Dear All,
As you know global warming is endangering the future of life on the
planet. It will also affect us;
rising sea levels, dwindling water supplies, mass deaths due to heat
waves, stoppage of the gulfstream, which
brings milder climate to north of Europe, super hurricanes, less food
due to droughts are some of the effects.
As you also know global warming is produced due to CO2 emissions
coming from burning of fossil fuels. So what
can every single person do to reduce global warming ?


1) Insulation: Do you know that you can save 50% of heating energy
(and money) by insulation ? Especially in
the times the financial crisis, you can make the insulation cheaper
and save the money when oil, natural gas and
coal prices are higher due to higher demand. What needs to be
insulated ? Firstly the Roof, since warmer air
goes up, then the windows (tripple glass or at least dual glass and
shutters for additional insulation at night,
and in summer time), then the outer walls. Also small cracks, leaks in
weatherstrips etc should be eliminated.
An infrared inspection of your house for heat losses would be the best
way to find out what else can be done.
A wintergarden will help heating your house additionally in winter
time.

2) Using rechargable batteries instead of alkaline batteries, and
charge them during less demand ours like at night
will also save a lot of energy and money.

3) Lightning; the use of Compact fluorescent lamps instead of
traditioanl light bulbs will save 80% of energy, the
use of very new LED lamps will save even more.

4) Buying local. Most of the energy is spent for transportation of
imported goods, especially food. By buying local
made food you not only save a lot of energy, but also create more jobs
at home.

5) Heating; there are several way to save energy and money by changing
the heating method; you can use the free heat
of the nature by adding a solar thermal equipment to heat the water
for taking showers and also to heat your home.
Additionally you can use a heating pump, which funtions like a reverse
fridge; it takes the heat of the outside and
transfers it to your home. You use much much less energy to do this
(electricity to pump a liquid).

6) Your car; by buying a hybrid car you save 30% of fuel, by
converting your car to CNG (compressed natural gas) you
can save a lot of CO2, since CNG has much less carbon but more
hydrogen, which will result in water (CH4 instead of
C8H18). CNG will also result in much more energy output per mass. The
conversion is not very expensive. It is totally
save, since the storage has to resist a certain pressure.
Of course there are also other smaller things you have to consider:
- Each 60 pounds increases fuel consumption by 10%.
- Aggressive driving (speeding, rapid acceleration, and hard braking)
wastes gas. It can lower your highway gas mileage
33% and city mileage 5%.
- Drive at lowest and constant rpms; 2000 rpm are enough; you can save
up to 30%. Even a Porsche can be driven at the
4th gear at 20 mph and at the 6th gear at 50 mph with 2.5 times less
fuel consumption.
- Avoid high speeds. Driving 75 mph, rather than 65 mph, could cut
your fuel economy by 15%.
- Use air conditioning only when necessary
- Keep tires properly inflated and aligned to improve your gasoline
mileage by around 3.3%.
- Replace clogged air filters to improve gas mileage by as much as 10%
and protect your engine
- Combine errands into one trip. Several short trips, each one taken
from a cold start, can use twice as much fuel as
one trip covering the same distance when the engine is warm. Do not
forget that in the first mile your car uses 8
times more fuel, in the second mile 4 times and only after the
fourth mile it becomes normal

7) Buying A++ or A+++ equipments. The extra money you pay for this
will be back in 1-2 years. It will save a lot of CO2.

8) Try to save also energy at your job; you can do it by insulation,
more efficient processes, heat recovery, more
efficient pumps/engines, low temperature processses, material
saving, water savings, optimization, automatic turning
off of unnecessary energy using processes, control if some
processes are really necessary (the change of some
processes makes other processes sometimes unnecesarry on which
nobody has thought about).

9) Solar cells for your own home; at the moment solar cells are very
cheap since there is an overproduction. These cells
can operate a fridge for example.

Regards.

I plan to reduce my own CO2 emissions by not talking about them.

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

"Franc Zabkar" wrote in message
...
I plan to reduce my own CO2 emissions by not talking about them.

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

I wouldn't worry about it Franc. Judging by the stuff I'm reading at the
moment about the 'massaged' data coming out of the University of East
Anglia, it's not going to have any genuine effect anyway ... :-)

Arfa

Arfa Daily wrote in message
...

"Franc Zabkar" wrote in message
...
I plan to reduce my own CO2 emissions by not talking about them.

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

I wouldn't worry about it Franc. Judging by the stuff I'm reading at the
moment about the 'massaged' data coming out of the University of East
Anglia, it's not going to have any genuine effect anyway ... :-)

Arfa




I'm old enough to remember all the scare stories in the press about the
impending ice age coming, after the seas freezing over around UK coasts.



--
Diverse Devices, Southampton, England
electronic hints and repair briefs , schematics/manuals list on
http://home.graffiti.net/diverse:graffiti.net/

"Franc Zabkar" wrote in message
...
I plan to reduce my own CO2 emissions by not talking about them.

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

If you take the human population of the world as P
And the rate of exhaling each hour as R
And the quantity of CO2 in each exhalation as Q
The the total CO2 produced by people in an hour is then simply PxRxQ.

Everyone should hold their breath for an hour a day.

Note: We leave it to the student to find the values of P, R and Q.

"Arfa Daily" wrote in
:


"Franc Zabkar" wrote in message
...
I plan to reduce my own CO2 emissions by not talking about them.

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

I wouldn't worry about it Franc. Judging by the stuff I'm reading at the
moment about the 'massaged' data coming out of the University of East
Anglia, it's not going to have any genuine effect anyway ... :-)

Arfa



the MAJOR effect of "AGW" or "climate change" is the onerous regulation
pressed upon us.
"AGW/Climate change" is being used by the Marxists to grab control.

It's all about "redistribution of wealth" and power.

and it will have a tremendous effect(negative) on you and me.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

On 13 dic, 22:12, "." wrote:
Dear All,
As you know global warming is endangering the future of life on the

I am suspicious of the extent of the threat due to the involvement of
the likes of Al Gore in this issue, and recent press of the email
leaks before copenhagen. Yet we should also be aware there are large
corporate interests who are, I suspect, behind much of the negative
coverage of the climate change issue.

A wholesale rejection of the very real man-made threats to the
environment simply plays into the hands of the corporate elites who
have already wreaked havoc worldwide. Scientists of international
renown, including nobel prizewinners, have drawn conclusions endorsed
by all the leading academies and national instututes of science. I'm
not about to dismiss that kind of endorsement in favour of conspiracy
theories, at least not until I see hard evidence instead of the
corporate sponsored media campaigns against GW.

No matter how much I disagree with the implementation of some of the
enviormnental protection measures, I'm not going to play the game of
the powerful anti-GW corporate lobby just so they can go on getting
rich. if they had their way there'd be no protection or regualtion of
polluters at all, and we'd all be worse off. I disagree with the way
things like lead free solder and lightbulbs have been handled ie.,
legislation made often by ignorant bureaucrats with no scientific
logic but it seems that these things so far have served to tire many
people of the whole GW thing to distract us from the real issues - the
economic geopolitical power structure which at present, serves only
the interests of its own.

We are but pawns until we start using evidence properly. let's base
our positions on science not propaganda, one way or the other.

On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 13:12:53 -0800 (PST), "."
wrote:
As you know global warming is endangering the future of life on the
planet.

Assumption, the mother of all screwups. When it's warmer than usual,
it's global warming. When it's wetter than usual, it's global
warming. When there's a drought, it's global warming. When sunspots
fail to appear, it's global warming. When there's an unscheduled
political change, or the stock market dives, it's global warming.
Anything even slightly off normal, it's global warming. Somehow, I'm
more than a little suspicious.

Of course the sources of information are also suspect. The same
people that can't predict if it's going to rain tomorrow, are now
asking us to believe their weather forecast for 100 years from now.
Global computer weather models that predict the future, can't seem to
do as well predicting known events (Maunder Minimum and medieval
warming period) in the past.

