Expert: We must act fast on warming

Toni wrote:

<quoted text>
None were what I was referring to. Google...Proposed NCEE Comments on Draft Technical Support Document For Endangerment Analysis For Greenhouse Gas Emissions, view EPA study pdf pages 40-61

look at page 75 diagram2-? the decay in the suns magnetic filed since 1999. then look at page 79 diagram 3-1, it shows annual temps increasing even though solar flares declined. that contradicts their own claim that the sun is mostly affecting the global warming. there are other inaccuracies like that the IPCC claims "GHG only is affecting the climate change." many things affect the climate change. AGW is something we can do something about.

tina anne wrote:

<quoted text>
I have my proof do you have any yourself?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists...
www.tech-know.eu/uploads/AGW_hypothesis_dispr...

Wow, impressive proof! What journals are these? Are these peer reviewed journals? This is kind of sad really, basing a whole denial philosophy on junk like this.

Skeptic wrote:

This whole thing sounds like an Al Gore Disinformation commercial, he's in the global warming business, he stands to make a fortune on this if he can convince everyone it's real.
Meanwhile, he leaves vast carbon footprints from his jet, and he zips around the world drumming up business. Don't ever believe Leftwingnuts.

Because Al Gore is a dimmycrat, thats why AGW is a conspiracy!

letschanceit wrote:

<quoted text>
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/
http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/
http://42explore.com/globewrm.htm
http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/
http://www.stopglobalwarming.org/
http://globalchange.nasa.gov/Resources/pointe...
http://www.care2.com/channels/ecoinfo/global_...
http://www.care2.com/causes-news
http://www.pewtrusts.org/our_work_category.as...
http://www.epa.gov/epahome/learn.htm#climate
http://www.climateark.org/
http://www.climatesolutions.org/
http://www.edf.org/home.cfm
http://www.ipcc.ch/
http://www.shell.com/home/content/responsible...
http://www.chevron.com/globalissues/climatech... !Paid&utm_medium=cpc&u tm_source=Yahoo!&utm_term= climate_change
http://www.globalwarming.org/
http://www.panda.org/what_we_do/footprint/cli...
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/
http://www.epa.gov/ozone/index.html
I realize that being on the fringe doesn't make you wrong. and, there is no absolute proof on any page. but, there does seem to be a public consensus. or at least a corporate one. but they probably just want to keep their jobs.

As soon as they show up with that magic lens, they're going to show that correlation and concensus define reality.

Till then, the photon and gravity rule without lies.

All you've got to do is ask yourself, "if these guys weren't all spamming on the internet: how would they make a living?"

These are recessionary times, and ad revenue's a great way to not work.

As soon as they explain,

NO thermal detection possible with any thermal sensing device
NO light distortion from the M.a.g.i.c. Lens Church's lens
No Primary circulation
No moisture uptake/release in that circulation'
No gas ionization
No dust ionization
No electromagnetic communications anomalies
No weather readar anomalies
No infra red camera ever working
No satellite laser-ranging thermometers ever working
No mechanism for GETTING the heat from it's (Non-Existant source, or we'd measure it) down through the atmosphere to sea level to MELT TWO ICE CAPS and disrupt THREE CONTINENTS

As soon as all that's shown: how it can ALL be missing with a RECORD SETTING HEAT REFLECTOR in the sky

They'll have a lens hence a mechanism.

Till then they've got a Mac Daddy who was a "Racial Purification Scientist" and Serial Fraud who came up with an idea

and the Jim Hansen version of the weather. Which is NOTORIOUSLY ..w.r.o.n.g. just like he is about this Magic Lens.

It's very simple. Would these people ever lie or be dramatically wrong? Would they ever do "scare" weather to just be idiots?

Jim Hansen: 1971: Global Cooling Scare.
Jim Hansen: 1988: Global WARMING scare.
2005: Taking money to KEEP the NATIONAL TEMPS he OFFICIALLY ISSUES WRONG RECORD for nation. Not here in magic lens season but 3/4 of a century early.
When CAUGHT by the AMATEURS he contempts he issued a statement "Ok. Doesn't matter, anyway really."

