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 *