Retief LIED! Retief Got Caught!!! Retief Always Lies! Retief ALWAYS Gets
Caught!!!

Retief wrote in
:

On Wed, 01 Nov 06 11:32:08 GMT, (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

Then we go to p3 where they claim "430" ppm of "greenhouse gases",
which they limit to only be "CO2". Then they use the 'conventional'
figure of "280ppm before the Industrial Revolution", for CO2! So now
we know they have padded the figure by some 70 - 80 ppm from the more
accepted figure of 350 - 360 ppm for CO2!

That's a lie. It's 360 now, man!

Hey, would you look at that! Lloyd got an answer CORRECT! Yes Lloyd,
it's about 360 ppm now, but the article claims that it's 430 ppm... So
Lloyd (and Orator) are correct, in stating that the article:


Retief LIED! Retief Got Caught!!! Retief Always Lies! Retief ALWAYS Gets
Caught!!!

The correct number of 2006 is 381 ppmv and still rising fast.




Retief


Retief LIED! Retief Got Caught!!! Retief Always Lies! Retief ALWAYS Gets
Caught!!!

In article ,
Orator wrote:
Lloyd Parker wrote:
In article ,
Orator wrote:

Roger Coppock wrote:

HM Treasury's page where the entire 700+ pages may be downloaded:



http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/Indepe...conomics_clima
te_change/sternreview_index.cfm


A 27-page executive summary is found he
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/h...6_exec_sum.pdf


Just a couple of comments on this latest bit of hysteria.

The very first words in the "executive summary" are not factual:

"The scientific evidence is now overwhelming: climate change presents
very serious global risks, and it demands an urgent global response."

1 - There is no "scientific evidence" there are theories only, however
"soundly" based they may be, but "evidence" it is not!



You are mistaken. The data shows there is warming.


2 - The claim that it "is now overwhelming", is bogus.


Lie.


There is a lot of
repetition of the same data/assumptions/theories. The repetition of the
same theory. doesn't make anything other than the noise level
"overwhelming".


I'll take the science -- IPCC, NAS, etc. -- over an industry shill.


3 - The: "climate change presents very serious global risks" is utter
nonsense and raw hysteria. We have had this same situation occur in the
relatively recent past and the world didn't end then either.



Total lie. 3 for 3.


4 - "it demands an urgent global response" is more hyperbole and
scene-setting for even worse exaggerations to come!

All that in the opening lines alone!

Then we go to p3 where they claim "430" ppm of "greenhouse gases", which
they limit to only be "CO2". Then they use the 'conventional' figure of
"280ppm before the Industrial Revolution", for CO2! So now we know they
have padded the figure by some 70 - 80 ppm from the more accepted figure
of 350 - 360 ppm for CO2!


That's a lie. It's 360 now, man!


The pre-industrial values vary depending on who is reporting:
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmu...ge2/07_1.shtml
"a pre-industrial value of 300 parts per million"


280-300 is the accepted preindustrial. It never went to 360 in human
history.


NASA claims an increase of 25% on the pre-industrial values and make the
present CO2 at 350 ppm, using the commonly accepted figure of 280 ppm as
a base. That is another exaggeration in the summary to generate hysteria.



I'll take NASA over a lying little SOB, thank you.


http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/gsfc/servic...thsci/green.ht
m


Dated 1993.




"[T]here has been little increase [in CO2] in the last 50 years, which

Text restored below:
"[T]here has been little increase [in CO2] in the last 50 years, which
raises questions about whether we really have experienced the effect of
increasing CO2. The pattern of changing global temperatures suggests
that there may be other factors influencing climate. There is also the
possibility that the sensitivity to greenhouse gases is less than what
most climate models indicate. Scientists feel an increase of 1degree F (
0.5 degrees C) in 140 years is not necessarily outside the range of
natural climate variability."


"Currently, the level of atmospheric C 2 is increasing at a rate of about
0.4
percent a year."

That is text was not posted by me as the quotes imply! My quoted text
was been dishonestly edited out!

The marks at the left tell you who posted what. It's in quotes because it's a
quote from the same source you quoted. Funny that you didn't post it.

So has all references that should have
been here! What are you afraid of Lloyd? The truth and that is why you
resort to so many lies and false accusation, isn't it?


For the full article see he
http://groups.google.com.au/group/al...1183e42ec5002a

In article ,
Retief wrote:
On Wed, 01 Nov 06 11:32:08 GMT, (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

Then we go to p3 where they claim "430" ppm of "greenhouse gases", which
they limit to only be "CO2". Then they use the 'conventional' figure of
"280ppm before the Industrial Revolution", for CO2! So now we know they
have padded the figure by some 70 - 80 ppm from the more accepted figure
of 350 - 360 ppm for CO2!

