to do some peer-review"
> We applaud that the responsible authorities are conducting those
> investigations.
Carbon trading is a laugh eh?
> But it is wrong to suggest that apparently stolen emails, deployed on
> the eve of the Copenhagen climate summit, somehow refute a century of
> evidence based on thousands of studies.
yeah these great bods all kinda overlooked the century old proof
where RW Woods proved CO2 was crap.
> Ms. Palin also errs by claiming that America can't afford to reduce
> greenhouse gases.
we can't afford the next ice age but no one is talking about stoping
natural Climate Change.
> The highly regarded Stern Commission revealed that inaction could cost
> us the equivalent of between 5 and 20 percent of global gross domestic
> product per year.
The next ice age is on course to wipe out Billions of people.
> In contrast, the price of slowing emissions was estimated to be 1
> percent of GDP.
Brown has broke Britain's aaa credit rating and still gives away 1.5 Billion.
> China, meanwhile, reportedly is investing heavily in clean energy
> technologies.
lol between the lines it's a slowing down of giant predicted expansion,
it's all hot air.
> Now, policymakers must decide whether to act on the evidence or to
> avoid facing one of the most crucial issues of our generation.
How long can the scam the people.
> __________________________________________________________
>
> Fossil fuel corporations and their allies battle the truth about
> global warming.
> http://www.naturalnews.com/027681_Exxon_climate_skeptics.html
>
> Harry
TATA, we close down your firms so we can collect Carbon Trading cash.
oh and btw that nice man the head of the IPCC works for us.
--
Blue
Freestyle
> Harry Hope wrote:
> >http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/opinion/x962895436/Dont-let-the-cli...
>
> > Dec 12, 2009
>
> > Don't let the climate doubters fool you
>
> > By Alan I. Leshner
>
> > ........................................................................... ................................
>
> > Climate-change science is clear:
>
> Good, we don't need Climate scientists then.
>
Yeah, Jesus will come and fix everything anyway.
> > The concentration of atmospheric
> > carbon dioxide - derived mostly from the human activities of
> > fossil-fuel burning and deforestation - stands at 389 parts per
> > million (ppm).
>
> omg if we don't put our co2 in the air, then all the plants will die!
> all our green food will die, all our cows and sheep that eat green
> food will die, the whole planet will be a brown smoking hole
> if we don't feed the plants with our co2.
>
If left unchecked dumbshits like this will kill us all.
Agriculture is responsible for huge chunk of greenhouse gas emission.
Humans cultivate massive numbers of animals that give off huge amounts
of greenhouse gasses including Methane which is by an order of
magnitude worse than co2.
Cows take up a lot of space, grazing on land that could feed many more
of the world's people if it were used for crops.
Grazing takes up a quarter of the land on Earth that is not covered by
ice.
(and even more if you count the land used to grow feed for the
animals.)
Enjoy your steak!
> > We know from studying ancient Antarctic ice cores that this
> > concentration is higher than it has been for at least the past 650,000
> > years.
>
> doubt man was around to burn a fire back then, what was he a shrew or summint.
> Perhaps T Rex was rubbing a couple of sticks together.
> How did plants ever grow so big for all those dinos to eat until
> we came along to make some co2 for them.
>
> <SNIP at point of all credibility loss>
T. rex lived during the late Cretaceous period, about 85 million years
ago.
You know...before that asteroid threw all that Co2 into the air and
killed them all.
The earliest hominids date back 3 million years and evidence of the
controlled use of fire by Human predecessors dates back almost a
million.
I understand that you are fucking stupid, but do you have to flaunt it
with such gusto?
Catoni
Harry.. Harry... Harry...... come on buddy... you're losing it...
Where to start..... well how about..
>"http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/opinion/x962895436/Dont-let-the-cli... "
Now Harry... your buddy "enigma:" doesn't like us sceptics to
use "opinionated articles and blogs" (to use "enigma"words.)
So to be fair.,.. neither should you. enigma... if you are reading
this.. you agree .... right? Please tell Harry that you agree with me.
Thank you.
Next....
> "Don't let the climate doubters fool you"
Well ... really... I don't know anyone that doubts
climate..... Do you ? ? ? I'm pretty sure that everyone agrees
climate exists... Ha, ha, ha, ha
Next:
>" We know from studying ancient Antarctic ice cores that this
>concentration (of CO2) is higher than it has been for at least the past 650,000
>years. "
Well.... present CO2 levels are also just about the lowest they
have been in the past 600 million years.... It all depends on the
length of your data set doesn't it ? For most of the Triassic,
Jurassic, and Cretaceous between 65 - 250 million years ago, the level
was as much as 6 - 8 times higher then now....
Next:
>" Multiple lines of other evidence, including reliable thermometer
>readings since the 1880s, reveal a clear warming trend. "
And you expect what as we come out of the Little Ice
Age ? ? ? Cooling ? ? ? LOL ha, ha, ha, ha, ha
Next:
>"Already, sea levels are estimated to rise by 1 to 2 meters by the
end
>of this century. "
Bullshit lie !
Not even the great IPCC
makes any such claim. Their lowest estimate is 7 inches. (18 cm) and
their highest is 23 inches (59 cm). (IPCC Fourth Assessment Report)
And it looks like those figures are exaggerations too.
Next:
>"Some scientists have said that average temperatures could jump by as
>much as 4 degrees Fahrenheit if the atmospheric carbon dioxide level
>reaches 450 ppm."
Some ? ? Obviously not the ones that understand
the Law of Diminishing Returns:
"We will get less and less extra output when we add additional doses
of an input while holding other inputs fixed. In other words, the
marginal product of each unit of input will decline as the amount of
that input increases holding all other inputs constant."
It's like me living in a cold country....I have a house with no
insulation it's freezing cold.... I put a layer of insulation on my
house... I notice a really big difference in the warmth of my house...
I add another layer of insulation... still more warmth.. but not as
much as the first layer gave me.
The difference between two layers and three layers is even less.
But the time I get to six layers of insulation.... adding a seventh
layer won't even make a noticeable difference at all.
It's like that with CO2..... as more gets added to the atmosphere..
the difference in temperature gets less and less.
That's why 150 million years ago the temperature was not seven or
eight times higher, but only 5 - 10 degrees wamer... even though CO2
levels were 7 - 8 times higher....
Hey... sorry Harry.... so much to learn right ? ? ?
Deaths from warming ? ? ? The fact is... cold kills many many
more....
You'll find a hell of a lot more humans living in hotter
regions then you will in the Arctic.
(I wonder why my in-laws moved to a warmer climate when they
retired ? What ? ? You mean many older well off people retire to
hotter regions to get away from the cold winter?
NOoooooo... it must be a denier lie .... LOL
Harry..... please refrain from using opinionated articles from the
popular press that are full of lies, dis-information and propaganda.
Listen to your buddy "enigma"
*FisherKing*
news:a851c4ac-1b34-4d3b...@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg
--
"The better educated a person is, the less likely it is that person will be
a conservative."
"Reagan proved deficits don't matter"
Dick Cheney
"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it
is true that most stupid people are conservative." - John Stuart Mill
Catoni
>"T. rex lived during the late Cretaceous period, about 85 million years
>ago.
>You know...before that asteroid threw all that Co2 into the air and
>killed them all."
Reply:
Nope !!!!! Not Co2 that killed them.
Between approx. 230 million year ago and 65 million
ago, the time of the dinosaurs, temperature was about 10 degrees
warmer then now, The Co2 levels were already about 7 - 8 times higher
then now. Around 3000 ppm..... not the 385 ppm we have now. Plant
and animal life was flourishing. Including your T-Rex. There was one
period of time it dipped down to almost as low as 1000 ppm, (around
150 million years ago, that lasted for about 25 million years, 1000
ppm is still a hell of a lot higher then today). Oxygen was also
higher at around 33% or so of the atmosphere.
As a matter of fact... I may be underestimating the level of Co2 for
that time period......
"Carbon dioxide levels were up to 12 times higher than today's
levels, and oxygen formed 32 to 35% of the atmosphere, as compared to
21% today. However, by the late Cretaceous, the environment was
changing dramatically. Volcanic activity was decreasing, which led to
a cooling trend as levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide dropped.
Oxygen levels in the atmosphere also started to fluctuate and would
ultimately fall considerably. Some scientists hypothesize that climate
change, combined with lower oxygen levels, might have led directly to
the demise of many species. If the dinosaurs had respiratory systems
similar to those commonly found in modern birds, it may have been
particularly difficult for them to cope with reduced respiratory
efficiency, given the enormous oxygen demands of their very large
bodies."
MacLeod, N, Rawson, PF, Forey, PL, Banner, FT, Boudagher-Fadel,
MK, Bown, PR, Burnett, JA, Chambers, P, Culver, S, Evans, SE, Jeffery,
C, Kaminski, MA, Lord, AR, Milner, AC, Milner, AR, Morris, N, Owen, E,
Rosen, BR, Smith, AB, Taylor, PD, Urquhart, E & Young, JR (1997). "The
Cretaceous–Tertiary biotic transition". Journal of the Geological
Society 154 (2): 265–292. doi:10.1144/gsjgs.154.2.0265
It wasn't Co2 that wiped out the dinosaurs. They thrived on
the higher oxygen and Co2 levels.
Freestyle
> Freestyle typed :
>
> >"T. rex lived during the late Cretaceous period, about 85 million years
> >ago.
> >You know...before that asteroid threw all that Co2 into the air and
> >killed them all."
>
> Reply:
>
> Nope !!!!! Not Co2 that killed them.
>
The reality is nobody knows, including you.
However, it is believed the K-T extinction was most likely because of
the vaporization of carbonate and sulfate rock from the Yucatan
impact.
It would have ejected massive amounts of sulfur and carbon in the
atmosphere would have caused long-term changes in the Earth's
atmospheric chemistry and shut down photosynthesis.
The higher O2 level would have supported intense combustion as well.
The level of atmospheric O2 plummeted in the early Tertiary Period. If
widespread fires occurred, they would have increased the CO2 content
of the atmosphere and caused a massive greenhouse effect.
CO2 rise may not have directly killed all of the 50% of species that
went extinct at the K-T boundary, but it almost certainly took out
most of them over time.
smutt butt
When did you stop using electricity, gasoline or anything else that
comes from a store???
You are just another hypocrite that screams at everyone else when you
are adding to the "global warming" farce.
Bret Cahill
> http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/opinion/x962895436/Dont-let-the-cli...
>
> Dec 12, 2009
>
> Don't let the climate doubters fool you
>
> By Alan I. Leshner
>
Michael Gordge
> Don't let climate doubters fool you. Climate-change science is clear.
Oh look, its just another climate doubter doubting the fact that man
makes the globe hot and cold by producing more or less Co2 is a scam.
MG
Bret Cahill
> makes the globe hot and cold by producing more or less Co2
"more or less CO2?"
? ? ?
It's 25 billion tons a year or 15 trillion m^3 / year.
Or 3,600 cubic miles per year.
Bret Cahill
Michael Gordge
> > Oh look, its just another climate doubter doubting the fact that man
> > makes the globe hot and cold by producing more or less Co2
>
> "more or less CO2?"
>
> ? ? ?
>
> It's 25 billion tons a year or 15 trillion m^3 / year.
Shrug, less than 0.0000001% of the earth's total gas and even funnier,
ewe clowns, who are in denial of the the fact that AGW is a scam, have
yet to explain how man producing less than 0.000000000001% of earth's
gas is going to make the globe colder.
MG
Siobhan Medeiros
> http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/opinion/x962895436/Dont-let-the-cli...
>
They aren't doubters. They're DENIERS. The science has been proven
over and over again, but they just. Won't. Shut. UP!
TUKA
> They aren't doubters. They're DENIERS. The science has been proven
> over and over again, but they just. Won't. Shut. UP!
You don't understand science if you think it can be proven.
--
Those who bring sunshine into the lives of others
cannot keep it from themselves. -- James Barrie
Siobhan Medeiros
> On Dec 12, 4:34 pm, Harry Hope <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/opinion/x962895436/Dont-let-the-cli...
>
> > Dec 12, 2009
>
> > Don't let the climate doubters fool you
>
> > By Alan I. Leshner
>
> > ........................................................................... ................................
>
> > Climate-change science is clear:
>
> Hot air is clear also. Before you try to convince us its clear you
> should address the issues that all climatologists are hiding from: Why
> CO2?
Because CO2 is the most effective greenhouse gas in our atmosphere.
>Where's the evidence?
Decades of measurements of CO2's heat-trapping ability.
>And why is it that when we ask these
> questions you AGW fanatics suddenly become more concerned with
> removing microphones from our hands than you are answering these most
> pertinent questions?
LOL! Yeah, sure. When was the last time this happened? Tell us when
you last had a microphone "yanked from your hand"?
>
> Did you see that youtube video where that Irish documentary director
> was hushed by authorities?
Nope.
>What was your opinion of that? Are you
> not outraged?
I'll believe it when I see it, bullshitter.
Bill Ward
> On Dec 12, 4:55 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> On Dec 12, 4:34 pm, Harry Hope <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>> >http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/opinion/x962895436/Dont-let-the-
cli...
>>
>> > Dec 12, 2009
>>
>> > Don't let the climate doubters fool you
>>
>> > By Alan I. Leshner
>>
>>
> ...........................................................................
