# Predictions



## Old Rocks (May 5, 2011)

*Well, we are not half way through the year yet, but they certainly seem to be on the mark.*

Weather disasters likely to rise - UPI.com

BRUSSELS, Jan. 25 (UPI) -- Though 2010 was a record year in terms of the financial and human loss from natural disasters, trends suggest things could get worse, a Belgian report found.

The Center for Research on Epidemiology of Disasters, at that Universite catholique de Louvain in Brussels, found that the 373 natural disasters in 2010 killed more than 296,800 people and caused about $110 billion in damages.


GALLERY: A year after the Haiti quake

Margareta Wahlstrom, the U.N. special envoy for disasters, said it's critical for local governments to use climate information in urban planning. 

Weather patterns El Nino and La Nina, which can trigger heavy rains and volatile weather conditions, are expected to linger for the next 25 years, the World Meteorological Organization predicts.

Wahlstrom said weather-related disasters are likely to rise because of complications tied to global climate change. A heat wave during the summer caused more than 50,000 fatalities in Russia and the January 2010 earthquake in Haiti killed more than 222,000



Read more: Weather disasters likely to rise - UPI.com


----------



## Ernie S. (May 5, 2011)

I predict that hundreds of weather related records will be broken this year. With literally thousands of records, it's a statistical certainty.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 5, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> *Well, we are not half way through the year yet, but they certainly seem to be on the mark.*
> 
> Weather disasters likely to rise - UPI.com
> 
> ...




What do you think weather has to do with Earthquakes?


----------



## Old Rocks (May 6, 2011)

Nothing at all. However, what we have seen in Australia, Sri Lanka, Columbia, and the US thus far is pretty indictutive of an active year.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 6, 2011)

Then why does your link contain a comment about earthquakes? Is it because you are a complete idiot?


----------



## skookerasbil (May 6, 2011)

Ernie S. said:


> I predict that hundreds of weather related records will be broken this year. With literally thousands of records, it's a statistical certainty.




yuk.......yuk............

What do I love best about this forum?

Old Rocks, Chris and all the other hyper-nuts fall all over themselves posting up these threads of bogus by the dozens and the things get blown up within 3 or 4 posts.............YET............they keep blowing themselves up day after day.


Ernie bro...........I laughed my balls off when I read your post!!!


----------



## skookerasbil (May 6, 2011)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > *Well, we are not half way through the year yet, but they certainly seem to be on the mark.*
> ...





Quantum.........Rocks was right on board when the nuts were blaming the Japan quake on global warming.


----------



## sparky (May 6, 2011)

Weather forecast for tonight: dark. Continued dark overnight, with widely scattered light by morning. 
George Carlin
US comedian and actor (1937 - 2008)


----------



## Old Rocks (May 6, 2011)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Then why does your link contain a comment about earthquakes? Is it because you are a complete idiot?



Well, my little idiot child, it mentiioned natural disasters in the last two years. And that just happened to include earthquakes. There was nothing in the passing referance to the earthquakes to tie them to weather.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 6, 2011)

skookerasbil said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Was he? He is even dumber than I thought.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 6, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Then why does your link contain a comment about earthquakes? Is it because you are a complete idiot?
> ...



Your post is about weather, and you posted it in environment. Call me stupid for thinking you had a brain.


----------



## skookerasbil (May 6, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Then why does your link contain a comment about earthquakes? Is it because you are a complete idiot?
> ...




Yo Quantum..........go check out the GE thread bro. While I pwn Rocks on an almost daily basis in here, he got body slammed on that thread. Looked like a side act at a 30's era circus. Check it out..........it is epic.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 10, 2011)

skookerasbil said:


> Yo Quantum..........go check out the GE thread bro. While I pwn Rocks on an almost daily basis in here, he got body slammed on that thread. Looked like a side act at a 30's era circus. Check it out..........it is epic.



You're a delusional idiot, kooker. One of your delusions is that you have ever succeeded in winning any debates. You never have and you probably never will because you're an ignorant retard. You're just too stupid to realize that your moronic, nonsensical posts are always refuted by actual evidence.


----------



## Oddball (May 10, 2011)

Prediction:

No matter what the weather does, Oldrocksinthehead will find a way to blame it on gullible warming.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 10, 2011)

Oddball said:


> Prediction:
> 
> No matter what the weather does, Oldrocksinthehead will find a way to blame it on gullible warming.




Prediction:

No matter what Oddestball does, he will never get over being a clueless retard and he will never manage to post anything with any meaning or significance.


----------



## Oddball (May 10, 2011)

I blame that on gullible warming, too....Only follows.


----------



## skookerasbil (May 10, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > Yo Quantum..........go check out the GE thread bro. While I pwn Rocks on an almost daily basis in here, he got body slammed on that thread. Looked like a side act at a 30's era circus. Check it out..........it is epic.
> ...





This guy is calling everybody else "idiot" and "delusional"............the same guy who a few weeks back jumped on board with the other high priests of the religion calling the Japan earthquakes a consequence of global warming!!!


Hmmmm.............but we are the delusional!!! Cool..........


----------



## Old Rocks (May 10, 2011)

Oh my, added lying to your trollish bullshit, Kooky, old boy.


----------



## waltky (May 11, 2011)

There will be earthquakes in various places...

*22 quakes hit Italy, but none in Rome despite myth*
_May 10, 2011  There have been 22 earthquakes in Italy and the day's only half over. But none of them have been the devastating temblor predicted in an urban legend to strike Rome on Wednesday._


> Seismologists at the National Institute for Geophysics and Vulcanology are spending the day trying to debunk the myth that a major earthquake is due to hit the Eternal City. They say there's no way to predict a quake and that 22 quakes by noon is perfectly normal for highly seismic Italy.  Despite the extraordinary lengths Italian officials are going to calm nerves, some Romans aren't taking any chances. An agricultural farm lobby says a survey of farm-hotels around the capital indicate some Romans are leaving town for the day.
> 
> Italian officials are going to extraordinary lengths to try to debunk an urban legend predicting a devastating earthquake in Rome on Wednesday.  The country's Civil Protection department has posted a dense information packet on its website stressing that quakes can't be predicted and that Rome isn't particularly at risk.  Toll-free numbers have been set aside at city hall to field questions.  The national geophysics institute will open its doors to the public Wednesday to inform the curious and the concerned about seismology.
> 
> ...



See also:

*10 dead as earthquakes rock southern Spain*
_Wednesday, 11 May 2011 - Two earthquakes struck southeast Spain in quick succession today, killing at least 10 people, injuring dozens and causing major damage to buildings, officials said._


> The epicenter of the quakes  with magnitudes of 4.4 and 5.2  was close to the town of Lorca, and the second came about two hours after the first, an official with the Murcia regional government said on condition of anonymity in line with department policy.  The Murcia regional government said a hospital in Lorca was being evacuated, dozens of injured people were being treated at the scene and a field hospital was being set up.
> 
> The Spanish prime minister's office put the death toll at 10 and the Murcia regional administration said the deaths included a minor and occurred with the second, stronger quake.  Large chunks of stone and brick fell from the facade of a church in Lorca as a reporter for Spanish state TV was broadcasting live from the scene. A large church bell was also among the rubble, which missed striking the reporter, who appeared to be about 30 feet away when it fell. The broadcaster reported that schoolchildren usually gather at that spot around that time, and if it had happened 10 minutes later, a "tragedy" could have occurred.
> 
> ...


----------



## percysunshine (May 11, 2011)

Of all the environmental disasters that get press attention, tsunamis..tornadoes..hurricanes...floods...earthquakes etc.., no one ever talks about pestulance. That isn't fair...we need a pestulance lobby.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 12, 2011)

You are correct. We should no longer put up with people like you, Kooky, and BiPolar in silence.


----------



## westwall (May 12, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> *Well, we are not half way through the year yet, but they certainly seem to be on the mark.*
> 
> Weather disasters likely to rise - UPI.com
> 
> ...






Any prognostication that begins with "could" "might" "may" etc. isn't truly a prediction.  It is a con mans method of covering his bases.  Popular with psychics too.  A prediction says "this is going to happen when these conditions are met" not "could happen".  Nice try but an epic fail as usual.


----------



## Big Black Dog (May 12, 2011)

Well, when we elected Obama President, things started going to hell.  Even the weather.


----------



## boedicca (May 12, 2011)

Speaking of PREDICTIONS, does anyone else find it spooky that on the day Italians fled Rome because an earthquake had been predicted centuries ago, that an earthquake struck Spain?


----------



## skookerasbil (May 12, 2011)

boedicca said:


> Speaking of PREDICTIONS, does anyone else find it spooky that on the day Italians fled Rome because an earthquake had been predicted centuries ago, that an earthquake struck Spain?




Hey boedicca............let me tell you something. Ive been working with a gal who has been telling me for 3 years that the beginning of the end would start on May 21st of THIS year!!! I asked her how, she said, "Worldwide catastrophic earthquakes along every fault line............."

Woke up yesterday and saw that headline and said to myself, "Fcukking YIKES!!!!"


----------



## westwall (May 12, 2011)

boedicca said:


> Speaking of PREDICTIONS, does anyone else find it spooky that on the day Italians fled Rome because an earthquake had been predicted centuries ago, that an earthquake struck Spain?






No.  The quake that hit Spain wasn't particularly big and they get a lot of them in the south.  The northern part of Spain is fairly quiet only getting a magnitude 6 quake every 200 years or so.  Earthquakes are common as hell.


----------



## Flopper (May 12, 2011)

It's only common sense.  You don't build homes and businesses in a flood plane.  You don't build on major earth faults.  You don't build in areas subject to mud slides.  Looking at America, I don't think we have used much common sense developing many areas.


----------



## skookerasbil (May 12, 2011)

westwall said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > Speaking of PREDICTIONS, does anyone else find it spooky that on the day Italians fled Rome because an earthquake had been predicted centuries ago, that an earthquake struck Spain?
> ...




Not quite so West...........the frequency of larger magnitude quakes around the ring of fire is up significantly in the last year or so.......as compared to many years prior. Some woman I work with tracks this shit and she was showing me comparison #'s. It was a bit disconcerting.............


----------



## skookerasbil (May 12, 2011)

Flopper said:


> It's only common sense.  You don't build homes and businesses in a flood plane.  You don't build on major earth faults.  You don't build in areas subject to mud slides.  Looking at America, I don't think we have used much common sense developing many areas.




Yeah Flop..........its like the dumbasses who build these mega-million dollar homes right on the Atlantic ocean near me. When they get decimated, I laugh my ass off.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 12, 2011)

Many experts think that global warming and the melting of the glaciers and ice sheets could possibly be contributing to the increase in earthquake activity and that increased volcanic activity could also result. 

*Could global warming be causing recent earthquakes?*

By William Marsden, Postmedia News 
March 15, 2011
The Montreal Gazette
(excerpts)

Severe earthquakes in Haiti, Chile and now Japan have experts around the world asking whether the world's tectonic plates are becoming more active  and what could be causing it. Some scientists theorize that the sudden melting of glaciers due to man-made climate change is lightening the load on the Earth's surface, allowing its mantle to rebound upwards and causing plates to become unstuck. These scientists point to the historical increase in volcanic and earthquake activity that occurred about 12,000 years ago when the glaciers that covered most of Canada in an ice sheet several kilometres thick suddenly melted.

"There is certainly some literature that talks about the increased occurrence of volcanic eruptions and the removing of load from the crust by deglaciation," said Martin Sharp, a glaciologist at the University of Alberta. "It changes the stress load in the crust and maybe it opens up routes for lava to come to the surface. "It is conceivable that there would be some increase in earthquake activity during periods of rapid changes on the Earth's crust."

At the same time, the number and severity of earthquakes appear to have increased over the last thirty years in tandem with accelerating glacial melt. ...the recent increase in major earthquakes, which are defined as above 6 on the Richter magnitude scale. Japan's earthquake was a 9. Scientists have been tracking these powerful quakes for well over a century and it's unlikely that they have missed any during at least the last 60 years.

According to data from the U.S. Geological Survey 
there were *1,085* major earthquakes in the *1980s*. {in ten years}
This increased in the *1990s* by about 50 per cent to *1,492* {in ten years} 
and to *1,611* from *2000 to 2009*.  {in ten years}
Last year, and up to and including the Japanese quake, there were *247* major earthquakes.  {in just a little over *one* year}

There has been also a noticeable increase in the sort of extreme quakes that hit Japan. In the *1980s*, there were *four mega-quakes*,  {in ten years} 
*six* in the *1990s* and  {in ten years} 
*13* in the *last decade*.  {in ten years} 
*So far this decade* we have had *two*.  {in just a little less than *one and a half* years} 

© Copyright (c) The Montreal Gazette

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)


----------



## Douger (May 12, 2011)

You sucked all of the lubricant out from under the tectonic plates and now they're galling up like a dry bearing on a tractor!!!.
Pretty soon she's gonna pop. 
Or the brown dwarf will show up first.

I need a dwink.


----------



## westwall (May 12, 2011)

skookerasbil said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...





Not true, my friend.  In human terms yes the frequency is up, but in geologic terms, no, the frequency is normal.


----------



## westwall (May 12, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> Many experts think that global warming and the melting of the glaciers and ice sheets could possibly be contributing to the increase in earthquake activity and that increased volcanic activity could also result.
> 
> *Could global warming be causing recent earthquakes?*
> 
> ...






Completely, and utterly ridiculous.  Earthquakes happen at depths far below what any surface warming could effect.  Temperatures of the crust range from 200C to 400C and the temperature of the mantle range from 500C to 900C.  It takes a million years for molten rock to cool one degree at depth.  The claims are completely stupid and anyone with even a passing knowledge of geology realises this.

Isostatic rebound has been going on since the continental ice sheets melted and the area of the Great Lakes and Greenland has been rising at the rate of one inch per year for the last 10,000 years.

These claims are as ignorant, or more likely disingenuous, as those claiming ocean acidification.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 13, 2011)

westwall said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Many experts think that global warming and the melting of the glaciers and ice sheets could possibly be contributing to the increase in earthquake activity and that increased volcanic activity could also result.
> ...



A lot of stuff in the real world must seem "_completely, and utterly ridiculous_" to someone as misinformed, ignorant, unimaginative and confused as you are, walleyed. The only claims that are "_ignorant, or more likely disingenuous_" are yours. Greenland has not been rising an inch per year for ten thousand years (830 feet???). The ice sheets on Greenland have stayed pretty constant for that time and the land has only recently started to rebound as the ice sheet melts and the glacier flow into the sea increases.

*Greenland Rising Rapidly as Ice Melts*
Date: 18 May 2010


*Global Warming Might Spur Earthquakes and Volcanoes*
Aug 30, 2007

*Fire and Ice: Melting Glaciers Trigger Earthquakes, Tsunamis and Volcanos
Geologists Say Global Warming Expected to Cause Many New Seismic Events*


Oh, and BTW...

*Ocean Acidification: The Other Carbon Dioxide Problem*
*NOAA*


----------



## skookerasbil (May 13, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


----------



## skookerasbil (May 13, 2011)

Thats why I love this forum................you never know WHAT you're going to read!!!!!


Anything is possible with the thought process disorder folks. One am, we'll wake up her and see Rolling Thunder blaming global warming for the increase in bubble butts!!!!


----------



## RollingThunder (May 13, 2011)

-------The Kookster


skookerasbil said:


>



Well, you certainly are a mental case if you think idiotic cartoons refute scientific research.


----------



## IanC (May 13, 2011)

skooks is more interested in the political/practical side. and the tide is turning now that CAGW predictions are proving to be false time after time. people dont like being fooled.

and his posts are entertaining too. I wonder if the carpet matches the drapes?


----------



## RollingThunder (May 13, 2011)

IanC said:


> skooks is more interested in the political/practical side. and the tide is turning now that CAGW predictions are proving to be false time after time.



The kookster's arguments are all politically based and ignore the actual science and the evidence.

The climate model predictions are proving to be correct time after time, no matter what your denier cult myths tell you.

In 1988, James Hansen of NASA GISS predicted [PDF] that temperature would climb over the next 12 years, with a possible brief episode of cooling in the event of a large volcanic eruption. Twelve years later, he was proven remarkably correct, requiring adjustment only for the timing difference between the simulated future volcanic eruption and the actual eruption of Mount Pinatubo.

Models predict that surface warming should be accompanied by cooling of the stratosphere, and this has indeed been observed

Models have long predicted warming of the lower, mid, and upper troposphere, even while satellite readings seemed to disagree -- but it turns out the satellite analysis was full of errors and on correction, this warming has been observed

Models predict warming of ocean surface waters, as is now observed

Models predict an energy imbalance between incoming sunlight and outgoing infrared radiation, which has been detected

Models predict sharp and short-lived cooling of a few tenths of a degree in the event of large volcanic eruptions, and Mount Pinatubo confirmed this.

Models predict an amplification of warming trends in the Arctic region, and this is indeed happening

Models predict continuing and accelerating warming of the surface, and so far they are correct.





IanC said:


> people dont like being fooled.



Most intelligent people don't like being fooled but you denier cultists seem to love it. You just eat up the lies and misinformation that the fossil fuel industry is feeding you because it better suits your political narrative.


----------



## westwall (May 13, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...







In order of stupidness.


Isostatic rebound has been occuring for the last 11,000 years.  It's nothing new and it is certainly not due to man caused global warming, unless you are making the claim that SUV's were polluting the Earth way back then.

Any jackass (and that is what I classify anyone who makes this particular assertion) can claim global warming is causing earthquakes.  He's going to have a bloody hard time providing a shred of empirical data to substantiate that claim.  Oh yeah see that really important word there?  You see it?  "Might" is the word.....that relegates that whole pice down to the level of a psychic.  FAIL!

Ocean acidification is the latest hot button non issue.  The global pH average is 8.1  If we burned every carbon bearing substance on the planet you would see a drop in pH to 8.0.  Still not acidic.  Even if you could get levels of acidity to ridiculous levels there is still no problem.  Even wiki reports that....


The PETM is accompanied by a mass extinction of 35-50% of benthic foraminifera (especially in deeper waters) over the course of ~1,000 years - the group suffering more than during the dinosaur-slaying K-T extinction. Contrarily, planktonic foraminifera diversified, and dinoflagellates bloomed. Success was also enjoyed by the mammals, who radiated profusely around this time.

