Discussion:
'No Uncertainty' About Global Warming
(too old to reply)
Roger Coppock
2006-05-20 11:14:14 UTC
Permalink
'No Uncertainty' About Global Warming, Scientists Say
Tuesday, February 07, 2006

ANCHORAGE, Alaska - Scientists on Monday painted a gloomy picture of
the effects of global warming on the Arctic, warning of melting ocean
ice, rising oceans, thawed permafrost and forests susceptible to bugs
and fire.

"A lot of the stories you read make it sound like there's uncertainty,"
said Jonathan Overpeck, a professor of geosciences at the University of
Arizona. "There's not uncertainty."

The questions scientists continue to address, he said after his
presentation at the Alaska Forum on the Environment, are how much of
the warming is caused by humans and how drastic long-term effects will
be.

Deborah Williams, a conference organizer and former director of the
Alaska Conservation Foundation, said Alaska is Ground Zero for
observing the effects of global warming because so many natural
phenomena are tied to ice and the repercussions of it melting.

"We are the Paul Revere of global warming," she said.

Overpeck reviewed NASA studies showing how Arctic ice has shrunk in
size and depth. Climate models 25 years ago predicted a shrinking ice
pack.

"What we didn't predict is that it would be so dramatic," Overpeck said

[ . . . ]

The rest of this article is at:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,184147,00.html
Roger Coppock
2006-05-20 11:33:38 UTC
Permalink
From the article,
"If warming trends continue, Overpeck said, the globe eventually will
get a nasty message from the Arctic: a rise in sea levels.

Higher oceans will flow into low-lying parts of the world such as New
Orleans, making recovery in that hurricane-ravaged city moot.

"It's hard to imagine why we're wanting to rebuild if we're going to
allow global warming," Overpeck said.
si
2006-05-20 14:31:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger Coppock
From the article,
"If warming trends continue, Overpeck said, the globe eventually will
get a nasty message from the Arctic: a rise in sea levels.
Higher oceans will flow into low-lying parts of the world such as New
Orleans, making recovery in that hurricane-ravaged city moot.
"It's hard to imagine why we're wanting to rebuild if we're going to
allow global warming," Overpeck said.
I wonder if the dinosaurs also died out due to denial?
Tartarus Sanctus
2006-05-20 15:51:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by si
Post by Roger Coppock
From the article,
"If warming trends continue, Overpeck said, the globe eventually will
get a nasty message from the Arctic: a rise in sea levels.
Higher oceans will flow into low-lying parts of the world such as New
Orleans, making recovery in that hurricane-ravaged city moot.
"It's hard to imagine why we're wanting to rebuild if we're going to
allow global warming," Overpeck said.
I wonder if the dinosaurs also died out due to denial?
It was smoking that did them in.
--
Monsignor Tartarus Sanctus
si
2006-05-20 16:13:19 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 20 May 2006 09:51:02 -0600, Tartarus Sanctus
Post by Tartarus Sanctus
Post by si
Post by Roger Coppock
From the article,
"If warming trends continue, Overpeck said, the globe eventually will
get a nasty message from the Arctic: a rise in sea levels.
Higher oceans will flow into low-lying parts of the world such as New
Orleans, making recovery in that hurricane-ravaged city moot.
"It's hard to imagine why we're wanting to rebuild if we're going to
allow global warming," Overpeck said.
I wonder if the dinosaurs also died out due to denial?
It was smoking that did them in.
or perhaps they just laughed it off?
z
2006-05-24 18:22:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by si
On Sat, 20 May 2006 09:51:02 -0600, Tartarus Sanctus
Post by Tartarus Sanctus
Post by si
Post by Roger Coppock
From the article,
"If warming trends continue, Overpeck said, the globe eventually will
get a nasty message from the Arctic: a rise in sea levels.
Higher oceans will flow into low-lying parts of the world such as New
Orleans, making recovery in that hurricane-ravaged city moot.
"It's hard to imagine why we're wanting to rebuild if we're going to
allow global warming," Overpeck said.
I wonder if the dinosaurs also died out due to denial?
It was smoking that did them in.
or perhaps they just laughed it off?
Evolution punishes stupidity and failure to adapt. In reptiles or
primates. Of course, not everybody believes in evolution.
Warren Hopper
2006-05-20 15:50:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger Coppock
'No Uncertainty' About Global Warming, Scientists Say
Tuesday, February 07, 2006
ANCHORAGE, Alaska - Scientists on Monday painted a gloomy picture of
the effects of global warming on the Arctic,
There no doubt about global warming or it's probable effect on plant and
animal populations, but there's considerable doubt about the effect of
global warming on viability of human populations around the world. We can
change our survival behaviors in ways that plants and animals can't.

I think the biggest visible impact on humans may be global *drying*,
mega-droughts pushing the limits of our agricultural capabilities,
especially in central continental areas such as the Central Asia and the
American Midwest.

The problem may even be worse than it looks because the warming process is
accelerating at a rate that is difficult to pin down. A few years ago,
'way-out left leaning' scientists said that the polar ice caps would persist
until 2100, but some models predict that the caps will be mostly gone by
2050. As the caps melt, the ice reflects less sunlight and the released
water absorbs more energy, thereby accelerating the process at an
accelerating rate, the double whammy.

If one is speaking formally, it's probably better to call it 'catastrophic
climate change', because specific locations will see huge swings and
variations, maybe hotter, maybe colder, but all within an overall trend of
warming globally. Vastly increased variability of the weather is a dead
cert for almost every location on earth.

The media is becoming aware of big, newsworthy tornados and hurricanes and
such, but there may be periods of years where not much is happening
weather-wise and they will forget all about it. Most people tend to feel
that 'global warming' is only as bad as it was last summer and that view
will persist until something 'significant' changes their attitudes. Let's
hope it's not too significant.
Post by Roger Coppock
warning of melting ocean
ice, rising oceans, thawed permafrost and forests susceptible to bugs
and fire.
"A lot of the stories you read make it sound like there's uncertainty,"
said Jonathan Overpeck, a professor of geosciences at the University of
Arizona. "There's not uncertainty."
The questions scientists continue to address, he said after his
presentation at the Alaska Forum on the Environment, are how much of
the warming is caused by humans and how drastic long-term effects will
be.
Deborah Williams, a conference organizer and former director of the
Alaska Conservation Foundation, said Alaska is Ground Zero for
observing the effects of global warming because so many natural
phenomena are tied to ice and the repercussions of it melting.
"We are the Paul Revere of global warming," she said.
Overpeck reviewed NASA studies showing how Arctic ice has shrunk in
size and depth. Climate models 25 years ago predicted a shrinking ice
pack.
"What we didn't predict is that it would be so dramatic," Overpeck said
[ . . . ]
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,184147,00.html
Claudius Denk
2006-05-20 17:46:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Warren Hopper
There no doubt about global warming or it's probable effect on plant and
animal populations,
Uh, so we should just pretend not to notice that there is no credible
evidence of any present or future anthropocentric CO2 caused global warming?
Post by Warren Hopper
I think the biggest visible impact on humans may be global *drying*,
A warmer planet is a wetter planet, retard.
Post by Warren Hopper
The problem may even be worse than it looks because the warming process is
accelerating at a rate that is difficult to pin down.
Accelerating? There's been a downward trend since 1998. Only whacko's like
Roger and his creative mathematical techniques think they see acceleration.
Post by Warren Hopper
'way-out left leaning' scientists said that the polar ice caps would persist
until 2100, but some models predict that the caps
Models are useful only if your goal is to mislead the public.
Post by Warren Hopper
2050. As the caps melt, the ice reflects less sunlight and the released
water absorbs more energy, thereby accelerating the process at an
accelerating rate, the double whammy.
Try control, alt, delete. It will go away.
Post by Warren Hopper
Vastly increased variability of the weather is a dead
cert for almost every location on earth.
A warmer planet is a more stable planet, retard.
Post by Warren Hopper
The media is becoming aware of big, newsworthy tornados and hurricanes
That's good, because before they only noticed the small ones.
Tartarus Sanctus
2006-05-20 18:22:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Claudius Denk
Post by Warren Hopper
There no doubt about global warming or it's probable effect on plant and
animal populations,
Uh, so we should just pretend not to notice that there is no credible
evidence of any present or future anthropocentric CO2 caused global warming?
You fool no one, Jim. You couldn't take the criticism under your old
name, so you ran away and created a new identity. How's that definition
of measurable certainty coming along? You certainly have had sufficient
time to make something up.
--
Monsignor Tartarus Sanctus
Claudius Denk
2006-05-20 18:29:19 UTC
Permalink
How's that definition of measurable certainty coming along?
Get a dictionary.
Tartarus Sanctus
2006-05-20 19:06:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Claudius Denk
How's that definition of measurable certainty coming along?
Get a dictionary.
It is not in the dictionary. There is no such term.


Hey, Jimbo-- remember this exchange????

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Post by Claudius Denk
Are you claiming that measurable
certainty is a statistical term? Surely you are thinking of statistical
certainty with some confidence interval.
Uh, okay.
We could call it monkey's toenails for all I care.
Keep it up. You are digging yourself in deeper and deeper. After a
little while you will have only two options: change your name, or become
a full blown internet kook. You posting host is 71.143.28.147, so you
might have to change your ISP too if you want to keep up the charade.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


I notice you still have the same ISP and changed your name!