>> > ................................
>>
>> > Climate-change science is clear:
>>
>> Hot air is clear also. Before you try to convince us its clear you
>> should address the issues that all climatologists are hiding from: Why
>> CO2?
>
> Because CO2 is the most effective greenhouse gas in our atmosphere.
I think you'll find water vapor is, by a lot. There's 20000ppm of WV to
400ppm CO2.
>
>
>>Where's the evidence?
>
> Decades of measurements of CO2's heat-trapping ability.
Can you explain exactly how CO2 "traps" heat? My understanding is that
CO2 simply converts LWIR to heat, warming the gas around it, and causing
it to convect. How is that "trapped"? It continues to convect up until
the gas can cool by emitting LWIR to space.
Do you understand the mechanism, or are you just repeating what someone
else has told you?
>>And why is it that when we ask these
>> questions you AGW fanatics suddenly become more concerned with removing
>> microphones from our hands than you are answering these most pertinent
>> questions?
>
> LOL! Yeah, sure. When was the last time this happened? Tell us when
> you last had a microphone "yanked from your hand"?
>
>
>> Did you see that youtube video where that Irish documentary director
>> was hushed by authorities?
>
> Nope.
>
>>What was your opinion of that? Are you
>> not outraged?
>
> I'll believe it when I see it, bullshitter.
Stay away from utube, then, it's all over the place.
Giga
"Harry Hope" <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:7rc8i599uu0049ntv...@4ax.com...
> http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/opinion/x962895436/Dont-let-the-climate-doubters-fool-you
>
> Dec 12, 2009
>
> Don't let the climate doubters fool you
>
> By Alan I. Leshner
>
> ...........................................................................................................
>
> Climate-change science is clear: The concentration of atmospheric
> carbon dioxide - derived mostly from the human activities of
> fossil-fuel burning and deforestation - stands at 389 parts per
> million (ppm).
>
> We know from studying ancient Antarctic ice cores that this
> concentration is higher than it has been for at least the past 650,000
> years.
>
> Exhaustive measurements tell us that atmospheric carbon dioxide is
> rising by 2 ppm every year and that the global temperature has
> increased by about 1.1 degrees Fahrenheit over the past century.
>
> Multiple lines of other evidence, including reliable thermometer
> readings since the 1880s, reveal a clear warming trend.
>
> The broader impacts of climate change range from rapidly melting
> glaciers and rising sea levels to shifts in species ranges.
>
> Thousands of respected scientists at an array of institutions
> worldwide agree that major health and economic impacts are likely
> unless we act now to slow greenhouse gas emissions.
>
> Already, sea levels are estimated to rise by 1 to 2 meters by the end
> of this century.
By who! Not the IPCC, which AFAIK as estimate from 2-4mm per years, *100 is
400mm, which is 40cm (BTW 1m is 100cm)
>
> Some scientists have said that average temperatures could jump by as
> much as 4 degrees Fahrenheit if the atmospheric carbon dioxide level
> reaches 450 ppm.
>
> We may face even more dangerous impacts at 550 ppm, and above that
> level, devastating events.
>
> U.S. crop productivity would be affected, while European communities
> might suffer increased fatalities because of intensely hot summers.
Is that it! No worries then really, bit of air-conditioning and Americans
dieting a bit more.
>
> Doubters insist that the earth is not warming.
>
> This is in stark contrast to the consensus of 18 of the world's most
> respected scientific organizations, who strongly stated in an Oct. 21
> letter to the U.S. Senate that human-induced climate change is real.
>
> Still, the doubters try to leverage any remaining points of scientific
> uncertainty about the details of warming trends to cast doubt on the
> overall conclusions shared by traditionally cautious, decidedly
> non-radical science organizations such as the National Academy of
> Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science,
> which represents an estimated 10 million individual scientists through
> 262 affiliated societies.
>
> Doubters also make selective use of the evidence, noting that the
> warming of the late 1990s did not persist from 2001 to 2008, while
> ignoring the fact that the first decade of the 21st century looks like
> it will be the warmest one on record.
Modern record you mean of course!
>
> None of these tactics changes the clear consensus of a vast majority
> of scientists, who agree that the Earth is warming as greenhouse gas
> levels rise.
>
> The public and policymakers should not be confused by a few private
> e-mails that are being selectively publicized and, in any case, remain
> irrelevant to the broad body of diverse evidence on climate change.
The fact that basic data has been diliberately witheld is very damning.
Especially as that data seems to show something different than what we have
been told, and the reason it was withheld was that the scientist concerned
knew this, so they did it diliberately as well. That is what is known as
FRAUD.
Giga
"Harry Hope" <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:7rc8i599uu0049ntv...@4ax.com...
> http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/opinion/x962895436/Dont-let-the-climate-doubters-fool-you
>
>
> Don't let the climate doubters fool you
>
> By Alan I. Leshner
>
>
> Climate-change science is clear: The concentration of atmospheric
> carbon dioxide - derived mostly from the human activities of
> fossil-fuel burning and deforestation - stands at 389 parts per
> million (ppm).
>
> We know from studying ancient Antarctic ice cores that this
> concentration is higher than it has been for at least the past 650,000
> years.
>
> Exhaustive measurements tell us that atmospheric carbon dioxide is
> rising by 2 ppm every year and that the global temperature has
> increased by about 1.1 degrees Fahrenheit over the past century.
>
> Multiple lines of other evidence, including reliable thermometer
> readings since the 1880s, reveal a clear warming trend.
>
> The broader impacts of climate change range from rapidly melting
> glaciers and rising sea levels to shifts in species ranges.
>
> Thousands of respected scientists at an array of institutions
> worldwide agree that major health and economic impacts are likely
> unless we act now to slow greenhouse gas emissions.
>
> Already, sea levels are estimated to rise by 1 to 2 meters by the end
> of this century.
By who! Not the IPCC, which AFAIK as estimate from 2-4mm per years, *100 is
400mm, which is 40cm (BTW 1m is 100cm)
>
> Some scientists have said that average temperatures could jump by as
> much as 4 degrees Fahrenheit if the atmospheric carbon dioxide level
> reaches 450 ppm.
>
> We may face even more dangerous impacts at 550 ppm, and above that
> level, devastating events.
>
> U.S. crop productivity would be affected, while European communities
> might suffer increased fatalities because of intensely hot summers.
Is that it! No worries then really, bit of air-conditioning and Americans
dieting a bit more.
>
> Doubters insist that the earth is not warming.
>
> This is in stark contrast to the consensus of 18 of the world's most
> respected scientific organizations, who strongly stated in an Oct. 21
> letter to the U.S. Senate that human-induced climate change is real.
>
> Still, the doubters try to leverage any remaining points of scientific
> uncertainty about the details of warming trends to cast doubt on the
> overall conclusions shared by traditionally cautious, decidedly
> non-radical science organizations such as the National Academy of
> Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science,
> which represents an estimated 10 million individual scientists through
> 262 affiliated societies.
>
> Doubters also make selective use of the evidence, noting that the
> warming of the late 1990s did not persist from 2001 to 2008, while
> ignoring the fact that the first decade of the 21st century looks like
> it will be the warmest one on record.
Modern record you mean of course!
>
> None of these tactics changes the clear consensus of a vast majority
> of scientists, who agree that the Earth is warming as greenhouse gas
> levels rise.
>
> The public and policymakers should not be confused by a few private
> e-mails that are being selectively publicized and, in any case, remain
> irrelevant to the broad body of diverse evidence on climate change.
The fact that basic data has been diliberately witheld is very damning.
Especially as that data seems to show something different than what we have
been told, and the reason it was withheld was that the scientist concerned
knew this, so they did it diliberately as well. That is what is known as
FRAUD.
>
Last Post
> http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/opinion/x962895436/Dont-let-the-cli...
>
>
> Don't let the climate doubters fool you
>
> By Alan I. Leshner
Executive Officer of the American
Association for the Advancement of
the journal Science which has posted
many articles without peer rerview.
By traioning he is a psychologist
>
> Climate-change science is clear:
•• Not so
The concentration of atmospheric
> carbon dioxide - derived mostly from the human activities of
> fossil-fuel burning and deforestation - stands at 389 parts per
> million (ppm).
•• ROTFLMAO
3.5% can hardly be called "mostly"
> We know from studying ancient Antarctic ice cores that this
> concentration is higher than it has been for at least the past 650,000
> years.
•• It was higher in 1840
> Exhaustive measurements tell us that atmospheric carbon dioxide is
> rising by 2 ppm every year
•• Actually about 85 ppm in 100 years = 0.85 pa
>and that the global temperature has
> increased by about 1.1 degrees Fahrenheit over the past century.
•• Big deal, not worth discussing
> Multiple lines of other evidence, including reliable thermometer
> readings since the 1880s, reveal a clear warming trend.
•• Only if you believe Gore and Hansen
> The broader impacts of climate change range from rapidly melting
> glaciers and rising sea levels to shifts in species ranges.
•• More Sturm, und Drang signifying nothing
> Thousands of respected scientists at an array of institutions
> worldwide agree that major health and economic impacts are likely
> unless we act now to slow greenhouse gas emissions.
•• Actually, by IPCC account less than 60
> Already, sea levels are estimated to rise by 1 to 2 meters by the end
> of this century.
•• That is even more than IPCC's estimate
which might reach 2cm
> Some scientists have said that average temperatures could jump by as
> much as 4 degrees Fahrenheit if the atmospheric carbon dioxide level
> reaches 450 ppm.
•• When CO2 reaches 450 PPM the Arctic
ice will be moving South in the Atlantic
> We may face even more dangerous impacts at 550 ppm, and above that
> level, devastating events.
•• More "sound and fury, signifying nothing.
> U.S. crop productivity would be affected,
•• Reduction in CO2 levels will cause famines.
Without CO2 nothing will grow
while European communities
> might suffer increased fatalities because of intensely hot summers.
•• Like last summer, perhaps???
> Doubters insist that the earth is not warming.
•• With good cause.
> This is in stark contrast to the consensus of 18 of the world's most
> respected scientific organizations, who strongly stated in an Oct. 21
> letter to the U.S. Senate that human-induced climate change is real.
•• A bunch of political hacks worried
about their cosy sinecures
> Still, the doubters try to leverage any remaining points of scientific
> uncertainty about the details of warming trends to cast doubt on the
> overall conclusions shared by traditionally cautious, decidedly
> non-radical science organizations such as the National Academy of
> Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science,
> which represents an estimated 10 million individual scientists through
> 262 affiliated societies.
•• Nonsense
> Doubters also make selective use of the evidence, noting that the
> warming of the late 1990s did not persist from 2001 to 2008, while
> ignoring the fact that the first decade of the 21st century looks like
> it will be the warmest one on record.
•• Every "warmest month" actually
was below average.
>
> None of these tactics changes the clear consensus of a vast majority
> of scientists, who agree that the Earth is warming as greenhouse gas
> levels rise.
•• Actually every time it rains or snows
ALL of the "greenhouse gasses" hit the
deck and become fertilizer,
— —
| In real science the burden of proof is always
| on the proposer, never on the sceptics. So far
| neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
| iota of valid data for global warming nor have
| they provided data that climate change is being
| effected by commerce and industry, and not by
| natural phenomena
Last Post
> > Oh look, its just another climate doubter doubting the fact that man
> > makes the globe hot and cold by producing more or less Co2
>
> "more or less CO2?"
>
> ? ? ?
>
> It's 25 billion tons a year or 15 trillion m^3 / year.
>
Photosynthetic organisms convert around
100,000,000,000 tonnes of carbon into
biomass per year.
Last Post
•• Trying to associate AGW Skeptics with
nazi holocaust deniers prove that
Medeiros is a fascist jackass.
Last Post
influence on temps except perhaps in
cooling
Blue
> On Dec 12, 8:34 pm, Blue <b...@there.com> wrote:
>> Harry Hope wrote:
>>> http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/opinion/x962895436/Dont-let-the-cli...
>>> Dec 12, 2009
>>> Don't let the climate doubters fool you
>>> By Alan I. Leshner
>>> ........................................................................... ................................
>>> Climate-change science is clear:
>> Good, we don't need Climate scientists then.
>>
>
> Yeah, Jesus will come and fix everything anyway.
I live in England where Atheism is the norm, next!
>>> The concentration of atmospheric
>>> carbon dioxide - derived mostly from the human activities of
>>> fossil-fuel burning and deforestation - stands at 389 parts per
>>> million (ppm).
>> omg if we don't put our co2 in the air, then all the plants will die!
>> all our green food will die, all our cows and sheep that eat green
>> food will die, the whole planet will be a brown smoking hole
>> if we don't feed the plants with our co2.
>>
>
> If left unchecked dumbshits like this will kill us all.
Yes, my powers are awesome.
> Agriculture is responsible for huge chunk of greenhouse gas emission.
> Humans cultivate massive numbers of animals that give off huge amounts
> of greenhouse gasses including Methane which is by an order of
> magnitude worse than co2.
>
> Cows take up a lot of space, grazing on land that could feed many more
> of the world's people if it were used for crops.
> Grazing takes up a quarter of the land on Earth that is not covered by
> ice.
> (and even more if you count the land used to grow feed for the
> animals.)