That's a lie. It's 360 now, man!

Hey, would you look at that! Lloyd got an answer CORRECT! Yes Lloyd,
it's about 360 ppm now, but the article claims that it's 430 ppm... So
Lloyd (and Orator) are correct, in stating that the article:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/h...6_exec_sum.pdf

....has lied about the concentration, by claiming it is 430 ppm...


No, it says: "The current level or stock of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere
is equivalent to around 430 parts per million (ppm) CO2, compared with only
280ppm before the Industrial Revolution. These concentrations have already
caused the world to warm by more than half a degree Celsius and will lead to
at least a further half degree warming over the next few decades, because of
the inertia in the climate system."

All the GH gases are equivalent to CO2 of 430 ppm.

Did you even read it?


That is also what Orator stated... So Lloyd Parker actually agrees
with Orator's point...

280-300 is the accepted preindustrial. It never went to 360 in
human history.

You mean that _yesterday_ is not part of human history?

BTW, from a historical standpoint, we are at a very low atmospheric
CO2 concentration...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:P...on_Dioxide.png

Retief

Not from a human civilization standpoint. What does it matter what happened
millions of years ago? Heck, why not go back to the big bang -- CO2 was zero
then!

Lloyd Parker wrote:
In article ,
Retief wrote:

On Wed, 01 Nov 06 11:32:08 GMT, (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:


Then we go to p3 where they claim "430" ppm of "greenhouse gases", which
they limit to only be "CO2". Then they use the 'conventional' figure of
"280ppm before the Industrial Revolution", for CO2! So now we know they
have padded the figure by some 70 - 80 ppm from the more accepted figure
of 350 - 360 ppm for CO2!

That's a lie. It's 360 now, man!

Hey, would you look at that! Lloyd got an answer CORRECT! Yes Lloyd,
it's about 360 ppm now, but the article claims that it's 430 ppm... So
Lloyd (and Orator) are correct, in stating that the article:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/h...6_exec_sum.pdf

....has lied about the concentration, by claiming it is 430 ppm...



No, it says: "The current level or stock of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere
is equivalent to around 430 parts per million (ppm) CO2, compared with only
280ppm before the Industrial Revolution. These concentrations have already
caused the world to warm by more than half a degree Celsius and will lead to
at least a further half degree warming over the next few decades, because of
the inertia in the climate system."

All the GH gases are equivalent to CO2 of 430 ppm.

Man, talk about spin-doctoring! How much are you getting paid for this?

The "greenhouse gases" has been defines as "CO2" it is clear as clear
can be! The "equivalent to" refers to "parts per million (ppm)" - a measure!

Again in the unlikely event that it was intended as you say, it is no
less than scientific fraud to give a deliberate impression it is solely
CO2, and made even worse by then comparing it solely to CO2! It is
_fraud_ on par with the Piltdown man!

Did you even read it?

He obviously did and spotted the same lie as I did!

That is also what Orator stated... So Lloyd Parker actually agrees
with Orator's point...

Only ever by pure accident, till someone wakes him up and he will
immediately recant :-)


280-300 is the accepted preindustrial. It never went to 360 in
human history.

You mean that _yesterday_ is not part of human history?

BTW, from a historical standpoint, we are at a very low atmospheric
CO2 concentration...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:P...on_Dioxide.png

Retief


Not from a human civilization standpoint.

Retief didn't say that either. Retief pulled you up on your claim that
yesterday doesn't belong to "human history"


What does it matter what happened millions of years ago?

It is history and it shows that high levels of CO2 does not correlate to
"human caused" as your dogma recites.

Heck, why not go back to the big bang -- CO2 was zero
then!

In article ,
Orator wrote:
Lloyd Parker wrote:
In article ,
Retief wrote:

On Wed, 01 Nov 06 11:32:08 GMT, (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:


Then we go to p3 where they claim "430" ppm of "greenhouse gases", which
they limit to only be "CO2". Then they use the 'conventional' figure of
"280ppm before the Industrial Revolution", for CO2! So now we know they
have padded the figure by some 70 - 80 ppm from the more accepted figure
of 350 - 360 ppm for CO2!

That's a lie. It's 360 now, man!

Hey, would you look at that! Lloyd got an answer CORRECT! Yes Lloyd,
it's about 360 ppm now, but the article claims that it's 430 ppm... So
Lloyd (and Orator) are correct, in stating that the article:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/h...6_exec_sum.pdf

....has lied about the concentration, by claiming it is 430 ppm...



No, it says: "The current level or stock of greenhouse gases in the
atmosphere
is equivalent to around 430 parts per million (ppm) CO2, compared with only
280ppm before the Industrial Revolution. These concentrations have already
caused the world to warm by more than half a degree Celsius and will lead
to
at least a further half degree warming over the next few decades, because
of
the inertia in the climate system."