This the great thinker of our age on temperature and climate science accuracy. TAKING MONEY: GETTING PAID to just accomplish telling us the weather YESTERDAY.

2006: "it looks.. like we're .. coming into an El NINo...(sounds just SHOCKED like he didn't know he was going to be reading it to people in public... gazes.. gazes.."a.. SUPER El Nino..." [cut to oceans boiling in Godzilla movie]

2008: "The sun spots are going to be here ANY DAY taking off fairly fast and the cycle should be a little stronger than most"
As even once again; AMATEURS said "Whaat?"
We're in the 6th lowest sunspot cycle in history so far; one known for incidentally : taking off LATE, and coming out WEAK, and not having much energy.

Ok so that's ONE guy.

Mike Mann? His name's connected to "Mannian Statistics" meaning "designed to give a fraudulent return"
His name's connected with Mannian Fisiks: like how he thinks he doesn't have to explain the missing MANDATORY signatures to the Magic Lens but it's still there, everybody's just stupid.

And, if CO2 was driving this there would be a steadily increasing storage of heat in the atmosphere.

And, heat, MUST RISE. Therefore if there was much MORE heat in the atmosphere OVERALL,

There would be detectable distortion through optical astronomy so that's done.

Historically although I'm not a weather fanatic myself, if you want long term trends, you ask the majority of the Insolation guys.

Does UNREAL CLIMATE look like it's Central Control for science, or like it's a LINK FEST for ad scammers?

Pfft.

Why do you think none of these guys ever show their faces where an out of control audience can ask them questions?

Because they don't want some little kid to get up and run off a string of questions for youtube, and the news, that's why.

I Am DigitaP wrote:

It's very simple. Would these people ever lie or be dramatically wrong? Would they ever do "scare" weather to just be idiots?
Jim Hansen: 1971: Global Cooling Scare.
Jim Hansen: 1988: Global WARMING scare.
2005: Taking money to KEEP the NATIONAL TEMPS he OFFICIALLY ISSUES WRONG RECORD for nation. Not here in magic lens season but 3/4 of a century early.
When CAUGHT by the AMATEURS he contempts he issued a statement "Ok. Doesn't matter, anyway really."
This the great thinker of our age on temperature and climate science accuracy. TAKING MONEY: GETTING PAID to just accomplish telling us the weather YESTERDAY.
2006: "it looks.. like we're .. coming into an El NINo...(sounds just SHOCKED like he didn't know he was going to be reading it to people in public... gazes.. gazes.."a.. SUPER El Nino..." [cut to oceans boiling in Godzilla movie]
2008: "The sun spots are going to be here ANY DAY taking off fairly fast and the cycle should be a little stronger than most"
As even once again; AMATEURS said "Whaat?"
We're in the 6th lowest sunspot cycle in history so far; one known for incidentally : taking off LATE, and coming out WEAK, and not having much energy.
Ok so that's ONE guy.
Mike Mann? His name's connected to "Mannian Statistics" meaning "designed to give a fraudulent return"
His name's connected with Mannian Fisiks: like how he thinks he doesn't have to explain the missing MANDATORY signatures to the Magic Lens but it's still there, everybody's just stupid.
And, if CO2 was driving this there would be a steadily increasing storage of heat in the atmosphere.
And, heat, MUST RISE. Therefore if there was much MORE heat in the atmosphere OVERALL,
There would be detectable distortion through optical astronomy so that's done.
Historically although I'm not a weather fanatic myself, if you want long term trends, you ask the majority of the Insolation guys.
Does UNREAL CLIMATE look like it's Central Control for science, or like it's a LINK FEST for ad scammers?
Pfft.
Why do you think none of these guys ever show their faces where an out of control audience can ask them questions?
Because they don't want some little kid to get up and run off a string of questions for youtube, and the news, that's why.

this spams for you

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html...

you've got to remember letschanceit, you are being simultaneously being asked to look, at several different roads, and: miraculously chanceit, it's the guys who HAVE been caught doing .. well just outright fraudulent bullshit on many occasions.

They announced the end of the world, then when people asked for their info they said "it's patented," and the "other part the Russians have it."
LoL. For the END of the WORLD this is the scientific rigor they brought. Not to THEIR science but for US to EXAMINE for WORTHINESS for "Yep; end of the world."