In the 1950's, one of the suggestions for preventing global nuclear
self-destruction was to unite the world against a single threat.
Contrived invaders from Mars or other outside influence was the most
common suggestion. Science fiction was written around this theme.
Well, they were close. We now have something we can all fight
together, even if it might be faked or contrived. Maybe spending
money on fighting global warming can save the economy. Once we fix
global warming, we can get together and fight the oncoming ice age.


--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Dec 14, 9:43*am, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 13:12:53 -0800 (PST), "."

wrote:
As you know global warming is endangering the future of life on the
planet.

Assumption, the mother of all screwups. *When it's warmer than usual,
it's global warming. *When it's wetter than usual, it's global
warming. *When there's a drought, it's global warming. *When sunspots
fail to appear, it's global warming. *When there's an unscheduled
political change, or the stock market dives, it's global warming.
Anything even slightly off normal, it's global warming. *Somehow, I'm
more than a little suspicious.

Of course the sources of information are also suspect. *The same
people that can't predict if it's going to rain tomorrow, are now
asking us to believe their weather forecast for 100 years from now.
Global computer weather models that predict the future, can't seem to
do as well predicting known events (Maunder Minimum and medieval
warming period) in the past.

In the 1950's, one of the suggestions for preventing global nuclear
self-destruction was to unite the world against a single threat.
Contrived invaders from Mars or other outside influence was the most
common suggestion. *Science fiction was written around this theme.
Well, they were close. *We now have something we can all fight
together, even if it might be faked or contrived. *Maybe spending
money on fighting global warming can save the economy. *Once we fix
global warming, we can get together and fight the oncoming ice age.

--
Jeff Liebermann * *
150 Felker St #D * *http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann * * AE6KS * *831-336-2558

Recently on PBS News, "Global Warming blamed for wars in
Africa." ..haven't heard that again, but this was seriously
presented.

With regard to total effects causing global warming, it's just that no
one talks about the magnitude of the effect of methane belching out of
melting tundra, nor the constant fire [major source of CO2] in
Indonesia, nor the magnitude of the effect of that volcano two weeks
ago putting out the equivalent of 25 years of industrial pollution.
All inputs to the model should be put into perspective.

Scare tactics? Years ago, California went through one of its many
drought crises. We were all put onto mandatory cut backs, and
encouraged to reduce consumption 25%. News kept showing empty
reservoirs. We wer to cut back even at the loss of recently installed
expensive landscaping. However, it really took the edge off suffering
through all our personal hardship when I learned that even if EVERY
citizens of California took their personal consumption to 0, that's
ZERO! the dent on water consumption in California would be a 10%
reduction. Takes the edge off all that personal hardship.

On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 10:02:00 -0800 (PST), Robert Macy
wrote:

Recently on PBS News, "Global Warming blamed for wars in
Africa." ..haven't heard that again, but this was seriously
presented.

Cute. I hadn't heard that one.

With regard to total effects causing global warming, it's just that no
one talks about the magnitude of the effect of methane belching out of
melting tundra, nor the constant fire [major source of CO2] in
Indonesia, nor the magnitude of the effect of that volcano two weeks
ago putting out the equivalent of 25 years of industrial pollution.
All inputs to the model should be put into perspective.

Bingo. While research papers and reports all itemize the alleged
causes and potential effects with copious numbers and statistics, the
information delivered to the general public is devoid of any real
numbers suitable for making an intelligent comparison or decision.
This is more an indictment of the publics inability to digest numbers
than an unwillingness of the proponents of global warming to supply
numbers. The result is that really important numbers get lost in the
trivia. As you note, prespective is lost.

Scare tactics? Years ago, California went through one of its many
drought crises. We were all put onto mandatory cut backs, and
encouraged to reduce consumption 25%. News kept showing empty
reservoirs. We wer to cut back even at the loss of recently installed
expensive landscaping. However, it really took the edge off suffering
through all our personal hardship when I learned that even if EVERY
citizens of California took their personal consumption to 0, that's
ZERO! the dent on water consumption in California would be a 10%
reduction. Takes the edge off all that personal hardship.

Not quite that bad. About 67% of the water used in California is used
for agriculture. Until we find a way to grow crops without consuming
as much water, that's unlikely to change. Farmers in Sacramento have
been water rationed to the limit of productivity to protect the fish
in the delta where 80% of the water use is for agriculture. To
achieve minimal water use, they've gone to installing soil moisture
meters and irrigation controllers that monitor water use almost
continuously. Personal water consumption is ummmm.... a drop in the
bucket.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

N_Cook wrote:
Arfa Daily wrote in message
...

"Franc Zabkar" wrote in message
...
I plan to reduce my own CO2 emissions by not talking about them.

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

I wouldn't worry about it Franc. Judging by the stuff I'm reading at
the moment about the 'massaged' data coming out of the University of
East Anglia, it's not going to have any genuine effect anyway ...
:-)

Arfa




I'm old enough to remember all the scare stories in the press about
the impending ice age coming, after the seas freezing over around UK
coasts.

**I'm old enough to remember that those silly ice age articles were
published in magazines like People, Newsweek and other populist crap.
Science, Nature and Scientific American stuck to the facts. Those facts, of
course, were concerned with the very serious problem of CO2 being a major
influence in global warming.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 10:25:25 -0000, "N_Cook" put
finger to keyboard and composed:

I'm old enough to remember all the scare stories in the press about the
impending ice age coming, after the seas freezing over around UK coasts.

I think people are numbed to the reality of the impending disaster.
Constant reports about projected sea level rises of x cm per decade
are relatively meaningless unless placed in a more serious context.

In 1957 a new unit of measure, the potrzebie, was introduced.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potrzebie

One potrzebie was defined as being equal to the "thickness of Mad
issue 26, or 2.263348517438173216473 mm".

Perhaps it is time for yet another new unit of measure. I propose that
we define the "catasztrophie" as being equal to the thickness of an Al
Gore "An Inconvenient Truth" DVD case. Then perhaps when the news
reader warns us of a rise in sea levels of 6 catasztrophies within the
next 10 years, one would only need to look up from the couch and
glance at one's entertainment cabinet to immediately place the crisis
in perspective.

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

"Jeff Liebermann" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 13:12:53 -0800 (PST), "."
wrote:
As you know global warming is endangering the future of life on the
planet.

Assumption, the mother of all screwups. When it's warmer than usual,
it's global warming. When it's wetter than usual, it's global
warming. When there's a drought, it's global warming. When sunspots
fail to appear, it's global warming. When there's an unscheduled
political change, or the stock market dives, it's global warming.
Anything even slightly off normal, it's global warming. Somehow, I'm
more than a little suspicious.

Of course the sources of information are also suspect. The same
people that can't predict if it's going to rain tomorrow, are now
asking us to believe their weather forecast for 100 years from now.
Global computer weather models that predict the future, can't seem to
do as well predicting known events (Maunder Minimum and medieval
warming period) in the past.

In the 1950's, one of the suggestions for preventing global nuclear
self-destruction was to unite the world against a single threat.
Contrived invaders from Mars or other outside influence was the most
common suggestion. Science fiction was written around this theme.
Well, they were close. We now have something we can all fight
together, even if it might be faked or contrived. Maybe spending
money on fighting global warming can save the economy. Once we fix
global warming, we can get together and fight the oncoming ice age.

Do a Google search for Bolivia and glaciers.
I would like to read your rationale as to what is causing this phenomenon of
fast glacier melting.
It must be caused by something other than your hot air.

On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 08:51:17 -0500, "Charlie"
put finger to keyboard and composed:

If you take the human population of the world as P
And the rate of exhaling each hour as R
And the quantity of CO2 in each exhalation as Q
The the total CO2 produced by people in an hour is then simply PxRxQ.

Everyone should hold their breath for an hour a day.

I wouldn't go that far, but I wonder just how much of our human
respiration is absolutely necessary.

