On 12/30/09 8:31 PM, I M @ good guy wrote:
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 17:10:47 -0600, Sam
wrote:

On 12/30/09 4:47 PM, Peter Muehlbauer wrote:
Sam wrote:

On 12/30/09 10:45 AM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 18:48:40 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote:

Until a few dacades ago, Peter. The CO2 ain'y been this high for
15,000,000 years!

Actually, he just debunked that. More fraud on the part of the AGW
advocates.


Marvin, you should invest in some glasses. As of March 2009,
carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere is at a concentration
of 387 ppm by volume and increasing at a rate of 1.7 ppm per
year.

Caused by what?
Evidence your claim. Here.

Btw, show me the data set for your 15 mio. years claim.
Where is it?
And don't come up with Google now.
I want to see YOUR data set you are referring to.

As I told Marvin... the concentration and rate of increase
in concentration of CO2 is an observable, and undeniable
observable.

As for the cause, there is more and more evidence suggesting
that human activity (deforestation, cement production, fossil
fuel burning) is a contributing factor.

Peter, why don't you take global climate change seriously?


I take it seriously, but I don't have
to like the colder than normal weather
and the resulting bigger heating bills,
I even have to let faucets run when
the temperature goes 10 degrees
below normal.

Move about 800 miles east and
see how you like it, but wait till spring,
some of the roads may be closed.


You appear to easily confuse local weather and global climate.

On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 17:10:47 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote:

On 12/30/09 4:47 PM, Peter Muehlbauer wrote:
Sam wrote:

On 12/30/09 10:45 AM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 18:48:40 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote:

Until a few dacades ago, Peter. The CO2 ain'y been this high
for 15,000,000 years!

Actually, he just debunked that. More fraud on the part of the AGW
advocates.


Marvin, you should invest in some glasses. As of March 2009,
carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere is at a concentration of
387 ppm by volume and increasing at a rate of 1.7 ppm per year.

Caused by what?
Evidence your claim. Here.

Btw, show me the data set for your 15 mio. years claim. Where is it?
And don't come up with Google now.
I want to see YOUR data set you are referring to.

As I told Marvin... the concentration and rate of increase in
concentration of CO2 is an observable, and undeniable observable.

As for the cause, there is more and more evidence suggesting that
human activity (deforestation, cement production, fossil fuel
burning) is a contributing factor.

Peter, why don't you take global climate change seriously?

A sane man, a rational man, would have discussed the correction to the
CO2 data that shows that our recent CO2 levels is NOT unusual.

Wormley, however, simply repeats the same sloped curve that the article
attacked, completely ignoring the entire issue, and throws in some
gratuitous irrelevant argumentum ad hominem.

Discussing this with him is pointless, IMHO. He doesn't listen and is an
endless source of smug assed yet mindless cut and paste repetitive posts.

Here is how to understand how AGW frauds think of "Climate" and "Weather".

Weather is what causes a lack of hurricane activity over the entire
season for several successive years when their climate prediction is for
many more than average and more powerful hurricanes.

Got it?

On 12/30/09 10:09 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
Here is how to understand how AGW frauds think of "Climate" and "Weather".

Weather is what causes a lack of hurricane activity over the entire
season for several successive years when their climate prediction is for
many more than average and more powerful hurricanes.

Got it?


Try not to be so stooooopid, Marvin. Instead, try taking climate
change a bit more seriously.

CO2 increase, Global Temperature increase, Sea Level
increase, are all consistent with each other. Real
impact is showing up in agriculture, ecosystems, weather
patterns, shifting seasons and ice melting.

The global data CLEARLY shows:

Human contributed increase in green house gas CO2
http://edu-observatory.org/olli/800000yrs_CO2.png
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/10/16/0907094106
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1023163513.htm

Global surface (land and sea) temperature increase

http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads...emp-trends.gif

And accompanying Sea Level Rise

http://www.wildwildweather.com/forec...level_rise.png

There are many sources of good data
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/climate-monitoring/index.php

Here's some data from Iowa State University
http://www.meteor.iastate.edu/facult...entations.html

More from University of Iowa

http://www.engineering.uiowa.edu/fac.../schnoor_j.php

Franzen - The Chemistry and Physics of Global Climate Change
http://hfranzen.org/
http://www.hfranzen.org/Global_Warming.pdf

On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 21:26:27 -0600, Sam Wormley
wrote:

On 12/30/09 8:31 PM, I M @ good guy wrote:
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 17:10:47 -0600, Sam
wrote:

On 12/30/09 4:47 PM, Peter Muehlbauer wrote:
Sam wrote:

On 12/30/09 10:45 AM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 18:48:40 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote:

Until a few dacades ago, Peter. The CO2 ain'y been this high for
15,000,000 years!

Actually, he just debunked that. More fraud on the part of the AGW
advocates.


