From The wall Street Journal, 22 April 2010, page A23.


By RICHARD S. LINDZEN

In mid-November of 2009 there appeared a file on the Internet containing
thousands of emails and other documents from the Climatic Research Unit at the
University of East Anglia in Great Britain. How this file got into the public
domain is still uncertain, but the emails, whose authenticity is no longer in
question, provided a view into the world of climate research that was revealing
and even startling.

In what has come to be known as "climategate," one could see unambiguous
evidence of the unethical suppression of information and opposing viewpoints,
and even data manipulation. The Climatic Research Unit is hardly an obscure
outpost; it supplies many of the authors for the United Nations'
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Moreover, the emails showed
ample collusion with other prominent researchers in the United States and
elsewhere.

One might have thought the revelations would discredit the allegedly settled
science underlying currently proposed global warming policy, and, indeed, the
revelations may have played some role in the failure of last December's
Copenhagen climate conference to agree on new carbon emissions limits. But with
the political momentum behind policy proposals and billions in research funding
at stake, the impact of the emails appears to have been small.

[Image]

The general approach of the official scientific community (at least in the
United States and the United Kingdom) has been to see whether people will bother
to look at the files in detail (for the most part they have not), and to wait
until time diffuses the initial impressions in order to reassert the original
message of a climate catastrophe that must be fought with a huge measure of
carbon control.

This reassertion, however, continues to be suffused by illogic, nastiness and
outright dishonesty. There were, of course, the inevitable investigations of
individuals like Penn State University's Michael Mann (who manipulated data to
create the famous "hockey stick" climate graph) and Phil Jones (director of the
CRU). The investigations were brief, thoroughly lacking in depth, and conducted,
for the most part, by individuals already publicly committed to the popular view
of climate alarm. The results were whitewashes that are quite incredible given
the actual data.

In addition, numerous professional societies, including the American Society of
Agronomy, the American Society of Plant Biologists and the Natural Science
Collections Alliance, most of which have no expertise whatever in climate,
endorse essentially the following opinion: That the climate is warming, the
warming is due to man's emissions of carbon dioxide, and continued emissions
will lead to catastrophe.

We may reasonably wonder why they feel compelled to endorse this view. The
IPCC's position in its Summary for Policymakers from their Fourth Assessment
(2007) is weaker, and simply points out that most warming of the past 50 years
or so is due to man's emissions. It is sometimes claimed that the IPCC is 90%
confident of this claim, but there is no known statistical basis for this
claim‹it's purely subjective. The IPCC also claims that observations of globally
averaged temperature anomaly are also consistent with computer model predictions
of warming.

There are, however, some things left unmentioned about the IPCC claims. For
example, the observations are consistent with models only if emissions include
arbitrary amounts of reflecting aerosols particles (arising, for example, from
industrial sulfates) which are used to cancel much of the warming predicted by
the models. The observations themselves, without such adjustments, are
consistent with there being sufficiently little warming as to not constitute a
problem worth worrying very much about.

In addition, the IPCC assumed that computer models accurately included any
alternative sources of warming‹most notably, the natural, unforced variability
associated with phenomena like El Nino, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, etc.
Yet the relative absence of statistically significant warming for over a decade
shows clearly that this assumption was wrong. Of course, none of this matters
any longer to those replacing reason with assertions of authority.

Consider a letter of April 9 to the Financial Times by the presidents of the
U.S. National Academy of Science and the Royal Society (Ralph Cicerone and
Martin Rees, respectively). It acknowledges that climategate has contributed to
a reduced concern among the public, as has unusually cold weather. But Messrs.
Cicerone and Rees insist that nothing has happened to alter the rather extreme
statement that climate is changing and it is due to human action. They then
throw in a very peculiar statement (referring to warming), almost in passing:
"Uncertainties in the future rate of this rise, stemming largely from the
'feedback' effects on water vapour and clouds, are topics of current research."

