Global Warming and what you can do to against it

[Trevor Wilson]

Jamie wrote:

Trevor Wilson wrote:

Jerry Peters wrote:

Trevor Wilson <trevor@spamblockrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

N_Cook wrote:

Arfa Daily <arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:3eoVm.34259$iW.13517@newsfe30.ams2...

"Franc Zabkar" <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> wrote in message
news:sfgbi51etn9223c56m1tegedksnc5r2b8f@4ax.com...

I plan to reduce my own CO2 emissions by not talking about them.

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

I wouldn't worry about it Franc. Judging by the stuff I'm reading
at the moment about the 'massaged' data coming out of the
University of East Anglia, it's not going to have any genuine
effect anyway ...

Arfa




I'm old enough to remember all the scare stories in the press
about the impending ice age coming, after the seas freezing over
around UK coasts.

**I'm old enough to remember that those silly ice age articles were
published in magazines like People, Newsweek and other populist
crap. Science, Nature and Scientific American stuck to the facts.
Those facts, of course, were concerned with the very serious
problem of CO2 being a major influence in global warming.



Except that *water vapor* is the major "greenhouse" gas.


**Points:

* Water vapour is certainly _the_ major GHG.
* I wrote: CO2 is _a_ major GHG. Note the emphasis.
* Water vapour persists for barely hours in the atmosphere.
* CO2 persists for hundreds of years in the atmosphere.
* CO2 is the second most significant GHG, accounting for between 9%
~ 26% of Solar forcing.
* There is not much we can do about water vapour.
* There is much that can be done to reduce CO2 emissions.


To get their dire predictions the climastrologists assume that
rising CO2 will cause a positive feedback effect with water vapor.


**It's CLIMATOLOGISTS, moron. Learn to spell it correctly. Learn a
little about the climate of this planet whilst you are at it. And
yes, More CO2 may well lead to most water vapour, thus exacerbating
the effect.
As for Scientific American, read their latest editorial on GW. It
sounds like the ravings of a left-wing loony conspiracy theorist.


**Except that Scientific American is concerned with, well, science.
Something you clearly have no knowledge of.


BTW, any one ever heard of the University of East Anglia *before*
the emails were leaked? Take a look at the money they've been
pulling in for their climate research.


**So? Are you attempting to link ONE instance where researchers
fucked up, with the thousands of researchers who have not?


I wasn't aware there was a difference?

The old saying goes.

"Birds of a feather flock together"

**So, by your peculiar logic, because George W Bush was deranged, lying
scumbag, religious nutter, we can assume that all US Presidents are
similarly afflicted and, by extension, every US citizen is the same? Is that
your contention?


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor Wilson]

Jerry Peters wrote:

Charlie <left@thestation.com> wrote:

"Jeff Liebermann" <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote in message
news:9ktci5leck8ukl2rtcm1nqjm67ued1jcrk@4ax.com...
On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 13:12:53 -0800 (PST), "."
sustainable.future115@gmail.com> wrote:
As you know global warming is endangering the future of life on the
planet.

Assumption, the mother of all screwups. When it's warmer than
usual, it's global warming. When it's wetter than usual, it's
global warming. When there's a drought, it's global warming. When
sunspots fail to appear, it's global warming. When there's an
unscheduled political change, or the stock market dives, it's
global warming. Anything even slightly off normal, it's global
warming. Somehow, I'm more than a little suspicious.

Of course the sources of information are also suspect. The same
people that can't predict if it's going to rain tomorrow, are now
asking us to believe their weather forecast for 100 years from now.
Global computer weather models that predict the future, can't seem
to do as well predicting known events (Maunder Minimum and medieval
warming period) in the past.

In the 1950's, one of the suggestions for preventing global nuclear
self-destruction was to unite the world against a single threat.
Contrived invaders from Mars or other outside influence was the most
common suggestion. Science fiction was written around this theme.
Well, they were close. We now have something we can all fight
together, even if it might be faked or contrived. Maybe spending
money on fighting global warming can save the economy. Once we fix
global warming, we can get together and fight the oncoming ice age.

Do a Google search for Bolivia and glaciers.
I would like to read your rationale as to what is causing this
phenomenon of fast glacier melting.
It must be caused by something other than your hot air.


Ooh a GW True Believer. Have you properly genuflected to Al Gore yet
today?

It's been both cooler & warmer in the historical record. There were
dairy farms in Greenland in Viking times. Some of them are still
buried by ice, BTW

One of the "tricks" used by AGW True Believers is to eliminate the
Medieval Warm Period so that the current warming looks extreme.

**Bollocks. That there was localised warming in parts of the Northern
hemisphere is not denied by anyone. Localised warming does not equal GLOBAL
WARMING.

Then there's the alleged accuracy of their temperature measurements,
less that 1 degree from 100 year old data & tree rings, give me a
break!

**Give you a break? Not likely. Lying about the facts, does not alter the
truth. Proxy measurements of considerably higher accuracy have been in use
for decades.

