global warming hoax

"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 22:18:46 -0000, "OG"
wrote:

Take a look at the data for the last couple of decades
http://www.astd60.dsl.pipex.com/warmingdata.htm

Nice try, but you're arguing with a robot. He's asked these same
questions many times before, and simply ignores the answers. In his
world, 1+1=3, and you'll not convince him otherwise.
_________________________________________________


See! Another ad hominem attack!

You have nothing else ... no evidence, no answers, no claim to science ...

Why didn't you answer the questions I posed?

Why don't you ever answer the questions?

On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 16:35:39 +1100, "Peter Webb"
wrote:

See! Another ad hominem attack!

Ad machinem is more like it.

Why didn't you answer the questions I posed?

Because they're the same irrelevant questions you've posed in the past.
They have long since been answered, and I see no reason to waste time
posting answers that you'll simply ignore again. Just like Oriel.
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

"OG" wrote in message
...

"Peter Webb" wrote in message
...

"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 19:58:30 -0800, spud wrote:

No warming for the next 10 years:

I expect you'll be proven quite wrong. The evidence to the contrary is
pretty overwhelming.

Arguing with those who don't believe we are currently experiencing a
long term global warming trend, largely human produced, is like arguing
with Oriel. Pointless, because they selectively filter the evidence to
support their ideology.
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

So, just out of curiosity, do you believe that the earth has warmed over
the last 10 years?

Take a look at the data for the last couple of decades
http://www.astd60.dsl.pipex.com/warmingdata.htm

That looks like warming to me.


That looks like a graph of a "temperature anomaly" that:

1. Has been manipulated in a manner unspecified ("smoothed"), and without
the source data

2. Does not cover the last 10 years.

3. Does not define what the vertical axis is supposed to represent exactly.


And when you say its largely human produced, how come this warming
commenced long before we started pumping CO2 into the atmosphere in any
quantity?

Really? When did it start?


The earth has been warming at various times for billions of years.

The current warming period commenced pre-1850.

Anthropogenic CO2 levels were effectively zero during the 19th Century.

What is AGW's explanation for this?

HTH.

"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 16:35:39 +1100, "Peter Webb"
wrote:

See! Another ad hominem attack!

Ad machinem is more like it.

Why didn't you answer the questions I posed?

Because they're the same irrelevant questions you've posed in the past.

They relate to whether AGW is supported by evidence. As a strong believer in
the scientific method, evidence (or more accurately predictive ability) is
how I decide the likely truth or otherwise of scientific theories.

You consider evidence as being "irrelevant" when cnsidering the truth or
otherwise of scientific theories.


They have long since been answered,


No, you always say they have been answered, but you have never actually done
so. If you have answered them already, please provide a link or a cut and
paste.

and I see no reason to waste time
posting answers that you'll simply ignore again.

Here are the questions I asked. If you can show me where you have answered
them in the past, I would be very grateful:

So, just out of curiosity, do you believe that the earth has warmed over the
last 10 years?

And when you say its largely human produced, how come this warming commenced
long before we started pumping CO2 into the atmosphere in any quantity?

And what does "largely" mean anyway?

And what of the dozens, hundreds or thousands of previous times when the
earth has warmed prior to mankind evolving - all of those warming periods
obviously did not have anthropogenic causes?

Why do you constantly have to resort to ad-hominem attacks (and apparently
have nothing else to offer) when we are discussing a scientific question?
The above from you is typical. You say that AGW skeptics "selectively filter
the evidence" but provide no evidence of this statement, and nor do you even
attempt to provide any evidence that your beliefs are true.

Finally, after billions of dollars, tens of thousands of researchers, and
hundreds of models, perhaps you could point us to the single model which
most closely correlates with the climate data for the last 10 years? With a
hundreds of different models produced by climatologists, surely one of them
must have turned out at least approximately correct ... so which one was it?
At least astrologers get it right sometimes, and I would expect that
something described as a "science" would have better predictive capabilities
than astrology ... so how about instead of making ad hominem attacks on AGW
skeptics you show us that climatology predicts the future better than
astrology?


Just like Oriel.

I will interpret this as a clumsy ad-hominem attack on me; as I said before,
its all you seem to have.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
news:gWoPm.146484$5n1.126018@attbi_s21...
Peter Webb wrote:

"OG" wrote in message
...

"Peter Webb" wrote in message
...

"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 19:58:30 -0800, spud wrote:

No warming for the next 10 years:

I expect you'll be proven quite wrong. The evidence to the contrary is
pretty overwhelming.

Arguing with those who don't believe we are currently experiencing a
long term global warming trend, largely human produced, is like arguing
with Oriel. Pointless, because they selectively filter the evidence to
support their ideology.
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

So, just out of curiosity, do you believe that the earth has warmed over
the last 10 years?