What's the matter, cupcake? Couldn't take the heat?
--
Monsignor Tartarus Sanctus
Claudius Denk
2006-05-20 22:55:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tartarus Sanctus
Post by Claudius Denk
How's that definition of measurable certainty coming along?
Get a dictionary.
It is not in the dictionary. There is no such term.
So, you're saying the words, "measurable," and, "certainty," aren't in the
dictionary?
Tartarus Sanctus
2006-05-21 15:32:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Claudius Denk
Post by Tartarus Sanctus
Post by Claudius Denk
How's that definition of measurable certainty coming along?
Get a dictionary.
It is not in the dictionary. There is no such term.
So, you're saying the words, "measurable," and, "certainty," aren't in the
dictionary?
No, and you know damned well I am not. We have been over and over this
when you used to call yourself Jim McGinn. There is no such mathematical
or statistical term as "measurable certainty".

There is a difference between "term" and "word".
--
Monsignor Tartarus Sanctus
Jim McGinn
2006-05-21 20:50:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tartarus Sanctus
Post by Claudius Denk
Post by Tartarus Sanctus
Post by Claudius Denk
How's that definition of measurable certainty coming along?
Get a dictionary.
It is not in the dictionary. There is no such term.
So, you're saying the words, "measurable," and, "certainty," aren't in the
dictionary?
No, and you know damned well I am not. We have been over and over this
when you used to call yourself Jim McGinn. There is no such mathematical
or statistical term as "measurable certainty".
There is a difference between "term" and "word".
That's great. You're making progress. Keep working on it. I'm
confident that even you can figure it out.
f***@spamcop.net
2006-05-26 15:59:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tartarus Sanctus
Post by Claudius Denk
Post by Tartarus Sanctus
Post by Claudius Denk
How's that definition of measurable certainty coming along?
Get a dictionary.
It is not in the dictionary. There is no such term.
So, you're saying the words, "measurable," and, "certainty," aren't in the
dictionary?
No, and you know damned well I am not. We have been over and over this
when you used to call yourself Jim McGinn. There is no such mathematical
or statistical term as "measurable certainty".
There is a difference between "term" and "word".
Indeed. It is uncertainty that is quantified.
--
FF
a***@yahoo.com
2006-05-21 09:32:24 UTC
Permalink
all this hot air is not helping things.
Thomas Lee Elifritz
2006-05-21 17:24:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@yahoo.com
all this hot air is not helping things.
Generally when you say something stupid on a science newsgroup, which
you have, i.e. - 'measurable certainty', 'Mars doesn't have an
atmosphere', etc., it's very easy to make a simple retraction, and
nobody with any science training would take any serious issue with it.

However, the retractions have not been forthcoming. I really don't
understand how you guys continue to get by my filter file. I'll have to
look into that.

http://cosmic.lifeform.org
Warren Hopper
2006-05-21 18:05:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thomas Lee Elifritz
Post by a***@yahoo.com
all this hot air is not helping things.
Generally when you say something stupid on a science newsgroup, which
you have, i.e. - 'measurable certainty', 'Mars doesn't have an
atmosphere', etc.,
Are you saying that anywhere above the surface of the planet is an absolute
vacuum ?

[ Flame Alert !!!! ;-) ]
Post by Thomas Lee Elifritz
it's very easy to make a simple retraction, and
nobody with any science training would take any serious issue with it.
However, the retractions have not been forthcoming. I really don't
understand how you guys continue to get by my filter file. I'll have to
look into that.
http://cosmic.lifeform.org
Thomas Lee Elifritz
2006-05-21 22:38:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Warren Hopper
Post by Thomas Lee Elifritz
Post by a***@yahoo.com
all this hot air is not helping things.
Generally when you say something stupid on a science newsgroup, which
you have, i.e. - 'measurable certainty', 'Mars doesn't have an
atmosphere', etc.,
Are you saying that anywhere above the surface of the planet is an absolute
vacuum ?
Er ... no, you are inferring that I am claiming that.

I admit that I have not yet unified quantum mechanics and general
relativity, but I do have a credible information theory. The standard
model is just that.
Post by Warren Hopper
Post by Thomas Lee Elifritz
http://cosmic.lifeform.org
Warren Hopper
2006-05-22 13:55:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thomas Lee Elifritz
Post by Warren Hopper
Post by Thomas Lee Elifritz
Post by a***@yahoo.com
all this hot air is not helping things.
Generally when you say something stupid on a science newsgroup, which
you have, i.e. - 'measurable certainty', 'Mars doesn't have an
atmosphere', etc.,
Are you saying that anywhere above the surface of the planet is an absolute
vacuum ?
Er ... no, you are inferring that I am claiming that.
Well, not exactly, I am pretending that I'm inferring that you are claiming
that. Why I don't know. Satan never has idle hands in usenet groups, I
suppose.

Mars has wind erosion and dust storms. That's pretty much the clincher as
far as I can see. But there are people ( there are always people ) who
won't see things that way, bless'em.
Post by Thomas Lee Elifritz
I admit that I have not yet unified quantum mechanics and general
relativity, but I do have a credible information theory. The standard
model is just that.
Post by Warren Hopper
Post by Thomas Lee Elifritz
http://cosmic.lifeform.org
Thomas Lee Elifritz
2006-05-22 16:54:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Starkiller©
Post by Thomas Lee Elifritz
Post by Warren Hopper
Post by Thomas Lee Elifritz
Post by a***@yahoo.com
all this hot air is not helping things.
Generally when you say something stupid on a science newsgroup, which
you have, i.e. - 'measurable certainty', 'Mars doesn't have an
atmosphere', etc.,
Are you saying that anywhere above the surface of the planet is an
absolute
Post by Thomas Lee Elifritz
Post by Warren Hopper
vacuum ?
Er ... no, you are inferring that I am claiming that.
Well, not exactly, I am pretending that I'm inferring that you are claiming
that. Why I don't know. Satan never has idle hands in usenet groups, I
suppose.
Mars has wind erosion and dust storms. That's pretty much the clincher as
far as I can see. But there are people ( there are always people ) who
won't see things that way, bless'em.
The whole Mars wind erosion thing is way overblown. It's atmosphere is
extremely tenuous, at best it can only blow the very fine particulates
around. Most of the erosion we superficially at the surface is a result
of the slow sublimation of the water ice saturated crust into the easily
saturated atmosphere, and its slow transport to the high latitudes and
the poles, with the associated slumping and wasting of the terrain. The
wind appears to sculpt that in situ, but it isn't moving the material
around much, at least not in present times with the thin atmosphere.

At least that's my current take on it. Nobody can seem to agree on
crater counts and mass transport numbers there anymore. I suspect the
entire model of mars will change yet again after MRO data comes in.

http://cosmic.lifeform.org
Warren Hopper
2006-05-23 16:00:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thomas Lee Elifritz
Post by Starkiller©
Post by Thomas Lee Elifritz
Post by Warren Hopper
Post by Thomas Lee Elifritz
Post by a***@yahoo.com
all this hot air is not helping things.
Generally when you say something stupid on a science newsgroup, which
you have, i.e. - 'measurable certainty', 'Mars doesn't have an
atmosphere', etc.,
Are you saying that anywhere above the surface of the planet is an
absolute
Post by Thomas Lee Elifritz
Post by Warren Hopper
vacuum ?
Er ... no, you are inferring that I am claiming that.
Well, not exactly, I am pretending that I'm inferring that you are claiming
that. Why I don't know. Satan never has idle hands in usenet groups, I
suppose.
Mars has wind erosion and dust storms. That's pretty much the clincher as
far as I can see. But there are people ( there are always people ) who
won't see things that way, bless'em.
The whole Mars wind erosion thing is way overblown.
... ah ... um ... never mind.
Post by Thomas Lee Elifritz
It's atmosphere is
extremely tenuous, at best it can only blow the very fine particulates
around. Most of the erosion we superficially at the surface is a result
of the slow sublimation of the water ice saturated crust into the easily
saturated atmosphere, and its slow transport to the high latitudes and
the poles, with the associated slumping and wasting of the terrain. The
wind appears to sculpt that in situ, but it isn't moving the material
around much, at least not in present times with the thin atmosphere.
At least that's my current take on it. Nobody can seem to agree on
crater counts and mass transport numbers there anymore. I suspect the
entire model of mars will change yet again after MRO data comes in.
Come to think of it, those ancient traces of water flow are mighty distinct
for a planet with active wind erosion. On the other hand, the features of
older craters are blurred, perhaps as a result of wind erosion when Mars had
a 'real' atmosphere, many millions of years ago.

Clearly, it's a whole different geology and planetary history from that of
earth.

