Politics Climate Change Paradox (cont in part 2)

[Upton Sinclair]

I have already gone over all those things

No, you haven't. That's the whole point of this list. You made claims then you back-peddled when challenged. You have NEVER supported the claims made, I have struck out the three or so claims you did have the decency to go back and address. The rest are from wild-eyed rants that you ran away from when confronted with evidence. You are a lair AND a fool, it seems.

So, I put it to you AGAIN. Support or retract.

• Evidence that the IPCC only ever predicted a 1.1 C. temperature rise for a doubling of Co2 and evidence that it has since been "revised down"
• Evidence that the MWP was "three degrees warmer than today".
• Acknowledge that Co2 doesn't "trap light", rather absorbs and reemits longwave IR
• That the logarithmic relationship between Co2 and temperature is well recognised.
• That the planet has "cooled" since 2001.
• Cite the "something" that supposedly explains the current warming.
• Cite the "recent science" that shows that lag/lead issue is not driven by CO2 and that amplification doesn't exist or that the Milankovitch Cycle is not "proof of anything".
• Acknowledge the fact that models HAVE accurately predicted current conditions, or provide the evidence that contradicts what you were provided on Page 4.
• Source the graphs cited on Page 4.
• Cite the peer reviewed research being conducted by your army of THOUSANDS of supposed "independent" but anonymous climate scientists.
• Acknowldge that your "lab test" arguments about CO2 are hopelesly flawed, or provide evidence to the contrary.
• Acknowledge that the most recent research (funded by the fossil fuel industry and headed by the great denier darling, Prf Muller, nonetheless!) actually shows that your sacred UHI is in fact complete bunkum and has no effect whatsoever on global temperature trends and that you are clinging to it like a religious fanatic clings to dogmatic beliefs.
• Outline a cheaper mechanism for reaching the bipartisan policy of a 5% reduction in Australian emissions by 2020.
• Acknowledge that your argument that a carbon tax won't effect global temperatures is an abysmal straw man argument that no one on this "side" has ever made.
• Cite your claim that CO2 has increased plant growth by 15% over the last century.
• Provide evidence that actually contradicts the evidence showing that increased Co2 has reduced plant productivity.
• Cite evidence that cloud cover "accounts for 60%" of the greenhouse effect.
• Acknowledge that you lied and tried to pretend that amplification was recently invented to account for the lag/lead issue.
• Acknowledge that you plagiarised text from Joanne Nova's blog and tried to pass it off as your own so you could pretend to read technical papers and try to give yourself an aura of expertise?
• Acknowledge that not only do you not read technical papers, that you would have trouble knowing which way up to hold a technical paper
• Acknowledge that humans are not adapted to survive in the conditions last seen in the Jurassic.

 

[Ron The Bear]

Geez, Ron, I thought you worked in IT. That was a real thing.

Yeah, but the scope of the problem was far smaller than the scaremongers had people believe. Talk of everything from planes falling from the sky to your VCR exploding played on the public's naivete. Reckon a lot more money was spent on unnecessary 'fixes' than necessary ones.

 

[Ron The Bear]

Yo do have a refrence for that claim, no doubt?

How many do you want? There are hundreds of these illustrations of the global carbon cycle all over the web, all with more or less the same figures.

This one was produced by a guy who, while not an alarmist as such, believes man is adversely affecting climate.

 

[Ron The Bear]

No one has "changed horses" and there IS a warming trend. You have been sorely deluded if you think there hasn't been.

How then do you explain recent developments such as this?

"We’re now well into the second decade of the pause,’ said Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation. "If we don’t see convincing evidence of global warming by 2015, it will start to become clear whether the models are bunk. And, if they are, the implications for some scientists could be very serious."

http://www.newsnet5.com/dpp/weather...ffice-declares-Earth-hasnt-warmed-in-15-years

No doubt there is misinformation being propagated by both sides. To me, the models appear to be based on uncertain minutiae in which wildly varying simulated outcomes are produced by making very small adjustments to the starting parameters.

 

[OldBlueFan]

deleted cost it wouldn't let me add a graphic with an "edit"

 

[OldBlueFan]

There can be no doubt that the man-made proportion of total greenhouse emissions is very low. The question nobody seems in agreement about is, how much has that small percentage upset the balance?

Despite considering myself something of a nature lover, the proliferation of fashionable pseudoscience used to justify measures such as the carbon tax has pushed my views on this subject hard to the right.

Considering that all natural sources of CO2 emissions are pretty much counter-balanced by natural CO2 sinks; and these sinks are also capable of absorbing even some of the human-caused CO2 emissions, then clearly human emissions are responsible for 100% of the upset in balance. That is, the rest of the CO2 emissions that are not being absorbed by natural sinks.

The "percentage of atmospheric CO2 caused by humans" argument is a long debunked one:

How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions?

The CO2 that nature emits (from the ocean and vegetation) is balanced by natural absorptions (again by the ocean and vegetation). Therefore human emissions upset the natural balance, rising CO2 to levels not seen in at least 800,000 years. In fact, human emit 26 gigatonnes of CO2 per year while CO2 in the atmosphere is rising by only 15 gigatonnes per year - much of human CO2 emissions is being absorbed by natural sinks.

 

[Ron The Bear]

Considering that all natural sources of CO2 emissions are pretty much counter-balanced by natural CO2 sinks; and these sinks are also capable of absorbing even some of the human-caused CO2 emissions, then clearly human emissions are responsible for 100% of the upset in balance. That is, the rest of the CO2 emissions that are not being absorbed by natural sinks.

The "percentage of atmospheric CO2 caused by humans" argument is a long debunked one:

How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions?

Don't dispute any of that. My (poorly phrased) question re balance was, how deleterious is the elevated CO2 level?

 

[Monniehawk]

None whatsoever. The man-made contribution is between 3 and 3.5 percent, depending on your preferred data source.

CO2 up?
Now, what of the other carbon compounds emitted? All up by 3.5%? More? Less? Or when we burn fuel, do we only give off CO2? Are all emissions as 'benign' as CO2 is purported to be?
Nitrogen is beneficial to plants. Let's bang it up. Then again, methane is a naturally occurring gas. Should be OK to shunt a bit more into the atmosphere - after all, it is natural. Then there's ozone. Just oxygen on steroids, really. Quite safe. Oxygen! We all need that. A bit more won't hurt. It used to be much higher anyway because those little stromatalites kept pumping it into the air to send anaerobic life scurrying so that we could evolve in a rather balmy, balanced environment.
Just my contribution to the simplistic arguments.

Whilst I'm in no doubt that many highly intelligent people support the underlying philosophy, the facts presented to date on 'climate change' point to it being little more than an opportunist industry like that which sprang up around the mythical 'Y2K bug'.

Worked on the Y2K 'bug' in my former life in software development. Not actually a bug, just a problem with earlier algorithms that needed to be fixed. Far too much hype, but still a real issue.

And a great little earner it was too.

Certainly was! Briefly. It was followed by a two-year depression in the IT industry as companies pulled back on the IT allocations. Upgrading software usually gave the chance to push for replacement of hardware and firmware. Too good to miss, for some.

Your extreme left-leaning political views totally corrupt your view. You know this is true. Just admit it. You're totally corrupted.
You're not an idiot. You seem reasonably articualate and I'm sure there is a brain functionaing reasonably well somewhere in there. So, why is it so hard to put the politics aside and admit the fact there is simply no empirical evidence that humans are causing dangerous warming?

Submitted without comment.

Don't dispute any of that. My (poorly phrased) question re balance was, how deleterious is the elevated CO2 level?