Take a look at the data for the last couple of decades
http://www.astd60.dsl.pipex.com/warmingdata.htm

That looks like warming to me.


That looks like a graph of a "temperature anomaly" that:

1. Has been manipulated in a manner unspecified ("smoothed"), and without
the source data

2. Does not cover the last 10 years.

3. Does not define what the vertical axis is supposed to represent
exactly.


And when you say its largely human produced, how come this warming
commenced long before we started pumping CO2 into the atmosphere in any
quantity?

Really? When did it start?


The earth has been warming at various times for billions of years.

The current warming period commenced pre-1850.

Anthropogenic CO2 levels were effectively zero during the 19th Century.

What is AGW's explanation for this?

HTH.



Fossil fuels haven't been extracted and burned like this in the
history of the earth... and there was never a population of environment
altering species like this in the past.
___________________________
But yet the earth warmed and cooled anyway. This kind of crap logic can be
used to prove anything; we have never played DVDs so much in the history of
the earth, so playing DVDs causes climate change.


Peter, instead of playing this nay-sayer's horse **** game on USENET,
you ought to be taking Global Climate Change seriously. What the hell
is your excuse!

______________________________
I don't believe that AGW is a correct scientific theory, because it does not
make correct predictions. Observations do not match predictions of the
theory. Therefore it is not a correct theory. Pretty much the same reason as
I reject Lamarckian evolution and the flat-earth theory.


The CO2 hasn't been this high for 15 million years


PRESS RELEASE SUMMARY OF ARTICLE:
Public release date: 8-Oct-2009
University of California - Los Angeles
Contact: Stuart Wolpert
swolpert@support .ucla.edu
310-206-0511

Last time carbon dioxide levels were this high: 15 million years ago,
scientists report

You would have to go back at least 15 million years to find carbon dioxide
levels on Earth
as high as they are today, a UCLA scientist and colleagues report Oct. 8 in
the online
edition of the journal Science.

"The last time carbon dioxide levels were apparently as high as they are
today — and were
sustained at those levels — global temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees
Fahrenheit higher
than they are today, the sea level was approximately 75 to 120 feet higher
than today,
there was no permanent sea ice cap in the Arctic and very little ice on
Antarctica and
Greenland," said the paper's lead author, Aradhna Tripati, a UCLA assistant
professor in
the department of Earth and space sciences and the department of atmospheric
and oceanic
sciences.

___________________________________________
So the same CO2 levels produced very different climactic outcomes? So the
point of this is to show that the correlation between CO2 levels and
temperature is very poor, as identical CO2 levels produce wildly different
climactic outcomes?

If you believe in AGW, why are you posting evidence that CO2 levels
seemingly have very little or nothing to do with climate?

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
news:nkpPm.146518$5n1.109719@attbi_s21...
Peter Webb wrote:

"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 16:35:39 +1100, "Peter Webb"
wrote:

See! Another ad hominem attack!

Ad machinem is more like it.

Why didn't you answer the questions I posed?

Because they're the same irrelevant questions you've posed in the past.

They relate to whether AGW is supported by evidence. As a strong believer
in the scientific method, evidence (or more accurately predictive
ability) is how I decide the likely truth or otherwise of scientific
theories.

You consider evidence as being "irrelevant" when cnsidering the truth or
otherwise of scientific theories.


They have long since been answered,


No, you always say they have been answered, but you have never actually
done so. If you have answered them already, please provide a link or a
cut and paste.

and I see no reason to waste time
posting answers that you'll simply ignore again.

Here are the questions I asked. If you can show me where you have
answered them in the past, I would be very grateful:

So, just out of curiosity, do you believe that the earth has warmed over
the last 10 years?

Does this look like cooling to you, Peter? 30 years is the
climatological
norm, not ten years.

http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads...emp-trends.gif


Does this look like cooling to you, Peter?
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/get-fi...h=1 0&ext=gif

Not only does it look like warming, but ice is melting in both
hemispheres, on all continents, and the sea is expanding as it
warms. Sea Level is rising. Glaciers are retreating.

Scientist are somewhat alarmed at the rate that these changes
are occurring.

CO2 concentration is expected to reach 390 ppm in 2010. The
greenhouse gas effect is putting more moisture in the atmosphere
resulting in more greenhouse effect, more rainfall, more flooding,
etc.

Take it seriously, Peter. Look at the data... all of it!

When the sun kicks in on the next solar cycle.... well, let's
just wait an see what happens.





And when you say its largely human produced, how come this warming
commenced
long before we started pumping CO2 into the atmosphere in any quantity?