I live in Pennsylvania. Where I'm currently sitting there were once
ice sheets, they melted, it's what happens when the earth ends a cold
period and starts to defrost, get over it.

**Good for you. Sadly, those of us with more than a grade school education
in science understand that CO2 is a significant driver of climate on this
planet. We are also aware that a 30% increase in CO2 levels is largely
responsible for the warming we are presently experiencing. Of course, if you
have your own theory to present, then do so. Make certain it is
peer-reviewed though. The science behind CO2 influenced global warming has
been peer-reviewed. You should offer nothing less.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Jim Yanik]

Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote in
news:9ktci5leck8ukl2rtcm1nqjm67ued1jcrk@4ax.com:

On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 13:12:53 -0800 (PST), "."
sustainable.future115@gmail.com> wrote:
As you know global warming is endangering the future of life on the
planet.

Assumption, the mother of all screwups. When it's warmer than usual,
it's global warming. When it's wetter than usual, it's global
warming. When there's a drought, it's global warming. When sunspots
fail to appear, it's global warming. When there's an unscheduled
political change, or the stock market dives, it's global warming.
Anything even slightly off normal, it's global warming. Somehow, I'm
more than a little suspicious.

Of course the sources of information are also suspect. The same
people that can't predict if it's going to rain tomorrow, are now
asking us to believe their weather forecast for 100 years from now.
Global computer weather models that predict the future, can't seem to
do as well predicting known events (Maunder Minimum and medieval
warming period) in the past.

In the 1950's, one of the suggestions for preventing global nuclear
self-destruction was to unite the world against a single threat.
Contrived invaders from Mars or other outside influence was the most
common suggestion. Science fiction was written around this theme.
Well, they were close. We now have something we can all fight
together, even if it might be faked or contrived. Maybe spending
money on fighting global warming can save the economy. Once we fix
global warming, we can get together and fight the oncoming ice age.

AGW is merely the latest mechanism for Marxists to seize control.
and all the fools are buying into it.

remember how the Green Party in Germany was infested with communist
agents,and was anti-nuke.
Now,Western Marxists have leapt upon AGW as the means to gain power.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

 

[Jamie]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

Jamie wrote:

Trevor Wilson wrote:


Jerry Peters wrote:


Trevor Wilson <trevor@spamblockrageaudio.com.au> wrote:


N_Cook wrote:


Arfa Daily <arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:3eoVm.34259$iW.13517@newsfe30.ams2...


"Franc Zabkar" <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> wrote in message
news:sfgbi51etn9223c56m1tegedksnc5r2b8f@4ax.com...


I plan to reduce my own CO2 emissions by not talking about them.

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

I wouldn't worry about it Franc. Judging by the stuff I'm reading
at the moment about the 'massaged' data coming out of the
University of East Anglia, it's not going to have any genuine
effect anyway ...

Arfa




I'm old enough to remember all the scare stories in the press
about the impending ice age coming, after the seas freezing over
around UK coasts.

**I'm old enough to remember that those silly ice age articles were
published in magazines like People, Newsweek and other populist
crap. Science, Nature and Scientific American stuck to the facts.
Those facts, of course, were concerned with the very serious
problem of CO2 being a major influence in global warming.



Except that *water vapor* is the major "greenhouse" gas.


**Points:

* Water vapour is certainly _the_ major GHG.
* I wrote: CO2 is _a_ major GHG. Note the emphasis.
* Water vapour persists for barely hours in the atmosphere.
* CO2 persists for hundreds of years in the atmosphere.
* CO2 is the second most significant GHG, accounting for between 9%
~ 26% of Solar forcing.
* There is not much we can do about water vapour.
* There is much that can be done to reduce CO2 emissions.



To get their dire predictions the climastrologists assume that
rising CO2 will cause a positive feedback effect with water vapor.


**It's CLIMATOLOGISTS, moron. Learn to spell it correctly. Learn a
little about the climate of this planet whilst you are at it. And
yes, More CO2 may well lead to most water vapour, thus exacerbating
the effect.

As for Scientific American, read their latest editorial on GW. It
sounds like the ravings of a left-wing loony conspiracy theorist.


**Except that Scientific American is concerned with, well, science.
Something you clearly have no knowledge of.



BTW, any one ever heard of the University of East Anglia *before*
the emails were leaked? Take a look at the money they've been
pulling in for their climate research.


**So? Are you attempting to link ONE instance where researchers
fucked up, with the thousands of researchers who have not?



I wasn't aware there was a difference?

The old saying goes.

"Birds of a feather flock together"


**So, by your peculiar logic, because George W Bush was deranged, lying
scumbag, religious nutter, we can assume that all US Presidents are
similarly afflicted and, by extension, every US citizen is the same? Is that
your contention?


It seems to be your opinion just like the global warming dilemma.

Where do you base your information from?

As for my opinion, I'll stay neutral. It's obvious the
writing is on the wall.

