sunsettommy

Hitler, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Mao, Stalin, Charles Manson, Ted Bundy, Osama Bin Laden, and Mussolini, all evil men. Some guy who believes Global Warming a hoax, not really evil. But it's not just that he believes it, he spreads it. Whether it's intentionally dishonest or just ignorance and ideology I don't care. His efforts endanger us through the delaying effect they have. LOL, The pointless demonizing you tell us. It is irrational to do that since the Senator never killed anyone or destabilized nations. The Senator is nothing like Hitler who plunged his nation into a vicious world war and killed millions of Jews and Gypsies. Pol Pot killed millions after Cambodia fell. Stalin starved,purged and plain murdered millions. Need I go on?

Unfortunately, none of this is on the current government's plans. All that's on the government's plans is to do nothing about emissions and then buy emmissions credits from other countries. In other words, oil, gas and coal companies don't have to pay a penny for better, more efficient technologies, and the Canadian taxpayer gets to pay (probably into the hundreds of millions) for their free ride. Oil, gas, and coal companies are subsidized by the taxpayer to the tune of a billion dollars a year as it is, so why not increase the subsidy to a couple of billion a year? Courtesy of the Kyoto Treaty.

Red my emphasis. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/ Here is the home page of CRU from: School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/ I am calling Bob Carter a LIAR! I don't think you know what you're talking about, I did go to the east anglia site. LOL, I just provided the link to their home page and what would you see there right there on the front page? A chart that absolutely explodes Both you and your visually impaired friend Carter. You have as yet showed what Bob was referring to that supports his claim.When will you or him? I just reread Bob Carters article and there is ZERO links in it and only one full source ( CRU at East Anglia ) mentioned.But ZERO SOURCED DATA! You really got suckered by your dear friend Bob. Man are you really paying attention here? The pummeling will continue.............

Since you are too lazy to look it up. This is from the very source Bob Carter stated that backs his claim that: "Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero)." From CRU Information Sheet # 1 SNIP: Red my emphasis. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/ Here is the home page of CRU from: School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/ I am calling Bob Carter a LIAR!

That is the graph I was referring to. Of course I know, but there are also others that show no warming. I simply pointed out the connection. What seems to exist is a number of climate organizations that are in large part the same people and brings into question who is really producing what for who and why. I don't really see anything to comment on. What plot is the data associated with. However I will tell you this, I asked Carter about the differences. He said it depends on how they are plotted and the difference have never been explained. But like I said there are many plots that show no warming since 98 and with different +/-. This Hadley is another one. Global near surface. http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/HadCRUG.png Post # 97 is RAW SATELLITE DATA. I hope that clears it up. Meanwhile I notice that you by passed the fact that BOB CARTER made this statement: Again from YOUR link,All the emphasis is mine to help you get it since Bob specifically stated a SOURCE. My emphasis Still going to ignore this? It is telling that Bob Carter never gave us a link to that website and what is more NO actual data to back him up is found in the article. Can you explain that? So far you have not looked THAT source up.When will you? I have looked it up long ago and see that he is full of it. Then too I gave you a link to Junkscience that showed variable results complete with charts.When will you address it? Meanwhile he supposedly told you this: It is plain he has nothing substantual to give you. Why continue this line of dishonesty? Stop showing a chart that does not support you.It is plain you have no idea what you are talking about since there is NO actual decrease in worldwide temperature level.Just a slowed down trend is all.All along they are still ADDING to the overall warming trend. From the beginning of 2001 to now the level on the chart is HIGHER than all the rest of the history of the chart except 1998.Post # 97 is the data for that chart you keep spewing out at us and plainly shows overall warming since 1998. Maybe you need to buy glasses? When will you ever get it?

There are a lot of people with ZERO connections to the government who blast the paranoid 9/11 conspiracy. I have seen some of their stuff and man are they irrationally paranoid. Just a few well placed criticisms of their crap have been posted and the rest can be safely ignored. It is plain that you are easily taken in by consipracies.