Thanks for the update. I'll keep posted.
Post by Thomas Lee Elifritz
http://cosmic.lifeform.org
Thomas Lee Elifritz
2006-05-23 18:17:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Claudius Denk
Post by Thomas Lee Elifritz
Post by Starkiller©
Post by Thomas Lee Elifritz
Post by Warren Hopper
Post by Thomas Lee Elifritz
Post by a***@yahoo.com
all this hot air is not helping things.
Generally when you say something stupid on a science newsgroup, which
you have, i.e. - 'measurable certainty', 'Mars doesn't have an
atmosphere', etc.,
Are you saying that anywhere above the surface of the planet is an
absolute
Post by Thomas Lee Elifritz
Post by Warren Hopper
vacuum ?
Er ... no, you are inferring that I am claiming that.
Well, not exactly, I am pretending that I'm inferring that you are
claiming
Post by Thomas Lee Elifritz
Post by Starkiller©
that. Why I don't know. Satan never has idle hands in usenet groups, I
suppose.
Mars has wind erosion and dust storms. That's pretty much the clincher
as
Post by Thomas Lee Elifritz
Post by Starkiller©
far as I can see. But there are people ( there are always people ) who
won't see things that way, bless'em.
The whole Mars wind erosion thing is way overblown.
... ah ... um ... never mind.
Post by Thomas Lee Elifritz
It's atmosphere is
extremely tenuous, at best it can only blow the very fine particulates
around. Most of the erosion we superficially at the surface is a result
of the slow sublimation of the water ice saturated crust into the easily
saturated atmosphere, and its slow transport to the high latitudes and
the poles, with the associated slumping and wasting of the terrain. The
wind appears to sculpt that in situ, but it isn't moving the material
around much, at least not in present times with the thin atmosphere.
At least that's my current take on it. Nobody can seem to agree on
crater counts and mass transport numbers there anymore. I suspect the
entire model of mars will change yet again after MRO data comes in.
Come to think of it, those ancient traces of water flow are mighty distinct
for a planet with active wind erosion. On the other hand, the features of
older craters are blurred, perhaps as a result of wind erosion when Mars had
a 'real' atmosphere, many millions of years ago.
Clearly, it's a whole different geology and planetary history from that of
earth.
Thanks for the update. I'll keep posted.
Mars - It's just a theory.

http://cosmic.lifeform.org
Warren Hopper
2006-05-20 22:42:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Claudius Denk
Post by Warren Hopper
There no doubt about global warming or it's probable effect on plant and
animal populations,
Uh, so we should just pretend not to notice that there is no credible
evidence of any present or future anthropocentric CO2 caused global warming?
"Credible evidence" ? Let's explore the boundaries of that a bit.

Do you think there is 'credible evidence' to support the concept of
evolution of the species ? Just checking.
Post by Claudius Denk
Post by Warren Hopper
I think the biggest visible impact on humans may be global *drying*,
A warmer planet is a wetter planet, retard.
That's all I need to know. Good day to you, and have a nice one.
Claudius Denk
2006-05-20 22:56:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Claudius Denk
Post by Claudius Denk
Post by Warren Hopper
There no doubt about global warming or it's probable effect on plant and
animal populations,
Uh, so we should just pretend not to notice that there is no credible
evidence of any present or future anthropocentric CO2 caused global
warming?
"Credible evidence" ? Let's explore the boundaries of that a bit.
Let's not.
Roger Coppock
2006-05-20 23:56:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Claudius Denk
Post by Warren Hopper
The problem may even be worse than it looks because the warming process is
accelerating at a rate that is difficult to pin down.
No! The acceleration is easily calculated, Mr. Hopper.
Loading Image...
Post by Claudius Denk
Accelerating? There's been a downward trend since 1998. Only whacko's like
Roger and his creative mathematical techniques think they see acceleration.
A SIGNIFICANT DOWNARD GLOBAL TEMPERATURE TREND IN 1998?
NOPE, NOT AT ALL. MR. DENK IS LYING, AND HE KNOWS IT.
THE THE LAST SIGNIFICANT DOWNWARD TREND
IN EARTH's WARMING CLIMATE WAS 50 YEARS AGO.
Please see:
Loading Image...

My methods, the data I used, and the "R" program I used
to compute the acceleration are below:
=-=-=-=-=
These globally averaged temperature data come from NASA:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
They represent the results of tens of millions of readings
taken at thousands of land stations and ships around the globe
over the last 127 years. Yes, the land data are corrected for
the urban heat island effect. The sea data do not need to be.
There are few urban centers in the sea.

Computing a 30-year rolling slope about each yearly slope is
accomplished by looking at the year itself, 15 years before,
and 14 years ahead. When the points before and ahead are not
present, they are ignored. Slopes computed on less than this
maximum of 30 points are, by generally accepted definition,
not climate. They are overwhelmed by temporary events like
the El Nino Southern Oscillation and volcano eruptions.
Numbers of points bigger than 30 approach one-half the length
of the 127-year data set, and therefore, become unvarying and
useless. All slopes reported here are stable for 30 to 50
point widths.

The "R" Statistical Program script for this computation under
OS X is below. (The only statement dependent on a specific
computer platform is the use of the R language graphic verb
"quartz.") The "R" Statistical Program is freely available
for several computing platforms at: http://www.r-project.org/ .

=-=-=-=-=-=-=

rm(list=ls())
setwd("/Users/rogercoppock/Desktop")
options(digits=5)
aframe <- read.table("GLB.Ts+dSST.txt", header = TRUE)

# Find the Yearly Slopes
StartYear=1 # first data element
StepYear=1 # Number of years to skip between slope points
i=StartYear
ii=1
Slope=0
SlopeYear=0
while (i<=length(aframe$Year)) {
j=min(i+14,length(aframe$Year)) # 14 years ahead
k=max(1,i-15) # 15 years before
fitted.model <- lm(AnnMean[k:j] ~ Year[k:j], data=aframe)
SlopeYear[ii]=aframe$Year[i]
Slope[ii]=fitted.model$coefficients[2]
i=i+StepYear
ii=ii+1
}

Slope
summary(Slope)
sd(Slope)

# The Slope of the Yearly Slopes is the Acceleration.
fitted.model <- lm(Slope ~ SlopeYear)
quartz(display = "1", width=9, height=6, pointsize=14,
family="Helvetica", antialias=TRUE, autorefresh=TRUE)
plot(Slope ~ SlopeYear, pch=20, xlab="Year", ylab="Slope in K/Century")
title("30-year Rolling Temperature Slope")
mtext("Data from the NASA-GISS 'GLB.Ts+dSST.txt' file")
text(SlopeYear[1]+(SlopeYear[length(SlopeYear)]-SlopeYear[1])/2,max(Slope)-0.1,paste("Global
Warming is Accelerating at",
signif(fitted.model$coefficients[2]*100,2), "K/Century^2"))
abline(fitted.model$coefficients)
abline(h=0.0, lty="dotdash")
formula(fitted.model)
print(fitted.model)
summary(fitted.model)
Joe Jared
2006-05-21 07:19:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger Coppock
Post by Warren Hopper
The problem may even be worse than it looks because the warming process is
accelerating at a rate that is difficult to pin down.
No! The acceleration is easily calculated, Mr. Hopper.
http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Slope1952-2005.jpg
a second order non-linear regression would likely show that although we're
still on a warming trend, it's possibly slowing. If there was a raw text
fileof the temperature as a function of the year, I could quickly write a
utility to plot the curves using varying orders.
Post by Roger Coppock
http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Slope1880-2005.jpg
Given the obvious cycling slowing down according to the chart, we're due
for a slowdown in the warming cycle.
Post by Roger Coppock
Computing a 30-year rolling slope about each yearly slope is
accomplished by looking at the year itself, 15 years before,
and 14 years ahead. When the points before and ahead are not
present, they are ignored. Slopes computed on less than this
maximum of 30 points are, by generally accepted definition,
It doesn't look like a static cycle. In fact, it looks like the cycle is
getting longer and longer. I'd really be interested in raw data if any is
available.
--
Listed? You must be joking http://relays.osirusoft.com
Pallorium V. Jared ruling http://www.oretek.com/lawsuite/ruling.pdf
http://www.oretek.com/lawsuite/
Al Bedo Beats His Meat-O, Squirts Brains in Lap.
2006-05-21 08:03:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Jared
Post by Roger Coppock
Post by Warren Hopper
The problem may even be worse than it looks because the warming process is
accelerating at a rate that is difficult to pin down.
No! The acceleration is easily calculated, Mr. Hopper.
http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Slope1952-2005.jpg
a second order non-linear regression would likely show that although we're
still on a warming trend, it's possibly slowing. If there was a raw text
fileof the temperature as a function of the year, I could quickly write a
utility to plot the curves using varying orders.
Your understanding of mathematics is not at fault, nor is your ability
in math questioned. You just flunk physics is all. Prigogine won the
nobel prize for teaching about systems far from equilibrium. The reason
he did and you didn't win that prize, is because you are not
understanding that global climate and weather is non-linear.

You have fallen into the error that increasing heat energy in the
system equates to temperatures. It is not Global "Warming" but Global
"over-energizing" that is the problem. You can only stuff so many
calories into the system before it has an explosive release. This
explosive release vents off energy which does not show as points on a
heat chart, but shows as dead cities like New Orleans, Cozumel, Cancun,
Port Arthur. They died so that the heat energy could be dissipated out
to space exactly, precisely, according to the teachings of Prigogine.

The points on Coppock's temperature charts very well may stabilize, may
even trend downwards, but the plots of dead cities will continue to
rise as the pot boils more furiously.

Water reaches temperature equilibrium when the pot is boiling, even if
you seriously increase the energy into the system. But the pot boils
more vigorously as more energy is input into the system and that never
shows on the temperature plot until all the water is gone and the pan
starts to melt -- then the temperatures go up again.