And when it's alllll over, you remind yourself: if the atmosphere AT LARGE was TRULY: SIGNIFICANTLY warmer overall:

there would be enhanced wavering in the stars overhead at night vis-a-vis observations from optical astronomy.

Hey: Since when? 88 or so? These telescopes, they have computerized programs that flex the lens of the telescopes to make the optical distortion appear. Good. Cool.

Why haven't the very people involved, brought out lists of their logging records showing how it's gotten worse, and worse, and worse... and they've had to incrementally adjust through the decades, more, and more... then less then more again.. as the DISTORTION which is,

sorry moonbats, mandatory

grows...? Hmm?

Because chanceit. The atmosphere, in toto, hasn't gotten much hotter.

It can't be. Again: if it was, optical astronomy wouldn't be able to escape that.

So that discussion's over. Not only is there DEMONSTRABLY no lens NOR any PRIMARY nor SECONDARY nor TERTIARY mandatory: m.a.n.d.a.t.o.r.y. detectable signatures through tests

it's proven outright the enTIRE atmosphere hasn't gotten any hotter since there's no enhanced heat distortion overall.

They keep spamming you with "all this evidence."

Tell them to tell you how they've revoked the LAW: of LIGHT: through a HOTTER ATMOSPHERE.

They'll tell you, that "you don't understand" but then you will notice, no matter what they say, that atmosphere hasn't started wavering more.

So it's done. All this bullshit: one simple test. Go back and check, all the telescopes' photos back for DECADES.

Because the temperature of that earth WILL BE proportional to the heat swirling around in it.

letschanceit you watch for awhile the tone and the general feel of the words of both camps, and you'll see:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/64...

It's really just fraud and the guys perpetrating it turned to the untapped internet and spawned an ad revenue industry that keeps thousands occupied and hundres employed.

Reality needs no advertisement, panic over the end of the world has to sound like it's mission critical with every word.
Pfft

Make the optical distortion DISappear* sorry

i see that was unclear about "the air swirling around it" i meant, the temperature of the ATMOSPHERE will be proportional to the HEAT swirling IT around..

A pertinent comment on the subject from Bob Carter:

It is true that there exists an imaginary risk of environmental and economic damage from human-caused global warming. Back in 1990 that was a good question to raise; but after spending around $100 billion and almost 20 years researching the matter, we now know that the answer is that any human-caused effect on global temperature is immeasurably small.

http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-plane...

Toni wrote:

Strong association between solor sunspots/irradiance and global temp fluctuation

Strong association between you & the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

Climate changes all the time, don't panic. We can't predict it, its complex, huge and chaotic. We evolved with climate change, adapt or die.

litesong wrote:

<quoted text>
Ha ha ha.
Asking the Competitive Interprise Institute about CO2 emissions is like consulting a rattlesnake if it is safe to wiggle a lot while laying among a thousand rattlesnakes.

<GOL>

Toni prefers highly biased and highly suspect sources. She must have found a link to this one on the World Nut Daily.

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/
http://townhall.com/
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com

Anyone can watch TV, pick up a newspaper or magazine. Try to expand your mind.

ephotonic wrote:

<quoted text>
Wow, impressive proof! What journals are these? Are these peer reviewed journals? This is kind of sad really, basing a whole denial philosophy on junk like this.

The funny part is this is the same source that people orginally learned about AGW in the first place. The whole science of AGW was based on junk science that had been rushed and used shoddy modeling to back it up. Some of the debunknig has to to with Al Gore's Movie which it turned out had so many errors. The people who are in denial are the ones who still support AGW. It has been dropped by many including the media. Of course those inside the beltway haven't caught up yet but then again they have always been behind the curve on trends.

The really sad part is that people like yourself no longer have any proof that AGW is real.

http://hatch.senate.gov/public/_files/USSenat...

http://www.newsmax.com/brennan/global_warming...

tina anne wrote:

<quoted text>
The funny part is this is the same source that people orginally learned about AGW in the first place. The whole science of AGW was based on junk science that had been rushed and used shoddy modeling to back it up. Some of the debunknig has to to with Al Gore's Movie which it turned out had so many errors. The people who are in denial are the ones who still support AGW. It has been dropped by many including the media. Of course those inside the beltway haven't caught up yet but then again they have always been behind the curve on trends.
The really sad part is that people like yourself no longer have any proof that AGW is real.
http://hatch.senate.gov/public/_files/USSenat...
http://www.newsmax.com/brennan/global_warming...