The deep-sea extinctions are difficult to explain, as many were regional in extent (mainly affecting the north Atlantic). General hypotheses such as a temperature-related reduction in oxygen availability, or increased corrosiveness due to carbonate-undersaturated deep waters, are insufficient as explanations. The only factor which was global in extent was an increase in temperature, and it appears that the majority of the blame must rest upon its shoulders. Regional extinctions in the North Atlantic can be attributed to increased deep-sea anoxia, which could be due to the slowdown of overturning ocean currents,[12] or the release and rapid oxidation of large amounts of methane.[20][verification needed]

In shallower waters, it's undeniable that increased CO2 levels result in a decreased oceanic pH, which has a profound negative effect on corals.[21] Experiments suggest it is also very harmful to calcifying plankton.[22] However, the strong acids used to simulate the natural increase in acidity which would result from elevated CO2 concentrations may have given misleading results, and the most recent evidence is that coccolithophores (E. huxleyi at least) become more, not less, calcified and abundant in acidic waters.[23] Interestingly, no change in the distribution of calcareous nanoplankton such as the coccolithophores can be attributed to acidification during the PETM.[23] Acidification did lead to an abundance of heavily calcified algae[24] and weakly calcified forams.[25]

The increase in mammalian abundance is intriguing. There is no evidence of any increased extinction rate among the terrestrial biota. Increased CO2 levels may have promoted dwarfing[26]  which may (perhaps?) have encouraged speciation. Many major mammalian orders  including the Artiodactyla, horses, and primates  appeared and spread across the globe 13,000 to 22,000 years after the initiation of the PETM.[26]



So once again, the warmists try and frighten the savages with a non issue.  You people are such losers.  Lousy liars and pseudo scientists on a grand scale.  the only reason why you could hope to pull this bullshit over on people is they are so poorly educated in the basic sciences.

Paleocene


----------



## westwall (May 13, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > skooks is more interested in the political/practical side. and the tide is turning now that CAGW predictions are proving to be false time after time.
> ...







The models are not as accurate as you claim and based on your normal level of scientific illiteracy I guess the fact that Hansens predictions are off by only 300% qualifies as good to you.  Just lets the rest of the world know how incompetent you are that 300% off is considered good.


----------



## Two Thumbs (May 13, 2011)

They have been calling for record bad weather for 10 years in a row now.

And now that it looks like they may be right, yall gunna jump up and down for joy?

sheep


----------



## skookerasbil (May 13, 2011)

IanC said:


> skooks is more interested in the political/practical side. and the tide is turning now that CAGW predictions are proving to be false time after time. people dont like being fooled.
> 
> and his posts are entertaining too. I wonder if the carpet matches the drapes?





Ian............is it me or is it not fascinating that the k00ks dont fathom the science/politics linkage??? Tell me its not a thought process fcukk-up thing!!!!!!!!! HOLY MOTHER OF GOD.


So ummm.............Im going to try to spell it out for the OCD assholes who think the "warming" debate is about who is right and who is wrong about the next few decades, and I'll do it in bullet style so the thatched cottage crowd might better understand...........

*>> The Religion and The Skeptics are both pwned by special interests.

>> The Religion by those interested in moving forward highly profitable alternative energy technology.

>> The Skeptics by conventional energy technology and fossil fuels.

>>The Religion dominated the courts of public opinion until late 2009..........then Climategate hit.

>>The Skeptics have dominated the courts of public opinion since late 2009.

>>Unemployment has skyrocketed in the past 2 years. Green jobs gained vs. Conventional energy jobs lost = a huge net loss in jobs nationwide = an economic and political FACT

>>Legislative efforts in Congress on Cap and trade legislation DIED in early 2010

>>Most of the US experienced mega snowstorms in the winter of 2010....global warming propaganda was universally laughed at by MOST Americans

>>The HOUSE is now controlled by the GOP for at least the next 6, but probably closer to ten years due to state redistricting by GOP governors = impossible for DEMS to take back the HOUSE.

>>ZERO climate legislation will get through the US HOUSE for at least the next 6 years.*




*THUS*



>>*Real science or fake science.................it just doesnt matter in 2011 unless you have a hobby of posting up graphs, maps, images and #'s.*

>>*The science debate on the data is like an exercise in group navel contemplation*


----------



## RollingThunder (May 13, 2011)

westwall said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


...you come first, every time!





westwall said:


> Isostatic rebound has been occuring for the last 11,000 years.  It's nothing new and it is certainly not due to man caused global warming, unless you are making the claim that SUV's were polluting the Earth way back then.


Yeah, isostatic rebound has been occurring since the ice sheets melted off of North America and Europe but your understanding of the matter is comic book simplistic. The rebound was large during and immediately after the ice sheet melt but it then slowed to a very low level of about one centimeter a year or less, not the ridiculous figure you claimed: ""_Greenland has been rising at the rate of one inch per year for the last 10,000 years_". There is absolutely no geological evidence showing a rise of over 830 feet. That's just your denier cult craziness and ignorance speaking. 

*Post-glacial rebound*

*During the last glacial period, much of northern Europe, Asia, North America, Greenland and Antarctica were covered by ice sheets. The ice was as thick as three kilometres during the last glacial maximum about 20,000 years ago. The enormous weight of this ice caused the surface of the Earth's crust to deform and warp downward, forcing the fluid mantle material to flow away from the loaded region. At the end of the ice age when the glaciers retreated, the removal of the weight from the depressed land led to slow (and still ongoing) uplift or rebound of the land and the return flow of mantle material back under the deglaciated area. Due to the extreme viscosity of the mantle, it will take many thousands of years for the land to reach an equilibrium level.

Studies have shown that the uplift has taken place in two distinct stages. The initial uplift following deglaciation was rapid (called "elastic"), and took place as the ice was being unloaded. After this "elastic" phase, uplift proceeded by "slow viscous flow" so the rate decreased exponentially after that. Today, typical uplift rates are of the order of 1 cm/year or less. In northern Europe, this is clearly shown by the GPS data obtained by the BIFROST GPS network.[1]
*


Now, in the last few decades, parts of Greenland are measured to be rising at a rate of one inch per year and still accelerating.

*Greenland Rising Rapidly as Ice Melts*
Date: 18 May 2010
(excerpts)

*Scientists have documented on Greenland and elsewhere that when longstanding ice melts away, the land rebounds. Even the European Alps are rising as glaciers melt. Now, scientists at the University of Miami say Greenland's ice is melting so quickly that the land underneath is rising at an accelerated pace. Some coastal areas are going up by nearly 1 inch per year, the scientists announced today. If current trends continue, that could accelerate to as much as 2 inches per year by 2025, said Tim Dixon, professor of geophysics at the University of Miami Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science (RSMAS) and principal investigator of the study. "It's been known for several years that climate change is contributing to the melting of Greenland's ice sheet," Dixon said in a statement. "What's surprising, and a bit worrisome, is that the ice is melting so fast that we can actually see the land uplift in response." Dixon added: "Even more surprising, the rise seems to be accelerating, implying that melting is accelerating." *






westwall said:


> Any jackass (and that is what I classify anyone who makes this particular assertion) can claim global warming is causing earthquakes.


Any jackass can deny scientific evidence when it is politically and economically 'necessary' for them to do so in order to preserve their cherished illusions.






westwall said:


> He's going to have a bloody hard time providing a shred of empirical data to substantiate that claim.  Oh yeah see that really important word there?  You see it?  "Might" is the word.....that relegates that whole pice down to the level of a psychic.  FAIL!


You only spew this bs because you're soooo ignorant about the science and the evidence. Scientists always use qualifiers like "might" but that doesn't mean they are just guessing, as you anti-science twits assume. 

In the first place, I'm not going to debate your straw-man arguments. No scientists are saying that  any particular earthquake can be definitely linked to global warming. They are saying that the vastly increased and measured crustal rebound in various places caused by the melting glaciers and ice sheets will very probably produce an increase in earthquakes and volcanic activity as this crustal rebound stresses the tectonic plate boundaries and the ice melt relieves the weight that has been holding down volcanic magma.

And there *is* "_empirical data to substantiate that claim_". They can tell from the geologic record that there was an increase in earthquakes and volcanic activity when the major ice sheets covering Europe and North America melted off at the end of the last glacial. There is also the empirical evidence that I posted earlier from the US Geological Survey showing that earthquakes activity is, in fact, increasing.

_According to data from the U.S. Geological Survey 
there were *1,085* major earthquakes in the *1980s*. {in ten years}
This increased in the *1990s* by about 50 per cent to *1,492* {in ten years} 
and to *1,611* from *2000 to 2009*.  {in ten years}
Last year, and up to and including the Japanese quake, there were *247* major earthquakes.  {in just a little over *one* year}

There has been also a noticeable increase in the sort of extreme quakes that hit Japan. In the *1980s*, there were *four mega-quakes*,  {in ten years} 
*six* in the *1990s* and  {in ten years} 
*13* in the *last decade*.  {in ten years} 
*So far this decade* we have had *two*.  {in just a little less than *one and a half* years} 
_

*Global Warming Might Spur Earthquakes and Volcanoes*
(excerpts)

*Areas of rebounding crust could change the stresses acting on earthquake faults and volcanoes in the crust. "In places like Iceland, for example, where you have the Eyjafjallajökull ice sheet, which wouldn't survive [global warming], and you've got lots of volcanoes under that, the unloading effect can trigger eruptions," McGuire said.  {Dr. Bill McGuire, PhD in Geology, Professor of Geohazards at University College London and one of Britain's leading volcanologists}

With the changing dynamics in the crust, faults could also be destabilized, which could bring a whole host of other problems. "It's not just the volcanoes. Obviously if you load and unload active faults, then you're liable to trigger earthquakes," McGuire told LiveScience, noting that there is ample evidence for this association in past climate change events. "At the end of the last Ice Age, there was a great increase in seismicity along the margins of the ice sheets in Scandinavia and places like this, and that triggered these huge submarine landsides which generated tsunamis," McGuire said. "So you've got the whole range of geological hazards there that can result from if we see this big catastrophic melting." 
*

*Fire and Ice: Melting Glaciers Trigger Earthquakes, Tsunamis and Volcanos
Geologists Say Global Warming Expected to Cause Many New Seismic Events*
(excerpts)

*Climatologists have been raising alarms about global warming for years, and now geologists are getting into the act, warning that melting glaciers will lead to an increasing number of earthquakes, tsunamis and volcanic eruptions in unexpected places.

Geologists say releasing that pressure on the Earths surface will cause all sorts of geologic reactions, such as earthquakes, tsunamis (caused by undersea earthquakes) and volcanic eruptions. "What happens is the weight of this thick ice puts a lot of stress on the earth," said Patrick Wu, a geologist at the University of Alberta in Canada, in an interview with the Canadian Press. "The weight sort of suppresses the earthquakes, but when you melt the ice the earthquakes get triggered." Wu said many of the earthquakes that occur in Canada today are related to the ongoing rebound effect that started with the end of the last ice age 10,000 years ago. But with global warming accelerating climate changes and causing glaciers to melt more quickly, Wu said the inevitable rebound is expected to happen much faster this time around. Wu said melting ice in Antarctica is already triggering earthquakes and underwater landslides. These events arent getting much attention, but they are early warnings of the more serious events that scientists believe are coming. According to Wu, global warming will create lots of earthquakes. Professor Wu is not alone in his assessment. *





westwall said:


> Ocean acidification is the latest hot button non issue.  The global pH average is 8.1  If we burned every carbon bearing substance on the planet you would see a drop in pH to 8.0.  Still not acidic.  Even if you could get levels of acidity to ridiculous levels there is still no problem.


Total bullshit, walleyed. Most scientists in this field of study agree that ocean acidification is a very serious problem with the potential to devastate the ocean food chains and cause widespread species extinction.






westwall said:


> Even wiki reports that....


LOLOLOLOL.....ok, let's see what "_wiki reports_" about the actual topic.

*Ocean acidification*
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

*Ocean acidification is the name given to the ongoing decrease in the pH of the Earth's oceans, caused by their uptake of anthropogenic carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.[1] Between 1751 and 1994 surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.25 to 8.14,[2] representing an increase of approaching 30% in "acidity" (H+ ion concentration) in the world's oceans.[3][4][5]

Dissolving CO2 in seawater increases the hydrogen ion (H+) concentration in the ocean, and thus decreases ocean pH. Caldeira and Wickett (2003)[1] placed the rate and magnitude of modern ocean acidification changes in the context of probable historical changes during the last 300 million years.

Since the industrial revolution began, it is estimated that surface ocean pH has dropped by slightly more than 0.1 units on the logarithmic scale of pH, representing an approximately 29% increase in H+, and it is estimated that it will drop by a further 0.3 to 0.5 pH units (an additional doubling to tripling of today's post-industrial acid concentrations) by 2100 as the oceans absorb more anthropogenic CO2.[1][10][15] These changes are predicted to continue rapidly as the oceans take up more anthropogenic CO2 from the atmosphere, the degree of change to ocean chemistry, for example ocean pH, will depend on the mitigation and emissions pathways society takes.[16] Note that, although the ocean is acidifying, its pH is still greater than 7 (that of neutral water), so the ocean could also be described as becoming less basic.

Although the largest changes are expected in the future,[10] a report from NOAA scientists found large quantities of water undersaturated in aragonite are already upwelling close to the Pacific continental shelf area of North America.[17] Continental shelves play an important role in marine ecosystems since most marine organisms live or are spawned there, and though the study only dealt with the area from Vancouver to northern California, the authors suggest that other shelf areas may be experiencing similar effects.[17]

Similarly, one of the first detailed datasets examining temporal variations in pH at a temperate coastal location found that acidification was occurring at a rate much higher than that previously predicted, with consequences for near-shore benthic ecosystems.[18][19]

A December 2009 National Geographic report quoted Thomas Lovejoy, former chief biodiversity advisor to the World Bank on recent research suggesting "the acidity of the oceans will more than double in the next 40 years. This rate is 100 times faster than any changes in ocean acidity in the last 20 million years, making it unlikely that marine life can somehow adapt to the changes."[20]

According to research, from the University of Bristol, published in the journal Nature Geoscience in February 2010, compared current rates of ocean acidification with the greenhouse event at the Paleocene-Eocene boundary, about 55 million years ago when surface ocean temperatures rose by 5-6 degrees Celsius, during which time no catastrophe is seen in surface ecosystems, yet bottom-dwelling organisms in the deep ocean experienced a major extinction. They concluded that the current acidification is on path to reach levels higher than any seen in the last 65 million years.[21] The study also found that the current rate of acidification is "ten times the rate that preceded the mass extinction 55 million years ago," and Ridgwell commented that the present rate "is an almost unprecedented geological event."[22] A National Research Council study released in April 2010 likewise concluded that "the level of acid in the oceans is increasing at an unprecedented rate."[23]

A review by climate scientists at the RealClimate blog, of a 2005 report by the Royal Society of the UK similarly highlighted the centrality of the rates of change in the present anthropogenic acidification process, writing:[24]

"The natural pH of the ocean is determined by a need to balance the deposition and burial of CaCO3 on the sea floor against the influx of Ca2+and CO2&#8722;3 into the ocean from dissolving rocks on land, called weathering. These processes stabilize the pH of the ocean, by a mechanism called CaCO3 compensation...The point of bringing it up again is to note that if the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere changes more slowly than this, as it always has throughout the Vostok record, the pH of the ocean will be relatively unaffected because CaCO3 compensation can keep up. The [present] fossil fuel acidification is much faster than natural changes, and so the acid spike will be more intense than the earth has seen in at least 800,000 years."​
A July 2010 article in Scientific American quoted marine geologist William Howard of the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Center in Hobart, Tasmania stating that "the current rate of ocean acidification is about a hundred times faster than the most rapid events" in the geologic past.[25] Research at the University of South Florida has shown that in the 15-year period 1995-2010 alone, acidity has increased 6 percent in the upper 100 meters of the Pacific Ocean from Hawaii to Alaska.[26] *


----------



## Douger (May 13, 2011)

Just had a 6.0 here about 4:45.
Interesting. It didn't really "shake" I just felt the house sliding around on it's pads ( I built for a 9.0).
My caretakers wife said the dishes in her sink rattled.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 13, 2011)

westwall said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


That's another one of your pathetic denier cult myths and, as usual, you can't back up your assertions with any evidence.





westwall said:


> and based on your normal level of scientific illiteracy


That's actually pretty funny coming from an ignorant, clueless, anti-science twit like yourself. I post arguments with citations and links to scientific articles and evidence and you post your own hot air and not much else.





westwall said:


> I guess the fact that Hansens predictions are off by only 300% qualifies as good to you.  Just lets the rest of the world know how incompetent you are that 300% off is considered good.


LOLOL....just because you believe you own denier cult myths doesn't mean anyone else falls for that ol' BS. Dr. Hansens's predictions were fairly accurate as has been demonstrated by subsequent events.

*A detailed look at Hansen's 1988 projections 

*


----------



## Oddball (May 13, 2011)

I predict that Trolling Blunder will troll and blunder.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 13, 2011)

Oddball said:


> I predict that Trolling Blunder will troll and blunder.


I already predicted that you would never post anything meaningful or significant and you've fulfilled that prediction constantly and consistently.


----------



## westwall (May 14, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...






You do?    And then you post to a heavily biased science blog run by alarmists heavily invested in the fraud   You're a riot!  Clueless and stupid but a riot non the less!


----------



## Old Rocks (May 14, 2011)

The fraud is on your side, Walleyes. 

Once again, every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University states that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. It is the well paid liars for the energy companies like yourself that are heavily invested in fraud.


----------



## skookerasbil (May 14, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> The fraud is on your side, Walleyes.
> 
> Once again, every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University states that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. It is the well paid liars for the energy companies like yourself that are heavily invested in fraud.




LMBO.........."clear and present danger"................


So much so that Old Rocks here, went out and built himself a home-made emergency raft..........LMBO...........in case the flood come.

Here is his schematic  ( of course, I added the flag)









Now.........somebody tell me these people arent fcukking whacked???!!!!!!!!!!!



OH............and by the way. What do every National Academy of Science and University Science Dept have in common??? Their "science" is funded by...............???????????????????????????????????????????????

You guessed it...........................*THE GOVERNMENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*


National Academies = "conflicts of interest" up the ying-yang.................check it out.................National Academy of Sciences - SourceWatch





The k00ks never want people to know about that...............










Dollar to 1,000 stale donuts, Old Rocks will come back with a one or two sentence rant about "'Ole K00ky...................". Why? Because the guy has a mental meltdown when I expose his shit.................


----------



## Old Rocks (May 14, 2011)

I see, you sodden dumb ass. So, every government pays it's National Academy of Science to agree with every other government's National Academies of Science on this subject? Got your tinfoil hat on straight, ol' Kook? 

Every major university in the world, whether privately or government funded, by what ever government, states that AGW is a fact. And no matter what the political system, the National Academy of Science in all the nations state the same, even that of Saudi Arabia. 

Now, do one of your stupid cartoons. Flap yap and make no sense at all, as is your norm. But the fact remains, AGW is real, and the vast majority of scientists will tell you that unequivocally.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 14, 2011)

*From your site, Kooky. Seems that the conflict of interest at the NAS is the influence of the companies, like Exxon. *

National Academy of Sciences - SourceWatch

NAS conflicts of interests
The NAS was created by for the purpose of providing independent, science-based advice to federal policy makers. However, according to a one year review of of 21 NAS committees, conducted by the non-profit Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), almost one in five scientists appointed to an NAS panel, had direct financial ties to companies or industry groups with direct stakes in the outcome of the study. Almost half of the panels examined had scientists with readily identifiable biases, not offset by scientists with alternative points of view. CSPI didn't dispute the quality of reports produced by the National Academies, however, it recommended the NAS strengthen its policies for avoiding and disclosing conflicts of interest and for maintaining balance in the interest of maintaining public credibility.

Of the 320 committee members CSPI evaluated, 18% had direct conflicts of interest, or a direct and recent connection to a company or industry with a financial stake in the study outcome. For example, an Institute of Medicine panel evaluating the risk of mercury in fish, included a scientist who had research funded by the United States Tuna Foundation and the National Food Processors Association, pro-industry research and lobbying groups. In another example, 10 out of 11 scientists on a &#8220;State Practices in Setting Mobile Source Emissions Standards&#8221; panel had ties to carbon-emitting industries. On another NAS panel with the task of reviewing the U.S. Department of Energy&#8217;s Carbon Sequestration Program, 10 out of 11 members had ties to petroleum, energy, or chemical industries. Few of those conflicts of interest were disclosed to the public. [3]

On July 24, 2006, the debate over how to handle conflicts of interest among members of U.S. government advisory panels heated up as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced a plan to more closely examine the issue on science panels. For example, FDA planned to revise the guidelines used to determine when a member with a conflict of interest deserves a waiver; issued when a conflict is deemed to be insignificant, or a scientist's expertise too great to lose. In addition, the FDA planned to examined ways to improve it's public analysis of issuing waivers to some scientists. According to FDA deputy commissioner for medical scientific affairs Scott Gottlieb:

"There's more we can do to simplify how we communicate the criteria we use to give waivers." 
The FDA's plan to review its waiver policy followed the introduction of a bill in Congress the previous year, which proposed the eliminating waivers. CSPI also issued a report on July 24, 2006 which revealed that nearly one in five scientists appointed to a sample of expert panels convened by the NAS, had "direct financial ties" to companies with a stake in the outcome of the debate. Nearly half of panels contained too many scientists with industry ties and not enough with alternative viewpoints, such as ties to environmental or public interest groups. According to director of Integrity in Science at CSPI, Merrill Goozner:

"I think that there is a fairly consistent pattern, in some (NAS) committees - not all - that there is an imbalance."

According to Mr. Goozner, the NAS consistently puts out "pretty good reports" , but having an excess of pro-industry experts most likely has subtle effects on more subtle questions, such as how much dioxin is toxic:

"I believe there are scientists out there without conflicts of interest who can serve on these committees and do a comparable job." [4]


----------



## Old Rocks (May 14, 2011)

*From your site, Kooky. Seems that the conflict of interest at the NAS is the influence of the companies, like Exxon. *

National Academy of Sciences - SourceWatch

NAS conflicts of interests
The NAS was created by for the purpose of providing independent, science-based advice to federal policy makers. However, according to a one year review of of 21 NAS committees, conducted by the non-profit Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), almost one in five scientists appointed to an NAS panel, had direct financial ties to companies or industry groups with direct stakes in the outcome of the study. Almost half of the panels examined had scientists with readily identifiable biases, not offset by scientists with alternative points of view. CSPI didn't dispute the quality of reports produced by the National Academies, however, it recommended the NAS strengthen its policies for avoiding and disclosing conflicts of interest and for maintaining balance in the interest of maintaining public credibility.

Of the 320 committee members CSPI evaluated, 18% had direct conflicts of interest, or a direct and recent connection to a company or industry with a financial stake in the study outcome. For example, an Institute of Medicine panel evaluating the risk of mercury in fish, included a scientist who had research funded by the United States Tuna Foundation and the National Food Processors Association, pro-industry research and lobbying groups. In another example, 10 out of 11 scientists on a State Practices in Setting Mobile Source Emissions Standards panel had ties to carbon-emitting industries. On another NAS panel with the task of reviewing the U.S. Department of Energys Carbon Sequestration Program, 10 out of 11 members had ties to petroleum, energy, or chemical industries. Few of those conflicts of interest were disclosed to the public. [3]

On July 24, 2006, the debate over how to handle conflicts of interest among members of U.S. government advisory panels heated up as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced a plan to more closely examine the issue on science panels. For example, FDA planned to revise the guidelines used to determine when a member with a conflict of interest deserves a waiver; issued when a conflict is deemed to be insignificant, or a scientist's expertise too great to lose. In addition, the FDA planned to examined ways to improve it's public analysis of issuing waivers to some scientists. According to FDA deputy commissioner for medical scientific affairs Scott Gottlieb:

"There's more we can do to simplify how we communicate the criteria we use to give waivers." 
The FDA's plan to review its waiver policy followed the introduction of a bill in Congress the previous year, which proposed the eliminating waivers. CSPI also issued a report on July 24, 2006 which revealed that nearly one in five scientists appointed to a sample of expert panels convened by the NAS, had "direct financial ties" to companies with a stake in the outcome of the debate. Nearly half of panels contained too many scientists with industry ties and not enough with alternative viewpoints, such as ties to environmental or public interest groups. According to director of Integrity in Science at CSPI, Merrill Goozner:

"I think that there is a fairly consistent pattern, in some (NAS) committees - not all - that there is an imbalance."

According to Mr. Goozner, the NAS consistently puts out "pretty good reports" , but having an excess of pro-industry experts most likely has subtle effects on more subtle questions, such as how much dioxin is toxic:

"I believe there are scientists out there without conflicts of interest who can serve on these committees and do a comparable job." [4]


----------



## skookerasbil (May 14, 2011)




----------



## percysunshine (May 14, 2011)

Only the government would tax breathing.


----------



## skookerasbil (May 14, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> *From your site, Kooky. Seems that the conflict of interest at the NAS is the influence of the companies, like Exxon. *
> 
> National Academy of Sciences - SourceWatch
> 
> ...












In fact..........the term "man made global warming" wouldnt even exist if not for that fact............


----------



## skookerasbil (May 14, 2011)

*Government: The View from Washington, DC*

*The money that paid for research on climate change came mostly from governments. Governments were also central to any practical actions that might address global warming. Following the Second World War, the United States Federal government funded many kinds of research, much of it connected to Cold War concerns, and some of this happened to relate to climate change. During the 1960s, the government created major agencies for space, atmospheric, and ocean science, and in the 1970s, as public concern for the environment mounted, the agencies increasingly supported research targeted directly at climate change*

Government: The View from Washington, DC


----------



## skookerasbil (May 14, 2011)

*But much of science runs on government money. Some people find the stink of bias only in private money, and see government as free of it, but they are mistaken. Government likes certain beliefs. To get its money, you have to get the approval of the scientists it selects, and you are less likely to get it if they think your idea wrong.*





The Government Grant System: Inhibitor of Truth and Innovation? | Reprint



Herein lies the mega problem associated with the level of naive attached to the alarmists. People like Rolling Thunder, Konrad, Editec, Chris and most notably, Old Rocks.........they all truly believe that there is no stink in the use of government money. I find it fcukking fascinating that people can be THAT naive. The blindly assume that the government is spending billions of $$$$ because its intentions are noble. Actually........it is this that puts them in the category of k00k more than anything else. There is far, far, far more corruption in government than private industry. Why? Well, unless you are a complete jackass, you know that government has ZERO competition. No elaboration necessary ( unless you have cognitive deficiencies)..............


----------



## skookerasbil (May 14, 2011)




----------



## skookerasbil (May 14, 2011)




----------



## percysunshine (May 14, 2011)

skookerasbil said:


>




Shouldn't the 'Right' be on the right, and the 'Left' be on the left?

.


----------



## skookerasbil (May 14, 2011)

percysunshine said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...




yeah...........you're probably right. I think it pretty much gets the point across though..........


----------



## RollingThunder (May 14, 2011)

skookerasbil said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> > skookerasbil said:
> ...



Yeah, it does get the point across that you're a flaming moron with a cartoon mentality.


----------



## westwall (May 14, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > percysunshine said:
> ...






At least he's creative enough to make them.  All you do is cut and paste BS.  Point goes to Skookerasbill, trolling blunder is in the penalty box for being inane.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 15, 2011)

westwall said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > skookerasbil said:
> ...



LOLOLOLOLOL. I don't know what is funnier...the fact that you moronically anti-science denier cultists think that scientific evidence and testimony is all "_BS_" if it is copied verbatim for accuracy or the fact that you, walleyed, are stupid enough to imagine that the kookster actually created any of his cartoons instead of just "_cut and paste_"ing stuff together or the fact that you're retarded enough to think that kooker's cartoons add anything meaningful to the debate. And talk about 'inane'...dude, you are the king of it. LOLOLOLOL


----------



## percysunshine (May 15, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> Yeah, it does get the point across that you're a flaming moron with a cartoon mentality.



A cartoon mentality is better than no mentality at all.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 16, 2011)

percysunshine said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, it does get the point across that you're a flaming moron with a cartoon mentality.
> ...



LOL....and you're obviously speaking from personal experience.. It must suck to be as braindead as you've shown yourself to be, percy.


----------



## skookerasbil (May 16, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...





meh............

I love being the most hated, personally attacked member on this forum. Of course, the reason is clear. Lets face it..........you have three types of people come into this forum. 1)The Environmental, anti-capitalist, radical alarmists...........2) Conservatives, interested in pointing out the fabrications in the data related to the "consensus"..........and..........3)Curious newcomers wandering in looking for some direction with this stuff.

And what do the newcomers see?

They see a perpetual pattern. A pattern of pronounced anger and angst in the posts by the Environmental, anti-capitalist, radical alarmists, going mental when their point of view is challenged.

The newcomers see the volumes of information posted up by the likes of Ian, Westwall, Polar Bear, Matthew et. al................posted up, by the way, in such a manner that makes the environmentalist positions look absurd. *Stuff they've never heard about before.*Then SKOOKS rolls in and highlights the absurdity with genuine gay MSPAINT Photobucket classics.

The newcomer leaves the forum thinking, "Shit........'the consensus' is total Bullshit afterall!!", thus, they are no longer enamoured with the prospect of being part of the herd of sheep. In fact........they leave wanting to be a million miles away from being labeled as an OCD mindless follower of phoney!!!


It is THAT that causes the public displays of pronounced angry rants by the environmental radicals. Indeed...........when your position is challenged and the consistent responses are angry personal attacks, it looks like you're hiding something and simply representing a hyper-partisan "cause". In other words..............the position looks WEAK!!!



And thats also why the political dynamic has so abruptly changed in this country since 2008. Nobody likes to be viewed as a mindless zombie embracing hysterical stuff all the time. Its just the way it is...........


----------



## westwall (May 16, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...






Alarmism is anti science buckwheat.  Alarmisim pre supposes a cause and ignores any other possible source for observed phenomena.  AGW alarmism is the POSTER CHILD for anti scientific thought.  It is pseudo science on a grand scale.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 16, 2011)

westwall said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



LOLOLOLOL.....and another moronically wrong, bizarro-world pronouncement by the walleyedretard. "Alarmism" is another of the propaganda memes the fossil fuel industry is using to bamboozle you but it is otherwise quite meaningless. Scientists are quite properly doing their job and warning the world about a very real danger that you are unfortunately far too brainwashed and ignorant to accept. You just highlight your own insanity, ignorance and stupidity when you try to claim that modern climate science and the conclusions the scientists have reached regarding mankind's role in the current abrupt global warming are all "_pseudo science on a grand scale_" when virtually all of the world's climate scientists agree with AGW and almost every scientific society, institute or organization in the world also supports those conclusions, minus a very few who remain neutral because climate science isn't their area of expertise. Meanwhile the actual climate scientists are pointing out that the idiotic nonsense that you denier cultists have been fooled into believing refutes the scientific evidence, is actually very much pseudo-science and bs. So it comes down to a pretty obvious choice. Either almost all of the scientists in the world are secretly "_anti-science_", as you and the other denier cultists like to claim, or it is you nutjob denier cultists who are the anti-science idiots who reject the evidence and testimony of the world science community.

*Scientific opinion on climate change*

*The Consensus on Global Warming: From Science to Industry & Religion*

*Global Warming: Man or Myth? - The Scientific Consensus*


----------



## skookerasbil (May 16, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...






*NOBODY

CARES

BECAUSE

IT

DOESNT

MATTER 

s0n*












*scam fAiL*


----------



## skookerasbil (May 16, 2011)




----------



## skookerasbil (May 16, 2011)

HEY WEST.........DID YOU HEAR???


----------



## westwall (May 16, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...






An appeal to authority again?  That's the best you've got?  Here's a hint ol trolling blunder fraud, science is not about polling results.  A self choosing poll amongst climate scientists doesn't proove anything except that they have nothing.  All the climatologists have a poor models that can't recreate the weather from a week ago.  they do not correlate with empirical evidence.  They do not correlate with the historical record.  They are pseudo science on a grand scale otherwise they could come up with something other than a pathetic appeal to authority.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 16, 2011)

Here we go. Poor ol' Walleyes, claiming to be a scientist, then dissing scientists and science every chance he gets. Just another troll doing the Napoleon thing on a message board.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 16, 2011)

westwall said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Changing the subject again, moron? As you usually do when you have no real response to the thorough debunking of some idiotic thing you just said. We were talking about your amazingly retarded claim that the scientific theory of anthropogenic global warming/climate change is "_anti scientific thought_" and "_pseudo science on a grand scale_" -  which I debunked by pointing out that there is an easily verified worldwide scientific consensus supporting AGW. You can't dispute that so you're trying to pretend that the issue is whether citing the scientific consensus violates a rule of formal debate, which is an *irrelevant non-issue* to begin with. You just demonstrate the absurdity of your position when you try to pretend that the world scientific community is "_anti-science_" while apparently imagining that it is you poor, ignorant, deluded stooges for the fossil fuel industry who are really the ones doing the actual science (in your mother's basement, I guess) and proving it to the world by posting your 'scathing critiques' of the world's actual working climate scientists and their research, on random internet political forums rather than publishing your work in _Nature_ or _Science_ or the _Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology_ or the _Journal of Climate_, to name a few out of the many in the climate science fields. LOLOLOLOL....your delusions just get funnier and funnier, walleyed.

And once again, you poor deluded fool, the 'scientific consensus' reflects the reality of the results of decades of concentrated research that has been done by tens of thousands of scientists from dozens of countries all around the world. The consensus is not in itself an argument that is used in scientifically demonstrating the validity of the conclusions of the climate scientists. That is done with the mountains of actual evidence in many areas of study. The consensus reflects the fact that scientific papers about the research done on the evidence overwhelmingly support AGW and no one has been able to find any natural mechanisms that could explain the evidence if you leave off CO2 forcing. As I pointed out above, the scientific consensus (on any topic), even when it reflects a much lower level of unanimity than is the case with AGW, is a *useful tool in making public policy* and is regarded as such by intelligent people generally including most world leaders in government and business. 

As far as your delusions about climate models....

*YouTube - This Year's Model*


***


----------



## westwall (May 16, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Here we go. Poor ol' Walleyes, claiming to be a scientist, then dissing scientists and science every chance he gets. Just another troll doing the Napoleon thing on a message board.






Wrong again bozo.  I never dis good scientists.  I only dis scientists who fail to follow the scientific method.


----------



## westwall (May 16, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...






Yeah?  So?  Until they deal with the temperature manipulation issues (remember NIWA in New Zealand?  Your alarmists got caught falsifying the temp record there and got slammed for it) and the complete corruption of the peer review process in the field of climatology their opinions mean nothing to legitimate scientists.  Five years from now you will see the complete collapse of this horse manure and I will be laughing at you.

They are allready on the way down, they are treading water as it is.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 16, 2011)

westwall said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



You are soooo delusional, walleyed. The only "_issues_" are phantom artifacts of the fossil fuel industry propaganda campaign and exist only in the heads of denier cult freaks like you. In the real world, there is no serious scientific challenge to AGW and all of the indicators (like rising temperatures, melting glaciers and icecaps, changing seasonal timing, etc. etc.) and other evidence (like paleoclimate data and studies) continue to point to abrupt global warming beyond the range of natural variability that is being induced by human carbon emissions and deforestation practices.

Five years from now, new world temperature records will have been set, climate pattern disruptions and wacky extreme weather events will have increased and the intelligent people of the world will be doing what they're doing even now and laughing at you anti-science, warmed-over 'flat-earthers' for your near-psychotic denial of reality.





westwall said:


> Wrong again bozo.  I never dis good scientists.  I only dis scientists who fail to follow the scientific method.


LOLOLOLOLOLOL.....very funny coming from someone like you, walleyedretard, who wouldn't know the 'scientific method' if it bit you.


----------



## westwall (May 16, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...






Sure thing ol trolling blunder fraud.  Keep on glad handing yourself.  You should get an alumni meeting of the American Institute of Physics together, you would have yourself of course, konrad, ol fraud, a few other sock puppets that were around for one or two posts, Chris, and K2skier.  You two or three real people could have a grand old party slapping each other on the back.


----------



## whitehall (May 16, 2011)

What? Weather disasters likely to rise? What geological era are we talking about? The plate tektonics are the biggest natural disasters we are likely to encounter in the next millenium and the "experts" ain't got a clue about what to expect from volcanic eruptions or even spots in that big nuclear reactor in the sky. Bend over and kiss your asses good bye greeners, you are going to die some day like everyone else.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 17, 2011)

westwall said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



LOLOLOLOLOL....hilariously retarded, walleyed....are you really dissing the *American Institute of Physics* for some obscure reason???

*The American Institute of Physics - As a "society of societies," AIP supports ten Member Societies and provides a spectrum of services and programs devoted to advancing the science and profession of physics. A pioneer in digital publishing, AIP is also one of the world's largest publishers of physics journals and produces the publications of more than 25 scientific and engineering societies through its New York-based publishing division.
...through the Institute, the [member] societies find a unified voice for influencing public policy and for advancing the publics understanding of science.*

Two of the main member societies are the:
*American Geophysical Union*
(From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
*The American Geophysical Union (or AGU) is a nonprofit organization of geophysicists, consisting of over 50,000 members from over 135 countries. AGU's activities are focused on the organization and dissemination of scientific information in the interdisciplinary and international field of geophysics. The geophysical sciences involve four fundamental areas: atmospheric and ocean sciences; solid-Earth sciences; hydrologic sciences; and space sciences. The AGU was established in 1919 by the National Research Council and for more than 50 years operated as an unincorporated affiliate of the National Academy of Sciences. In 1972 AGU was incorporated in the District of Columbia and membership was opened to scientists and students worldwide. AGU is the publisher of several scientific periodicals, including the weekly Eos newspaper and eighteen peer-reviewed research journals, most notably the Journal of Geophysical Research and Geophysical Research Letters.

In December 2003, the AGU issued a position statement on climate change, and revised and reaffirmed the statement in 2007. The revised statement begins:
The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system--including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons--are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century.[1]
*

...and the *American Physical Society*
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
*The American Physical Society is the world's second largest organization of physicists, behind the Deutsche Physikalische Gesellschaft. The Society publishes more than a dozen scientific journals, including the world renowned Physical Review and Physical Review Letters, and organizes more than twenty science meetings each year. It is also a member society of the American Institute of Physics.[1] The American Physical Society was founded on May 20, 1899, when thirty-six physicists gathered at Columbia University for that purpose. They proclaimed the mission of the new Society to be "to advance and diffuse the knowledge of physics", and in one way or another the APS has been at that task ever since. In the early years, virtually the sole activity of the APS was to hold scientific meetings, initially four per year. In 1913, the APS took over the operation of the Physical Review, which had been founded in 1893 at Cornell University, and journal publication became its second major activity. The Physical Review was followed by Reviews of Modern Physics in 1929 and by Physical Review Letters in 1958. Over the years, Phys. Rev. has subdivided into five separate sections as the fields of physics proliferated and the number of submissions grew. In more recent years, the activities of the Society have broadened considerably. Stimulated by the increase in Federal funding in the period after the Second World War, and even more by the increased public involvement of scientists in the 1960s, the APS is active in public and governmental affairs, and in the international physics community. In addition, the Society conducts extensive programs in education, science outreach, and media relations. APS has 14 divisions and 11 topical groups covering all areas of physics research. There are 6 forums that reflect the interest of its 47,000 members in broader issues, and 9 sections organized by geographical region.

In 2007, APS adopted an official statement on global warming:[8]
Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.

    The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earths physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.

    Because the complexity of the climate makes accurate prediction difficult, the APS urges an enhanced effort to understand the effects of human activity on the Earths climate, and to provide the technological options for meeting the climate challenge in the near and longer terms. The APS also urges governments, universities, national laboratories and its membership to support policies and actions that will reduce the emission of greenhouse gases. *


----------



## Old Rocks (May 17, 2011)

No hope, ol' Walleyes already stated the the APS and AGU are boarding schools for the short bus. He also claims to be a member of the AGU and the Royal Society.


----------



## hendrickL (May 18, 2011)

Still waiting for all the predictions to be real..


----------



## RollingThunder (May 19, 2011)

hendrickL said:


> Still waiting for all the predictions to be real..



Well then you can stop waiting 'cause the predictions came true and continue to do so. You're just too ignorant and brainwashed to know that fact.


----------



## skookerasbil (May 19, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> hendrickL said:
> 
> 
> > Still waiting for all the predictions to be real..
> ...




And guess what asshole. Even if they were ALL true...................


*Nobody

fcukking

cares!!!!!*


----------



## RollingThunder (May 19, 2011)

skookerasbil said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > hendrickL said:
> ...



That's true if by "nobody" you mean you ignorant, deluded, dimwitted denier cult dingbats. Of course the intelligent people of the world who understand what's happening do care quite a bit and are working hard to deal with this crisis.


BTW, I realize that you're severely retarded, kooker, but not even being able to spell "fucking" correctly is a bit much even for a retard. I mean, dude!, it's the most used word in your very limited vocabulary and you still screw it up....LOL.


----------



## skookerasbil (May 19, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...




But the intelligent people of the world are losing.

Hmmmmmmmmmm!!!

Im very happy to be the "dimwitted denier" who's not losing.

But I am curious? For what purpose do the AGW high priests continually engage in this "debate". Really.........for what ends? Because Im not seeing dick??

Enlighten me s0n!!!


----------



## skookerasbil (May 19, 2011)

April 11, 2011
Placing the Blame for Death of Cap-and-Trade

A controversial new report suggests scientists share some of the blame for Congress failure to enact cap-and-trade legislation in response to climate change.

Matthew Nisbet, a communications professor at American University, floats a series of provocative ideas in a new report on the downfall of cap-and-trade legislation.

He concludes that environmental groups were not, in fact, outgunned by the political muscle and pocketbooks of big corporations opposed to climate action. Nor were they thwarted by a mainstream media accused of confusing the public with false balance between respected scientists and denial outliers. And what about all those conservative politicians and pundits who polarized the issue? Nisbet suggests Al Gore owns some responsibility there, too.

He is downright methodical in questioning all of the most deeply held narratives for why an environmental movement that has matured in tactics and grown in size * and which was responsible for what he suggests may have been the best-financed political cause in American history  came up empty-handed on climate legislation, even with allies running the White House and both houses of Congress.*
Placing the Blame for Death of Cap-and-Trade | Miller-McCune



*not losing*


----------



## skookerasbil (May 19, 2011)




----------



## daveman (May 19, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> That's true if by "nobody" you mean you ignorant, deluded, dimwitted denier cult dingbats. Of course the intelligent people of the world who understand what's happening do care quite a bit and are working hard to deal with this crisis.



Ummm, you do realize that advocating world socialism isn't really a valid response to your global warmi...errr, climate change myth, right?

Crippling the economies of the Western world to give third-world nations the freedom to pollute at will may make some particularly stupid people _feel_ good, but won't actually mitigate any environmental change.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 20, 2011)

daveman said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > That's true if by "nobody" you mean you ignorant, deluded, dimwitted denier cult dingbats. Of course the intelligent people of the world who understand what's happening do care quite a bit and are working hard to deal with this crisis.
> ...



What I do realize is that you are completely clueless about the situation and your head is filled with silly myths and nonsensical propaganda memes. 

The reality is that the excess CO2 that mankind has added to the atmosphere is causing major problems associated with global warming and climate changes and the solutions primarily involve drastically reducing the amount of fossil carbon that we are pumping into the atmosphere every year. That's it. No nefarious secret agendas, no "_world socialism_" required, no "_crippled economies_" (as many studies have shown), but also no putting all the burden of reducing carbon emissions on the economies of developing third world countries when it is the first world countries that have created the problem and are still emitting the most CO2 per person. What is proposed is to use revenues from carbon taxes to help the developing countries to deploy renewable energy systems so their future emissions won't grow as their economies grow.


----------



## daveman (May 20, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


  Moron.  You say what I said isn't true, then repeat the exact same thing I said:  You want to send Western money to third-world nations so they can pollute at will.  Redistributing wealth on a planetary scale is world socialism.


----------



## skookerasbil (May 20, 2011)

I refer all k00ks to post #89 on this thread and give me something!!! Please give me something assholes...........

You fcukking dummies think winning a debate about the data in 2011 is spiking the football for a cause. Awesome..........but the factual reality is that the public is now overwhelmingly yawning at "the data from real scientists". So much so in fact that they've fallen asleep.

Your shit has become...........................

*NOTHING

MORE

THAN

A  

HOBBY*



iTS NOT 2007 ANYMORE s0ns!!!!


----------



## RollingThunder (May 20, 2011)

daveman said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


No, little cretin, that's not what I said but you're obviously too retarded to understand. The developed nations have created this climate change crisis but the consequences are going to (already are) hit the developing nations the hardest and cause the most disruption of economies and food supplies. The international proposals to deal with this involve helping the developing nations to build a renewable, non-polluting energy infrastructure so that they don't "_pollute at will_" and make the world situation even worse.


----------



## skookerasbil (May 20, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...





Just want to point out to the curious who might be checking into this forum. What you have here is the rant of an anti-American, anti-capitalist radical fringe environmental k00k who read too many gay school textbooks growing up and bought the stuff hook, line and stinker. A PC Zombie.

2-6 million North Korean's are going to starve to death before the year is out and mental cases like this naive asshole have no clue as to why!!! Make no mistake......its has NOTHING to do with a "climate change crisis". Zero. And you can bet your ass he isnt doing shit personally to help. Write it down.

These idea's are the idea's of idealistic nutty asses who truly believe *if you think it, it must happen*. They are known as redistribution genius's!!! In theory, their shit is the shit. Doesnt apply in the real world however.


----------



## westwall (May 20, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...







So says an idiot who can't do simple math or do basic research.  Just go away you're an embarrassment.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 20, 2011)

westwall said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



No, walleyedretard, you are the idiot who can't do simple math or basic research, as was just demonstrated over here where you got your ass handed to you on another thread. You embarrass yourself intellectually every time you post but you're too retarded to realize that fact. It's very sad.


----------



## skookerasbil (May 24, 2011)

skookerasbil said:


> I refer all k00ks to post #89 on this thread and give me something!!! Please give me something assholes...........
> 
> You fcukking dummies think winning a debate about the data in 2011 is spiking the football for a cause. Awesome..........but the factual reality is that the public is now overwhelmingly yawning at "the data from real scientists". So much so in fact that they've fallen asleep.
> 
> ...





Still havent got dick from the k00ks!!! Show me da links s0ns!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## RollingThunder (May 24, 2011)

skookerasbil said:


> Still havent got dick



Yeah, you've made that obvious a long time ago.....assuming that you're talking about climate science......perhaps you're really just looking for a gay dating site....LOL....


----------



## Oddball (May 24, 2011)

I predict that Trolling Blunder will continue to troll and blunder.


----------



## daveman (May 24, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > Still havent got dick
> ...


A homophobic leftist.  Gasp.


----------



## boedicca (May 24, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...





Awww, c'mon.

Have some intellectual honesty and admit it:  Green is the New Red.


----------



## skookerasbil (May 24, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > Still havent got dick
> ...











Still waiting............show me where the data conveyed to us by the "real scientists" is mattering in the real world??


----------



## skookerasbil (May 24, 2011)

Meanwhile in the land of real.............skooks cant stop laughing his ass off...............

From last weeks Bloomberg Report..............

Research Panel Says Climate Change Doubts Slow Urgent Action - Bloomberg


Hmmmm..........all the consensus stuff is out there according to the religion. Buuuuuuuuuut...............nobody seems to give a rats ass aboout the "real science".


----------



## RollingThunder (May 24, 2011)

Oddball said:


> I predict that Trolling Blunder will continue to troll and blunder.



I predicted some time ago that you would never post anything with any meaning or significance and that prediction has proved to be very accurate. You're just a silly, clueless troll who doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground.


----------



## nitroz (May 24, 2011)

This is about right.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 24, 2011)

nitroz said:


> This is about right.


So....you're fond of pointless mental masturbation...and you feel a need to dump your load on us with this off topic nonsense....I guess you're easily amused or something...


----------



## skookerasbil (May 25, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> So....you're fond of pointless mental masturbation...and you feel a need to dump your load on us with this off topic nonsense....I guess you're easily amused or something...









Hmmmmmm..........but it would appear the whole horde of brilliant real science guys on this forum have their hands tied to their balls when it comes to being able to display for all of us how the "Consensus Science" matters. Because they can search the internet high and low and come up only with.............dick. All the environmentalist devotee's like Rolling Thunder and Old Rocks are now akin to a group of naked assholes walking down main street waving a bananna over their head at onlookers saying "WTF??!". 

They post up volumes of data like they're on a mission..........but what all the non-religion observers want to know is................

What the fcukk is the mission??

Because it sure does look like a gigantic circle jerk session to us!!!




http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-12/public-doubts-on-climate-change-delay-urgent-action-report-says.html


----------



## RollingThunder (May 25, 2011)

skookerasbil said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > So....you're fond of pointless mental masturbation...and you feel a need to dump your load on us with this off topic nonsense....I guess you're easily amused or something...
> ...



Yeah, I'm sure it does....but then again, you're a clueless retard with your head shoved so far up your ass that you're licking your own tonsils so who cares what nonsense you believe.

Here's your prize.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (May 25, 2011)

nitroz said:


> This is about right.



ha thats kinda funny actually


----------



## skookerasbil (May 25, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...






Gee..........lately........all I get on here are mental meltdowns and real sick-ass humor from The k00ks on here.............

Why?

Because they're........................


----------



## skookerasbil (May 25, 2011)

Oh......and more evidence things are not going well for the religion these days.

Apparently, the "real scientists" are whining like a bunch of sniveling sore losers..........and Im laughing my ass off.............

From the DRUDGE Report today.....................


Freedom of information laws are used to harass scientists, says Nobel laureate | Politics | The Guardian


----------



## Old Rocks (May 25, 2011)

Drudge, eh? High class source of information there, gay ol' Kooky.


----------



## skookerasbil (May 26, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Drudge, eh? High class source of information there, gay ol' Kooky.





Indeed..........only 31 million visits a day and almost 1 billion per month!!! Dummy thinks it is a report done by DRUDGE. Article is link from The Guardian UK.


Where does Old Rocks get most of his links?

The DailyKos!!!!

Now THATS fcukking impressive!!!







ANyway..........still waiting for all those links s0ns!!! First request was Rapture day...............and still havent seen dick.


----------



## daveman (May 26, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Drudge, eh? High class source of information there, gay ol' Kooky.



You do know that Drudge is a news aggregator, right?  Matt Drudge himself didn't report that story?  You can tell because the link goes to The Guardian.

You didn't even read it.  Your narrow little mind dismissed it as soon as you saw the word "Drudge".

Moron.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 26, 2011)

skookerasbil said:


> Meanwhile in the land of real.............skooks cant stop...............


......spewing lies and idiocy thru kook's rotten teeth.





skookerasbil said:


> From last weeks Bloomberg Report..............
> 
> Research Panel Says Climate Change Doubts Slow Urgent Action - Bloomberg


Kookster, you manage to take being a flaming retard to new depths of utter stupidity.

From the report you cited, you silly cretin. "_Public misconceptions of climate change..._", like yours, kooker.

*Research Panel Says Climate Change Doubts Slow Urgent Action*
Bloomberg
 May 12, 2011
(excerpts)

*Public misconceptions of climate change have thwarted urgently needed U.S. efforts to reduce emissions blamed for global warming, according to a report from the National Research Council of the National Academies.

The media sometimes present aspects of climate change that are well-established as if they were matters of serious debate, according to the report released today in Washington. Groups opposed to policies limiting carbon-dioxide emissions are influencing some reporting, according to the study, which was requested by Congress in 2008 when Democrats were in the majority. It was prepared by a committee of scientists, engineers and economists.

Climate change is happening and is "very likely caused by the burning of fossil fuels, said committee chairman Albert Carnesale, chancellor emeritus and professor at the University of California, Los Angeles. The U.S. should respond with aggressive emissions reductions of greenhouse gases from power plants, factories and transportation, and plan for adapting to effects of global warming, such as rising seas, with a national strategy, the council said.

Were talking about a challenge that is a matter of decades and indeed where some of the consequences are quiet, delayed, and so public understanding and support is essential, Carnesale said in an interview.

Informing Decision-makers

The National Research Council, based in Washington, provides information for government decision-makers under the auspices of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering and the Institute of Medicine.

The Earths average surface temperature has increased by about 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit (0.8 degrees Celsius) over the past 100 years, with about one degree occurring over the past three decades, according to the report. A preponderance of scientific evidence shows that the release of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases is the most likely cause of most warming during the past 50 years, the report found.

Melting ice, rising average sea levels and reduced snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere can be linked in part to warming, the report said. In the U.S., temperatures have increased by more than two degrees during the past 50 years. Extreme weather, such as drought and heavy downpours, is more frequent and intense. *

©2011 BLOOMBERG L.P. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)





skookerasbil said:


> Hmmmm..........all the consensus stuff is out there according to the...


...climate scientists, the world scientific community in general, and every National Academy of Science, Scientific Society, international science organization and governmental science agency in the world.





skookerasbil said:


> Buuuuuuuuuut...............nobody [but the intelligent people of the world] seems to give a rats ass aboout the "real science".



Hey kookster, we already know that ignorant retards like you don't give a rats ass about real science or, for that matter, anything more consequential than picking what brand of beer to use to get yourself shit-faced.


----------



## skookerasbil (May 26, 2011)

​Still dont have *dick*......................

With all the intelligent people being the only ones talking incessantly about man-made climate change, one would think that our elected officials would be falling all over themselves to change the world with new climate legislation. But one could google for hours and find..................*DICK*

None of the dicks..........can come up with *DICK*.


Because the fraud has been exposed to a degree that no representative dare raise the subject ( except those hailing from k00k districts or districts with LOTS and LOTS of handouts).

Exposure like......................THIS......................


----------



## RollingThunder (May 26, 2011)

skookerasbil said:


> Still dont have *dick*......................
> 
> find..................*DICK*
> 
> come up with *DICK*.


