sunsettommy

He was talking about the AIRCRAFT CARRIER he was standing on at the time.It was almost home from a long deployment overseas. Read up on the USS Abraham Lincoln.

LOL, So far I fail to see a case for starting impeachment proceedings. Why all the scattershot accusations against the president? None of it is high crimes and misdemeanors. Ciao

Here is a SNIP from a blog written by a scientist ( CRABBY ) on the forum I am A Administrator of. A New Dark Age for Science More here if you want to see just how worthless the concept that consensus is.

CO2 does not "trap heat".It absorbs IR and reradiate heat in all directions.Some of it still leave the earths atmosphere anyway.Part of the IR from earth never get absorbed at all and goes on into outerspace. "Greenhouse gases" DELAY heat transfer to outspace.Heat still goes out in time. Trees that are young and actively growing vigorously absorbs significant CO2.The aging tree absorbs little and the dead tree release CO2. A recently published science paper claims that increasing forest cover actually promote warming of the earth. Peer review process is only one conduit for credible sources.They managed to allow the "hockey stick paper bad as it is slip through and land on the front page of the 2001 IPCC report. It took two NON scientists to expose the worthlessness of the paper.Where were the credentialed climate scientists who failed to spot the low grade statistical quality of the paper? LOL Shall I have to list the many consensus errors to show that it is a worthless standard? Consensus is NOT a valid measurement for understanding science.It can take just one person to topple the so called consensus and has happened so many times. You need to drop this idea that a consensus position proves the science of anything.

The Crosses were usually put there by the KKK.A group known to kill.They would have cause for worry. Juveniles with a bag of pork thrown on a table where muslims eat is juvenile behavior.Not a hate crime.The muslims have to put up with stupid pranks. I think the boys should be punished for it but not as a criminal or in jail.

YAWN.

Hey - if you worked or got funding to contribute to the IPCC, wouldn't YOU provide evidence to support it's existence? The IPCC was created to find evidence for manmade global warming. So actually what you mentioned is already that way from the start.

Peer review passed the "Hockey Stick"! LOLOLOLOL Maybe you prefer all those climate models that can not be falsified or tested empirically. I will take my chances on empirical observations and laboratory experiments. Climate models are not an empirical construction.It is a TOOL and that is all. We already know that CO2 FOLLOWS the temperature increase and has done so for a few 100,000 years.The 800 year lag is an inconvenient truth.This is empiric data. The planet has been warming since the 1850's well BEFORE there was any increase of CO2 atmospheric greenhouse gas to speak of. CO2 emissions from mankind was negligible at the time and for decades afterwards. Empiric is a proper word and used correctly in the paper. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/empiric

PLANET ARK No US Emissions Curbs Without China,India - Envoy BELGIUM: April 19, 2007 BRUSSELS - The United States will not join an international regime curbing emissions blamed for global warming until it also applied to China and India, the US ambassador to the European Union said on Wednesday. "Rather than shooting at each other, the United States and Europe should be joining forces to engage China," Ambassador C. Boyden Gray told Reuters in an interview ahead of an April 30 US-EU summit. "There will be no comprehensive global warming legislation coming out of the United States, whoever you have as president from whatever party, that does not include limits or a programme for China, India and the rest of the developing world." He cast doubt on whether the 27-nation EU would be able to achieve ambitious emissions reductions targets it adopted last month and said the US approach of focusing on technological solutions to climate change was just as valid. http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cf...41463/story.htm

Yes the IPCC Dogma is indeed bad.