I am waiting for your statement showing that AGW has been disproven. Until you do that or admit that it has not been done you are a fraud. RW blogs don't count. Real scientific proof only.

Give us some information from reputable sources. EPW, Inhofe's whacked out denial site is not exactly scientific. Newsmax has a problem with being truthful.

Brian_G wrote:

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/
http://townhall.com/
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com
Anyone can watch TV, pick up a newspaper or magazine. Try to expand your mind.

Dimbaugh blows my mind - doesn't expand my understanding. i think that pretty much is his intent.

geeeez BEEG - pleeeeeeeeez don't ever use him as a source again. good greeeef

I Am DigitaP wrote:

<quoted text>
As soon as they show up with that magic lens, they're going to show that correlation and concensus define reality.
Till then, the photon and gravity rule without lies.
All you've got to do is ask yourself, "if these guys weren't all spamming on the internet: how would they make a living?"
These are recessionary times, and ad revenue's a great way to not work.
As soon as they explain,
NO thermal detection possible with any thermal sensing device
NO light distortion from the M.a.g.i.c. Lens Church's lens
No Primary circulation
No moisture uptake/release in that circulation'
No gas ionization
No dust ionization
No electromagnetic communications anomalies
No weather readar anomalies
No infra red camera ever working
No satellite laser-ranging thermometers ever working
No mechanism for GETTING the heat from it's (Non-Existant source, or we'd measure it) down through the atmosphere to sea level to MELT TWO ICE CAPS and disrupt THREE CONTINENTS
As soon as all that's shown: how it can ALL be missing with a RECORD SETTING HEAT REFLECTOR in the sky
They'll have a lens hence a mechanism.
Till then they've got a Mac Daddy who was a "Racial Purification Scientist" and Serial Fraud who came up with an idea
and the Jim Hansen version of the weather. Which is NOTORIOUSLY ..w.r.o.n.g. just like he is about this Magic Lens.

none of this falsifies the hypotheses of global warming.

also, what does " No mechanism for GETTING the heat from it's (Non-Existant source, or we'd measure it) down through the atmosphere to sea level to MELT TWO ICE CAPS and disrupt THREE CONTINENTS" mean? are you denying the existence of the sun?

Brian_G wrote:

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/
http://townhall.com/
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com
Anyone can watch TV, pick up a newspaper or magazine. Try to expand your mind.

finally some comic relief! stossel "get gov out of energy business" HA! what a joke. shouldn't he be wearing really big shoes and a red ball nose? you caricature obama as a clown and actually take these clowns seriously? you have got to be kidding. I did read a little of the "townhall" page. an article about obamas speech the afternoon of the fort hood massacre and they tore him to shreds which, they have a right to an opinion. but, you would think there would be some obama quotes from the speech. when they say "...rank and sophomoric way he began the speech.." but do not provide the actual rank and sophomoric remarks is bad journalism and kind of a juvenile pandering to republicans. I think my tongue is bleeding. an entire article by kevin mculough that heavily and derogatorily chastises the president and not one quote! you have a twisted sense of humor.

ok that was way off topic.

letschanceit wrote:

<quoted text>finally some comic relief! stossel "get gov out of energy business" HA! what a joke. shouldn't he be wearing really big shoes and a red ball nose? you caricature obama as a clown and actually take these clowns seriously? you have got to be kidding. I did read a little of the "townhall" page. an article about obamas speech the afternoon of the fort hood massacre and they tore him to shreds which, they have a right to an opinion. but, you would think there would be some obama quotes from the speech. when they say "...rank and sophomoric way he began the speech.." but do not provide the actual rank and sophomoric remarks is bad journalism and kind of a juvenile pandering to republicans. I think my tongue is bleeding. an entire article by kevin mculough that heavily and derogatorily chastises the president and not one quote! you have a twisted sense of humor.
ok that was way off topic.

but so well-deserved.