On 2/21/10 1:17 AM, Marvin the Martian wrote:


1) We didn't create the increase in carbon dioxide. The warmer oceans did
that.

Marvin, read sections B2, C2

2) CO2 didn't cause the warming. Solar cycles caused changes on solar
wind which changed the flux of cosmic rays reaching the lower atmosphere.

Marvin, read sections B2, B3, B4, C2

Cosmic rays cause cloud formations, and that leads to climate change.
Svensmark predicted the recent cooling trend 10 years ago, and his theory
is consistent with the last 4.5 billion years of data. The AGW hypothesis
couldn't even predict the last decade.

This Document was written specifically for the like of you Marvin
that cling to gross misunderstandings!



http://www.swissre.com/resources/222...te_sceptic.pdf


A) Global warming:

• Al Global temperature cannot be calculated because of unreliable
measurements
• A2 Global warming is an artifact of the Urban Heat Island effect
• A3 The most important argument of IPCC (Mann et al "hockey stick"
curve) has proved to be incorrect
• A4 Satellite data show no warming of the troposphere In contrast to
model predictions
• A5 Sea level isn't rising everywhere
• A6 There is no apparent Increase of extreme events
• A7 In earlier times the climate was much warmer than today

B) Forcing factors:

• B1 Other factors have potent ally caused the present warming
• B2 Water vapour is the most important greenhouse gas, CO2 is unimportant
• B3 Climate change is driven by the sun
• B4 Climate change is driven by cosmic rays
• B5 Anthropogenic CO2 emissions are much smaller than natural CO2 emissions
• B6 Volcanoes emit more greenhouse gases than human activities
• B7 There was global cooling between 1940 and 1970 although CO2
concentration increased

C) Carbon dioxide (CO2)

• Cl CO2 measurements In Ice cores are not reliable
• C2 CO2 increase is just the result of temperature change
• C3 CO2 is just a fertilizer for plants and therefore positive
• C4 The observed increase in CO2 IS much smaller than assumed In
climate models
• C5 The greenhouse effect of CO2 is small because CO2 absorption bands
are saturated


http://www.swissre.com/resources/222...te_sceptic.pdf

On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 10:10:13 -0600, Sam Wormley
wrote:

Marvin, read sections B2, B3, B4, C2...

Sam-

You're arguing science with somebody who calls himself Marvin the
Martian, is obviously ignorant about what science is and has no
knowledge of climate science specifically, and is uninterested in
learning (or incapable). What do you hope to accomplish?
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

On Feb 21, 8:31*am, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 10:10:13 -0600, Sam Wormley
wrote:

Marvin, read sections B2, B3, B4, C2...

Sam-

You're arguing science with somebody who calls himself Marvin the
Martian,

Yes, but what's funniest of all is that Martin the Martian is winning.

On Feb 21, 11:31*am, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 10:10:13 -0600, Sam Wormley
wrote:

Marvin, read sections B2, B3, B4, C2...

Sam-

You're arguing science with somebody who calls himself Marvin the
Martian, is obviously ignorant about what science is and has no
knowledge of climate science specifically, and is uninterested in
learning (or incapable). What do you hope to accomplish?
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatoryhttp://www.cloudbait.com

Oh great. Sam "the bot" Wormley and Chris the amateur astronomer
calling someone else ignorant about science. That's a nice laugh. All
Sam the Sham can to is repeat links to his pro-AGW propaganda
organization's "fact sheet". And what is it that you do? It's all
junk science just as Marvin states. And what are you? An amateur
climate scientist? Hey, there's nothing wrong with being an interested
amateur IF one is willing to discuss issues. All we ever get on this
issue is political propaganda. That alone should prove the fraudulent
nature of the subject. Smoking guns lie about everywhere. From
Algore's reversal of cause and effect between ocean temperature and
Atmospheric CO2 to the faked Hockey Stick that not only used bad data
which was fudged in part by closing the majority of temperature
stations in cold places, to an uber clever use of the commonly
misunderstanding of Nile-like statistics to create a totally false
"sky is falling" scenario. There's no hope for Sam, but you Chris
ought to get your nose out of your amateur observatory and into some
real science books for a change. You can start with the absorption
bands of CO2 vs H2O. Oh, my! It seems that Marvin the Martian is
correct! Waddya know about that!

On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 21:28:39 -0800 (PST), Benj
wrote:

Smoking guns lie about everywhere. From
Algore's reversal of cause and effect between ocean temperature and
Atmospheric CO2 to the faked Hockey Stick that not only used bad data
which was fudged in part by closing the majority of temperature
stations in cold places...

Great. Another incompetent fool. Quit polluting SCI groups and go off to
the ALT groups, or any of the zillions of pseudoscience forums out
there. Be with your own kind.
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com