It is too bad that our friend and most knowledgeable scientist on the list, Wirt Atmar, has not issued any comments on this !  He used to contribute regularly to the list.  What happened ?

Wyell Grunwald

-------------- Original message -------------- 
From: Denys Beauchemin <[log in to unmask]> 

> John, good post and well articulated except for just one small detail. 
> 
> The average global temperature is not rising. In fact NASA and other 
> recording agencies have reported that in the last 12 months the average 
> global temperature has DROPPED by close to one degree Celsius, effectively 
> erasing the one degree gain over the last century. 

> Not one of the many climate models predicted this event, effectively 
> demonstrating they are all useless. Science magazine in its November 2007 
> issue clearly stated that climate was impossible to predict via computer 
> models, it was far too complex. 
> 
> The Hockey Stick (MRH 98) model has been shown to be deeply flawed, so 
> flawed as to make it a scientific hoax. When the computer code was finally 
> made available for peer review, it was shown that irrespective of data 
> entered into it, the program would always create a hockey stick. 
> 
> NASA recently produced a new set of temperature data when it was revealed to 
> them that their algorithms used to massage the raw data had problems; the 
> upshot of this was that recent temperature figures had to be lowered and 
> 1998 took its place behind 1934 as the hottest year on record. Record, 
> being only the last 100 some years. In fact the years since 1998 have shown 
> no increase in the average global temperature and indeed in the last 12 
> months the temperature has started to drop. 
> 
> I understand what you are saying about trying to think for yourself, it 
> helps when you have the facts, not the slogans. 
> 
> There is no "consensus," there never was. When Algore is confronted to 
> explain his position, he says "the science is settled, there is nothing to 
> discuss." That is another slogan. The science is not settled, it's in its 
> infancy. The entire Anthropogenic Global Warming is the perfect example of 
> politics corrupting science. You will notice the full IPCC scientific 
> reports are always preceded by political reports, called "Summary for 
> Policymakers," aimed at telling governments what to do and think. These 
> summaries are issued months before the main reports and are not written by 
> scientists but by politicians, bureaucrats and activists. 
> 
> There is indeed a lot of disagreements on these reports and the "consensus," 
> you just choose not to see that, thinking that such scientists must be 
> funded by Big Oil; unlike the Dr James Hansen of NASA who is funded by 
> George Soros. 
> 
> By far the biggest greenhouse gas is water vapor; carbon dioxide is a trace 
> element in our atmosphere, 38 molecules per 100,000 of atmosphere. Man-made 
> emissions make up about 3% of this amount. 
> 
> When Algore shows his little PowerPoint presentation, you will notice that 
> he does not overlay the CO2 curve on top of the temperature curve. There is 
> a reason for that, the rise in CO2 levels follows, the rise in temperature, 
> it does not precede it. 
> 
> Your final premise is also deeply flawed; carbon dioxide is NOT a pollutant, 
> it is part of life. 
> 
> Any way you want to look at or interpret the historical data, it does not 
> change the fact that by everything we have been told about AGW, there is 
> absolutely NO WAY the average global temperature would have dropped in the 
> last 12 months and by a significant amount. But it did and that's not up 
> for dispute. 
> 
> If you dispute it, you are simply a global cooling denier. 
> 
> So what happens if the average temperature continues to fall as this rate? 
> That's the question you should be asking. 
> 
> But beyond that, now that we know for certain that AGW does not exist, what 
> causes the variations in climate on a planetary scale? As someone who 
> prides himself on being able to think for himself, I invite you to perform 
> the following little experiment tomorrow. When it is still dark outside, 
> go out and look towards the East. After a while you will notice a rather 
> large thermonuclear device appear on the horizon. Along with the blinding 
> light, you will notice that your face will start to warm up. I wonder if 
> you will be able to make the connection. 
> 
> Once you have performed this experiment and have figured out that it is just 
> possible that warming can be associated with that thermonuclear device, come 
> back here and we can discuss it further. 
> 
> If you still insist, in spite of all the evidence that AGW is real, please 
> explain to me how the Medieval Warm Period occurred without SUVs running 
> around. Then also explain The Roman Warm Period and other past ears when 
> the temperature was warmer than it was in 1998. For bonus points, explain 
> the Little Ice Age. Heck, just think for yourself and explain to us why 
> 1934 was warmer than 1998. 

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *