Global warming?

John Larkin wrote:

On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 05:58:42 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell_at_earthlink.net> wrote:


No damn way!

It's 21 degrees in Ocala right now and expected to get colder. They are
forecasting some snow, and this may become one of the longest cold
spells on record with another cold front headed this way.

It's all about money:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7176262/Climate-makes-money-move-in-mysterious-ways.html

John




There's one born every minute: A gullible fool who believes whatever
the media tells them. They never catch on to a scam, till it's way too
late. Then they scream about being hoodwinked. What really gets me are
the supposedly intelligent people on the science newsgroups, who fell
for AGW. :(

On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 05:58:42 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell_at_earthlink.net> wrote:


No damn way!

It's 21 degrees in Ocala right now and expected to get colder. They are
forecasting some snow, and this may become one of the longest cold
spells on record with another cold front headed this way.

It's all about money:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7176262/Climate-makes-money-move-in-mysterious-ways.html

John

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell_at_earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:4B6DF67D.DAD67DB2_at_earthlink.net...

John Larkin wrote:

On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 05:58:42 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell_at_earthlink.net> wrote:


No damn way!

It's 21 degrees in Ocala right now and expected to get colder. They are
forecasting some snow, and this may become one of the longest cold
spells on record with another cold front headed this way.

It's all about money:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7176262/Climate-makes-money-move-in-mysterious-ways.html

John




There's one born every minute: A gullible fool who believes whatever
the media tells them. They never catch on to a scam, till it's way too
late. Then they scream about being hoodwinked. What really gets me are
the supposedly intelligent people on the science newsgroups, who fell
for AGW. :(


Ah, it is good that iconoclasts like you are around to help us poor saps
out!

So, what is your evidence that global warming doesn't exist? Do you done any
research to back this up? If you have evidence, it would be great to pass it
along to the rest of the world so they don't start interpreting those
melting glaciers and polar caps as the start of a worldwide catastrophe.

Thanks in advance!

Regards,
Bob Monsen

PS: http://www.newsweek.com/id/32482

On Sat, 6 Feb 2010 16:27:56 -0800, "Bob Monsen" <rcmonsen_at_gmail.com
wrote:



"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell_at_earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:4B6DF67D.DAD67DB2_at_earthlink.net...

John Larkin wrote:

On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 05:58:42 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell_at_earthlink.net> wrote:


No damn way!

It's 21 degrees in Ocala right now and expected to get colder. They
are
forecasting some snow, and this may become one of the longest cold
spells on record with another cold front headed this way.

It's all about money:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7176262/Climate-makes-money-move-in-mysterious-ways.html

John




There's one born every minute: A gullible fool who believes whatever
the media tells them. They never catch on to a scam, till it's way too
late. Then they scream about being hoodwinked. What really gets me are
the supposedly intelligent people on the science newsgroups, who fell
for AGW. :(


Ah, it is good that iconoclasts like you are around to help us poor saps
out!

So, what is your evidence that global warming doesn't exist? Do you done
any
research to back this up? If you have evidence, it would be great to pass
it
along to the rest of the world so they don't start interpreting those
melting glaciers and polar caps as the start of a worldwide catastrophe.

Thanks in advance!

Regards,
Bob Monsen

PS: http://www.newsweek.com/id/32482


The IPCC has been caught telling lies about so much that it is
difficult to know where to start.

And so many of their vaunted "peer reviewed" reports have been
unreviewed WWF and Greenpeace polemic that little the IPCC say can be
trusted.

They have lied about glacier melt.

They have lied about hurricanes.

And today's revealtion is they have lied about Africa

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7017907.ece

/quote

he most important is a claim that global warming could cut rain-fed
north African crop production by up to 50% by 2020, a remarkably short
time for such a dramatic change. The claim has been quoted in speeches
by Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman, and by Ban Ki-moon, the UN
secretary-general.

This weekend Professor Chris Field, the new lead author of the IPCC's
climate impacts team, told The Sunday Times that he could find nothing
in the report to support the claim. The revelation follows the IPCC's
retraction of a claim that the Himalayan glaciers might all melt by
2035.

The African claims could be even more embarrassing for the IPCC
because they appear not only in its report on climate change impacts
but, unlike the glaciers claim, are also repeated in its Synthesis
Report.

/end quote

Not to mention that the chairman of the IPCC is as bent as a nine bob
note. And a lot of the media are no better:

For example BBC biias explained.

http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/156703

/quote

The £8billion pension fund is likely to come under close scrutiny over
its commitment to promote a low-carbon economy while struggling to
reverse an estimated £2billion deficit.

/end quote

"Raveninghorde" <raveninghorde_at_invalid> wrote in message
news:ukbtm59c0arjnffm5221g9nuq0itnq8bmd_at_4ax.com...
On Sat, 6 Feb 2010 16:27:56 -0800, "Bob Monsen" <rcmonsen_at_gmail.com
wrote:



"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell_at_earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:4B6DF67D.DAD67DB2_at_earthlink.net...

John Larkin wrote:

On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 05:58:42 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell_at_earthlink.net> wrote:


No damn way!

It's 21 degrees in Ocala right now and expected to get colder. They
are
forecasting some snow, and this may become one of the longest cold
spells on record with another cold front headed this way.

It's all about money:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7176262/Climate-makes-money-move-in-mysterious-ways.html

John




There's one born every minute: A gullible fool who believes whatever
the media tells them. They never catch on to a scam, till it's way too
late. Then they scream about being hoodwinked. What really gets me are
the supposedly intelligent people on the science newsgroups, who fell
for AGW. :(


Ah, it is good that iconoclasts like you are around to help us poor saps
out!

So, what is your evidence that global warming doesn't exist? Do you done
any
research to back this up? If you have evidence, it would be great to pass
it
along to the rest of the world so they don't start interpreting those
melting glaciers and polar caps as the start of a worldwide catastrophe.

Thanks in advance!

Regards,
Bob Monsen

PS: http://www.newsweek.com/id/32482


The IPCC has been caught telling lies about so much that it is
difficult to know where to start.

And so many of their vaunted "peer reviewed" reports have been
unreviewed WWF and Greenpeace polemic that little the IPCC say can be
trusted.

They have lied about glacier melt.

They have lied about hurricanes.

And today's revealtion is they have lied about Africa

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7017907.ece

/quote

he most important is a claim that global warming could cut rain-fed
north African crop production by up to 50% by 2020, a remarkably short
time for such a dramatic change. The claim has been quoted in speeches
by Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman, and by Ban Ki-moon, the UN
secretary-general.

This weekend Professor Chris Field, the new lead author of the IPCC's
climate impacts team, told The Sunday Times that he could find nothing
in the report to support the claim. The revelation follows the IPCC's
retraction of a claim that the Himalayan glaciers might all melt by
2035.

The African claims could be even more embarrassing for the IPCC
because they appear not only in its report on climate change impacts
but, unlike the glaciers claim, are also repeated in its Synthesis
Report.

/end quote

Not to mention that the chairman of the IPCC is as bent as a nine bob
note. And a lot of the media are no better:

For example BBC biias explained.

http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/156703

/quote

The £8billion pension fund is likely to come under close scrutiny over
its commitment to promote a low-carbon economy while struggling to
reverse an estimated £2billion deficit.

/end quote

None of this is evidence against global warming. It is an attack on a
particular study. The attack may be valid, but it doesn't imply anything
about any of the hundreds of other studies that have been published to date.

Having just read 'Peddling Prosperity' by Krugman, I'm currently sensitized
to the problem of policy being driven by idiots (supply siders on the right
and 'strategic traders' on the left). However, I don't think that is
happening here. There appears to be a broad consensus amongst climate
scientists. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_consensus, which
mentions that 97% of a set of polled, publishing scientists in the field
believe that it is occurring, and that it is being caused by human activity.
Could they all really be wrong?

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_consensus, which
mentions that 97% of a set of polled, publishing scientists in the field
believe that it is occurring, and that it is being caused by human activity.
Could they all really be wrong?

So, if you have any real evidence against global warming, or an alternate
theory that fits the evidence, please post it.

Having just read 'Peddling Prosperity' by Krugman, I'm currently sensitized
to the problem of policy being driven by idiots (supply siders on the right
and 'strategic traders' on the left). However, I don't think that is
happening here. There appears to be a broad consensus amongst climate
scientists. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_consensus, which
mentions that 97% of a set of polled, publishing scientists in the field
believe that it is occurring, and that it is being caused by human activity.

Could they all really be wrong? I know the history of science is full of
situations where most scientists believed something that was shown to be
false (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether). However, unless
you are willing to just chuck science and base policy on faith, you need to
at least give them the benefit of the doubt, or come up with an alternate
theory that fits the facts as well.

So, if you have any real evidence against global warming, or an alternate
theory that fits the evidence, please post it.

Regards,
Bob Monsen

On Sun, 7 Feb 2010 20:09:54 -0800, "Bob Monsen" <rcmonsen_at_gmail.com
wrote:


Having just read 'Peddling Prosperity' by Krugman, I'm currently
sensitized
to the problem of policy being driven by idiots (supply siders on the
right
and 'strategic traders' on the left). However, I don't think that is
happening here. There appears to be a broad consensus amongst climate
scientists. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_consensus,
which
mentions that 97% of a set of polled, publishing scientists in the field
believe that it is occurring, and that it is being caused by human
activity.

But from the CRU leaked emails we know that every effort was made to
block publication of non alarmist views. Since the alarmists
controlled publication then a poll of publihing scientists is
unrelaible to say the least.

Could they all really be wrong? I know the history of science is full of
situations where most scientists believed something that was shown to be
false (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether). However, unless
you are willing to just chuck science and base policy on faith, you need
to
at least give them the benefit of the doubt, or come up with an alternate
theory that fits the facts as well.

So, if you have any real evidence against global warming, or an alternate
theory that fits the evidence, please post it.

Regards,
Bob Monsen

Climate has always changed. The Sahara used to be pasture land for
example.

The onus is on the alarmists to explain pre-industrial climate change.
Once that is nailed then we can look at the residual of current change
not explained already.

What caused the MWP? The LIA? The Roman climate optimum?

Since you like wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum

/quote

Of 140 sites across the western Arctic, there is clear evidence for
warmer-than-present conditions at 120 sites.

/end quote

"Raveninghorde" <raveninghorde_at_invalid> wrote in message
news:a2d0n5pi39e3tb4pm0smtq8i7hehgeg1u7_at_4ax.com...
On Sun, 7 Feb 2010 20:09:54 -0800, "Bob Monsen" <rcmonsen_at_gmail.com
wrote:


Having just read 'Peddling Prosperity' by Krugman, I'm currently
sensitized
to the problem of policy being driven by idiots (supply siders on the
right
and 'strategic traders' on the left). However, I don't think that is
happening here. There appears to be a broad consensus amongst climate
scientists. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_consensus,
which
mentions that 97% of a set of polled, publishing scientists in the field
believe that it is occurring, and that it is being caused by human
activity.

But from the CRU leaked emails we know that every effort was made to
block publication of non alarmist views. Since the alarmists
controlled publication then a poll of publihing scientists is
unrelaible to say the least.


Ah, so it is a conspiracy theory. Interesting. I thought it was based on
something more substantive.

Do you have any idea how many journals there are? Do you know how most
journal articles are refereed? Saying there is a global conspiracy about
this is like saying that Jews run the world. How do they do it? :)

Larken mentioned that they could all be using the same fudged data set. I
guess that could be true, but how likely is it? I'll agree that it is more
likely that somebody will get funding if they are not a crank. However,
tenured professors like to be iconoclasts, and harbor grudges. Seems like
they could use that to expose a conspiracy of this scale. So, why isn't that
happening on a much larger scale?

Could they all really be wrong? I know the history of science is full of
situations where most scientists believed something that was shown to be
false (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether). However, unless
you are willing to just chuck science and base policy on faith, you need
to
at least give them the benefit of the doubt, or come up with an alternate
theory that fits the facts as well.

So, if you have any real evidence against global warming, or an alternate
theory that fits the evidence, please post it.

Regards,
Bob Monsen

Climate has always changed. The Sahara used to be pasture land for
example.

The onus is on the alarmists to explain pre-industrial climate change.
Once that is nailed then we can look at the residual of current change
not explained already.

What caused the MWP? The LIA? The Roman climate optimum?

Since you like wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum

/quote

Of 140 sites across the western Arctic, there is clear evidence for
warmer-than-present conditions at 120 sites.

/end quote

Well, it is clear that we are in a very cold spell, geologically. On the
other hand, the earth was covered in ice for a while:
http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/1998/09.17/EarthWasComplet.html. So,
technically, the entire earth has been subject to global warming since
then... ;)

Being an iconoclast is often useful and fun, but taking it to extremes makes
you a crank.

"Raveninghorde" <raveninghorde_at_invalid> wrote in message
news:a2d0n5pi39e3tb4pm0smtq8i7hehgeg1u7_at_4ax.com...
On Sun, 7 Feb 2010 20:09:54 -0800, "Bob Monsen" <rcmonsen_at_gmail.com
wrote:


Having just read 'Peddling Prosperity' by Krugman, I'm currently
sensitized
to the problem of policy being driven by idiots (supply siders on the
right
and 'strategic traders' on the left). However, I don't think that is
happening here. There appears to be a broad consensus amongst climate
scientists. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_consensus,
which
mentions that 97% of a set of polled, publishing scientists in the field
believe that it is occurring, and that it is being caused by human
activity.

But from the CRU leaked emails we know that every effort was made to
block publication of non alarmist views. Since the alarmists
controlled publication then a poll of publihing scientists is
unrelaible to say the least.


Ah, so it is a conspiracy theory. Interesting. I thought it was based on
something more substantive.

Do you have any idea how many journals there are? Do you know how most
journal articles are refereed? Saying there is a global conspiracy about
this is like saying that Jews run the world. How do they do it? :)

Larken mentioned that they could all be using the same fudged data set. I
guess that could be true, but how likely is it? I'll agree that it is more
likely that somebody will get funding if they are not a crank. However,
tenured professors like to be iconoclasts, and harbor grudges. Seems like
they could use that to expose a conspiracy of this scale. So, why isn't that
happening on a much larger scale?

Could they all really be wrong? I know the history of science is full of
situations where most scientists believed something that was shown to be
false (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether). However, unless
you are willing to just chuck science and base policy on faith, you need
to
at least give them the benefit of the doubt, or come up with an alternate
theory that fits the facts as well.

So, if you have any real evidence against global warming, or an alternate
theory that fits the evidence, please post it.

Regards,
Bob Monsen

Climate has always changed. The Sahara used to be pasture land for
example.

The onus is on the alarmists to explain pre-industrial climate change.
Once that is nailed then we can look at the residual of current change
not explained already.

What caused the MWP? The LIA? The Roman climate optimum?

Since you like wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum

/quote

Of 140 sites across the western Arctic, there is clear evidence for
warmer-than-present conditions at 120 sites.

/end quote

Well, it is clear that we are in a very cold spell, geologically. On the
other hand, the earth was covered in ice for a while:
http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/1998/09.17/EarthWasComplet.html. So,
technically, the entire earth has been subject to global warming since
then... ;)

Being an iconoclast is often useful and fun, but taking it to extremes makes
you a crank.

Regards,
Bob Monsen

On Sun, 7 Feb 2010 20:09:54 -0800, "Bob Monsen" <rcmonsen_at_gmail.com
wrote:
None of this is evidence against global warming. It is an attack on a
particular study. The attack may be valid, but it doesn't imply anything
about any of the hundreds of other studies that have been published to
date.