As for our present leadership, I have no comment other than
I didn't vote for him.

 

[Trevor Wilson]

Jamie wrote:

Trevor Wilson wrote:

Jamie wrote:

Trevor Wilson wrote:


Jerry Peters wrote:


Trevor Wilson <trevor@spamblockrageaudio.com.au> wrote:


N_Cook wrote:


Arfa Daily <arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:3eoVm.34259$iW.13517@newsfe30.ams2...


"Franc Zabkar" <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> wrote in message
news:sfgbi51etn9223c56m1tegedksnc5r2b8f@4ax.com...


I plan to reduce my own CO2 emissions by not talking about
them. - Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

I wouldn't worry about it Franc. Judging by the stuff I'm
reading at the moment about the 'massaged' data coming out of
the University of East Anglia, it's not going to have any
genuine effect anyway ...

Arfa




I'm old enough to remember all the scare stories in the press
about the impending ice age coming, after the seas freezing over
around UK coasts.

**I'm old enough to remember that those silly ice age articles
were published in magazines like People, Newsweek and other
populist crap. Science, Nature and Scientific American stuck to
the facts. Those facts, of course, were concerned with the very
serious problem of CO2 being a major influence in global warming.



Except that *water vapor* is the major "greenhouse" gas.


**Points:

* Water vapour is certainly _the_ major GHG.
* I wrote: CO2 is _a_ major GHG. Note the emphasis.
* Water vapour persists for barely hours in the atmosphere.
* CO2 persists for hundreds of years in the atmosphere.
* CO2 is the second most significant GHG, accounting for between 9%
~ 26% of Solar forcing.
* There is not much we can do about water vapour.
* There is much that can be done to reduce CO2 emissions.



To get their dire predictions the climastrologists assume that
rising CO2 will cause a positive feedback effect with water vapor.


**It's CLIMATOLOGISTS, moron. Learn to spell it correctly. Learn a
little about the climate of this planet whilst you are at it. And
yes, More CO2 may well lead to most water vapour, thus exacerbating
the effect.

As for Scientific American, read their latest editorial on GW. It
sounds like the ravings of a left-wing loony conspiracy theorist.


**Except that Scientific American is concerned with, well, science.
Something you clearly have no knowledge of.



BTW, any one ever heard of the University of East Anglia *before*
the emails were leaked? Take a look at the money they've been
pulling in for their climate research.


**So? Are you attempting to link ONE instance where researchers
fucked up, with the thousands of researchers who have not?



I wasn't aware there was a difference?

The old saying goes.

"Birds of a feather flock together"


**So, by your peculiar logic, because George W Bush was deranged,
lying scumbag, religious nutter, we can assume that all US
Presidents are similarly afflicted and, by extension, every US
citizen is the same? Is that your contention?


It seems to be your opinion just like the global warming dilemma.

**What "global warming dilema"? As for my opinions about Americans, in
general, they are, in the main, not too different from people in my own
nation. There's a large number of complete morons, a small number of
intelligent people and a large number somewhere between the two. The US,
however, is unique in that the majority of voters managed to elect the
dumbest religious nutter they could find. TWICE! That fact does not suggest
that the US voting public has much common-sense.

Where do you base your information from?

**On what? Global warming? Peer reviewed SCIENCE. On the intellect of
Americans? I judge them on the fact that they placed a complete moron in the
Whitehouse. Twice. I'd have had more respect if the ficus had won.

As for my opinion, I'll stay neutral. It's obvious the
writing is on the wall.

**You are clearly not neutral. You just accused all climatologists with the
same brush.

As for our present leadership, I have no comment other than
I didn't vote for him.

**Of course.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Arfa Daily]

"b" <reverend_rogers@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ebd02c30-da70-49db-8f04-974e4db98fe5@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...

On 13 dic, 22:12, "." <sustainable.future...@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear All,
As you know global warming is endangering the future of life on the

I am suspicious of the extent of the threat due to the involvement of
the likes of Al Gore in this issue, and recent press of the email
leaks before copenhagen. Yet we should also be aware there are large
corporate interests who are, I suspect, behind much of the negative
coverage of the climate change issue.

A wholesale rejection of the very real man-made threats to the
environment simply plays into the hands of the corporate elites who
have already wreaked havoc worldwide. Scientists of international
renown, including nobel prizewinners, have drawn conclusions endorsed
by all the leading academies and national instututes of science. I'm
not about to dismiss that kind of endorsement in favour of conspiracy
theories, at least not until I see hard evidence instead of the
corporate sponsored media campaigns against GW.

No matter how much I disagree with the implementation of some of the
enviormnental protection measures, I'm not going to play the game of
the powerful anti-GW corporate lobby just so they can go on getting
rich. if they had their way there'd be no protection or regualtion of
polluters at all, and we'd all be worse off. I disagree with the way
things like lead free solder and lightbulbs have been handled ie.,
legislation made often by ignorant bureaucrats with no scientific
logic but it seems that these things so far have served to tire many
people of the whole GW thing to distract us from the real issues - the
economic geopolitical power structure which at present, serves only
the interests of its own.