On the one hand we have obese people contributing to global warming
via their wasteful metabolisms, while on the other hand we have
fitness zealots expending needless CO2 while running on the spot. Both
are wantonly contributing to global warming via their gluttony and
vanity.

I propose to lead by example by lying on the couch and restricting my
metabolism by means of a reduction in dietary intake, and by espousing
the philosophy of Non-Running.

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 08:08:05 -0600, Jim Yanik put
finger to keyboard and composed:

"AGW/Climate change" is being used by the Marxists to grab control.

It's all about "redistribution of wealth" and power.

and it will have a tremendous effect(negative) on you and me.

I see global warming as a tremendous investment opportunity.

I'm betting that you can now buy several kilometres of beachfront
property in the Maldive Islands for a handful of dollars. If you're a
skeptic, then this real estate will be a bargain. What's more, if
you're a real contrarian, and you expect the oceans to recede, then
you could speculate on some property that is presently under water.

If you're in the other camp, and you zealously believe that
temperatures will rise, then now is the time to acquire great tracts
of permafrost in Greenland. You could probably snap it up for less
than America paid for Alaska.

AISI, it's a win-win opportunity. In fact I'm putting my money down
before Donald Trump gets wind of it.

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

Charlie wrote:

"Jeff Liebermann" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 13:12:53 -0800 (PST), "."
wrote:
As you know global warming is endangering the future of life on the
planet.

Assumption, the mother of all screwups. When it's warmer than usual,
it's global warming. When it's wetter than usual, it's global
warming. When there's a drought, it's global warming. When sunspots
fail to appear, it's global warming. When there's an unscheduled
political change, or the stock market dives, it's global warming.
Anything even slightly off normal, it's global warming. Somehow, I'm
more than a little suspicious.

Of course the sources of information are also suspect. The same
people that can't predict if it's going to rain tomorrow, are now
asking us to believe their weather forecast for 100 years from now.
Global computer weather models that predict the future, can't seem to
do as well predicting known events (Maunder Minimum and medieval
warming period) in the past.

In the 1950's, one of the suggestions for preventing global nuclear
self-destruction was to unite the world against a single threat.
Contrived invaders from Mars or other outside influence was the most
common suggestion. Science fiction was written around this theme.
Well, they were close. We now have something we can all fight
together, even if it might be faked or contrived. Maybe spending
money on fighting global warming can save the economy. Once we fix
global warming, we can get together and fight the oncoming ice age.

Do a Google search for Bolivia and glaciers.
I would like to read your rationale as to what is causing this phenomenon of
fast glacier melting.
It must be caused by something other than your hot air.


Ooh a GW True Believer. Have you properly genuflected to Al Gore yet
today?

It's been both cooler & warmer in the historical record. There were
dairy farms in Greenland in Viking times. Some of them are still
buried by ice, BTW.

One of the "tricks" used by AGW True Believers is to eliminate the
Medieval Warm Period so that the current warming looks extreme.

Then there's the alleged accuracy of their temperature measurements,
less that 1 degree from 100 year old data & tree rings, give me a break!

I live in Pennsylvania. Where I'm currently sitting there were once
ice sheets, they melted, it's what happens when the earth ends a cold
period and starts to defrost, get over it.

Jerry

Trevor Wilson wrote:
N_Cook wrote:
Arfa Daily wrote in message
...

"Franc Zabkar" wrote in message
...
I plan to reduce my own CO2 emissions by not talking about them.

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

I wouldn't worry about it Franc. Judging by the stuff I'm reading at
the moment about the 'massaged' data coming out of the University of
East Anglia, it's not going to have any genuine effect anyway ...
:-)

Arfa




I'm old enough to remember all the scare stories in the press about
the impending ice age coming, after the seas freezing over around UK
coasts.

**I'm old enough to remember that those silly ice age articles were
published in magazines like People, Newsweek and other populist crap.
Science, Nature and Scientific American stuck to the facts. Those facts, of
course, were concerned with the very serious problem of CO2 being a major
influence in global warming.


Except that *water vapor* is the major "greenhouse" gas.

To get their dire predictions the climastrologists assume that rising
CO2 will cause a positive feedback effect with water vapor.

As for Scientific American, read their latest editorial on GW. It
sounds like the ravings of a left-wing loony conspiracy theorist.

BTW, any one ever heard of the University of East Anglia *before* the
emails were leaked? Take a look at the money they've been pulling
in for their climate research.

Jerry

Jerry Peters wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:
N_Cook wrote:
Arfa Daily wrote in message
...

"Franc Zabkar" wrote in message
...
I plan to reduce my own CO2 emissions by not talking about them.

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

I wouldn't worry about it Franc. Judging by the stuff I'm reading
at the moment about the 'massaged' data coming out of the
University of East Anglia, it's not going to have any genuine
effect anyway ... :-)

Arfa




I'm old enough to remember all the scare stories in the press about
the impending ice age coming, after the seas freezing over around UK
coasts.

**I'm old enough to remember that those silly ice age articles were
published in magazines like People, Newsweek and other populist crap.
Science, Nature and Scientific American stuck to the facts. Those
facts, of course, were concerned with the very serious problem of
CO2 being a major influence in global warming.


Except that *water vapor* is the major "greenhouse" gas.

**Points:

* Water vapour is certainly _the_ major GHG.
* I wrote: CO2 is _a_ major GHG. Note the emphasis.
* Water vapour persists for barely hours in the atmosphere.
* CO2 persists for hundreds of years in the atmosphere.
* CO2 is the second most significant GHG, accounting for between 9% ~ 26% of
Solar forcing.
* There is not much we can do about water vapour.
* There is much that can be done to reduce CO2 emissions.


To get their dire predictions the climastrologists assume that rising
CO2 will cause a positive feedback effect with water vapor.

**It's CLIMATOLOGISTS, moron. Learn to spell it correctly. Learn a little
about the climate of this planet whilst you are at it. And yes, More CO2 may
well lead to most water vapour, thus exacerbating the effect.


As for Scientific American, read their latest editorial on GW. It
sounds like the ravings of a left-wing loony conspiracy theorist.

**Except that Scientific American is concerned with, well, science.
Something you clearly have no knowledge of.


BTW, any one ever heard of the University of East Anglia *before* the
emails were leaked? Take a look at the money they've been pulling
in for their climate research.

**So? Are you attempting to link ONE instance where researchers ****ed up,
with the thousands of researchers who have not?


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Trevor Wilson wrote:

Jerry Peters wrote:

Trevor Wilson wrote:

N_Cook wrote:

Arfa Daily wrote in message
...

"Franc Zabkar" wrote in message
om...

I plan to reduce my own CO2 emissions by not talking about them.

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

I wouldn't worry about it Franc. Judging by the stuff I'm reading
at the moment about the 'massaged' data coming out of the
University of East Anglia, it's not going to have any genuine
effect anyway ... :-)

Arfa




I'm old enough to remember all the scare stories in the press about
the impending ice age coming, after the seas freezing over around UK
coasts.

**I'm old enough to remember that those silly ice age articles were
published in magazines like People, Newsweek and other populist crap.
Science, Nature and Scientific American stuck to the facts. Those
facts, of course, were concerned with the very serious problem of
CO2 being a major influence in global warming.



Except that *water vapor* is the major "greenhouse" gas.


**Points:

* Water vapour is certainly _the_ major GHG.
* I wrote: CO2 is _a_ major GHG. Note the emphasis.
* Water vapour persists for barely hours in the atmosphere.
* CO2 persists for hundreds of years in the atmosphere.
* CO2 is the second most significant GHG, accounting for between 9% ~ 26% of
Solar forcing.
* There is not much we can do about water vapour.
* There is much that can be done to reduce CO2 emissions.


To get their dire predictions the climastrologists assume that rising
CO2 will cause a positive feedback effect with water vapor.


**It's CLIMATOLOGISTS, moron. Learn to spell it correctly. Learn a little
about the climate of this planet whilst you are at it. And yes, More CO2 may
well lead to most water vapour, thus exacerbating the effect.