Well, shit, kooker, just go to a gay bar and get some "*DICK*" if you're that desperate. You know, like you usually do.








skookerasbil said:


>



ROTFLMAO....just when I think you couldn't possible get even more retarded, you manage to prove me wrong. The legend at the bottom of your 'map' reads "*ICANHASCHEEZEBURGER.COM*". Great "source", dude! LOLOLOL. 

Meanwhile in the real world...

*Greenland, Antarctic Ice Sheets Losing Mass At An Accelerating Pace*
Tuesday, March 8, 2011 

*The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are losing mass at an accelerating pace, according to a new study in Geophysical Research Letters. The authors suggest these ice sheets are overtaking ice loss from Earth's mountain glaciers and ice caps to become the dominant contributor to global sea level rise.
*


----------



## skookerasbil (May 26, 2011)

Well..........obviously........we can lock this thread beause I can come back in here in a year or two and still wont have dick from the k00ks. Im the retard but not a single k00k has come up with a single links to show us how the science matters.


----------



## skookerasbil (May 26, 2011)

Epilogue for the k00ks......................


----------



## RollingThunder (May 26, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > Still dont have *dick*......................
> ...





skookerasbil said:


> Well..........obviously........ I...still wont have dick
> Im the retard



Yeah, I guess you're probably too ugly and retarded to be able to score even in a gay bar. Too bad. Well, better luck next incarnation, maybe.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 26, 2011)

Ernie S. said:


> I predict that hundreds of weather related records will be broken this year. With literally thousands of records, it's a statistical certainty.



I have Peer reviewed this post and find it 100% accurate


----------



## RollingThunder (May 26, 2011)

Ernie S. said:


> I predict that hundreds of weather related records will be broken this year. With literally thousands of records, it's a statistical certainty.



It's actually statistically skewed.

*Record high temperatures far outpace record lows across U.S.*
UCAR - University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
November 12, 2009
(excerpts)

*BOULDERSpurred by a warming climate, daily record high temperatures occurred twice as often as record lows over the last decade across the continental United States, new research shows. The ratio of record highs to lows is likely to increase dramatically in coming decades if emissions of greenhouse gases continue to climb.

"Climate change is making itself felt in terms of day-to-day weather in the United States," says Gerald Meehl, the lead author and a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). "The ways these records are being broken show how our climate is already shifting."

The study, by authors at NCAR, Climate Central, The Weather Channel, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), has been accepted for publication in Geophysical Research Letters. It was funded by the National Science Foundation, NCAR's sponsor, the Department of Energy, and Climate Central.

If temperatures were not warming, the number of record daily highs and lows being set each year would be approximately even. Instead, for the period from January 1, 2000, to September 30, 2009, the continental United States set 291,237 record highs and 142,420 record lows, as the country experienced unusually mild winter weather and intense summer heat waves.*





*This graphic shows the ratio of record daily highs to record daily lows observed at about 1,800 weather stations in the 48 contiguous United States from January 1950 through September 2009. Each bar shows the proportion of record highs (red) to record lows (blue) for each decade. The 1960s and 1970s saw slightly more record daily lows than highs, but in the last 30 years record highs have increasingly predominated, with the ratio now about two-to-one for the 48 states as a whole.* [ENLARGE] (©UCAR, graphic by Mike Shibao.)


----------



## skookerasbil (May 27, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > I predict that hundreds of weather related records will be broken this year. With literally thousands of records, it's a statistical certainty.
> ...


----------



## RollingThunder (May 27, 2011)

skookerasbil said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...



Yeah, kooker, you are a failure as well as a clueless idiot. You've made that plain to everyone so there's no need to keep posting that picture of your mom and reminding us all what a big failure you are. We know!


----------



## skookerasbil (May 27, 2011)




----------



## skookerasbil (May 27, 2011)




----------



## skookerasbil (May 27, 2011)

Still nada from the alarmists.............


----------



## The T (May 27, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> *Well, we are not half way through the year yet, but they certainly seem to be on the mark.*
> 
> Weather disasters likely to rise - UPI.com
> 
> ...


 
Synopsis?

*WELCOME TO PLANET EARTH*


----------



## RollingThunder (May 28, 2011)

The T said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > *Well, we are not half way through the year yet, but they certainly seem to be on the mark.*
> ...



Yeah....'welcome to planet Earth' after we've screwed it up royally with our misguided and environmentally destructive energy sources.


----------



## skookerasbil (May 28, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...





Far left k00ks like this guy ^^^^ has lots of difficulty navigating in the real world.......in fact, hes a hater of his own country. Despises capitlaism becuase he's a fcukking loser who has to find somebody else to blame for his misery and fcukked up personal life decisions that led to a perpetual state of epIc fAiL.

Know that this is????







Its a GE AC6000CW.........6 thousand horsepower. There are thousands and thousands of these roaming the countryside on any given day. Cost? Well over a million dollars. They pull freight loads of millions of tons across hundreds of miles and are bought by railroads to make a profit. Americans dont eat without them. They run on diesel fuel..........because it is cheap relative to any other form of fuel to get them moving. They are built to last 30+ years. The one pictured is about 10 years old....engines replaced every year or so.

Think a big windmill on top is going to work on one?

How about some solar panels?

Corn?



The dreamer asshole haters of the world can sit around and be miserable and haters all they want but its not going to change dick. We're stuck in the world we live in and need to be able to compete and exist. Life is about tradeoffs and accepting them. Goofball trolls litter forums like this with their idea's of k00k..........they live in a world that screams out, "We can do anything if we just have the collective will..........there are only solutions!!"

But thats not real life..............and the above picture of that beautiful machine is the grim reality that the k00ks simply cannot accept.


So nextt ime you are cruising down the road and happen upon one of these monster GE engines........or four or five in tendem........remember that for the next 30 years, they'll be out there pulling 100+ cars and feeding America!!!


 k00ks like Rolling Thunder want shit like this..............







Doesnt cut it.............


----------



## skookerasbil (May 28, 2011)




----------



## skookerasbil (May 29, 2011)




----------



## The T (May 29, 2011)

skookerasbil said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > The T said:
> ...


 
Bravo!


----------



## The T (May 29, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


 
This is because you're one of these morons that confuses _pollution_ with AGW.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 29, 2011)

Kooky, you dumb fuck. That diesel locomotive you posted is a hybrid. Electric motors drive the wheels because the motors are far more controllable than mechanically transferred power from the diesel motor. Not only that, what do you suppose is going to happen when we have a method of storing electrical energy that has equal or greater density than that of diesel fuel?


----------



## Old Rocks (May 29, 2011)

The T said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > The T said:
> ...



Ah yes, the 'T' once again has to demostrate his 'Conservative' willfully ignorant credentials.

Without a certain amount of GHGs in the atmosphere the oceans would have ice on them almost down to the equator. With too much GHGs, we will have a very rapid climate change, one that will have dire consequences for our agriculture. Things like droughts that are records, flooding on scales seldom seen before. Now we have those every once in a while in the normal scheme of things. But when the numbers worldwide start doubling, with the expected impact on agriculture, things have changed. Consider the last 12 months.


----------



## daveman (May 29, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Kooky, you dumb fuck. That diesel locomotive you posted is a hybrid. Electric motors drive the wheels because the motors are far more controllable than mechanically transferred power from the diesel motor.


Diesel-electric locomotives are not hybrids.

Hybrid vehicles are vehicles with two or more power sources in the drivetrain.

There is only one power source in a locomotive's drivetrain:  The diesel engine.  


Old Rocks said:


> Not only that, what do you suppose is going to happen when we have a method of storing electrical energy that has equal or greater density than that of diesel fuel?



If it's cheaper to build and operate than diesel engines, we'll switch over.  So far, there's nothing that can do that.


----------



## skookerasbil (May 30, 2011)

daveman said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Kooky, you dumb fuck. That diesel locomotive you posted is a hybrid. Electric motors drive the wheels because the motors are far more controllable than mechanically transferred power from the diesel motor.
> ...






Thanks Dave for putting an exclamation point on the obvious.

Old Rocks has been known to pwn himself numerous times on here but his last post is beyond jerky. He's calling me a dumb fcukk!!!

*Dumbass thinks THIS is an electric train!!!!.............................*








*Fuel Tank*_
A diesel locomotive has to carry its own fuel around with it and there has to be enough for a reasonable length of trip.  The fuel tank is normally under the loco frame and will have a capacity of say 1,000 imperial gallons (UK Class 59, 3,000 hp) or 5,000 US gallons in a General Electric AC4400CW 4,400 hp locomotive.  *The new AC6000s have 5,500 gallon tanks.  In addition to fuel, the locomotive will carry around, typically about 300 US gallons of cooling water and 250 gallons of lubricating oil for the diesel engine.*
Air reservoirs are also required for the train braking and some other systems on the locomotive.  These are often mounted next to the fuel tank under the floor of the locomotive._


*Traction Motor*
_Since the diesel-electric locomotive uses electric transmission, traction motors are provided on the axles to give the final drive.  These motors were traditionally DC but the development of modern power and control electronics has led to the introduction of 3-phase AC motors.  For a description of how this technology works, go to the Electronic Power Page on this site.  There are between four and six motors on most diesel-electric locomotives.  *A modern AC motor with air blowing can provide up to 1,000 hp*.[/I]


Diesel Locomotive Technology






But Im a dumb fcukk!!!!!_


----------



## skookerasbil (May 30, 2011)

THIS is an eletric train..............dummy.............its called a Lionel. Typicall runs around the family Christmas tree during the holidays.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 30, 2011)

skookerasbil said:


> ...lots of difficulty navigating in the real world.......i...a fcukking loser who has to find somebody else to blame for...misery and fcukked up personal life decisions that led to a perpetual state of epIc fAiL.
> 
> eat...cheap relative...to get them moving....about 10 years old....replaced every year or so.
> 
> work on...Corn...asshole miserable....change dick....We're stuck...need trade...Goofball trolls...screams out...We do anything...we are...beautiful machine....grim reality...cannot accept....cruising upon monster....or four or five in tendem........for...they be...pulling 100+ cars...feeding America...want shit..............





skookerasbil said:


> ...beyond jerky....me a dumb fcukk!!! Im a dumb fcukk!!!!!



Yeah, yeah, we know. You demonstrate that every time you post.


----------



## skookerasbil (May 30, 2011)

Apparently, the Union Pacific Railroad bosses happened upon the US Message Board Environmental Forum and read some posts by Rolling Thunder, Chris and Old Rocks. The next day, they decided that since the green economy was imminent, they drove 75 million dollars worth of diesel locomotives over a cliff in Oregon.


----------



## skookerasbil (May 30, 2011)




----------



## RollingThunder (May 30, 2011)

skookerasbil said:


>



LOLOLOLOL.....the only thing you're been "*declared*", kooker, besides '*incurably insane*', is '*severely retarded*'.


----------



## skookerasbil (May 30, 2011)




----------



## skookerasbil (May 30, 2011)




----------



## Old Rocks (May 30, 2011)

*Daveboy and Kooky, two of the dumbest fucks on the net.*

HowStuffWorks "How Diesel Locomotives Work"

The hybrid diesel locomotive is an incredible display of power and ingenuity. It combines some great mechanical technology, including a huge, 12-cylinder, two-stroke diesel engine, with some heavy duty electric motors and generators, throwing in a little bit of computer technology for good measure.


----------



## elvis (May 30, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> *Daveboy and Kooky, two of the dumbest fucks on the net.*
> 
> HowStuffWorks "How Diesel Locomotives Work"
> 
> The hybrid diesel locomotive is an incredible display of power and ingenuity. It combines some great mechanical technology, including a huge, 12-cylinder, two-stroke diesel engine, with some heavy duty electric motors and generators, throwing in a little bit of computer technology for good measure.



this is a new phenomenon,  is it not?


----------



## daveman (May 30, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> *Daveboy and Kooky, two of the dumbest fucks on the net.*
> 
> HowStuffWorks "How Diesel Locomotives Work"
> 
> The hybrid diesel locomotive is an incredible display of power and ingenuity. It combines some great mechanical technology, including a huge, 12-cylinder, two-stroke diesel engine, with some heavy duty electric motors and generators, throwing in a little bit of computer technology for good measure.


A hybrid vehicle has two power sources.  What is the diesel/electric locomotive's second power source?


----------



## Old Rocks (May 30, 2011)

And who appointed you to define what hybrid means? I think the people who publish this site are a bit more expert on what the word means than you are.


----------



## skookerasbil (May 30, 2011)

daveman said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > *Daveboy and Kooky, two of the dumbest fucks on the net.*
> ...




Hey Dave.........Im struggling trying to come up with an analogy on this one but for certain, its going to be laughable as stink.

But since Im a car guy............Rocks centention that the locomotive's I posted up on this page run by electric power is like me saying that if if I upgrade from a single core radiator to a triple core aluminum radiator I'll gain 50 horsepower!!! 

But Dave........we're the dumbest fcukks on the internet!!!!


----------



## RollingThunder (May 30, 2011)

skookerasbil said:


> Hey Dave.........Im struggling trying to come up with an analogy on this one but for certain, its going to be laughable as stink.
> 
> But since Im a car guy............Rocks centention that the locomotive's I posted up on this page run by electric power is like me saying that if if I upgrade from a single core radiator to a triple core aluminum radiator I'll gain 50 horsepower!!!
> 
> But Dave........we're the dumbest fcukks on the internet!!!!



That's not a secret, kooker, everybody already knows...


----------



## daveman (May 30, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> And who appointed you to define what hybrid means? I think the people who publish this site are a bit more expert on what the word means than you are.


Nobody appointed me.  But the government says I'm right.
Hybrid vehicles are a combination of gasoline and electric engines. These vehicles have drive trains powered by both internal combustion engine and a rechargeable battery.​
So your source is wrong, and, by extension, you as well.  Hybrids have two different power sources.  A diesel/electric locomotive has only one.


----------



## daveman (May 30, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > Hey Dave.........I...stink.
> ...



Editing a member's post in that manner is against the rules.  

And yes, the rules apply even to you.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 30, 2011)

daveman said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > skookerasbil said:
> ...



The 'rule' you link to concerns "altering" someone's post, which I did not do. I've seen nothing saying you can't shorten a post, using only what is there.
*No altering quotes-Meister*


----------



## Old Rocks (May 30, 2011)

Hybrid train - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For combined steam and diesel locomotives, see Steam diesel hybrid locomotive.
A hybrid train is a locomotive, railcar or train that uses an onboard rechargeable energy storage system (RESS), placed between the power source (often a diesel engine prime mover) and the traction transmission system connected to the wheels.

Surplus energy from the power source, or energy derived from regenerative braking, charges the storage system. During acceleration, stored energy is directed to the transmission system, boosting that available from the main power source. In existing designs, the storage system can be electric traction batteries, or a flywheel. The energy source is diesel, liquified petroleum gas, or hydrogen (for fuel cells) and transmission is direct mechanical, electric or hydrostatic.

Diesel electric locomotives have high potential for energy savings when using dynamic braking, which use the traction motors as generators to stop the train. Without a way to recover and store the braking energy, these engines currently have no option other than to dump it into the sky as heat, using large electric heating elements and high velocity cooling fans.


----------



## daveman (May 30, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


  Uh huh.  Typical lefty -- thinks he's above the rules.  They're for the proles.  

Maybe I should alert on the post so we can get an official ruling, huh?


Naaah -- I'll leave the informing to you lefties.

On edit:  Looks like you did break the rule.


Dis said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > MountainMan said:
> ...


You changed the context and wording.


----------



## daveman (May 30, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Hybrid train - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> For combined steam and diesel locomotives, see Steam diesel hybrid locomotive.
> A hybrid train is a locomotive, railcar or train that uses an onboard rechargeable energy storage system (RESS), placed between the power source (often a diesel engine prime mover) and the traction transmission system connected to the wheels.
> ...


The locomotive you insisted was a hybrid is not one of those, you dishonest old goat.


----------



## skookerasbil (May 31, 2011)

daveman said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Hybrid train - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> ...



GE AC6000CW locomotives are among the most powerful in the world, however, of the 6250 horsepower, only 1,000 is derived from the electric motors. AC motors simply provide more traction than similar DC engines. Fuel tanks are about 3,000 gallons. People like Old Rocks think that the electric engine drives the diesel engine thus moving the train. In fact, the exact opposite is true. Old Rocks thinks the fuel tanks are filled with electricity = absurd, of course..


----------



## Zander (May 31, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Nothing at all. However, what we have seen in Australia, Sri Lanka, Columbia, and the US thus far is pretty indictutive of an active year.



indictutive?? really??   

Your spelling is quite indicative of your intellect. You sir, are a fucking moron.


----------



## daveman (Jun 1, 2011)

skookerasbil said:


> GE AC6000CW locomotives are among the most powerful in the world, however, of the 6250 horsepower, only 1,000 is derived from the electric motors.


I don't know what you mean by that.  


skookerasbil said:


> AC motors simply provide more traction than similar DC engines.


And AC is easier to vary than DC.  


skookerasbil said:


> Fuel tanks are about 3,000 gallons. People like Old Rocks think that the electric engine drives the diesel engine thus moving the train. In fact, the exact opposite is true. Old Rocks thinks the fuel tanks are filled with electricity = absurd, of course..


OR doesn't think much at all, really.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 1, 2011)




----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 2, 2011)

Told you naive fools the science doesnt matter................

April 5, 2011
*UN IPCC: Climate Change Analyst or Advocate?*
By Lee Lane

The 2010 election brought another shift in the seesaw struggle to control U.S. climate policy. As one result, the new House Republican budget zeros out U.S. funding of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).* Meanwhile, the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee has launched a series of hearings on the IPCC process.*
The IPCC does periodic assessment reports. These reports, within the realm of climate policy, largely define conventional wisdom. So the Republican challenge to the IPCC is nothing less than an attempt to storm the intellectual commanding heights of global discourse on the subject. The timing of this move is also portentous. The most recent of these reports, the fourth, AR4 in IPCC argot, was released in 2007, and the fifth is now in progress.

Much of the coming battle will rage around climate science; yet, the crux of the dispute actually lies elsewhere. It centers on the IPCCs relentless campaign to push greenhouse gas (GHG) control as the main response to climate change. The part of the IPCC that handles economics and politics, the so-called Working Group 3 (WG-3) spearheads this campaign. Surprisingly this part of the IPCC has so far largely escaped controversy.

