Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
So you say, yet all the scientists studying the problem say differant.Climate change is axiomatic. The climate has never been static.Can dispute the sky is blue all you like. The sky's blue though just as climate change is happening.
The problem here is that a minute increase in temperatures has sparked a panic.
And the powers that be never let a crisis even an overblown one go to waste
When you dig below the surface and steer clear of the hype and total bullshit the Warmers try to pass off as "Science" it becomes quickly apparent that AGW is the biggest scam in the history of science. I've excerpted part of a resignation letter Hal Lewis, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara sent to the APS. You'll remember APS because the AGWCult trots out their "Endorsement" of the AGW scam as somehow significant and meaningful. You'll soon see there far less to this "endorsement" than meets the eye
"So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it. For example:
1. About a year ago a few of us sent an e-mail on the subject to a fraction of the membership. APS ignored the issues, but the then President immediately launched a hostile investigation of where we got the e-mail addresses. In its better days, APS used to encourage discussion of important issues, and indeed the Constitution cites that as its principal purpose. No more. Everything that has been done in the last year has been designed to silence debate
2. The appallingly tendentious APS statement on Climate Change was apparently written in a hurry by a few people over lunch, and is certainly not representative of the talents of APS members as I have long known them. So a few of us petitioned the Council to reconsider it. One of the outstanding marks of (in)distinction in the Statement was the poison word incontrovertible, which describes few items in physics, certainly not this one. In response APS appointed a secret committee that never met, never troubled to speak to any skeptics, yet endorsed the Statement in its entirety. (They did admit that the tone was a bit strong, but amazingly kept the poison word incontrovertible to describe the evidence, a position supported by no one.) In the end, the Council kept the original statement, word for word, but approved a far longer "explanatory" screed, admitting that there were uncertainties, but brushing them aside to give blanket approval to the original. The original Statement, which still stands as the APS position, also contains what I consider pompous and asinine advice to all world governments, as if the APS were master of the universe. It is not, and I am embarrassed that our leaders seem to think it is. This is not fun and games, these are serious matters involving vast fractions of our national substance, and the reputation of the Society as a scientific society is at stake.
3. In the interim the ClimateGate scandal broke into the news, and the machinations of the principal alarmists were revealed to the world. It was a fraud on a scale I have never seen, and I lack the words to describe its enormity. Effect on the APS position: none. None at all. This is not science; other forces are at work.
4. So a few of us tried to bring science into the act (that is, after all, the alleged and historic purpose of APS), and collected the necessary 200+ signatures to bring to the Council a proposal for a Topical Group on Climate Science, thinking that open discussion of the scientific issues, in the best tradition of physics, would be beneficial to all, and also a contribution to the nation. I might note that it was not easy to collect the signatures, since you denied us the use of the APS membership list. We conformed in every way with the requirements of the APS Constitution, and described in great detail what we had in mind—simply to bring the subject into the open.<
5. To our amazement, Constitution be damned, you declined to accept our petition, but instead used your own control of the mailing list to run a poll on the members' interest in a TG on Climate and the Environment. You did ask the members if they would sign a petition to form a TG on your yet-to-be-defined subject, but provided no petition, and got lots of affirmative responses. (If you had asked about sex you would have gotten more expressions of interest.) There was of course no such petition or proposal, and you have now dropped the Environment part, so the whole matter is moot. (Any lawyer will tell you that you cannot collect signatures on a vague petition, and then fill in whatever you like.) The entire purpose of this exercise was to avoid your constitutional responsibility to take our petition to the Council.
6. As of now you have formed still another secret and stacked committee to organize your own TG, simply ignoring our lawful petition.
APS management has gamed the problem from the beginning, to suppress serious conversation about the merits of the climate change claims. Do you wonder that I have lost confidence in the organization?"
US physics professor Global warming is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life 8211 Telegraph Blogs
Dude...Harold Lewis has been dead for three years. Can't you find any more (actually less) relevant climate change denier bullshit to spread in the compost heap of stupid?
OK, what do real scientists have to say in articles published in peer reviewed journals?you didn't read my link?Frank1400PennAve:
India says its carbon emissions will keep rising TheHill
India emits only 1.9 tons of carbon per person annually, less than the 5-ton international average. But it has 1.2 billion people and relies largely on coal for energy.
Mass of Earth atmosphere = 5.3 x 1018 km, or 5,300,000,000,000,000 tons
How many tons are those darn Indians generating?
