Androcles wrote:
"Bill Carter" wrote in message
...
Androcles wrote:
wrote in message
...
On May 10, 10:47 pm, Bill Carter wrote:
Androcles wrote:
"Bill Carter" wrote in message
...
In that case post your source for data indicating that we've added
very little CO2 to the atmosphere. The concentration has increased
significantly since the beginning of the industrial revolution, and
we are emitting gigatons of fossil CO2 per year. You show that its
going nowhere. But don't appeal to an authority that's in a position
to know.
One aspect of the supposed anthropogenic climate change is rising sea
level.
If you open Google Earth and type in "Smallhythe" ie the "Fly To" box
and go there, then type in "Time Team", you'll see
D - Henry V's naval dockyard,
TEN MILES inland today.
I'm sure that's really interesting but completely unrelated to what
I was saying. I noticed that you modified the follow-ups. Coward!

Sea level is in fact rising in this era, you can talk to climate
historians all you want as to what happened in the time of Julius
Caesar and why. And the reason its rising now is due to thermal
expansion of the oceans and melting of land ice, both due to warming.
•• You are wrong on every point!!!
Sure Leonard, if you say so it must be true - because you said so.

http://nsidc.org/sotc/sea_level.html

"Satellite altimetry observations, available since the early 1990s,
provide more accurate sea level data with nearly global coverage and
indicate that since 1993 sea level has been rising at a rate of
about 3 millimeters per year. Climate models based on the current
rate of increase in greenhouse gases, however, indicate that sea
level may rise at about 4 millimeters per year reaching 0.22 to
0.44 meters above 1990 levels by the period 2090-2099."

- -
In real science the burden of proof is always on
the proposer, never on the sceptics. So far
neither IPCC nor has anyone else provide one
iota of valid data for global warming nor have
they provided data that climate change is being
effected by commerce and industry, and not by
natural phenomena.
Nothing but a lie, both sentences.

===================================
Bill Carter is a bigot, leonard78sp. I gave him the EVIDENCE
that sea level has fallen and his reply is "sea level is in fact rising".
The "in fact" is a sure indication that he wants to convince himself,
but has no evidence to support his "fact" and cannot convince me.
You and Leonard Loony Tunes can hang around and pat each other
on the butt all you want. Nothing would convince either of you
of anything.

As a matter of FACT, sea levels fell in the last 600 years.

Not according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center but hey, some
bonehead on the internet must know better than them eh?

"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts" - Albert Einstein.
You and Loony Tunes Gore can **** off, Cretin Carter, your bull****
doesn't convince.

Lol, you get all excited about this don't you.

On May 14, 10:17*am, Bill Carter wrote:
Androcles wrote:
wrote in message
....
On May 10, 10:47 pm, Bill Carter wrote:
Androcles wrote:

•• You are wrong on every point!!!

Sure Leonard, if you say so it must be true - because you said so.

http://nsidc.org/sotc/sea_level.html

"Satellite altimetry observations, available since the early 1990s,
provide more accurate sea level data with nearly global coverage and
indicate that since 1993 sea level has been rising at a rate of
about 3 millimeters per year. Climate models based on the current
rate of increase in greenhouse gases, however, indicate that sea
level may rise at about 4 millimeters per year reaching 0.22 to
0.44 meters above 1990 levels by the period 2090-2099."

••*ROFLMAO
1- No climate model (computer) has ever
provided better than 90% confidence, not
good enough to satisfy minimum scientific
standards

"Robert Charlson of the University of Washington,
Seattle, (is) one of three authors of a commentary
published online last week in Nature Reports: Climate
Change. ... he and his co-authors argue that the
simulation by 14 different climate models of the
warming in the 20th century is not the reassuring
success IPCC claims it to be."

"... In the run-up to the IPCC climate science report
released last February ... 14 groups ran their models
under 20th-century conditions of rising greenhouse
gases. ... But the group of three atmospheric scientists
... says the close match between models and the
actual warming is deceptive. The match "conveys a lot
more confidence [in the models] than can be
supported in actuality," says Schwartz. [....]

"Greenhouse gas changes are well known, they note,
but not so the counteracting cooling of pollutant hazes,
called aerosols. Aerosols cool the planet by reflecting
away sunlight and increasing the reflectivity of clouds.
Somehow, the three researchers say, modelers failed
to draw on all the uncertainty inherent in aerosols so
that the 20th-century simulations look more certain
than they should."

•• 2- As for sea levels, satellite altimetry is a
bust, and can in no way guarantee a sea
level change of 3mm. The IPCC sea level
report was created to reflect a
predetermined trend. However, in fact
there is zero rise in any sea.

