Global Warming and what you can do to against it

[Trevor Wilson]

Jerry Peters wrote:

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

Wow 9% to 26%,

**Indeed. Why the fossil fuel lobby regards those figures as insignificant
is beyond me.

and these are the people who supposedly can tell me the

temperature to a fraction of a degree for say 1500AD.

**Certainly. The proxy data used is quite reliable.

Did you ever study thermodynamics?

**Indeed.

There's only a certain amount of

energy available for CO2 to absorb, once that amount is absorbed,
there isn't any additional "forcing". Something normally omitted from
the popular press articles.

**Not quite. I suggest you hit the text books again.

Of course there's not much you can do about water vapor, why do you
think they've focussed on CO2.

**Because CO2 is:
* The problem we need to deal with.
* The problem we CAN deal with.
* A very stable molecule (unlike water vapour), which can persist for
hundreds of years in the atmosphere (unlike water vapour).

Even the most idiotic enviro-nut

realizes that they'd be laughed into oblivion by proposing to regulate
water vapor.

**No one is suggesting that we should nor could do so. However, 9% ~ 26% of
Solar forcing is a significant figure.

As for reducing CO2 emmisions, you're dreaming. Not without going back
to a much more primitive lifestyle.

**Complete bullshit. We already have the technology to significantly reduce
CO2 emissions without significantly affecting lifestyle.

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.

No, I prefer climastrologists,

**Now you're just displaying your stupidity. Suit yourself. I'll treat you
accordingly.

it's a much better description of their

scientific abilities. More water vapor may also lead to more clouds
which tend to relect the sun's energy before it's absorbed.

**Now you're displaying more stupidity. Note your use of the term "may".

The point

is, we don't know, an the scientists who should be researching these
things have turned into advocates for one single point of view.

**There's a good reason for that.

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.

Did you read the editorial?

**I rarely read editorials. I am only interested in the science, not
opinions.

It's a vast morass of conspiracy theories.

SA hasn't been about science for at least a decade, it's now about
being politically correct more than about science.

**Prove it.

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?

One instance? Only one instance. My my, you are gullible. Why do you
think the climastrologists don't want to release any of their data and
methodology? Perhaps because most of it is just plain crap?

**Well, no, Mr Moron. The good thing about the whole issue is that
climatologists not only release their data, but they have it subjected to
the usual peer-review processes. That one organisation saw fit to subvert
the process is distressing, but hardly disasterous.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor Wilson]

Jerry Peters wrote:

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

What a shithead you are

**This would be a pot, kettle, black moment, Mr Moron. You have insulted and
demeaned at every opportunity. I suggest you take a long hard look in the
mirror.

, responding with ad-hominum attacks when

someone disagrees with your AGW religion.

**I am responding with facts, you moron.

As for my science education,

I took AP chemistry, calculus & physics in high school and I have a
BSE from a well known engineering school.

**Liar. Your education is clearly lacking. You have no idea of what
constitutes the scientific method. You rely on op-ed pieces rather than real
science.

I don't see science here, I see a religious cult using the trappings
of science to promote their ideas.

**Of course. You would not know real science if it bit you on the arse.

I'd like to see some real peer review of AGW.

**It abounds. I suggest you do some actual reading of scientific literature,
rather than op-ed pieces and popular magazines. Read some SCIENCE, you
idiot.

By scientists other than

the climastrologist in crowd. In particular, I'd like to see some
statisticians review some of the statistical techniques used by Mann
et al.

Again: DID YOU READ THE EMAILS, the ones discussing subverting the
peer review process?

**For the second teim: Yes.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor Wilson]

Jerry Peters wrote:

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

You keep getting it wrong: it's climastrologist not climatologist.

Ad-hominum attacks again I see.

**You see nothing. Plimer has been caught out lying.

If you're not an AGW True Believer,

you must be in the employ of the oil or coal industry.

**Not quite. There are two more alternatives:

* You could be a scientific illiterate.
* You could be a religious moron.

No wonder you

still think that Scientific American is about science.

You mean the *corrected* proxy data?

**The proxy data is the proxy data.

As Dr. Pournelle said "If you can

make up the data you can prove nearly anything".

**Indeed. Fortunately, there have been teams around the world that have
produced very similar results. Denying the proxy data is no different to a
religious nutter denying the fact of evolution. Science has seen it all
before. Religious nutters, scientific illiterates and those with a financial
interest in the status quo will distort the facts wherever possible. In the
case of the fossil fuel industry, they are EXTREMELY well funded and
committed to muddying the waters. Morons like you, who have little
scientific training, are gullible enough to suck up the lies.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Jerry Peters]

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

Wow 9% to 26%, and these are the people who supposedly can tell me the
temperature to a fraction of a degree for say 1500AD.

Did you ever study thermodynamics? There's only a certain amount of
energy available for CO2 to absorb, once that amount is absorbed,
there isn't any additional "forcing". Something normally omitted from
the popular press articles.

Of course there's not much you can do about water vapor, why do you
think they've focussed on CO2. Even the most idiotic enviro-nut
realizes that they'd be laughed into oblivion by proposing to regulate
water vapor.

As for reducing CO2 emmisions, you're dreaming. Not without going back
to a much more primitive lifestyle.

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.

No, I prefer climastrologists, it's a much better description of their
scientific abilities. More water vapor may also lead to more clouds
which tend to relect the sun's energy before it's absorbed. The point
is, we don't know, an the scientists who should be researching these
things have turned into advocates for one single point of view.

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.

Did you read the editorial? It's a vast morass of conspiracy theories.
SA hasn't been about science for at least a decade, it's now about
being politically correct more than about science.

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?

One instance? Only one instance. My my, you are gullible. Why do you
think the climastrologists don't want to release any of their data and
methodology? Perhaps because most of it is just plain crap?

Jerry

 

[Jerry Peters]

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. And I
wouldn't call Bush a "religious nutter", that's betraying *your*
biases. The US tends to be more religious than Europe. Speaking of
religious nutters, BTW, how's that large Muslim population working out
for you?

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?
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".

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.

 

[Jerry Peters]

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

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.

What a shithead you are, responding with ad-hominum attacks when
someone disagrees with your AGW religion. As for my science education,
I took AP chemistry, calculus & physics in high school and I have a
BSE from a well known engineering school.
I don't see science here, I see a religious cult using the trappings
of science to promote their ideas.
I'd like to see some real peer review of AGW. By scientists other than
the climastrologist in crowd. In particular, I'd like to see some
statisticians review some of the statistical techniques used by Mann et
al.

Again: DID YOU READ THE EMAILS, the ones discussing subverting the
peer review process?

 

[Jerry Peters]

Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote:

"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)

You mean "watermelons": green on the outside, red on the inside?

Jerry

 

[Jerry Peters]

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

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.

You keep getting it wrong: it's climastrologist not climatologist.

Ad-hominum attacks again I see. If you're not an AGW True Believer,
you must be in the employ of the oil or coal industry. No wonder you
still think that Scientific American is about science.

You mean the *corrected* proxy data? As Dr. Pournelle said "If you can
make up the data you can prove nearly anything".

 

[Jerry Peters]

Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote:

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.

Followed by the politicians and now the financial houses which see
huge profits in being the middlemen in cap and trade.

 

On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 06:49:27 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
<trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

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/

And where are these supposed climate change scientists getting their
money? It is from government or other institutional grants and they
just have to keep those grants coming in or else they lose their worth
to the universities they work for.

 

[Trevor Wilson]

jfma@ix.netcom.com wrote:

On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 06:49:27 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

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/


And where are these supposed climate change scientists getting their
money?

**They're scientists. They're paid by them employers. Like the scientists at
the EPA, NASA and other places in the US, during the reign of your previous,
moronic President Dubya. Although they were paid by an administration with
clear links to the fossil fuel industry and a global warming denying
President with obvious signs of brain damage, those same scientists
consistently reported the truth. It's what scientists are paid to do - tell
the truth.

It is from government or other institutional grants and they

just have to keep those grants coming in or else they lose their worth
to the universities they work for.

**Like the scientists working for your previous, global warming denying,
brain damaged President. Scientists are paid to tell the truth. Guys like
Plimer are paid by the fossil fuel industry to lie. Same as Lindzen and
others.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 21:37:20 +0000 (UTC), Jerry Peters
<jerry@example.invalid> wrote:

I'd like to see some real peer review of AGW. By scientists other than
the climastrologist in crowd.

Those doing peer reviews are not suppose to be disclosed to the author
or general public. They're all anonymous. In the few cases where
I've been involved (not with the IPCC), a paper is submitted to a
large number of potential reviewers. For the IPCC, it's about 350
individuals that have signed up. Of those, none have the time to
comment in detail on every paper that is awaiting review. About 50
reviews are usually submitted of which about 10 are sometimes deemed
to be ummm... biased. Eventually, the reviews are submitted to the
author so that he can modify his report to be more closely aligned
with the orthodoxy, or it doesn't get accepted by the IPCC. I
couldn't find any info on the exact number of editors that make the
final determination.
<http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/press_releases/McLean_IPCC_press_release_9-10-07.pdf>

I once dug into what it takes to become a member of the IPCC. I can't
find the reference, but as I recall, it was fairly minimal. Time and
willingness to participate was the major requirement.

In particular, I'd like to see some
statisticians review some of the statistical techniques used by Mann et
al.

Some of the members of the IPCC don't particularly like Mann:
<http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100018173/climategate-sack-no-longer-credible-michael-mann-from-ipcc-urges-climatologist/>
Here's a video interview with Michael Mann on the topic of the recent
email mess.
<http://www.accuweather.com/video-on-demand.asp?video=28984389001>
Draw your own conclusions.

Loehle did some work pounding out the inconsistencies and missing
events in the proxy temperature data. See:
<http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/AGW/Loehle/>
His statistics and math were carefully reviewed by J. Huston
McCulloch:
<http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/AGW/Loehle/SupplementaryInfo.pdf>
He found some oddities, which were immediately corrected by the
author:
<http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/AGW/Loehle/Loehle_McC_E&E_2008.pdf>
This is the way such reports should be handled, but usually we just
see the summaries and conclusions.


--
# 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]

**Well, no, Mr Moron. The good thing about the whole issue is that
climatologists not only release their data, but they have it subjected to
the usual peer-review processes. That one organisation saw fit to subvert
the process is distressing, but hardly disasterous.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

But that "one organisation" is the central driving force and advisory body
for the whole bloody world-wide debate. I think that the fact that they have
tried to pervert some data and suppress other, is a little more than
"distressing", and definitely potentially disasterous. The peer review
process that you seem to find so robust, clearly isn't, otherwise these
anomalies would have been picked up. If the bulk of that review body has
become evangelical about the subject, then what they are doing is merely
rubber stamping the papers that their chums put out. When any of their peers
dares to venture a contrary opinion, they are publicly lambasted and
derided, and called all sorts of offensive names such as "denier", or
"flat-earther". Hardly a fair peer review system, I would venture to
suggest. There is a huge body of contrary evidence out there, which is
currently being ignored or shouted down. The condition of global warming is
very real. It has happened before at many points in history, and can be seen
clearly in the data, as I understand it. As to whether that condition is
being caused, driven, or even affected by man's activities is still, in my
opinion, far from proven, and certainly nowhere near as much as the
vociferous community behind the 'science' would have everyone believe. But,
unlike the MMGW brigade, that doesn't mean that I have closed my mind to
everything that doesn't seem to agree with that standpoint. I am open to
persuasion, as all sensible people should be, but the facts and theories
must be laid before me in a 'level playing field' and unbiased way, in order
for me to properly evaluate them, and incorporate them into my overall
understanding of the subject.