Carbon cycle modelling and the residence time of natural and anthropogenic atmospheric CO2: on the construction of the "Greenhouse Effect Global Warming" dogma. Tom V. Segalstad Abstract The three evidences of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), that the apparent contemporary atmospheric CO2 increase is anthropogenic, is discussed and rejected: CO2 measurements from ice cores; CO2 measurements in air; and carbon isotope data in conjunction with carbon cycle modelling. It is shown why the ice core method and its results must be rejected; and that current air CO2 measurements are not validated and their results subjectively "edited". Further it is shown that carbon cycle modelling based on non-equilibrium models, remote from observed reality and chemical laws, made to fit non-representative data through the use of non-linear ocean evasion "buffer" correction factors constructed from a pre-conceived idea, constitute a circular argument and with no scientific validity. Both radioactive and stable carbon isotopes show that the real atmospheric CO2 residence time (lifetime) is only about 5 years, and that the amount of fossil-fuel CO2 in the atmosphere is maximum 4%. Any CO2 level rise beyond this can only come from a much larger, but natural, carbon reservoir with much higher 13-C/12-C isotope ratio than that of the fossil fuel pool, namely from the ocean, and/or the lithosphere, and/or the Earth's interior. The apparent annual atmospheric CO2 level increase, postulated to be anthropogenic, would constitute only some 0.2% of the total annual amount of CO2 exchanged naturally between the atmosphere and the ocean plus other natural sources and sinks. It is more probable that such a small ripple in the annual natural flow of CO2 would be caused by natural fluctuations of geophysical processes. 13-C/12-C isotope mass balance calculations show that IPCC's atmospheric residence time of 50-200 years make the atmosphere too light (50% of its current CO2 mass) to fit its measured 13-C/12-C isotope ratio. This proves why IPCC's wrong model creates its artificial 50% "missing sink". IPCC's 50% inexplicable "missing sink" of about 3 giga-tonnes carbon annually should have led all governments to reject IPCC's model. When such rejection has not yet occurred, it beautifully shows the result of the "scare-them-to-death" influence principle. IPCC's "Greenhouse Effect Global Warming" dogma rests on invalid presumptions and a rejectable non-realistic carbon cycle modelling which simply refutes reality, like the existence of carbonated beer or soda "pop" as we know it. http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/ESEF3VO2.htm Lot more in the link.

sunsettommy is not a climate scientist yes, lobos motl is a far better mathemetician and a better string threorist than I will ever be but no, he is not a climatologist and the rebuttal I c&p'd did rebut him, not just a little but entirely - and just because some folks choose to ignore the facts and the real science, has no reflection on the reality of GW and the necessity to deal with it and no, making your screed long and nasty doesn't earn you any points, sst Meanwhile Milton Humason was not an Astronomer. Meanwhile Alfred Wegener was not an Geologist. Meanwhile Albert Einstein was a Patent Clerk. You getting the drift? Educational and professional credentials are good to have but not essential to make cogent debate. John Gribbin with a Doctorate in Astronomy wrote a very stupid book about earth being doomed because a line up of the sun and the planets would destroy earth.He wrote this stupid book thinking he knew what he was talking about. HE was stupid despite that big education. Meanwhile I fail to see that rebuttal you claimed to have made. Where is it Guthrie? By the way who wrote this? my emphasisWhy are you still talking? He he he

sunsettommy is not a climate scientist yes, lobos motl is a far better mathemetician and a better string threorist than I will ever be but no, he is not a climatologist and the rebuttal I c&p'd did rebut him, not just a little but entirely - and just because some folks choose to ignore the facts and the real science, has no reflection on the reality of GW and the necessity to deal with it and no, making your screed long and nasty doesn't earn you any points, sst Then you accept the fact that YOU and Reasic can not rebute what Lobos writes. Thank you.

Guthrie is not a climate scientist. Lobos Motl is far better qualified than YOU on this topic. LOLOLOLOLOL When are you ever going to make a rebuttal? Here again is this section you must not have read: This is but one of a number of PUBLISHED CLIMATE SCIENCE PAPER showing the Temperature rises and then CO2 follows centuries later. It is not being disputed by the AGW camp. How about this section? From the link is another link: The Association of British Drivers CO₂ — Cause or Effect? Over the last 5 years a significant body of scientific research has concluded that atmospheric carbon dioxide is not the climate criminal it is made out to be by self-proclaimed 'environmentalist' groups and opportunist politicians. Below is a summary of this research evidence, with links to a review of each, demonstrating clearly that hysterical demands for carbon dioxide emissions reductions — together with the fuel duty hikes and climate change levy introduced supposedly to further these demands — are an environmentally pointless 'King Canute' exercise designed purely to restrict individual mobility, and exercise corporate energy control, through extortionate levels of taxation. http://www.abd.org.uk/co2_cause_or_effect.htm In the link are a number of published papers to read. Reasic argues that Motl uses RED HERRINGS on the CO2 lag. Well Guthrie you can believe that all you want but the facts have been well astablished that CO2 in the past LAGS behind temperature. You and Reasic did not rebute it. That is a fact.