Climate models based on the current
rate of increase in greenhouse gases, however, indicate that sea
level may rise at about 4 millimeters

•• ROTFLMAO
What on Earth does the current rate of
increase in greenhouse gases have to
do with sea levels? NOTHING!!!

Every time the atmospheric CO2
exceeds 300 ppm an ice age begins,
Without exception
- -
In real science the burden of proof is always on
the proposer, never on the sceptics. So far
neither IPCC nor has anyone else provide one
iota of valid data for global warming nor have
they provided data that climate change is being
effected by commerce and industry, and not by
natural phenomena.

Nothing but a lie, both sentences.

•• Well indeed Liar, prove YOUR lies.

===================================
Bill Carter is a bigot, leonard78sp. I gave him the EVIDENCE
that sea level has fallen and his reply is "sea level is in fact rising".
The "in fact" is a sure indication that he wants to convince himself,
but has no evidence to support his "fact" and cannot convince me.

••*ROFLMAO
Hey Mr Lion Man, the horses ass is now in
the killfile. I suggest you do the same.

- -
The evidence from Mars destroys the notion that
humans are responsible for warming Earth. Mars
has global warming, but without a greenhouse
and without the participation of Martians.

Dr Habibullo Abdussamatov

marsprogram.jpl.nasa.gov/odyssey/newsroom/pressreleases/
20031208a.html

On May 14, 2:33*pm, Bill Carter wrote:
Androcles wrote:
"Bill Carter" wrote in message
.. .

As a matter of FACT, sea levels fell in the last 600 years.

Not according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center but hey, some
bonehead on the internet must know better than them eh?

*"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts" - Albert Einstein.
You and Loony Tunes Gore can **** off, Cretin Carter, your bull****
doesn't convince.

CLIMATE AND OCEAN SCIENTISTS PUT UNDER NEW SPEECH RESTRAINTS —
Any Scientific Statements “of Official Interest” Must be Pre-Approved

•• IOW Censored

Washington, DC — Federal climate, weather and marine scientists will
be subject to new restrictions as to what they can say to the media or
in public, according to agency documents released today by Public
Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). Under rules posted
last week, these federal scientists must obtain agency pre-approval to
speak or write, whether on or off-duty, concerning any scientific
topic deemed “of official interest.”
On March 29, 2007, the Commerce Department posted a new administrative
order governing “Public Communications.” This new order covers the
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which includes
the National Weather Service and the National Marine Fisheries
Service. Commerce’s new order will become effective in 45 days and
would repeal a more liberal “open science” policy adopted by NOAA on
February 14, 2006.
Although couched in rhetoric about the need for “broad and open
dissemination of research results [and] open exchange of scientific
ideas,” the new order forbids agency scientists from communicating any
relevant information, even if prepared and delivered on their own time
as private citizens, which has not been approved by the official chain-
of-command:

Last Post wrote:
On May 14, 2:33 pm, Bill Carter wrote:
Androcles wrote:
"Bill Carter" wrote in message
...

As a matter of FACT, sea levels fell in the last 600 years.
Not according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center but hey, some
bonehead on the internet must know better than them eh?

"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts" - Albert Einstein.
You and Loony Tunes Gore can **** off, Cretin Carter, your bull****
doesn't convince.

On March 29, 2007, the Commerce Department posted a new administrative
order governing “Public Communications.” This new order covers the
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which includes

A gag order issued by the Bush administration is big news to you? I guess
that's not very surprising.

Last Post wrote:
On May 14, 10:17 am, Bill Carter wrote:
Androcles wrote:
wrote in message
...
On May 10, 10:47 pm, Bill Carter wrote:
Androcles wrote:

•• You are wrong on every point!!!
Sure Leonard, if you say so it must be true - because you said so.

http://nsidc.org/sotc/sea_level.html

"Satellite altimetry observations, available since the early 1990s,
provide more accurate sea level data with nearly global coverage and
indicate that since 1993 sea level has been rising at a rate of
about 3 millimeters per year. Climate models based on the current
rate of increase in greenhouse gases, however, indicate that sea
level may rise at about 4 millimeters per year reaching 0.22 to
0.44 meters above 1990 levels by the period 2090-2099."

•• ROFLMAO
1- No climate model (computer) has ever
provided better than 90% confidence, not
good enough to satisfy minimum scientific
standards

Looney Toons Leonard has another sock puppet name 'Last Post'? Who
would have guessed?

