"Science" behind "global warming" revealed by historical quote:

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will
eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such
time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic
and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally
important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent,
for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension,
the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

--Joseph Goebbels, Nazi Reich Minister of Public Enlightenment and
Propaganda

Den 09.06.2012 09:11, skrev bjacoby:
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will
eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such
time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic
and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally
important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent,
for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension,
the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.�

--Joseph Goebbels, Nazi Reich Minister of Public Enlightenment and
Propaganda

Something is wrong with you, and we will find out.
http://thinklings.org/posts/goebbels...ally-mean-that
--
jo
"Action on global warming can be driven by heroic leadership
or by events. It'll probably be by events."--Richard Smalley

On 6/9/2012 4:46 AM, Jo Stein wrote:
Den 09.06.2012 09:11, skrev bjacoby:
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will
eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such
time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic
and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally
important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent,
for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension,
the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.�

--Joseph Goebbels, Nazi Reich Minister of Public Enlightenment and
Propaganda

Something is wrong with you, and we will find out.
http://thinklings.org/posts/goebbels...ally-mean-that

The statement pretty much speaks for itself. As the guilty try more and
more desperately to consolidate their power, "skeptic" websites
proliferate attempting to "debunk" every bit of truth that leaks out.
Hence the one thing correct about the website is that one can blindly
believe all the nameless "authorities" on the internet at one's peril.

On Sat, 09 Jun 2012 10:46:49 +0200, Jo Stein wrote:

Den 09.06.2012 09:11, skrev bjacoby:
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will
eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such
time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic
and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally
important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent,
for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension,
the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.�

--Joseph Goebbels, Nazi Reich Minister of Public Enlightenment and
Propaganda

Something is wrong with you, and we will find out.
http://thinklings.org/posts/goebbels...ally-mean-that

Yeah. But what he said is still right.

Consider that the British had about a quarter of the human population
under their thumb at the time (China, India, much of the middle East and
Africa, Australia and Canada and so on) yet they convinced the world that
it was the Germans, who were trying to reunite after the British chopped
them up as a war prize and took Germany's colonies, and not the British
who were trying to take over the world.

Then there is the whole way that even this quote has been twisted by the
constant lie. ;-D

Funny as hell, if you think about it.

Regardless, what he said is true.

bjacoby wrote:

"I

The crap global warmie science has unraveled a lot in the last
few days. Nature published an article debunking the connection
between CO2 and global warmie hallucination.

There is no connection!!

10m years ago, there was a third less CO2 and good deal warmer.

So global warmie science is controlled by space weather
after all instead of man made hallucinations on earth.

"7" email_at_www_at_enemygadgets_dot_com@enemygadgets .com wrote in message
...
bjacoby wrote:

"I

The crap global warmie science has unraveled a lot in the last
few days. Nature published an article debunking the connection
between CO2 and global warmie hallucination.

There is no connection!!

10m years ago, there was a third less CO2 and good deal warmer.

So global warmie science is controlled by space weather
after all instead of man made hallucinations on earth.


As usual the scientificly illiterate jump at the slightest hint of some
evidence that CO2 is not important to warming and they distort it completely
beyond recognition.

Here is the abstract for the original article
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture11200.html

There is no mention of space weather. The authors mainly deal with the
thermoclines in the ocean at that time and how that can cause feed backs
that altered the climate.

No one has ever claimed that CO2 is the only factor that affects global
temperature

"anorton" wrote:
No one has ever claimed that CO2 is the only factor
that affects global temperature

hanson wrote:
THAT IS RIGHT!... Precisely!... Here is what they said:

7 "No matter if the science is all phony, Climate change
= provides equality in the world."
= -- Christine Stewart, Canada Enviro Minister.

6 "Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
= we will be doing the right thing".
= -- Sen.Tim Wirth, Admin of Ted Turner's $1Billion
.. UN-gift.

5 "to attract great funding you have to scare the public
= by making things bigger and more dangerous
= than they really are."
-- Petr Chylek, Prof. Atmospheric Sci., Dalhousie Uni,
.. Halifax.