All the GH gases are equivalent to CO2 of 430 ppm.

Man, talk about spin-doctoring! How much are you getting paid for this?

You know, most communities have adult literacy programs.

I quoted the article. You lied about it.


The "greenhouse gases" has been defines as "CO2" it is clear as clear
can be! The "equivalent to" refers to "parts per million (ppm)" - a measure!


"gases" is plural, doofus.

Again in the unlikely event that it was intended as you say, it is no
less than scientific fraud to give a deliberate impression it is solely
CO2, and made even worse by then comparing it solely to CO2! It is
_fraud_ on par with the Piltdown man!

Did you even read it?

He obviously did and spotted the same lie as I did!

That is also what Orator stated... So Lloyd Parker actually agrees
with Orator's point...

Only ever by pure accident, till someone wakes him up and he will
immediately recant :-)


280-300 is the accepted preindustrial. It never went to 360 in
human history.

You mean that _yesterday_ is not part of human history?

BTW, from a historical standpoint, we are at a very low atmospheric
CO2 concentration...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:P...on_Dioxide.png

Retief


Not from a human civilization standpoint.

Retief didn't say that either. Retief pulled you up on your claim that
yesterday doesn't belong to "human history"


What does it matter what happened millions of years ago?

It is history and it shows that high levels of CO2 does not correlate to
"human caused" as your dogma recites.

Nobody has ever claimed humans caused the CO2 to go up millions of years ago,
but we are the cause today.

You are arguing "if X didn't cause Y in the past, X cannot be causing Y
today." That's totally illogical.


Heck, why not go back to the big bang -- CO2 was zero
then!

In message , Orator
writes
Roger Coppock wrote:
HM Treasury's page where the entire 700+ pages may be downloaded:

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/Indepe...eview_economic
s_climate_change/sternreview_index.cfm
A 27-page executive summary is found he
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/h...6_exec_sum.pdf

Just a couple of comments on this latest bit of hysteria.

The very first words in the "executive summary" are not factual:

"The scientific evidence is now overwhelming: climate change presents
very serious global risks, and it demands an urgent global response."

1 - There is no "scientific evidence" there are theories only, however
"soundly" based they may be, but "evidence" it is not!

2 - The claim that it "is now overwhelming", is bogus. There is a lot
of repetition of the same data/assumptions/theories. The repetition of
the same theory. doesn't make anything other than the noise level
"overwhelming".

3 - The: "climate change presents very serious global risks" is utter
nonsense and raw hysteria. We have had this same situation occur in the
relatively recent past and the world didn't end then either.

4 - "it demands an urgent global response" is more hyperbole and
scene-setting for even worse exaggerations to come!

All that in the opening lines alone!

Then we go to p3 where they claim "430" ppm of "greenhouse gases",
which they limit to only be "CO2". Then they use the 'conventional'
figure of "280ppm before the Industrial Revolution", for CO2! So now we
know they have padded the figure by some 70 - 80 ppm from the more
accepted figure of 350 - 360 ppm for CO2!

The pre-industrial values vary depending on who is reporting:
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmu...ge2/07_1.shtml
"a pre-industrial value of 300 parts per million"

NASA claims an increase of 25% on the pre-industrial values and make
the present CO2 at 350 ppm, using the commonly accepted figure of 280
ppm as a base. That is another exaggeration in the summary to generate
hysteria.

http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/gsfc/servic...hsci/green.htm
"[T]here has been little increase [in CO2] in the last 50 years, which
raises questions about whether we really have experienced the effect of
increasing CO2.

Yes, though the figure I've used from academic sources suggests about
280ppm in 1750, 310ppm in 1950, and 380 by around 2000.

So that's a

30ppm rise in 200 years

followed by a

70ppm rise in 50 years.


The pattern of changing global temperatures suggests that there may be
other factors influencing climate.

Only if you accept that "There has been little increase [in CO2] in the
last 50 years".

It seems that most people don't.


There is also the possibility that the sensitivity to greenhouse gases
is less than what most climate models indicate. Scientists feel an
increase of 1degree F ( 0.5 degrees C) in 140 years is not necessarily
outside the range of natural climate variability."

Which ones ?


More importantly we know that climate has been changing since time
immemorial and is not something "man made"!
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmu...ge2/04_1.shtml

Yes climate changes on its own. That doesn't mean we can't screw it
up !


But that isn't the only bit of bull**** they resort to.

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/...1__Science.pdf
In the actual report itself the show a graph in "Figure 1.3" where they
claim: "The Earth has warmed 0.7°C since around 1900.". So how the hell
did they manage that? It was very simple, note the zero point on the
graph. Then note the zero point on the graph in the following URL:

http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmu...M_Fig8_0_1.jpg

Note the reference point differs, and starts from a different point!
This only shows a rise in temperature of 0.29 degrees C! An amount NASA
states is "not necessarily outside the range of natural climate
variability"!