The graph to watch is the violent storms graphs. They are evacuating
heat energy from the biosphere up to the stratosphere so it can waft
into space. Those charts show increasing violent storm events. Tornado
season started two months earlier this year. Hurricane season lasted
past new year's day last year. The temperatures on his graphs are
artificially low because Prigogine's "spontaneously emerging
dissipating structures" appeared. Nature has only a few ways to
jettison excess heat energy. The radiative vent is blocked by
greenhouse gases, so it has to turn to more violent means to break
through that barrier. It still has a means to purge excessive heat
energy, but the means is not pleasant to such fragile beings as us and
our flimsey structures.

If you were as smart as you think you are, you would be spending your
time breaking the barriers to non-carbon energy supplies and leave the
climate stuff to those who went on to high school physics and above.
You are just not qualified to be in this discussion.

Since you like math, look up Rene Thom. His "catastrophe theory" is the
basis for understanding non-linear abrupt transformations in systems
far from equilibrium.
Joe Jared
2006-05-21 08:59:49 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 21 May 2006 01:03:33 -0700, Al Bedo Beats His Meat-O, Squirts
Post by Al Bedo Beats His Meat-O, Squirts Brains in Lap.
If you were as smart as you think you are, you would be spending your
time breaking the barriers to non-carbon energy supplies and leave the
climate stuff to those who went on to high school physics and above.
You are just not qualified to be in this discussion.
Just an idle thought, but, well, what if you're wrong? Would your ego be
able to handle it?
--
Listed? You must be joking http://relays.osirusoft.com
Pallorium V. Jared ruling http://www.oretek.com/lawsuite/ruling.pdf
http://www.oretek.com/lawsuite/
Al Bedo Beats His Meat-O, Squirts Brains in Lap.
2006-05-21 09:23:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Jared
On Sun, 21 May 2006 01:03:33 -0700, Al Bedo Beats His Meat-O, Squirts
Post by Al Bedo Beats His Meat-O, Squirts Brains in Lap.
If you were as smart as you think you are, you would be spending your
time breaking the barriers to non-carbon energy supplies and leave the
climate stuff to those who went on to high school physics and above.
You are just not qualified to be in this discussion.
Just an idle thought, but, well, what if you're wrong? Would your ego be
able to handle it?
All your thoughts are idle. Old saying "Devil Makes Mischief With Idle
Hands". You should stop thinking, 'cause you are not very good at it,
and beat your meat to pictures of Ann Coulter barebutt in 6-inch spiked
heels black boots with spurs riding "horsey" on the nekked Clarence
Thomas while he watches porn videos he rents frequently.

Or, if you are a minor-aged boy hooker you could idle away the hours
charging top bucks at late night Whitehouse orgies. Wouldn't want the
Devil to get you thinking idle thoughts, or for that matter thinking
any thoughts at all, now would we, rightard?

The Story of Jeff Gannon, White House Credentialed Press Corps:
http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/02/man-called-jeff.html

Notice YOU MUST BE OVER 21 and REPUBLICAN to view this dirty picture of
a Whitehouse "Excort" in the nude.
XXX over 21! Loading Image...

UNDERNEWS: ALL JEFF GANNON ALL THE TIME
One White House reporter expressed revulsion over the fact that it was
[Ari] ... AND GEORGE ARCHIBALD WASHINGTON TIMES, 1989: A
homosexual prostitution ring ...
http://prorev.com/2005/02/all-jeff-gannon-all-time.htm

The Washington Note: Comment on The White House's "Don't Ask, Don ...
Does anything happen in this White House without Rove's approval? ...
Let's see, a male prostitute gained access to the WH under an assumed
name. ...
www.thewashingtonnote.com/mt/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=319

The Washington Note Archives
If he was already a prostitute, why not be one in the White House
... hope that a tawdry tale involving homosexual prostitution will
shock the
nation into ...
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/000319.html

http://tinyurl.com/dwh6a
Results about 47,900 for Whitehouse homosexual prostitutes "Washington
Times".

The Child Prostitution Sex Ring Involving the Bush Whitehouse
HOMOSEXUAL CHILD PROSTITUTION RING INVOLVING GEORGE BUSH SR. ...
We now turn to some news stories that appeared in the Washington Times
more
than a decade ...
www.voxfux.com/features/bush_child_sex_coverup/article_archive.htm -

The Child Prostitution Ring that Reached Bush Whitehouse
BUSH CHILD PROSTITUTION COVER-UP - - - VOXFUX. ... The Washington
Times, Pg. A3 July 26, 1989 Headline: Secret Service furloughs
third White
House guard ...
http://www.voxfux.com/features/bush_child_sex_coverup/franklin.htm

The Franklin Coverup Scandal The Child sex ring that reached Bush ...
Boy prostitutes 15 years old (and younger) were taking midnight tours
of the ... Photographer for White House child sex ring arrested after
Thompson suicide ...
http://www.thelawparty.com/FranklinCoverup/franklin.htm

Homosexual Prostitution Inquiry Ensnares VIPs With Reagan, Bush Sr.
1989 Washington Times: Homosexual Prostitution Inquiry Ensnares VIPs
With Reagan, ... The byline reads, Call Boys Took Midnight Tour Of The
White House.
...
http://www.freepressinternational.com/franklin_121304_decamp_9h182g209k.html

Whiskey Bar: Pieces of the Puzzle
... credit card clients of a homosexual prostitution ring now under
investigation ... The focus on private White House tours came after
he Washington Times ...
http://billmon.org/archives/001692.html - 15k - Cached - Similar pages

:: Libertythink :: Encouraging Cognitive Liberty in an Age of ...
1989: Bush matriarch says White House manwhores no big deal ... That
investigation centered on a homosexual call-boy service that operated
out of a house on ...
http://www.libertythink.com/2005/02/1989-bush-matriarch-says-white-house_17

''Call Boys Took Midnight Tour of White House."
he Times reported, ``A homosexual prostitution ring is under ... The
Washington Times reported in an article titled ``White House Mute on
Call Boy
Scandal ...
http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/03-09-05/discussion.cgi.82.html

The Child sex ring that reached Bush/Reagan Whitehouse
the Whitehouse. There are 19 more Washington Times articles in full
text ... prostitute to the present White House since George W. Bush
permitted ...
http://www.apfn.net/Messageboard/04-10-05/discussion.cgi.58.html -

Rigorous Intuition: Stirring the White House honey pot
In The Washington Times of August 9, 1989, Spence "hinted the tours
were ... Running a male prostitute ring, possibly in conjunction with
blackmail
ops to ...
http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2005/02/stirring-white-house-honey-pot.html

Rigorous Intuition: America's Condition Greene
They all accused King of running a child prostitution ring for the
political and ... On July 29, 1989, the Washington Times published
the banner front page ...
http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2005/02/americas-condition-greene.html


Paul M. Rodriguez and George Archibald The Washington Times; Final
Section: ... 28 raid on a house on 34th Place NW used by a homosexual
prostitution ring, ...
http://www.newsmakingnews.com/sexandcapitol7,18,01.htm

SEX , CRIME & THE CAPITAL: Sex , crime and politics in Washington...
... AND GEORGE ARCHIBALD WASHINGTON TIMES, 1989: A homosexual
prostitution ... DC cops are under orders from the White House and
Capitol Hill to
keep up ...
http://prorev.com/sexindc.htm
Joe Jared
2006-05-21 09:33:27 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 21 May 2006 02:23:24 -0700, Al Bedo Beats His Meat-O, Squirts
Post by Al Bedo Beats His Meat-O, Squirts Brains in Lap.
Post by Joe Jared
On Sun, 21 May 2006 01:03:33 -0700, Al Bedo Beats His Meat-O, Squirts
Post by Al Bedo Beats His Meat-O, Squirts Brains in Lap.
If you were as smart as you think you are, you would be spending your
time breaking the barriers to non-carbon energy supplies and leave the
climate stuff to those who went on to high school physics and above.
You are just not qualified to be in this discussion.
Just an idle thought, but, well, what if you're wrong? Would your ego be
able to handle it?
All your thoughts are idle. Old saying "Devil Makes Mischief With Idle
Hands". You should stop thinking, 'cause you are not very good at it,
and beat your meat to pictures of Ann Coulter barebutt in 6-inch spiked
heels black boots with spurs riding "horsey" on the nekked Clarence
Thomas while he watches porn videos he rents frequently.
Thanks. You've answered my question and made a complete fool out of
yourself in the process.
--
Listed? You must be joking http://relays.osirusoft.com
Pallorium V. Jared ruling http://www.oretek.com/lawsuite/ruling.pdf
http://www.oretek.com/lawsuite/
Al Bedo Beats His Meat-O, Squirts Brains in Lap.
2006-05-21 09:47:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Jared
On Sun, 21 May 2006 02:23:24 -0700, Al Bedo Beats His Meat-O, Squirts
Post by Al Bedo Beats His Meat-O, Squirts Brains in Lap.
Post by Joe Jared
On Sun, 21 May 2006 01:03:33 -0700, Al Bedo Beats His Meat-O, Squirts
Post by Al Bedo Beats His Meat-O, Squirts Brains in Lap.
If you were as smart as you think you are, you would be spending your
time breaking the barriers to non-carbon energy supplies and leave the
climate stuff to those who went on to high school physics and above.
You are just not qualified to be in this discussion.
Just an idle thought, but, well, what if you're wrong? Would your ego be
able to handle it?
All your thoughts are idle. Old saying "Devil Makes Mischief With Idle
Hands". You should stop thinking, 'cause you are not very good at it,
and beat your meat to pictures of Ann Coulter barebutt in 6-inch spiked
heels black boots with spurs riding "horsey" on the nekked Clarence
Thomas while he watches porn videos he rents frequently.
Thanks. You've answered my question and made a complete fool out of
yourself in the process.
Glad I could help clear up your confusion there rightard. By the way,
you're not one of those Monkey Kids from Kansas that has to be taught
Creation Science because your genepool hasn't yet evolved brains
sufficient to handle Real Science, are you? If you are, I could
introduce you to some monkeys in our zoo, who know how to fling real
feces instead of that pathetic verbal crap you toss around. Take it
from our monkey's, there's no substitute to pitching wads of fresh
stinky poop instead of that right-wing verbal sheeit that comes from
blowhard apes like Rush Limbaugh. Your soul already smells like it --
what have you got to lose at this point in your degeneracy?