Who would guess, from this statement, that the feedback effects are the crucial
question? Without these positive feedbacks assumed by computer modelers, there
would be no significant problem, and the various catastrophes that depend on
numerous factors would no longer be related to anthropogenic global warming.

That is to say, the issue relevant to policy is far from settled. Nonetheless,
the letter concludes: "Our academies will provide the scientific backdrop for
the political and business leaders who must create effective policies to steer
the world toward a low-carbon economy." In other words, the answer is settled
even if the science is not.

In France, several distinguished scientists have recently published books
criticizing the alarmist focus on carbon emissions. The gist of all the books
was the scientific standards for establishing the alarmist concern were low, and
the language, in some instances, was intemperate. In response, a letter signed
by 489 French climate scientists was addressed to "the highest French scientific
bodies: the Ministry of Research, National Center for Scientific Research, and
Academy of Sciences" appealing to them to defend climate science against the
attacks. There appeared to be no recognition that calling on the funding
agencies to take sides in a scientific argument is hardly conducive to free
exchange.

The controversy was, and continues to be, covered extensively by the French
press. In many respects, the French situation is better than in the U.S.,
insofar as the "highest scientific bodies" have not officially taken public
stances‹yet.

Despite all this, it does appear that the public at large is becoming
increasingly aware that something other than science is going on with regard to
climate change, and that the proposed policies are likely to cause severe
problems for the world economy. Climategate may thus have had an effect after
all.

But it is unwise to assume that those who have carved out agendas to exploit the
issue will simply let go without a battle. One can only hope that the climate
alarmists will lose so that we can go back to dealing with real science and real
environmental problems such as assuring clean air and water. The latter should
be an appropriate goal for Earth Day.

Mr. Lindzen is professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology.

On Apr 22, 10:17Â*am, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
From The wall Street Journal, 22 April 2010, page A23.

By RICHARD S. LINDZEN

In mid-November of 2009 there appeared a file on the Internet containing
thousands of emails and other documents from the Climatic Research Unit at the
University of East Anglia in Great Britain. How this file got into the public
domain is still uncertain, but the emails, whose authenticity is no longer in
question, provided a view into the world of climate research that was revealing
and even startling.

In what has come to be known as "climategate," one could see unambiguous
evidence of the unethical suppression of information and opposing viewpoints,
and even data manipulation. The Climatic Research Unit is hardly an obscure
outpost; it supplies many of the authors for the United Nations'
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Moreover, the emails showed
ample collusion with other prominent researchers in the United States and
elsewhere.

One might have thought the revelations would discredit the allegedly settled
science underlying currently proposed global warming policy, and, indeed, the
revelations may have played some role in the failure of last December's
Copenhagen climate conference to agree on new carbon emissions limits. But with
the political momentum behind policy proposals and billions in research funding
at stake, the impact of the emails appears to have been small.

[Image]

The general approach of the official scientific community (at least in the
United States and the United Kingdom) has been to see whether people will bother
to look at the files in detail (for the most part they have not), and to wait
until time diffuses the initial impressions in order to reassert the original
message of a climate catastrophe that must be fought with a huge measure of
carbon control.

This reassertion, however, continues to be suffused by illogic, nastiness and
outright dishonesty. There were, of course, the inevitable investigations of
individuals like Penn State University's Michael Mann (who manipulated data to
create the famous "hockey stick" climate graph) and Phil Jones (director of the
CRU). The investigations were brief, thoroughly lacking in depth, and conducted,
for the most part, by individuals already publicly committed to the popular view
of climate alarm. The results were whitewashes that are quite incredible given
the actual data.

In addition, numerous professional societies, including the American Society of
Agronomy, the American Society of Plant Biologists and the Natural Science
Collections Alliance, most of which have no expertise whatever in climate,
endorse essentially the following opinion: That the climate is warming, the
warming is due to man's emissions of carbon dioxide, and continued emissions
will lead to catastrophe.