"bwawawawa i wos frigged by a cow once."
> Enjoy your steak!
>
>>> We know from studying ancient Antarctic ice cores that this
>>> concentration is higher than it has been for at least the past 650,000
>>> years.
>> doubt man was around to burn a fire back then, what was he a shrew or summint.
>> Perhaps T Rex was rubbing a couple of sticks together.
>> How did plants ever grow so big for all those dinos to eat until
>> we came along to make some co2 for them.
>>
>> <SNIP at point of all credibility loss>
>
> T. rex lived during the late Cretaceous period, about 85 million years
> ago.
> You know...before that asteroid threw all that Co2 into the air and
> killed them all.
Blah blah dribble, nonsense n porridge, CO2 was big for yonks and now
its come down to todays all time low.
> The earliest hominids date back 3 million years and evidence of the
> controlled use of fire by Human predecessors dates back almost a
> million.
And still man's CO2 didn't see off all those other ice ages, derr.
> I understand that you are fucking stupid, but do you have to flaunt it
> with such gusto?
What you tell yourself in front of the mirror each morning is of
little relevance here.
Some basic knowledge for you learn:
Bangladesh, lacking sediment from Daming.
http://www.sln.org.uk/geography/schools/blythebridge/GCSEBangladesh.htm
Egypt, Nile Delta, lacking sediment from Daming.
Africa, Desertification, from slash and burn.
Catoni
wrote:
> In article <ee641f57-1e17-44c4-95fc-d17ae066e...@p23g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Catoni <caton...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > >"Some scientists have said that average temperatures could jump by as
> > >much as 4 degrees Fahrenheit if the atmospheric carbon dioxide level
> > >reaches 450 ppm."
>
> > Some ? ? Obviously not the ones that understand
> > the Law of Diminishing Returns:
> > "We will get less and less extra output when we add additional doses
> > of an input while holding other inputs fixed. In other words, the
> > marginal product of each unit of input will decline as the amount of
> > that input increases holding all other inputs constant."
>
> can be driven exponentially instead of asympotically. Venus indicates where the
> limiters are: when the air is hot enough that convection and radition from the
> cloud tops matches incoming solar radiation. If you're willing to accept an
> atmosphere that cannot support human life, you would be right to point out the
> asymptote.
>
> --
> Damn the living - It's a lovely life. I'm whoever you want me to be.
> Silver silverware - Where is the love? At least I can stay in character.
> Oval swimming pool - Where is the love? Annoying Usenet one post at a time.
> Damn the living - It's a lovely life. We support you, Sarah.
Don't forget the the atmospheric air pressure on Venus is similar to
the pressure you find about 2 kilometers down in the ocean her on
Earth...
Venus is also a little closer to the sun.... almost 30 million
miles closer to the sun then we are
kdt...@earthlink.net
> http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/opinion/x962895436/Dont-let-the-cli...
>
> Dec 12, 2009
>
> Don't let the climate doubters fool you
>
> By Alan I. Leshner
>
> ...........................................................................................................
>
> carbon dioxide - derived mostly from the human activities of
> fossil-fuel burning and deforestation - stands at 389 parts per
> million (ppm).
>
> concentration is higher than it has been for at least the past 650,000
> years.
>
> rising by 2 ppm every year and that the global temperature has
> increased by about 1.1 degrees Fahrenheit over the past century.
>
> Multiple lines of other evidence, including reliable thermometer
> readings since the 1880s, reveal a clear warming trend.
>
> The broader impacts of climate change range from rapidly melting
> glaciers and rising sea levels to shifts in species ranges.
>
> Thousands of respected scientists at an array of institutions
> worldwide agree that major health and economic impacts are likely
> unless we act now to slow greenhouse gas emissions.
>
> Already, sea levels are estimated to rise by 1 to 2 meters by the end
> of this century.
>
> much as 4 degrees Fahrenheit if the atmospheric carbon dioxide level
> reaches 450 ppm.
>
matt_sykes
> http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/opinion/x962895436/Dont-let-the-cli...
>
> Dec 12, 2009
>
> Don't let the climate doubters fool you
>
> By Alan I. Leshner
>
> ...........................................................................................................
>
> Climate-change science is clear: The concentration of atmospheric
> carbon dioxide - derived mostly from the human activities of
> fossil-fuel burning and deforestation - stands at 389 parts per
> million (ppm).
True.
>
> We know from studying ancient Antarctic ice cores that this
> concentration is higher than it has been for at least the past 650,000
> years.
True. Before then it used to be far higer of oucrse. Up to 12000PPM
in fact.
>
> Exhaustive measurements tell us that atmospheric carbon dioxide is
> rising by 2 ppm every year and that the global temperature has
> increased by about 1.1 degrees Fahrenheit over the past century.
Implying that correlation is causation. However 1940 to 1070 doesnt
correlate. 1998 to 2009 doesnt correllate.
>
> Multiple lines of other evidence, including reliable thermometer
> readings since the 1880s, reveal a clear warming trend.
True.
>
> The broader impacts of climate change range from rapidly melting
> glaciers and rising sea levels to shifts in species ranges.
True.
>
> Thousands of respected scientists at an array of institutions
> worldwide agree that major health and economic impacts are likely
> unless we act now to slow greenhouse gas emissions.
Not true. The effects of warming are not fixed. There are only
'possibles'.
>
> Already, sea levels are estimated to rise by 1 to 2 meters by the end
> of this century.
And rose 16 inches in tha last century without anyone noticing very
much.
>
> Some scientists have said that average temperatures could jump by as
> much as 4 degrees Fahrenheit if the atmospheric carbon dioxide level
> reaches 450 ppm.
>
4 `C isnt a problem. If the third world is over populated anyway.
If there are any negative effects of GW then killing these people is
just natures way of redressing the balance.
> We may face even more dangerous impacts at 550 ppm, and above that
> level, devastating events.
>
What events?
> U.S. crop productivity would be affected,
Crop yields wil lbe increased.
> while European communities
> might suffer increased fatalities because of intensely hot summers.
What utter tosh. 1.5 million people die each year of the cold in
Europe. So if we get summers as hot as 2003 we will loose 23,000 and
gain 1.5 million.
Assuming ths IS a good thing, and Europe does have a pensions problem
so actually letting old people die is good for society, then GW is
clearly a benefit.
>
> Doubters insist that the earth is not warming.
Not true. it is warming. It is warming from the LIA.
>
> This is in stark contrast to the consensus of 18 of the world's most
> respected scientific organizations, who strongly stated in an Oct. 21
> letter to the U.S. Senate that human-induced climate change is real.
>
> Still, the doubters try to leverage any remaining points of scientific
> uncertainty about the details of warming trends to cast doubt on the
> overall conclusions shared by traditionally cautious, decidedly
> non-radical science organizations such as the National Academy of
> Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science,
> which represents an estimated 10 million individual scientists through
> 262 affiliated societies.
>
> Doubters also make selective use of the evidence, noting that the
> warming of the late 1990s did not persist from 2001 to 2008, while
> ignoring the fact that the first decade of the 21st century looks like
> it will be the warmest one on record.
>
> None of these tactics changes the clear consensus of a vast majority
> of scientists, who agree that the Earth is warming as greenhouse gas
> levels rise.
But snce the troposphere isnt wamrning any surface warming seen today
is NOT the result of GH gasses.
>
> The public and policymakers should not be confused by a few private
> e-mails that are being selectively publicized and, in any case, remain
> irrelevant to the broad body of diverse evidence on climate change.
>
> Selected language in the messages has been interpreted by some to
> suggest unethical actions such as data manipulation or suppression.
>
> To be sure, investigations are appropriate whenever questions are
> raised regarding the transparency and rigor of the scientific process
> or the integrity of individual scientists.
>
> We applaud that the responsible authorities are conducting those
> investigations.
>
> But it is wrong to suggest that apparently stolen emails, deployed on
> the eve of the Copenhagen climate summit, somehow refute a century of
> evidence based on thousands of studies.
>
> Ms. Palin also errs by claiming that America can't afford to reduce
> greenhouse gases.
>
> The highly regarded Stern Commission
Highly criticised by other experts in the field. The report is only
applauded by those seeking simplistic emotionalised extreme rhetoric.
>revealed that inaction could cost
> us the equivalent of between 5 and 20 percent of global gross domestic
> product per year.
>
> In contrast, the price of slowing emissions was estimated to be 1
> percent of GDP.
In fact both figures are likely to be 1 to 2% according to those
experts.
*us*
>Crop yields wil lbe increased.
Not in a dust bowl ...
Catoni
>"The reality is nobody knows, including you."
Then why did you post... "...before that asteroid threw all that Co2
into the air and
killed them all. " ? ? ?
The fact is.. for millions of years before the impact at
Chicxulub... the Earth's atmosphere was already many times higher in
CO2 then now. The temperature was 7 - 12 degrees warmer then now and
the dinosaurs and plants flourished.
>"However, it is believed the K-T extinction was most likely because of
>the vaporization of carbonate and sulfate rock from the Yucatan
>impact.
>It would have ejected massive amounts of sulfur and carbon in the
>atmosphere would have caused long-term changes in the Earth's
>atmospheric chemistry and shut down photosynthesis."
Ah.. yes.... photosynthesis was shut down... which means what ? ? ?
Massive starvation to death on a global scale for any land
animals... the whole food chain would have been effected. It would
have taken years for this to correct.... meaning that all plants that
depended on photosynthesis would die,, all the animals that depended
on them for food would die... and the predatory animals that hunted
the herbivores would die out to... correct?
Temperatures would not have climbed back up until all the soot was
out of the atmosphere.
But what I've seen in the graphs is.... CO2 was steadily dropping
from about 150 million years ago until 65 million years ago when it
did a small up-turn for a couple million years.... but nowhere near to
what it had been during the height of the dinosaurs. So the bit of an
upturn in CO2 that may have been caused by the impact is not what
killed them off according to present information.
>"The higher O2 level would have supported intense combustion as well.
>The level of atmospheric O2 plummeted in the early Tertiary Period. If
>widespread fires occurred, they would have increased the CO2 content
>of the atmosphere and caused a massive greenhouse effect. "
IF... there were global fires as a result of
Chicxulub... (that's not certain, but there may have been.) then yes,,
CO2 levels would rise and O2 levels would drop.... much of the sun-
light would have been blocked for a period of time resulting in a huge
temperature drop around the world... sort of like the "Nuclear Winter"
that we heard about years ago. It would have been an "Asteroid
Winter".
>"CO2 rise may not have directly killed all of the 50% of species that
>went extinct at the K-T boundary, but it almost certainly took out
>most of them over time."
Wrong.... It may have taken out some that managed to survive all
the previous problems caused by the K-T Event. But highly unlikely
since animals, and humans, can handle CO2 levels much higher then now.
Workers in commercial greenhouses routinely work in much higher
levels of CO2 with no problems to their health.
Our atmosphere is about 385 ppm right now....but in
greenhouses..... you breath much higher concentrations..
"The benefits of carbon dioxide supplementation on plant growth and
production within the greenhouse environment have been well understood
for many years.
...
"For most crops the saturation point will be reached at about 1,000–
1,300 ppm under ideal circumstances. A lower level (800–1,000 ppm) is
recommended for raising seedlings (tomatoes, cucumbers and peppers) as
well as for lettuce production. Even lower levels (500–800 ppm) are
recommended for African violets and some Gerbera varieties. Increased
CO2 levels will shorten the growing period (5%–10%), improve crop
quality and yield, as well as, increase leaf size and leaf thickness.
The increase in yield of tomato, cucumber and pepper crops is a result
of increased numbers and faster flowering per plant."
Ontario Ministry of Agriculture Food & Rural Affairs
http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm
The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration says that
average exposure for healthy adults during an eight-hour work day
should not exceed 5,000 ppm (0.5%).
At 50,000 ppm (5%) it can start to have serious effects.... 8%
(80,000 ppm) or over can be fatal.
Our level of CO2 on Earth may have hit as high as 7,000 ppm
about 535 million years ago.
65 million years ago the level was about maybe 700 - 800 ppm....
nothing that we would notice... and the dinosaurs were used to much
higher then that.
The big killer would have been the destruction of photosynthesis,
resulting in a shut down of the food chain, and causing massive
starvation of the animals, and death also resulting from a
disasterous temperature drop due to "Asteroid Winter".
Not CO2 levels.
Blue
> In article <7oiuknF...@mid.individual.net>, Blue <bl...@there.com> wrote:
>
>> omg if we don't put our co2 in the air, then all the plants will die!
>> all our green food will die, all our cows and sheep that eat green
>
> animals to produce carbon dioxide.
The item missed out the small factor of natural CO2 and it is that
which I addressed my piece to. And which you completely failed to get.
And of course plants DO need CO2, it's their air, their oxygen as it were.
What junior school did you drop out off ?
Drawing a picture to help basic types:
http://grapevine.net.au/~grunwald/une/KLAs/science/irrigation-photosynthesis.gif
Blue
> Catoni <cato...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>>> "Some scientists have said that average temperatures could jump by as
>>> much as 4 degrees Fahrenheit if the atmospheric carbon dioxide level
>>> reaches 450 ppm."