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=2
FACTSHEET: Competitive Enterprise Institute, CEI
1001 Connecticut Avenue, NW Suite 1250 Washington, DC 20036
Phone: 202-547-1010 Fax: 202-546-7757
Competitive Enterprise Institute has received $1,735,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/index.php?mapid=556

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=93
FACTSHEET: Cooler Heads Coalition, CHC
Cooler Heads Coalition 1001 Connecticut Ave., NW, #1250 Washington, DC
20036
Phone: (202) 331-1010

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=31
FACTSHEET: Consumer Alert, CA
1001 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Suite 1128 Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 467-5809
Fax: (202) 467-5814
Consumer Alert has received $70,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.

http://www.objectivistcenter.org/
Edward Hudgins Washington Director
The Objectivist Center
1001 Connecticut Ave. NW Suite 1250 Washington, D.C. 20036
202-AYN-RAND (296-7263)

http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=562
The Cooler Heads Coalition c/o Consumer Alert
1001 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Suite 1128
Washington, D.C. 22036
Telephone: (202)467-5809 Fax: (202)467-5814

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=93
FACTSHEET: Cooler Heads Coalition, CHC
KEY PEOPLE
Myron Ebell, Chairman
Paul Georgia, former Editor, "Cooler Heads" Newsletter
Marlo Lewis Jr., former Chairman
Frances Smith, Coordinator, National Consumer Coalition
Patrick J. Michaels, Speaker (TASSC)
Christopher C. Horner, Counsel, Cooler Heads Coalition and Senior
Fellow
PEOPLE
Nils-Axel Morner
Madhav Khandekar
Paul Reiter

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=6
FACTSHEET: The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition, TASSC
The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition has received $30,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
S. Fred Singer (TASSC)
Patrick J. Michaels (TASSC)
Steven Milloy (TASSC) http://www.tobacco.org/news/222043.html
Frederick Seitz (TASSC) http://www.tobacco.org/news/222043.html
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=105
FACTSHEET: The Advancement of Sound Science Center, Inc.,
The Advancement of Sound Science Center, Inc. has received $40,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
KEY PEOPLE
Steven Milloy (TASSC) http://www.tobacco.org/news/222043.html
Bonner Cohen (TASSC) http://tobaccodocuments.org/landman/138074.html

TASSC Crooks:
***
http://www.cspinet.org/integrity/nonprofits/the_advancement_of_sound_science_coalition_defunct_.html
The office of Stephen Milloy (executive director of TASSC) is in the
headquarters of APCO Associates, a Washington, D.C., PR firm that
specializes in creating coalitions like TASSC. (Village Voice, April
29, 1997, p. 39) According to the Environmental Working Group (EWG)
this "sound science" coalition is supported by hundreds of
corporations, including Amoco (oil), Chevron (oil), Dow Chemical
(petrochemicals), Exxon (oil), General Motors (oil fueled), Occidental
Petroleum (oil), Philip Morris (lung cancer), and W.R. Grace (asbestos
lung disease). TASSC's extensive advisory board contains well known
"science skeptics" S. Fred Singer, Bruce Ames, Dr. Patrick
Michaels, Michael Sanera, and Hugh Ellsaesser (TASSC).
*** http://tobaccodocuments.org/landman/158433.html Designer front
group - TASSC
After the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) declared
secondhand smoke as a Class A Human Carcinogen, Philip Morris needed a
powerful group to rise up help discredit EPA's findings. Thus PM formed
"The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition," or TASSC. Recognizing
that the chemical, paper, metal, petroleum and other
environmentally-dubious industries would also be thrilled to have a
group of "committed experts" who would publicly say that scientific
warnings against their activities were not credible, PM invited these
industries to join TASSC. With the needs clear and a host of willing
help-mates waiting in the wings, PM created TASSC through a public
relations firm called APCO Associates, which helped PM distance itself
from the group.
*** http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2024233595-3602.html Thoughts on
Tassc Europe
***
http://homepage.mac.com/herinst/envcrisis/greenhouse/scientists.html
Such scientists do not disclose their funding sources when talking to
the media or before government hearings. An example is Patrick
Michaels, who is generally described in the media as being from the
University of Virginia. Michaels edits the World Climate Report, which
is funded by the Greening Earth Society which was created by Western
Fuels Association (a consortium of coal interests) and associated
companies. Additionally Michaels has received funding for his research
from Western Fuels Association, Cyprus Minerals Company, the Edison
Electric Institute and the German Coal Mining Association. Michaels is
a senior fellow of the Cato Institute, on the advisory board of several
anti-environmental groups including the American Council on Science and
Health, Consumer Alert, The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition
(TASSC) and the Greening Earth Society was at one time on the advisory
board of the Information Council on the Environment. ... SEPP argues
that global warming, ozone depletion and acid rain are not real but
rather are scare tactics used by environmentalists. Fred Singer, speaks
and writes prolifically on these subjects and is in demand by
anti-environment groups. He is on the advisory board of The Advancement
of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC). Two of the leading Australian
conservative think tanks have sponsored him to tour Australia, putting
his views on global warming. Most recently he toured Austria in
November 1997, prior to the Kyoto conference, and presented a speech to
the Austrian parliament. He has worked for companies such as Exxon,
Shell, and Arco. According to the Environmental Research Foundation:
*** http://www.stopesso.com/coverage/00000077.php
The draft plan calls for recruiting scientists to argue against the
Administration, and suggests that they include ''individuals who do not
have a long history of visibility and/or participation in the climate
change debate.'' But among the plan's advocates are groups already
linked to the best-known critics of global-warming science. They
include the Science and Environment Policy Project, founded by Fred
Singer, a physicist noted for opposing the mainstream view of climate
science. Frederick Seitz, another prominent skeptic on global warming,
is involved with two other groups mentioned in the plan: the George C.
Marshall Institute, where Dr. Seitz is chairman, and the Advancement of
Sound Science Coalition, where he is on the science advisory board.
*** http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2505646347-6368.html Tobacco
Industry Efforts Subverting the International Agency for Research on
Cancer's Secondhand Smoke Study
*** http://tobaccodocuments.org/landman/138074.html Dioxin, DDT and
"other scares"
*** http://www.junkscience.com/news2/cushman.htm
Science and Environment Policy Project, founded by Fred Singer, a
physicist noted for opposing the mainstream view of climate science.
Frederick Seitz, another prominent skeptic on global warming, is
involved with two other groups mentioned in the plan: the George C.
Marshall Institute, where Seitz is chairman, and the Advancement of
Sound Science Coalition, where he is on the science advisory board.


Patrick J. Michaels -- TASSC
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2024233615-3618.html
the Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (Tassc) Supporters List.
Page 3: 2024233617
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2505646389-6414.html
Tobacco Industry Efforts Subverting the International Agency for
Research on Cancer's Secondhand Smoke Study

http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2505646276-6309.html
Tobacco Industry Efforts Subverting the International Agency for
Research on Cancer's Secondhand Smoke Study

http://homepage.mac.com/herinst/sbeder/ecologist2.html
"... Such scientists do not disclose their funding sources when talking
to the media or before government hearings. An example is Patrick
Michaels, who is generally described in the media as being from the
University of Virginia. Michaels edits the World Climate Report, which
is funded by Western Fuels Association (a consortium of coal interests)
and associated companies. Additionally Michaels has received funding
for his research from Western Fuels Association, Cyprus Minerals
Company, the Edison Electric Institute and the German Coal Mining
Association.[24] Michaels is on the advisory board of TASSC and was at
one time on the advisory board of the Information Council on the
Environment.

Michaels was featured in New Scientist in July 1997 as "a climatologist
at the University of Virginia" and one of the "world's top scientists."
Michael's criticisms of global warming models are cited in the article
without any mention of his funding sources.[25] Michaels in turn cites
the New Scientist article as supporting his views without mentioning
the article was based on an interview with him.[26]

Michaels told an Australian business audience that global warming would
lead to milder winters, longer agricultural seasons in cold climates
and little extra heat in warmer climates. He was referred to in the
Sydney Morning Herald as "a leading American climatologist" from the
University of Virginia. The paper quoted him as saying "You'd have a
very hard time saying it was a net negative.... I find it very hard to
believe that the folks in the Pacific Islands won't adapt to a 30
centimetres sea level rise."[27] ..."

