And the fact that we are closer to a hotter sun than normal
in our orbit and the Sun went a year without solar flares and now
we are getting hit by bigger ones. A monster is on the way now.

We are just coming to the peak of an 11 year cycle. It will slowly
get back to normal over the next half dozen years and in a couple of
decades from now it will be warm again.

But the orbit of the earth around the sun puts us closer to the sun
than in a long while. This isn't the normal 1 year cycle but a longer
one that is part of the smaller orbit. It has to do with the other
planets changing the orbit as they move in theirs.

Martin

On 1/15/2013 10:59 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On 15 Jan 2013 22:35:26 GMT, Han wrote:

Larry Jaques wrote in
:

On 15 Jan 2013 13:52:59 GMT, Han wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climati...il_controversy
Climategate, bull****.

There are none so blind...

Indeed.
From Science Magazine January 4, 2013, vol 339, page 15:
(I edited out the many carriage returns on the pdf for subscribers)
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6115/14.1.full.pdf
Gauging the Global Greenhouse
The Nobel-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will deliver
its next assessment of the physical science of climate change in
September, but blockbuster developments that could bolster greenhouse gas
mitigation are unlikely, and pronouncements on weather extremes and sea-
level rise won’t be barn burners. Past reports have already answered the
big questions: The world is warming, humans are behind most of that, and
climate is sensitive enough to greenhouse gases that 2100 looks grim.

And, of course, you didn't read the article where the IPCC copped to
fast footwork (and bogus "scientists") on a whole lot of its work.
Thee IPCC is a completely -political- entity who has been overrun by
alarmists. With every new report on them, their credibility shrinks
and shrinks, yet they're still -the- main focus for you "believers".
Unreal!

I'm sorry that you've selectively choosen -not- to read the truth in
print, but I do hold hope out for you. You'll come around sooner or
later. (Enjoy the egg.

--
Believe nothing.
No matter where you read it,
Or who said it,
Even if I have said it,
Unless it agrees with your own reason
And your own common sense.
-- Buddha

On 16 Jan 2013 14:20:38 GMT, Han wrote:

Dave Balderstone wrote in
news:150120132122237503%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalders tone.ca:

In article , Han
wrote:

That does NOT mean there is no human-caused warming.

It means there has been no warming since 1997, human caused or not.

Probably wrong
http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/...the-offing-on-
climate-change/

“Climate change, once considered an issue for a distant future, has
moved firmly into the present,” the draft document says. “Americans
are noticing changes all around them."

Around here, we call that "weather". To True Believers, that doesn't
matter. If it's scary and can be screamed into the media, they'll
scream it, and the good little media puppies wag their tails and do
exactly as they are told. sigh

And if it's 'political' (i.e: shows no temperature increase) it will
be quietly buried or the data will be edited out of the report.

As it was at the CRU of UEA. (aka Climategate)

--
Number of people killed in mass shooting when stopped by police: 18.25
Number of people killed when stopped by civilians: 2

Save lives: Keep Civilians Armed!

On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 20:40:23 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
wrote:

On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 21:26:30 -0600, Dave Balderstone wrote:

he scientific data simply does not back your belief. And there is NO
"general consensus".


http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/fea...012-temps.html

We're supposed to start believing Hanson-controlled GISS flunkies?
Riiiiiiiiiiiight. I believe in hockey stick graphs, too. wink

https://www.google.com/search?q=giss+controversy Food for thought.

--
Believe nothing.
No matter where you read it,
Or who said it,
Even if I have said it,
Unless it agrees with your own reason
And your own common sense.
-- Buddha

On 16 Jan 2013 14:37:58 GMT, Han wrote:

Bob Martin wrote in
:

in 1546679 20130116 045955 Larry Jaques
wrote:
On 15 Jan 2013 22:35:26 GMT, Han wrote:

Larry Jaques wrote in
m:

On 15 Jan 2013 13:52:59 GMT, Han wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climati...ail_controvers
y Climategate, bull****.

There are none so blind...

Indeed.
From Science Magazine January 4, 2013, vol 339, page 15:
(I edited out the many carriage returns on the pdf for subscribers)
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6115/14.1.full.pdf
Gauging the Global Greenhouse
The Nobel-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will
deliver its next assessment of the physical science of climate change
in September, but blockbuster developments that could bolster
greenhouse gas mitigation are unlikely, and pronouncements on weather
extremes and sea- level rise won�t be barn burners. Past reports
have already answered the big questions: The world is warming, humans
are behind most of that, and climate is sensitive enough to
greenhouse gases that 2100 looks grim.

And, of course, you didn't read the article where the IPCC copped to
fast footwork (and bogus "scientists") on a whole lot of its work.
Thee IPCC is a completely -political- entity who has been overrun by
alarmists. With every new report on them, their credibility shrinks
and shrinks, yet they're still -the- main focus for you "believers".
Unreal!

I'm sorry that you've selectively choosen -not- to read the truth in
print, but I do hold hope out for you. You'll come around sooner or
later. (Enjoy the egg.