CO2 & temperature: ice core correlations EXCERPT: Abstract The temperatures and carbon dioxide concentrations have been correlated but we know for sure that the temperature was the cause and the concentration was its consequence, not the other way around. This fact has also been explained in The Great Global Warming Swindle. It follows that the C02 greenhouse effect has not been important in the history and we shouldn't expect that it will become important in the future. The direction of the causal relationship can be shown in many ways: for example, it is not just CO2 but other gases such as methane that follow temperature. The hypothesis of CO2 as the primary reason wouldn't explain why these other gases are correlated, too. Also, we understand how oceans react to temperature changes by releasing gases. Finally, the gas concentrations lag behind the temperature by 800 years, see e.g. this 2003 paper in Science by Caillon et al. http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/07/carbon-d...atures-ice.html Maybe you realize why there are so many skeptics these days.We know that CO2 has a limited role in warming.

Climate CO2 sensitivity ...and editorial policies See also: CO2 - temperature relationship is the other way around EXCERPT: Climate sensitivity is defined as the average increase of the temperature of the Earth that you get (or expect) by doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere - from 0.028% in the pre-industrial era to the future value of 0.056% (expected around 2100). Recall that the contribution of carbon dioxide to the warming is expected because of the "greenhouse" effect and the main question is how large it is. The greenhouse effect is nothing else than the absorption (of mostly infrared radiation emitted by the Earth) by the "greenhouse" gases in the atmosphere, mainly water vapor - but in this case we are focusing on carbon dioxide, one of the five most important gases causing this effect after water vapor. http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/05/climate-...-editorial.html

I have read all this stuff all over for years now. CO2 is a proven minor greenhouse gas.It is but one of many forcings and this one has already spent most of its logarithmic molecular warming power. Why are you so infatuated over it? The Solar Warming connection is growing stronger scientifically.Maybe you look at this much better cause of the observed mild warming we see?

I will just pass over the EPA link. Not worth my time.

Guthrie gets hot over a measly sum: Meanwhile AGW scientists gets a few BILLION $$$ a year for research over a demon gas. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!! I fail to see any crimes. Where is it Guthrie? What is a the freedom of speech to you?

Guthrie: Thanks to John Daly. It's right there at the top of Dr. Hug's guest paper page. LOL ZAP! I read the "debunkings" YEARS AGO on that website.I was one of the early readers of that good skeptic website.So I know how fair Daly can be. The "debunking" was not actually proven. What was shown that several people had differing positions on what Dr. Hug wrote.Some in sharp disagreement and some in support. You really need to distinguish the difference between a rebuttal and a debunking. You claim: "The way you guys shuffle and duck and change subjects, it's easy to overlook one of the clowns you present -..... " Did I mentioned that your inability to be a honest debator is a growing legend?

Guthrie: It is smear unless you can prove alleged crimes. You need to do a better than this childish stuff.

Don't forget B. Max et al. for their global warming conspiracy theories. Thank you for keeping my name off your list. LOL

By the way you did not make a rebuttal against a Professor in the field.Dr. Heinz Hug LOL Here are the references to that guest paper: Try to be a more decent debator huh.

When people like you resort to smearing someone.It is a sign that people like you are not a honest debator. John Daly was a good skeptic. Your anger against oil companies is off base. Try making a better argument will ya?

That is a very stupid link. The absurd fearmongering is also stupid. The people who are doing most of this sort of fearmongering are the Environmentalists and the Media. The Scientists themselves rarely do this. The IPCC 5 year reports the last TWO TIMES has downgraded their PROJECTED estimates from the previous one.The ones that are outside of the scientific method. LOL Maybe you take note of this?