WG-3 has insisted, with ever increasing dogmatism, that GHG controls, which must be global to be effective, will be both cheap and agreeable to all states. Thus, in its 2007 report, WG-3 writes warmly about the virtues of international agreements on climate. It goes on to catalogue many technologies that supposedly, were controls adopted by all states, might lower emissions at relatively modest cost. The problem is that the conditions needed for the world to adopt such measures, let alone for them to be cheap, simply do not exist.

In fact, WG-3s own earlier Third Assessment Report (TAR), albeit buried deep in the body of the report, raised grave doubts about the realism of this prospect. *The TAR noted, for instance, that a durable global pact on GHG control appears to be highly improbable.* It also pointed out that countries might need to use trade sanctions as a means to compel unwilling states to take part in such an agreement; this step might, of course, violate global trade rules. The costs of a global trade war might add quite a hefty sum to the price tag for building a GHG control regime. Indeed, the TAR also conceded that, for developed countries, like the U.S., the costs of inducing or compelling other states to take part in GHG controls might well exceed the environmental benefits of an agreement.

Clearly, these points from the third report clash with the blithe optimism of WG-3s fourth report. So, did something happen between the two reports to dispel the concerns raised? To the contrary, five more years of futile climate talks had added to the evidence that consensus on controls was absent.

The AR4, itself, hints at points that refute its own claims. It concedes, for instance, that weak legal and political institutions may preclude countries like China and India from using the more cost effective policy tools. But, if they must use high cost policy tools, *then emission controls may not be cheap after all*, and adopting them might yield net costs. *This point, WG-3 studiously avoids making.*WG-3 now has new leadership. This change may nudge it toward more analysis and less advocacy. *Many factors of the IPCC process, though, are likely to impede reform.*

In any case, even a reformed WG-3 could provide only limited guidance to U.S. policy. *America is a wealthy country with a temperate climate. As such, it has less to fear from climate change than do most other countries; at the same time, it has more to lose from stringent GHG controls.* No UN body will ever produce analysis attuned to unique U.S. national interests. Congress, in assessing the IPCC, should, therefore, begin to focus on the actual core of the problem. *That core is not climate science; it is WG-3s decision to become an advocate.*


Lee Lane is a Visiting Fellow at the Hudson Institute.

RealClearScience - UN IPCC: Climate Change Analyst or Advocate?










Talk about sticking it in the eye's the the fcukking k00ks!!!!!


----------



## polarbear (Jun 3, 2011)

Zander said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Nothing at all. However, what we have seen in Australia, Sri Lanka, Columbia, and the US thus far is pretty indictutive of an active year.
> ...



Kudos to You

Well said, Sir, spoken straight from my heart. For a while I felt a bit lonely here calling a spade a spade and am glad to see You share my views of un-American nut cases like this one.
He`s been trying to ridicule me because I`m German, yet I am more American than he`ll ever be.
Skookersasbil asked me to visit this thread here, so ...Hi guys from Canada.
Once in a while it`s interesting to take a look into the kitchen where most of this "Global Warming" dog`s breakfast has been cooked up...and a dog`s breakfast it is...
I already posted some of it in the "Oh my God, CO2 is bringing the coral reefs to the brink of extinction",...but it might be fun to post some of it here as well.
I found this little gem, with the "Way back" search engine which digs up web pages and publications the author has deleted, presuambly to save face...:
http://web.archive.org/web/19980114152259/http://mloserv.mlo.hawaii.gov/publish/steve/VolcCO2.htm

This Paper was originally published in: Mauna Loa Revealed: Structure, Composition, History, and Hazards *Geophysical Monograph 92*, American Geophysical Union, 1995.




> *ABSTRACT*. A continuous 37 year record of the quiescent CO2 outgassing of Mauna Loa volcano was derived from atmospheric measurements made 6 km downslope of the summit caldera at Mauna Loa Observatory. The volcanic plume is sometimes trapped in the temperature inversion near the ground at night and transported downslope to the observatory



So the data which was forwarded by "climatologists" to the IPCC was gathered right off the slopes of a vulcano which spews tons of CO2 and sulfur dioxide ..:


> The identified or potential nearby, nighttime sources of CO2, in approximate order of their influence were:
> 1. *Volcanic emissions from the Mauna Loa summit. These were the primary CO2 sources, typically producing increases of several ppm.*
> 2. *Volcanic emissions from Kilauea volcano. CO2, SO2, and other volcanic emissions came from the nearby Kilauea region* [_Greenland et al._, 1985; _Connor et al._, 1988] southeast of Mauna Loa at altitudes between sea level and 1200 m. This source was active intermittently in the 1960s and 1970s, *and was virtually continuous after 1982.
> *



And here are some rather amusing insights into "the state of the art, (ridiculous) instrumentation" they have been using all these years to alarm the public...:



> The distributions were made up of the two components identified earlier; one arising from sources having only positive delta CO2, and the other arising from "noise"
> 
> 
> 
> ...




*"approximately"..."was presumed" etc etc...*
In so many words, whatever "results" were reported by this garbage science using garbage "instrumentaion" was left up entirely to the discretion, honesty and integrity of the operator...
and we know just how 'honest" this hockey stick science has been so far.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 3, 2011)

And ummmm..........why does the science not matter for dick? Because over the last few years, the public has taken a peek at how bad their wallet will get slammed by following the doomsday pronouncements of the environmental progressives. Sticker shock always sucks.

So.......while the environemntal "real" scientists lay on the doomsday scenario thicker and heavier by the day, seems the public has taken on the attitude of "MEH". Sure all the public is concerned about the evidences from the "real" scientists.........and every poll clearly displays that. But when the poll references the mega-costs to the average household, the response is INVARIABLY................

*fcukk you assholes*


Education is a beautiful thing...........and the American public has recently taken in some of the k00k idealistic ideas to "solve the problem".......as presented by this lunatic below who provides guidelines as if it were as easy as taking ut the trash.



Taken from a member of the Kyoto Action Committee ( ie: a fcukking enviro-k00k)......how to fight global warming.............


*Actions You Can Take*

1. Convert our lighting to compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs) (this is THE most important action, and sometimes referred to as the &#8220;18-second solution to global warming&#8221; i.e., the time needed to change a light bulb.) (The electricity savings pays for the new bulbs.)*Translation = liberals think there is an easy solution to EVERYTHING*

2. Re-program ourselves to simply turn electrical appliances off when we are not immediately using them.

3. If our refrigerators are not rated energy &#8216;A&#8217; or certified as EnergyStar, buy new ones that are rated the most energy efficient. (The electricity savings pays for the new frig.) *Translation>> Go out and spend lots of $$$*

4. If possible, switch our electricity provider to one offering the highest percentage of &#8216;green&#8217; electricity production from wind, solar, and geothermal renewable sources *Translation>>Go out and spend mega $$ for "green energy technology"*

5. Keep our cars in top operating condition for the best gas mileage (regularly check tire pressures, change air-filters, avoid both quick starts and idling engines while waiting.) *Translation>> Easy for liberals because most dont owrk and have plenty of time on their hands*

6. Reduce our car use by using other modes of transportation such as public transport, car pooling for commutes and shopping, biking, and walking. (At the same time this helps us lose weight and be healthier). *Translation>> Need I reference "Brave New World"?*

7. When we buy a new car, choose one that has the best fuel mileage for our needs (today that&#8217;s a hybrid, but soon it will be an electric). *Translation>> Sell your car and go buy a mega-expensive electric car for $45,000.00*

8. Insulate our homes well (install double- or triple-pane windows; tape or caulk gaps around doors, windows, and exhausts; have professionals install insulation in walls, floors, and ceilings). T*ranslation>> Go out and spend lots of $$*

9. Maintain our space heating temperature at or below 68 F (20C) during the winter, and air-conditioning at or above 81 F (27C) during the summer. (Tip: Always close off rooms that are not in use, such as spare bedrooms.) *Translation>> Be wiling to freeze our asses off in winter and bake in summer*

10. Recycle, Recycle, Recycle&#8230; metal items, paper and boxes, glass, plastic.

11. Cook our meals from scratch using, as much as possible, organic, regionally-grown vegetables, fruits, and meats. *Translation>> Again.....easy to do for liberals, most of whom dont work much and have all the time in the world to prepare food.*

12. Alternate our meal themes between vegetarian, fish, and meat (favor first poultry and eggs, then pork, and only occasionally beef). *OK.....whatever you say s0n!!!!*


When it comes to solving global warming, &#8220;WE&#8221; are the solution


Why Climate Legislation Failed In The USA: Global Affairs - WCW INSIGHT










Indeed........the "green economy" is a fcukking joke, emerging at the pace of a snail.........or slower actually. People dont have a pot to pee in and these jerkoffs want us buying electric cars and windmills for the tops of our houses..........or solar panel roofs which cost well over 60K ( In New York.......and its a scam anyway because despite the tax credit, if you take it, you are then not eleigible for any future carbon credits) and take over 15 YEARS for it to be economically prudent.


Meanwhile..............Congress hasnt spoken a single solitary word about climate legislation for 2 years



all of which is why, the omnipotent Captain Awesome can say with 100% certainty.........with help from his hysterical little pal.................


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 3, 2011)

Make no mistake.............jerkoffs like Old Rocks, Rolling Thunder et. al. are devout Maoists who want the state in control of everything, including your freedom. Globalist asshole pricks who despise capitalism and who are uber fcukking miserable due to their fcukked up personal decisions leading to their subsequent current lot in life......... hyper-focused to fcukk you over and everybody like you who is successful.

Thankfully..........they are part of the *vast fringe minority *( the proof of which is that there is DICK going on in terms of climate change legislation.......its not even debatable).......trolling in the nether-regions of the internet, having numbers conversations on a daily basis.


I guess thats cool for some people.......................


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 3, 2011)

Getting back to the real world....here's some actual research results on the issue of the accuracy of the current scientific climate models.

*Climate Models Look Good When Predicting Climate Change*

*(To view the full study on climate models, please visit:
http://www.inscc.utah.edu/~reichler/publications/papers/Reichler_07_BAMS_CMIP.pdf.)*

*University of Utah* News Center - News Release
April 2, 2008
(excerpts)*

A new study by meteorologists at the University of Utah shows that current climate models are quite accurate and can be valuable tools for those seeking solutions on reversing global warming trends.  Most of these models project a global warming trend that amounts to about 7 degrees Fahrenheit over the next 100 years. The study titled How Well do Coupled Models Simulate Todays Climate? is due to be published this Friday in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. In the study, co-authors Thomas Reichler and Junsu Kim from the Department of Meteorology at the University of Utah investigate how well climate models actually do their job in simulating climate. To this end, they compare the output of the models against observations for present climate. The authors apply this method to about 50 different national and international models that were developed over the past two decades at major climate research centers in China, Russia, Australia, Canada, France, Korea, Great Britain, Germany, and the United States. Of course, also included is the very latest model generation that was used for the very recent (2007) report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).    

Coupled models are becoming increasingly reliable tools for understanding climate and climate change, and the best models are now capable of simulating present-day climate with accuracy approaching conventional atmospheric observations, said Reichler. We can now place a much higher level of confidence in model-based projections of climate change than in the past. The many hours of studying models and comparing them with actual climate changes fulfills the increasing wish to know how much one can trust climate models and their predictions. Given the significance of climate change research in public policy, the studys results also provide important response to critics of global warming. Earlier this year, working group one of the IPCC released its fourth global warming report. The University of Utah study results directly relate to this highly publicized report by showing that the models used for the IPCC paper have reached an unprecedented level of realism. Another important aspect of the research is that climate models built in the U.S. are now some of the best models worldwide. Increased efforts in the U.S. over the past few years to build better climate models have paid off, and according to the authors measure of reliability, one of the U.S. models is now one of the leading climate models worldwide.*


----------



## RWatt (Jun 4, 2011)

polarbear said:


> Once in a while it`s interesting to take a look into the kitchen where most of this "Global Warming" dog`s breakfast has been cooked up...and a dog`s breakfast it is...
> I already posted some of it in the "Oh my God, CO2 is bringing the coral reefs to the brink of extinction",...but it might be fun to post some of it here as well.
> I found this little gem, with the "Way back" search engine which digs up web pages and publications the author has deleted, presuambly to save face...:
> http://web.archive.org/web/19980114152259/http://mloserv.mlo.hawaii.gov/publish/steve/VolcCO2.htm
> ...



Mauna Loa is just one station measuring CO2.

There are hundreds of measuring sites:
Trends in Carbon Dioxide


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 4, 2011)

Evidently..........the public isnt impressed with climate computer models.......


----------



## polarbear (Jun 4, 2011)

RWatt said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > Once in a while it`s interesting to take a look into the kitchen where most of this "Global Warming" dog`s breakfast has been cooked up...and a dog`s breakfast it is...
> ...




Who cares about these "hundreds of..."....?
*It was the crappy Mauna Loa Station that came up with the Keeling Curve*, long before these other 'hundreds of other stations" even existed.

Without the Keeling curve the largest part of the data set establishing the trend the Keeling curve is gone...vanished...and alarmists don`t have a pot to piss in...!



RWatt said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > Once in a while it`s  interesting to take a look into the kitchen where most of this "Global  Warming" dog`s breakfast has been cooked up...and a dog`s breakfast it  is...
> ...


 

Who cares about these "hundreds of..."....?
*It was the crappy Mauna Loa Station that came up with the Keeling Curve*, long before these other 'hundreds of other stations" even existed.

Without  the Keeling curve the largest part of the data set establishing the  trend the Keeling curve is gone...vanished...and alarmists don`t have a  pot to piss in...!

 And where exactly are these other "hundreds of other stations"...?
Are they in locations where the sampled air is not contaminated, as it  is on Mauna Loa...or as it is in the Arctic, right next to a Diesel  Power plant which runs 24/7....and right next to the runway where all  the Hercs land supplying the station....?

*I`ve been there,....done that... and it was part of my job responsibility to calibrate the instruments...supply power to the "lab" etc etc
And You....?
All you "know" is internet crap*

Show me *individual data* from these stations....!
Fuck Your "averages" which are nothing but a cherry picked bunch of lies...as they are when it comes
to "average temperature"....
To this day "climate science" refuses to show the data set, and has deleted most of that set after the British Parliament initiated a fraud investigation


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 4, 2011)

BiPolar and Kooky, what a pair of trolls. Wonder if either one will ever post anything that indicates any trace of intellect?


----------



## Immanuel (Jun 4, 2011)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > *Well, we are not half way through the year yet, but they certainly seem to be on the mark.*
> ...



Actually, to be honest with you people say that there is such a thing as "earthquake weather".  Typically, they say that *after* an earthquake hits.  As a kid I thought earthquake weather was the hot days of late summer, early fall and it was explained to me that the cause of major quakes was that the earth would expand in the heat of the day and then as temperatures cooled down and the earth contracted something would "slip".  

That day in October of 89, when those of us in the SF Bay Area were preparing to enjoy the World Series game between the A's and the Giants was just one of those days.

Of course, earthquakes do happen during all kinds of weather, so the term earthquake weather simply is not reliable, but, who cares?

What is Earthquake Weather?



> Its a close, oppressive day, perhaps hot and humid, with clouds appearing overhead and no rain in sight. People may look at such a day as typical earthquake weather, a term used to describe weather patterns that suggest an earthquake might be forthcoming. Actually theres no such thing as earthquake weather, and a general study of the pattern and occurrences of earthquakes show they occur in all seasons, all temperatures, all times of the day, and in many different weather patterns.



Immie


----------



## daveman (Jun 4, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> BiPolar and Kooky, what a pair of trolls. Wonder if either one will ever post anything that indicates any trace of intellect?


So...you can't answer the questions, huh?

Typical.


----------



## RWatt (Jun 5, 2011)

polarbear said:


> Who cares about these "hundreds of..."....?
> *It was the crappy Mauna Loa Station that came up with the Keeling Curve*, long before these other 'hundreds of other stations" even existed.



Mauna Loa agrees with other monitoring stations.

Eg here are four monitoring station records including Mauna Loa from the early 70s:







> Without the Keeling curve the largest part of the data set establishing the trend the Keeling curve is gone...vanished...and alarmists don`t have a pot to piss in...!



We still have the keeling curve. But we have so many other records too. They are all consistent.



> So the data which was forwarded by "climatologists" to the IPCC was  gathered right off the slopes of a vulcano which spews tons of CO2 and  sulfur dioxide ..:
> And here are some rather amusing insights into "the state of the  art, (ridiculous) instrumentation" they have been using all these years  to alarm the public...:



So you claim the trend is just emissions of the Mauna Loa volcano? This doesn't make sense. A site at the South Pole and in Alaska show the same trend. It can't be the Mauna Loa volcano or any other local cause.



> And where exactly are these other "hundreds of other stations"...?
> Are they in locations where the sampled air is not contaminated, as it  is on Mauna Loa...or as it is in the Arctic, right next to a Diesel  Power plant which runs 24/7....and right next to the runway where all  the Hercs land supplying the station....?



So all these stations are by happy coincidence next to completely different emitters of CO2 that produce the exact same trend over time? No thank you, that's a ludicrous idea. Quite clearly these sites are measuring the actual increase in global CO2 concentration over time. We even have satellites detecting the same ~2ppm increase year on year that these hundreds of ground, tower and aircraft measurements are also detecting.

It's collaborated beyond any semblance of reasonable doubt.

If you want education, read this:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/mauna-loa-volcano-co2-measurements-advanced.htm


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 5, 2011)

daveman said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > BiPolar and Kooky, what a pair of trolls. Wonder if either one will ever post anything that indicates any trace of intellect?
> ...




Dave bro..........we dominate this place.

Polar.........West..........Ian............et. al.

Any time we publically humiliate the k00ks = automatically resorting to the "retard" or "zero intellect" line. For my whole life, the standard dynamic when debating an issue with a far lefty.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 5, 2011)

I predict that Warmers will continue to post weather stories as evidence of their "Theory" and never ever once in a billion years post a lab experiment showing us exactly how their "theory" works


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 5, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> I predict that Warmers will continue to post weather stories as evidence of their "Theory" and never ever once in a billion years post a lab experiment showing us exactly how their "theory" works


----------



## polarbear (Jun 5, 2011)

RWatt said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > Who cares about these "hundreds of..."....?
> ...