As for Scientific American, read their latest editorial on GW. It
sounds like the ravings of a left-wing loony conspiracy theorist.


**Except that Scientific American is concerned with, well, science.
Something you clearly have no knowledge of.


BTW, any one ever heard of the University of East Anglia *before* the
emails were leaked? Take a look at the money they've been pulling
in for their climate research.


**So? Are you attempting to link ONE instance where researchers ****ed up,
with the thousands of researchers who have not?


I wasn't aware there was a difference?

The old saying goes.

"Birds of a feather flock together"

Jamie wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:

Jerry Peters wrote:

Trevor Wilson wrote:

N_Cook wrote:

Arfa Daily wrote in message
...

"Franc Zabkar" wrote in message
...

I plan to reduce my own CO2 emissions by not talking about them.

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

I wouldn't worry about it Franc. Judging by the stuff I'm reading
at the moment about the 'massaged' data coming out of the
University of East Anglia, it's not going to have any genuine
effect anyway ... :-)

Arfa




I'm old enough to remember all the scare stories in the press
about the impending ice age coming, after the seas freezing over
around UK coasts.

**I'm old enough to remember that those silly ice age articles were
published in magazines like People, Newsweek and other populist
crap. Science, Nature and Scientific American stuck to the facts.
Those facts, of course, were concerned with the very serious
problem of CO2 being a major influence in global warming.



Except that *water vapor* is the major "greenhouse" gas.


**Points:

* Water vapour is certainly _the_ major GHG.
* I wrote: CO2 is _a_ major GHG. Note the emphasis.
* Water vapour persists for barely hours in the atmosphere.
* CO2 persists for hundreds of years in the atmosphere.
* CO2 is the second most significant GHG, accounting for between 9%
~ 26% of Solar forcing.
* There is not much we can do about water vapour.
* There is much that can be done to reduce CO2 emissions.


To get their dire predictions the climastrologists assume that
rising CO2 will cause a positive feedback effect with water vapor.


**It's CLIMATOLOGISTS, moron. Learn to spell it correctly. Learn a
little about the climate of this planet whilst you are at it. And
yes, More CO2 may well lead to most water vapour, thus exacerbating
the effect.
As for Scientific American, read their latest editorial on GW. It
sounds like the ravings of a left-wing loony conspiracy theorist.


**Except that Scientific American is concerned with, well, science.
Something you clearly have no knowledge of.


BTW, any one ever heard of the University of East Anglia *before*
the emails were leaked? Take a look at the money they've been
pulling in for their climate research.


**So? Are you attempting to link ONE instance where researchers
****ed up, with the thousands of researchers who have not?


I wasn't aware there was a difference?

The old saying goes.

"Birds of a feather flock together"

**So, by your peculiar logic, because George W Bush was deranged, lying
scumbag, religious nutter, we can assume that all US Presidents are
similarly afflicted and, by extension, every US citizen is the same? Is that
your contention?


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Jerry Peters wrote:
Charlie wrote:

"Jeff Liebermann" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 13:12:53 -0800 (PST), "."
wrote:
As you know global warming is endangering the future of life on the
planet.

Assumption, the mother of all screwups. When it's warmer than
usual, it's global warming. When it's wetter than usual, it's
global warming. When there's a drought, it's global warming. When
sunspots fail to appear, it's global warming. When there's an
unscheduled political change, or the stock market dives, it's
global warming. Anything even slightly off normal, it's global
warming. Somehow, I'm more than a little suspicious.

Of course the sources of information are also suspect. The same
people that can't predict if it's going to rain tomorrow, are now
asking us to believe their weather forecast for 100 years from now.
Global computer weather models that predict the future, can't seem
to do as well predicting known events (Maunder Minimum and medieval
warming period) in the past.

In the 1950's, one of the suggestions for preventing global nuclear
self-destruction was to unite the world against a single threat.
Contrived invaders from Mars or other outside influence was the most
common suggestion. Science fiction was written around this theme.
Well, they were close. We now have something we can all fight
together, even if it might be faked or contrived. Maybe spending
money on fighting global warming can save the economy. Once we fix
global warming, we can get together and fight the oncoming ice age.

Do a Google search for Bolivia and glaciers.
I would like to read your rationale as to what is causing this
phenomenon of fast glacier melting.
It must be caused by something other than your hot air.


Ooh a GW True Believer. Have you properly genuflected to Al Gore yet
today?

It's been both cooler & warmer in the historical record. There were
dairy farms in Greenland in Viking times. Some of them are still
buried by ice, BTW

One of the "tricks" used by AGW True Believers is to eliminate the
Medieval Warm Period so that the current warming looks extreme.

**********. That there was localised warming in parts of the Northern
hemisphere is not denied by anyone. Localised warming does not equal GLOBAL
WARMING.


Then there's the alleged accuracy of their temperature measurements,
less that 1 degree from 100 year old data & tree rings, give me a
break!

**Give you a break? Not likely. Lying about the facts, does not alter the
truth. Proxy measurements of considerably higher accuracy have been in use
for decades.


I live in Pennsylvania. Where I'm currently sitting there were once
ice sheets, they melted, it's what happens when the earth ends a cold
period and starts to defrost, get over it.

**Good for you. Sadly, those of us with more than a grade school education
in science understand that CO2 is a significant driver of climate on this
planet. We are also aware that a 30% increase in CO2 levels is largely
responsible for the warming we are presently experiencing. Of course, if you
have your own theory to present, then do so. Make certain it is
peer-reviewed though. The science behind CO2 influenced global warming has
been peer-reviewed. You should offer nothing less.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Jeff Liebermann wrote in
:

On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 13:12:53 -0800 (PST), "."
wrote:
As you know global warming is endangering the future of life on the
planet.

Assumption, the mother of all screwups. When it's warmer than usual,
it's global warming. When it's wetter than usual, it's global
warming. When there's a drought, it's global warming. When sunspots
fail to appear, it's global warming. When there's an unscheduled
political change, or the stock market dives, it's global warming.
Anything even slightly off normal, it's global warming. Somehow, I'm
more than a little suspicious.

Of course the sources of information are also suspect. The same
people that can't predict if it's going to rain tomorrow, are now
asking us to believe their weather forecast for 100 years from now.
Global computer weather models that predict the future, can't seem to
do as well predicting known events (Maunder Minimum and medieval
warming period) in the past.

In the 1950's, one of the suggestions for preventing global nuclear
self-destruction was to unite the world against a single threat.
Contrived invaders from Mars or other outside influence was the most
common suggestion. Science fiction was written around this theme.
Well, they were close. We now have something we can all fight
together, even if it might be faked or contrived. Maybe spending
money on fighting global warming can save the economy. Once we fix
global warming, we can get together and fight the oncoming ice age.



AGW is merely the latest mechanism for Marxists to seize control.
and all the fools are buying into it.

remember how the Green Party in Germany was infested with communist
agents,and was anti-nuke.
Now,Western Marxists have leapt upon AGW as the means to gain power.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

Trevor Wilson wrote:

Jamie wrote:

Trevor Wilson wrote:


Jerry Peters wrote:


Trevor Wilson wrote:


N_Cook wrote:


Arfa Daily wrote in message
...


"Franc Zabkar" wrote in message
news:sfgbi51etn9223c56m1tegedksnc5r2b8f@4ax .com...


I plan to reduce my own CO2 emissions by not talking about them.

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

I wouldn't worry about it Franc. Judging by the stuff I'm reading
at the moment about the 'massaged' data coming out of the
University of East Anglia, it's not going to have any genuine
effect anyway ... :-)

Arfa




I'm old enough to remember all the scare stories in the press
about the impending ice age coming, after the seas freezing over
around UK coasts.

**I'm old enough to remember that those silly ice age articles were
published in magazines like People, Newsweek and other populist
crap. Science, Nature and Scientific American stuck to the facts.
Those facts, of course, were concerned with the very serious
problem of CO2 being a major influence in global warming.