Not very good, in the longer term. Because CO2 doesn't walk alone!!
You just can't get past that, though.
"Lord" Monckton is worth looking at.
I notice in the video attacking the ABC for lying that he used the term "...we scientists..!". "We" as in the collective of "us scientists"!!
Forgive my scepticism. He attended Harrow then Chruchill Coll where he obtained an BA/MA in classics, then Uni Coll, Cardiff for a Dip in Journalism Studies. High-powered stuff. But a 'scientist'???!
He also claimed, in a letter to US senators, to be a member of the House of Lords. He has a hereditary peerage, but his peers the HoL authorities publicly refutes his membership. He claimed to have cured himself of Grave's Disease. He is something of a political pimpernel, having never quite achieved stability in the Conservative or UKIP.
He appears to be either heavily deluded or an inveterate liar.
Either way, he presents as the inverse of Gore - another opinionated, unqualified zealot who has a following disproportionate to his credibility.

 

[Dan26]

So, Upton

What did you think of the Monckton video, and the link I gave you.

Your thoughts?

Can you bring yourself to seek out information on the other side of the argument yet? I did.

But that's the difference between the religious fervour of the left with their global warming religion and the sceptics, most of who used to be alarmists but changed their opinion as the evidence (or lack of it) piled up.

With no statistically significant warming in a decade, no empirical evidecne that human C02 emissiosn cause dangerous warming, lies and deceit all from the alarmists side (climategate) and all of the models being proven wrong and overstated, you would think you would be curious to look at the science for once and not believe what government funded, politically motivated totalitarians think.

So, tell me.... what did you think of the video and the link. I challenge you not to take an ad hominum view on Monckton and instead look at the evidence being presented.

It's so typical of the left to ignore to evidence and attack the person. So I challenge you.... don't be a typical totalitarian warmist leftie, and instead tell me what you think about the evidence in the video, and the transcript on the link provided.

 

[Monniehawk]

So, Upton

What did you think of the Monckton video, and the link I gave you.

Your thoughts?

Can you bring yourself to seek out information on the other side of the argument yet? I did.

But that's the difference between the religious fervour of the left with their global warming religion and the sceptics, most of who used to be alarmists but changed their opinion as the evidence (or lack of it) piled up.
With no statistically significant warming in a decade, no empirical evidecne that human C02 emissiosn cause dangerous warming, lies and deceit all from the alarmists side (climategate) and all of the models being proven wrong and overstated, you would think you would be curious to look at the science for once and not believe what government funded, politically motivated totalitarians think.

So, tell me.... what did you think of the video and the link. I challenge you not to take an ad hominum view on Monckton and instead look at the evidence being presented.

It's so typical of the left to ignore to evidence and attack the person. So I challenge you.... don't be a typical totalitarian warmist leftie, and instead tell me what you think about the evidence in the video, and the transcript on the link provided.

I'll leave the rest of you to Upton, but for mine.
The Monckton video was shot full of assumptions, bad science (when science was actually presented), selective data, bias, preconceptions and, of course, 'Lord' Monckton.
I could forgive the other stuff, but Monckton is coming across as a complete fraud and badly discredited delusionary with another agenda.
You can choose him as your standard bearer if you like, but, boy, does he weaken your stance!

PS. Give up the rabid rhetoric. It betrays your anti-left dogma.
And the 'I am a converted alarmist' postiche.
We're just not that gullible.


[EDIT]
I took your advice and researched further. Thanks! It just keeps reinforcing how wrong you are.
Just an iota of the evidence you choose to ignore:
CO2 effects.
Humans do affect climate;
Monckton background info

 

[JoondalupJ]

Should we act now or should we wait for a unified global approach to reduce total emissions.


Australia created 559.6 Mt CO2e from all sources in the previous year, down 0.7 % (http://www.climatechange.gov.au/climate-change/emissions.aspx)


While we create less than 1.5% of the worlds total greenhouse emissions(eia.gov), we have one of the highest emissions/capita in the world.


If Australia went it alone, really, what impact would we have, considering China has increased its emissions by 39% between 2005 and 2009.


However the paradox is that we are one of the greatest contributors per capita in the world. Perhaps we do need to take action to get our levels per capita to an acceptable level. The truth however is that unless the the United states and China make an effort to reduce emissions, we probably won't see a significant reduction in global emissions.


Discuss with possible solutions to 'our' reduction in emissions and a date to meet a target.

Should we duck now or wait until we hear the shot, maybe it,ll miss, although there is a major problem there . THE ONE THAT HITS YOUR HEAD , YOU DON,T HEAR.
If you get my drift . Thats the dilemma.
Warming /cooling what ever , why not just clean up a bit, make the super wealthy pay a bit more for their privelaged lives in taxes.Enjoy the govt subsidy,forget the panic merchants who scream disaster, when the disaster they are screaming about is a little pinch of dollars out of their "black" not their "red". Remember that a massive industry in renewables will develope and that is looking into the next 100 years, not into Tony one votes ache for the Prime minister's job.

Funny all the whingers are wealthy miners or big business people , politicians with favors owing, shock jocks who pretent to be bipartisan but are really raving politically driven idealists, but try to sound even minded. That is laughable.

Last thing to remember, no one really knows what this little planet of ours will or has done to any absolute degree, so there you have it. Thats the answer.

Can,t dodge a bullet if you didn,t hear the shot. Does that explain everything , I think theres something in that for everyone ??????????????ha ha ha ha ha ha but its true.

 

[Dont be a lemon]

Dan26, you're making a complete fool of yourself.

 

[RIOLIUSTAR]

Dan26, you're making a complete fool of yourself.

I disagree I think he's onto something

Tick Tock...4.5 years to go till this farce is dead and buried

I can only assume everyone in favour of acting now believes the "hockey stick" theory, put forward by the IPCC

 

[RIOLIUSTAR]

So, Upton

What did you think of the Monckton video, and the link I gave you.

Your thoughts?

Can you bring yourself to seek out information on the other side of the argument yet? I did.

But that's the difference between the religious fervour of the left with their global warming religion and the sceptics, most of who used to be alarmists but changed their opinion as the evidence (or lack of it) piled up.

With no statistically significant warming in a decade, no empirical evidecne that human C02 emissiosn cause dangerous warming, lies and deceit all from the alarmists side (climategate) and all of the models being proven wrong and overstated, you would think you would be curious to look at the science for once and not believe what government funded, politically motivated totalitarians think.

So, tell me.... what did you think of the video and the link. I challenge you not to take an ad hominum view on Monckton and instead look at the evidence being presented.

It's so typical of the left to ignore to evidence and attack the person. So I challenge you.... don't be a typical totalitarian warmist leftie, and instead tell me what you think about the evidence in the video, and the transcript on the link provided.

I think you might asking too much Dan

Anyway where is US these days?

 

[rayven]

So, Upton

What did you think of the Monckton video, and the link I gave you.

Your thoughts?

.

Monktons a politician and a journalist.....

facts, study,investigation, morals, credibility is not something he exhibits...\\

 

[RIOLIUSTAR]

Monktons a politician and a journalist.....

facts, study,investigation, morals, credibility is not something he exhibits...\\

Rayven whats your view on CO2 forcing...seeing its the in thing atm?

 

[Dan26]

Monktons a politician and a journalist.....

facts, study,investigation, morals, credibility is not something he exhibits...\\

The left is totally intimidated by Monckton. They try to discredit him because they are petrified of him. That's what the "left" do - they attack the person, not the subject matter.

Becuase they know he is right.

He is 6-0 in climate debates.

At the national press club recently (full or warmist left-leaning journalists) he convinced a full 9% of them to change their views. Just wiht a 30 minute speech.

The warmists will do everything they can to try to discredit him, because they know he is right. They paint the incorrect picture that he is a nut, until he starts talking and those that debate him realise that thet guy knows his subject perhaps better than anyone on the planet.

The facts are that people like you rayven are lefties. And you THINK tat means you havs to be a cliamte alarmist.

Well, you're wrong. You don't have to be a climate alarmist.

You, rayven, can change t become a sceptic and sitll be a lefty.

So, do it. Stop letting the politics affect your beliefs.

 

[Dan26]

The Monckton video was shot full of assumptions

No it wasn't.

bad science (when science was actually presented)

Like what?

selective data, bias, preconceptions and, of course, 'Lord' Monckton.