So Bill, when are you going to post that link to where the climate
models predicted prior to 1998 that global warming would slow despite
increasing CO2 levels?

Bruce Richmond wrote:
So Bill, when are you going to post that link to where the climate
models predicted prior to 1998 that global warming would slow despite
increasing CO2 levels?

No need. You claimed they didn't predict it and I expressed
skepticism. Now I'm waiting for you to post evidence that they
didn't predict it. I don't expect it to ever materialize.

What happened to all those histrionics about your precious
killfile? I figured I would be un-plagued with your brainless
missives.

On May 14, 8:30*pm, Bill Carter wrote:
Bruce Richmond wrote:
So Bill, when are you going to post that link to where the climate
models predicted prior to 1998 that global warming would slow despite
increasing CO2 levels?

No need. You claimed they didn't predict it and I expressed
skepticism. Now I'm waiting for you to post evidence that they
didn't predict it. I don't expect it to ever materialize.

In the other thread you wrote, "I remember seeing those predictions
back at that time." I say you are making that up. You made the
claim.

What happened to all those histrionics about your precious
killfile? I figured I would be un-plagued with your brainless
missives.

Another example of your faulty memory. I never said anything about a
kill file. I don't even have one.

On May 15, 5:24*am, Peter Muehlbauer
wrote:
Bill Carter wrote:
Androcles wrote:
wrote in message
....
On May 10, 10:47 pm, Bill Carter wrote:
Androcles wrote:
"Bill Carter" wrote in message
. ..
In that case post your source for data indicating that we've added
very little CO2 to the atmosphere. The concentration has increased
significantly since the beginning of the industrial revolution, and
we are emitting gigatons of fossil CO2 per year. You show that its
going nowhere. But don't appeal to an authority that's in a position
to know.
One aspect of the supposed anthropogenic climate change is rising sea
level.
If you open Google Earth and type in "Smallhythe" ie the "Fly To" box
and go there, then type in "Time Team", you'll see
D - Henry V's naval dockyard,
TEN MILES inland today.
I'm sure that's really interesting but completely unrelated to what
I was saying. I noticed that you modified the follow-ups. Coward!

Sea level is in fact rising in this era, you can talk to climate
historians all you want as to what happened in the time of Julius
Caesar and why. And the reason its rising now is due to thermal
expansion of the oceans and melting of land ice, both due to warming..

•• You are wrong on every point!!!

Sure Leonard, if you say so it must be true - because you said so.

http://nsidc.org/sotc/sea_level.html

"Satellite altimetry observations, available since the early 1990s,
provide more accurate sea level data with nearly global coverage and
indicate that since 1993 sea level has been rising at a rate of
about 3 millimeters per year. Climate models based on the current
rate of increase in greenhouse gases, however, indicate that sea
level may rise at about 4 millimeters per year reaching 0.22 to
0.44 meters above 1990 levels by the period 2090-2099."

So if not Bruce, I'd like to see a link to that CMs.

In real science the burden of proof is always on
the proposer, never on the sceptics.

sic!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I Googled for it and couldn't find it, so it never happen.

Bruce Richmond wrote:
On May 14, 8:30 pm, Bill Carter wrote:
Bruce Richmond wrote:
So Bill, when are you going to post that link to where the climate
models predicted prior to 1998 that global warming would slow despite
increasing CO2 levels?
No need. You claimed they didn't predict it and I expressed
skepticism. Now I'm waiting for you to post evidence that they
didn't predict it. I don't expect it to ever materialize.

In the other thread you wrote, "I remember seeing those predictions
back at that time." I say you are making that up. You made the
claim.

You don't seem to understand how this works. If you say something
is red I can refute you merely by saying it isn't red. I don't
have to prove anything or support my statement because you didn't
support yours.

In that thread you said "Your theory isn't as prevailing as you make
it out to be. It was never proven to be even close to correct. The
fact that it didn't predict the leveling off of temps after 1998
shows it has major flaws." Now, this is plainly bogus just on the
face of it. The theory can be prevailing even if it doesn't predict
everything with complete accuracy. It merely has to do a better job
than competing theories.

So I said "If it isn't the prevailing theory then what is? Show
evidence that a leveling off temps after 1998 wasn't predicted, I
remember seeing those predictions back at that time."

So now the onus is on you to respond with substance to both of those
challenges. I certainly don't owe anything more until then.

What happened to all those histrionics about your precious
killfile? I figured I would be un-plagued with your brainless
missives.

Another example of your faulty memory. I never said anything about a
kill file. I don't even have one.

Sorry, confused you with a different moonbat.