Except that *water vapor* is the major "greenhouse" gas.


**Points:

* Water vapour is certainly _the_ major GHG.
* I wrote: CO2 is _a_ major GHG. Note the emphasis.
* Water vapour persists for barely hours in the atmosphere.
* CO2 persists for hundreds of years in the atmosphere.
* CO2 is the second most significant GHG, accounting for between 9%
~ 26% of Solar forcing.
* There is not much we can do about water vapour.
* There is much that can be done to reduce CO2 emissions.



To get their dire predictions the climastrologists assume that
rising CO2 will cause a positive feedback effect with water vapor.


**It's CLIMATOLOGISTS, moron. Learn to spell it correctly. Learn a
little about the climate of this planet whilst you are at it. And
yes, More CO2 may well lead to most water vapour, thus exacerbating
the effect.

As for Scientific American, read their latest editorial on GW. It
sounds like the ravings of a left-wing loony conspiracy theorist.


**Except that Scientific American is concerned with, well, science.
Something you clearly have no knowledge of.



BTW, any one ever heard of the University of East Anglia *before*
the emails were leaked? Take a look at the money they've been
pulling in for their climate research.


**So? Are you attempting to link ONE instance where researchers
****ed up, with the thousands of researchers who have not?



I wasn't aware there was a difference?

The old saying goes.

"Birds of a feather flock together"


**So, by your peculiar logic, because George W Bush was deranged, lying
scumbag, religious nutter, we can assume that all US Presidents are
similarly afflicted and, by extension, every US citizen is the same? Is that
your contention?


It seems to be your opinion just like the global warming dilemma.
Where do you base your information from?

As for my opinion, I'll stay neutral. It's obvious the
writing is on the wall.

As for our present leadership, I have no comment other than
I didn't vote for him.

Jamie wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:

Jamie wrote:

Trevor Wilson wrote:


Jerry Peters wrote:


Trevor Wilson wrote:


N_Cook wrote:


Arfa Daily wrote in message
...


"Franc Zabkar" wrote in message
...


I plan to reduce my own CO2 emissions by not talking about
them. - Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

I wouldn't worry about it Franc. Judging by the stuff I'm
reading at the moment about the 'massaged' data coming out of
the University of East Anglia, it's not going to have any
genuine effect anyway ... :-)

Arfa




I'm old enough to remember all the scare stories in the press
about the impending ice age coming, after the seas freezing over
around UK coasts.

**I'm old enough to remember that those silly ice age articles
were published in magazines like People, Newsweek and other
populist crap. Science, Nature and Scientific American stuck to
the facts. Those facts, of course, were concerned with the very
serious problem of CO2 being a major influence in global warming.



Except that *water vapor* is the major "greenhouse" gas.


**Points:

* Water vapour is certainly _the_ major GHG.
* I wrote: CO2 is _a_ major GHG. Note the emphasis.
* Water vapour persists for barely hours in the atmosphere.
* CO2 persists for hundreds of years in the atmosphere.
* CO2 is the second most significant GHG, accounting for between 9%
~ 26% of Solar forcing.
* There is not much we can do about water vapour.
* There is much that can be done to reduce CO2 emissions.



To get their dire predictions the climastrologists assume that
rising CO2 will cause a positive feedback effect with water vapor.


**It's CLIMATOLOGISTS, moron. Learn to spell it correctly. Learn a
little about the climate of this planet whilst you are at it. And
yes, More CO2 may well lead to most water vapour, thus exacerbating
the effect.

As for Scientific American, read their latest editorial on GW. It
sounds like the ravings of a left-wing loony conspiracy theorist.


**Except that Scientific American is concerned with, well, science.
Something you clearly have no knowledge of.



BTW, any one ever heard of the University of East Anglia *before*
the emails were leaked? Take a look at the money they've been
pulling in for their climate research.


**So? Are you attempting to link ONE instance where researchers
****ed up, with the thousands of researchers who have not?



I wasn't aware there was a difference?

The old saying goes.

"Birds of a feather flock together"


**So, by your peculiar logic, because George W Bush was deranged,
lying scumbag, religious nutter, we can assume that all US
Presidents are similarly afflicted and, by extension, every US
citizen is the same? Is that your contention?


It seems to be your opinion just like the global warming dilemma.

**What "global warming dilema"? As for my opinions about Americans, in
general, they are, in the main, not too different from people in my own
nation. There's a large number of complete morons, a small number of
intelligent people and a large number somewhere between the two. The US,
however, is unique in that the majority of voters managed to elect the
dumbest religious nutter they could find. TWICE! That fact does not suggest
that the US voting public has much common-sense.

Where do you base your information from?

**On what? Global warming? Peer reviewed SCIENCE. On the intellect of
Americans? I judge them on the fact that they placed a complete moron in the
Whitehouse. Twice. I'd have had more respect if the ficus had won.


As for my opinion, I'll stay neutral. It's obvious the
writing is on the wall.

**You are clearly not neutral. You just accused all climatologists with the
same brush.


As for our present leadership, I have no comment other than
I didn't vote for him.

**Of course.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

"b" wrote in message
...
On 13 dic, 22:12, "." wrote:
Dear All,
As you know global warming is endangering the future of life on the

I am suspicious of the extent of the threat due to the involvement of
the likes of Al Gore in this issue, and recent press of the email
leaks before copenhagen. Yet we should also be aware there are large
corporate interests who are, I suspect, behind much of the negative
coverage of the climate change issue.

A wholesale rejection of the very real man-made threats to the
environment simply plays into the hands of the corporate elites who
have already wreaked havoc worldwide. Scientists of international
renown, including nobel prizewinners, have drawn conclusions endorsed
by all the leading academies and national instututes of science. I'm
not about to dismiss that kind of endorsement in favour of conspiracy
theories, at least not until I see hard evidence instead of the
corporate sponsored media campaigns against GW.

No matter how much I disagree with the implementation of some of the
enviormnental protection measures, I'm not going to play the game of
the powerful anti-GW corporate lobby just so they can go on getting
rich. if they had their way there'd be no protection or regualtion of
polluters at all, and we'd all be worse off. I disagree with the way
things like lead free solder and lightbulbs have been handled ie.,
legislation made often by ignorant bureaucrats with no scientific
logic but it seems that these things so far have served to tire many
people of the whole GW thing to distract us from the real issues - the
economic geopolitical power structure which at present, serves only
the interests of its own.

We are but pawns until we start using evidence properly. let's base
our positions on science not propaganda, one way or the other.

Nobody, or at least very few bodies, actually deny that climate change is
taking place. What is now being questioned a little more, and indeed
*should* be questioned a *lot* more, is how much of this change is actually
being caused by the activities of man. Many ill-informed people seem to
believe that the planet's climate is a fixed thing, and that any changes,
particularly those which seem to happen quickly enough to be noticeable in a
person's lifetime, can't be due to any natural causes. It is these
misconceptions that the global warming voodoomeisters play on, to whip up
the pseudo religious hysteria that we are now seeing on the subject.

In a poll carried out here in the UK this last week, more than half of the
people polled, now believe that the jury is still out on the "man-made" bit
of the global warming debate. For me, this is at least a step in the right
direction, as I seriously believe that the evangelical takeup of the subject
by the 'scientific' community is, in many instances, fuelled by business,
financial gain, and personal glory. I am pleased that the head honcho from
the University of East Anglia (probably a closed-down branch of Sainsbury's
in a former existence) and his American chum have been suspended. In my
humble opinion, both of them should have their arses righteously fired right
out of academia, along with any others involved, and never be allowed to
call themselves "scientists" again. The massaging of data, and the exclusion
of data that doesn't fit the model, is utterly despicable, and totally
inexcusable for anyone purporting to be a reputable scientist, responsible
for advising countries world-wide ...