Give me one example from the video where what was being presented was incorrect. Just one.

The irony of your quote is extraordinary. The alarmists are the ones who have been shown to have manipulated data (climategate, anyone.) They are the ones who use dodgy modelling which hasn't been proven to be correct. They are the ones who underestimated the feedbacks. They are the ones coming up with dodgy "hockey stick" graphs based on selective and incorrect data streams.

That's the whole point. Since there is categorically NO empirical evidence that human C02 emissiosn cause dangerous warming, models are all they have. And the empirical real life evidecne simply hasn't matched the models.

This is good news to you, and all of us. But people like you (clearly a left-wing voter. I can tell tem a mile away because they refuse to accept the truth, and and are closet totalitarians) can't accept this. You think accepting this is akin to voting for the Coalition.

That's because you are a fool.

You can still vote Labor MonnieHawk and be a climate sceptic. That litte C02 molecule up there which ins't "much" heating the atompshere doesn't care who you vote for.

So, do it. Change your view to suit the evidence like thousands of other scientists are doing. Thounads of scientists are changing from alarmist to sceptic and none are going the other way.

Look at the evidence for God's sake. Look how the power of governent funding (all one one side) has funded the alarmsit side 3,000 times more than the sceptic side.

Instead of letting your left-leaning poltics sway you into being an alarmist, use your head and become a sceptic. It doesn't mean you are right-wing. It makes you a left-winger who is also a sceptic.

So, do it.

Here are 30,000 scientists (including 9000 PHD's) many of who have changed their views. http://www.petitionproject.org It's not a consensus anymore. We outnumber them.

 

[Dan26]

That's the problem with the left-leanng greenie militant warmist totalitarians on this board. They don't WANT to be a sceptic, even if the evidence points that way because they think being a sceptic means being right-wing and they are left-wing voters.

This isn't about left or right!!!!!! GET THAT THROUGH YOUR HEADS! This is about truth and honesty and we are being decieved. This is a PR campaign with YOUR money to con you out of what is rightfully yours. You're naive enough to think that 97% of climate scientists agree? They don't tell us, that that is only 75 people! You've been conned.

"The small number of climate scientists actually supporting the Al Gore/IPCC claims of catastrophic global warming and the actual AGW “predictions” has always been a major embarrassment. As a result, the left/liberal/greens have been forced to fabricate bogus support that can’t stand up to any form of scrutiny.

First, it was the claim that 2,500 IPCC-related scientists agreed with the 2007 IPCC report. Soon afer it was discovered that ...the actual number of scientists who actually agreed with the report contents was only 25.


Next, when the 2,500 shrunk to 25, a couple of University of Illinois researchers conjured up a 2-minute online, anonymous survey that they hoped would deliver some big numbers to crow about. They solicited 10,257 earth scientists and only 77 chose to answer the online survey (yes, only 77). 75 of those “climate scientists” agreed with the survey’s two questions (yes, only 2 questions).

Voila, the infamous and widely publicized “97%” of climate scientists (75 divided by 77) who thought man was the cause of global warming turned out to be a numeric joke"

I can name 31,500 who agree with me, they are independent scientists with no vested interest and they agree that cutting C02 is pointless and may even be harmful and that includes 9,000 PHD's.

These are the people Julia calls deniers. It includes 4 NASA astronaughts, two of who stood on the moon.

Only 12 people have stood on the moon, 2 of them are sceptics and Julia (and you) calls them deniers. The sceptics can name 2 noble prize winners of physics. None of this nobel peace prize crap. So, despite what you hear about there being a consensus. Not only is there no consensus, but we outnumber them!

But you know what, we'd never use that to say we're right. Because real scientists don't use arguments by authority and other stone age stuff of long gone eras.

You do that. But I don't

We'd never argue we were right because there are more of us. And we'd never argue we were right because we have better scientists like the Nobel prize winners and the astronaughts who stood on the moon. Just because we have better scientists, that doesn't make us right. We're right because we hae the evidence on our side and evidence is all that matters. Science is never about consensus or voting.

This 97% is a load of rubbish and all the alarmists know it. Have a look around. Look at this thread, look at youtube, look in the street, look at the scientists on various programs. Does it appear to you that 97% agree? Or you could be referring to a study was published recently saying that 98% of scientists "believe" in global warming. I looked at the questions they had been asked and realized I was in the 98%, too!

Only a naive fool would believe that there is a true consensus of 98% who believe that human C02 emissions will have a significant and dangerous impact.

There are thousands of scientists changing from alarmists to skeptics and none are gong the other way. But you know what? That doens't matter because consensus is not evidecne, it never has been and never will be.

But, the militant warmists, will use their CONFIRMATION BIAS to sway your own views. They will gravitateonly to the information that suits their "side", regardless of how dodgy it is.

They have no ability, or desire to seek out information on the other side of this debate, because they are hopelessly lost in their own confirmation bias.

The fact that there is no empirical evidence that human C02 emissions cause dangerous warming means nothing to them. IT SHOULD.. But it doesn't because they are militant warmists, who won't let their own confirmation bias allow them to think objectively. That's the problem with intellectuals who militantly believe in an agenda. They are smart enough to seek out information to their side.

The United Nations IPCC also publishes a research review in the form of a voluminous, occasionally-updated report on the subject of climate change, which the United Nations asserts is "authored" by approximately 600 scientists. These "authors" are not, however – as is ordinarily the custom in science – permitted power of approval the published review of which they are putative authors. They are permitted to comment on the draft text, but the final text neither conforms to nor includes many of their comments. The final text conforms instead to the United Nations objective of building support for world taxation and rationing of industrially-useful energy.


The conclusions of the peer revirwed research by ARTHUR B. ROBINSON, NOAH E. ROBINSON, AND WILLIE SOON (part of the 31,000) is unquivocal:


"There are no experimental data to support the hypothesis that in creases in human hydrocarbon use or in at mospheric carbon dioxide and other green house gases are causing or can be expected to cause
unfavorable changes in global temperatures, weather, or landscape. There is no reason to limit human pro duction of CO2, CH4, and other minor green house gases as has been pro posed (82,83,97,123). We also need not worry about environmental calamities even if the current natural warming trend con tinues. The Earth has been much warmer during the past 3,000 years without catastrophic effects. Warmer weather extends growing seasons and generally improves the habitability of colder regions.

As coal, oil, and natural gas are used to feed and lift from poverty vast numbers of people across the globe, more CO2 will be released into the atmosphere. This will help to maintain and improve the health, longevity, prosperity, and productivity of all people. The United States and other coun tries need to produce more energy, not less. The most practical, economical, and environmentally sound methods available are hydrocarbon and nuclear technologies. Human use of coal, oil, and natural gas has not harmfully warmed the Earth, and the ex trapolation of cur rent trends shows that it will not do so in the foreseeable fu ture. The CO2 pro duced does, how - ever, accelerate the growth rates of plants and also permits plants to grow in drier re gions. An imal life, which de pends upon plants, also flourishes, and the di versity of plant and an imal life is increased. Human activities are producing part of the rise in CO2 in the atmosphere. Mankind is moving the carbon in coal, oil, and natural gas from below ground to the atmosphere, where it is available for conversion into living things. We are living in an in creasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a re sult of this CO2 increase. Our
children will therefore en joy an Earth with far more plant and animal
life than that with which we now are blessed."