The stupid Jewish conspiracy tripe. No it is the provable Muslim hate against Israel that is the problem.They have repeatedly made it clear they want to wipe Israel of the map. America supports Israel because it was set up by the U.N. and that it is a stable democratic nation with real freedoms and a good economy. Israel are being attacked because they are Jews.The middle eastern countries hate Jews therefore they attack them. They can simply buy water from Israel. But Nooooooo they buy a lot of arms to attack Israel with.Money they could have used to build Desalination plants. Remember it is the Muslims who does the attacking and the Jews who are defending.

LOL, The old paranoia trick in posting a veriatable barrage of delusional paranoia is still here. Give it up since Lyndon is a paranoid. "Rumsfield and and the gang are doing everything everything they can to destroy America." Yeah riiiiight! Rumsfield has left his post in shame since he has failed to destroy America. How can you be so taken in by Lyndon's paranoid B.S. Polynewbie?

How many do you need. Three four, a hundred. The only fools are those duped into the man made global warming hoax. Those who advocte that theory have no proof of such, and border on being criminals. I happen to be a global warming skeptic. I do not accept the idea that increasing atmospheric CO2 is mostly the fault of Mankind and that it is a minor "greenhouse" gas with diminishing returns as their concentration in the atmosphere goes up. The IPCC 2001 report makes it clear that Nature releases most of the CO2 into the atmosphere yearly with our contribution being far behind. Bob used just one source and that source never supports his claim.

B.Max: But of course you can admit that ALL the data gathering centers differ from EACH OTHER as shown in Junkscience.com http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Warming_Look.htm

Ok here ya go: http://www.edmontonsun.com/Comment/Comment...16/2377808.html http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cf...39009/story.htm http://www.terradaily.com/2006/061115164939.zcez2rb9.html Whew! LOL That is not a topic. It would help if there is a science and technology subforum.

They show a lot of uncertainty and best guess. LOL, Funny that you say that since the chart you keep posting is from them. My link: HadCRUT3 Diagnostics: global average (NH+SH)/2 Your link: HadCRUT3 Global Monthly Mean Temperture Anomolies Both are found at this single link: http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Warming_Look.htm#CRUG Do pay any attention to the link addresses? Near surface. Current relative to peak recorded: -0.19 °C Source? The source is here. Why does East anglia data differ from GISS http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/GISSglobal.png I see the University of East Anglia makes reference to the Tyndall Centre, a questionable outfit, http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/index.shtml making the two a questionable connection. The Tyndall Centre with connections to the British government, and who wrote much of the Stern report that was then rebuked by the UN its self. http://www.thebusinessonline.com/Document....81-687746BE6F0A LOL, Nice change of hand since you were using a DIFFERENT chart from Hadcrut3. Do you know what cherrypicking is? Now you try to discredit the source that Bob Carter was using to claim that there is NO warming since 1998.He was using the CRU from the University of East Anglia as the source. Still want to coment on the posted RAW DATA?

Ok here ya go: http://www.edmontonsun.com/Comment/Comment...16/2377808.html http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cf...39009/story.htm http://www.terradaily.com/2006/061115164939.zcez2rb9.html Whew! LOL

They show a lot of uncertainty and best guess. LOL, Funny that you say that since the chart you keep posting is from them. My link: HadCRUT3 Diagnostics: global average (NH+SH)/2 Your link: HadCRUT3 Global Monthly Mean Temperture Anomolies Both are found at this single link: http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Warming_Look.htm#CRUG Do pay any attention to the link addresses? Near surface. Current relative to peak recorded: -0.19 °C Source?