Of course, when you put 10 "economists" in a room and tell them to
predict an outcome for a given scenario you invariably get 12 answers.

Hysteria, nothing but rampant hysteria in the Stern report!

Yes, though please tell us why NASA put the zero level where they did,
because they haven't put it where many academics do !


Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore

In message , Retief
writes
On Wed, 01 Nov 06 11:32:08 GMT, (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/h...6_exec_sum.pdf

...has lied about the concentration, by claiming it is 430 ppm...

The wording is

"The current level or stock of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is
equivalent to around 430 parts per million (ppm) CO2".


In other words, this is the combined effect of a basket of GHGs,
expresses as an equivalent CO2 concentration.

It may be premature to accuse people of lying !


Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore

In message , Orator
writes
Lloyd Parker wrote:

All the GH gases are equivalent to CO2 of 430 ppm.

Man, talk about spin-doctoring! How much are you getting paid for this?

Actually - all he's done to work out the meaning is read what's
written.

Why can't you ?


The "greenhouse gases" has been defines as "CO2" it is clear as clear
can be!

Where ?


The "equivalent to" refers to "parts per million (ppm)" - a measure!

Again in the unlikely event that it was intended as you say, it is no
less than scientific fraud to give a deliberate impression it is solely
CO2,

But they don't ! That's why they say "equivalent".


and made even worse by then comparing it solely to CO2! It is _fraud_
on par with the Piltdown man!

Nonsense - it's just a way ox expressing the aggregate effect of a
basket of GHGs. There is nothing new here - at least not to those
familiar with the subject.


It is history and it shows that high levels of CO2 does not correlate
to "human caused" as your dogma recites.

It does / did ??


Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore

In message , Orator
writes
Roger Coppock wrote:
Orator wrote:
Roger Coppock wrote:

HM Treasury's page where the entire 700+ pages may be downloaded:
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/Indepe..._review_econom
ics_climate_change/sternreview_index.cfm

present CO2 at 350 ppm, . . .
The present CO2 concentration is 380 ppm.

...and that is but _one_ of many different claims and is still a
massive amount below the Stern claim. Thank you for supporting my
finding - Stern report is raw hysteria!

You can't justify that assertion on the basis of the one remark that
you've managed to misrepresent.


http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/projects/sr...co2_mm_mlo.dat

Oh, and the "proof" is where? All I see is a series of figures. No info
on where it is taken from, nor at the altitude it is taken from,
nothing of what is _critical_ information to know! For all I know these
figures are taken from the middle of New York city traffic jam - the
smoke stack of an old coal fired power station!

Why do you present such clap trap for?

So what makes you think that the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis
Center is an unreliable source ?


http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/CO2-6DegreesFreedom.jpg

ROTFL! Citing your own bible, the one you wrote yourself! You have to
be kidding!

So specifically, what is wrong with the data ?


What equipment do you have of measuring CO2 content of the atmosphere,
hmmm? You know from ground level to some 100 km up?

If you'd read the graph, you'd have seen where the data came from.


BTW, when are you going to present some actual evidence? I have
provided sources,

And misrepresented others...


you have not done other than resort to immature abuse and shouting! Is
that the best you can do?

Here is an intelligent assessment, have a look at this instead:
http://groups.google.com.au/group/al...1183e42ec5002a

Let's not leap to conclusions. It looks like one of your posts from
this thread where you go off the deep end about

"greenhouse gases", which
they limit to only be "CO2"


Where do they so limit ?


Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore

On Fri, 03 Nov 06 11:22:33 GMT, (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

The "greenhouse gases" has been defines as "CO2" it is clear as clear
can be! The "equivalent to" refers to "parts per million (ppm)" - a measure!

"gases" is plural, doofus.

That in no way addresses the challenge to the assertion that CO2 is a
"prototypical greenhouse gas, whose characteristics explain and define
all other GHGs..." -- which is what your "equivalence" implies...

It is history and it shows that high levels of CO2 does not correlate to
"human caused" as your dogma recites.

Nobody has ever claimed humans caused the CO2 to go up millions of years ago,
but we are the cause today.

So what?... Did 6000 ppm exterminate all life on Earth? Oh, that's
right...all life _was_ exterminated, which is why you are NOT arguing
with me now (since all life on Earth died)...

Wait, I think that I understand your argument Lloyd... Under your
model, all life _was_ exterminated and eliminated from the Earth (how
could it not be, at 6000 ppm of CO2). And then 6000 years ago _your_
god created life (and humans, and dinosaur bones, and pottery sherds
and...), and that's why you are now here to argue your creationist
nonsense with us...


Retief