References:
1. Rob inson, A. B., Baliunas, S. L., Soon, W., and Robinson, Z. W. (1998) Journal of American Physicians
and Surgeons 3, 171-178.
2. Soon, W., Baliunas, S. L., Rob inson, A. B., and Rob inson, Z. W. (1999) Climate Res. 13, 149-164.
3. Keigwin, L. D. (1996) Science 274, 1504-1508. ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/contribu -
tions_by_author/keigwin1996/
4. Oerlemanns, J. (2005) Science 308, 675-677.
5. Oerlemanns, J., Björnsson, H., Kuhn, M., Obleitner, F., Palsson, F., Smeets, C. J. P. P., Vugts, H.
F., and De Wolde, J. (1999) Boundary-Layer Mete orology 92, 3-26.
6. Greuell, W. and Smeets, P. (2001) J. Geophysical Res. 106, 31717-31727.
7. Marland, G., Boden, T. A., and Andres, R. J. (2007) Global, Re gional, and National CO2 Emissions.
In Trends: A Com pendium of Data on Global Change. Car bon Dioxide Informa tion Anal ysis
Cen ter,Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. De partment of En ergy, Oak Ridge, TN, USA,
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/tre_glob.htm
8. Soon, W. (2005) Geophysical Research Letters 32, 2005GL023429.
9. Hoyt, D. V. and Schatten, K. H. (1993) J. Geophysical Res. 98, 18895-18906.
10. Na tional Cli matic Data Center, Global Surface Temperature Anomalies (2007)
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/...anomalies.html and NASA GISS
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt.
11. Soon, W., Baliunas, S., Idso, C., Idso, S., and Legates, D. R. (2003) Energy & Env. 14, 233-296.
12. Idso, S. B. and Idso, C. D. (2007) Center for Study of Carbon Di oxide and Global Change
http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/edu cation/reports/hansen/hansencritique.jsp.
13. Groveman, B. S. and Landsberg, H. E. (1979) Geophysical Research Letters 6, 767-769.
14. Esper, J., Cook, E. R., and Schweingruber, F. H. (2002) Science 295, 2250-2253.
15. Tan, M., Hou, J., and Liu, T. (2004) Geophysical Research Letters 31, 2003GL019085.
16. New ton, A., Thunell, R., and Stott, L. (2006) Geophysical Research Letters 33, 2006GL027234.
17. Akasofu, S.-I. (2007) In ternational Arctic Research Center, Univ. of Alaska, Fairbanks
http://www.iarc.uaf.edu/highlights/2..._3_07/Earth_re covering_from_LIA_R.pdf
18. Teller, E., Wood, L., and Hyde, R. (1997) 22nd In ternational Seminar on Planetary Emergencies,
Erice, Italy, Lawrence Livermore National Labora tory, UCRL-JC-128715, 1-18.
19. Soon, W. (2007) private communication.
20. U.S. Na tional Cli matic Data Center, U.S. Department of Commerce 2006 Cli mate Re view.
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/...h/cag3/na.html
21. Landsea, C. W. (2007) EOS 88 No. 18, 197, 208.
22. Landsea, C. W., Nicholls, N., Gray, W. M., and Avila, L. A. (1996) Geophysical Research
Letters 23, 1697-1700.
23. Goldenberg, S. B., Landsea, C. W., Mesta-Nuñez, A. M., and Gray, W. M. (2001) Science 293,
474-479.
24. Jevrejeva, S., Grinsted, A., Moore, J. C., and Holgate, S. (2006) J. Geophysical Res. 111,
2005JC003229. http://www.pol.ac.uk/psmsl/au thor_archive/jevrejeva_etal_gsl/
25. Leuliette, E. W., Nerem, R. S., and Mitchum, G. T. (2004) Marine Geodesy 27, No. 1-2, 79-94.
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
26. Lamb, H. H. (1982) Climate, His tory, and the Mod ern World, Methuen, New York.
27. Essex, C., McKitrick, R., and Andresen, B. (2007) J. Non-Equilibrium Therm. 32, 1-27.
28. Polyakov, I. V., Bekryaev, R. V., Alekseev, G. V., Bhatt, U. S., Colony, R. L., Johnson, M. A.,
Maskshtas, A. P., and Walsh, D. (2003) Journal of Climate 16, 2067-2077.
29. Christy, J. R., Norris, W. B., Spencer, R. W., and Hnilo, J. J. (2007) J. Geophysical Res. 112,
2005JD006881. http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.
30. Spencer, R. W. and Christy, J. R. (1992) Journal of Climate 5, 847-866.
31. Christy, J. R. (1995) Clima tic Change 31, 455-474.
32. Zhu, P., Hack, J. J., Kiehl, J. T., and Bertherton, C. S. (2007) J. Geophysical Res., in press.
33. Balling, Jr., R. C. (1992) The Heated De bate, Pacific Research Institute.
34. Friis-Christensen, E. and Lassen, K. (1991) Science 254, 698-700.
35. Baliunas, S. and Soon, W. (1995) Astrophysical Journal 450, 896-901.
36. Neff, U., Burns, S. J., Mangini, A., Mudelsee, M., Fleitmann, D., and Matter, A. (2001) Nature
411, 290-293
37. Jiang, H., Eiríksson, J., Schulz, M., Knudsen, K., and Seidenkrantz, M. (2005) Geology 33, 73-76.
38. Maasch, K. A., et. al. (2005) Geografiska Annaler 87A, 7-15.
39. Wang, Y., Cheng, H., Ed wards, R. L., He, Y., Kong, X., An, Z., Wu, J., Kelly, M. J., Dykoski, C.
A., and Li, X. (2005) Science 308, 854-857.
40. Baliunas, S. L. et. al. (1995) Astrophysical Journal 438, 269-287.
41. Fenton, L. K., Geiss ler, P. E., and Haberle, R. M. (2007) Nature 446, 646-649.
42. Marcus, P. S. (2004) Nature 428, 828-831.
43. Hammel, H. B., Lynch, D. K., Rus sell, R. W., Sitko, M. L., Bernstein, L. S., and Hewagama, T.
(2006) Astrophysical Journal 644, 1326-1333.
44. Hammel, H. B., and Lock wood, G. W. (2007) Geophysical Research Letters 34, 2006GL028764.
45. Elliot, J. L., et. al. (1998) Nature 393, 765-767.
46. Elliot, J. L., et. al. (2003) Nature 424, 165-168.
47. Sicardy, B., et. al. (2003) Nature 424, 168-170.
48. Elliot, J. L., et. al. (2007) Astronomical Journal 134, 1-13.
49. Camp, C. D. and Tung, K. K. (2007) Geophysical Research Letters 34, 2007GL030207.
50. Scafetta, N. and West, B. J. (2006) Geophysical Research Letters 33, 2006GL027142.
51. Goodridge, J. D. (1996) Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc. 77, 3-4; Goodridge, J. D. (1998) private comm.
52. Christy, J. R. and Goodridge, J. D. (1995) Atm. Envirn. 29, 1957-1961.
53. Hansen, J. and Lebedeff, S. (1987) J. Geophysical Res. 92, 13345-13372.
54. Hansen, J. and Lebedeff, S. (1988) Geophysical Research Letters 15, 323-326.
55. Hansen, J., Ruedy, R., and Sato, M. (1996) Geophysical Research Letters 23, 1665-1668;
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/gistemp/
56. Schimel, D. S. (1995) Global Change Biology 1, 77-91.
57. Houghton, R. A. (2007) Annual Review of Earth and Plan etary Sciences 35, 313-347.
58. Jaworowski, Z., Segalstad, T. V., and Ono, N. (1992) Science of the Total Environ. 114, 227-284.
59. Segalstad, T. V. (1998) Global Warm ing the Continuing Debate, Cambridge UK: European
Science and En vironment Forum, ed. R. Bate, 184-218.
60. Berner, R. A. (1997) Science 276, 544-545.
61. Retallack, G. J. (2001) Nature 411, 287-290.
62. Rothman, D. H. (2002) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 99, 4167-4171.
63. Petit et. al., (1999) Nature 399, 429-436.
64. Siegenthaler, U., et. al. (2005) Science 310, 1313-1317.
65. Spahni, R., et. al. (2005) Science 310, 1317-1321.
66. Soon, W. (2007) Physi cal Geography, in press.
67. Dettinger, M. D. and Ghill, M. (1998) Tellus, 50B, 1-24.
68. Kuo, C., Lindberg, C. R., and Thornson, D. J. (1990) Nature 343, 709-714.
69. Revelle, R. and Suess, H. E. (1957) Tellus 9, 18-27.
70. Yamashita, E., Fujiwara, F., Liu, X., and Ohtaki, E. (1993) J. Oceanography 49, 559-569.
71. Keeling, C. D. and Whorf, T. P. (1997) Trends On line: A Com pendium of Data on Global
Change, Carbon Dioxide In formation Anal y sis Cen ter, Oak Ridge Na tional Lab o ra tory;
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/sio-mlo.htm
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/tr..._data_mlo.html
72. Schneider, D. P. et. al. (2006) Geophysical Research Letters 33, 2006GL027057.
73. Ar cher, D. (2005) J. Geophysical Res. 110, 2004JC002625.
74. Faraday, M. (1860) The Chemical History of a Can dle, Christmas Lectures, Royal In stitution,
London.
75. Serreze, M. C., Hol land, M. M., and Stroeve, J. (2007) Science 315, 1533-1536.
76. Bentley, C. R. (1997) Science 275, 1077-1078.
77. Nicholls, K. W. (1997) Nature 388, 460-462.
78. Davis, C. H., Li, Y., McConnell, J. R., Frey, M. M., and Hanna, E. (2005) Sci ence 308,
1898-1901.
79. Monaghan, A. J., et. al. (2006) Science 313, 827-831.
80. Kullman, L. (2007) Nordic Journal of Botany 24, 445-467.
81. Lindzen, R. S. (1994) Ann. Re view Fluid Mech. 26, 353-379.
82. IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), Work ing Group I Report (2007).
83. Kyoto Pro tocol to the United Na tions Framework Con vention on Climate Change (1997).
84. Sun, D. Z. and Lindzen, R. S. (1993) Ann. Geophysicae 11, 204-215.
85. Spencer, R. W. and Braswell, W. D. (1997) Bull. Amer. Meteorological Soc. 78, 1097-1106.
86. Idso, S. B. (1998) Climate Res. 10, 69-82.
87. Soon, W., Baliunas, S., Idso, S. B., Kondratyev, K. Ya., and Posmentier, E. S. (2001) Climate
Res. 18, 259-275.
88. Lindzen, R. S. (1996) Climate Sensitivity of Radiative Perturbations: Physi cal Mechanisms and
Their Validation, NATO ASI Series 134, ed. H. Le Treut, Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 51-66.
89. Renno, N. O., Emanuel, K. A., and Stone, P. H. (1994) J. Geophysical Res. 99, 14429-14441.
90. Soden, B. J. (2000) Journal of Climate 13, 538-549.
91. Lindzen, R. S., Chou, M., and Hou, A. Y. (2001) Bull. Amer. Meteorlogical Soc. 82, 417-432.
92. Spencer, R. W., Braswell, W. D., Christy, J. R., and Hnilo, J. (2007) Geophysical Research
Letters 34, 2007GL029698.
93. Lindzen, R. S. (1995), per sonal communication.
94. Khalil, M. A. K., Butenhoff, C. L., and Ras mus sen, R. A. (2007) Envi ronmental Science and
Technol ogy 41, 2131-2137.
95. An nual Energy Review, U.S. En ergy In formation Admin., Report No. DOE/EIA-0384 (2006).
96. Essex, C., Ilie, S., and Corless, R. M. (2007) J. Geophysical Res., in press.
97. Gore, A. (2006) An Inconve nient Truth, Rodale, NY.
98. Pen ner, S S., Schneider, A. M., and Kennedy, E. M. (1984) Acta Astronautica 11, 345-348.
99. Crutzen, P. J. (2006) Clima tic Change 77, 211-219.
100. Idso, S. B. (1989) Carbon Di oxide and Global Change: Earth in Tran sition, IBR Press.
101. Lam, S. H. (2007) Logarithmic Response and Climate Sensitivity of Atmo spheric CO2, 1-15,
www.prince ton.edu/lam/documents/LamAug07bs.pdf.
102. Lindzen, R. S. (2005) Proc. 34th Int. Sem. Nuclear War and Planetary Emergencies, ed. R.
Raigaina, World Sci entific Publishing, Singa pore, 189-210.
103. Kimball, B. A. (1983) Agron. J. 75, 779-788.
104. Cure, J. D. and Acock, B. (1986) Agr. Forest Meteorol. 8, 127-145.
105. Mortensen, L. M. (1987) Sci. Hort. 33, 1-25.
106. Lawlor, D. W. and Mitch ell, R. A. C. (1991) Plant, Cell, and Environ. 14, 807-818.
107. Drake, B. G. and Leadley, P. W. (1991) Plant, Cell, and Environ. 14, 853-860.
108. Gifford, R. M. (1992) Adv. Bioclim. 1, 24-58.
109. Poorter, H. (1993) Vegetatio 104-105, 77-97.
110. Graybill, D. A. and Idso, S. B. (1993) Global Biogeochem. Cyc. 7, 81-95.
111. Waddell, K. L., Oswald, D. D., and Powell D. S. (1987) Forest Sta tistics of the United States,
U.S. For est Ser vice and Dept. of Ag riculture.
112. Smith, W. B., Miles, P. D., Vissage, J. S., and Pugh, S. A. (2002) Forest Re sources of the
United States, U.S. For est Ser vice and Dept. of Ag riculture.
113. Grace, J., Lloyd, J., McIntyre, J., Miranda, A. C., Meir, P., Miranda, H. S., Nobre, C., Moncrieff,
J., Massheder, J., Malhi, Y., Wright, I., and Gash, J. (1995) Science 270, 778-780.
114. Idso, K. E. and Idso, S. (1974) Agr. For est Meteor. 69, 153-203.
115. Kimball, B.A., Pinter Jr., P. J., Hunsaker, D. J., Wall, G. W. G., LaMorte, R. L., Wechsung, G.,
Wechsung, F., and Kartschall, T. (1995) Global Change Biology 1, 429-442.
116. Pinter, J. P., Kimball, B. A., Garcia, R. L., Wall, G. W., Hunsaker, D. J., and LaMorte, R. L.
(1996) Carbon Dioxide and Terrestrial Ecosystems 215-250, Koch and Moo ney, Acad. Press.
117. Idso, S. B. and Kimball, B. A. (1991) Agr. For est Meteor. 55, 345-349.
118. Idso, S. B. and Kimball, B. A. (1994) J. Exper. Bot any 45, 1669-1692.
119. Idso, S. B. and Kimball, B. A., (1997) Global Change Biol. 3, 89-96.
120. McNaughton, S. J., Oesterhold, M., Frank. D. A., and Wil liams, K. J. (1989) Nature 341,
142-144.
121. Cyr, H. and Pace, M. L. (1993) Nature 361, 148-150.
122. Scheiner, S. M. and Rey-Benayas, J. M. (1994) Evol. Ecol. 8, 331-347.
123. Gore, A., Pelosi, N., and Reid, H. (June 29, 2007) The Seven Point Live Earth Pledge. Speaker
of the House Website, www.speaker.gov. and www.liveearth.org.
124. Beck mann, P. (1985) The Health Hazards of NOT Go ing Nu clear, Golem, Boul der, Col orado.
125. American Nuclear Society, Nuclear News (2007) March, 46-48.
126. McNamara, B. (2006) Lea brook Computing, Bournemouth, Eng land.
127. Projected Costs of Gener ating Electricity: 2005 Update (2005), Paris: Nuclear En ergy Agency,
– 12 –
OECD Publication No. 53955 2005, Paris.
128. Pen ner, S. S. (1998) En ergy 23, 71-78.
129. Posma, B. (2007) Liquid Coal, Fort Myers, Fl, www.liquidcoal.com.
130. Ausubel,. J. H. (2007) Int. J. Nu clear Gov ernance, Economy and Ecology 1, 229-243.