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=31
FACTSHEET: Consumer Alert, CA
Consumer Alert has received $70,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
KEY PEOPLE
Patrick J. Michaels, Advisory Council Member (TASSC)
Michael Fumento, former Fellow
Elizabeth Whelan, Advisory Council member
Frances Smith, Executive Director
Terrence Scanlon, Advisor
I.W. (Irwin) Tucker, Advisory Council
PEOPLE
Robert W. Poole, Tom Miller, Henry Miller, James Miller III, Walter
Williams, Barbara Keating-Edh, William C. MacLeod, Carol G. Dawson,
Terry Neese, Roger E. Meiners, James Plummer, Barbara Rippel, Thomas
diLorenzo, Jonathan H. Adler, Hugh Ellsaesser (TASSC), Ernest Hueter,
Bruce Yandle, Benjamin Zycher, Judy Kent.

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=2
FACTSHEET: Competitive Enterprise Institute, CEI
Competitive Enterprise Institute has received $1,735,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
KEY PEOPLE
Ronald Bailey, Adjunct Analyst
Michael Fumento
Fred L. Smith Jr., President and Founder
Myron Ebell, Director of Energy and Global Warming Policy
Christopher C. Horner, Counsel, Cooler Heads Coalition and Senior
Fellow
William O'Keefe
Frances Smith, Board of Directors member
Iain Murray, Senior Fellow
Marlo Lewis Jr., Senior Fellow
Roger Bate, Adjunct Fellow
John Christy, Contributing Writer
Sen. James Inhofe, Co-plaintiff in lawsuit
Sallie Baliunas, Scientific Expert
Steven Milloy, Adjunct Analyst (TASSC)
PEOPLE
Ben Lieberman, Angela Logomasini, Henry Miller, Joel Schwartz, James M.
Sheehan, Robert J. Smith, William Dunn, Michael S. Greve, Leonard
Liggio, Jody Clarke, Gregory Conko, Robert L. Bradley Jr., Sam Kazman,
Solveig Singleton, Donald J. Boudreaux, James Bovard, Clyde Wayne Crews
Jr., Christopher Culp, Julie DeFalco, James V. DeLong, Dana Joel
Gattuso, James L. Gattuso, C.S. Prakash, Jessica Melugin, Cassandra C.
Moore, Robert Nelson, Jonathan H. Adler, Jack Kemp, Paul Georgia, David
R. Legates, Neil Hrab, Soso Whaley, Hans Bader, John Berlau, Timothy
Carney, Christine Hall, Brooke Oberwetter, Ivan Osorio, Isaac Post,
Doug Bandow, Patrick Cox, Bradley Jansen, Stan Leibowitz, George
Pielar, James Plummer, Stephen B. Pociask, Richard Tren.
Starkiller©
2006-05-21 12:29:20 UTC
Permalink
On 21 May 2006 02:47:16 -0700, "Al Bedo Beats His Meat-O, Squirts
Post by Al Bedo Beats His Meat-O, Squirts Brains in Lap.
Post by Joe Jared
On Sun, 21 May 2006 02:23:24 -0700, Al Bedo Beats His Meat-O, Squirts
Post by Al Bedo Beats His Meat-O, Squirts Brains in Lap.
Post by Joe Jared
On Sun, 21 May 2006 01:03:33 -0700, Al Bedo Beats His Meat-O, Squirts
Post by Al Bedo Beats His Meat-O, Squirts Brains in Lap.
If you were as smart as you think you are, you would be spending your
time breaking the barriers to non-carbon energy supplies and leave the
climate stuff to those who went on to high school physics and above.
You are just not qualified to be in this discussion.
Just an idle thought, but, well, what if you're wrong? Would your ego be
able to handle it?
All your thoughts are idle. Old saying "Devil Makes Mischief With Idle
Hands". You should stop thinking, 'cause you are not very good at it,
and beat your meat to pictures of Ann Coulter barebutt in 6-inch spiked
heels black boots with spurs riding "horsey" on the nekked Clarence
Thomas while he watches porn videos he rents frequently.
Thanks. You've answered my question and made a complete fool out of
yourself in the process.
Glad I could help clear up your confusion there rightard. By the way,
you're not one of those Monkey Kids from Kansas that has to be taught
Creation Science because your genepool hasn't yet evolved brains
sufficient to handle Real Science, are you? If you are, I could
introduce you to some monkeys in our zoo, who know how to fling real
feces instead of that pathetic verbal crap you toss around. Take it
from our monkey's, there's no substitute to pitching wads of fresh
stinky poop instead of that right-wing verbal sheeit that comes from
blowhard apes like Rush Limbaugh. Your soul already smells like it --
what have you got to lose at this point in your degeneracy?
Again nothing buty hate spewed by the braindead LIb. No facts or even
intelligent discussion. Just third grade level insults.


NO SOUP FOR YOU



Regards


Starkiller©

"To act dishonorably is the most outrageous behavior imaginable to a Minbari.
Captain Sheridan destroyed the Minbari cruiser Black Star during the war using
mines - a "sneak attack" that earned him the name Starkiller among the Minbari."
Starkiller©
2006-05-21 12:29:19 UTC
Permalink
On 21 May 2006 02:23:24 -0700, "Al Bedo Beats His Meat-O, Squirts
Post by Al Bedo Beats His Meat-O, Squirts Brains in Lap.
Post by Joe Jared
On Sun, 21 May 2006 01:03:33 -0700, Al Bedo Beats His Meat-O, Squirts
Post by Al Bedo Beats His Meat-O, Squirts Brains in Lap.
If you were as smart as you think you are, you would be spending your
time breaking the barriers to non-carbon energy supplies and leave the
climate stuff to those who went on to high school physics and above.
You are just not qualified to be in this discussion.
Just an idle thought, but, well, what if you're wrong? Would your ego be
able to handle it?
All your thoughts are idle. Old saying "Devil Makes Mischief With Idle
Hands". You should stop thinking, 'cause you are not very good at it,
and beat your meat to pictures of Ann Coulter barebutt in 6-inch spiked
heels black boots with spurs riding "horsey" on the nekked Clarence
Thomas while he watches porn videos he rents frequently.
Or, if you are a minor-aged boy hooker you could idle away the hours
charging top bucks at late night Whitehouse orgies. Wouldn't want the
Devil to get you thinking idle thoughts, or for that matter thinking
any thoughts at all, now would we, rightard?
<Additional Stupid Bullshit snipped>
Seems you have absolutely no response to the discussion other than
throwing out insults.
How typically LIBERAL of you.
The guy asked a simple question and you lose your shit about it.
Apparently your piddly little ego can't handle it yes?

Not a very adept troll are ya? Must be terrible to be so inadequate.













Regards


Starkiller©

"To act dishonorably is the most outrageous behavior imaginable to a Minbari.
Captain Sheridan destroyed the Minbari cruiser Black Star during the war using
mines - a "sneak attack" that earned him the name Starkiller among the Minbari."
Thomas Lee Elifritz
2006-05-21 17:29:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Jared
On Sun, 21 May 2006 01:03:33 -0700, Al Bedo Beats His Meat-O, Squirts
Post by Al Bedo Beats His Meat-O, Squirts Brains in Lap.
If you were as smart as you think you are, you would be spending your
time breaking the barriers to non-carbon energy supplies and leave the
climate stuff to those who went on to high school physics and above.
You are just not qualified to be in this discussion.
Just an idle thought, but, well, what if you're wrong? Would your ego be
able to handle it?
Einstein demonstrated Newton to be utterly and absolutely wrong, yet
scientists weren't jumping out of windows. I do recall investors were
doing that after Black Sunday, when their egos took a crushing defeat.

Is your ego prepared for the future?

http://cosmic.lifeform.org
Joe Jared
2006-05-21 19:37:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thomas Lee Elifritz
Post by Joe Jared
On Sun, 21 May 2006 01:03:33 -0700, Al Bedo Beats His Meat-O, Squirts
Post by Al Bedo Beats His Meat-O, Squirts Brains in Lap.
If you were as smart as you think you are, you would be spending your
time breaking the barriers to non-carbon energy supplies and leave the
climate stuff to those who went on to high school physics and above.
You are just not qualified to be in this discussion.
Just an idle thought, but, well, what if you're wrong? Would your ego be
able to handle it?
Einstein demonstrated Newton to be utterly and absolutely wrong, yet
scientists weren't jumping out of windows. I do recall investors were
doing that after Black Sunday, when their egos took a crushing defeat.
That's because they were real scientists. The most obvious fact is that
we advance through an exchange of ideas and as a result, some of the more
original thinkers sometimes become pioneers in various fields. Many times
they're first seen as fools, and often, they are with subtle grains of
truth that make us think. I'm fairly certain none of us knows enough to
be able to stand above all of us and proclaim godhood.
Post by Thomas Lee Elifritz
Is your ego prepared for the future?
Hopefully. That question I asked of the condescending individual I ask
myself in all of my works. It's only practical to check and recheck, and
accept the possibility that an idea or theory has failed.
--
Listed? You must be joking http://relays.osirusoft.com
Pallorium V. Jared ruling http://www.oretek.com/lawsuite/ruling.pdf
http://www.oretek.com/lawsuite/
Warren Hopper
2006-05-21 16:53:14 UTC
Permalink
"Al Bedo Beats His Meat-O, Squirts Brains in Lap."
Post by Al Bedo Beats His Meat-O, Squirts Brains in Lap.
Post by Joe Jared
Post by Roger Coppock
Post by Warren Hopper
The problem may even be worse than it looks because the warming process is
accelerating at a rate that is difficult to pin down.
No! The acceleration is easily calculated, Mr. Hopper.
http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Slope1952-2005.jpg
a second order non-linear regression would likely show that although we're
still on a warming trend, it's possibly slowing. If there was a raw text
fileof the temperature as a function of the year, I could quickly write a
utility to plot the curves using varying orders.
Your understanding of mathematics is not at fault, nor is your ability
in math questioned. You just flunk physics is all. Prigogine won the
nobel prize for teaching about systems far from equilibrium. The reason
he did and you didn't win that prize, is because you are not
understanding that global climate and weather is non-linear.
Excellent point and great stuff in the following paragraphs. But I believe
that the assumptions will true only be in so far as the weather system is a
'closed-loop'. There may be significant external factors working, such as
atmospheric dust. But maybe not, what do you think ?