As long as we're on the topic, you DO know that different GHG's have different lifespans in the atmosphere. I believe CO2 is what? 30 years? Methane has a shorter life span but is more harmful in the short run.
Methane Emissions Climate Change US EPA
Methane's lifetime in the atmosphere is much shorter than carbon dioxide (CO2), but CH4 is more efficient at trapping radiation than CO2. Pound for pound, the comparative impact of CH4 on climate change is over 20 times greater than CO2 over a 100-year period.
CO2 is between 5 and 15 years. Only in the fevered imaginations of the anti science AGW cultists is it over that. Regardless, the gasses you mention are TRACE gasses. They are less than 1% of the total atmosphere combined!
http://download.springer.com/static/pdf/747/art%3A10.1007%2Fs10584-008-9413-1.pdf?auth66=1417873496_bc8d33cc16c86d31b78339821afd462d&ext=.pdf
The millennial atmospheric lifetime
of anthropogenic CO2
David Archer & Victor Brovkin
Received: 19 December 2006 / Published online: 4 June 2008
# The Author(s) 2008
Abstract The notion is pervasive in the climate science community and in the public at
large that the climate impacts of fossil fuel CO2 release will only persist for a few centuries.
This conclusion has no basis in theory or models of the atmosphere/ocean carbon cycle,
which we review here. The largest fraction of the CO2 recovery will take place on time
scales of centuries, as CO2 invades the ocean, but a significant fraction of the fossil fuel
CO2, ranging in published models in the literature from 20–60%, remains airborne for a
thousand years or longer. Ultimate recovery takes place on time scales of hundreds of
thousands of years, a geologic longevity typically associated in public perceptions with
nuclear waste. The glacial/interglacial climate cycles demonstrate that ice sheets and sea
level respond dramatically to millennial-timescale changes in climate forcing. There are
also potential positive feedbacks in the carbon cycle, including methane hydrates in the
ocean, and peat frozen in permafrost, that are most sensitive to the long tail of the fossil fuel
CO2 in the atmosphere.
So you say, yet all the scientists studying the problem say differant.Climate change is axiomatic. The climate has never been static.Can dispute the sky is blue all you like. The sky's blue though just as climate change is happening.
The problem here is that a minute increase in temperatures has sparked a panic.
And the powers that be never let a crisis even an overblown one go to waste
Yeah and none of their catastrophic predictions have yet to pass.
Look these scientists are beholden to the government because that's where they get all their money. And the government has a vested interest in fear mongering because that's how you control the sheep
Denying that is naive to the point of mental retardation
your anecdotal evidence is anecdotal. Heck, even Frank1400PennAve wouldn't back you up on those short-term observations.So you say, yet all the scientists studying the problem say differant.Climate change is axiomatic. The climate has never been static.Can dispute the sky is blue all you like. The sky's blue though just as climate change is happening.
The problem here is that a minute increase in temperatures has sparked a panic.
And the powers that be never let a crisis even an overblown one go to waste
Yeah and none of their catastrophic predictions have yet to pass.
Look these scientists are beholden to the government because that's where they get all their money. And the government has a vested interest in fear mongering because that's how you control the sheep
Denying that is naive to the point of mental retardation
And the government has a vested interest in fear mongering because that's how you control the sheep
And the government has a vested interest in fear mongering because that's how you control the sheep
Can you elaborate on this point a bit? How do those in government benefit from the acceptance of AGW? Specifically, please.