 

[OldBlueFan]

Isn't there some sort of rule about copying and pasting entire slabs of shit from websites?

If there isn't, there should be.

 

[Mcveigh]

Dan, you are truly demented in your rantings...

 

[Monniehawk]

That's the problem with the left-leanng greenie militant warmist totalitarians on this board. They don't WANT to be a sceptic, even if the evidence points that way because they think being a sceptic means being right-wing and they are left-wing voters.

This isn't about left or right!!!!!! GET THAT THROUGH YOUR HEADS! This is about truth and honesty and we are being decieved. This is a PR campaign with YOUR money to con you out of what is rightfully yours. You're naive enough to think that 97% of climate scientists agree? They don't tell us, that that is only 75 people! You've been conned.

"The small number of climate scientists actually supporting the Al Gore/IPCC claims of catastrophic global warming and the actual AGW “predictions” has always been a major embarrassment. As a result, the left/liberal/greens have been forced to fabricate bogus support that can’t stand up to any form of scrutiny.

First, it was the claim that 2,500 IPCC-related scientists agreed with the 2007 IPCC report. Soon afer it was discovered that ...the actual number of scientists who actually agreed with the report contents was only 25.


Next, when the 2,500 shrunk to 25, a couple of University of Illinois researchers conjured up a 2-minute online, anonymous survey that they hoped would deliver some big numbers to crow about. They solicited 10,257 earth scientists and only 77 chose to answer the online survey (yes, only 77). 75 of those “climate scientists” agreed with the survey’s two questions (yes, only 2 questions).

Voila, the infamous and widely publicized “97%” of climate scientists (75 divided by 77) who thought man was the cause of global warming turned out to be a numeric joke"

I can name 31,500 who agree with me, they are independent scientists with no vested interest and they agree that cutting C02 is pointless and may even be harmful and that includes 9,000 PHD's.

These are the people Julia calls deniers. It includes 4 NASA astronaughts, two of who stood on the moon.

Only 12 people have stood on the moon, 2 of them are sceptics and Julia (and you) calls them deniers. The sceptics can name 2 noble prize winners of physics. None of this nobel peace prize crap. So, despite what you hear about there being a consensus. Not only is there no consensus, but we outnumber them!

But you know what, we'd never use that to say we're right. Because real scientists don't use arguments by authority and other stone age stuff of long gone eras.

You do that. But I don't

We'd never argue we were right because there are more of us. And we'd never argue we were right because we have better scientists like the Nobel prize winners and the astronaughts who stood on the moon. Just because we have better scientists, that doesn't make us right. We're right because we hae the evidence on our side and evidence is all that matters. Science is never about consensus or voting.

This 97% is a load of rubbish and all the alarmists know it. Have a look around. Look at this thread, look at youtube, look in the street, look at the scientists on various programs. Does it appear to you that 97% agree? Or you could be referring to a study was published recently saying that 98% of scientists "believe" in global warming. I looked at the questions they had been asked and realized I was in the 98%, too!

Only a naive fool would believe that there is a true consensus of 98% who believe that human C02 emissions will have a significant and dangerous impact.

There are thousands of scientists changing from alarmists to skeptics and none are gong the other way. But you know what? That doens't matter because consensus is not evidecne, it never has been and never will be.

But, the militant warmists, will use their CONFIRMATION BIAS to sway your own views. They will gravitateonly to the information that suits their "side", regardless of how dodgy it is.

They have no ability, or desire to seek out information on the other side of this debate, because they are hopelessly lost in their own confirmation bias.

The fact that there is no empirical evidence that human C02 emissions cause dangerous warming means nothing to them. IT SHOULD.. But it doesn't because they are militant warmists, who won't let their own confirmation bias allow them to think objectively. That's the problem with intellectuals who militantly believe in an agenda. They are smart enough to seek out information to their side.

The United Nations IPCC also publishes a research review in the form of a voluminous, occasionally-updated report on the subject of climate change, which the United Nations asserts is "authored" by approximately 600 scientists. These "authors" are not, however – as is ordinarily the custom in science – permitted power of approval the published review of which they are putative authors. They are permitted to comment on the draft text, but the final text neither conforms to nor includes many of their comments. The final text conforms instead to the United Nations objective of building support for world taxation and rationing of industrially-useful energy.


The conclusions of the peer revirwed research by ARTHUR B. ROBINSON, NOAH E. ROBINSON, AND WILLIE SOON (part of the 31,000) is unquivocal:


"There are no experimental data to support the hypothesis that in creases in human hydrocarbon use or in at mospheric carbon dioxide and other green house gases are causing or can be expected to cause
unfavorable changes in global temperatures, weather, or landscape. There is no reason to limit human pro duction of CO2, CH4, and other minor green house gases as has been pro posed (82,83,97,123). We also need not worry about environmental calamities even if the current natural warming trend con tinues. The Earth has been much warmer during the past 3,000 years without catastrophic effects. Warmer weather extends growing seasons and generally improves the habitability of colder regions.

As coal, oil, and natural gas are used to feed and lift from poverty vast numbers of people across the globe, more CO2 will be released into the atmosphere. This will help to maintain and improve the health, longevity, prosperity, and productivity of all people. The United States and other coun tries need to produce more energy, not less. The most practical, economical, and environmentally sound methods available are hydrocarbon and nuclear technologies. Human use of coal, oil, and natural gas has not harmfully warmed the Earth, and the ex trapolation of cur rent trends shows that it will not do so in the foreseeable fu ture. The CO2 pro duced does, how - ever, accelerate the growth rates of plants and also permits plants to grow in drier re gions. An imal life, which de pends upon plants, also flourishes, and the di versity of plant and an imal life is increased. Human activities are producing part of the rise in CO2 in the atmosphere. Mankind is moving the carbon in coal, oil, and natural gas from below ground to the atmosphere, where it is available for conversion into living things. We are living in an in creasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a re sult of this CO2 increase. Our
children will therefore en joy an Earth with far more plant and animal
life than that with which we now are blessed."