>>
>> the Law of Diminishing Returns:
>> "We will get less and less extra output when we add additional doses
>> of an input while holding other inputs fixed. In other words, the
>> marginal product of each unit of input will decline as the amount of
>> that input increases holding all other inputs constant."
>
> That applies to system with limiters that dampen to an asymptote. Otherwise it
> can be driven exponentially instead of asympotically. Venus indicates where the
> limiters are: when the air is hot enough that convection and radition from the
> cloud tops matches incoming solar radiation. If you're willing to accept an
> atmosphere that cannot support human life, you would be right to point out the
> asymptote.
Here we have a diagramme whereby man made CO2 is 3% that of natural CO2
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
Then it can be noted that Natural CO2 only makes a part of water vapour
in the earth's gases.
However even if man got his 3% to equal that of Natural CO2 gas on earth
it would still be behind Venus CO2 by some 250,000 times.
That not with standing venus has an exotic form of CO2 which barely
exists on earth. And I'm pretty sure we don't make it.
And then you add the fact that venus IS closer to the sun, it doesn't
have oceans, it is covered in volcanoes...
Freestyle
>
> When did you stop using electricity, gasoline or anything else that
> comes from a store???
>
I didn't. When did I say I did.
I would bet you any amount of money my personal Carbon footprint is by
an order of magnitude lower than yours.
Electricity is not the problem, how it is generated is the problem.
The drill baby drill crowd want's to solve the energy problem by
continuing to rely on a finite fossil fuel sources that are running
out while demand increases exponentially. Besides just pollution, it
is a direct threat to national security by keeping America enslaved to
Arab Oil Barons who give our money to Terrorists who want to kill us.
How can you people defend this?
Even if Man Made Global Warming was the hoax you say it is, these are
reasons enough to get off the fossil fuels and convert to renewable
energy sources.
> You are just another hypocrite that screams at everyone else when you
> are adding to the "global warming" farce.
You are a witless pawn of Corporate polluters and Arabs Oil Cartels
who want to keep the status quo.
Last Post
> On 13 Dec, 01:34, Harry Hopeless <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > Climate-change science is clear: The concentration of atmospheric
> > carbon dioxide - derived mostly from the human activities of
> > fossil-fuel burning and deforestation - stands at 389 parts per
> > million (ppm).
>
•• Perhaps the 389 ppm is true.
But the 3.5% from human activities can
hardly be described as "mostly"
>
> > We know from studying ancient Antarctic ice cores that this
> > concentration is higher than it has been for at least the past 650,000
> > years.
>
> True. Before then it used to be far higer of oucrse. Up to 12000PPM
> in fact.
•• ROTFLMAO
Between 1830 and 1850 there were
several years higher than 2009 - some
exceeded 400 ppm
> > Exhaustive measurements tell us that atmospheric carbon dioxide is
> > rising by 2 ppm every year
•• The psychologist is a pathological liar
perhaps that is why he became a bureaucrat
•• Atmospheric CO2 (if you can believe
the 'adjusted" levels from Mauna Loa)
levels are presently at 385 ppm an
increase of 0.85 pa in 100 years
and that the global temperature has
> > increased by about 1.1 degrees Fahrenheit over the past century.
•• Actually a totally insignificant number
> Implying that correlation is causation. However 1940 to 1070 doesnt
> correlate. 1998 to 2009 doesnt correllate.
•• Sssssuuuuuuurrre
>
> > Multiple lines of other evidence, including reliable thermometer
> > readings since the 1880s, reveal a clear warming trend.
•• So what???
>
> > The broader impacts of climate change range from rapidly melting
> > glaciers and rising sea levels to shifts in species ranges.
>
•• Non existent
> > Thousands of respected scientists at an array of institutions
> > worldwide agree that major health and economic impacts are likely
> > unless we act now to slow greenhouse gas emissions.
>
> Not true. The effects of warming are not fixed. There are only
> 'possibles'.
>
> > Already, sea levels are estimated to rise by 1 to 2 meters by the end
> > of this century.
•• Worthless estimate— the real possibility
up to 2 cm or 3/4 inch
>
> And rose 16 inches in tha last century without anyone noticing very
> much.
•• Bullshit
> > Some scientists have said that average temperatures could jump by as
> > much as 4 degrees Fahrenheit if the atmospheric carbon dioxide level
> > reaches 450 ppm.
•• When the CO2 reaches 450ppm the
Arctic ice will be moving into the
Atlantic southbound
I M @ good guy
Study up on Global Warming, it is supposed
to evaporate more water so there is more rain,
there are no dust bowls if it rains.
Bruce Richmond
wrote:
> In article <7oiuknF3pl8n...@mid.individual.net>, Blue <b...@there.com> wrote:
> > omg if we don't put our co2 in the air, then all the plants will die!
> > all our green food will die, all our cows and sheep that eat green
>
> Plants metabolise sugar with oxygen during their dark phase. They don't need
> animals to produce carbon dioxide.
And you are to stupid to realize that he was mimicking/mocking the
scare tactics used by the AGW alarmists.
Last Post
Why Carbon Dioxide is Absolutely Essential
to Life on Earth
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Photosynthesis is the process by which plants
produce organic compounds and oxygen from
carbon dioxide and water.
Photosynthesis is a process that converts carbon
dioxide into organic compounds, especially
sugars, using the energy from sunlight.
Photosynthesis occurs in plants, algae, and many
species of bacteria. All use water and carbon
dioxide as initial substrates and release oxygen as
a waste product.
Carbon occupies a special place on the periodic
table of elements and has the unique ability to
form chains with other carbon atoms. Those
bonds give it the unique ability to store large
amounts of energy in its bonds, and to release that
energy, in a relatively stable, controllable way.
From these chains of carbon, plants form energy-
containing carbohydrates, such as sugar and oils,
and structural carbohydrates called cellulose,
which gives plants their rigidity and allows them
to grow tall without falling over. Heterotrophic
organisms, such as animals, depend on those
organic compounds. Therefore, photosynthesis
is crucially important for life on Earth. As well as
maintaining the normal level of oxygen in the
atmosphere, nearly all life either depends on it
directly as a source of energy, or indirectly as the
ultimate source of the energy in their food.
Shrikeback
> >http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/opinion/x962895436/Dont-let-the-cli...
>
> > Dec 12, 2009
>
> > Don't let the climate doubters fool you
>
> > By Alan I. Leshner
>
> > ...........................................................................................................
>
> > carbon dioxide - derived mostly from the human activities of
> > fossil-fuel burning and deforestation - stands at 389 parts per
> > million (ppm).
Nobody disputes that.
> > We know from studying ancient Antarctic ice cores that this
> > concentration is higher than it has been for at least the past 650,000
> > years.
And yet the surface temperature of the Earth's atmosphere
was warmer some 500-1000 years ago, and also during the
early to mid Halocene, according to borehole measurements.
Lacking a correlation, causation is still assumed by
Greenshirts.
> > Exhaustive measurements tell us that atmospheric carbon dioxide is
> > rising by 2 ppm every year and that the global temperature has
> > increased by about 1.1 degrees Fahrenheit over the past century.
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc is a foundation of superstition.
> > Multiple lines of other evidence, including reliable thermometer
> > readings since the 1880s, reveal a clear warming trend.
Nobody is denying there has been a warming trend, particularly
after the cooling trend that bottomed out some 200 years ago.
> > The broader impacts of climate change range from rapidly melting
> > glaciers and rising sea levels to shifts in species ranges.
>
> > Thousands of respected scientists at an array of institutions
> > worldwide agree that major health and economic impacts are likely
> > unless we act now to slow greenhouse gas emissions.
Thousands of respected scientists agree, and tens of thousands
have signed a document eschewing the hysteria.
> > Already, sea levels are estimated to rise by 1 to 2 meters by the end
> > of this century.
>
> > Some scientists have said that average temperatures could jump by as
> > much as 4 degrees Fahrenheit if the atmospheric carbon dioxide level
> > reaches 450 ppm.
Some scientists use flawed and biased software models (which
are not even peer reviewed) to make such predictions.
> > We may face even more dangerous impacts at 550 ppm, and above that
> > level, devastating events.
Actually, the impact of more CO2 would have a logarithmic
relationship to increasing concentrations.
> > U.S. crop productivity would be affected, while European communities
> > might suffer increased fatalities because of intensely hot summers.
In principle, this is not predictable.
> > Doubters insist that the earth is not warming.
No they don't. They claim that CO2 doesn't have as
significant an effect as the postive-feedbacking models of
the CRU would lead you to believe. Believers insist that
on lying, which forces their credibility even lower.
> > This is in stark contrast to the consensus of 18 of the world's most
> > respected scientific organizations, who strongly stated in an Oct. 21
> > letter to the U.S. Senate that human-induced climate change is real.
Follow the money.
> > Still, the doubters try to leverage any remaining points of scientific
> > uncertainty about the details of warming trends to cast doubt on the
> > overall conclusions shared by traditionally cautious, decidedly
> > non-radical science organizations such as the National Academy of
> > Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science,
> > which represents an estimated 10 million individual scientists through
> > 262 affiliated societies.
Richard Lindzen was among the scientists fielded by the NAS
to do that global warming study a few years back: you know, the
one that left no "wiggle room."
> > Doubters also make selective use of the evidence, noting that the
> > warming of the late 1990s did not persist from 2001 to 2008, while
> > ignoring the fact that the first decade of the 21st century looks like
> > it will be the warmest one on record.
>
> > None of these tactics changes the clear consensus of a vast majority
> > of scientists, who agree that the Earth is warming as greenhouse gas
> > levels rises.
> > The public and policymakers should not be confused by a few private
> > e-mails that are being selectively publicized and, in any case, remain
> > irrelevant to the broad body of diverse evidence on climate change.
Again, with the denialism. There was more than e-mails
amongst the leaked evidence, there was also the leaked
source code, with its smoking gun regarding the use of
Mann's hockey stick trick. If the models used by the CRU,
which are much relied on by the IPCC, are completely
uncredible, it's time to go back to the lab and redo
everything with complete transparency. Do it right, or
do it twice.
> > Selected language in the messages has been interpreted by some to
> > suggest unethical actions such as data manipulation or suppression.
> > To be sure, investigations are appropriate whenever questions are
> > raised regarding the transparency and rigor of the scientific process
> > or the integrity of individual scientists.
>
> > We applaud that the responsible authorities are conducting those
> > investigations.
>
> > But it is wrong to suggest that apparently stolen emails, deployed on
> > the eve of the Copenhagen climate summit, somehow refute a century of
> > evidence based on thousands of studies.
The only folks who attempted to steal this evidence were
those who denied the FOIA, since all of this is paid for and
belongs to the public.
> > Ms. Palin also errs by claiming that America can't afford to reduce
> > greenhouse gases.
Who cares about Palin?
> > The highly regarded Stern Commission revealed that inaction could cost
> > us the equivalent of between 5 and 20 percent of global gross domestic
> > product per year.
Did they use Mike's Nature trick?
Anyway, this is like a Ouija board prediction. You'd
have to be dumber than an Earth Fist collective to take
it at face value.
> > In contrast, the price of slowing emissions was estimated to be 1
> > percent of GDP.
Riiiiiight.
> > China, meanwhile, reportedly is investing heavily in clean energy
> > technologies.
They certainly are building a lot of nukes.
> > Now, policymakers must decide whether to act on the evidence or to
> > avoid facing one of the most crucial issues of our generation.
It's okay. We can send the Beta version of Climate hysteria back to
the
lab, and force them to fix it, with complete transparency.
> > __________________________________________________________
>
> > Fossil fuel corporations and their allies battle the truth about
> > global warming.http://www.naturalnews.com/027681_Exxon_climate_skeptics.html
>
> > Harry
Same old, same old. You can't teach an old Greenshirt new
tricks. Anyway, you did hear that BP was funding on of the
most hysterical physicists working on climate change to be
hysterical, don't you? There seem to be oil shills on the
wrong side. Everything is seemingly spinning out of control,
eh?
Bruce Richmond
> On Dec 12, 11:45 pm, smutt butt <smuttbut...@yahoo.com> puked:
>
>
>
> > When did you stop using electricity, gasoline or anything else that
> > comes from a store???
>
> I didn't. When did I say I did.
> I would bet you any amount of money my personal Carbon footprint is by
> an order of magnitude lower than yours.
Well bully for you. You are doing your part to solve the problem that
you imagine exists.
> Electricity is not the problem, how it is generated is the problem.
And how is the electricity you use generated? Do you get your power
from the grid like most of us?
> The drill baby drill crowd want's to solve the energy problem by
> continuing to rely on a finite fossil fuel sources that are running
> out while demand increases exponentially. Besides just pollution, it
> is a direct threat to national security by keeping America enslaved to
> Arab Oil Barons who give our money to Terrorists who want to kill us.
> How can you people defend this?
I am currently heatimg my house with coal, which shouldn't run out for
over 100 years. It is mined by terrorists that have been living in
Pennsylvania for several generations ;) It is also used extensively
for electric generation, though I would prefer to see more nuclear
plants. Coal can also be used to make synthetic gasoline for not much
more money than that produced from oil. It would make sense to
convert most of our ground transportation to electric, to better use
our resorces, but liquid fuel makes more sense for aircraft. Oh, and
last I knew we still had some oil right here in our own country, so no
need to deal with those folks you have a problem with.
