On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 23:30:30 -0600, Sam Wormley
wrote:

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.


You keep saying that to everybody, every
time it gets colder than normal everybody says
it must be Global Warming.


Seriously! Why are you wasting your time
poking holes at it?


I am not wasting my time, I am searching
for truth in science, and not finding it in any
of the AGW discussions or even on the major
government or school lab sites.

Do you consider me saying that GHGs
are the only thing that cools the atmosphere
is "poking holes in Global Warming alarmism"?

CO2 increase,


That is not climate change.

Global Temperature increase, Sea Level
increase, are all consistent with each other.


And you are totally convinced it will
continue as long as atmospheric CO2
concentrations increase?


Real
impact is showing up in agriculture, ecosystems, weather
patterns, shifting seasons and melting ice.


1998, the supposedly warmest year seems
to have been pretty food for agriculture.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P2-18218806.html

And there will likely be years with more
Atlantic hurricanes than 2009.

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


That is the dumbest and least professional
graphic on the subject, did you upload it?


And accompanying Sea Level Rise

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


With a large difference in sea level between
the two oceans, any "measurement" should be
just an estimate;

You are always blowing off about how science
is so settled, please explain the following statement
and tell us how this is handled in global sea level
measurements claimed to be precise;

"In 1883 it was realized that the tide level at the Pacific side was
almost 19 feet higher than the Atlantic side."

http://www.worldatlas.com/webimage/c...ca/pncanal.htm

[[[ Note that is 19 feet, not 1.9 ]]]

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


Why not the hadcru that shows a plunging plot;

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatec.../hadcrut3.html



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


The claim that half the flux returns to
Earth is bogus, is there some reason the AGW
crowd can't write "surface", is it because they
know that none of the high altitude flux
makes it to the surface, it is absorbed on
the way down and re-radiated, with most
of it ending up being re-radiated again
and again in the atmosphere and then
to space.

What will it take to get writers to say
that the primary role of GreenHouse Gases
is to cool the atmosphere and that almost
all the GreenHouse Gas is due to water vapor
in the troposphere, and to O2 and O3 in
the stratosphere.


Do you ever think a thought about
things you didn't learn reading or listening
to?

Really, I have been attending presentations
in college auditoriums and public halls since
the 1940s, and Global Warming or Climate
Change is about the dumbest of all.



Only one way to convince me, real easy,
just give me a year warmer than 1998.

On Dec 29, 8:05*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 12/29/09 12:47 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
It is why physics hasn't moved much since the 1950s.

* *My, my, the color of your strips is showing, Marvin!

* *Tremendous discovery in physics, astronomy and the sciences
* *since the 1950s!

You bet. Like the "discovery" that CO2 is the "incontrovertible" cause
of global warming, that Evolution is "fact" not "theory", that theory
of uniformity is wrong and actually nobody ever really believed it,
that intelligence it determined by the size of the brain, that UFOs
are "mass hallucination" and that the earth is the ONLY planet in the
universe where life exists in any remarkable form. Sure, Sam, LOTS of
progress.

On 12/31/09 4:16 PM, I M @ good guy wrote:


Really, I have been attending presentations
in college auditoriums and public halls since
the 1940s, and Global Warming or Climate
Change is about the dumbest of all.

That make you one old fart, doesn't it!

Only one way to convince me, real easy,
just give me a year warmer than 1998.


Published in 2006
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/env...5_warmest.html

On 12/31/09 4:19 PM, Benj wrote:
On Dec 29, 8:05 pm, Sam wrote:
On 12/29/09 12:47 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
It is why physics hasn't moved much since the 1950s.

My, my, the color of your strips is showing, Marvin!

Tremendous discovery in physics, astronomy and the sciences
since the 1950s!

You bet. Like the "discovery" that CO2 is the "incontrovertible" cause
of global warming, that Evolution is "fact" not "theory", that theory
of uniformity is wrong and actually nobody ever really believed it,
that intelligence it determined by the size of the brain, that UFOs
are "mass hallucination" and that the earth is the ONLY planet in the
universe where life exists in any remarkable form. Sure, Sam, LOTS of
progress.