References:
1. Rob inson, A. B., Baliunas, S. L., Soon, W., and Robinson, Z. W. (1998) Journal of American Physicians
and Surgeons 3, 171-178.
2. Soon, W., Baliunas, S. L., Rob inson, A. B., and Rob inson, Z. W. (1999) Climate Res. 13, 149-164.
3. Keigwin, L. D. (1996) Science 274, 1504-1508. ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/contribu -
tions_by_author/keigwin1996/
4. Oerlemanns, J. (2005) Science 308, 675-677.
5. Oerlemanns, J., Björnsson, H., Kuhn, M., Obleitner, F., Palsson, F., Smeets, C. J. P. P., Vugts, H.
F., and De Wolde, J. (1999) Boundary-Layer Mete orology 92, 3-26.
6. Greuell, W. and Smeets, P. (2001) J. Geophysical Res. 106, 31717-31727.
7. Marland, G., Boden, T. A., and Andres, R. J. (2007) Global, Re gional, and National CO2 Emissions.
In Trends: A Com pendium of Data on Global Change. Car bon Dioxide Informa tion Anal ysis
Cen ter,Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. De partment of En ergy, Oak Ridge, TN, USA,
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/tre_glob.htm
8. Soon, W. (2005) Geophysical Research Letters 32, 2005GL023429.
9. Hoyt, D. V. and Schatten, K. H. (1993) J. Geophysical Res. 98, 18895-18906.
10. Na tional Cli matic Data Center, Global Surface Temperature Anomalies (2007)
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/...anomalies.html and NASA GISS
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt.
11. Soon, W., Baliunas, S., Idso, C., Idso, S., and Legates, D. R. (2003) Energy & Env. 14, 233-296.
12. Idso, S. B. and Idso, C. D. (2007) Center for Study of Carbon Di oxide and Global Change
http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/edu cation/reports/hansen/hansencritique.jsp.
13. Groveman, B. S. and Landsberg, H. E. (1979) Geophysical Research Letters 6, 767-769.
14. Esper, J., Cook, E. R., and Schweingruber, F. H. (2002) Science 295, 2250-2253.
15. Tan, M., Hou, J., and Liu, T. (2004) Geophysical Research Letters 31, 2003GL019085.
16. New ton, A., Thunell, R., and Stott, L. (2006) Geophysical Research Letters 33, 2006GL027234.
17. Akasofu, S.-I. (2007) In ternational Arctic Research Center, Univ. of Alaska, Fairbanks
http://www.iarc.uaf.edu/highlights/2..._3_07/Earth_re covering_from_LIA_R.pdf
18. Teller, E., Wood, L., and Hyde, R. (1997) 22nd In ternational Seminar on Planetary Emergencies,
Erice, Italy, Lawrence Livermore National Labora tory, UCRL-JC-128715, 1-18.
19. Soon, W. (2007) private communication.
20. U.S. Na tional Cli matic Data Center, U.S. Department of Commerce 2006 Cli mate Re view.
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/...h/cag3/na.html
21. Landsea, C. W. (2007) EOS 88 No. 18, 197, 208.
22. Landsea, C. W., Nicholls, N., Gray, W. M., and Avila, L. A. (1996) Geophysical Research
Letters 23, 1697-1700.
23. Goldenberg, S. B., Landsea, C. W., Mesta-Nuñez, A. M., and Gray, W. M. (2001) Science 293,
474-479.
24. Jevrejeva, S., Grinsted, A., Moore, J. C., and Holgate, S. (2006) J. Geophysical Res. 111,
2005JC003229. http://www.pol.ac.uk/psmsl/au thor_archive/jevrejeva_etal_gsl/
25. Leuliette, E. W., Nerem, R. S., and Mitchum, G. T. (2004) Marine Geodesy 27, No. 1-2, 79-94.
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
26. Lamb, H. H. (1982) Climate, His tory, and the Mod ern World, Methuen, New York.
27. Essex, C., McKitrick, R., and Andresen, B. (2007) J. Non-Equilibrium Therm. 32, 1-27.
28. Polyakov, I. V., Bekryaev, R. V., Alekseev, G. V., Bhatt, U. S., Colony, R. L., Johnson, M. A.,
Maskshtas, A. P., and Walsh, D. (2003) Journal of Climate 16, 2067-2077.
29. Christy, J. R., Norris, W. B., Spencer, R. W., and Hnilo, J. J. (2007) J. Geophysical Res. 112,
2005JD006881. http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.
30. Spencer, R. W. and Christy, J. R. (1992) Journal of Climate 5, 847-866.
31. Christy, J. R. (1995) Clima tic Change 31, 455-474.
32. Zhu, P., Hack, J. J., Kiehl, J. T., and Bertherton, C. S. (2007) J. Geophysical Res., in press.
33. Balling, Jr., R. C. (1992) The Heated De bate, Pacific Research Institute.
34. Friis-Christensen, E. and Lassen, K. (1991) Science 254, 698-700.
35. Baliunas, S. and Soon, W. (1995) Astrophysical Journal 450, 896-901.
36. Neff, U., Burns, S. J., Mangini, A., Mudelsee, M., Fleitmann, D., and Matter, A. (2001) Nature
411, 290-293
37. Jiang, H., Eiríksson, J., Schulz, M., Knudsen, K., and Seidenkrantz, M. (2005) Geology 33, 73-76.
38. Maasch, K. A., et. al. (2005) Geografiska Annaler 87A, 7-15.
39. Wang, Y., Cheng, H., Ed wards, R. L., He, Y., Kong, X., An, Z., Wu, J., Kelly, M. J., Dykoski, C.
A., and Li, X. (2005) Science 308, 854-857.
40. Baliunas, S. L. et. al. (1995) Astrophysical Journal 438, 269-287.
41. Fenton, L. K., Geiss ler, P. E., and Haberle, R. M. (2007) Nature 446, 646-649.
42. Marcus, P. S. (2004) Nature 428, 828-831.
43. Hammel, H. B., Lynch, D. K., Rus sell, R. W., Sitko, M. L., Bernstein, L. S., and Hewagama, T.
(2006) Astrophysical Journal 644, 1326-1333.
44. Hammel, H. B., and Lock wood, G. W. (2007) Geophysical Research Letters 34, 2006GL028764.
45. Elliot, J. L., et. al. (1998) Nature 393, 765-767.
46. Elliot, J. L., et. al. (2003) Nature 424, 165-168.
47. Sicardy, B., et. al. (2003) Nature 424, 168-170.
48. Elliot, J. L., et. al. (2007) Astronomical Journal 134, 1-13.
49. Camp, C. D. and Tung, K. K. (2007) Geophysical Research Letters 34, 2007GL030207.
50. Scafetta, N. and West, B. J. (2006) Geophysical Research Letters 33, 2006GL027142.
51. Goodridge, J. D. (1996) Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc. 77, 3-4; Goodridge, J. D. (1998) private comm.
52. Christy, J. R. and Goodridge, J. D. (1995) Atm. Envirn. 29, 1957-1961.
53. Hansen, J. and Lebedeff, S. (1987) J. Geophysical Res. 92, 13345-13372.
54. Hansen, J. and Lebedeff, S. (1988) Geophysical Research Letters 15, 323-326.
55. Hansen, J., Ruedy, R., and Sato, M. (1996) Geophysical Research Letters 23, 1665-1668;
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/gistemp/
56. Schimel, D. S. (1995) Global Change Biology 1, 77-91.
57. Houghton, R. A. (2007) Annual Review of Earth and Plan etary Sciences 35, 313-347.
58. Jaworowski, Z., Segalstad, T. V., and Ono, N. (1992) Science of the Total Environ. 114, 227-284.
59. Segalstad, T. V. (1998) Global Warm ing the Continuing Debate, Cambridge UK: European
Science and En vironment Forum, ed. R. Bate, 184-218.
60. Berner, R. A. (1997) Science 276, 544-545.