"It's collaborated beyond any semblance of reasonable doubt."

I`ve just shown you what kind crap equipment  this "science" is using to generate these results...wanna see it again...:


> *2. Instrument noise. *The SIO analyzer output was subject to occasional *periods  of excessive noise and drift primarily due to ageing and deterioration  of vacuum tubes in the power supply, amplifier, and thermal regulation  circuits. *Locations of the analyzer and room temperature control  apparatus were changed several times during the program to reduce the  thermal drift of the analyzer. *The decision to flag suspect periods* as either an instrument malfunction or due to natural variability *was made by the observer*
> 
> 3. Line voltage and frequency fluctuations. These caused a corresponding  shift in the analyzer output that could appear as an abrupt or gradual  drift, or a high frequency noise in the SIO data.* Most events were presumed t*o be recognized by the observer
> 
> ...


And You "counter" with a silly graph of 3 other stations which happen to overlap with Mauna Loa...

Well I have news for You...:
Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Record from Point Barrow, Alaska



> *Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Record from Point Barrow, Alaska*
> 
> 
> *Since 9March 1982  *, weekly air samples have been collected in 5-L  evacuated glass flask pairs. *Flasks are returned to the Scripps  Institution of Oceanography *


*So, to begin the graph that you show with 1973 CO2 data from Barrow is a blatant lie*...!!!

Also the samples are not analyzed by a different lab and " collaborated beyond any semblance of reasonable doubt."
That also is a blatant lie as You can see...the samples are sent to the same people and the same lab using the very same crap equipment..."collaborating" their wild ass guess CO2 "science"...

Let`s check on the next one shall we,,,....:

Atmospheric CO2 from Flask Air Samples at Cape Matatula, American Samoa



> *Atmospheric CO2 from Flask Air Samples at Cape Matatula, American Samoa*
> 
> Atmospheric CO2 samples were collected at approximately  weekly intervals. Samples are collected in 5-L evacuated glass flasks,  and then returned to the Scripps Institution of Oceanography
> 
> The average of *unflagged data* for the *first full year of measurements (1982)*


*And your con-artist "science" graph shows 1976 Samoa CO2 data..!!!...and at the South Pole they`ve also been sending their samples to the very same Mr. (Alarmist) Keeling ,...*

And you call that "It's collaborated beyond any semblance of reasonable doubt."...
"collaborated beyond a reasonable doubt"...by the same indidvidual who get`s to "flag" und "un-flag" the data as it suits him


Which shows how sweet fuck all you know how REAL & hard Science is conducted.
By the way the term "beyond a of reasonable doubt." is a legal term, ...in REAL SCIENCE you have to do a lot better than that...
If I were to apply Your idiot climate "science" principles of "proof" which pronounced  O.J. Simpson innocent to this CO2 crap, you`ld all be shit out of luck pronouncing mankind guilty "warming" the globe.








*Try abstaining from smoking the weeds you liberals want to legalize...it may help de-confusing whatever little brains you got*


----------



## RWatt (Jun 5, 2011)

polarbear said:


> RWatt said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...



I don't think you even believe your own words.

First you argued that the Mauna Loa data was wrong because it's next to a volcano. 

Now you are arguing that it's wrong and other station data is wrong because it's all faked.

So what was the relevance of the volcano at one of the stations if it's all being faked anyway?

The paper you cite actually lists problems and how they were overcome. Besides if there was a conspiracy of faking the data, why are they bothering to list equipment errors in a paper for your benefit?

Here's the forest:
ESRL Global Monitoring Division - Data Visualization

It's not just four stations measuring CO2. Here's another one of them, from Easter Island:





Now you claim to believe in a grand conspiracy theory wherein all these measuring sites have faked the data. I don't buy it for a minute, you seem bright enough and this particular conspiracy theory puts makes 9/11 truthers look like intellectual geniuses in comparison.

So why are you pretending to believe a conspiracy theory when you clearly have no will or want to do so? Are you perhaps just trying to deny some science for political reasons?

I think so, because you really haven't thought it through.

The conspiracy theory involves:

1) CO2 levels have actually remained at (lets say) 300ppm, but scientists have faked a rise to a modern day level approaching 400ppm. (I wonder if you've even considered exactly what you are arguing CO2 has done if the CO2 data is wrong)

2) Hundreds of measurements from monitoring stations, aircraft and tall towers have been systematically binned and substituted with fake data.

3) The conspiracy is global involving scientists from different countries around the world.

4) Somewhere in a tower sits an overlord commanding all these scientists. Presumably he is not named Charles Keeling or else he is channeling these commands from beyond the grave....

5) The AIRS satellite is also involved in the conspiracy. It did not measure 300ppm when it came online, but measured the same approach to 400ppm that the stations measure. The conspiracy deepens.




CO2 Global

6) No person in any country on Earth can set up a gas monitoring station and discover the truth because...well somehow the scientists have international reaching powers to prevent this.

7) The 30 billion tons of CO2 we emit into the atmosphere each year somehow just disappears and doesn't accumulate. There must be magic scrubbers fitted by the auto manufacturers, or perhaps the governments of the world are sucking CO2 from the atmosphere at a secret base.

No-one sane would believe such a ludicrous conspiracy theory. Give me a break in thinking that even you do.

Stop trying to deny so hard. Like obvious troll, it's obvious.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 5, 2011)

LMBO.........like Ive been saying..............THE SCIENCE DOESNT MATTER s0ns!!!!

The world k00ks cant raise SHIT for the 200 billion they say they need to promote greenhouse gas ceilings under Kyoto. Nobody gives a flying fuckk.................

From todays Reuters.................http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFLDE75407H20110605?sp=true





They're resorting to............ready for this................

*"fundraising"*.


LAUGH..........MY..........BALLS............OFF...................









Yeah...........let me tell you.........the science is really mattering!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 5, 2011)

skookerasbil said:


> THE SCIENCE DOESNT MATTER



OK, we got it....the science (the facts) doesn't matter to retards like you.....OK.....so now you can sit down, shut up and let the adults get on with dealing with reality. Suck your thumb in silence and don't bother your cartoon brain with things beyond your comprehension, you poor little 'special' child.


----------



## polarbear (Jun 5, 2011)

RWatt said:


> I don't think you even believe your own words.
> 
> First you argued that the Mauna Loa data was wrong because it's next to a volcano.
> 
> ...


 

 Well if that isn`t a typical liberal asshole response...
 "The conspiracy theory" ...
 show me where exactly did I claim there was a conspiracy,...You fucking asshole..
 I pointed out what kind of amateur "scientists" we are dealing with here  and that a bunch of idiots making idiotic statements is a "conspiracy",  that`s news to me.
 I pointed out that the "well collaborated...beyond a reasonable  doubt..." as you called it has been "collaborated by the same crap  method of analysis, the same crap equipment and the same crap  "scientist" + cohorts.
 So in your little mind that is a "conspiracy"...?
 Let`s review again how "sophisticated" and accurate this "science" has bee lately...:

ESRL Global Monitoring Division - Carbon Cycle Group


> * 6 April 2011 *
> 
> *Global.*      We added uncertainty estimates to the global CO2
> *18 March 2011 *
> ...


 *I`ll get back to that cheat later down below

*


> * 10 March 2010 *
> 
> *Mauna Loa.*       The CO2 analyzer developed a problem in mid-February, in which it  exhibited sudden switches back and forth between two levels, about 0.4  ppm apart.
> A second change *is that we went back, for the entire record,* to  representing the average seasonal cycle by four sine and four cosine  functions instead of six each,* reversing the change we made on 4 August  2008.  The reason is that using four is more stable numerically,
> ...


 Well I tell You, if you fuck up in any field other than "climatology"  like these "scientists" do as a matter of routine your accreditation  would have been out the window the first time around...

 Also in any of the REAL, EXACT & so called  "HARD" Sciences you have  to show your raw data...you don`t get to fuck around, with  "corrected",..."data flagging" schemes or "changing code bases"....+  "averaging to " smooth out your crap science readings to fool the public  with "how accurate" your crap science is.


*So where am I saying, or was saying  this is a conspiracy..*

*I am saying this is garbage-quack-simpleton wannabee "science" done by amateurs, using amateur equipment, and amateur methods..*.and only idiots like* you* fall for it.
 You, +"OldRocks" etc etc spend all day every day looking around the internet to find yet another dooms day news headline...
 and unless we all pay attention to people like you who are driven by an  inferiority complex and heed your fuckhead prophecies we are going to  drown in arctic melt water


 Also no-where have I "denied" that CO2 is not going up...!!!
 It`s assholes like you who deny that CO2 was way higher than today  earlier and assholes like you are also in denial that temperatures even  in the high arctic have been higher than this as late as 1860...
 It`s assholes like you who claim that any REAL SCIENTIST who disputes  these idiotic climaqackology assertions is part of some "world wide oil  lobby conspiracy"..

 First off, as with their silly temperature graphs "climatologists" also don`t want to show the raw instrument output data...
 Only the Hansenized "corrected,averaged...bla blah blah"...bullshit graphs.
 40% of all CO2 comes from volcanic activity...
 and that can vary from 145 million to 255 million tons...so  in other words *CO2 from volcanic activity can swing wildly* up or down by ~ 27% a total change of >50% + then some, and *your crap science wants to show a "yearly trend " of ~ 1.5 ppm, or ~ *+  0.4 %...and  all other real scientists are supposed to trust these quacks with their  "calculations"..."correcting for local background CO2  concentrations"...
 Fuck, vegetation alone knocks out 4 times as much CO2 with seasonal  variations as this idiotic trend they are using in yet another  outlandish assertion, *that there is a simple milkmaid relationship between CO2 and Temperature*
 We are supposed to accept their crap readings, done by quacks who  rotinely fuck up , mixing up samples, using the wrong calibration  standards, *and who are using a toy *designed for non scientific Hospital staff, with no qualifications in Chemical analysis to analyze for CO2..to boot.!!!!

 A real Scientist would use a REAL INFRARED SPECTROPHOTOMETER, and so far  when any of us double checked this  quack-science we are not shy to  show our raw instrument output, without concealing it behind  "corrected/average graphs"...*and without exception we all found entirely different results as what this quackology craps all over the media*..


 Also we don`t sensationalize data in graphs blowing up one scale and  shrinking another as all these assholes do as am matter of routine...
 Like that graph you keep flaunting around here...:








 Where the Author of this garbage *had to start at 320 ppm, just so that his exaggeration fits on the screen or on paper*...


 No real scientist would ever get away exaggerating a trend by artificially blowing up the Y-scale...
 This is the proper way to do it, but then again there is next to fuck  all left for this alarmist crap these assholes love to publish...:







 And even here the trend line is not valid at all.
 You can`t just draw a "trend" from 1980 to present using simpleton Kindergarten math averages.
 There are 4 distinct periods, that any professional software such as is  used in serious automation/control instrumentation would have spotted  with no trouble at all...:
*period 1980-86... flat and slightly declining*

*then 86 to 88 a rapid sporatic increase*, (very likely due to volcanic activity)

*then a sharp and dramatic decline from 1988 to 1992 to levels lower than when the graph starts at 1980


*followed by a "2 hop" step increase to 1998 *followed by a marked DECREASE to 2008...

*Unfortunately and as usual, these "scientists" do`nt want to show their raw source data, but only want to show the trend itself..
 Regardless it`s not hard to reconstruct it by simply integrating the delta values.
 And then You still get the same periods which totally contradict their  over-bloated exaggerations, which no REAL Scientist schooled in any of  the EXACT SCIENCES would take serious, least of all accept as being  authored by any accredited scientist..:








 And last not least the "molar moisture and standard pressure, standard temperature  corrected ppm CO2".
 As if all the other exaggerations were not enough, these grandstanding  quacks up their findings by shrinking the volume of gas in which the CO2  is found by subtracting the entire volume of water vapor, and shrink  the sample volume by using standard pressure...*in short they shrink every number which is below the line dividing and diminishing  the sensational results they wish to fanfare to the public at large. *


 No, it`s not a conspiracy you asshole..*it`s a sucker con.*..aimed at simple minded idiots with next to no education..*.JUST LIKE YOU

What makes you even think an un-educated ignorant donkey like you is in the same league as I am...?
*I have done 10`s of 1000`s of analysis and interpretations* not just for the military, but also for the U.S. (YOUR..!!!) Government + the judiciary* +in Research and development of trace analysis, spectral analysis etc etc etc...as well in forensic analysis mostly for the prosecution, but on occasion I was also called by defense attorneys ...*and on my say so a whole lot of people either had to go to jail or walked out of court, as a free man
*


----------



## polarbear (Jun 5, 2011)

skookerasbil said:


> LMBO.........like Ive been saying..............THE SCIENCE DOESNT MATTER s0ns!!!!
> 
> The world k00ks cant raise SHIT for the 200 billion they say they need to promote greenhouse gas ceilings under Kyoto. Nobody gives a flying fuckk.................
> 
> ...



It`s "climatology" that does not matter,...that crap isn`t science any more than "numerology" or "astrology"






And the latter 2 even fare better than "climatology" with their silly "correlations".

*It`s REAL and EXACT Science that matters*, and the more we investigate this retard "...ology" whose  practitioners fancy calling themselves "scientists" the more examples like this come to light..:


----------



## polarbear (Jun 5, 2011)

skookerasbil said:


> The world k00ks cant raise SHIT for the 200 billion they say they need to promote greenhouse gas ceilings under Kyoto. Nobody gives a flying fuckk.................
> 
> From todays Reuters.................INTERVIEW-W.Bank to suggest CO2 levy on jet, shipping fuel | Energy & Oil | Reuters
> 
> ...



"LAUGH..........MY..........BALLS............OFF..................."

I told You, whenever I want a good laugh I come here and read what these "...ology experts" are writing here.
Consider that between Rockhead, that internet thunder-noise making fart, who quoted a shitload of anarchist.org web sites... and that other idiot who doesn`t know "Wattswhat", ....they all believed that the Dobson Numbers below 200 are  a real hole in the Ozone layer,...that water at a pH of > 8 is an acid, neither knew the difference between statistical significance and probability, absorbance and % absorption, the difference between non-linear and linear relationships and so on and on...and yet they come here 24/7 and babble  buzzwords they just looked up at wikipedia and pretend to know something about science... they all suffer from the same delusion, that they are some sort of moron-authority which gets to decide who is a scientist and who is not...in their nutty little world


----------



## polarbear (Jun 5, 2011)

> LAUGH..........MY..........BALLS............OFF...................


Just as in sports in science there are amateurs and  pro`s 
Amateurs look up Wikipedia buzzwords and boast their "climatology" here 24/7 all year long pretending to be pro`s.
And the "climatologists" pretend to be scientists like the "special athletes" who get to pretend with the aid of liberal tax $$ to be athletes..:










> Joe  shows us his medals and explains the advancement process in Special Olympics








As long as they stay out of the way of real pro`s there is no trouble...*except that I go looking for them, because this kind of "climat..ology" retard road kill is a lot of fun, although at times not very sporting..:*


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 6, 2011)

polarbear said:


> ...................................................



Wow, four meaningless "blizzards of bullshit" in a row from ol' PeanutBrain. Could this be a new record for the resident retard?


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 6, 2011)

Who NOT winning?


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 6, 2011)

The people whose homes are flooded from Montana to Louisiana. The people that have lost their homes to wildfires in Northern Canada. The people that have lost their homes to wild fires in Texas, Arizona, New Mexico. 

Then there is the matter of 1/2 to mile wide tornadoes cutting swaths through cities and towns over several states. The people in those towns are not winning. 

Kooky, you are definately short bus material.


----------



## daveman (Jun 6, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> The people whose homes are flooded from Montana to Louisiana. The people that have lost their homes to wildfires in Northern Canada. The people that have lost their homes to wild fires in Texas, Arizona, New Mexico.
> 
> Then there is the matter of 1/2 to mile wide tornadoes cutting swaths through cities and towns over several states. The people in those towns are not winning.
> 
> Kooky, you are definately short bus material.



"Oh, if ONLY they'd voted Democrat, none of this would have happened!"

Right, OR?


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jun 6, 2011)

daveman said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > The people whose homes are flooded from Montana to Louisiana. The people that have lost their homes to wildfires in Northern Canada. The people that have lost their homes to wild fires in Texas, Arizona, New Mexico.
> ...



We just seen two outbreaks that with numbers of tornadoes produced had more then the super outbreak of 1974. April 27th had 188 and May 22nd had 150 or so. Super outbreak had 144. It was consider the busiest fucking single day in fucking recorded history. Not anymore it is now third. 350 dead in the April 25-28th most since 1936. Then again in late May with the second outbreak having the 8th deadiest tornadoe, yes the 8th in modern times with radar and warnings. None of the others of the top 10 occurred after 1950. 

Look at the floods in the midwest. I think some of this is pretty fucking historic. Wouldn't you agree? Why is it occurring, I don't know.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 6, 2011)

Pointing to events and going "See That? Global Warming!" is not even remotely close to science

It's a small step above necrophilia.


----------



## daveman (Jun 6, 2011)

Matthew said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


Old Rocks and Wry Catcher think it's because the disaster victims listened to the right wing.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 6, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> The people whose homes are flooded from Montana to Louisiana. The people that have lost their homes to wildfires in Northern Canada. The people that have lost their homes to wild fires in Texas, Arizona, New Mexico.
> 
> Then there is the matter of 1/2 to mile wide tornadoes cutting swaths through cities and towns over several states. The people in those towns are not winning.
> 
> Kooky, you are definately short bus material.




Clearly..........the world has never seen 1/2 mile wide tornado's before, or flooding for that matter. Wildfires? Also a new phenomenon in 2011. Actually........weather only started back in 1998 come to think of it. Go check any lefty blog if you doubt me!!!


----------



## RWatt (Jun 6, 2011)

polarbear said:


> "The conspiracy theory" ...
> show me where exactly did I claim there was a conspiracy,...You fucking asshole..



You didn't directly claim one, but what you did claim requires one.

All these stations and the satellites can not be reporting the same numbers unless it's faked. There are enough independent measurements showing the same consistent rise in CO2 that the result cannot be accidental or in error.