Arfa

On Dec 14, 5:43*pm, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:
**What "global warming dilema"? As for my opinions about Americans, in
general, they are, in the main, not too different from people in my own
nation. There's a large number of complete morons, a small number of
intelligent people and a large number somewhere between the two. The US,
however, is unique in that the majority of voters managed to elect the
dumbest religious nutter they could find. TWICE! That fact does not suggest
that the US voting public has much common-sense.

*Where do you base your information from?

**On what? Global warming? Peer reviewed SCIENCE. On the intellect of
Americans? I judge them on the fact that they placed a complete moron in the
Whitehouse. Twice. I'd have had more respect if the ficus had won.

Well, we have had deceased candidates, and animation heroes win.

I live in Santa Clara County, California. On our ballots, years ago a
'temporary' tax increase of 1% sales tax was presented and approved to
pay for something. I oppose tax increases of any kind because it has
been shown that taxation stops what is being taxed, and worse, the
money gets wasted. That tax increased passed with the overwhelming
majority of 68-32, yet I NEVER met anyone who supported it. I always
got the response, "Are you crazy? Why would I vote to increase
taxes?" Nor, have ever seen anything pass with that kind of margin!
Almost always anything on our ballots squeaks by at 55-45. So, what's
going on? I don't know, but ever since that experience and having
documented items removed (without record) from our safety deposit box,
I don't trust anything.

You may also remember when our ?? Dept. literally told the UK news
media that "no one is interested in anti-Clinton information" so don't
send it! Uh, I'm intereseted. Because...

It is ONLY with FULL and TRUTHFUL information can a democratic society
function. Whenever that is corrupted, so is the system.

*As for my opinion, I'll stay neutral. It's obvious the
writing is on the wall.

Yes, and the writing said, "You have been weighed, and have been found
wanting." Later B was killed.

Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au

Just noticed, Australian address!

I met your Olympic gold medalist swimmer by the name of Peter Evans
from Perth? Good lad.

Robert

On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 10:25:08 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

**Good for you. Sadly, those of us with more than a grade school education
in science...

The problem is that it doesn't take much to generate almost any
desired result. Three years ago, I jumped in with both feet with a
simple illustration. Based upon the historical data from the local
water district rainfall data, I can conjur a hocky stick in either up
or down direction by simply changing the order of the polynomial
expansion for polynomial trend line. See stuff at:
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/slv-wx/

The graph at:
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/slv-wx/SLV-rainfall-06.jpg
shows both an upward and downward hocky stick. I waved this at the
local water district and offered to endorse either a drought or a
deluge depending on what was expedient. The water board was not happy
with me.

The original Excel spreadsheet is at:
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/slv-wx/SLV-rainfall-forecast-06.xls
Check the graph settings for other interesting effects. One gotcha. I
just noticed that the graphs only work in Microsloth Excel and don't
convert into Open Office Calc. I'll see if I can fix that and save a
version that works in OO Calc.

If you look at the 11 year moving average graph carefully,
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/slv-wx/SLV-rainfall.jpg
you'll see the drop in rainfall during the 1920-1935 drought.

I'm kinda amused at the new credibility that the IPCC has obtain from
organizations and individuals that have never trusted the government
to get any numbers even close to accurate in the past. Yet, when it
comes to climate predictions, the government sponsored and funded
conglomeration of like thinking scientists is beyond question.

To insure accuracy, the current statistical high fashion is to
"combine" all the various historical proxy data sets. The assumption
is that the errors will average out or cancel. Two or more wrongs
don't make a right. It's more like garbage in, and more garbage out.
http://climateaudit.org/2007/11/20/loehle-proxies-2/
More current, predicting continued global cooling using satellite
data:
http://www.ncasi.org/publications/Detail.aspx?id=3230

As for C02 being the ultimate culprit:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142
The overlaps complicate things, but it's clear that water
vapour is the single most important absorber (between 36%
and 66% of the greenhouse effect), and together with clouds
makes up between 66% and 85%. CO2 alone makes up between
9 and 26%, while the O3 and the other minor GHG absorbers
consist of up to 7 and 8% of the effect, respectively.

Ok, back to bookkeeping. I needed the rant and distraction.

--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558
# http://802.11junk.com
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS

**Good for you. Sadly, those of us with more than a grade school education
in science understand that CO2 is a significant driver of climate on this
planet. We are also aware that a 30% increase in CO2 levels is largely
responsible for the warming we are presently experiencing. Of course, if
you have your own theory to present, then do so. Make certain it is
peer-reviewed though. The science behind CO2 influenced global warming has
been peer-reviewed. You should offer nothing less.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



There are also some skeptics with "more than a grade school education in
science" in your country, Trevor. A very interesting article entitled
"Global Warming - Don't Wait up" appeared in a newspaper here in the UK last
week. Written by a chap called Ian Plimer, a professor of geology at the
University of Adelaide.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/ar...t-control.html

And some interesting stuff about 'those emails' and how the hockey stick
graph was produced.
Jeff L. You'll be interested in this one ...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...send-them.html

Arfa

Arfa Daily wrote:
There are also some skeptics with "more than a grade school education in
science" in your country, Trevor. A very interesting article entitled
"Global Warming - Don't Wait up" appeared in a newspaper here in the UK last
week. Written by a chap called Ian Plimer, a professor of geology at the
University of Adelaide.

Arfa, you miss the point. Ever since it started, you have not needed more
than a grade school education in business to understand that if you support
global warming, people will give you money.

Al Gore's movie started out as "the pitch*", a powerpoint presentation for his
new business selling carbon credits. He was in it for the money and nothing
else.

Geoff.

* All startups have a "pitch". It's what you show potential investors,
hoping that they will buy in without asking too many questions.

--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel N3OWJ/4X1GM
New word I coined 12/13/09, "Sub-Wikipedia" adj, describing knowledge or
understanding, as in he has a sub-wikipedia understanding of the situation.
i.e possessing less facts or information than can be found in the Wikipedia.

"Geoffrey S. Mendelson" wrote in
:

Arfa Daily wrote:
There are also some skeptics with "more than a grade school education
in science" in your country, Trevor. A very interesting article
entitled "Global Warming - Don't Wait up" appeared in a newspaper
here in the UK last week. Written by a chap called Ian Plimer, a
professor of geology at the University of Adelaide.

Arfa, you miss the point. Ever since it started, you have not needed
more than a grade school education in business to understand that if
you support global warming, people will give you money.

Al Gore's movie started out as "the pitch*", a powerpoint presentation
for his new business selling carbon credits. He was in it for the
money and nothing else.

Geoff.

the Marxists are using it to garner power.

"redistribution of wealth",as Obama put it. USSA,here we come.
(United Socialist States of America)

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 09:52:36 -0000, "Arfa Daily"
wrote:

There are also some skeptics with "more than a grade school education in
science" in your country, Trevor. A very interesting article entitled
"Global Warming - Don't Wait up" appeared in a newspaper here in the UK last
week. Written by a chap called Ian Plimer, a professor of geology at the
University of Adelaide.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/ar...t-control.html

Nice. Amazingly sane. The problem is that one can't get any research
funding for expounding the obvious and simple historical logic.

And some interesting stuff about 'those emails' and how the hockey stick
graph was produced.
Jeff L. You'll be interested in this one ...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...send-them.html

Thanks. I've been following the story of the Harry Read Me file and
cooked data for a while.
http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/HARRY_READ_ME.txt
It gets weirder by the day.

I kinda like this article:
http://www.floppingaces.net/2009/11/30/climategates-harry-read-me-file-is-a-must-read/
for the quotes, and photo of the IPCC chairman, Rajendra Pachauri.
He's definitely been working too hard. Anyway, I've been in
situations where I had to "adjust" data to conform to a pre-ordained
conclusion. It's amazingly easy (see my example with the rainfall
data). However, it's not a pleasant place to be in.