And what does "largely" mean anyway?

And what of the dozens, hundreds or thousands of previous times when the
earth has warmed prior to mankind evolving - all of those warming periods
obviously did not have anthropogenic causes?

Why do you constantly have to resort to ad-hominem attacks (and
apparently
have nothing else to offer) when we are discussing a scientific question?
The above from you is typical. You say that AGW skeptics "selectively
filter
the evidence" but provide no evidence of this statement, and nor do you
even
attempt to provide any evidence that your beliefs are true.

Finally, after billions of dollars, tens of thousands of researchers, and
hundreds of models, perhaps you could point us to the single model which
most closely correlates with the climate data for the last 10 years? With
a
hundreds of different models produced by climatologists, surely one of
them
must have turned out at least approximately correct ... so which one was
it?
At least astrologers get it right sometimes, and I would expect that
something described as a "science" would have better predictive
capabilities
than astrology ... so how about instead of making ad hominem attacks on
AGW
skeptics you show us that climatology predicts the future better than
astrology?


Just like Oriel.

I will interpret this as a clumsy ad-hominem attack on me; as I said
before, its all you seem to have.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com


Sam glacier length has shown a shortenong trend since about 1820(before the
use of coal wa widespread) and the slope of the trend line has not changed
at all with the increases in fossil fuel usage that really took off in the
1920s... if you want to see the 180 year trend graphs of both plotted
together look he

http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/GlobWarm0.HTM

if you don't want to see data that conflicts with your belief then by all
means avert you attention and others by calling someone a name

On Nov 26, 6:45*am, Sam Wormley wrote:
oriel36 wrote:

Unlike many here,I have taken the balanced approach towards climate...

* *It's interesting... In science there is no balance approach. Either
* *the science is right or it's wrong.

* *Gerald you sound like a politician, certainly not a scientist.


I have a love of science which means a balanced approach between
interpretation and speculation whereas empiricism introduced a one-
size-fits-all approach while misinterpreting the most basic
astronomical correlation of all - the link between the daily
cycle,planetary geometry and the rotation rate of 15 degrees per hour.

The balanced approach means that you actually have to recognise
another faculty and this appears to be absent just as Pascal once
noticed and Galileo also commented on.The fact that astronomy has been
filtered through a limited mathematical approach has infected all
other areas of science such as climate and geology with catastrophic
consequences,again,both Pascal and Galileo use the word 'ridiculous'
and so it is -

"The reason, therefore, that some intuitive minds are not mathematical
is that they cannot at all turn their attention to the principles of
mathematics. But the reason that mathematicians are not intuitive is
that they do not see what is before them, and that, accustomed to the
exact and plain principles of mathematics, and not reasoning till they
have well inspected and arranged their principles, they are lost in
matters of intuition where the principles do not allow of such
arrangement. They are scarcely seen; they are felt rather than seen;
there is the greatest difficulty in making them felt by those who do
not of themselves perceive them. These principles are so fine and so
numerous that a very delicate and very clear sense is needed to
perceive them, and to judge rightly and justly when they are
perceived, without for the most part being able to demonstrate them in
order as in mathematics, because the principles are not known to us in
the same way, and because it would be an endless matter to undertake
it. We must see the matter at once, at one glance, and not by a
process of reasoning, at least to a certain degree. And thus it is
rare that mathematicians are intuitive and that men of intuition are
mathematicians, because mathematicians wish to treat matters of
intuition mathematically and make themselves ridiculous, wishing to
begin with definitions and then with axioms, which is not the way to
proceed in this kind of reasoning. Not that the mind does not do so,
but it does it tacitly, naturally, and without technical rules; for
the expression of it is beyond all men, and only a few can feel it."
Pascal

The truth is that tying pollution studies to global climate is such a
dumb thing to do that it has to come from the same minds that can't
reason why the Earth turns once in 24 hours.While I can dismantle
Newton's agenda no problem at a technical level and his 'trick' of
applying right ascension to planetary dynamics to get his
'predictions',what I cannot do is find people,even when the present
fraud basically tries to imitate cause and effect by deliberate
distortions,I would find few people who can move between the balance
of interpretation and speculation.

So ,the modern empirical 'tricks' are merely a pale comparison to the
late 17th century maneuvering,pity no experts or authority can handle
them as I do.

"Peter Webb" wrote in message
u...

"OG" wrote in message
...

"Peter Webb" wrote in message
...

"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 19:58:30 -0800, spud wrote:

No warming for the next 10 years:

I expect you'll be proven quite wrong. The evidence to the contrary is
pretty overwhelming.