I'm not a climate specialist, but I have eyes in my head, and a reasonably
good brain, and above all, 55 years of experience in listening to bullshit,
and boy, is all of this ringing the bullshit warning bells. I actually find
it worrying that grown adults can be swept along quite so easily. As for GWB
being a "religious nutter", I think it is worth stopping to consider what a
'religion' is. Look at some of the dictionary definitions for the word, and
you will find that the MM global warming brigade tick the boxes pretty much
to perfection, so are they all religious nutters as well ? It's easy to
deride GWB for his standpoint on all of this, and maybe he is a nutter, and
maybe he was wrong, but from where I'm looking at it, he was merely showing
a degree of healthy skepticism on the subject, and looking after the
interests of his citizens, unlike what's happening here in Europe and the
UK, where we are being forced to accept crap light bulbs, and ridiculous
windmills all over our once lovely countryside, and are actually teaching
this unproven 'science' to our kids in school like it's proper text-book
fact, all in the name of "reducing carbon footprint".

And how silly are all these evocative terms that are being used, as well ? I
actually hate it. It's getting so that every news broadcast on the TV, is
just a litany of these trite phrases and words. As someone else said, it
really is getting so that everything that happens, is being attributed to
global warming.

Oh, and "heretic" is another word regularly used by the MMCC evangelists to
describe those with a different opinion. That has pretty religious
connotations, wouldn't you say ... ?

Arfa

 

[Arfa Daily]

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:7oq7iqF3p6aduU1@mid.individual.net...

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

You see, that's just what I mean. Because the guy has what appears to be a
well reasoned and contrary standpoint, he is to be derided and his motives
questioned. Frankly, I'm a little surprised at you Trevor. Over all the
years I've 'known' you on Usenet, despite the odd outburst, of which we've
all been guilty, I'd always felt that you were a rational and helpful person
??

Arfa

 

[b]

On 16 dic, 11:12, "Arfa Daily" <arfa.da...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
? It's easy to

deride GWB for his standpoint on all of this, and maybe he is a nutter, and
maybe he was wrong, but from where I'm looking at it, he was merely showing
a degree of healthy skepticism on the subject, and looking after the
interests of his citizens,

......or those of the corporate lobbies which put him in power..
http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=1656

oil and gas companies gave $15.8 million, wonder whose interests
Bushie was defending :-/

sorry, going a bit OT there!

 

[Trevor Wilson]

"Jerry Peters" <jerry@example.invalid> wrote in message
news:hgbhra$jqm$1@news.eternal-september.org...

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

Wow 9% to 26%,

**Indeed. Why the fossil fuel lobby regards those figures as
insignificant
is beyond me.

and these are the people who supposedly can tell me the
temperature to a fraction of a degree for say 1500AD.

**Certainly. The proxy data used is quite reliable.

You really are dreaming, aren't you?

**No.

A fraction of a degree?

**Yes.

From tree

rings?

**_I_ did not mention tree rings. YOU did. There are other, far more
reliable and accurate proxies in use.

Did you ever study thermodynamics?

**Indeed.

There's only a certain amount of
energy available for CO2 to absorb, once that amount is absorbed,
there isn't any additional "forcing". Something normally omitted from
the popular press articles.

**Not quite. I suggest you hit the text books again.

Oh, now we're creating energy through ordinary non-nuclear processes?

**Strawman. Hit those books today.

Of course there's not much you can do about water vapor, why do you
think they've focussed on CO2.

**Because CO2 is:
* The problem we need to deal with.
* The problem we CAN deal with.
* A very stable molecule (unlike water vapour), which can persist for
hundreds of years in the atmosphere (unlike water vapour).