Marvin, you should invest in some glasses. As of March 2009,
carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere is at a concentration
of 387 ppm by volume and increasing at a rate of 1.7 ppm per
year.

Caused by what?
Evidence your claim. Here.

Btw, show me the data set for your 15 mio. years claim.
Where is it?
And don't come up with Google now.
I want to see YOUR data set you are referring to.

As I told Marvin... the concentration and rate of increase
in concentration of CO2 is an observable, and undeniable
observable.

As for the cause, there is more and more evidence suggesting
that human activity (deforestation, cement production, fossil
fuel burning) is a contributing factor.

Peter, why don't you take global climate change seriously?


I take it seriously, but I don't have
to like the colder than normal weather
and the resulting bigger heating bills,
I even have to let faucets run when
the temperature goes 10 degrees
below normal.

Move about 800 miles east and
see how you like it, but wait till spring,
some of the roads may be closed.


You appear to easily confuse local weather and global climate.

There is no "global climate", every region
has it's own unique climate, which may include
every kind of weather ever experienced.

To show how stupid the temperature
averaging is, the high temperature for this
date was 70 degrees, tomorrow the high
will be 29, and the low for this date was
13 below, tomorrow night it will be 18 F.

Both those records were before 1885,
and with temperature excursions like that,
averaging is a joke.

Global Warming has become a big joke,
all the AGW gossip and alarmism has always
been a joke.
If the alarmists would even stick to the
IPPC latest reports at least the insanity would
be gone.


Too bad AGW is being claimed by so many
hopeful carbon credit salesmen.

On 12/30/09 10:53 PM, I M @ good guy wrote:


Global Warming has become a big joke,
all the AGW gossip and alarmism has always
been a joke.

You really ought to be taking the global climate change
seriously. Seriously! Why are you wasting your time
poking holes at it?


CO2 increase, Global Temperature increase, Sea Level
increase, are all consistent with each other. Real
impact is showing up in agriculture, ecosystems, weather
patterns, shifting seasons and melting ice.

The global data CLEARLY shows:

Human contributed increase in green house gas CO2
http://edu-observatory.org/olli/800000yrs_CO2.png
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/10/16/0907094106
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1023163513.htm

Global surface (land and sea) temperature increase

http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads...emp-trends.gif

And accompanying Sea Level Rise

http://www.wildwildweather.com/forec...level_rise.png

There are many sources of good data
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/climate-monitoring/index.php

Here's some data from Iowa State University
http://www.meteor.iastate.edu/facult...entations.html

More from University of Iowa

http://www.engineering.uiowa.edu/fac.../schnoor_j.php

Franzen - The Chemistry and Physics of Global Climate Change
http://hfranzen.org/
http://www.hfranzen.org/Global_Warming.pdf

EVERY single time someone says "the data clearly show" those words are
a political statement and nothing more.
The data are so corrupted that they show nothing and are good for
nothing any more.

On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 09:05:12 -0800, pegleg wrote:

EVERY single time someone says "the data clearly show" those words are a
political statement and nothing more. The data are so corrupted that
they show nothing and are good for nothing any more.

Exactly. The true data didn't support their AGW conclusion, so they
altered it. WE know this from both the e-mail about the "trick" to "hide
the decline" and the Fortran code that was even commented as "fudge
factor". Data that was changed to support their preconceived conclusion
seems to be common in the AGW crowd, so everything published from these
proven frauds is now suspect. We have to start over with real scientist.

On 12/31/09 1:21 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 09:05:12 -0800, pegleg wrote:

EVERY single time someone says "the data clearly show" those words are a
political statement and nothing more. The data are so corrupted that
they show nothing and are good for nothing any more.

Exactly. The true data didn't support their AGW conclusion, so they
altered it. WE know this from both the e-mail about the "trick" to "hide
the decline" and the Fortran code that was even commented as "fudge
factor". Data that was changed to support their preconceived conclusion
seems to be common in the AGW crowd, so everything published from these
proven frauds is now suspect. We have to start over with real scientist.



Spoken like a science illiterate. There are a lot of them in our
society.

On Dec 29, 8:50*am, Sam Wormley wrote:

Google is no reference to original data, Schmock!

* *Google is not a reference... Google is a search engine that can
* *help one find references. Why are you being so childish?

Why are you being such a Club of Rome shill? Plan on hitting the AGW
money big?

Why do you only use Google to reference your fellow shills including
those obvious ones in the APS making such idiotic public statements as
CO2 causing global warming as "incontrovertible". And yet even the
IPCC has to wave hands and come up with equally nonsensical "feedback"
theories to explain how CO2 is even capable of any significant change
in climate.

What is clear is that science has been taken over at the top through
the likes of the leadership of the IPCC and APS for political
purposes. And it is also clear that you, Sam the Sham, are part of
that political effort. All of you non-science fraudsters quoting each
other will fool nobody here. Take your "proof" to some Washington DC
press conference instead. They'll eat it up.