Still in denial then?

That's LJ ... But then, he doesn't live near any coast ...

g Hey, I live here (Earth) too. I'm trying to keep the True
Believers from flushing our economy down the drain on unnecessary
bull****. Read _Hard Green_ and _Cool It_. He and Bjorn are trying
to accomplish the same thing.

Let's stop people from raping the Earth but _not_ kill our countries
in the process, OK?

--
Believe nothing.
No matter where you read it,
Or who said it,
Even if I have said it,
Unless it agrees with your own reason
And your own common sense.
-- Buddha

On 16 Jan 2013 14:21:33 GMT, Han wrote:

Dave Balderstone wrote in
news:150120132126302326%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalders tone.ca:

In article , Han
wrote:

I am selective in what I read and believe.

Yes, that is crystal clear.

To me, the general consensus
is that global climate is warming, at an accelerating rate, and that
it is due in large part to human causes. You know what a trend line
is, I suppose, so you can do your own extrapolations.

The scientific data simply does not back your belief. And there is NO
"general consensus".

Follow the money, Han. Follow the money.

What money, Dave? The deniers' money?

blink, blink What? The billions Algore wants to get for his share
of the carbon credits don't count? The tens of billions going to
researchers which -support- the global warming conspiracy which aren't
going to researchers who are skeptics? What money? Jesus, Han. Wake
up. That's just the tip. Why do you think so many research whores
jumped on the GW bandwagon, hmm? sigh

Disclaimer: I've never been hired by Big Oil or Big Gov't and neither
the Kochs nor Soros ever offered me money, yet I'm still a skeptic.
Where's my denier's money, damnit?

--
Believe nothing.
No matter where you read it,
Or who said it,
Even if I have said it,
Unless it agrees with your own reason
And your own common sense.
-- Buddha

On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 20:57:42 -0800, Larry Jaques
going to researchers who are skeptics? What money? Jesus, Han. Wake
up. That's just the tip. Why do you think so many research whores
jumped on the GW bandwagon, hmm? sigh

Perhaps it's the money being made by all those businesses that are
ignoring global warming while they continue to spew garbage into the
atmosphere.

On 1/17/2013 1:49 AM, Dave wrote:
the money being made by all those businesses that are
ignoring global warming while they continue to spew garbage into the
atmosphere.
Obviously you have never worked for a manufacturing company. For some
companies the environmental regulations are stifling. We could not
improve our boilers because the government would not let us. We had
several boilers. The plan submitted to the government was to shut down
some and increase the capacity of other. While the net results of the
plan would decrease the total site emissions, it was turned down as a
couple of the boilers would increase in emissions. So the results of
government control was to continue with the old inefficient system and
continue higher emissions than was necessary.

That is what the government considers protecting the environment.

Keith Nuttle wrote:
On 1/17/2013 1:49 AM, Dave wrote:
the money being made by all those businesses that are
ignoring global warming while they continue to spew garbage into the
atmosphere.
Obviously you have never worked for a manufacturing company. For some
companies the environmental regulations are stifling. We could not
improve our boilers because the government would not let us. We had
several boilers. The plan submitted to the government was to shut down
some and increase the capacity of other. While the net results of the
plan would decrease the total site emissions, it was turned down as a
couple of the boilers would increase in emissions. So the results of
government control was to continue with the old inefficient system and
continue higher emissions than was necessary.

That is what the government considers protecting the environment.

That is what is so frustrating about these things, beit gun control, or
emmissions control, or anything else. The amount of the population that is
not just content, but becomes ardent in their support of something just
because it is "supposed" to do what they want, but never look beyone the
rhetoric to see if it really does. The open head, pour in your thoughts
people of the world. Oh well...

--

-Mike-

On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 08:20:02 -0500, Keith Nuttle wrote:

On 1/17/2013 1:49 AM, Dave wrote:
the money being made by all those businesses that are
ignoring global warming while they continue to spew garbage into the
atmosphere.
Obviously you have never worked for a manufacturing company. For some
companies the environmental regulations are stifling. We could not
improve our boilers because the government would not let us. We had
several boilers. The plan submitted to the government was to shut down
some and increase the capacity of other. While the net results of the
plan would decrease the total site emissions, it was turned down as a
couple of the boilers would increase in emissions. So the results of
government control was to continue with the old inefficient system and
continue higher emissions than was necessary.

That is what the government considers protecting the environment.

I do a good bit of environmental work, and your are correct, the system
is only designed to punish and provides few incentives for a business to
make improvements. In fact any improvement is viewed with distrust and
suspicion.

An example:

In AL all businesses that are in Title V pay fees per ton of emissions to
recover the entire cost of the Title V program in the state, the net
effect is
that if statewide all business eliminated 75 percent of emissions the fee
per ton would quadruple and would generate many new monitoring
requirements. A net loss overall for business. It is easier and less
expensive to maintain the status quo.

basilisk