Except that water vapor is *constantly* being added to the
atmosphere in huge quantities. Much larger quantities than CO2.

**So? You appear to lack the knowledge that CO2 is a VASTLY more potent GHG
than water vapour, per unit and last thousands of time longer in the
atmosphere.

Even the most idiotic enviro-nut
realizes that they'd be laughed into oblivion by proposing to regulate
water vapor.

**No one is suggesting that we should nor could do so. However, 9% ~ 26%
of
Solar forcing is a significant figure.

No because *again* they'd be laughed at hysterically by everyone. So
they pick on CO2.

**They "pick on" CO2 because it is the problem we need to deal with.

As for reducing CO2 emmisions, you're dreaming. Not without going back
to a much more primitive lifestyle.

**Complete bullshit. We already have the technology to significantly
reduce
CO2 emissions without significantly affecting lifestyle.

Prove it!

**Here are a handful of technologies and techniques that can be used to
significantly reduce the amount of CO2 being generated, without
significantly affecting our quality of living:

* Nuclear power
* Geo-thermal power.
* Solar thermal power
* PV power
* Wind power
* Tidal power
* Improvement of efficiencies of:
Automobiles
Heating/cooling systems
* Public transport system
* Walk more
* Cycle more
* Etc.


Windmills, solar power, all very nice, except what do you do

when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing?

**Points:

* Thermal Solar power addresses the issue of lack of Sunshine
* Solar power is being generated at the times of maximum power consumption.
* The wind is blowing at some time, somewhere on the planet.
* No one ever suggested that Solar and wind were the only solutions. In
areas like Australia, Solar makes a great deal of sense, but for Northern
Europe, it may not be a good solution. In fact, it has been calculated that
an area the size of NSW could supply the entire planet's power requirements
(from ALL sources), via PV cells at the present rate of consumption.
Practical? No. Possible? Certainly. It illustrates the point that there are
other ways.

You seem to be under the delusion that wind and PV cells are the only forms
of energy that do not emit CO2. You are, of course, wrong. There are a raft
of different technologies available. For Australia, for instance, we have
sufficient EASILY tappable reserves of geo-thermal energy to satisfy our
base load power requirements for many thousands of years. We have immense
Solar capacity. Sufficient to supply the entire planet, several times over,
at the present rate of consumption, for the next 4 billion years or so.

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.

No, I prefer climastrologists,

**Now you're just displaying your stupidity. Suit yourself. I'll treat
you
accordingly.

Given that they're using statistical models to predict the future that
have neither been tested nor validated I believe thay have much more
in common with astrologists that scientists. BTW, another science that
also uses models is economics; note how accurate the economists'
predictions have been recently.

**Economics is not a science. It is far more closely aligned with psychology
(yes, I have studied economics too).

it's a much better description of their
scientific abilities. More water vapor may also lead to more clouds
which tend to relect the sun's energy before it's absorbed.

**Now you're displaying more stupidity. Note your use of the term "may".

The point
is, we don't know, an the scientists who should be researching these
things have turned into advocates for one single point of view.

**There's a good reason for that.

No there's not, not if they expect reasonable people to believe them.

**The reason is that all the alternate points of view have been examined.

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.

Did you read the editorial?

**I rarely read editorials. I am only interested in the science, not
opinions.

It's a vast morass of conspiracy theories.
SA hasn't been about science for at least a decade, it's now about
being politically correct more than about science.

**Prove it.

Go read it.

**Lack of proof duly noted. Claim rejected.

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?

One instance? Only one instance. My my, you are gullible. Why do you
think the climastrologists don't want to release any of their data and
methodology? Perhaps because most of it is just plain crap?

**Well, no, Mr Moron. The good thing about the whole issue is that
climatologists not only release their data, but they have it subjected to
the usual peer-review processes. That one organisation saw fit to subvert
the process is distressing, but hardly disasterous.