2 "If you don't know an answer, a fact, a statistic, then
= make it up on the spot... for the mass-media today...
= the truth is irrelevant."
-- Paul Watson in Earthforce: An Earth Warrior's Guide to
.. Strategy.

1 "It doesn't matter what is true ...
= it only matters what people believe is true".
= -- Paul Watson, Sea Shepard/ex-Greenpeace

9 "We make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little
= mention of any doubts we may have about being honest."
-- Stephen Schneider (Stanford prof. who first sought fame
.. as a global cooler, but then hit the big time as a global
.. warmer)

Listen, why is it that those hysterical AGWarmers aka
_Always Green Whores_ do NOT understand that
________________________________________
|| Greenism makes the Rich richer & the Poor poorer_
_ Greenism makes the Rich richer & the Poor poorer_
_ Greenism makes the Rich richer & the Poor poorer_
|| Greenism makes the Rich richer & the Poor poorer_
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

There's nothing filthier then an Environmentalist.
__EPA stands for "Evil, Perverted Activism__:
______ De-fund EPA -- DEFUND EPA _____

_____ News Flash -- 1-May-2012 _______

Al Armendariz, the EPA bureaucrat who was out to
_CRUCIFY_ companies that paid for his fat salary has
_crucified_ himself now & got "fired" from EPA with a
------- $1.15Million fat severance package --------
______ De-fund EPA -- DEFUND EPA _____

INSTEAD... fund an endeavor that repeals and
declares any and all EPA-enviro regulations as null
& void IF there are existing tort laws that will resolve
or arbitrate issues that the conjured up EPA farts cover.
There will be no EPA left. --- Annual savings $12 Billion.

$12 Billion, that's $40 which each and every member
of YOUR family has to cough up & PAY so that these
EPA *******s can enjoy their fat $180'000 salaries &
even fatter pensions, which they earn by curtailing your
freedom of choices and by out-right ****ing you.
______ De-fund EPA -- DEFUND EPA _____

Go once to an EPA- or any local public Enviro agency
meeting. Just once, & you'll fall on your ass when you
see the finagling, cronyism and corruption going on.

On 6/9/2012 5:19 PM, anorton wrote:

As usual the scientificly illiterate jump at the slightest hint of some
evidence that CO2 is not important to warming and they distort it
completely beyond recognition.

Here is the abstract for the original article
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture11200.html

There is no mention of space weather. The authors mainly deal with the
thermoclines in the ocean at that time and how that can cause feed backs
that altered the climate.

No one has ever claimed that CO2 is the only factor that affects global
temperature

Sorry there "anorton" but MANY warmists here have claimed that CO2 is
the ONLY factor that affects global temperature. You see that would be
because of what are termed "feedbacks" that were suddenly discovered
once the truth about inability of CO2 to affect global temperature in
any major way became known. Luckily with proper "positive" feedback
system gain can approach infinity "proving" that CO2 CAN indeed be the
ONLY cause of global warming.

But the only problem with that is that the greenies who worship
millionaire Hansen and the data from NASA have failed to reply to THIS
NASA peer reviewed published paper that proves that CO2 has no more than
roughly a 20% effect on climate. (This includes "feedbacks".
Non-feedback effects are MUCH lower) Hardly a "major" cause and
certainly not the "only" cause.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/201...JD014287.shtml

So is Co2 the "ONLY" cause of warming or is it a MINOR cause? NASA seems
to say both are true. And I'm sure there is no problem believing that.
Just pick the "explanation" that fits whatever you are trying to argue
at the time. No problemo.

"bjacoby" wrote in message
...
On 6/9/2012 5:19 PM, anorton wrote:

As usual the scientificly illiterate jump at the slightest hint of some
evidence that CO2 is not important to warming and they distort it
completely beyond recognition.

Here is the abstract for the original article
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture11200.html

There is no mention of space weather. The authors mainly deal with the
thermoclines in the ocean at that time and how that can cause feed backs
that altered the climate.