We may reasonably wonder why they feel compelled to endorse this view. The
IPCC's position in its Summary for Policymakers from their Fourth Assessment
(2007) is weaker, and simply points out that most warming of the past 50 years
or so is due to man's emissions. It is sometimes claimed that the IPCC is 90%
confident of this claim, but there is no known statistical basis for this
claim€¹it's purely subjective. The IPCC also claims that observations of globally
averaged temperature anomaly are also consistent with computer model predictions
of warming.

There are, however, some things left unmentioned about the IPCC claims. For
example, the observations are consistent with models only if emissions include
arbitrary amounts of reflecting aerosols particles (arising, for example, from
industrial sulfates) which are used to cancel much of the warming predicted by
the models. The observations themselves, without such adjustments, are
consistent with there being sufficiently little warming as to not constitute a
problem worth worrying very much about.

In addition, the IPCC assumed that computer models accurately included any
alternative sources of warming€¹most notably, the natural, unforced variability
associated with phenomena like El Nino, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, etc.
Yet the relative absence of statistically significant warming for over a decade
shows clearly that this assumption was wrong. Of course, none of this matters
any longer to those replacing reason with assertions of authority.

Consider a letter of April 9 to the Financial Times by the presidents of the
U.S. National Academy of Science and the Royal Society (Ralph Cicerone and
Martin Rees, respectively). It acknowledges that climategate has contributed to
a reduced concern among the public, as has unusually cold weather. But Messrs.
Cicerone and Rees insist that nothing has happened to alter the rather extreme
statement that climate is changing and it is due to human action. They then
throw in a very peculiar statement (referring to warming), almost in passing:
"Uncertainties in the future rate of this rise, stemming largely from the
'feedback' effects on water vapour and clouds, are topics of current research."

Who would guess, from this statement, that the feedback effects are the crucial
question? Without these positive feedbacks assumed by computer modelers, there
would be no significant problem, and the various catastrophes that depend on
numerous factors would no longer be related to anthropogenic global warming.

That is to say, the issue relevant to policy is far from settled. Nonetheless,
the letter concludes: "Our academies will provide the scientific backdrop for
the political and business leaders who must create effective policies to steer
the world toward a low-carbon economy." In other words, the answer is settled
even if the science is not.

In France, several distinguished scientists have recently published books
criticizing the alarmist focus on carbon emissions. The gist of all the books
was the scientific standards for establishing the alarmist concern were low, and
the language, in some instances, was intemperate. In response, a letter signed
by 489 French climate scientists was addressed to "the highest French scientific
bodies: the Ministry of Research, National Center for Scientific Research, and
Academy of Sciences" appealing to them to defend climate science against the
attacks. There appeared to be no recognition that calling on the funding
agencies to take sides in a scientific argument is hardly conducive to free
exchange.

The controversy was, and continues to be, covered extensively by the French
press. In many respects, the French situation is better than in the U.S.,
insofar as the "highest scientific bodies" have not officially taken public
stances€¹yet.

Despite all this, it does appear that the public at large is becoming
increasingly aware that something other than science is going on with regard to
climate change, and that the proposed policies are likely to cause severe
problems for the world economy. Climategate may thus have had an effect after
all.

But it is unwise to assume that those who have carved out agendas to exploit the
issue will simply let go without a battle. One can only hope that the climate
alarmists will lose so that we can go back to dealing with real science and real
environmental problems such as assuring clean air and water. The latter should
be an appropriate goal for Earth Day.

Mr. Lindzen is professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology.

Is there good science behind warming as a trend? Absolutely.

Did a bunch of yahoos (some of them complete asshats) go running wild
with some data? Absolutely.

meteorology:climate = tactics:strategy


Dave

On 4/22/2010 7:41 AM, Dave__67 wrote:
On Apr 22, 10:17 am, Joseph wrote:
From The wall Street Journal, 22 April 2010, page A23.

By RICHARD S. LINDZEN

In mid-November of 2009 there appeared a file on the Internet containing
thousands of emails and other documents from the Climatic Research Unit at the
University of East Anglia in Great Britain. How this file got into the public
domain is still uncertain, but the emails, whose authenticity is no longer in
question, provided a view into the world of climate research that was revealing
and even startling.