We are but pawns until we start using evidence properly. let's base
our positions on science not propaganda, one way or the other.

Nobody, or at least very few bodies, actually deny that climate change is
taking place. What is now being questioned a little more, and indeed
*should* be questioned a *lot* more, is how much of this change is actually
being caused by the activities of man. Many ill-informed people seem to
believe that the planet's climate is a fixed thing, and that any changes,
particularly those which seem to happen quickly enough to be noticeable in a
person's lifetime, can't be due to any natural causes. It is these
misconceptions that the global warming voodoomeisters play on, to whip up
the pseudo religious hysteria that we are now seeing on the subject.

In a poll carried out here in the UK this last week, more than half of the
people polled, now believe that the jury is still out on the "man-made" bit
of the global warming debate. For me, this is at least a step in the right
direction, as I seriously believe that the evangelical takeup of the subject
by the 'scientific' community is, in many instances, fuelled by business,
financial gain, and personal glory. I am pleased that the head honcho from
the University of East Anglia (probably a closed-down branch of Sainsbury's
in a former existence) and his American chum have been suspended. In my
humble opinion, both of them should have their arses righteously fired right
out of academia, along with any others involved, and never be allowed to
call themselves "scientists" again. The massaging of data, and the exclusion
of data that doesn't fit the model, is utterly despicable, and totally
inexcusable for anyone purporting to be a reputable scientist, responsible
for advising countries world-wide ...

Arfa

 

[Robert Macy]

On Dec 14, 5:43 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au>
wrote:

**What "global warming dilema"? As for my opinions about Americans, in
general, they are, in the main, not too different from people in my own
nation. There's a large number of complete morons, a small number of
intelligent people and a large number somewhere between the two. The US,
however, is unique in that the majority of voters managed to elect the
dumbest religious nutter they could find. TWICE! That fact does not suggest
that the US voting public has much common-sense.

 Where do you base your information from?

**On what? Global warming? Peer reviewed SCIENCE. On the intellect of
Americans? I judge them on the fact that they placed a complete moron in the
Whitehouse. Twice. I'd have had more respect if the ficus had won.

Well, we have had deceased candidates, and animation heroes win.

I live in Santa Clara County, California. On our ballots, years ago a
'temporary' tax increase of 1% sales tax was presented and approved to
pay for something. I oppose tax increases of any kind because it has
been shown that taxation stops what is being taxed, and worse, the
money gets wasted. That tax increased passed with the overwhelming
majority of 68-32, yet I NEVER met anyone who supported it. I always
got the response, "Are you crazy? Why would I vote to increase
taxes?" Nor, have ever seen anything pass with that kind of margin!
Almost always anything on our ballots squeaks by at 55-45. So, what's
going on? I don't know, but ever since that experience and having
documented items removed (without record) from our safety deposit box,
I don't trust anything.

You may also remember when our ?? Dept. literally told the UK news
media that "no one is interested in anti-Clinton information" so don't
send it! Uh, I'm intereseted. Because...

It is ONLY with FULL and TRUTHFUL information can a democratic society
function. Whenever that is corrupted, so is the system.

 As for my opinion, I'll stay neutral. It's obvious the
writing is on the wall.

Yes, and the writing said, "You have been weighed, and have been found
wanting." Later B was killed.

Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au

Just noticed, Australian address!

I met your Olympic gold medalist swimmer by the name of Peter Evans
from Perth? Good lad.

Robert

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 10:25:08 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
<trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

**Good for you. Sadly, those of us with more than a grade school education
in science...

The problem is that it doesn't take much to generate almost any
desired result. Three years ago, I jumped in with both feet with a
simple illustration. Based upon the historical data from the local
water district rainfall data, I can conjur a hocky stick in either up
or down direction by simply changing the order of the polynomial
expansion for polynomial trend line. See stuff at:
<http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/slv-wx/>

The graph at:
<http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/slv-wx/SLV-rainfall-06.jpg>
shows both an upward and downward hocky stick. I waved this at the
local water district and offered to endorse either a drought or a
deluge depending on what was expedient. The water board was not happy
with me.

The original Excel spreadsheet is at:
<http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/slv-wx/SLV-rainfall-forecast-06.xls>
Check the graph settings for other interesting effects. One gotcha. I
just noticed that the graphs only work in Microsloth Excel and don't
convert into Open Office Calc. I'll see if I can fix that and save a
version that works in OO Calc.

If you look at the 11 year moving average graph carefully,
<http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/slv-wx/SLV-rainfall.jpg>
you'll see the drop in rainfall during the 1920-1935 drought.

I'm kinda amused at the new credibility that the IPCC has obtain from
organizations and individuals that have never trusted the government
to get any numbers even close to accurate in the past. Yet, when it
comes to climate predictions, the government sponsored and funded
conglomeration of like thinking scientists is beyond question.