No one has ever claimed that CO2 is the only factor that affects global
temperature

Sorry there "anorton" but MANY warmists here have claimed that CO2 is the
ONLY factor that affects global temperature. You see that would be because
of what are termed "feedbacks" that were suddenly discovered once the
truth about inability of CO2 to affect global temperature in any major way
became known. Luckily with proper "positive" feedback system gain can
approach infinity "proving" that CO2 CAN indeed be the ONLY cause of
global warming.

But the only problem with that is that the greenies who worship
millionaire Hansen and the data from NASA have failed to reply to THIS
NASA peer reviewed published paper that proves that CO2 has no more than
roughly a 20% effect on climate. (This includes "feedbacks". Non-feedback
effects are MUCH lower) Hardly a "major" cause and certainly not the
"only" cause.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/201...JD014287.shtml

So is Co2 the "ONLY" cause of warming or is it a MINOR cause? NASA seems
to say both are true. And I'm sure there is no problem believing that.
Just pick the "explanation" that fits whatever you are trying to argue at
the time. No problemo.



Hmm... article says CO2 accounts for 20% of the absorbtion of re-emitted
radiation. That sounds pretty major to me. Without any absorbtion we would
be as cold as the dark half of the moon at night (about -200 deg. F). Loose
20% of our heat and we still freeze.

I am writing from S.A.A and I find it fascinating how when you refute one
ignorant claim, another mole pops its head up saying essentially "Ok forget
that, what about this!" Then another says, "OK what about this!" Any
discussion I have seen in alt.global-warming devolves into a stupid game of
whack-a-mole. good bye.

On Sun, 10 Jun 2012 01:21:34 -0700, anorton wrote:

"bjacoby" wrote in message
...
On 6/9/2012 5:19 PM, anorton wrote:

As usual the scientificly illiterate jump at the slightest hint of
some evidence that CO2 is not important to warming and they distort it
completely beyond recognition.

Here is the abstract for the original article
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture11200.html

There is no mention of space weather. The authors mainly deal with the
thermoclines in the ocean at that time and how that can cause feed
backs that altered the climate.

No one has ever claimed that CO2 is the only factor that affects
global temperature

Sorry there "anorton" but MANY warmists here have claimed that CO2 is
the ONLY factor that affects global temperature. You see that would be
because of what are termed "feedbacks" that were suddenly discovered
once the truth about inability of CO2 to affect global temperature in
any major way became known. Luckily with proper "positive" feedback
system gain can approach infinity "proving" that CO2 CAN indeed be the
ONLY cause of global warming.

But the only problem with that is that the greenies who worship
millionaire Hansen and the data from NASA have failed to reply to THIS
NASA peer reviewed published paper that proves that CO2 has no more
than roughly a 20% effect on climate. (This includes "feedbacks".
Non-feedback effects are MUCH lower) Hardly a "major" cause and
certainly not the "only" cause.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/201...JD014287.shtml

So is Co2 the "ONLY" cause of warming or is it a MINOR cause? NASA
seems to say both are true. And I'm sure there is no problem believing
that. Just pick the "explanation" that fits whatever you are trying to
argue at the time. No problemo.



Hmm... article says CO2 accounts for 20% of the absorbtion of
re-emitted radiation. That sounds pretty major to me. Without any
absorbtion we would be as cold as the dark half of the moon at night
(about -200 deg. F). Loose 20% of our heat and we still freeze.

I am writing from S.A.A and I find it fascinating how when you refute
one ignorant claim, another mole pops its head up saying essentially "Ok
forget that, what about this!" Then another says, "OK what about this!"
Any discussion I have seen in alt.global-warming devolves into a stupid
game of whack-a-mole. good bye.

First of all, this is silly. You go from an overstated 20% claim for CO2
blocking IR from the earth's surface to 100% with the "without any" claim
so that's a real straw man.

Second...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/
Atmospheric_Transmission.png

CO2 can have no more effect than that white space above the water vapor
line that is directly above the CO2 area in the 13-20 micrometer band.

20%!? No, that isn't twenty percent. Further, adding more CO2 will not
block more than the 100% already blocked.