In what has come to be known as "climategate," one could see unambiguous
evidence of the unethical suppression of information and opposing viewpoints,
and even data manipulation. The Climatic Research Unit is hardly an obscure
outpost; it supplies many of the authors for the United Nations'
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Moreover, the emails showed
ample collusion with other prominent researchers in the United States and
elsewhere.

One might have thought the revelations would discredit the allegedly settled
science underlying currently proposed global warming policy, and, indeed, the
revelations may have played some role in the failure of last December's
Copenhagen climate conference to agree on new carbon emissions limits. But with
the political momentum behind policy proposals and billions in research funding
at stake, the impact of the emails appears to have been small.

[Image]

The general approach of the official scientific community (at least in the
United States and the United Kingdom) has been to see whether people will bother
to look at the files in detail (for the most part they have not), and to wait
until time diffuses the initial impressions in order to reassert the original
message of a climate catastrophe that must be fought with a huge measure of
carbon control.

This reassertion, however, continues to be suffused by illogic, nastiness and
outright dishonesty. There were, of course, the inevitable investigations of
individuals like Penn State University's Michael Mann (who manipulated data to
create the famous "hockey stick" climate graph) and Phil Jones (director of the
CRU). The investigations were brief, thoroughly lacking in depth, and conducted,
for the most part, by individuals already publicly committed to the popular view
of climate alarm. The results were whitewashes that are quite incredible given
the actual data.

In addition, numerous professional societies, including the American Society of
Agronomy, the American Society of Plant Biologists and the Natural Science
Collections Alliance, most of which have no expertise whatever in climate,
endorse essentially the following opinion: That the climate is warming, the
warming is due to man's emissions of carbon dioxide, and continued emissions
will lead to catastrophe.

We may reasonably wonder why they feel compelled to endorse this view. The
IPCC's position in its Summary for Policymakers from their Fourth Assessment
(2007) is weaker, and simply points out that most warming of the past 50 years
or so is due to man's emissions. It is sometimes claimed that the IPCC is 90%
confident of this claim, but there is no known statistical basis for this
claim€¹it's purely subjective. The IPCC also claims that observations of globally
averaged temperature anomaly are also consistent with computer model predictions
of warming.

There are, however, some things left unmentioned about the IPCC claims. For
example, the observations are consistent with models only if emissions include
arbitrary amounts of reflecting aerosols particles (arising, for example, from
industrial sulfates) which are used to cancel much of the warming predicted by
the models. The observations themselves, without such adjustments, are
consistent with there being sufficiently little warming as to not constitute a
problem worth worrying very much about.

In addition, the IPCC assumed that computer models accurately included any
alternative sources of warming€¹most notably, the natural, unforced variability
associated with phenomena like El Nino, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, etc.
Yet the relative absence of statistically significant warming for over a decade
shows clearly that this assumption was wrong. Of course, none of this matters
any longer to those replacing reason with assertions of authority.

Consider a letter of April 9 to the Financial Times by the presidents of the
U.S. National Academy of Science and the Royal Society (Ralph Cicerone and
Martin Rees, respectively). It acknowledges that climategate has contributed to
a reduced concern among the public, as has unusually cold weather. But Messrs.
Cicerone and Rees insist that nothing has happened to alter the rather extreme
statement that climate is changing and it is due to human action. They then
throw in a very peculiar statement (referring to warming), almost in passing:
"Uncertainties in the future rate of this rise, stemming largely from the
'feedback' effects on water vapour and clouds, are topics of current research."

Who would guess, from this statement, that the feedback effects are the crucial
question? Without these positive feedbacks assumed by computer modelers, there
would be no significant problem, and the various catastrophes that depend on
numerous factors would no longer be related to anthropogenic global warming.

That is to say, the issue relevant to policy is far from settled. Nonetheless,
the letter concludes: "Our academies will provide the scientific backdrop for
the political and business leaders who must create effective policies to steer
the world toward a low-carbon economy." In other words, the answer is settled
even if the science is not.