Using our coal should provide plenty of time to make a change over to
renewable energy sources. They can be cost effective when done right,
but they can be a money pit when rushed. Without the AGW crap there
is no need to rush.
> Even if Man Made Global Warming was the hoax you say it is, these are
> reasons enough to get off the fossil fuels and convert to renewable
> energy sources.
Agreed.
> > You are just another hypocrite that screams at everyone else when you
> > are adding to the "global warming" farce.
>
> You are a witless pawn of Corporate polluters and Arabs Oil Cartels
> who want to keep the status quo.
The cost of converting to renewable resources is to high to do all at
once. Yes, it is cheaper in the long run, but in the short term it is
expensive. And jacking the prices of fossil fuels up to try to rush
things it doesn't work. If you couldn't afford renewables before, the
fact that you can no longer afford fossil fuels doesn't make the
renewables any more affordable.
Bruce Richmond
> On Dec 13, 11:59 am, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 12, 10:17 pm, Doppler China Blue Shift <chine.b...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > In article <7oiuknF3pl8n...@mid.individual.net>, Blue <b...@there.com> wrote:
> > > > omg if we don't put our co2 in the air, then all the plants will die!
> > > > all our green food will die, all our cows and sheep that eat green
>
> > > Plants metabolise sugar with oxygen during their dark phase. They don't need
> > > animals to produce carbon dioxide.
>
> > And you are to stupid to realize that he was mimicking/mocking the
> > scare tactics used by the AGW alarmists.
>
> Why Carbon Dioxide is Absolutely Essential
> to Life on Earth
> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
And the elimination of the comparativly little bit produced by man
wouldn't matter. The plants will get along just fine with or without
our CO2 contribution. So the "omg" "OH MY GOD" was just making fun of
how some people get worked up, or attempt to get others worked up.
Shrikeback
> On Dec 12, 11:21 pm, Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Lord Monckton Socratically addresses a member of Greenpeas
http://www.tomllewis.com/?p=2875
Is it true that Al Gore requested that Lord Monckton not be
allowed to address Congress in 2009? And he got his way?
Why does Al Gore have any influence these days? He's an
embarassment to even the Greenola cause.
Yeah, I know, he got a Nobel Peace Prize, but so did Yassir
Arafat.
I M @ good guy
wrote:
>On Dec 12, 11:45 pm, smutt butt <smuttbut...@yahoo.com> puked:
>>
>> When did you stop using electricity, gasoline or anything else that
>> comes from a store???
>
>I didn't. When did I say I did.
>I would bet you any amount of money my personal Carbon footprint is by
>an order of magnitude lower than yours.
Do you know what "order of magnitude" means?
>Electricity is not the problem, how it is generated is the problem.
So write a letter to the power company, join the
pro nuclear power activists, write your congressman
asking that nuclear power plant licenses be granted
where they are safe.
>The drill baby drill crowd want's to solve the energy problem by
>continuing to rely on a finite fossil fuel sources that are running
>out while demand increases exponentially. Besides just pollution, it
>is a direct threat to national security by keeping America enslaved to
>Arab Oil Barons who give our money to Terrorists who want to kill us.
>How can you people defend this?
Learn the facts, the US gets most of the imported
oil from Canada and Mexico.
>Even if Man Made Global Warming was the hoax you say it is, these are
>reasons enough to get off the fossil fuels and convert to renewable
>energy sources.
Learn the facts, there are not any renewable energy
sources in far north places on the scale of power plants,
PV is a tropical or sub-tropical source, wind is only viable
in certain places, geothermal is a local or low-grade energy
source only suitable for space heating and cooling.
>> You are just another hypocrite that screams at everyone else when you
>> are adding to the "global warming" farce.
>
>You are a witless pawn of Corporate polluters and Arabs Oil Cartels
>who want to keep the status quo.
Talk to Europe and the rest of the world,
North America is nearly energy independent
and could do fine without oil from any other
continent.
And chances are the changes in efficient
use of energy and developing biofuels is better
in the Western Hemisphere than anyplace else.
The situation is still dire, but the AGW - CO2
farce is sucking money and talent from where it
is needed and would be effective.
Claudius Denk
> On Dec 13, 11:05 am, Shrikeback <shrikeb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 12, 11:21 pm, Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Lord Monckton Socratically addresses a member of Greenpeas
>
> http://www.tomllewis.com/?p=2875
Great! Monckton never disappoints. His calm employment of the
socratic method is a joy to watch. This is the same method I've been
using for 4 years now to pick apart the pretend science underlying
AGW.
I can't help but wonder if Monckton may have been influenced by some
of my own posts over the last 4 years.
The socratic method is the key. And it's fear of the socratic method
that convinces AGW proponents to avoid public debate/discussion of the
science of AGW.
> Is it true that Al Gore requested that Lord Monckton not be
> allowed to address Congress in 2009? And he got his way?
Yes. And the press (except FOX) hardly made passing mention of this.
> Why does Al Gore have any influence these days? He's an
> embarassment to even the Greenola cause.
Al Gore got the idea from seeing the large profits made by tobacco
lawyers who became billionaires overnight with the tobacco settlement.
> Yeah, I know, he got a Nobel Peace Prize, but so did Yassir
> Arafat.
The Nobel Prize has been corrupted by American tax dollars.
Harry Baldwin says:
December 13, 2009 at 11:27 am
Isn’t it interesting that Lord Monckton can discuss this subject
calmly, without emotion, while Al Gore can only discuss it from a
level of high emotion, which, when he’s challenged, rapidly escalates
to rage. I watched his recent CNN interview, which was of course a
puff piece, and he looked nervous and stressed, his voice having a
slightly hysterical edge. I guess it’s hard for him to remain calm
when he’s thinking about all those hundreds of millions he stands to
lose if this con-game collapses.
Bret Cahill
> > > Oh look, its just another climate doubter doubting the fact that man
> > > makes the globe hot and cold by producing more or less Co2
>
> > "more or less CO2?"
>
> > ? ? ?
>
> > It's 25 billion tons a year or 15 trillion m^3 / year.
>
> Shrug, less than 0.0000001% of the earth's total gas
It's easy to show the real CO2 output is higher by FIVE HUNDRED
THOUSAND PERCENT!
Anyone can estimate the real number just by knowing the air pressure @
sea level and the diameter of the earth:
pressure = 100 kPa = 1 kgf/cm^2 = 10^4 kgf/m^2
dia = 13,000 km
r = 6500 km = 6.5 million m
Surface area = 4 pi r^2 = 500 trillion m^2 = 5 X 10^14 m^2
weight of atmosphere = ( 10^4 kgf/m^2 ) ( 5 X 10^14 m^2) = 5 X 10^18
kgf
= 5 X 10^15 tons
This isn't that big a number compared to the 2.5 X 10^10 tons CO2 put
out by capitalist polluters:
25 X 10^9 tons CO2/year/ 5 X 10^15 tons atmosphere = 5 X 10^-6
or 5 ppm/year
or
0.0005% [wt %]
The lying liar AGW denier tried to get everyone to believe 0.0000001%
when the real number is FIVE THOUSAND TIMES BIGGER!
Bret Cahill
Tom P
> On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 00:25:47 -0800, Siobhan Medeiros wrote:
>
>> On Dec 12, 4:55 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>> On Dec 12, 4:34 pm, Harry Hope <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/opinion/x962895436/Dont-let-the-
> cli...
>>>> Don't let the climate doubters fool you
>>>> By Alan I. Leshner
>>>
>> ...........................................................................
>>>> �................................
>>>> Climate-change science is clear:
>>> should address the issues that all climatologists are hiding from: Why
>>> CO2?
>> Because CO2 is the most effective greenhouse gas in our atmosphere.
>
> I think you'll find water vapor is, by a lot. There's 20000ppm of WV to
> 400ppm CO2.
Bill, you are bullshitting like all the other pseudo scientists. That's
the concentration at ground level. Now tell me the WV concentration
between 5 and 10km. And don't me me you don't know.
>>
>>> Where's the evidence?
>> Decades of measurements of CO2's heat-trapping ability.
>
> Can you explain exactly how CO2 "traps" heat? My understanding is that
> CO2 simply converts LWIR to heat, warming the gas around it, and causing
> it to convect. How is that "trapped"? It continues to convect up until
> the gas can cool by emitting LWIR to space.
>
> Do you understand the mechanism, or are you just repeating what someone
> else has told you?
>
Bill, Bill, the Miskolczi man.
>>> And why is it that when we ask these
>>> questions you AGW fanatics suddenly become more concerned with removing
>>> microphones from our hands than you are answering these most pertinent
>>> questions?
>> LOL! Yeah, sure. When was the last time this happened? Tell us when
>> you last had a microphone "yanked from your hand"?
>>
>>
>>> Did you see that youtube video where that Irish documentary director
>>> was hushed by authorities?
>> Nope.
>>
>>> What was your opinion of that? Are you
>>> not outraged?
>> I'll believe it when I see it, bullshitter.
>
> Stay away from utube, then, it's all over the place.
>
>
>
>
*us*
>... it is supposed
>to evaporate more water so there is more rain,
>there are no dust bowls if it rains.
You are totally clueless, aren't you.
Michael Gordge
> It's easy to show the real CO2 output is higher by FIVE HUNDRED
> THOUSAND PERCENT!
How easy is it to show how man producing 0.0000001% less of earth's
total gas will make it get colder?
MG
Claudius Denk
> On Dec 12, 4:55 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 12, 4:34 pm, Harry Hope <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > >http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/opinion/x962895436/Dont-let-the-cli...
>
> > > Dec 12, 2009
>
> > > Don't let the climate doubters fool you
>
> > > By Alan I. Leshner
>
> > > ........................................................................... ................................
>
> > > Climate-change science is clear:
>
> > Hot air is clear also. Before you try to convince us its clear you
> > should address the issues that all climatologists are hiding from: Why
> > CO2?
>
> Because CO2 is the most effective greenhouse gas in our atmosphere.
This is little more than an urban myth. The fact is you have no
experimental evidence to support this contention.
>
> >Where's the evidence?
>
> Decades of measurements of CO2's heat-trapping ability.
Absurd.
>
> >And why is it that when we ask these
> > questions you AGW fanatics suddenly become more concerned with
> > removing microphones from our hands than you are answering these most
> > pertinent questions?
>
> LOL! Yeah, sure. When was the last time this happened?
Pay attention, retard. It just happened in Copenhagen to that Irish
Documentary filmaker. Get a clue!
Tell us when
> you last had a microphone "yanked from your hand"?
>
>
>
> > Did you see that youtube video where that Irish documentary director
> > was hushed by authorities?
>
> Nope.
>
> >What was your opinion of that? Are you
> > not outraged?
>
> I'll believe it when I see it, bullshitter.
Go to hell, retard.
- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Claudius Denk
> On Dec 12, 4:34 pm, Harry Hope <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/opinion/x962895436/Dont-let-the-cli...
>
> > Dec 12, 2009
>
> > Don't let the climate doubters fool you
>
> > By Alan I. Leshner
>
> > ........................................................................... ................................
>
> > carbon dioxide - derived mostly from the human activities of
> > fossil-fuel burning and deforestation - stands at 389 parts per
> > million (ppm).
>
> > concentration is higher than it has been for at least the past 650,000
> > years.
>
> > rising by 2 ppm every year and that the global temperature has
> > increased by about 1.1 degrees Fahrenheit over the past century.
>
> > readings since the 1880s, reveal a clear warming trend.
>
> > glaciers and rising sea levels to shifts in species ranges.
>
> > Thousands of respected scientists at an array of institutions
> > worldwide agree that major health and economic impacts are likely
> > unless we act now to slow greenhouse gas emissions.
>
> > of this century.
>
> > Some scientists have said that average temperatures could jump by as
> > much as 4 degrees Fahrenheit if the atmospheric carbon dioxide level
> > reaches 450 ppm.
>
> > level, devastating events.
>
> > might suffer increased fatalities because of intensely hot summers.
>
>
> > respected scientific organizations, who strongly stated in an Oct. 21
> > letter to the U.S. Senate that human-induced climate change is real.
>
> > uncertainty about the details of warming trends to cast doubt on the
> > overall conclusions shared by traditionally cautious, decidedly
> > non-radical science organizations such as the National Academy of
> > Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science,
> > which represents an estimated 10 million individual scientists through
> > 262 affiliated societies.
>
> > warming of the late 1990s did not persist from 2001 to 2008, while
> > ignoring the fact that the first decade of the 21st century looks like
> > it will be the warmest one on record.
>
> > None of these tactics changes the clear consensus of a vast majority
> > of scientists, who agree that the Earth is warming as greenhouse gas
>
> > The public and policymakers should not be confused by a few private
> > e-mails that are being selectively publicized and, in any case, remain
> > irrelevant to the broad body of diverse evidence on climate change.
>
> > suggest unethical actions such as data manipulation or suppression.
>
> > To be sure, investigations are appropriate whenever questions are
> > raised regarding the transparency and rigor of the scientific process
> > or the integrity of individual scientists.
>
> > We applaud that the responsible authorities are conducting those
> > investigations.
>
> > But it is wrong to suggest that apparently stolen emails, deployed on
> > the eve of the Copenhagen climate summit, somehow refute a century of
> > evidence based on thousands of studies.