Having just read 'Peddling Prosperity' by Krugman, I'm currently
sensitized
to the problem of policy being driven by idiots (supply siders on the
right
and 'strategic traders' on the left). However, I don't think that is
happening here. There appears to be a broad consensus amongst climate
scientists. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_consensus,
which
mentions that 97% of a set of polled, publishing scientists in the field
believe that it is occurring, and that it is being caused by human
activity.
Could they all really be wrong?

Easily, if they are all referring to the same
faked/cherry-picked/adjusted data sets. Or if the climate models are
crap and whatever warming that might be going on is natural.

John

"Bob Monsen" <rcmonsen_at_gmail.com> wrote:

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_consensus, which
mentions that 97% of a set of polled, publishing scientists in the field
believe that it is occurring, and that it is being caused by human
activity.
Could they all really be wrong?

Polling scientists in the field of climate change? A bit like polling
turkeys about Christmas.

So, if you have any real evidence against global warming, or an alternate
theory that fits the evidence, please post it.

The global climate is controlled by brain waves emitted by a giant green
jellyfish which hides behind the moon. If we all pray to the jellyfish it
will make the climate nicer for us (except we don't actually know if a bit
warmer or a bit colder would be nicer).

My theory could be wrong, but, can we afford to take the risk? We really
need to invest millions writing green jellyfish computer models and
simulations to determine the correct level of prayer to avoid destruction
of the entire planet. Once that is done we can hold many expensive global
summits to allocate prayer between the nations and we can set up prayer
trading schemes so developed countries can pay undeveloped countries to
pray for them......

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin_at_highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:m24vm59ui4eslkci609ehcj0t5vrshjodj_at_4ax.com...
On Sun, 7 Feb 2010 20:09:54 -0800, "Bob Monsen" <rcmonsen_at_gmail.com
wrote:
None of this is evidence against global warming. It is an attack on a
particular study. The attack may be valid, but it doesn't imply anything
about any of the hundreds of other studies that have been published to
date.

Having just read 'Peddling Prosperity' by Krugman, I'm currently
sensitized
to the problem of policy being driven by idiots (supply siders on the
right
and 'strategic traders' on the left). However, I don't think that is
happening here. There appears to be a broad consensus amongst climate
scientists. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_consensus,
which
mentions that 97% of a set of polled, publishing scientists in the field
believe that it is occurring, and that it is being caused by human
activity.
Could they all really be wrong?

Easily, if they are all referring to the same
faked/cherry-picked/adjusted data sets. Or if the climate models are
crap and whatever warming that might be going on is natural.

John


Agreed, but I don't think that is happening. Do you think that there is only
one study everybody is using? Do you think that study has been faked? Do you
think the basic idea, CO2 -> atmospheric warming, is false?

One of the reasons that scientists buy into something like this is because
it offers a simple explanation of some data. If you are going to deny this
explanation, you need to either prove that the data doesn't match the
explanation, or to explain the data some other way. Just saying "it's
natural!" doesn't explain anything. Everything is natural. We are natural,
so what we do is natural. That implies that you are agreeing with the global
warming folks!

Your point is probably that human C02 output isn't a significant factor
here. However, there is a correlation between CO2 levels and warming or
cooling as shown by the greenland ice cores. Correlation isn't causation,

but there is a good theoretical model that implies causation (the greenhouse
model). We know that CO2 levels have been rising far above historical
levels. So, the obvious answer is the one taken by most scientists.

I don't really know one from the other. However, making bald assertions that
global warming is NOT caused by human activity is, at this point a bit
silly. Yours is the assertion that must be justified.

How come nobody is worked up over a real - and fixable - problem,
man-made particulates?

John Larkin wrote:

[...]

How come nobody is worked up over a real - and fixable - problem,
man-made particulates?


Because they can't easily be taxed?