Keen observation and just plain old eye witness testimony, over a span of 20 years or so.What evidence would you accept? You want crap vomited up from the internet, cut and pasted , charts, scientific studies, graphs...that isn't proof, either. I don't know what the hell you really want. We will find out twenty or thirty years from now who's the dingbats from the realists. But by then, it will be too late. I don't know what else to say.What climate change have you experienced? You stated this in the past and to date, failed to provide your evidence. Let's see your evidence!When I see a topic preceding the word "scam", that tells me something right there. Like objectivity isn't your forte. I have seen the climate change in the last thirty years, and that is a fact. Only a fool would ignore the obvious.When you dig below the surface and steer clear of the hype and total bullshit the Warmers try to pass off as "Science" it becomes quickly apparent that AGW is the biggest scam in the history of science. I've excerpted part of a resignation letter Hal Lewis, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara sent to the APS. You'll remember APS because the AGWCult trots out their "Endorsement" of the AGW scam as somehow significant and meaningful. You'll soon see there far less to this "endorsement" than meets the eye
"So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it. For example:
1. About a year ago a few of us sent an e-mail on the subject to a fraction of the membership. APS ignored the issues, but the then President immediately launched a hostile investigation of where we got the e-mail addresses. In its better days, APS used to encourage discussion of important issues, and indeed the Constitution cites that as its principal purpose. No more. Everything that has been done in the last year has been designed to silence debate
2. The appallingly tendentious APS statement on Climate Change was apparently written in a hurry by a few people over lunch, and is certainly not representative of the talents of APS members as I have long known them. So a few of us petitioned the Council to reconsider it. One of the outstanding marks of (in)distinction in the Statement was the poison word incontrovertible, which describes few items in physics, certainly not this one. In response APS appointed a secret committee that never met, never troubled to speak to any skeptics, yet endorsed the Statement in its entirety. (They did admit that the tone was a bit strong, but amazingly kept the poison word incontrovertible to describe the evidence, a position supported by no one.) In the end, the Council kept the original statement, word for word, but approved a far longer "explanatory" screed, admitting that there were uncertainties, but brushing them aside to give blanket approval to the original. The original Statement, which still stands as the APS position, also contains what I consider pompous and asinine advice to all world governments, as if the APS were master of the universe. It is not, and I am embarrassed that our leaders seem to think it is. This is not fun and games, these are serious matters involving vast fractions of our national substance, and the reputation of the Society as a scientific society is at stake.
3. In the interim the ClimateGate scandal broke into the news, and the machinations of the principal alarmists were revealed to the world. It was a fraud on a scale I have never seen, and I lack the words to describe its enormity. Effect on the APS position: none. None at all. This is not science; other forces are at work.
4. So a few of us tried to bring science into the act (that is, after all, the alleged and historic purpose of APS), and collected the necessary 200+ signatures to bring to the Council a proposal for a Topical Group on Climate Science, thinking that open discussion of the scientific issues, in the best tradition of physics, would be beneficial to all, and also a contribution to the nation. I might note that it was not easy to collect the signatures, since you denied us the use of the APS membership list. We conformed in every way with the requirements of the APS Constitution, and described in great detail what we had in mind—simply to bring the subject into the open.<
5. To our amazement, Constitution be damned, you declined to accept our petition, but instead used your own control of the mailing list to run a poll on the members' interest in a TG on Climate and the Environment. You did ask the members if they would sign a petition to form a TG on your yet-to-be-defined subject, but provided no petition, and got lots of affirmative responses. (If you had asked about sex you would have gotten more expressions of interest.) There was of course no such petition or proposal, and you have now dropped the Environment part, so the whole matter is moot. (Any lawyer will tell you that you cannot collect signatures on a vague petition, and then fill in whatever you like.) The entire purpose of this exercise was to avoid your constitutional responsibility to take our petition to the Council.
6. As of now you have formed still another secret and stacked committee to organize your own TG, simply ignoring our lawful petition.
APS management has gamed the problem from the beginning, to suppress serious conversation about the merits of the climate change claims. Do you wonder that I have lost confidence in the organization?"
US physics professor Global warming is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life 8211 Telegraph Blogs
Keen observation and just plain old eye witness testimony, over a span of 20 years or so.What evidence would you accept? You want crap vomited up from the internet, cut and pasted , charts, scientific studies, graphs...that isn't proof, either. I don't know what the hell you really want. We will find out twenty or thirty years from now who's the dingbats from the realists. But by then, it will be too late. I don't know what else to say.What climate change have you experienced? You stated this in the past and to date, failed to provide your evidence. Let's see your evidence!When I see a topic preceding the word "scam", that tells me something right there. Like objectivity isn't your forte. I have seen the climate change in the last thirty years, and that is a fact. Only a fool would ignore the obvious.When you dig below the surface and steer clear of the hype and total bullshit the Warmers try to pass off as "Science" it becomes quickly apparent that AGW is the biggest scam in the history of science. I've excerpted part of a resignation letter Hal Lewis, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara sent to the APS. You'll remember APS because the AGWCult trots out their "Endorsement" of the AGW scam as somehow significant and meaningful. You'll soon see there far less to this "endorsement" than meets the eye
"So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it. For example:
1. About a year ago a few of us sent an e-mail on the subject to a fraction of the membership. APS ignored the issues, but the then President immediately launched a hostile investigation of where we got the e-mail addresses. In its better days, APS used to encourage discussion of important issues, and indeed the Constitution cites that as its principal purpose. No more. Everything that has been done in the last year has been designed to silence debate
2. The appallingly tendentious APS statement on Climate Change was apparently written in a hurry by a few people over lunch, and is certainly not representative of the talents of APS members as I have long known them. So a few of us petitioned the Council to reconsider it. One of the outstanding marks of (in)distinction in the Statement was the poison word incontrovertible, which describes few items in physics, certainly not this one. In response APS appointed a secret committee that never met, never troubled to speak to any skeptics, yet endorsed the Statement in its entirety. (They did admit that the tone was a bit strong, but amazingly kept the poison word incontrovertible to describe the evidence, a position supported by no one.) In the end, the Council kept the original statement, word for word, but approved a far longer "explanatory" screed, admitting that there were uncertainties, but brushing them aside to give blanket approval to the original. The original Statement, which still stands as the APS position, also contains what I consider pompous and asinine advice to all world governments, as if the APS were master of the universe. It is not, and I am embarrassed that our leaders seem to think it is. This is not fun and games, these are serious matters involving vast fractions of our national substance, and the reputation of the Society as a scientific society is at stake.