>
> > greenhouse gases.
>
> > us the equivalent of between 5 and 20 percent of global gross domestic
> > product per year.
>
> > percent of GDP.
>
> > technologies.
>
> > avoid facing one of the most crucial issues of our generation.
>
>
> > Fossil fuel corporations and their allies battle the truth about
> > global warming.http://www.naturalnews.com/027681_Exxon_climate_skeptics.html
>
> > Harry
>
> over and over again, but they just. Won't. Shut. UP!
You AGW whiners refuse to address the lack of experimental evidence
underlying this silly notion that CO2 causes warming.
Fred Weiss
> ...Greenpeas
Never seen that one before.
Hilarious.
Fred Weiss
Bret Cahill
> > It's easy to show the real CO2 output is higher by FIVE HUNDRED
> > THOUSAND PERCENT!
>
> How easy is it to show how man producing 0.0000001% less of earth's
> total gas will make it get colder?
It's easy to show the real CO2 output is higher by FIVE HUNDRED
THOUSAND PERCENT!
Anyone can estimate the real number just by knowing the air pressure
o b on
"Bret Cahill" <BretC...@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
news:5dbf3844-6038-4231...@s21g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
Imagine a 1km long tube of atmosphere.
How much of that length is represented by CO2?
ANSWER: 38cm!
And the Australian CO2 contribution?
ANSWER: Less than 1mm!
Warmest Regards
B0n oz
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps
US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists
worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct
from natural variation."
Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
I M @ good guy
<BretC...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
>This is typical of the lies put out by lying liar AGW deniers:
>
>> > > Oh look, its just another climate doubter doubting the fact that man
>> > > makes the globe hot and cold by producing more or less Co2
>>
>> > "more or less CO2?"
>>
>> > ? ? ?
>>
>> > It's 25 billion tons a year or 15 trillion m^3 / year.
>>
>> Shrug, less than 0.0000001% of the earth's total gas
>
>It's easy to show the real CO2 output is higher by FIVE HUNDRED
>THOUSAND PERCENT!
>
>Anyone can estimate the real number just by knowing the air pressure @
>sea level and the diameter of the earth:
>
>pressure = 100 kPa = 1 kgf/cm^2 = 10^4 kgf/m^2
>
>dia = 13,000 km
>
>r = 6500 km = 6.5 million m
>
>Surface area = 4 pi r^2 = 500 trillion m^2 = 5 X 10^14 m^2
>
>weight of atmosphere = ( 10^4 kgf/m^2 ) ( 5 X 10^14 m^2) = 5 X 10^18
>kgf
>
>= 5 X 10^15 tons
>
>This isn't that big a number compared to the 2.5 X 10^10 tons CO2 put
>out by capitalist polluters:
<[snip]
>Bret Cahill
You just made the filter list of a lot of readers,
only leftist nutcases think free enterprise is bad.
I M @ good guy
Its just AGW theory, you should read up on it.
Sometimes it rains, sometimes it doesn't,
but according to AGW theory, it can do both
at the same time.
Freestyle
>
> You just made the filter list of a lot of readers,
> only leftist nutcases think free enterprise is bad.
Too much of anything can be considered a "bad" thing.
Why do you defend the corporate elite?
There is a distinct, yet subtle difference between free enterprise and
fascism.
If by Free enterprise you mean the freedom to stifle competition,
freedom to monopolize the market, freedom to create giant mega-
corporations through anti-competitive mergers, freedom to take private
property from individuals, and freedom to renege on pension
obligations, then you might have an accurate definition.
Nobody wants real Socialism...but corporations run amok will destroy
us all with greed just as assuredly.
Bill Ward
> Bill Ward wrote:
>> On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 00:25:47 -0800, Siobhan Medeiros wrote:
>>
>>> On Dec 12, 4:55 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>> On Dec 12, 4:34 pm, Harry Hope <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/opinion/x962895436/Dont-let-the-
>> cli...
>>>>> Dec 12, 2009
>>>>> Don't let the climate doubters fool you By Alan I. Leshner
>>>>
>>> ...........................................................................
>>>>> ................................
>>>>> Climate-change science is clear:
>>>> Hot air is clear also. Before you try to convince us its clear you
>>>> should address the issues that all climatologists are hiding from:
>>>> Why CO2?
>>> Because CO2 is the most effective greenhouse gas in our atmosphere.
>>
>> I think you'll find water vapor is, by a lot. There's 20000ppm of WV
>> to 400ppm CO2.
>
> Bill, you are bullshitting like all the other pseudo scientists. That's
> the concentration at ground level.
That's where we live, and where the feedback action occurs. The surface
is cooled by evaporation, the WV with the latent heat is carried up,
condenses into clouds, radiates the latent heat to space, precipitates
back to the ground and repeats the cycle.
The air above the clouds is dry because the water is frozen out. It's
already done its job of stabilizing the surface temperature. The hotter
the surface, the more heat is pumped out.
> Now tell me the WV concentration
> between 5 and 10km. And don't me me you don't know.
It varies. But it's nearly always dryer than the surface. That's what
lets the LWIR from the cloud tops out to space.
>>>> Where's the evidence?
>>> Decades of measurements of CO2's heat-trapping ability.
>>
>> Can you explain exactly how CO2 "traps" heat? My understanding is that
>> CO2 simply converts LWIR to heat, warming the gas around it, and
>> causing it to convect. How is that "trapped"? It continues to convect
>> up until the gas can cool by emitting LWIR to space.
>>
>> Do you understand the mechanism, or are you just repeating what someone
>> else has told you?
>>
> Bill, Bill, the Miskolczi man.
If you'd read and understand Miskolczi's work, you might not appear so
dense. Unfortunately, it requires a little thought - there's no royal
road.
Tim
Monkton is no more qualified on the issue than you or Gore, he's a
journalist fer keerist's sake.
Flammarion
> On Dec 13, 11:43 am, Shrikeback <shrikeb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 13, 11:05 am, Shrikeback <shrikeb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 12, 11:21 pm, Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
During the autumn of 2009, Monckton embarked on a tour of North
America to campaign against the December 2009 United Nations Climate
Change Conference. His warning that US President Barack Obama intended
to sign a treaty at the conference which would "impose a communist
world government on the world" was picked up by numerous commentators
on the American right and "rocketed around the fringe" of right-wing
websites, prompting Glenn Beck to invite him on his radio show again.
Writing in Salon, Alex Koppelman criticized Monckton's assertions
about the conference's framework for negotiation as being "woefully
inaccurate. And that's a nice way of putting it." [21][22] The St.
Petersburg Times's PolitiFact.com described his assertions as "not
only unsupported but preposterous" and awarded him a special rating of
"britches on fire".[23] Ethan Baron of the Canadian newspaper The
Province criticized Monckton's assertions as the product of a "whacked-
out, far-right ideology, combined with an ego the size of the
Antarctic ice sheet."[24]
I M @ good guy
wrote:
>On Dec 13, 11:47 pm, "I M @ good guy" <I...@good.guy> wrote:
>> You just made the filter list of a lot of readers,
>> only leftist nutcases think free enterprise is bad.
>
>Too much of anything can be considered a "bad" thing.
Not as long as they follow the law and the
rules, most small business owners know the
customer is always right.
>Why do you defend the corporate elite?
I am not defending anybody, I just think your
rant was a little like a socialist soap box speech.
>There is a distinct, yet subtle difference between free enterprise and
>fascism.
I only look at fascism as a reaction to resist
communism or world socialism.
>If by Free enterprise you mean the freedom to stifle competition,
Nobody has the right to do that, either it is
the organized crime types, or the socialist cliques
that make it possible, but money helps, Walmart
may have run a lot of little stores out of business,
but they need a Japan, or Korea, or Taiwan to
provide the merchandize.
>freedom to monopolize the market, freedom to create giant mega-
>corporations through anti-competitive mergers, freedom to take private
>property from individuals, and freedom to renege on pension
>obligations, then you might have an accurate definition.
You sound unionist or socialist, which is it,
there is no way any company could keep the
pensions agreed to in the last 60 years, if
you knew anything about business you would
know that.
There are anti-trust laws, complaints will
help enforce them. The courts can set the
rules and price in forced sales, a smart person
takes advantage of any situation and turns the
bad into good.
>Nobody wants real Socialism...but corporations run amok will destroy
>us all with greed just as assuredly.
Don't worry about it, in the present business climate,
owners may just be waiting till the first of the year to
close down, the legislated inflation has reached the
tipping point, nobody will work for $10 and hour,
and business can't afford to pay more than $8.
Listen to the gossip, and do the opposite,
all the latrine rumors are good to ignore, and your
subtle inference that socialism might be needed
to control greedy corporations is silly, you know,
the frying pan and the fire.
How in the world did you tie all this in
with climate change, a company owner doesn't
agree with AGW and a change from free enterprise
to socialism is needed?
Ever hear of "over my........................"?
Siobhan Medeiros
> On 2009-12-13, Siobhan Medeiros <sbm2...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> > They aren't doubters. They're DENIERS. The science has been proven
> > over and over again, but they just. Won't. Shut. UP!
>
>
> --
> Those who bring sunshine into the lives of others
> cannot keep it from themselves. -- James Barrie
It's called the scientific method, look it up sometime.
Siobhan Medeiros
> On Dec 13, 3:22 am, Siobhan Medeiros <sbm2...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 12, 4:34 pm, Harry Hope <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > >http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/opinion/x962895436/Dont-let-the-cli...
>
> > > Dec 12, 2009
>
> > > Don't let the climate doubters fool you
>
> > > By Alan I. Leshner
>
> > > ........................................................................... ................................
>
> > over and over again, but they just. Won't. Shut. UP!
>
> nazi holocaust deniers prove that
> Medeiros is a fascist jackass.
Did I say anything about Nazis or the Holocaust? Or are you just
trying to hide behind fake outrage?
Siobhan Medeiros
You mean other than ice cores, temperature and CO2 records, sea level
measurements, disappearing glaciers, isotope analysis, migration
patterns, Inuit observations, etc.etc.etc.....
There's a mountain of evidence that you idiots choose to ignore.
That's what makes you deniers, not skeptics.
Siobhan Medeiros
ho...@yahoo.co> wrote:
> "Harry Hope" <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>
> news:7rc8i599uu0049ntv...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> >http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/opinion/x962895436/Dont-let-the-cli...
>
> > Dec 12, 2009
>
> > Don't let the climate doubters fool you
>
> > By Alan I. Leshner
>
> > ........................................................................... ................................
>
> > Climate-change science is clear: The concentration of atmospheric
> > carbon dioxide - derived mostly from the human activities of
> > fossil-fuel burning and deforestation - stands at 389 parts per
> > million (ppm).
>
> > We know from studying ancient Antarctic ice cores that this
> > concentration is higher than it has been for at least the past 650,000
> > years.
>
> > Exhaustive measurements tell us that atmospheric carbon dioxide is
> > rising by 2 ppm every year and that the global temperature has
> > increased by about 1.1 degrees Fahrenheit over the past century.
>
> > Multiple lines of other evidence, including reliable thermometer
> > readings since the 1880s, reveal a clear warming trend.
>
> > The broader impacts of climate change range from rapidly melting
> > glaciers and rising sea levels to shifts in species ranges.
>
> > Thousands of respected scientists at an array of institutions
> > worldwide agree that major health and economic impacts are likely
> > unless we act now to slow greenhouse gas emissions.
>
> > Already, sea levels are estimated to rise by 1 to 2 meters by the end
> > of this century.
>
> 400mm, which is 40cm (BTW 1m is 100cm)
>
>
>
> > Some scientists have said that average temperatures could jump by as
> > much as 4 degrees Fahrenheit if the atmospheric carbon dioxide level
> > reaches 450 ppm.
>
> > We may face even more dangerous impacts at 550 ppm, and above that
> > level, devastating events.
>
> > U.S. crop productivity would be affected, while European communities
> > might suffer increased fatalities because of intensely hot summers.
>
> dieting a bit more.
Yeah, if you can call the walking skeletons in the Sudan the result of
"diet".
> > Doubters insist that the earth is not warming.
>
> > This is in stark contrast to the consensus of 18 of the world's most
> > respected scientific organizations, who strongly stated in an Oct. 21
> > letter to the U.S. Senate that human-induced climate change is real.
>
> > Still, the doubters try to leverage any remaining points of scientific
> > uncertainty about the details of warming trends to cast doubt on the
> > overall conclusions shared by traditionally cautious, decidedly
> > non-radical science organizations such as the National Academy of
> > Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science,
> > which represents an estimated 10 million individual scientists through
> > 262 affiliated societies.
>
> > Doubters also make selective use of the evidence, noting that the
> > warming of the late 1990s did not persist from 2001 to 2008, while
> > ignoring the fact that the first decade of the 21st century looks like
> > it will be the warmest one on record.
>
> Modern record you mean of course!
Yeah, which goes back hundreds of years. Know what an almanac is,
retard?
>
>
>
> > None of these tactics changes the clear consensus of a vast majority
> > of scientists, who agree that the Earth is warming as greenhouse gas
> > levels rise.
>
> > The public and policymakers should not be confused by a few private
> > e-mails that are being selectively publicized and, in any case, remain
> > irrelevant to the broad body of diverse evidence on climate change.