I've also watched committees of "concerned scientists" and "industry
leaders" investigate some hot topic or pound out some obscure
standard. It is impossible to get them to agree on anything. Many
will take and vigorously defend a minority or obscure point of view
simply to get attention. It seems that research and academia are all
about getting funded, getting attention, accumulating power, and the
traditional publish or perish. One doesn't get those by agreeing with
the majority, accepting the obvious, or conforming to convention. One
gets acclaim by promoting the obscure, the weird, the odd, and the
strange, which is what gets all the attention. The 2007 IPCC report
had over 450 lead authors, with input from more than 800 contributing
authors, and an additional 2,500 experts to review the draft
documents, which makes me wonder why there is suddenly a consensus.
Either the danger is so obvious, no universal, and so desperate, that
anyone can see the obvious (in which case we wouldn't need the IPCC)
or something in the makeup and function of scientific committees has
change drastically overnight.

My guess(tm) is simple. If you do research that demonstrates global
warming is real, you get funded. If you demonstrate that it's not
real, no funding.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 15:56:50 -0500, "Charlie"
wrote:

With all due respect, you've blown it badly. See below.

Do a Google search for Bolivia and glaciers.

Why? Is it too difficult for you to supply a suitable URL and comment
on why it is important? Are you assuming that your point is so
obvious that it doesn't require anything more than a general
reference? It's much like the old RTFM (read the f*****g manual)
comment, that offers no information, nothing helpful, and of course
offers no way to find the manual.

I would like to read your rationale as to what is causing this phenomenon of
fast glacier melting.

I would receive a Nobel Prize if I could explain that. As we're
discovering, the planets climate is anything but simple. It could be
solar output
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation
atmospheric insulation, changes in oceanic currents, or something we
haven't even discovered. Whatever is causing the melting, my guess is
that it's not a single cause, and humans are probably only one part of
the complex puzzle. We've had fairly recent periods that were
considerably warmer, where the rise in CO2 levels followed the
increase in temperature, not preceded it. Perhaps you're mixing cause
and effect?

It must be caused by something other than your hot air.

Much as I value your opinion, substantiation is always more
interesting reading.


--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Jeff Liebermann wrote:

Why? Is it too difficult for you to supply a suitable URL and comment
on why it is important? Are you assuming that your point is so
obvious that it doesn't require anything more than a general
reference? It's much like the old RTFM (read the f*****g manual)
comment, that offers no information, nothing helpful, and of course
offers no way to find the manual.

Sometimes it's worth it. Do a search on "sea level rise 5000 years" (without
the quotes) and read the short descriptions of the first page of hits.

You get everything from rates of rise, reasons why it has not risen,
explanations of how it has risen, every possible combination of result
and explanation.

It's really funny.

Geoff.

--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel N3OWJ/4X1GM
New word I coined 12/13/09, "Sub-Wikipedia" adj, describing knowledge or
understanding, as in he has a sub-wikipedia understanding of the situation.
i.e possessing less facts or information than can be found in the Wikipedia.

"Geoffrey S. Mendelson" wrote in message
...
Arfa Daily wrote:
There are also some skeptics with "more than a grade school education in
science" in your country, Trevor. A very interesting article entitled
"Global Warming - Don't Wait up" appeared in a newspaper here in the UK
last
week. Written by a chap called Ian Plimer, a professor of geology at the
University of Adelaide.

Arfa, you miss the point. Ever since it started, you have not needed more
than a grade school education in business to understand that if you
support
global warming, people will give you money.

Al Gore's movie started out as "the pitch*", a powerpoint presentation for
his
new business selling carbon credits. He was in it for the money and
nothing
else.

Geoff.

* All startups have a "pitch". It's what you show potential investors,
hoping that they will buy in without asking too many questions.

--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel N3OWJ/4X1GM
New word I coined 12/13/09, "Sub-Wikipedia" adj, describing knowledge or
understanding, as in he has a sub-wikipedia understanding of the
situation.
i.e possessing less facts or information than can be found in the
Wikipedia.

I don't think I am missing any point, Geoff. You state the obvious, and I
find no fault with that. I was replying specifically to a rather different
point raised by Trevor, where he was implying that anyone with better than a
grade school education, had to be a MMGW believer, and that only
sub-educated people could possibly form any other opinion based on the data
that is put up as a given by the CC evangelists. I was merely pointing out
that one of his own countrymen, who is clearly a well educated and well
balanced scientist, was an advocate of taking a more rational view of the
'facts' with which we are being constantly bombarded ...

Arfa

Arfa Daily wrote:

I don't think I am missing any point, Geoff. You state the obvious, and I
find no fault with that. I was replying specifically to a rather different
point raised by Trevor, where he was implying that anyone with better than a
grade school education, had to be a MMGW believer, and that only
sub-educated people could possibly form any other opinion based on the data
that is put up as a given by the CC evangelists. I was merely pointing out
that one of his own countrymen, who is clearly a well educated and well
balanced scientist, was an advocate of taking a more rational view of the
'facts' with which we are being constantly bombarded ...

Sorry, I was being sarcastic. Forgot the smiley.

Geoff.


--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel N3OWJ/4X1GM
New word I coined 12/13/09, "Sub-Wikipedia" adj, describing knowledge or
understanding, as in he has a sub-wikipedia understanding of the situation.
i.e possessing less facts or information than can be found in the Wikipedia.

Arfa Daily wrote:
**Good for you. Sadly, those of us with more than a grade school
education in science understand that CO2 is a significant driver of
climate on this planet. We are also aware that a 30% increase in CO2
levels is largely responsible for the warming we are presently
experiencing. Of course, if you have your own theory to present,
then do so. Make certain it is peer-reviewed though. The science
behind CO2 influenced global warming has been peer-reviewed. You
should offer nothing less. --
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



There are also some skeptics with "more than a grade school education
in science" in your country, Trevor. A very interesting article
entitled "Global Warming - Don't Wait up" appeared in a newspaper
here in the UK last week. Written by a chap called Ian Plimer, a
professor of geology at the University of Adelaide.

**Plimer is a liar and has been in the employ of the fossil fuel industry
(he is a GEOLOGIST, not a climatologist) for decades. Plimer ignores the
science and promulgates a lie that others have done. This lie has been
exposed and Plimer's reputation is now in tatters. Sad, really, because he
is an excellent geologist.His claim is that temperature rises ALWAYS lead
CO2 level rises by 800 years. This claim is pitifully simple to refute, by
examining the proxy data.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 09:52:36 -0000, "Arfa Daily"
wrote:

There are also some skeptics with "more than a grade school
education in science" in your country, Trevor. A very interesting
article entitled "Global Warming - Don't Wait up" appeared in a
newspaper here in the UK last week. Written by a chap called Ian
Plimer, a professor of geology at the University of Adelaide.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/ar...t-control.html

Nice. Amazingly sane. The problem is that one can't get any research
funding for expounding the obvious and simple historical logic.

**********. Plimer is making a fortune from his fictional account. The
fossil fuel industry is very wealthy and pays people to lie. Here is the
example of just how wealthy it is:

http://money.cnn.com/2008/02/01/news...xxon_earnings/


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 06:45:50 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

**Plimer is a liar and has been in the employ of the fossil fuel industry
(he is a GEOLOGIST, not a climatologist)

The head of the IPCC is an industrial and electrical engineer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajendra_K._Pachauri
Out of 2500 members of the IPCC, about 100 are computer scientists,
and another 100 are mathematicians. There are a substantial number of
chemists, geologists, and other diciplines. Many have changed their
titles to something like "environmental physical chemist" or "physical
climatologist".

As for Ian Plimer being a liar, you might want to reflect on the
recent data massage and original data distruction from UEA.

for decades. Plimer ignores the
science and promulgates a lie that others have done. This lie has been
exposed and Plimer's reputation is now in tatters. Sad, really, because he
is an excellent geologist.His claim is that temperature rises ALWAYS lead
CO2 level rises by 800 years. This claim is pitifully simple to refute, by
examining the proxy data.

Which proxy data? Dome C ice core?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/11/650000-years-of-greenhouse-gas-concentrations/
On a scale of almost a million years, 800 years looks very tiny. I
couldn't say it was one way or the other.