Glad you agree Benj...

Don't forget the solution to the solar neutrino problem, sequencing
of genomes, space telescopes, finding water lots of placed in the
solar system.

On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 16:03:24 -0600, Sam Wormley
wrote:

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.

Not everybody can be a smart mouth ex-associate professor.

On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 00:41:56 +0100, Peter Muehlbauer
wrote:

Marvin the Martian wrote:

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.

Seems to me he is trapped in a repetitive time warp.


Maybe he needs to be posting all his messages
in sci.physics.relativity, they will love his ego.

On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 00:59:48 +0100, Peter Muehlbauer
wrote:

"I M @ good guy" wrote:

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.


It's so very vain even trying to open a rudimentally discussion with him.
He's the worst case I've seen in this newsgroup since years.
Even Ollibolli Rex or LLiard LLoyd are more conversable and amusing.
This mantra-like "Look, I have - No, you're wrong - Look, I have- No, you're
wrong" without any substance is more like his religion than science.
As soon as you scratch his surface a little bit, he shuts himself off, hiding
behind his stupid links.


I have been reading messages from sci.physics
in 2003 that were cross-posted to sci.physics.relativity,
I have never seen an original message by him, even
though he had to spend twice as long in school. :-)

With old age, long history of mild diabetes
and resulting heart trouble, cold weather is no
longer a joke, so I will suffer long stretches of
cabin fever during the next couple of months
while the AGW idiots complain about a fraction
of a degree warmer average in the cooked books.

There must be air moving up north some
place to have so much arctic air moving down
here.

On 29 Dez. 2009, 23:47, Marvin the Martian
wrote:
The problem is the whores who will take the money and give the
politicians whatever results they want. These aren't scientist, they're
whores.

No, the problem is the way how scientists are paid. It makes them
whores.

Give a scientist a secure job (teaching at a university, nothing else,
publishing papers as his hobby, no grants) and you obtain independent
scientist who are able to tell you the truth without being afraid of
loosing
their jobs. (No, not loosing their jobs, but simply not getting a new
one.)
Almost everybody has more job security. But job security is the basis
of independence.

Make them dependent on science managers who distribute grants,
and you obtain whores.

It is why physics hasn't moved much since the 1950s.

On 1/1/10 5:10 AM, I M @ good guy wrote:
On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 00:59:48 +0100, Peter Muehlbauer
wrote:

"I M @ good wrote:

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


It's so very vain even trying to open a rudimentally discussion with him.
He's the worst case I've seen in this newsgroup since years.
Even Ollibolli Rex or LLiard LLoyd are more conversable and amusing.
This mantra-like "Look, I have - No, you're wrong - Look, I have- No, you're
wrong" without any substance is more like his religion than science.
As soon as you scratch his surface a little bit, he shuts himself off, hiding
behind his stupid links.


I have been reading messages from sci.physics
in 2003 that were cross-posted to sci.physics.relativity,
I have never seen an original message by him, even
though he had to spend twice as long in school. :-)

With old age, long history of mild diabetes
and resulting heart trouble, cold weather is no
longer a joke, so I will suffer long stretches of
cabin fever during the next couple of months
while the AGW idiots complain about a fraction
of a degree warmer average in the cooked books.

There must be air moving up north some
place to have so much arctic air moving down
here.


I was hoping you would have greater curiosity about the chemistry
and physics of global climate change and dig into the science deeper.
What's to stop you from channeling your cabin fever into trying to
understand why climatologists have come to the conclusions that they
have. Are you not the least bit interested in the science?

On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 16:03:24 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote:

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.

You don't have a clue what an "intelligent argument" is, do you?

We have e-mails where they conspire to alter the data with a "trick" to
"hide the decline".

We have a Fortran source code that is even COMMENTED that it is applying
a 'fudge factor' and there is no rational reason at all for it to be
there other than to support an argument that you know is false.

Then you come here and tell these bald faced lies that anyone familiar
with the issue knows is just a damned lie, and you think that has weight?