An instrument error or local outgassing from a volcano might affect one record for example, but it isn't going to affect the other records using a different instruments and in different locations. The chance of all the stations have different errors that all go in the exact same direction is implausible.

So if all these stations, aircraft measurements, tower measurements and satellite measurements are wrong, they have to be wrong because they are being faked.

Therein is why I say you are claiming a conspiracy.



> I pointed out what kind of amateur "scientists" we are dealing with here  and that a bunch of idiots making idiotic statements is a "conspiracy",  that`s news to me.



You pointed out competent scientists doing science. These scientists are probably the most knowledgable and clever on this subject in the world. It's their lifes work in many cases.

You cite the problems with equipment as written down by the scientists in question, not uncovered by yourself. The fact they can detect these problems and figure out solutions is not only normal for science, but also demonstrates their competence. All equipment has problems. You cite "instrument noise" for example as evidence that the CO2 data is being incompetently gathered. But all instruments have noise and it's something scientists in all fields have to deal with. Nothing you mention is exclusive to this particular area of science.



> I pointed out that the "well collaborated...beyond a reasonable  doubt..." as you called it has been "collaborated by the same crap  method of analysis, the same crap equipment and the same crap  "scientist" + cohorts.
> So in your little mind that is a "conspiracy"...?



It requires a conspiracy for the reason I've already outlined.

If CO2 was not increasing 2ppm per year then why are all these different measurements finding that?

If CO2 was not approaching 390ppm in our atmosphere then why are all these different measurements finding that?

If CO2 was still at 320ppm, well how could these instruments be measuring 390ppm? It's just not possible when science can measure ozone and other gases in much smaller quantities (eg parts per billion).

It's not all collaborated by the same equipment. Do you seriously believe in the last 50 years all atmospheric CO2 measurements have been taken using the same device and the same scientists?

And of course there's the AIRS satellite. I am pretty sure it doesn't drop a scoop into the atmosphere and then post a flask to scientists on the ground to run through the imaginary only gas analyzer the human race owns.

So yes I am pretty sure your claims amount to conspiracy, because conspiracy is the only way it could make sense. A group of scientists would have to be deliberately fixing the satellite and all the stations to show 390ppm if CO2 was in fact lower than that.



> Also in any of the REAL, EXACT & so called  "HARD" Sciences you have  to show your raw data...you don`t get to fuck around, with  "corrected",..."data flagging" schemes or "changing code bases"....+  "averaging to " smooth out your crap science readings to fool the public  with "how accurate" your crap science is.



The raw data is available. The whole purpose of flagging data is to keep the raw data and add flags to it highlight problems. Most of the stuff you bold you don't seem to understand. I have no idea why you highlighted "CO2 mole fraction" for example. perhaps you imagined that had something to do with Co2 molecules being "fractured" by the equipment?



> Also no-where have I "denied" that CO2 is not going up...!!!



You deny the independent and consistent measurement records which show CO2 is going up which amounts to the same thing. You certainly aren't arguing that CO2 might have risen even higher than 390ppm, I've noticed that much! 



> First off, as with their silly temperature graphs "climatologists" also don`t want to show the raw instrument output data...
> Only the Hansenized "corrected,averaged...bla blah blah"...bullshit graphs.



The raw instrument data is available. Here's worldwide raw temperature data plotted in blue:







> 40% of all CO2 comes from volcanic activity...
> and that can vary from 145 million to 255 million tons...so  in other words *CO2 from volcanic activity can swing wildly* up or down by ~ 27% a




Man today is emitting 3000 million tons of CO2 per year.



> Fuck, vegetation alone knocks out 4 times as much CO2 with seasonal  variations as this idiotic trend they are using in yet another  outlandish assertion, *that there is a simple milkmaid relationship between CO2 and Temperature*



And you can see the seasonal CO2 cycle due to vegetation in the Mauna Loa data, and the AIRS satellite data. Which demonstrates how accurate the measurements are.



> We are supposed to accept their crap readings, done by quacks who  rotinely fuck up , mixing up samples, using the wrong calibration  standards, *and who are using a toy *designed for non scientific Hospital staff, with no qualifications in Chemical analysis to analyze for CO2..to boot.!!!!



None of this is true. These scientists are experts in the field of doing this stuff and the results are exemplary (unless there is a conspiracy), as I have pointed out above 



> A real Scientist would use a REAL INFRARED SPECTROPHOTOMETER



That's precisely what they use! That's how the AIRS satellite measures CO2 for example.



> Also we don`t sensationalize data in graphs blowing up one scale and  shrinking another as all these assholes do as am matter of routine...
> Like that graph you keep flaunting around here...:
> 
> 
> ...



The scale is chosen to fit across the whole graph and minimize white space. That's even what Excel does by default if you graph data, it sets the y-axis so the plot takes up as much space in the graph as possible.



> No real scientist would ever get away exaggerating a trend by artificially blowing up the Y-scale...



Well here's a graph by Einstein that doesn't start at zero in the y-axis:







> This is the proper way to do it, but then again there is next to fuck  all left for this alarmist crap these assholes love to publish...:



That's not even the same thing. That's rate of increase, not CO2 level.



> There are 4 distinct periods, that any professional software such as is  used in serious automation/control instrumentation would have spotted  with no trouble at all...:
> *period 1980-86... flat and slightly declining*
> 
> 
> ...



But this is the same data you dismiss. If you think scientists have measured it wrong why are you accepting the fast rise in CO2 between 86 and 88? 



> [/B]I have done 10`s of 1000`s of analysis and interpretations* not just for the military but also for the U.S. (YOUR..!!!) Government*


*

I've never worked for the government. Hear the pay is good. Always stuck to private industry myself.*


----------



## polarbear (Jun 8, 2011)

> I've never worked for the government. Hear the pay is good. Always stuck to private industry myself.


Then you should not bite the hand that feeds you, you liberal hypocrite

*The more you post the more your reveal just how stupid you really are*
*And quit trying to stuff your idiotic liberal "conspiracy theorist" crap in our faces here and falsify what I have said.
*
 Like "I have no idea why you highlighted "CO2 mole fraction" for example.  perhaps you imagined that had something to do with Co2 molecules being  "fractured" by the equipment?"

I never even imagined that anyone could be that stupid,  not  knowing what the difference is in molar ppm and ppm[v/v] or  ppm[w/v] or  ppm[w/w]

 First of all "CO2 mole fraction" were not even my words...that was a sentence inside a quote and were from...:



> Global. We added uncertainty estimates to the global CO2
> 18 March 2011
> 
> 
> ...


you knew that full well and falsified in typical liberal fag fashion who said what...

 "perhaps I imagine the instrument fractures CO2 molecules"...
*Reading what comes to your childish little  mind *when you see   "CO2 mole fraction"="fractured molecules" instead of realizing what kind   of cheat reporting in "molar moisture corrected ppm" as opposed to ppm   (v/v) or any other absolute value  shows that you lack even the most   fundamental basics to understand the difference.

 I`ll repeat it once again,  not for you...you`ll never be able   comprehend it, but for the benefit of others who are not nearly as   stupid as you are.

 Absolute CO2 concentration as in weight per volume drops with increasing altitude i.e. with decreasing ambient pressure.

 So if you want to freak out people by saying  *CO2 average =380 ppm *You`ld be fucked having to use an *absolute value*...because   there is no way You`ld be able to show an "average"...no more than you   could state what the "average cross section" of a pyramid is...unless   you want to show the world how stupid you are.

 So,...*this is the very reason why this quack science reports CO2 as a molar fraction*...because   using this format the ratio of CO2 molecules to the number of total   molecules in stays the same all the way up ...and all you have to do now   to white-wash this crap data collection is average the individual crap   collection.

 But that would never even occur to a retard like you & your retard   cousins when coming across the words "molar fraction"...instead you   babble about fractured molecules..

 I`ll also remind all other more intelligent folks who read here, that   this climate quackology not only converts absolute CO2 concentrations to   "molar ppm" trying to fool you with their over-simplified averaging,   but in addition also "moisture corrects" their toy instrument readings..*which further inflates the results.*

 CO2 Molar (fraction) ppm = G-moles CO2 divided by the sum of all other G-moles.
 And "all the other G-Moles" that would be all the other gasses, like Nitrogen, Oxygen and of course Water Vapor...

 So what does this con-artist-quackology do...?
 They "moisture correct" the "molar ppm fraction" and then feed this  crap  to the unsuspecting public at large as "ppm CO2 in our  atmosphere"...

*Fools like You also think that when Denver and New York both report  say 70% relative humidity, that there is the same amount of ABSOLUTE ppm  of water vapor in the air @ Denver as in New York...

Fuck, did you ever attend any schooling past grade 6...?*

*No wonder dummies like you keep falling for this "molar moisture  corrected global average CO2" / "average global temperature" crap  relationship, these quacks are trying to pass off as "science"*

*So when a "climatologist" feeds you an "average  humidity" ...of a bunch of stations from coast to coast...and expressed  it in RH instead of absolute humidity you`ld never even realize how  you`ve been conned

*  
*Now Let`s go to your next lie...*:









You quoted me as if I had said that these are CO2 levels...




> *That's not even the same thing. That's rate of increase, not CO2 level*.


You are so fucked up that either you believe your own lies or you are simply too stupid to comprehend plain English...
 I clearly commented to this graph with these words...:



> Unfortunately and as usual, these "scientists" *do`nt want to show their  raw source data,* *.....*
> Regardless it`s not hard to reconstruct it by simply integrating the delta values.


So it`s pretty clear you haven`t even the vaguest idea about math  and what the term *"delta"* of a function, graphed or expressed as an equation means.
It`s a "rate increase" you fool 

 As in *delta(x)*=2X for F(x)=x^2,.... the "rate increase" as someone with absolutely no background in science or math, like you would call it.

 Next...:


> The raw instrument data is available. Here's worldwide raw temperature data plotted in blue:


Again you haven`t even got a fucking clue what the term "raw data" means. 
 Alright then I`ll explain it to you...
 here is *RAW DATA *showing the *RAW*  infrared spectroscope analog output...:








Here is another example what* raw data* is,...this one from a temperature strip chart recorder...:








The point of showing  raw data is to allow other scientists who have to   peer-review the accuracy for your findings by being able to view the  RAW  DATA of your measurements.
*Only  an idiot like you would  figure this is "raw data"...:*









*Because you`ve seen the word "raw" on it..*

 Fuck, have you any idea how many times this has been "averaged" and   smoothed out before it was published for ignorant idiots just like   you...?

 Only in the quackology that you subscribe to does crap like that get termed "raw data"..
*Not all data logging is per strip chart, much is digitized and purely numerical output ...and the RAW DATA looks like this...:*


http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/plot.csv


> 06,27,2002,-9999
> 06,28,2002,-9999
> 06,29,2002,-9999
> 06,30,2002,-9999
> ...


And not like this "Excel" spread sheet graph produced by amateurs.
 Nothing prevents "climatologists" from graphing RAW DATA...but no way   will they ever do it...to this day they have not complied showing the *RAW *(temperature) DATA how they produced their hockey stick graph...

 Especially not after the British Parliament started hearings if fraud   charges should be laid against the authors of these publications.

 Next point...:

 How many more times is it necessary to stick this into your retard face   before it finally sinks into your liberal simpleton-mind *that all these air sample flasks *are   sent to the "Scripps Institute" for "analysis" and they decide what   they want to "flag" ...in other words cherry pick for their crap data   collection....I posted that more than 3 times by now, showing you the   Scripps URLs where that is *stated clearly in un-ambigious terms  *


 But in typical asshole/retard  fashion you write here...:



> So if all these stations, aircraft  measurements, tower measurements and  satellite measurements are wrong,  they have to be wrong because they are  being faked.
> Therein is why I say you are claiming a conspiracy.


*Therein is a demonstration just how stupid you really are*...
 not only do you have a fucking clue how "climatology" is collecting the   samples and that air-crews who collect some of these samples don`t   analyse these on board ...but you haven`t even got the vaguest idea how   that "AIRS" Satellite you keep quoting works, what it does and what it   does not...

[quoteAnd of course there's the AIRS satellite. I  am pretty sure it doesn't  drop a scoop into the atmosphere and then  post a flask to scientists on  the ground to run through the imaginary  only gas analyzer the human race  owns.][/quote]

Because if you had the vaguest idea you would have never even mentioned it.
*It`s precisely this Satellite and the measurements obtained from  that  Satellite which shows better than anything else how full of  bullshit the  quacking..duck.quack qauck-ology is*, you liberal  assholes quote, using idiotic school kid  debating rhetoric tactics...:



> So yes I am pretty sure your claims amount to conspiracy, because conspiracy is the only way it could make sense


AIRS: About_AIRS_CO2_Data


> Significant Findings from AIRS Data
> 
> *'Carbon dioxide is not homogeneous *in the mid-troposphere; previously it was thought to be well-mixed
> 
> ...


That pretty well sums it up...what I`ve been saying here over and over again.
*No where did I say, that CO2 has remained constant* as you fucking retard-asshole-liberal-lying bastard  falsified it, quoting me...

 And quit trying to impress your other retard friends here with  your   "Googling" till you found  of a graph drawn by Albert Einstein that does   not start at zero on the Y-axis...
*You don`t even have a clue what Equation  Einstein was graphing here,...!!!!*






 How would you...?
 You cant` even read German..neither can any of your other retard friends here...
 But I can..

 And the ignoramus that you are , you "thought" ...but are not capable  to  think...that you could stick it in my face because "Einstein" said  so..

 Which again shows just how fucking stupid you amateur "science expert" grand standers really are..
*Einstein did not even author this paper.* The Author was an Indian mathematician Satyendra Nath Bose who sent it to Einstein who translated it into German










Einstein translated it to :
 Die Quantentheorie des einatomigen idealen Gases,.....

 Today known as the ..



> A *BoseEinstein condensate (BEC)* is a state of matter of a dilute gas of weakly interacting bosons confined in an external potential and cooled to temperatures very near absolute zero (0 K or &#8722;273.15 °C[1]). Under such conditions, a large fraction of the bosons occupy the lowest quantum state of the external potential, at which point quantum effects become apparent on a macroscopic scale.


nd the picture you Googled for and mindlessly re-regurgitate  here pretending   you were some sort of science whiz-kid who studied  Quantum Physics and Einstein in German shows that realtionship *near absolute Zero*.

 Amongst all your conspiracy theory blabbering I also spotted this..

Microsoft and others do publish "Excel for dummies"...!
Maybe you and your quacking duck "scientists" should read it...!
Every spread sheet gives you the opportunity to choose the scale &  the starting point....only dummies like you use default values, because  you are too stupid to figure out a proper *scaling factor*....

Yes the "white space" is indeed a problem in that "global warming" con-game...
But as long as liberal default dummies believe it "white space" is simply dealt with like this...:








all you have to do is shift the "gas age" values by 83 years,falsifying  the X-axis and then your crap "Windows Excel" graphs show no more  embarrassing "white spaces".


*So shut the fuck up and get out of the way you retard, or II`ll run you over





*


----------



## RWatt (Jun 8, 2011)

Here's some AIRS satellite data showing CO2 in July 2009, confirming the surface station results. One of your objections is that CO2 is not not homogeneous in the atmosphere. This objection doesn't stand, as you can see from the image "not homogeneous" means in a month the CO2 occupied a range of 10ppm. The annual average occupies and even tighter range. 

The average in this case is between 380 and 390ppm, which overlaps with the surface readings. Furthermore the AIRS satellite record shows CO2 increasing by about 2ppm per year, again confirming another element of the picture already known from surface and aircraft measurements.

This is independent confirmation of facts that were already indepedently confirmed. The changes in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is one of the best measured quantities on our planet in recent decades.






Believe it or not I am simply trying to help you. CO2 really is rising at 2ppm and is approaching 390ppm. It isn't a conspiracy, it's actually happening.

Man is able to measure trace gases to parts per billion (eg in the case of ozone), so measuring CO2 at concentrations of ppm is well within our capability. You cite things like instrument noise as an argument that the measurements are wrong or incompetently done. But all instruments have measuring noise, everything you post is from the writings of good science performed by the most competent experts on the subject in the world.

Scientists would have to be faking the CO2 rise for it to be wrong, it's that simple.

Just take the AIRS satellites for example. If the rise towards 390ppm based on thousands of station, tall towers and aircraft measurements over the past few decades had been faked then the AIRS satellite would not be showing CO2 between 380 and 390ppm in monthly snapshots would it?

You have some misconceptions about the work of science in general. For example you have complained multiple times now about flagging of data. Yet that is common across scientific fields. It's a quality assurance procedure. Data can contain spurious errors and lots of these can be detected. For example if a temperature station reports a monthly average temperature of 99 degrees C you know that's wrong. 

Flagged doesn't mean they destroy the raw data, on the contrary it means they keep the raw data and add a flag next to it indicating the suspected problem. That allows the data to be automatically analyzed later taking into account the flags.

Then there is the issue of choice of y-axis start point. Universally in all fields of science scientists start y-axes from non-zero values regularly. They do not religiously stick to y starts from zero. Y is set to maximize the space the data takes up so that variations in it are more visible to the observer. 

It's no point, for example, me plotting the daily a temperature cycle in kelvin starting at 0K on the y-axis if all the data occupies a range between 290K and 295K. Printing such a graph out on A4 would mean the data occupied a thin strip about a tenth of a inch high, rendering the cycle unreadable defeating the whole point of the graph.

I bet in the works of many famous scientists such as Newton contain graphs with y-axes starting above zero. it won't just be Einstein.

You complain about the availability of raw data, but raw data is available. The climate science field is probably one of the best for making data available online in general, you can get all kinds of data - sea ice data, solar data, temperature data, etc. Raw deaily weather, including temperature, records can be obtained from meteorological agencies of many countries, or from collated databases held by agencies such as the NOAA.

You might be aware of the Berkley temperature project that sought to build it's own temperature record. It could only do so because the raw data _is_ available.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 9, 2011)

Yo Thunder....................


Drastic cuts for large-scale solar power subsidies | Environment | guardian.co.uk


Yup.......ahhhhh.............looks like that science is really mattering!!!!


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 9, 2011)

*Ooooooooooooooops!!!*


----------