Here is the RAW DATA that explodes your delusion about Satellite data: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.2 I start at 1998, 1998 1 0.529 0.522 0.535 31. 0.089 0.136 0.042 365. 1998 2 0.673 0.722 0.625 28. 0.146 0.198 0.095 365. 1998 3 0.475 0.572 0.377 31. 0.194 0.250 0.138 365. 1998 4 0.773 1.034 0.512 30. 0.274 0.344 0.203 365. 1998 5 0.648 0.701 0.595 31. 0.333 0.406 0.261 365. 1998 6 0.574 0.679 0.469 30. 0.380 0.455 0.305 365. 1998 7 0.511 0.712 0.311 31. 0.416 0.498 0.334 365. 1998 8 0.508 0.575 0.442 31. 0.451 0.526 0.376 365. 1998 9 0.461 0.609 0.313 30. 0.479 0.550 0.408 365. 1998 10 0.412 0.543 0.280 31. 0.501 0.579 0.423 365. 1998 11 0.166 0.237 0.094 30. 0.500 0.591 0.409 365. 1998 12 0.270 0.353 0.187 31. 0.499 0.604 0.394 365. 1999 1 0.124 0.284 -0.036 31. 0.464 0.583 0.345 365. 1999 2 0.216 0.361 0.072 28. 0.429 0.556 0.303 365. 1999 3 -0.039 0.047 -0.125 31. 0.386 0.511 0.260 365. 1999 4 0.063 0.372 -0.246 30. 0.327 0.457 0.198 365. 1999 5 -0.009 0.160 -0.178 31. 0.271 0.411 0.132 365. 1999 6 -0.125 0.136 -0.386 30. 0.214 0.366 0.062 365. 1999 7 -0.006 0.109 -0.121 31. 0.170 0.315 0.025 365. 1999 8 -0.065 0.043 -0.174 31. 0.121 0.270 -0.027 365. 1999 9 0.123 0.251 -0.005 30. 0.094 0.240 -0.053 365. 1999 10 0.054 0.071 0.038 31. 0.063 0.200 -0.074 365. 1999 11 -0.004 0.203 -0.210 30. 0.049 0.197 -0.099 365. 1999 12 -0.007 0.208 -0.221 31. 0.026 0.185 -0.134 365. 2000 1 -0.237 -0.144 -0.331 31. -0.005 0.149 -0.159 365. 2000 2 -0.013 0.074 -0.100 29. -0.023 0.126 -0.172 365. 2000 3 0.008 0.044 -0.027 31. -0.019 0.126 -0.164 365. 2000 4 0.121 0.304 -0.063 30. -0.013 0.121 -0.147 365. 2000 5 0.101 0.169 0.032 31. -0.005 0.121 -0.131 365. 2000 6 0.050 0.099 0.001 30. 0.010 0.118 -0.098 365. 2000 7 -0.017 0.068 -0.102 31. 0.009 0.115 -0.097 365. 2000 8 -0.057 0.146 -0.261 31. 0.010 0.124 -0.104 365. 2000 9 0.115 0.228 0.002 30. 0.009 0.122 -0.104 365. 2000 10 0.081 0.109 0.053 31. 0.011 0.124 -0.103 365. 2000 11 0.072 0.073 0.071 30. 0.018 0.115 -0.079 365. 2000 12 0.032 0.076 -0.012 31. 0.021 0.103 -0.061 365. 2001 1 0.049 0.117 -0.018 31. 0.045 0.125 -0.035 365. 2001 2 0.160 0.054 0.266 28. 0.058 0.124 -0.007 365. 2001 3 0.119 0.262 -0.025 31. 0.068 0.142 -0.007 365. 2001 4 0.275 0.321 0.228 30. 0.080 0.144 0.017 365. 2001 5 0.242 0.410 0.074 31. 0.092 0.164 0.021 365. 2001 6 0.053 0.178 -0.072 30. 0.093 0.171 0.015 365. 2001 7 0.145 0.276 0.013 31. 0.106 0.188 0.024 365. 2001 8 0.320 0.509 0.132 31. 0.139 0.219 0.058 365. 2001 9 0.186 0.283 0.089 30. 0.144 0.224 0.065 365. 2001 10 0.280 0.291 0.269 31. 0.161 0.239 0.083 365. 2001 11 0.266 0.349 0.182 30. 