In France, several distinguished scientists have recently published books
criticizing the alarmist focus on carbon emissions. The gist of all the books
was the scientific standards for establishing the alarmist concern were low, and
the language, in some instances, was intemperate. In response, a letter signed
by 489 French climate scientists was addressed to "the highest French scientific
bodies: the Ministry of Research, National Center for Scientific Research, and
Academy of Sciences" appealing to them to defend climate science against the
attacks. There appeared to be no recognition that calling on the funding
agencies to take sides in a scientific argument is hardly conducive to free
exchange.

The controversy was, and continues to be, covered extensively by the French
press. In many respects, the French situation is better than in the U.S.,
insofar as the "highest scientific bodies" have not officially taken public
stances€¹yet.

Despite all this, it does appear that the public at large is becoming
increasingly aware that something other than science is going on with regard to
climate change, and that the proposed policies are likely to cause severe
problems for the world economy. Climategate may thus have had an effect after
all.

But it is unwise to assume that those who have carved out agendas to exploit the
issue will simply let go without a battle. One can only hope that the climate
alarmists will lose so that we can go back to dealing with real science and real
environmental problems such as assuring clean air and water. The latter should
be an appropriate goal for Earth Day.

Mr. Lindzen is professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology.

Is there good science behind warming as a trend? Absolutely.

Did a bunch of yahoos (some of them complete asshats) go running wild
with some data? Absolutely.

meteorology:climate= tactics:strategy


Dave


Is Koch Industries behind much of the anti global warming propaganda?
Uh, yeah. But the same way the tobacco companies spent years and
millions of dollars trying to fool the public into thinking their
product was not harmful or addictive, so too are the energy producing
companies. Can you blame them? What would happen to a coal company if
there is absolute proof that burning coal is doing irreparable damage to
the environment? It would ruin them. So they are spending millions to
try to fool the public into thinking global warming is not real. The
problem for the energy industry is that aside from right wing folks
their propaganda is not working because everyone but right wingers has a
good idea that global warming is for real. Only the right wingers are so
easy to continually deceive. And eventually even they will learn the
truth. But they're always the last to know anything.

Hawke

"Hawke" wrote in message
...

snip
Is Koch Industries behind much of the anti global warming propaganda? Uh,
yeah. But the same way the tobacco companies spent years and millions of
dollars trying to fool the public into thinking their product was not
harmful or addictive, so too are the energy producing companies. Can you
blame them? What would happen to a coal company if there is absolute proof
that burning coal is doing irreparable damage to the environment? It would
ruin them. So they are spending millions to try to fool the public into
thinking global warming is not real. The problem for the energy industry
is that aside from right wing folks their propaganda is not working
because everyone but right wingers has a good idea that global warming is
for real. Only the right wingers are so easy to continually deceive. And
eventually even they will learn the truth. But they're always the last to
know anything.

Hawke

Well said! Or, I should say well regurgitated. You parrot the high-priests
of your religion well! Have you ever had an original thought?

Buerste wrote:

"Hawke" wrote in message
...

snip
Is Koch Industries behind much of the anti global warming propaganda? Uh,
yeah. But the same way the tobacco companies spent years and millions of
dollars trying to fool the public into thinking their product was not
harmful or addictive, so too are the energy producing companies. Can you
blame them? What would happen to a coal company if there is absolute proof
that burning coal is doing irreparable damage to the environment? It would
ruin them. So they are spending millions to try to fool the public into
thinking global warming is not real. The problem for the energy industry
is that aside from right wing folks their propaganda is not working
because everyone but right wingers has a good idea that global warming is
for real. Only the right wingers are so easy to continually deceive. And
eventually even they will learn the truth. But they're always the last to
know anything.

Hawke

Well said! Or, I should say well regurgitated. You parrot the high-priests
of your religion well! Have you ever had an original thought?


How can he do that with Oblama's hand up his ass?


--
Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to
have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
...

