On Oct 16, 1:26*pm, oggologgo wrote:
On Oct 11, 4:34*am, "bw" wrote:

http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_NotGlobal.htm

No evidence whatever of any warming on a global scale.

Antarctica is obviously cooling. Since the AGW claims for warming are due to
the global and uniform CO2 effect, the presence of warming in only the
arctic is proof the CO2 effect is absent.

What a piece of **** article.

They just take a low resolution graph, draw some lines on it, twist
them, extend them, to make them fit to what they want to conclude.

Take the graph that is suppose to show that the temperature was
decreasing the last 10 years.

That is fraud.

' If you do calculations on the real data, you will see that a trend
' line for the last 10 years shows that the temperature is
increasing,

Now that is a bunch of **** from a mentality determined to see the
facts to fit what it wants to believe.

If you start in 97 the trend is down, if you start in 99 the trend is
down. It may also depend upon what year you take Hansen's statistics,
since this data changes also, according to his most recently derived
manner of correcting the corrupted data.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1891
(scroll down to Hansen's graph for US statistics of 1999)

Any temperature rise you percieve within the past eleven years is
negligible and not of any margin valuable with the resolution of
'yearly' averages.

The chief meteorologist of the UN has stated that temperatures of the
last 10 years are FLAT.

Either FLAT or dropping is inconsistent with the terrible and repeated
statement that CO2 is risen 40% due to humans enjoyment of modern
lifestyles in which periodic famine no longer kills people,

THIS IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE THEORY AND PREDICTIONS OF CO2 CAUSED
WARMING.

WHERE IS ALL THE DAMN RETAINED HEAT FROM THE RADIATIVE FORCING?

HIDING IN THE MELTED ICE?
JUST WAITING FOR SOME DAY TO JUMP OUT AND CAUSE GLOBAL WARMING?

THE TERMS OF YOUR MATH USE THE DERIVATIVE FOR SQ METER. YOU HAVE NO
INTEGRATION FOR THIS IN REAL LIFE, EITHER WITH WATER VAPOR OR CO2,
NATURAL OR ANTHROPOGENIC.

YOUR THEORY NEEDS A GENERAL WARMING IN ALL REGIONS. YOUR THEORY IS AT
FAILURE.

When one looks at the actual data of US temperatures, one see's that
there is NO warming trend when statistics back to the thirties are
involved. This is true of most regions, particulary N America.

The concept of 'energy budget' is utterly futile if one considers the
heat capacity of ocean water and normal cycles in the transfer of this
heat by the ocean currents.

European temperaturs are almost ENTIRELY dependent upon
the currents of the Atlantic, and this is where most of changed
temperatures are, and where the effects of the medieaval warm period
and little ice age, are clearly recorded in historical fact. No valid
theory to attribute these statistics to CO2 or humans.

This is not consistent or explainable by any of the threory of AGW.
Any attempts are mere fabrication of thermodynamic theory or physics,
to attempt ot maintain the false postulate and theory.

The point of this article is true. A point the determined believers of
the false postulate of AGW cannot discuss.

This is that the warming which causes the 'world average' temperatures
to appear to be rising, is REGIONAL. It is far more likely that any
measured average temperature rise is due to normal cycles of ocean
currents

KD
The AGWbunnies,
Beating on their little fake drum for their holy war against modern
society, in deliberate ignorance of the facts of their own science.
They keep going,,,, and going,,,,




and that the numbers they claim that the temperature has risen since
1970 are half what they really are.

Try to be a bit more critical with articles, instead of taking
complete crap like this as evidence.

On Oct 17, 6:56*am, " wrote:

European temperaturs are almost *ENTIRELY dependent upon
the currents of the Atlantic, and this is where most of changed
temperatures are, and where the effects of the medieaval warm period
and little ice age, are clearly recorded in historical fact. No valid
theory to attribute these statistics to CO2 or humans.

Hey. We doan need no sinkin' VALID theory! Any theory that we can sell
to the ignorant public by repeating it often enough will do!