3. In the interim the ClimateGate scandal broke into the news, and the machinations of the principal alarmists were revealed to the world. It was a fraud on a scale I have never seen, and I lack the words to describe its enormity. Effect on the APS position: none. None at all. This is not science; other forces are at work.
4. So a few of us tried to bring science into the act (that is, after all, the alleged and historic purpose of APS), and collected the necessary 200+ signatures to bring to the Council a proposal for a Topical Group on Climate Science, thinking that open discussion of the scientific issues, in the best tradition of physics, would be beneficial to all, and also a contribution to the nation. I might note that it was not easy to collect the signatures, since you denied us the use of the APS membership list. We conformed in every way with the requirements of the APS Constitution, and described in great detail what we had in mind—simply to bring the subject into the open.<
5. To our amazement, Constitution be damned, you declined to accept our petition, but instead used your own control of the mailing list to run a poll on the members' interest in a TG on Climate and the Environment. You did ask the members if they would sign a petition to form a TG on your yet-to-be-defined subject, but provided no petition, and got lots of affirmative responses. (If you had asked about sex you would have gotten more expressions of interest.) There was of course no such petition or proposal, and you have now dropped the Environment part, so the whole matter is moot. (Any lawyer will tell you that you cannot collect signatures on a vague petition, and then fill in whatever you like.) The entire purpose of this exercise was to avoid your constitutional responsibility to take our petition to the Council.
6. As of now you have formed still another secret and stacked committee to organize your own TG, simply ignoring our lawful petition.
APS management has gamed the problem from the beginning, to suppress serious conversation about the merits of the climate change claims. Do you wonder that I have lost confidence in the organization?"
US physics professor Global warming is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life 8211 Telegraph Blogs
And the government has a vested interest in fear mongering because that's how you control the sheep
Can you elaborate on this point a bit? How do those in government benefit from the acceptance of AGW? Specifically, please.
Well, you can throw loan guarantees to campaign donors.........
When I see a topic preceding the word "scam", that tells me something right there. Like objectivity isn't your forte. I have seen the climate change in the last thirty years, and that is a fact. Only a fool would ignore the obvious.When you dig below the surface and steer clear of the hype and total bullshit the Warmers try to pass off as "Science" it becomes quickly apparent that AGW is the biggest scam in the history of science. I've excerpted part of a resignation letter Hal Lewis, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara sent to the APS. You'll remember APS because the AGWCult trots out their "Endorsement" of the AGW scam as somehow significant and meaningful. You'll soon see there far less to this "endorsement" than meets the eye
"So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it. For example:
1. About a year ago a few of us sent an e-mail on the subject to a fraction of the membership. APS ignored the issues, but the then President immediately launched a hostile investigation of where we got the e-mail addresses. In its better days, APS used to encourage discussion of important issues, and indeed the Constitution cites that as its principal purpose. No more. Everything that has been done in the last year has been designed to silence debate
2. The appallingly tendentious APS statement on Climate Change was apparently written in a hurry by a few people over lunch, and is certainly not representative of the talents of APS members as I have long known them. So a few of us petitioned the Council to reconsider it. One of the outstanding marks of (in)distinction in the Statement was the poison word incontrovertible, which describes few items in physics, certainly not this one. In response APS appointed a secret committee that never met, never troubled to speak to any skeptics, yet endorsed the Statement in its entirety. (They did admit that the tone was a bit strong, but amazingly kept the poison word incontrovertible to describe the evidence, a position supported by no one.) In the end, the Council kept the original statement, word for word, but approved a far longer "explanatory" screed, admitting that there were uncertainties, but brushing them aside to give blanket approval to the original. The original Statement, which still stands as the APS position, also contains what I consider pompous and asinine advice to all world governments, as if the APS were master of the universe. It is not, and I am embarrassed that our leaders seem to think it is. This is not fun and games, these are serious matters involving vast fractions of our national substance, and the reputation of the Society as a scientific society is at stake.