To insure accuracy, the current statistical high fashion is to
"combine" all the various historical proxy data sets. The assumption
is that the errors will average out or cancel. Two or more wrongs
don't make a right. It's more like garbage in, and more garbage out.
<http://climateaudit.org/2007/11/20/loehle-proxies-2/>
More current, predicting continued global cooling using satellite
data:
<http://www.ncasi.org/publications/Detail.aspx?id=3230>

As for C02 being the ultimate culprit:
<http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142>
The overlaps complicate things, but it's clear that water
vapour is the single most important absorber (between 36%
and 66% of the greenhouse effect), and together with clouds
makes up between 66% and 85%. CO2 alone makes up between
9 and 26%, while the O3 and the other minor GHG absorbers
consist of up to 7 and 8% of the effect, respectively.

Ok, back to bookkeeping. I needed the rant and distraction.

--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558
# http://802.11junk.com jeffl@cruzio.com
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS

 

[Arfa Daily]

**Good for you. Sadly, those of us with more than a grade school education
in science understand that CO2 is a significant driver of climate on this
planet. We are also aware that a 30% increase in CO2 levels is largely
responsible for the warming we are presently experiencing. Of course, if
you have your own theory to present, then do so. Make certain it is
peer-reviewed though. The science behind CO2 influenced global warming has
been peer-reviewed. You should offer nothing less.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

There are also some skeptics with "more than a grade school education in
science" in your country, Trevor. A very interesting article entitled
"Global Warming - Don't Wait up" appeared in a newspaper here in the UK last
week. Written by a chap called Ian Plimer, a professor of geology at the
University of Adelaide.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1231673/Global-warming-Dont-wait-The-Earth-tricks-carbon-count-control.html

And some interesting stuff about 'those emails' and how the hockey stick
graph was produced.
Jeff L. You'll be interested in this one ...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1235395/SPECIAL-INVESTIGATION-Climate-change-emails-row-deepens--Russians-admit-DID-send-them.html

Arfa

 

[Geoffrey S. Mendelson]

Arfa Daily wrote:

There are also some skeptics with "more than a grade school education in
science" in your country, Trevor. A very interesting article entitled
"Global Warming - Don't Wait up" appeared in a newspaper here in the UK last
week. Written by a chap called Ian Plimer, a professor of geology at the
University of Adelaide.

Arfa, you miss the point. Ever since it started, you have not needed more
than a grade school education in business to understand that if you support
global warming, people will give you money.

Al Gore's movie started out as "the pitch*", a powerpoint presentation for his
new business selling carbon credits. He was in it for the money and nothing
else.

Geoff.

* All startups have a "pitch". It's what you show potential investors,
hoping that they will buy in without asking too many questions.

--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel gsm@mendelson.com N3OWJ/4X1GM
New word I coined 12/13/09, "Sub-Wikipedia" adj, describing knowledge or
understanding, as in he has a sub-wikipedia understanding of the situation.
i.e possessing less facts or information than can be found in the Wikipedia.

 

[Jim Yanik]

"Geoffrey S. Mendelson" <gsm@cable.mendelson.com> wrote in
news:slrnhieu5u.htk.gsm@cable.mendelson.com:

Arfa Daily wrote:
There are also some skeptics with "more than a grade school education
in science" in your country, Trevor. A very interesting article
entitled "Global Warming - Don't Wait up" appeared in a newspaper
here in the UK last week. Written by a chap called Ian Plimer, a
professor of geology at the University of Adelaide.

Arfa, you miss the point. Ever since it started, you have not needed
more than a grade school education in business to understand that if
you support global warming, people will give you money.

Al Gore's movie started out as "the pitch*", a powerpoint presentation
for his new business selling carbon credits. He was in it for the
money and nothing else.

Geoff.

the Marxists are using it to garner power.

"redistribution of wealth",as Obama put it. USSA,here we come.
(United Socialist States of America)

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 09:52:36 -0000, "Arfa Daily"
<arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote:

There are also some skeptics with "more than a grade school education in
science" in your country, Trevor. A very interesting article entitled
"Global Warming - Don't Wait up" appeared in a newspaper here in the UK last
week. Written by a chap called Ian Plimer, a professor of geology at the
University of Adelaide.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1231673/Global-warming-Dont-wait-The-Earth-tricks-carbon-count-control.html

Nice. Amazingly sane. The problem is that one can't get any research
funding for expounding the obvious and simple historical logic.

And some interesting stuff about 'those emails' and how the hockey stick
graph was produced.
Jeff L. You'll be interested in this one ...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1235395/SPECIAL-INVESTIGATION-Climate-change-emails-row-deepens--Russians-admit-DID-send-them.html

Thanks. I've been following the story of the Harry Read Me file and
cooked data for a while.
<http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/HARRY_READ_ME.txt>
It gets weirder by the day.