A second point: in the non-linear dynamic model, the boiling kettle may
suddenly stop boiling for a couple of years at a time, that's variance too.

BTW, I know enough non-linear dynamic theory to get the job done and get
home in time for beer call. You seem to have a deeper background in the
subject than myself, which is mostly computer and network performance.

Do you know of any weather modelers who have worked with Liapunov functions
? Any links you know of ?
Post by Al Bedo Beats His Meat-O, Squirts Brains in Lap.
You have fallen into the error that increasing heat energy in the
system equates to temperatures. It is not Global "Warming" but Global
"over-energizing" that is the problem. You can only stuff so many
calories into the system before it has an explosive release. This
explosive release vents off energy which does not show as points on a
heat chart, but shows as dead cities like New Orleans, Cozumel, Cancun,
Port Arthur. They died so that the heat energy could be dissipated out
to space exactly, precisely, according to the teachings of Prigogine.
The points on Coppock's temperature charts very well may stabilize, may
even trend downwards, but the plots of dead cities will continue to
rise as the pot boils more furiously.
Water reaches temperature equilibrium when the pot is boiling, even if
you seriously increase the energy into the system. But the pot boils
more vigorously as more energy is input into the system and that never
shows on the temperature plot until all the water is gone and the pan
starts to melt -- then the temperatures go up again.
The graph to watch is the violent storms graphs. They are evacuating
heat energy from the biosphere up to the stratosphere so it can waft
into space. Those charts show increasing violent storm events. Tornado
season started two months earlier this year. Hurricane season lasted
past new year's day last year. The temperatures on his graphs are
artificially low because Prigogine's "spontaneously emerging
dissipating structures" appeared. Nature has only a few ways to
jettison excess heat energy. The radiative vent is blocked by
greenhouse gases, so it has to turn to more violent means to break
through that barrier. It still has a means to purge excessive heat
energy, but the means is not pleasant to such fragile beings as us and
our flimsey structures.
If you were as smart as you think you are, you would be spending your
time breaking the barriers to non-carbon energy supplies and leave the
climate stuff to those who went on to high school physics and above.
You are just not qualified to be in this discussion.
Since you like math, look up Rene Thom. His "catastrophe theory" is the
basis for understanding non-linear abrupt transformations in systems
far from equilibrium.
Roger Coppock
2006-05-21 20:10:42 UTC
Permalink
I'd like to see your second order regression.
The data are the J-D AnnMean column here:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
Do it!

To infer a cycle one generally should have more cycles
documented by the data.
Warren Hopper
2006-05-21 16:35:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger Coppock
Post by Claudius Denk
Post by Warren Hopper
The problem may even be worse than it looks because the warming process is
accelerating at a rate that is difficult to pin down.
No! The acceleration is easily calculated, Mr. Hopper.
http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Slope1952-2005.jpg
Post by Claudius Denk
Accelerating? There's been a downward trend since 1998. Only whacko's like
Roger and his creative mathematical techniques think they see acceleration.
A SIGNIFICANT DOWNARD GLOBAL TEMPERATURE TREND IN 1998?
NOPE, NOT AT ALL. MR. DENK IS LYING, AND HE KNOWS IT.
THE THE LAST SIGNIFICANT DOWNWARD TREND
IN EARTH's WARMING CLIMATE WAS 50 YEARS AGO.
Interesting.

I described the dynamics ( warmth melts ice -> water absorbs heat -> warmth
melts more ice ), but the actual statistics to back it up was beyond me.
Anyone who can present a numerical model deserves a lot of credit. Whether
the model is accurate or flawed or whatever, at least it's science, it
states a hypothesis and assumptions, describes the experiment, analyses the
result, etc.

In any case, your model is something we can all look at together, talk about
and try to understand, not just a bunch of yap flapping. It's called
Science, for some reason the ideologue types don't seem to understand the
concept of Science.

Thanks for your effort. Good work.

I've gotten my Linux platforms set up with the R environment, at long last.
It's not a steep learning curve, but it's not trivial either. I've been
playing around with Python and BioPython recently. It's neat.

My modeling background ( for what it's worth ) is mainly in the area of
non-linear dynamics, particularly in computer and network performance. One
phenomena that may be relevant to climate change is idea of meta-stable
systems. A meta-stable system gyrates around and looks random, but there is
a hidden order working behind the scenes, ratios of differences between one
cycle and the next orbit around a central value in predictable ways. ( If
you know all this already, it not a bad thing to state of other folks who
might be interested ).

When a meta-stable system is strongly perturbed, it gyrates even more wildly
as it moves from where it was to a next meta-stable state. That's why I was
saying that the variance of weather will increase sharply at almost ever
point on earth. It's not so much an effect of meteorology as a property of
meta-stable systems.

But this will be true only in so far as the global weather system is a
closed-loop meta-stable system. External factors such as variance in solar
output, stellar dust and 'who knows what' will tend to invalidate the closed
system assumption. According to a recent PBS science show ( Nova ? ),
increased atmospheric dust has been blocking solar radiation for the last 20
years or so, to the tune of 10-20%. That might tend to dampen non-linear
dynamic fluctuations, at least in the short run.

BTW, the sharp decline during the last 20s and 30s might be the result of
global droughts and increase atmospheric dust. But who knows for sure. I
think that anyone who makes sweeping and impassioned statements about
something so enormous and complex as the global weather system just "doesn't
get it" in a very fundamental way.