>
> The fact that basic data has been diliberately witheld is very damning.
> Especially as that data seems to show something different than what we have
> been told, and the reason it was withheld was that the scientist concerned
> knew this, so they did it diliberately as well. That is what is known as
> FRAUD.
>
NOthing's been withheld, idiot. The e-mails were regarding the
validity of tree-ring evidence. Why would they release bad data?
Isn't that what you rightards are constantly whining about?
Siobhan Medeiros
> On Dec 12, 7:34 pm, Harry Hope <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:>http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/opinion/x962895436/Dont-let-the-cli...
>
> > Dec 12, 2009
>
> > Don't let the climate doubters fool you
>
> > By Alan I. Leshner
>
> Executive Officer of the American
> Association for the Advancement of
> the journal Science which has posted
> many articles without peer rerview.
>
> By traioning he is a psychologist
He's still a scientist, which is more than you can say.
>
>
>
> > Climate-change science is clear:
>
> •• Not so
>
So.
> The concentration of atmospheric
>
> > carbon dioxide - derived mostly from the human activities of
> > fossil-fuel burning and deforestation - stands at 389 parts per
> > million (ppm).
>
> •• ROTFLMAO
> 3.5% can hardly be called "mostly"
According to who, moron?
>
Guess what happens when you keep adding that year after year after
year?
> > We know from studying ancient Antarctic ice cores that this
> > concentration is higher than it has been for at least the past 650,000
> > years.
>
> •• It was higher in 1840
>
According to who? Cite, please.
> > Exhaustive measurements tell us that atmospheric carbon dioxide is
> > rising by 2 ppm every year
>
> •• Actually about 85 ppm in 100 years = 0.85 pa
>
That's an average calculation. It was rising relatively slowly at the
beginning of the century, idiot. We're releasing a lot more of it now
than we were then. Think before you type.
> >and that the global temperature has
> > increased by about 1.1 degrees Fahrenheit over the past century.
>
> •• Big deal, not worth discussing
It is when you consider 6-9F separates us from the ice age. 9F is
what divides Seattle from LA. Think agriculture will be unaffected
when Seattle becomes LA?
>
> > Multiple lines of other evidence, including reliable thermometer
> > readings since the 1880s, reveal a clear warming trend.
>
> •• Only if you believe Gore and Hansen
>
> > The broader impacts of climate change range from rapidly melting
> > glaciers and rising sea levels to shifts in species ranges.
>
> •• More Sturm, und Drang signifying nothing
>
> > Thousands of respected scientists at an array of institutions
> > worldwide agree that major health and economic impacts are likely
> > unless we act now to slow greenhouse gas emissions.
>
> •• Actually, by IPCC account less than 60
>
> > Already, sea levels are estimated to rise by 1 to 2 meters by the end
> > of this century.
>
> •• That is even more than IPCC's estimate
> which might reach 2cm
>
> > Some scientists have said that average temperatures could jump by as
> > much as 4 degrees Fahrenheit if the atmospheric carbon dioxide level
> > reaches 450 ppm.
>
> •• When CO2 reaches 450 PPM the Arctic
> ice will be moving South in the Atlantic
>
> > We may face even more dangerous impacts at 550 ppm, and above that
> > level, devastating events.
>
> •• More "sound and fury, signifying nothing.
>
> > U.S. crop productivity would be affected,
>
> •• Reduction in CO2 levels will cause famines.
> Without CO2 nothing will grow
>
> while European communities
>
> > might suffer increased fatalities because of intensely hot summers.
>
> •• Like last summer, perhaps???
>
> > Doubters insist that the earth is not warming.
>
> •• With good cause.
>
> > This is in stark contrast to the consensus of 18 of the world's most
> > respected scientific organizations, who strongly stated in an Oct. 21
> > letter to the U.S. Senate that human-induced climate change is real.
>
> •• A bunch of political hacks worried
> about their cosy sinecures
>
> > Still, the doubters try to leverage any remaining points of scientific
> > uncertainty about the details of warming trends to cast doubt on the
> > overall conclusions shared by traditionally cautious, decidedly
> > non-radical science organizations such as the National Academy of
> > Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science,
> > which represents an estimated 10 million individual scientists through
> > 262 affiliated societies.
>
> •• Nonsense
>
> > Doubters also make selective use of the evidence, noting that the
> > warming of the late 1990s did not persist from 2001 to 2008, while
> > ignoring the fact that the first decade of the 21st century looks like
> > it will be the warmest one on record.
>
> •• Every "warmest month" actually
> was below average.
>
>
>
> > None of these tactics changes the clear consensus of a vast majority
> > of scientists, who agree that the Earth is warming as greenhouse gas
> > levels rise.
>
> •• Actually every time it rains or snows
> ALL of the "greenhouse gasses" hit the
> deck and become fertilizer,
>
> — —
> | In real science the burden of proof is always
> | on the proposer, never on the sceptics. So far
> | neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
> | iota of valid data for global warming nor have
> | they provided data that climate change is being
> | effected by commerce and industry, and not by
> | natural phenomena
TUKA
> On Dec 13, 12:25�am, TUKA <t...@tuka.valuemedia.com> wrote:
>> On 2009-12-13, Siobhan Medeiros <sbm2...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>>
>> > They aren't doubters. �They're DENIERS. �The science has been proven
>> > over and over again, but they just. �Won't. �Shut. �UP!
>>
>> You don't understand science if you think it can be proven.
>>
>
For those of us who studied it, I think it is usually put that a
hypothesis can't be proven, it can only fail to be disproved.
As to where that leaves your statement, I will let you decide.
--
...Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving
safely in one pretty and well preserved piece, but to slide across the
finish line broadside, thoroughly used up, worn out, leaking oil, and
shouting GERONIMO!!! -- Bill McKenna
Siobhan Medeiros
>
> > Multiple lines of other evidence, including reliable thermometer
> > readings since the 1880s, reveal a clear warming trend.
>
> •• Only if you believe Gore and Hansen
And Mann, and NASA, and 110 Nobel Laureates, and....
>
> > The broader impacts of climate change range from rapidly melting
> > glaciers and rising sea levels to shifts in species ranges.
>
> •• More Sturm, und Drang signifying nothing
See if you can say the same when your front yard is suddenly your
swimming pool.
>
> > Thousands of respected scientists at an array of institutions
> > worldwide agree that major health and economic impacts are likely
> > unless we act now to slow greenhouse gas emissions.
>
> •• Actually, by IPCC account less than 60
>
How can that be when the IPCC is backed by over a hundred Nobel
Laureates? Where are you getting your numbers from, your ass?
> > Already, sea levels are estimated to rise by 1 to 2 meters by the end
> > of this century.
>
> •• That is even more than IPCC's estimate
> which might reach 2cm
Guess again, idiot.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change results
The results from the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR) sea level
chapter (convening authors John A. Church and Jonathan M. Gregory) are
given below.
IPCC change factors 1990-2100 IS92a prediction SRES prediction
Thermal expansion 110 to 430 mm
Glaciers 10 to 230 mm[31]
(or 50 to 110 mm)[32]
Greenland ice –20 to 90 mm
Antarctic ice –170 to 20 mm
Terrestrial storage –83 to 30 mm
Ongoing contributions from ice sheets in response to past climate
change 0 to 55 mm
Thawing of permafrost 0 to 5 mm
Deposition of sediment not specified
Total global-average sea level rise
(IPCC result, not sum of above)[31] 110 to 770 mm
See how easy it is to make you look like a moron when you do your
research?
And, for your next argument, "well it's natural"...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Sea_Level.png
Can you figure out what a 1m rise in just a hundred years would look
like on this graph?
>
> > Some scientists have said that average temperatures could jump by as
> > much as 4 degrees Fahrenheit if the atmospheric carbon dioxide level
> > reaches 450 ppm.
>
> •• When CO2 reaches 450 PPM the Arctic
> ice will be moving South in the Atlantic
How do you figure that, moron?
Ice will be retreating EVERYWHERE. It'll be heading NORTH, not south.
>
> > We may face even more dangerous impacts at 550 ppm, and above that
> > level, devastating events.
>
> •• More "sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Let's see if you feel the same when your neighbors are boiling you
into stew.
>
> > U.S. crop productivity would be affected,
>
> •• Reduction in CO2 levels will cause famines.
> Without CO2 nothing will grow
Fuck, are you stupid? Who the hell has been saying that CO2 will go
DOWN?
>
> while European communities
>
> > might suffer increased fatalities because of intensely hot summers.
>
> •• Like last summer, perhaps???
What part of "increased" do you not understand, dipshit?
>
> > Doubters insist that the earth is not warming.
>
> •• With good cause.
With no cause whatsoever. You have presented zero evidence so far.
>
> > This is in stark contrast to the consensus of 18 of the world's most
> > respected scientific organizations, who strongly stated in an Oct. 21
> > letter to the U.S. Senate that human-induced climate change is real.
>
> •• A bunch of political hacks worried
> about their cosy sinecures
>
LOL, so all scientists are in on this worldwide conspiracy. Proof,
please?
> > Still, the doubters try to leverage any remaining points of scientific
> > uncertainty about the details of warming trends to cast doubt on the
> > overall conclusions shared by traditionally cautious, decidedly
> > non-radical science organizations such as the National Academy of
> > Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science,
> > which represents an estimated 10 million individual scientists through
> > 262 affiliated societies.
>
> •• Nonsense
Only to ignorant fools like you who don't like what they hear.
>
> > Doubters also make selective use of the evidence, noting that the
> > warming of the late 1990s did not persist from 2001 to 2008, while
> > ignoring the fact that the first decade of the 21st century looks like
> > it will be the warmest one on record.
>
> •• Every "warmest month" actually
> was below average.
>
Below what average, retard?
>
>
> > None of these tactics changes the clear consensus of a vast majority
> > of scientists, who agree that the Earth is warming as greenhouse gas
> > levels rise.
>
> •• Actually every time it rains or snows
> ALL of the "greenhouse gasses" hit the
> deck and become fertilizer,
So why is there ANY CO2 in the atmosphere then, idiot? You know
absolutely nothing about chemistry, do you?
Rain washes out particulate matter, fool. NOT gases.
Claudius Denk
> On 13 Dec, 20:38, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 13, 11:43 am, Shrikeback <shrikeb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 13, 11:05 am, Shrikeback <shrikeb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 12, 11:21 pm, Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > LordMoncktonSocratically addresses a member of Greenpeas
>
> > >http://www.tomllewis.com/?p=2875
>
> > Great! Moncktonnever disappoints.
>
> During the autumn of 2009, Monckton embarked on a tour of North
> America to campaign against the December 2009 United Nations Climate
> Change Conference. His warning that US President Barack Obama intended
> to sign a treaty at the conference which would "impose a communist
> world government on the world" was picked up by numerous commentators
> on the American right and "rocketed around the fringe" of right-wing
> websites, prompting Glenn Beck to invite him on his radio show again.
Uh, okay.
> Writing in Salon, Alex Koppelman criticized Monckton's assertions
> about the conference's framework for negotiation as being "woefully
> inaccurate.
Well, I'd agree that they are exagerated. But not inaccurate. There
are aspects and aspiration that suggest communism, ie wealth
redistribution.
Given the absurdity of the AGW premise and the blatant dishonesty of
its proponents (scientists that propagandize but refuse to debate in
public) I'd say that Monckton's exagerations are excusable. But I do
agree that his comments are exagerated.
> And that's a nice way of putting it." [21][22]
Okay. Granted. Now look at the proponents of AGW with the same
scrutiny. There's far more exageration on the AGW side. Far more.
> The St.
> Petersburg Times's PolitiFact.com described his assertions as "not
> only unsupported but preposterous" and awarded him a special rating of
> "britches on fire".[23]
What rating do they give Al Gore? Britches exploded?
> Ethan Baron of the Canadian newspaper The
> Province criticized Monckton's assertions as the product of a "whacked-
> out, far-right ideology, combined with an ego the size of the
> Antarctic ice sheet."[24]
Monckton never mentions ideology. His message is that the science is
whacked. Why not address his comments in an intellectually honest
manner instead of looking for ideological reasons to dismiss him.
Fair enough?
TUKA
> ho...@yahoo.co> wrote:
>> "Harry Hope" <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>> news:7rc8i599uu0049ntv...@4ax.com...
>> >http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/opinion/x962895436/Dont-let-the-cli...
>> > warming of the late 1990s did not persist from 2001 to 2008, while
>> > ignoring the fact that the first decade of the 21st century looks like
>> > it will be the warmest one on record.
>>
>> Modern record you mean of course!
>
> Yeah, which goes back hundreds of years. Know what an almanac is,
> retard?
Boy, you guys can't operate without calling names, can you?
And really, it does not go back hundreds of years. There are only a
couple of hundred (of more than 6000 stations in GHCN) that go back 150
years, and those are very spotty. Berlin is the oldest. The older records
are very regional, and can't pretend to be global at all.
Any other record isn't calibrated well enough. And since the
earliest records start in the middle of the Little Ice Age, it
isn't really surprising they aren't warmer, is it?
And by the way, how do you account for the 1.1 degree Fahrenheit
of warming that took place prior to 1950?