I kinda like this article:
<http://www.floppingaces.net/2009/11/30/climategates-harry-read-me-file-is-a-must-read/>
for the quotes, and photo of the IPCC chairman, Rajendra Pachauri.
He's definitely been working too hard. Anyway, I've been in
situations where I had to "adjust" data to conform to a pre-ordained
conclusion. It's amazingly easy (see my example with the rainfall
data). However, it's not a pleasant place to be in.

I've also watched committees of "concerned scientists" and "industry
leaders" investigate some hot topic or pound out some obscure
standard. It is impossible to get them to agree on anything. Many
will take and vigorously defend a minority or obscure point of view
simply to get attention. It seems that research and academia are all
about getting funded, getting attention, accumulating power, and the
traditional publish or perish. One doesn't get those by agreeing with
the majority, accepting the obvious, or conforming to convention. One
gets acclaim by promoting the obscure, the weird, the odd, and the
strange, which is what gets all the attention. The 2007 IPCC report
had over 450 lead authors, with input from more than 800 contributing
authors, and an additional 2,500 experts to review the draft
documents, which makes me wonder why there is suddenly a consensus.
Either the danger is so obvious, no universal, and so desperate, that
anyone can see the obvious (in which case we wouldn't need the IPCC)
or something in the makeup and function of scientific committees has
change drastically overnight.

My guess(tm) is simple. If you do research that demonstrates global
warming is real, you get funded. If you demonstrate that it's not
real, no funding.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 15:56:50 -0500, "Charlie" <left@thestation.com>
wrote:

With all due respect, you've blown it badly. See below.

Do a Google search for Bolivia and glaciers.

Why? Is it too difficult for you to supply a suitable URL and comment
on why it is important? Are you assuming that your point is so
obvious that it doesn't require anything more than a general
reference? It's much like the old RTFM (read the f*****g manual)
comment, that offers no information, nothing helpful, and of course
offers no way to find the manual.

I would like to read your rationale as to what is causing this phenomenon of
fast glacier melting.

I would receive a Nobel Prize if I could explain that. As we're
discovering, the planets climate is anything but simple. It could be
solar output
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation>
atmospheric insulation, changes in oceanic currents, or something we
haven't even discovered. Whatever is causing the melting, my guess is
that it's not a single cause, and humans are probably only one part of
the complex puzzle. We've had fairly recent periods that were
considerably warmer, where the rise in CO2 levels followed the
increase in temperature, not preceded it. Perhaps you're mixing cause
and effect?

It must be caused by something other than your hot air.

Much as I value your opinion, substantiation is always more
interesting reading.


--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[Arfa Daily]

"Geoffrey S. Mendelson" <gsm@cable.mendelson.com> wrote in message
news:slrnhieu5u.htk.gsm@cable.mendelson.com...

Arfa Daily wrote:
There are also some skeptics with "more than a grade school education in
science" in your country, Trevor. A very interesting article entitled
"Global Warming - Don't Wait up" appeared in a newspaper here in the UK
last
week. Written by a chap called Ian Plimer, a professor of geology at the
University of Adelaide.

Arfa, you miss the point. Ever since it started, you have not needed more
than a grade school education in business to understand that if you
support
global warming, people will give you money.

Al Gore's movie started out as "the pitch*", a powerpoint presentation for
his
new business selling carbon credits. He was in it for the money and
nothing
else.

Geoff.

* All startups have a "pitch". It's what you show potential investors,
hoping that they will buy in without asking too many questions.

--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel gsm@mendelson.com N3OWJ/4X1GM
New word I coined 12/13/09, "Sub-Wikipedia" adj, describing knowledge or
understanding, as in he has a sub-wikipedia understanding of the
situation.
i.e possessing less facts or information than can be found in the
Wikipedia.

I don't think I am missing any point, Geoff. You state the obvious, and I
find no fault with that. I was replying specifically to a rather different
point raised by Trevor, where he was implying that anyone with better than a
grade school education, had to be a MMGW believer, and that only
sub-educated people could possibly form any other opinion based on the data
that is put up as a given by the CC evangelists. I was merely pointing out
that one of his own countrymen, who is clearly a well educated and well
balanced scientist, was an advocate of taking a more rational view of the
'facts' with which we are being constantly bombarded ...

Arfa

 

[Geoffrey S. Mendelson]

Jeff Liebermann wrote:

Why? Is it too difficult for you to supply a suitable URL and comment
on why it is important? Are you assuming that your point is so
obvious that it doesn't require anything more than a general
reference? It's much like the old RTFM (read the f*****g manual)
comment, that offers no information, nothing helpful, and of course
offers no way to find the manual.

Sometimes it's worth it. Do a search on "sea level rise 5000 years" (without
the quotes) and read the short descriptions of the first page of hits.

You get everything from rates of rise, reasons why it has not risen,
explanations of how it has risen, every possible combination of result
and explanation.

It's really funny.

Geoff.