Anyway, thanks for your nice model.
Post by Roger Coppock
http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Slope1880-2005.jpg
My methods, the data I used, and the "R" program I used
=-=-=-=-=
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
They represent the results of tens of millions of readings
taken at thousands of land stations and ships around the globe
over the last 127 years. Yes, the land data are corrected for
the urban heat island effect. The sea data do not need to be.
There are few urban centers in the sea.
Computing a 30-year rolling slope about each yearly slope is
accomplished by looking at the year itself, 15 years before,
and 14 years ahead. When the points before and ahead are not
present, they are ignored. Slopes computed on less than this
maximum of 30 points are, by generally accepted definition,
not climate. They are overwhelmed by temporary events like
the El Nino Southern Oscillation and volcano eruptions.
Numbers of points bigger than 30 approach one-half the length
of the 127-year data set, and therefore, become unvarying and
useless. All slopes reported here are stable for 30 to 50
point widths.
The "R" Statistical Program script for this computation under
OS X is below. (The only statement dependent on a specific
computer platform is the use of the R language graphic verb
"quartz.") The "R" Statistical Program is freely available
for several computing platforms at: http://www.r-project.org/ .
=-=-=-=-=-=-=
rm(list=ls())
setwd("/Users/rogercoppock/Desktop")
options(digits=5)
aframe <- read.table("GLB.Ts+dSST.txt", header = TRUE)
# Find the Yearly Slopes
StartYear=1 # first data element
StepYear=1 # Number of years to skip between slope points
i=StartYear
ii=1
Slope=0
SlopeYear=0
while (i<=length(aframe$Year)) {
j=min(i+14,length(aframe$Year)) # 14 years ahead
k=max(1,i-15) # 15 years before
fitted.model <- lm(AnnMean[k:j] ~ Year[k:j], data=aframe)
SlopeYear[ii]=aframe$Year[i]
Slope[ii]=fitted.model$coefficients[2]
i=i+StepYear
ii=ii+1
}
Slope
summary(Slope)
sd(Slope)
# The Slope of the Yearly Slopes is the Acceleration.
fitted.model <- lm(Slope ~ SlopeYear)
quartz(display = "1", width=9, height=6, pointsize=14,
family="Helvetica", antialias=TRUE, autorefresh=TRUE)
plot(Slope ~ SlopeYear, pch=20, xlab="Year", ylab="Slope in K/Century")
title("30-year Rolling Temperature Slope")
mtext("Data from the NASA-GISS 'GLB.Ts+dSST.txt' file")
text(SlopeYear[1]+(SlopeYear[length(SlopeYear)]-SlopeYear[1])/2,max(Slope)-0
.1,paste("Global
Post by Roger Coppock
Warming is Accelerating at",
signif(fitted.model$coefficients[2]*100,2), "K/Century^2"))
abline(fitted.model$coefficients)
abline(h=0.0, lty="dotdash")
formula(fitted.model)
print(fitted.model)
summary(fitted.model)
Lloyd Parker
2006-05-22 11:46:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Claudius Denk
Post by Warren Hopper
There no doubt about global warming or it's probable effect on plant and
animal populations,
Uh, so we should just pretend not to notice that there is no credible
evidence of any present or future anthropocentric CO2 caused global warming?
You should just ignore data, science, and logic. Like you've been doing.
Post by Claudius Denk
Post by Warren Hopper
I think the biggest visible impact on humans may be global *drying*,
A warmer planet is a wetter planet, retard.
Yeah, that Saraha marsh.
Post by Claudius Denk
Post by Warren Hopper
The problem may even be worse than it looks because the warming process is
accelerating at a rate that is difficult to pin down.
Accelerating? There's been a downward trend since 1998.
OK, lie time.
Post by Claudius Denk
Only whacko's like
Roger and his creative mathematical techniques think they see acceleration.
Post by Warren Hopper
'way-out left leaning' scientists said that the polar ice caps would persist
until 2100, but some models predict that the caps
Models are useful only if your goal is to mislead the public.
So when the gov't models what would happen in a flu pandemic...
Post by Claudius Denk
Post by Warren Hopper
2050. As the caps melt, the ice reflects less sunlight and the released
water absorbs more energy, thereby accelerating the process at an
accelerating rate, the double whammy.
Try control, alt, delete. It will go away.
Post by Warren Hopper
Vastly increased variability of the weather is a dead
cert for almost every location on earth.
A warmer planet is a more stable planet, retard.
Post by Warren Hopper
The media is becoming aware of big, newsworthy tornados and hurricanes
That's good, because before they only noticed the small ones.
Roedy Green
2006-05-23 17:03:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger Coppock
Overpeck reviewed NASA studies showing how Arctic ice has shrunk in
size and depth. Climate models 25 years ago predicted a shrinking ice
pack.
"What we didn't predict is that it would be so dramatic," Overpeck said
In other words, the "Sky is falling" types UNDERESTIMATED the problem.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Java custom programming, consulting and coaching.
f***@spamcop.net
2006-05-24 22:41:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger Coppock
'No Uncertainty' About Global Warming, Scientists Say
Tuesday, February 07, 2006
That headline is a sad commentary on the state of science education
today. Of course there is uncertainty about global warming. What is
in dispute, is the magnitutude of that uncertainty. These days,
there is general agreement that the magnitude of that uncertainty is
small enough to conclude that Earth is warming.
Post by Roger Coppock
[ . . . ]
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,184147,00.html
Oh, fox news.
--
FF
Lloyd Parker
2006-05-25 12:58:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by f***@spamcop.net
Post by Roger Coppock
'No Uncertainty' About Global Warming, Scientists Say
Tuesday, February 07, 2006
That headline is a sad commentary on the state of science education
today. Of course there is uncertainty about global warming.
Not about the existence of it, or what's causing it.
Post by f***@spamcop.net
What is
in dispute, is the magnitutude of that uncertainty.
OK, by that standard, there's uncertainty about the existence of atoms.
Post by f***@spamcop.net
These days,
there is general agreement that the magnitude of that uncertainty is
small enough to conclude that Earth is warming.
NobodyYouKnow
2006-05-26 13:04:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lloyd Parker
Post by f***@spamcop.net
Post by Roger Coppock
'No Uncertainty' About Global Warming, Scientists Say
Tuesday, February 07, 2006
That headline is a sad commentary on the state of science education
today. Of course there is uncertainty about global warming.
Not about the existence of it, or what's causing it.
It is 'certain' in the sense that there is no longer any reason to doubt the
basic premise. I.e. it is as certain as your claiming that the house over
there is painted white. It may be that the other wall ( the one in the back
that you can't see) is painted grey for some obscure reason, but if all
facts ( the three walls) you can find show a white paint surface, then it is
a 'fact' in coloquial terms. As much as the sun coming up tomorrow, or the
fact that things fall down.. Nothing can be known perfectly but we deal
with 'facts = 'the preponderance of the evidence', not some sort of
religious dogma.

i.e. Brick shithouses may fall upstairs on occasion, but until he can show
one doing so, we have to assume that the 'uncertainty' is not a big issue.
In fact, we cannot call it an 'uncertainty' until we see at least one do
so.. really... that is, skepticism of global waming must show SOME
foundation for the skepticism and so far, bupkis, so it is not even really
an issue of the magnitude of the 'uncertainty'.

Now, in color of the house analogy, most of the claimed 'uncertainty' comes
down to debate about how white is white.. Not a real issue about whether the
house is white, but rather a endless 'nit picking' and picking at spots to
see if the paint will peel...
Post by Lloyd Parker
Post by f***@spamcop.net
What is
in dispute, is the magnitutude of that uncertainty.
OK, by that standard, there's uncertainty about the existence of atoms.
And mass, and gravity and the existence of the universe, and ... one more
round for Descartes... and even he gave up the 'doubt is our product' after
a while with 'I think, therefore I am' to get out of the 'theoretical
skepticism' that he started. Reality is reality. Fred should deal with it.
Post by Lloyd Parker
Post by f***@spamcop.net
These days,
there is general agreement that the magnitude of that uncertainty is
small enough to conclude that Earth is warming.
f***@spamcop.net
2006-05-26 16:10:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lloyd Parker
Post by f***@spamcop.net
Post by Roger Coppock
'No Uncertainty' About Global Warming, Scientists Say
Tuesday, February 07, 2006
That headline is a sad commentary on the state of science education
today. Of course there is uncertainty about global warming.
Not about the existence of it, or what's causing it.
Post by f***@spamcop.net
What is
in dispute, is the magnitutude of that uncertainty.
OK, by that standard, there's uncertainty about the existence of atoms.
Not about the existance of atoms. But certainly there are many
uncertainties about atoms.

Regardless, it seems you understand.

DAGS "Uncertainty Pair." In Particle Physics the word has an
even more esotheric meaning than in science in general.
--
FF
M***@hotmail.com
2006-05-26 14:32:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by f***@spamcop.net
Post by Roger Coppock
'No Uncertainty' About Global Warming, Scientists Say
Tuesday, February 07, 2006
That headline is a sad commentary on the state of science education
today. Of course there is uncertainty about global warming. What is
in dispute, is the magnitutude of that uncertainty. These days,
there is general agreement that the magnitude of that uncertainty is
small enough to conclude that Earth is warming.
Not one peer review study disputes that enough CO2 has been pumped into
the atmosphere by humans, directly or indirectly, to cause a measure
increase in the global average temperature. Not one.

The only disputes are over exactly what is going to happen in the
future.
Post by f***@spamcop.net
Post by Roger Coppock
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,184147,00.html
Oh, fox news.
What, Fox Noise too liberal for you? I thought it rather savvy to get
the link from Fox Noise to forestall the obligatory "Well of course a
liberal media site would report that".
z
2006-05-26 14:59:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by M***@hotmail.com
Post by f***@spamcop.net
Post by Roger Coppock
'No Uncertainty' About Global Warming, Scientists Say
Tuesday, February 07, 2006
That headline is a sad commentary on the state of science education
today. Of course there is uncertainty about global warming. What is
in dispute, is the magnitutude of that uncertainty. These days,
there is general agreement that the magnitude of that uncertainty is
small enough to conclude that Earth is warming.
Not one peer review study disputes that enough CO2 has been pumped into
the atmosphere by humans, directly or indirectly, to cause a measure
increase in the global average temperature. Not one.
The What-Anthropogenic-Climate-Change position basically violates
Occam's Razor twice; it requires an unknown agent to prevent the CO2
increase from exerting its normal greenhouse effect, then another
unknown agent to account for the observed temperature change. In any
field of science where the 'wrong' answer didn't cost wealthy folks
money, it would have been laughed down long ago.
f***@spamcop.net
2006-05-26 16:16:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by M***@hotmail.com
Post by Roger Coppock
'No Uncertainty' About Global Warming, Scientists Say
Tuesday, February 07, 2006
.... These days,
there is general agreement that the magnitude of that uncertainty is
small enough to conclude that Earth is warming.
Not one peer review study disputes that enough CO2 has been pumped into
the atmosphere by humans, directly or indirectly, to cause a measure
increase in the global average temperature. Not one.
The only disputes are over exactly what is going to happen in the
future.
Post by Roger Coppock
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,184147,00.html
Oh, fox news.
What, Fox Noise too liberal for you? I thought it rather savvy to get
the link from Fox Noise to forestall the obligatory "Well of course a
liberal media site would report that".
No one is completely useless. At least you and "Nobodyyouknow"
serve as clear examples of the problem.

Shall we try the Platonic method?

Supposing you read: OJ Simpson's enterred a ruling of 'Not Guilty"?

Would that strike you as odd, in any way?

--

FF
z
2006-05-30 16:11:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by f***@spamcop.net
Supposing you read: OJ Simpson's enterred a ruling of 'Not Guilty"?
Would that strike you as odd, in any way?
Very much so, as the verdict came in years ago.
Just like AGW!

Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...