TUKA
You somehow confuse evidence that the earth is warming with evidence
that CO2 caused it. Don't apologize, it's a very common mistake.
> There's a mountain of evidence that you idiots choose to ignore.
> That's what makes you deniers, not skeptics.
Don't compound your mistake.
--
There comes a time when you should stop expecting other people to make
a big deal about your birthday. That time is age 12. -- Dave Barry
TUKA
> On Dec 13, 3:13?am, Last Post <last_p...@primus.ca> wrote:
>> ?? Trying to associate AGW Skeptics with
>> ? ? ?nazi holocaust deniers prove that
>> ? ? ?Medeiros is a fascist jackass.
>
> Did I say anything about Nazis or the Holocaust? Or are you just
> trying to hide behind fake outrage?
Yes you did, semantically.
Claudius Denk
This is not EXPERIMENTAL evidence you freekin wanker. Pay attention.
> There's a mountain of evidence that you idiots choose to ignore.
If you were looking 200 years ago you would also have a mountain of
evidence, you mental retard.
> That's what makes you deniers, not skeptics.- Hide quoted text -
You're clueless. That makes you an AGW whacko.
Bret Cahill
> journalist fer keerist's sake.
The AGW conspiracy theorists are crazier than the creationists in at
least one respect:
Creationists aren't going around claiming all the scientists on the
planet are part of an evolution conspiracy.
Bret Cahill
Michael Gordge
>
> The lying....
The leftist denier of facts, e.g. there is no scientific evidence to
support his denial of the fact that man cant make the globe hot or
cold by producing more or less of a gas that makes up less than 0.05%
of the earth's total gas of which man contributes sweet fuck all, Co2,
still hasn't given refuses to give any scientific explanation for his
denial.
MG
Michael Gordge
> If by Free enterprise you mean the freedom to stifle competition,
e.g. You mean stiffle competition by left and right wing conyist
retarded things like, draconian regulations, import tariffs, import
and export licensing, minimum wage laws, dopey regulations and laws
that make any form of competition financially impossible to set up and
of course the worst killer of competition of all time is fucking any
and all forms of taxation, direct and indirect.
> Nobody wants real Socialism...
If that were true, and its not, then everyone would want all forms of
taxation abolished along with all forms of dopey competition fucking
regualtions and laws, clearly ewe are an adovate of socialism.
MG
Shrikeback
He's far more qualified to use logic than you are.
Shrikeback
> On Dec 12, 4:34 pm, Harry Hope <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/opinion/x962895436/Dont-let-the-cli...
>
> > Dec 12, 2009
>
> > Don't let the climate doubters fool you
>
> > By Alan I. Leshner
>
>
> > Climate-change science is clear: The concentration of atmospheric
> > carbon dioxide - derived mostly from the human activities of
> > fossil-fuel burning and deforestation - stands at 389 parts per
> > million (ppm).
>
> > concentration is higher than it has been for at least the past 650,000
> > years.
>
> > increased by about 1.1 degrees Fahrenheit over the past century.
>
> > readings since the 1880s, reveal a clear warming trend.
>
> > glaciers and rising sea levels to shifts in species ranges.
>
> > worldwide agree that major health and economic impacts are likely
> > unless we act now to slow greenhouse gas emissions.
>
> > of this century.
>
> > much as 4 degrees Fahrenheit if the atmospheric carbon dioxide level
> > reaches 450 ppm.
>
> > level, devastating events.
>
> > might suffer increased fatalities because of intensely hot summers.
>
>
> > respected scientific organizations, who strongly stated in an Oct. 21
> > letter to the U.S. Senate that human-induced climate change is real.
>
> > uncertainty about the details of warming trends to cast doubt on the
> > overall conclusions shared by traditionally cautious, decidedly
> > non-radical science organizations such as the National Academy of
> > Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science,
> > which represents an estimated 10 million individual scientists through
> > 262 affiliated societies.
>
> > warming of the late 1990s did not persist from 2001 to 2008, while
> > ignoring the fact that the first decade of the 21st century looks like
> > it will be the warmest one on record.
>
> > of scientists, who agree that the Earth is warming as greenhouse gas
> > levels rise.
>
> > e-mails that are being selectively publicized and, in any case, remain
> > irrelevant to the broad body of diverse evidence on climate change.
>
Proof is confined to the realm logic and mathematics.
Shrikeback
But then, so was Terry Schiavo.
I M @ good guy
Why do all leftists have creation on the brain,
only a few people think of such things even if
they have faith.
Do you get a lift out of putting groups of
people down, is it really necessary to divert thought
from the group subject matter.
This is the global cooling newsgroup now.
buzz
>
> Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas � it traps heat radiation that is
> attempting to escape from Earth.
So is water vapor which is in much more abundance by several orders of
magnitude than C02. And I said it without using one simple-minded lib
vulgarity.
Barack Hussein Obama...MMM MMM MMM
Send HIM to Pakistan to fight Osama...MMM MMM MMM
Simple-minded dummycrats (the party that birthed the KKK) and
liberals...morons electing morons.
Shrikeback
> On Dec 13, 2:43 pm, Shrikeback <shrikeb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 13, 11:05 am, Shrikeback <shrikeb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 12, 11:21 pm, Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Lord Monckton Socratically addresses a member of Greenpeas
>
> >http://www.tomllewis.com/?p=2875
>
> > Is it true that Al Gore requested that Lord Monckton not be
> > allowed to address Congress in 2009? And he got his way?
> > Why does Al Gore have any influence these days? He's an
> > embarassment to even the Greenola cause.
>
> > Yeah, I know, he got a Nobel Peace Prize, but so did Yassir
> > Arafat.
>
> journalist fer keerist's sake.
Okay, fine. You do realize that this implies
nothing, right? (I'm assuming they still teach
remedial logic at that Pheonix Inn School of
Philosophee you clean the toilets at.) It should
be easy to debunk him, given that the data is freely
available (which is more than we can say for the
data at the CRU, which they inconveniently disposed
of.) So get off the pot there and get crackin',
cracker.
Shrikeback
31,486 and counting. Get yer Intellius stalker software
ready, and get crackin' on them unabombs.
Shrikeback
Inconvenient skeptics are like inconvenient data,
just waiting to be cast into the void.
Bret Cahill
> 31,486 and counting.
They claim they have 112 atmospheric scientists.
There are more creationists debates involving "scientists" than that.
Bret Cahill
Blue
> ------
> http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/globalchange/global_warming/03.html
>
> Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas � it traps heat radiation that is
> by the Irish physicist John Tyndall (1820 � 1891) and the effect was
> calculated by Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius (1859 � 1927).
I have traced this AGW fraud back to 1872, John Tyndall and his book:
Contributions to Molecular Physics in the Domain of Radiant Heat. To understand
how AGW fraud has been perpetrated thus far, Tyndall�s book serves as a crucial
source of reference. This book is the origin of the fallacious arguments about
CO2 and water vapour being the strongest absorbers of heat and thus the most
important document for the fallacy of �greenhouse gases�.
Tyndall repeatedly draws the false conclusion that CO2 and water vapour are
the strongest absorbers of heat (greenhouse gasses) while at the same time,
in reference to oxygen and nitrogen, stating quote: �In fact my conclusion
is that these gases are practical vacua to radiant heat, and that the
mixture of oxygen and nitrogen which constitutes the body of our atmosphere
is the same.�
So was Tyndall ignorant of the fact that oxygen and nitrogen have a melting
point of 54.36 K and 63.15 K respectively, while CO2 is still solid ice up
194.65 K and water is ice up to 273 K? Or was he a sophist with an agenda
to frame CO2 and water vapour as the main culprits in the AGW fraud this
far back?
It is a clear act of deception to imply that a gas has no ability to absorb
heat. A gas is a gas by virtue of the fact that it has absorbed large
amounts of heat, if it had not it would remain as ice. The substance with
the lowest melting point is by definition the most powerful absorber of
heat, which places OXYGEN at 20% and NITROGEN at 79% of the atmosphere,
as the most important atmospheric gases in the �domain of radiant heat�.
If our current understanding of atmospheric gases is based on Tyndall�s
work and the conclusions he draws in this book, Contributions to Molecular
Physics in the Domain of Radiant Heat, then it is not so surprising that
AGW fraud has occurred. This book is clearly the origin of AGW fraud
and is a very interesting example of 19th century sophistry.
Also very important to note at this time, is the close association of
John Tyndall to the originator�s of Social Darwinism, Eugenics and later,
Hitler�s genocidal Nazi�s. Such names as Thomas H Huxley, and Sir Francis
Galton among others. A social group of which Tyndall a was prominent member.
This small clique of characters are responsible for human suffering on such
an enormous scale that to allow any one of them to influence modern society
in any way whatsoever, even from the grave, is a direct crime against humanity.
Mankind will never be safe until history is rewritten with full acknowledgment
of these criminals and their collusion in the current danger we are now
confronted with in the form of AGW fraud, with such ominous agendas as �DE-CARBONIZATION�.
http://tinyurl.com/yelvcap
> Now, is this clear enough for you, you stupid motherfucker,or shall we
> tattoo it all backwards on your protruding brow for easy future reference?
1Z
> On Dec 14, 2:44 am, Flammarion <pdjpurch...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 13 Dec, 20:38, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 13, 11:43 am, Shrikeback <shrikeb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 13, 11:05 am, Shrikeback <shrikeb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Dec 12, 11:21 pm, Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > LordMoncktonSocratically addresses a member of Greenpeas
>
> > > >http://www.tomllewis.com/?p=2875
>
> > > Great! Moncktonnever disappoints.
>
> > During the autumn of 2009, Monckton embarked on a tour of North
> > America to campaign against the December 2009 United Nations Climate
> > Change Conference. His warning that US President Barack Obama intended
> > to sign a treaty at the conference which would "impose a communist
> > world government on the world" was picked up by numerous commentators
> > on the American right and "rocketed around the fringe" of right-wing
> > websites, prompting Glenn Beck to invite him on his radio show again.
>
> Uh, okay.
>
> > Writing in Salon, Alex Koppelman criticized Monckton's assertions
> > about the conference's framework for negotiation as being "woefully
> > inaccurate.
>
> Well, I'd agree that they are exagerated. But not inaccurate. There
> are aspects and aspiration that suggest communism, ie wealth
> redistribution.
everything suggests communism to rightards
> Given the absurdity of the AGW
that pumping a known greenhouse gas into the atmosphere causes
warming?
> > Ethan Baron of the Canadian newspaper The
> > Province criticized Monckton's assertions as the product of a "whacked-
> > out, far-right ideology, combined with an ego the size of the
> > Antarctic ice sheet."[24]
>
> Monckton never mentions ideology.
Well, you just did.
1Z
> On Dec 14, 11:44 am, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > The lying....
>
> The leftist denier of facts, e.g. there is no scientific evidence to
> support his denial of the fact that man cant make the globe hot or
> cold by producing more or less of a gas that makes up less than 0.05%
> of the earth's total gas
If there is no such thing as a greenhouse gas, the Earth would have a
mean
temperatrue of -15C
Zinnic
Non sequitur! How many specialize in evolution studies?
lab~rat >:-)
<petes...@SNIPITgmail.com> puked:
>On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 16:55:19 -0800 (PST), Claudius Denk
><claudi...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>>On Dec 12, 4:34 pm, Harry Hope <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>> http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/opinion/x962895436/Dont-let-the-cli...
>>>
>>> Dec 12, 2009
>>>
>>> Don't let the climate doubters fool you
>>>
>>> By Alan I. Leshner
>>>
>>> ...........................................................................................................
>>>
>>> Climate-change science is clear:
>>
>>Hot air is clear also. Before you try to convince us its clear you
>>should address the issues that all climatologists are hiding from: Why
>>CO2? Where's the evidence?
>
>Jaybus Freaking Crisco...
>
>Missed the last TWO FUCKING CENTURIES of scientific progress, did you,
>denier maroon? And yet you still think your ignorant uninformed personal
>opinion about that of which you know not shit to somehow be of some value to
>anyone? There's a word for that: STUPID.
>
>FYI, you stupid motherfucker, it has been a widely known, often measured
>scientific FACT that CO2 traps heat since the early 19th century. Do at
>least try to keep up with the LAST FEW CENTURIES of knowledge, you stupid
>motherfucker...
>
Hey CO2 is poison, didja hear *that* one? You fuckers are hilarious.
--
lab~rat >:-)
Do you want polite or do you want sincere?
*us*
>...should read up on it.
You'll need to learn how to click on a link, too.
On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 11:23:52 -0500, "I M @ idiot guy" <I...@good.guy> wrote:
>... it is supposed
>to evaporate more water so there is more rain,
>there are no dust bowls if it rains.
You are totally clueless, aren't you.
lab~rat >:-)
The good news is that the dustbowl won't last long because all the
land will be flooded from the rising oceans.
You people are all over the place. You guys should get in a room and
hammer out the story and keep it straight.
Bret Cahill
> > > 31,486 and counting.
>
> > They claim they have 112 atmospheric scientists.
>
> > There are more creationists debates involving "scientists" than that.
>
> > Bret Cahill
>
> Non sequitur! How many specialize in evolution studies?
How many of the 112 "atmospheric scientists" have published anything
on global warming in a peer reviewed journal?
Bret Cahill