61. Retallack, G. J. (2001) Nature 411, 287-290.
62. Rothman, D. H. (2002) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 99, 4167-4171.
63. Petit et. al., (1999) Nature 399, 429-436.
64. Siegenthaler, U., et. al. (2005) Science 310, 1313-1317.
65. Spahni, R., et. al. (2005) Science 310, 1317-1321.
66. Soon, W. (2007) Physi cal Geography, in press.
67. Dettinger, M. D. and Ghill, M. (1998) Tellus, 50B, 1-24.
68. Kuo, C., Lindberg, C. R., and Thornson, D. J. (1990) Nature 343, 709-714.
69. Revelle, R. and Suess, H. E. (1957) Tellus 9, 18-27.
70. Yamashita, E., Fujiwara, F., Liu, X., and Ohtaki, E. (1993) J. Oceanography 49, 559-569.
71. Keeling, C. D. and Whorf, T. P. (1997) Trends On line: A Com pendium of Data on Global
Change, Carbon Dioxide In formation Anal y sis Cen ter, Oak Ridge Na tional Lab o ra tory;
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/sio-mlo.htm
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/tr..._data_mlo.html
72. Schneider, D. P. et. al. (2006) Geophysical Research Letters 33, 2006GL027057.
73. Ar cher, D. (2005) J. Geophysical Res. 110, 2004JC002625.
74. Faraday, M. (1860) The Chemical History of a Can dle, Christmas Lectures, Royal In stitution,
London.
75. Serreze, M. C., Hol land, M. M., and Stroeve, J. (2007) Science 315, 1533-1536.
76. Bentley, C. R. (1997) Science 275, 1077-1078.
77. Nicholls, K. W. (1997) Nature 388, 460-462.
78. Davis, C. H., Li, Y., McConnell, J. R., Frey, M. M., and Hanna, E. (2005) Sci ence 308,
1898-1901.
79. Monaghan, A. J., et. al. (2006) Science 313, 827-831.
80. Kullman, L. (2007) Nordic Journal of Botany 24, 445-467.
81. Lindzen, R. S. (1994) Ann. Re view Fluid Mech. 26, 353-379.
82. IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), Work ing Group I Report (2007).
83. Kyoto Pro tocol to the United Na tions Framework Con vention on Climate Change (1997).
84. Sun, D. Z. and Lindzen, R. S. (1993) Ann. Geophysicae 11, 204-215.
85. Spencer, R. W. and Braswell, W. D. (1997) Bull. Amer. Meteorological Soc. 78, 1097-1106.
86. Idso, S. B. (1998) Climate Res. 10, 69-82.
87. Soon, W., Baliunas, S., Idso, S. B., Kondratyev, K. Ya., and Posmentier, E. S. (2001) Climate
Res. 18, 259-275.
88. Lindzen, R. S. (1996) Climate Sensitivity of Radiative Perturbations: Physi cal Mechanisms and
Their Validation, NATO ASI Series 134, ed. H. Le Treut, Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 51-66.
89. Renno, N. O., Emanuel, K. A., and Stone, P. H. (1994) J. Geophysical Res. 99, 14429-14441.
90. Soden, B. J. (2000) Journal of Climate 13, 538-549.
91. Lindzen, R. S., Chou, M., and Hou, A. Y. (2001) Bull. Amer. Meteorlogical Soc. 82, 417-432.
92. Spencer, R. W., Braswell, W. D., Christy, J. R., and Hnilo, J. (2007) Geophysical Research
Letters 34, 2007GL029698.
93. Lindzen, R. S. (1995), per sonal communication.
94. Khalil, M. A. K., Butenhoff, C. L., and Ras mus sen, R. A. (2007) Envi ronmental Science and
Technol ogy 41, 2131-2137.
95. An nual Energy Review, U.S. En ergy In formation Admin., Report No. DOE/EIA-0384 (2006).
96. Essex, C., Ilie, S., and Corless, R. M. (2007) J. Geophysical Res., in press.
97. Gore, A. (2006) An Inconve nient Truth, Rodale, NY.
98. Pen ner, S S., Schneider, A. M., and Kennedy, E. M. (1984) Acta Astronautica 11, 345-348.
99. Crutzen, P. J. (2006) Clima tic Change 77, 211-219.
100. Idso, S. B. (1989) Carbon Di oxide and Global Change: Earth in Tran sition, IBR Press.
101. Lam, S. H. (2007) Logarithmic Response and Climate Sensitivity of Atmo spheric CO2, 1-15,
www.prince ton.edu/lam/documents/LamAug07bs.pdf.
102. Lindzen, R. S. (2005) Proc. 34th Int. Sem. Nuclear War and Planetary Emergencies, ed. R.
Raigaina, World Sci entific Publishing, Singa pore, 189-210.
103. Kimball, B. A. (1983) Agron. J. 75, 779-788.
104. Cure, J. D. and Acock, B. (1986) Agr. Forest Meteorol. 8, 127-145.
105. Mortensen, L. M. (1987) Sci. Hort. 33, 1-25.
106. Lawlor, D. W. and Mitch ell, R. A. C. (1991) Plant, Cell, and Environ. 14, 807-818.
107. Drake, B. G. and Leadley, P. W. (1991) Plant, Cell, and Environ. 14, 853-860.
108. Gifford, R. M. (1992) Adv. Bioclim. 1, 24-58.
109. Poorter, H. (1993) Vegetatio 104-105, 77-97.
110. Graybill, D. A. and Idso, S. B. (1993) Global Biogeochem. Cyc. 7, 81-95.
111. Waddell, K. L., Oswald, D. D., and Powell D. S. (1987) Forest Sta tistics of the United States,
U.S. For est Ser vice and Dept. of Ag riculture.
112. Smith, W. B., Miles, P. D., Vissage, J. S., and Pugh, S. A. (2002) Forest Re sources of the
United States, U.S. For est Ser vice and Dept. of Ag riculture.
113. Grace, J., Lloyd, J., McIntyre, J., Miranda, A. C., Meir, P., Miranda, H. S., Nobre, C., Moncrieff,
J., Massheder, J., Malhi, Y., Wright, I., and Gash, J. (1995) Science 270, 778-780.
114. Idso, K. E. and Idso, S. (1974) Agr. For est Meteor. 69, 153-203.
115. Kimball, B.A., Pinter Jr., P. J., Hunsaker, D. J., Wall, G. W. G., LaMorte, R. L., Wechsung, G.,
Wechsung, F., and Kartschall, T. (1995) Global Change Biology 1, 429-442.
116. Pinter, J. P., Kimball, B. A., Garcia, R. L., Wall, G. W., Hunsaker, D. J., and LaMorte, R. L.
(1996) Carbon Dioxide and Terrestrial Ecosystems 215-250, Koch and Moo ney, Acad. Press.
117. Idso, S. B. and Kimball, B. A. (1991) Agr. For est Meteor. 55, 345-349.
118. Idso, S. B. and Kimball, B. A. (1994) J. Exper. Bot any 45, 1669-1692.
119. Idso, S. B. and Kimball, B. A., (1997) Global Change Biol. 3, 89-96.
120. McNaughton, S. J., Oesterhold, M., Frank. D. A., and Wil liams, K. J. (1989) Nature 341,
142-144.
121. Cyr, H. and Pace, M. L. (1993) Nature 361, 148-150.
122. Scheiner, S. M. and Rey-Benayas, J. M. (1994) Evol. Ecol. 8, 331-347.
123. Gore, A., Pelosi, N., and Reid, H. (June 29, 2007) The Seven Point Live Earth Pledge. Speaker
of the House Website, www.speaker.gov. and www.liveearth.org.
124. Beck mann, P. (1985) The Health Hazards of NOT Go ing Nu clear, Golem, Boul der, Col orado.
125. American Nuclear Society, Nuclear News (2007) March, 46-48.
126. McNamara, B. (2006) Lea brook Computing, Bournemouth, Eng land.
127. Projected Costs of Gener ating Electricity: 2005 Update (2005), Paris: Nuclear En ergy Agency,
– 12 –
OECD Publication No. 53955 2005, Paris.
128. Pen ner, S. S. (1998) En ergy 23, 71-78.
129. Posma, B. (2007) Liquid Coal, Fort Myers, Fl, www.liquidcoal.com.
130. Ausubel,. J. H. (2007) Int. J. Nu clear Gov ernance, Economy and Ecology 1, 229-243.