Buerste wrote:

snip
Well said! Or, I should say well regurgitated. You parrot the
high-priests
of your religion well! Have you ever had an original thought?


How can he do that with Oblama's hand up his ass?


--
Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to
have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.

And, his tongue so far up Obammy's butt he knows what the messiah ate for
breakfast.

On 4/22/2010 5:13 PM, Buerste wrote:
wrote in message
...

snip
Is Koch Industries behind much of the anti global warming propaganda? Uh,
yeah. But the same way the tobacco companies spent years and millions of
dollars trying to fool the public into thinking their product was not
harmful or addictive, so too are the energy producing companies. Can you
blame them? What would happen to a coal company if there is absolute proof
that burning coal is doing irreparable damage to the environment? It would
ruin them. So they are spending millions to try to fool the public into
thinking global warming is not real. The problem for the energy industry
is that aside from right wing folks their propaganda is not working
because everyone but right wingers has a good idea that global warming is
for real. Only the right wingers are so easy to continually deceive. And
eventually even they will learn the truth. But they're always the last to
know anything.

Hawke

Well said! Or, I should say well regurgitated. You parrot the high-priests
of your religion well! Have you ever had an original thought?


Do you know the first thing about Koch Industries and its owner David
Koch? Oh wait, you're a right winger. So the answer is no, you know
nothing about Koch Industries and what they do to counteract the science
about global warming. But you comment anyway as if you know what you're
talking about. If I was like you I would be telling everyone all about
brushes like I'm an expert on the subject, when I'm not. Try looking
into something for once before criticizing it. You would be amazed what
it would do for you. The perception of you as being so ignorant would be
far less if only you learned something before you speak.

Hawke

Buerste wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
...

Buerste wrote:

snip
Well said! Or, I should say well regurgitated. You parrot the
high-priests
of your religion well! Have you ever had an original thought?


How can he do that with Oblama's hand up his ass?


--
Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to
have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.

And, his tongue so far up Obammy's butt he knows what the messiah ate for
breakfast.


A true Messiah wouldn't need to eat.


--
Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to
have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.

On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 10:17:22 -0400, the infamous Joseph Gwinn
scrawled the following:

From The wall Street Journal, 22 April 2010, page A23.


By RICHARD S. LINDZEN

--bigish snip--

But it is unwise to assume that those who have carved out agendas to exploit the
issue will simply let go without a battle. One can only hope that the climate
alarmists will lose so that we can go back to dealing with real science and real
environmental problems such as assuring clean air and water. The latter should
be an appropriate goal for Earth Day.

Mr. Lindzen is professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology.

Hear, hear! Happy Earth Day, boys and girls.

--
....in order that a man may be happy, it is necessary that he should
not only be capable of his work, but a good judge of his work.
-- John Ruskin

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in
:


Buerste wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
...

Buerste wrote:

snip
Well said! Or, I should say well regurgitated. You parrot the
high-priests
of your religion well! Have you ever had an original thought?


How can he do that with Oblama's hand up his ass?


--
Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should
have to have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.

And, his tongue so far up Obammy's butt he knows what the messiah ate
for breakfast.


A true Messiah wouldn't need to eat.



That's why he has the White House Chef and kitchen crew travel with
him...

"Hawke" wrote in message
...
snip
Do you know the first thing about Koch Industries and its owner David
Koch? Oh wait, you're a right winger. So the answer is no, you know
nothing about Koch Industries and what they do to counteract the science
about global warming. But you comment anyway as if you know what you're
talking about. If I was like you I would be telling everyone all about
brushes like I'm an expert on the subject, when I'm not. Try looking into
something for once before criticizing it. You would be amazed what it
would do for you. The perception of you as being so ignorant would be far
less if only you learned something before you speak.

Hawke

You whine about supposed unnatural global warming that YOU say is science
even after it has been debunked. Yet it is you evil liberuls that caused
all the use of fossil fuel when you destroyed the nuclear power program
decades ago. You are inventing your own facts...as usual. You are the one
that not only is perceived as ignorant, you keep proving it!