*One* organization. I'd suggest you remove your head from that warm,
moist, noisome place you obviously keep it, clean the brown stuff
from up your nose and smell the coffee.

**And I suggest that you learn some science.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Jerry Peters]

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

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

Wow 9% to 26%,

**Indeed. Why the fossil fuel lobby regards those figures as insignificant
is beyond me.

and these are the people who supposedly can tell me the
temperature to a fraction of a degree for say 1500AD.

**Certainly. The proxy data used is quite reliable.

You really are dreaming, aren't you? A fraction of a degree? From tree
rings?

Did you ever study thermodynamics?

**Indeed.

There's only a certain amount of
energy available for CO2 to absorb, once that amount is absorbed,
there isn't any additional "forcing". Something normally omitted from
the popular press articles.

**Not quite. I suggest you hit the text books again.

Oh, now we're creating energy through ordinary non-nuclear processes?

Of course there's not much you can do about water vapor, why do you
think they've focussed on CO2.

**Because CO2 is:
* The problem we need to deal with.
* The problem we CAN deal with.
* A very stable molecule (unlike water vapour), which can persist for
hundreds of years in the atmosphere (unlike water vapour).

Except that water vapor is *constantly* being added to the
atmosphere in huge quantities. Much larger quantities than CO2.

Even the most idiotic enviro-nut
realizes that they'd be laughed into oblivion by proposing to regulate
water vapor.

**No one is suggesting that we should nor could do so. However, 9% ~ 26% of
Solar forcing is a significant figure.

No because *again* they'd be laughed at hysterically by everyone. So
they pick on CO2.

As for reducing CO2 emmisions, you're dreaming. Not without going back
to a much more primitive lifestyle.

**Complete bullshit. We already have the technology to significantly reduce
CO2 emissions without significantly affecting lifestyle.

Prove it! Windmills, solar power, all very nice, except what do you do
when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing?

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.

No, I prefer climastrologists,

**Now you're just displaying your stupidity. Suit yourself. I'll treat you
accordingly.

Given that they're using statistical models to predict the future that
have neither been tested nor validated I believe thay have much more
in common with astrologists that scientists. BTW, another science that
also uses models is economics; note how accurate the economists'
predictions have been recently.

it's a much better description of their
scientific abilities. More water vapor may also lead to more clouds
which tend to relect the sun's energy before it's absorbed.

**Now you're displaying more stupidity. Note your use of the term "may".

The point
is, we don't know, an the scientists who should be researching these
things have turned into advocates for one single point of view.

**There's a good reason for that.

No there's not, not if they expect reasonable people to believe them.

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.

Did you read the editorial?

**I rarely read editorials. I am only interested in the science, not
opinions.

It's a vast morass of conspiracy theories.
SA hasn't been about science for at least a decade, it's now about
being politically correct more than about science.

**Prove it.

Go read it.

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?

One instance? Only one instance. My my, you are gullible. Why do you
think the climastrologists don't want to release any of their data and
methodology? Perhaps because most of it is just plain crap?

**Well, no, Mr Moron. The good thing about the whole issue is that
climatologists not only release their data, but they have it subjected to
the usual peer-review processes. That one organisation saw fit to subvert
the process is distressing, but hardly disasterous.

*One* organization. I'd suggest you remove your head from that warm,
moist, noisome place you obviously keep it, clean the brown stuff
from up your nose and smell the coffee.