OK. I see.

Yes. Hmmmm.....

Now just put that keyboard down.... slowly, now! Veeerrrry slowly! OK?
Good! .... now just ever so sloooooowly back away...

 

[Final Siren]

Yeah, but the scope of the problem was far smaller than the scaremongers had people believe. Talk of everything from planes falling from the sky to your VCR exploding played on the public's naivete. Reckon a lot more money was spent on unnecessary 'fixes' than necessary ones.

Maybe so, but that doesn't make the Y2K bug "mythical." It existed and needed to be fixed.

 

[Dan26]

Dan, you are truly demented in your rantings...

Translation of the above post:

McVeigh agrees with Dan26.

You do realise, McVeigh, that agreeing with me, and actually listening to the evidence doesn't make you a right-wing voter.

YOU CAN STILL BE A LABOR VOTER AND BE A SCEPTIC.

That's what you and these other left-wing warmist alarmists don't understand.

Well, you better start understanding it, because this make believe consensus that you think exists, doesn't exist at all.

Switch sides. It doesn't mean you are switching politcal beliefs, it just means you aren't religiously adhering to a flawed, politically driven science, sponsored by the extreme left.

 

[Pie eyed]

Maybe so, but that doesn't make the Y2K bug "mythical." It existed and needed to be fixed.

It existed in so much as some computer OS needed to be altered.

It was overwhelmingly overstated and exaggerated in every sense as a potential threat to society.
Consensus on the dire dangers prior to the event was almost unanimous amongst IT professionals, publicly.