On Apr 23, 4:10*am, "Buerste" wrote:
"Hawke" wrote in message

...
snip

Do you know the first thing about Koch Industries and its owner David
Koch? Oh wait, you're a right winger. So the answer is no, you know
nothing about Koch Industries and what they do to counteract the science
about global warming. But you comment anyway as if you know what you're
talking about. If I was like you I would be telling everyone all about
brushes like I'm an expert on the subject, when I'm not. Try looking into
something for once before criticizing it. You would be amazed what it
would do for you. The perception of you as being so ignorant would be far
less if only you learned something before you speak.

Hawke

You whine about supposed unnatural global warming that YOU say is science
even after it has been debunked. *Yet it is you evil liberuls that caused
all the use of fossil fuel when you destroyed the nuclear power program
decades ago. *You are inventing your own facts...as usual. *You are the one
that not only is perceived as ignorant, you keep proving it!

Actually, no, it most certainly has not been debunked.

The evidence and/or linkage is not as strong as some suggest, but
there's still plenty of good science behind it.


Dave

On 4/22/2010 9:09 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 10:17:22 -0400, the infamous Joseph Gwinn
scrawled the following:

From The wall Street Journal, 22 April 2010, page A23.


By RICHARD S. LINDZEN

--bigish snip--

But it is unwise to assume that those who have carved out agendas to exploit the
issue will simply let go without a battle. One can only hope that the climate
alarmists will lose so that we can go back to dealing with real science and real
environmental problems such as assuring clean air and water. The latter should
be an appropriate goal for Earth Day.

Mr. Lindzen is professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology.

Hear, hear! Happy Earth Day, boys and girls.


Meteorology is what TV weathermen take in college. It's not climate
science. Among the experts in climate science there is no issue about
global warming. It's a fact. The consensus is that the increase in heat
is caused by human activity. Nobody has come up with any science that
proves this is not the fact. But the global warming deniers are not
using the data provided by reputable climate scientists to prove what
they are asserting. Everything but that. We know why. They don't have
the science on their side.

Hawke

On 4/23/2010 1:10 AM, Buerste wrote:
wrote in message
...
snip
Do you know the first thing about Koch Industries and its owner David
Koch? Oh wait, you're a right winger. So the answer is no, you know
nothing about Koch Industries and what they do to counteract the science
about global warming. But you comment anyway as if you know what you're
talking about. If I was like you I would be telling everyone all about
brushes like I'm an expert on the subject, when I'm not. Try looking into
something for once before criticizing it. You would be amazed what it
would do for you. The perception of you as being so ignorant would be far
less if only you learned something before you speak.

Hawke

You whine about supposed unnatural global warming that YOU say is science
even after it has been debunked. Yet it is you evil liberuls that caused
all the use of fossil fuel when you destroyed the nuclear power program
decades ago. You are inventing your own facts...as usual. You are the one
that not only is perceived as ignorant, you keep proving it!


Why must you always be wrong? For example, I am not saying that
unnatural global warming is happening. It's the climate experts who say
that. I got it from them. It didn't come from me it came from
scientists. So you're wrong there.

Nuclear power has not been done because of accidents like 3 Mile Island
and Chernobyl. The public didn't want a nuclear plant anywhere near
them. Plus the expense of those plants is unreal and they can't get
insurance for them, so you're wrong about that too. I just gave you the
facts. You notice that all you gave are your own uninformed opinions.
Then you think I look ignorant and you don't? Come off it. You have
nothing but your own opinions. I just gave you the facts. People like
you don't like the facts so you pretend they don't exist. Now that is
ignorance at its finest!

Hawke

"Hawke" wrote in message
...
On 4/22/2010 9:09 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 10:17:22 -0400, the infamous Joseph Gwinn
scrawled the following:

From The wall Street Journal, 22 April 2010, page A23.