--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel gsm@mendelson.com N3OWJ/4X1GM
New word I coined 12/13/09, "Sub-Wikipedia" adj, describing knowledge or
understanding, as in he has a sub-wikipedia understanding of the situation.
i.e possessing less facts or information than can be found in the Wikipedia.

 

[Trevor Wilson]

Arfa Daily wrote:

**Good for you. Sadly, those of us with more than a grade school
education in science understand that CO2 is a significant driver of
climate on this planet. We are also aware that a 30% increase in CO2
levels is largely responsible for the warming we are presently
experiencing. Of course, if you have your own theory to present,
then do so. Make certain it is peer-reviewed though. The science
behind CO2 influenced global warming has been peer-reviewed. You
should offer nothing less. --
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



There are also some skeptics with "more than a grade school education
in science" in your country, Trevor. A very interesting article
entitled "Global Warming - Don't Wait up" appeared in a newspaper
here in the UK last week. Written by a chap called Ian Plimer, a
professor of geology at the University of Adelaide.

**Plimer is a liar and has been in the employ of the fossil fuel industry
(he is a GEOLOGIST, not a climatologist) for decades. Plimer ignores the
science and promulgates a lie that others have done. This lie has been
exposed and Plimer's reputation is now in tatters. Sad, really, because he
is an excellent geologist.His claim is that temperature rises ALWAYS lead
CO2 level rises by 800 years. This claim is pitifully simple to refute, by
examining the proxy data.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor Wilson]

Jeff Liebermann wrote:

On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 09:52:36 -0000, "Arfa Daily"
arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote:

There are also some skeptics with "more than a grade school
education in science" in your country, Trevor. A very interesting
article entitled "Global Warming - Don't Wait up" appeared in a
newspaper here in the UK last week. Written by a chap called Ian
Plimer, a professor of geology at the University of Adelaide.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1231673/Global-warming-Dont-wait-The-Earth-tricks-carbon-count-control.html

Nice. Amazingly sane. The problem is that one can't get any research
funding for expounding the obvious and simple historical logic.

**Bollocks. Plimer is making a fortune from his fictional account. The
fossil fuel industry is very wealthy and pays people to lie. Here is the
example of just how wealthy it is:

http://money.cnn.com/2008/02/01/news/companies/exxon_earnings/


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Geoffrey S. Mendelson]

Arfa Daily wrote:

I don't think I am missing any point, Geoff. You state the obvious, and I
find no fault with that. I was replying specifically to a rather different
point raised by Trevor, where he was implying that anyone with better than a
grade school education, had to be a MMGW believer, and that only
sub-educated people could possibly form any other opinion based on the data
that is put up as a given by the CC evangelists. I was merely pointing out
that one of his own countrymen, who is clearly a well educated and well
balanced scientist, was an advocate of taking a more rational view of the
'facts' with which we are being constantly bombarded ...

Sorry, I was being sarcastic. Forgot the smiley.

Geoff.


--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel gsm@mendelson.com N3OWJ/4X1GM
New word I coined 12/13/09, "Sub-Wikipedia" adj, describing knowledge or
understanding, as in he has a sub-wikipedia understanding of the situation.
i.e possessing less facts or information than can be found in the Wikipedia.

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 06:45:50 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
<trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

**Plimer is a liar and has been in the employ of the fossil fuel industry
(he is a GEOLOGIST, not a climatologist)

The head of the IPCC is an industrial and electrical engineer.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajendra_K._Pachauri>
Out of 2500 members of the IPCC, about 100 are computer scientists,
and another 100 are mathematicians. There are a substantial number of
chemists, geologists, and other diciplines. Many have changed their
titles to something like "environmental physical chemist" or "physical
climatologist".

As for Ian Plimer being a liar, you might want to reflect on the
recent data massage and original data distruction from UEA.

for decades. Plimer ignores the
science and promulgates a lie that others have done. This lie has been
exposed and Plimer's reputation is now in tatters. Sad, really, because he
is an excellent geologist.His claim is that temperature rises ALWAYS lead
CO2 level rises by 800 years. This claim is pitifully simple to refute, by
examining the proxy data.

Which proxy data? Dome C ice core?
<http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/11/650000-years-of-greenhouse-gas-concentrations/>
On a scale of almost a million years, 800 years looks very tiny. I
couldn't say it was one way or the other.

Also see sample proxy temp data graphs at:
<http://climateaudit.org/2007/11/20/loehle-proxies-2/>
I've looked at some of the proxy data and found that I can generate
almost any conclusion I want if I simply cherry pick the data that
fits my conclusion. By conglomerating, rescaling, and "adjusting"
combinations of the data, I can do it even easier.

Here's a sample rebuttle:
"The lag between temperature and CO2. (Gore’s got it right.)"
<http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2/>
Despite the title and ending line in most paragraphs claiming that C02
rise precedes temperature rise, the evidence he presents doesn't seem
to match the conclusions and seems (in my opinion) a rather poor job
of squirming around the evidence. Several paragraphs start with
something like "well the data says that CO2 leads temperature rise,
but that's not true because of....". Of course, all anyone is going
to remember is the title and conclusion, so I guess it doesn't really
matter. Everyone lies, but that's ok because nobody listens.



--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[Trevor Wilson]

Jerry Peters wrote:

Trevor Wilson <trevor@spamblockrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
Jamie wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:

Jamie wrote:

Trevor Wilson wrote:


Jerry Peters wrote:


Trevor Wilson <trevor@spamblockrageaudio.com.au> wrote:


N_Cook wrote:


Arfa Daily <arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:3eoVm.34259$iW.13517@newsfe30.ams2...


"Franc Zabkar" <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> wrote in message
news:sfgbi51etn9223c56m1tegedksnc5r2b8f@4ax.com...


I plan to reduce my own CO2 emissions by not talking about
them. - Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by
email.

I wouldn't worry about it Franc. Judging by the stuff I'm
reading at the moment about the 'massaged' data coming out of
the University of East Anglia, it's not going to have any
genuine effect anyway ...

Arfa




I'm old enough to remember all the scare stories in the press
about the impending ice age coming, after the seas freezing
over around UK coasts.

**I'm old enough to remember that those silly ice age articles
were published in magazines like People, Newsweek and other
populist crap. Science, Nature and Scientific American stuck to
the facts. Those facts, of course, were concerned with the very
serious problem of CO2 being a major influence in global
warming.



Except that *water vapor* is the major "greenhouse" gas.


**Points:

* Water vapour is certainly _the_ major GHG.
* I wrote: CO2 is _a_ major GHG. Note the emphasis.
* Water vapour persists for barely hours in the atmosphere.
* CO2 persists for hundreds of years in the atmosphere.
* CO2 is the second most significant GHG, accounting for between
9% ~ 26% of Solar forcing.
* There is not much we can do about water vapour.
* There is much that can be done to reduce CO2 emissions.



To get their dire predictions the climastrologists assume that
rising CO2 will cause a positive feedback effect with water
vapor.


**It's CLIMATOLOGISTS, moron. Learn to spell it correctly. Learn
a little about the climate of this planet whilst you are at it.
And yes, More CO2 may well lead to most water vapour, thus
exacerbating the effect.

As for Scientific American, read their latest editorial on GW.
It sounds like the ravings of a left-wing loony conspiracy
theorist.


**Except that Scientific American is concerned with, well,
science. Something you clearly have no knowledge of.



BTW, any one ever heard of the University of East Anglia
*before* the emails were leaked? Take a look at the money
they've been pulling in for their climate research.


**So? Are you attempting to link ONE instance where researchers
fucked up, with the thousands of researchers who have not?



I wasn't aware there was a difference?

The old saying goes.

"Birds of a feather flock together"


**So, by your peculiar logic, because George W Bush was deranged,
lying scumbag, religious nutter, we can assume that all US
Presidents are similarly afflicted and, by extension, every US
citizen is the same? Is that your contention?


It seems to be your opinion just like the global warming dilemma.

**What "global warming dilema"? As for my opinions about Americans,
in general, they are, in the main, not too different from people in
my own nation. There's a large number of complete morons, a small
number of intelligent people and a large number somewhere between
the two. The US, however, is unique in that the majority of voters
managed to elect the dumbest religious nutter they could find.
TWICE! That fact does not suggest that the US voting public has much
common-sense.

Actually GWB's grades in college were about the same as Kerry's.

**Points:

* I have no idea who "Kerry" is.
* Dubya has a record of lying and cheating over his entire life.
* Dubya was, when he was President, acting in a manner that conveyed him to
be a moron.
* Dubya was a known drug taker. That may have caused the damage to his brain
during his adult life.

And I

wouldn't call Bush a "religious nutter",

**He _IS_ a religious nutter. That much is on record.

that's betraying *your*

biases.

**Well, no. Anyone who places their faith in the supernatural is a religious
nutter.

The US tends to be more religious than Europe. Speaking of

religious nutters, BTW, how's that large Muslim population working out
for you?

**Perhaps I did not make myself clear: ANYONE who places their faith in the
supernatural, is a religious nutter. Muslim, Jew, Christian or Hindu, it
makes no difference.

Where do you base your information from?

**On what? Global warming? Peer reviewed SCIENCE. On the intellect of
Americans? I judge them on the fact that they placed a complete
moron in the Whitehouse. Twice. I'd have had more respect if the
ficus had won.

Did you actually *read* some of the CRU emails. The ones where they
were discussing how to subvert peer review perhaps?

**I did. Heads need to roll over such corrupt behaviour.

Real scientists would release their data and their methods for review
by others. They don't, other emails discussed how to circumvent FOI
requests. It appears that their "science* cannot stand up to review,
by anyone except the "in crowd".

**Nonsense. The peer-review process may not be perfect. It is, however,
extremely robust and better than any other process we have at present. It is
certainly superior to the process used by the fossil fuel lobby.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au