Also see sample proxy temp data graphs at:
http://climateaudit.org/2007/11/20/loehle-proxies-2/
I've looked at some of the proxy data and found that I can generate
almost any conclusion I want if I simply cherry pick the data that
fits my conclusion. By conglomerating, rescaling, and "adjusting"
combinations of the data, I can do it even easier.

Here's a sample rebuttle:
"The lag between temperature and CO2. (Gore’s got it right.)"
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2/
Despite the title and ending line in most paragraphs claiming that C02
rise precedes temperature rise, the evidence he presents doesn't seem
to match the conclusions and seems (in my opinion) a rather poor job
of squirming around the evidence. Several paragraphs start with
something like "well the data says that CO2 leads temperature rise,
but that's not true because of....". Of course, all anyone is going
to remember is the title and conclusion, so I guess it doesn't really
matter. Everyone lies, but that's ok because nobody listens.



--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Trevor Wilson wrote:
Jerry Peters wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:
N_Cook wrote:
Arfa Daily wrote in message
...

"Franc Zabkar" wrote in message
...
I plan to reduce my own CO2 emissions by not talking about them.

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

I wouldn't worry about it Franc. Judging by the stuff I'm reading
at the moment about the 'massaged' data coming out of the
University of East Anglia, it's not going to have any genuine
effect anyway ... :-)

Arfa




I'm old enough to remember all the scare stories in the press about
the impending ice age coming, after the seas freezing over around UK
coasts.

**I'm old enough to remember that those silly ice age articles were
published in magazines like People, Newsweek and other populist crap.
Science, Nature and Scientific American stuck to the facts. Those
facts, of course, were concerned with the very serious problem of
CO2 being a major influence in global warming.


Except that *water vapor* is the major "greenhouse" gas.

**Points:

* Water vapour is certainly _the_ major GHG.
* I wrote: CO2 is _a_ major GHG. Note the emphasis.
* Water vapour persists for barely hours in the atmosphere.
* CO2 persists for hundreds of years in the atmosphere.
* CO2 is the second most significant GHG, accounting for between 9% ~ 26% of
Solar forcing.
* There is not much we can do about water vapour.
* There is much that can be done to reduce CO2 emissions.

Wow 9% to 26%, and these are the people who supposedly can tell me the
temperature to a fraction of a degree for say 1500AD.

Did you ever study thermodynamics? There's only a certain amount of
energy available for CO2 to absorb, once that amount is absorbed,
there isn't any additional "forcing". Something normally omitted from
the popular press articles.

Of course there's not much you can do about water vapor, why do you
think they've focussed on CO2. Even the most idiotic enviro-nut
realizes that they'd be laughed into oblivion by proposing to regulate
water vapor.

As for reducing CO2 emmisions, you're dreaming. Not without going back
to a much more primitive lifestyle.


To get their dire predictions the climastrologists assume that rising
CO2 will cause a positive feedback effect with water vapor.

**It's CLIMATOLOGISTS, moron. Learn to spell it correctly. Learn a little
about the climate of this planet whilst you are at it. And yes, More CO2 may
well lead to most water vapour, thus exacerbating the effect.

No, I prefer climastrologists, it's a much better description of their
scientific abilities. More water vapor may also lead to more clouds
which tend to relect the sun's energy before it's absorbed. The point
is, we don't know, an the scientists who should be researching these
things have turned into advocates for one single point of view.



As for Scientific American, read their latest editorial on GW. It
sounds like the ravings of a left-wing loony conspiracy theorist.

**Except that Scientific American is concerned with, well, science.
Something you clearly have no knowledge of.

Did you read the editorial? It's a vast morass of conspiracy theories.
SA hasn't been about science for at least a decade, it's now about
being politically correct more than about science.



BTW, any one ever heard of the University of East Anglia *before* the
emails were leaked? Take a look at the money they've been pulling
in for their climate research.

**So? Are you attempting to link ONE instance where researchers ****ed up,
with the thousands of researchers who have not?

One instance? Only one instance. My my, you are gullible. Why do you
think the climastrologists don't want to release any of their data and
methodology? Perhaps because most of it is just plain crap?

Jerry

Trevor Wilson wrote:
Jamie wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:

Jamie wrote:

Trevor Wilson wrote:


Jerry Peters wrote:


Trevor Wilson wrote:


N_Cook wrote:


Arfa Daily wrote in message
...


"Franc Zabkar" wrote in message
...


I plan to reduce my own CO2 emissions by not talking about
them. - Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

I wouldn't worry about it Franc. Judging by the stuff I'm
reading at the moment about the 'massaged' data coming out of
the University of East Anglia, it's not going to have any
genuine effect anyway ... :-)

Arfa




I'm old enough to remember all the scare stories in the press
about the impending ice age coming, after the seas freezing over
around UK coasts.

**I'm old enough to remember that those silly ice age articles
were published in magazines like People, Newsweek and other
populist crap. Science, Nature and Scientific American stuck to
the facts. Those facts, of course, were concerned with the very
serious problem of CO2 being a major influence in global warming.



Except that *water vapor* is the major "greenhouse" gas.


**Points:

* Water vapour is certainly _the_ major GHG.
* I wrote: CO2 is _a_ major GHG. Note the emphasis.
* Water vapour persists for barely hours in the atmosphere.
* CO2 persists for hundreds of years in the atmosphere.
* CO2 is the second most significant GHG, accounting for between 9%
~ 26% of Solar forcing.
* There is not much we can do about water vapour.
* There is much that can be done to reduce CO2 emissions.



To get their dire predictions the climastrologists assume that
rising CO2 will cause a positive feedback effect with water vapor.


**It's CLIMATOLOGISTS, moron. Learn to spell it correctly. Learn a
little about the climate of this planet whilst you are at it. And
yes, More CO2 may well lead to most water vapour, thus exacerbating
the effect.

As for Scientific American, read their latest editorial on GW. It
sounds like the ravings of a left-wing loony conspiracy theorist.


**Except that Scientific American is concerned with, well, science.
Something you clearly have no knowledge of.



BTW, any one ever heard of the University of East Anglia *before*
the emails were leaked? Take a look at the money they've been
pulling in for their climate research.


**So? Are you attempting to link ONE instance where researchers
****ed up, with the thousands of researchers who have not?



I wasn't aware there was a difference?

The old saying goes.

"Birds of a feather flock together"


**So, by your peculiar logic, because George W Bush was deranged,
lying scumbag, religious nutter, we can assume that all US
Presidents are similarly afflicted and, by extension, every US
citizen is the same? Is that your contention?


It seems to be your opinion just like the global warming dilemma.

**What "global warming dilema"? As for my opinions about Americans, in
general, they are, in the main, not too different from people in my own
nation. There's a large number of complete morons, a small number of
intelligent people and a large number somewhere between the two. The US,
however, is unique in that the majority of voters managed to elect the
dumbest religious nutter they could find. TWICE! That fact does not suggest
that the US voting public has much common-sense.

Actually GWB's grades in college were about the same as Kerry's. And I
wouldn't call Bush a "religious nutter", that's betraying *your*
biases. The US tends to be more religious than Europe. Speaking of
religious nutters, BTW, how's that large Muslim population working out
for you?


Where do you base your information from?

**On what? Global warming? Peer reviewed SCIENCE. On the intellect of
Americans? I judge them on the fact that they placed a complete moron in the
Whitehouse. Twice. I'd have had more respect if the ficus had won.

Did you actually *read* some of the CRU emails. The ones where they
were discussing how to subvert peer review perhaps?
Real scientists would release their data and their methods for review
by others. They don't, other emails discussed how to circumvent FOI
requests. It appears that their "science* cannot stand up to review,
by anyone except the "in crowd".


As for my opinion, I'll stay neutral. It's obvious the
writing is on the wall.

**You are clearly not neutral. You just accused all climatologists with the
same brush.


As for our present leadership, I have no comment other than
I didn't vote for him.

**Of course.