By RICHARD S. LINDZEN

--bigish snip--

But it is unwise to assume that those who have carved out agendas to
exploit the
issue will simply let go without a battle. One can only hope that the
climate
alarmists will lose so that we can go back to dealing with real science
and real
environmental problems such as assuring clean air and water. The latter
should
be an appropriate goal for Earth Day.

Mr. Lindzen is professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute
of
Technology.

Hear, hear! Happy Earth Day, boys and girls.


Meteorology is what TV weathermen take in college. It's not climate
science. Among the experts in climate science there is no issue about
global warming. It's a fact. The consensus is that the increase in heat is
caused by human activity. Nobody has come up with any science that proves
this is not the fact. But the global warming deniers are not using the
data provided by reputable climate scientists to prove what they are
asserting. Everything but that. We know why. They don't have the science
on their side.

Hawke

Your "scientists" use lies and data manipulation for political agendas.
REAL science uses the "Scientific Method". Your "scientists" can't actually
prove anything so you have it backwards claiming that others must DISPROVE
it.

When other theories are called "deniers", it is not science.
Maybe political "science".

When politicians, who could not to the partial derivatives in
Atmospheric Sciences 301, state, "The time for debate is over.", then
it is not science.

It is more like when Stalin, then considered by Soviets to be the
greatest scientist who ever lived, was having wheat seeds taught to
grow further North.

On Apr 25, 9:13*pm, "Buerste" wrote:
...

Your "scientists" use lies and data manipulation for political agendas.
REAL science uses the "Scientific Method". *Your "scientists" can't actually
prove anything so you have it backwards claiming that others must DISPROVE
it.

I agree.
When those with other theories are called "deniers", it is not
science.
Maybe political "science".

When politicians, who could not do the partial derivatives in
Atmospheric Sciences 301, state, "The time for debate is over.", then
it is not science.

It is more like when Stalin, then considered by Soviets to be the
greatest scientist who ever lived, was having wheat seeds taught to
grow further North.

"The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the
World’s Top Climate Scientists", 2010 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
That guy is on a book tour, and he says that no one is ever going to
admit they were wrong about being a global warming alarmist.
He claims the issue will quietly die away.
I suspect he is right.
Global warming alarmism can be swept under the rug as long as
collectivists run the media and individualist scientists are second
class citizens.

I remember the 50's and how we needed bomb shelters.
I remember the 60s and all the LSD chromosome damaged babies we were
going to have.
I remember the 70's and how 20% of the world's population would be
dead and we would be out of fossil fuel by 2000.
I remember the 80's and how the hole in the ozone was going to give us
skin cancer.
I remember the 90's and how any kid that walked home from school would
be kidnapped.

On Apr 25, 9:13 pm, "Buerste" wrote:
...

Your "scientists" use lies and data manipulation for political agendas.
REAL science uses the "Scientific Method". Your "scientists" can't actually
prove anything so you have it backwards claiming that others must DISPROVE
it.

I agree.
When those with other theories are called "deniers", it is not
science.
Maybe political "science".

When politicians, who could not do the partial derivatives in
Atmospheric Sciences 301, state, "The time for debate is over.", then
it is not science.

It is more like when Stalin, then considered by Soviets to be the
greatest scientist who ever lived, was having wheat seeds taught to
grow further North.

"The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the
World’s Top Climate Scientists", 2010 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
That guy is on a book tour, and he says that no one is ever going to
admit they were wrong about being a global warming alarmist.
He claims the issue will quietly die away.
I suspect he is right.
Global warming alarmism can be swept under the rug as long as
collectivists run the media and individualist scientists are second
class citizens.

I remember the 50's and how I was taught we needed bomb shelters.
I remember the 60s and how I was taught about all the LSD chromosome
damaged babies we were going to have.
I remember the 70's and how I was taught that 20% of the world's
population would be dead from pollution and we would be out of fossil
fuel by 2000.
I remember the 80's and how I heard on the TV that the hole in the
ozone was going to give us skin cancer.
I remember the 90's and how I heard on the TV that any kid that walked
home from school would be kidnapped.