Arguing with those who don't believe we are currently experiencing a
long term global warming trend, largely human produced, is like arguing
with Oriel. Pointless, because they selectively filter the evidence to
support their ideology.
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

So, just out of curiosity, do you believe that the earth has warmed over
the last 10 years?

Take a look at the data for the last couple of decades
http://www.astd60.dsl.pipex.com/warmingdata.htm

That looks like warming to me.


That looks like a graph of a "temperature anomaly" that:

1. Has been manipulated in a manner unspecified ("smoothed"), and without
the source data
The HADCRUT data is referenced (bottom of the page); the only smoothing is
to average the data over the previous 5 and 10 year periods. The
year-by-year data is shown in the lower plot. Just out of curiosity, what
evidence do you have for global temperature measurements over the last 10
years?

2. Does not cover the last 10 years.
It covers 1991 - 2008 . 2009 is not over yet, but monthly averages appear
warmer than the long term average.

3. Does not define what the vertical axis is supposed to represent
exactly.

Exactly - the difference in global temperature over the average between 1961
and 1990

And when you say its largely human produced, how come this warming
commenced long before we started pumping CO2 into the atmosphere in any
quantity?

Really? When did it start?


The earth has been warming at various times for billions of years.

and cooling at other times.

The current warming period commenced pre-1850.

Really? How far pre-1850 ? I'd have thought that global figures are hard to
get much before 1800.

Anthropogenic CO2 levels were effectively zero during the 19th Century.

What is AGW's explanation for this?

For what ?
You have made some unsubstantiated claims and demanded "AGW's explanation".
What exactly are you asking for an explanation for?

Show me your evidence for warming pre-1850 and we can see how that fits in
with post 1850 warming.

"Peter Webb" wrote in message
...

"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 16:35:39 +1100, "Peter Webb"
wrote:

See! Another ad hominem attack!

Ad machinem is more like it.

Why didn't you answer the questions I posed?

Because they're the same irrelevant questions you've posed in the past.

They relate to whether AGW is supported by evidence. As a strong believer
in the scientific method, evidence (or more accurately predictive ability)
is how I decide the likely truth or otherwise of scientific theories.

You consider evidence as being "irrelevant" when cnsidering the truth or
otherwise of scientific theories.


They have long since been answered,


No, you always say they have been answered, but you have never actually
done so. If you have answered them already, please provide a link or a cut
and paste.

and I see no reason to waste time
posting answers that you'll simply ignore again.

Here are the questions I asked. If you can show me where you have answered
them in the past, I would be very grateful:

So, just out of curiosity, do you believe that the earth has warmed over
the
last 10 years?

evidence produced

And when you say its largely human produced, how come this warming
commenced
long before we started pumping CO2 into the atmosphere in any quantity?

Your claim - unsubstantiated

And what does "largely" mean anyway?

probably rhetorical

And what of the dozens, hundreds or thousands of previous times when the
earth has warmed prior to mankind evolving - all of those warming periods
obviously did not have anthropogenic causes?

If it's obviously not anthropogenic, what is the question you are asking?

Why do you constantly have to resort to ad-hominem attacks (and apparently
have nothing else to offer) when we are discussing a scientific question?

If someone has a history of not responding to reasonable scientific
questions (it's a big IF, but it may be relevant to your position wrt AGW
arguments (it may not be, I don't really know), then referring to 'someones'
ignoring previous answers is very relevant.

The above from you is typical. You say that AGW skeptics "selectively
filter
the evidence" but provide no evidence of this statement, and nor do you
even
attempt to provide any evidence that your beliefs are true.

Not a question

Finally, after billions of dollars, tens of thousands of researchers, and
hundreds of models, perhaps you could point us to the single model which
most closely correlates with the climate data for the last 10 years? With
a
hundreds of different models produced by climatologists, surely one of
them
must have turned out at least approximately correct ... so which one was
it?
At least astrologers get it right sometimes, and I would expect that
something described as a "science" would have better predictive
capabilities
than astrology ... so how about instead of making ad hominem attacks on
AGW
skeptics you show us that climatology predicts the future better than
astrology?


Do you accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?
Do you accept that CH4 is a greenouse gas?

Do you accept that CO2 levels have increased over the last 50 years?
Do you accept that global temperatures have generally increased over the
last 50 (90) years?

"David Staup" wrote in message
...

Sam glacier length has shown a shortenong trend since about 1820(before
the use of coal wa widespread) and the slope of the trend line has not
changed at all with the increases in fossil fuel usage that really took
off in the 1920s... if you want to see the 180 year trend graphs of both
plotted together look he

http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/GlobWarm0.HTM

if you don't want to see data that conflicts with your belief then by all
means avert you attention and others by calling someone a name

Just to be clear - what is the data that you think contradicts the AGW view?