On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 06:42:08 +0100, Roving rabbit
wrote:

I M @ good guy wrote:
On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 12:23:26 -0600, Sam Wormley
wrote:

On 1/5/10 11:10 AM, Peter Muehlbauer wrote:
Sam wrote:

On 1/3/10 3:56 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 11:08:12 -0800, JohnM wrote:

whatever...

There is not a Anthropogenic global warming hypothesis to falsify. There
is no physical principle behind AGW, and every single "computer model"
failed to predict the last decade, and thus is a REJECTED hypothesis.

And now we know that the top AGW "scientist" are a bunch of goddamned
frauds and liars.
Now, now... Marvin should not be propagating misinformation!

Real scientist would reject the AGW non-hypothesis and go with
Svensmark's theory, which not only predicted the last 10 years, but is
consistent with the last 4.5 billion years of data and doesn't require
any "tricks" to "hide the decline".
There is no climate theory that works over a 4.5 billion year range
with a resolution of 10 years! Give us a break, Marvin!

You can't pry the AGW stupidity from some people. They have a death grip
and death wish on 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 ice melting.

The global data CLEARLY shows:

Human contributed increase in green house gas CO2
http://edu-observatory.org/olli/800000yrs_CO2.png

What is the source of this graph?
http://www.globalchange.gov/HighResI...obal-pg-13.jpg


And, where does this blue dashed line come from?

The dashed blue line represents the upper limit of CO2 concentration
in the trapped air record going back 800,000 years... until this
that century.

More references to this kind of data:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Co...ature-plot.svg
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/pa...anorama11.html

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...06949-f1.2.jpg
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...l/453291a.html



Wasn't some of that found in Cracker Jack Boxes?


http://www.crackerjack.com/home.htm


The AGW deniers filth industry marches on so to see.

Q

How can anybody deny something that
doesn't exist?

Maybe I should spelled it Quacker Quack AGW.

Sam Wormley wrote:
On 1/5/10 11:10 AM, Peter Muehlbauer wrote:
Sam wrote:

On 1/3/10 3:56 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 11:08:12 -0800, JohnM wrote:

whatever...

There is not a Anthropogenic global warming hypothesis to falsify.
There
is no physical principle behind AGW, and every single "computer model"
failed to predict the last decade, and thus is a REJECTED hypothesis.

And now we know that the top AGW "scientist" are a bunch of goddamned
frauds and liars.

Now, now... Marvin should not be propagating misinformation!


Real scientist would reject the AGW non-hypothesis and go with
Svensmark's theory, which not only predicted the last 10 years, but is
consistent with the last 4.5 billion years of data and doesn't require
any "tricks" to "hide the decline".

There is no climate theory that works over a 4.5 billion year range
with a resolution of 10 years! Give us a break, Marvin!


You can't pry the AGW stupidity from some people. They have a death
grip
and death wish on 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 ice melting.

The global data CLEARLY shows:

Human contributed increase in green house gas CO2
http://edu-observatory.org/olli/800000yrs_CO2.png


What is the source of this graph?

http://www.globalchange.gov/HighResI...obal-pg-13.jpg



And, where does this blue dashed line come from?


The dashed blue line represents the upper limit of CO2 concentration
in the trapped air record going back 800,000 years... until this
that century.

How in the world can you believe that the line is continuous and
actually records each year's concentration (which is not a nice
datum in the first place).


/BAH