3. In the interim the ClimateGate scandal broke into the news, and the machinations of the principal alarmists were revealed to the world. It was a fraud on a scale I have never seen, and I lack the words to describe its enormity. Effect on the APS position: none. None at all. This is not science; other forces are at work.
4. So a few of us tried to bring science into the act (that is, after all, the alleged and historic purpose of APS), and collected the necessary 200+ signatures to bring to the Council a proposal for a Topical Group on Climate Science, thinking that open discussion of the scientific issues, in the best tradition of physics, would be beneficial to all, and also a contribution to the nation. I might note that it was not easy to collect the signatures, since you denied us the use of the APS membership list. We conformed in every way with the requirements of the APS Constitution, and described in great detail what we had in mind—simply to bring the subject into the open.<
5. To our amazement, Constitution be damned, you declined to accept our petition, but instead used your own control of the mailing list to run a poll on the members' interest in a TG on Climate and the Environment. You did ask the members if they would sign a petition to form a TG on your yet-to-be-defined subject, but provided no petition, and got lots of affirmative responses. (If you had asked about sex you would have gotten more expressions of interest.) There was of course no such petition or proposal, and you have now dropped the Environment part, so the whole matter is moot. (Any lawyer will tell you that you cannot collect signatures on a vague petition, and then fill in whatever you like.) The entire purpose of this exercise was to avoid your constitutional responsibility to take our petition to the Council.
6. As of now you have formed still another secret and stacked committee to organize your own TG, simply ignoring our lawful petition.
APS management has gamed the problem from the beginning, to suppress serious conversation about the merits of the climate change claims. Do you wonder that I have lost confidence in the organization?"
US physics professor Global warming is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life 8211 Telegraph Blogs
And the government has a vested interest in fear mongering because that's how you control the sheep
Can you elaborate on this point a bit? How do those in government benefit from the acceptance of AGW? Specifically, please.
Well, you can throw loan guarantees to campaign donors.........
How does public acceptance of AGW have any bearing on giving loan guarantees to campaign donors?
I have banged around the mountains in the Western States since I graduated from high school. That was in '62. The Cascades, the Blues, Rockies, and even a bit in the Seirra Nevadas. In that time I have observed the recession of the glaciers, the earlier snow melts, and later start to snow seasons. While those are personel observations, they are corroberated by data from the weather services.
Now I am working steadily toward a degree in Geology. And the people that converse with at college, particularly the scientists, all state that they are very worried about the future. We really don't know just how this will play out, at what points the changes are no longer inconveniances, and become serious dangers to our way of life.
Let's play that by ear, and see what happens.I have banged around the mountains in the Western States since I graduated from high school. That was in '62. The Cascades, the Blues, Rockies, and even a bit in the Seirra Nevadas. In that time I have observed the recession of the glaciers, the earlier snow melts, and later start to snow seasons. While those are personel observations, they are corroberated by data from the weather services.
Now I am working steadily toward a degree in Geology. And the people that converse with at college, particularly the scientists, all state that they are very worried about the future. We really don't know just how this will play out, at what points the changes are no longer inconveniances, and become serious dangers to our way of life.
Hmm. So, I have a question. Lets say that starting this year, temperatures start to plummet for the next 5 years. Do you think your compatriots would advocate trying to heat our world to keep our climate a constant temperature?
Mark
Now that would be interesting. Perhaps we could see a 2 or 3 year plummet were we to get a Tambora szed eruption, however, the temperatures would immediatly go back up as soon as the aerosols washed out of the atmosphere.
And the trend is not for five years, it has since 1880. Why don't you attempt to learn something for real rather just spouting unsupported opinions without any base at all?