 

[Jerry Peters]

Arfa Daily <arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote:

**Well, no, Mr Moron. The good thing about the whole issue is that
climatologists not only release their data, but they have it subjected to
the usual peer-review processes. That one organisation saw fit to subvert
the process is distressing, but hardly disasterous.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



But that "one organisation" is the central driving force and advisory body
for the whole bloody world-wide debate. I think that the fact that they have
tried to pervert some data and suppress other, is a little more than
"distressing", and definitely potentially disasterous. The peer review
process that you seem to find so robust, clearly isn't, otherwise these
anomalies would have been picked up. If the bulk of that review body has
become evangelical about the subject, then what they are doing is merely
rubber stamping the papers that their chums put out. When any of their peers
dares to venture a contrary opinion, they are publicly lambasted and
derided, and called all sorts of offensive names such as "denier", or
"flat-earther". Hardly a fair peer review system, I would venture to
suggest. There is a huge body of contrary evidence out there, which is
currently being ignored or shouted down. The condition of global warming is
very real. It has happened before at many points in history, and can be seen
clearly in the data, as I understand it. As to whether that condition is
being caused, driven, or even affected by man's activities is still, in my
opinion, far from proven, and certainly nowhere near as much as the
vociferous community behind the 'science' would have everyone believe. But,
unlike the MMGW brigade, that doesn't mean that I have closed my mind to
everything that doesn't seem to agree with that standpoint. I am open to
persuasion, as all sensible people should be, but the facts and theories
must be laid before me in a 'level playing field' and unbiased way, in order
for me to properly evaluate them, and incorporate them into my overall
understanding of the subject.

I'm not a climate specialist, but I have eyes in my head, and a reasonably
good brain, and above all, 55 years of experience in listening to bullshit,
and boy, is all of this ringing the bullshit warning bells. I actually find
it worrying that grown adults can be swept along quite so easily. As for GWB
being a "religious nutter", I think it is worth stopping to consider what a
'religion' is. Look at some of the dictionary definitions for the word, and
you will find that the MM global warming brigade tick the boxes pretty much
to perfection, so are they all religious nutters as well ? It's easy to
deride GWB for his standpoint on all of this, and maybe he is a nutter, and
maybe he was wrong, but from where I'm looking at it, he was merely showing
a degree of healthy skepticism on the subject, and looking after the
interests of his citizens, unlike what's happening here in Europe and the
UK, where we are being forced to accept crap light bulbs, and ridiculous
windmills all over our once lovely countryside, and are actually teaching
this unproven 'science' to our kids in school like it's proper text-book
fact, all in the name of "reducing carbon footprint".

And how silly are all these evocative terms that are being used, as well ? I
actually hate it. It's getting so that every news broadcast on the TV, is
just a litany of these trite phrases and words. As someone else said, it
really is getting so that everything that happens, is being attributed to
global warming.

Oh, and "heretic" is another word regularly used by the MMCC evangelists to
describe those with a different opinion. That has pretty religious
connotations, wouldn't you say ... ?

Arfa

Very well said Arfa. Here's a speech given by the renowned physicist
Richard Feynman on how science *should* be practiced. Notice how many
of his points are routinely ignored by the climate "scientists".

http://www.lhup.edu/~DSIMANEK/cargocul.htm

It's a bit long, but very apropos.

Jerry

 

[Jerry Peters]

b <reverend_rogers@yahoo.com> wrote:

On 16 dic, 11:12, "Arfa Daily" <arfa.da...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
? It's easy to
deride GWB for his standpoint on all of this, and maybe he is a nutter, and
maybe he was wrong, but from where I'm looking at it, he was merely showing
a degree of healthy skepticism on the subject, and looking after the
interests of his citizens,

.....or those of the corporate lobbies which put him in power..
http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=1656

oil and gas companies gave $15.8 million, wonder whose interests
Bushie was defending :-/

sorry, going a bit OT there!

IIRC the CRU at the University of East Anglia has raked in 23 million,
I wonder whose interests they're looking out for.

See it cuts both ways. Then there are all of the "non-profit"
environmental organizations; they've been raking in the money via
contributions too.

Jerry

 

[Jerry Peters]

jfma@ix.netcom.com wrote:

On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 06:49:27 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

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/


And where are these supposed climate change scientists getting their
money? It is from government or other institutional grants and they
just have to keep those grants coming in or else they lose their worth
to the universities they work for.

Some of the "stolen" emails included just how much money they've been
taking in.