0.177 0.262 0.092 365. 2001 12 0.265 0.276 0.253 31. 0.197 0.279 0.115 365. 2002 1 0.360 0.485 0.236 31. 0.223 0.310 0.136 365. 2002 2 0.346 0.482 0.210 28. 0.238 0.343 0.132 365. 2002 3 0.341 0.456 0.226 31. 0.256 0.359 0.153 365. 2002 4 0.325 0.297 0.354 30. 0.261 0.357 0.164 365. 2002 5 0.346 0.342 0.350 31. 0.269 0.352 0.187 365. 2002 6 0.375 0.431 0.320 30. 0.296 0.372 0.219 365. 2002 7 0.312 0.484 0.140 31. 0.310 0.390 0.230 365. 2002 8 0.249 0.224 0.274 31. 0.304 0.366 0.242 365. 2002 9 0.346 0.344 0.348 30. 0.317 0.371 0.264 365. 2002 10 0.215 0.042 0.389 31. 0.312 0.350 0.274 365. 2002 11 0.334 0.308 0.360 30. 0.317 0.346 0.288 365. 2002 12 0.229 0.098 0.361 31. 0.314 0.331 0.297 365. 2003 1 0.426 0.549 0.304 31. 0.320 0.337 0.303 365. 2003 2 0.315 0.261 0.368 28. 0.318 0.320 0.315 365. 2003 3 0.176 0.175 0.178 31. 0.304 0.296 0.311 365. 2003 4 0.222 0.337 0.108 30. 0.295 0.299 0.291 365. 2003 5 0.260 0.454 0.066 31. 0.288 0.309 0.267 365. 2003 6 0.089 0.291 -0.113 30. 0.264 0.297 0.231 365. 2003 7 0.188 0.258 0.117 31. 0.254 0.278 0.229 365. 2003 8 0.173 0.368 -0.021 31. 0.247 0.290 0.204 365. 2003 9 0.275 0.439 0.111 30. 0.241 0.298 0.185 365. 2003 10 0.389 0.587 0.190 31. 0.256 0.344 0.168 365. 2003 11 0.307 0.395 0.218 30. 0.254 0.352 0.156 365. 2003 12 0.453 0.551 0.354 31. 0.273 0.390 0.156 365. 2004 1 0.335 0.321 0.349 31. 0.265 0.371 0.160 365. 2004 2 0.350 0.598 0.103 29. 0.268 0.398 0.139 365. 2004 3 0.405 0.580 0.229 31. 0.288 0.432 0.144 365. 2004 4 0.220 0.225 0.215 30. 0.288 0.423 0.153 365. 2004 5 0.086 0.245 -0.073 31. 0.273 0.404 0.141 365. 2004 6 0.077 0.088 0.067 30. 0.272 0.389 0.156 365. 2004 7 -0.104 -0.029 -0.179 31. 0.247 0.364 0.130 365. 2004 8 0.013 0.176 -0.151 31. 0.233 0.347 0.119 365. 2004 9 0.212 0.308 0.116 30. 0.228 0.336 0.119 365. 2004 10 0.332 0.386 0.277 31. 0.223 0.319 0.127 365. 2004 11 0.227 0.383 0.071 30. 0.216 0.318 0.114 365. 2004 12 0.189 0.185 0.194 31. 0.193 0.286 0.100 365. 2005 1 0.440 0.500 0.381 31. 0.204 0.303 0.105 365. 2005 2 0.321 0.319 0.323 28. 0.201 0.281 0.121 365. 2005 3 0.302 0.465 0.138 31. 0.192 0.271 0.113 365. 2005 4 0.430 0.625 0.236 30. 0.209 0.304 0.115 365. 2005 5 0.235 0.240 0.230 31. 0.222 0.303 0.141 365. 2005 6 0.263 0.491 0.034 30. 0.237 0.336 0.138 365. 2005 7 0.338 0.497 0.179 31. 0.275 0.381 0.168 365. 2005 8 0.171 0.309 0.034 31. 0.288 0.392 0.184 365. 2005 9 0.355 0.448 0.261 30. 0.300 0.404 0.196 365. 2005 10 0.382 0.472 0.291 31. 0.304 0.411 0.197 365. 2005 11 0.339 0.413 0.265 30. 0.313 0.414 0.213 365. 2005 12 0.240 0.317 0.163 31. 0.318 0.425 0.210 365. 2006 1 0.302 0.358 0.247 31. 0.306 0.413 0.199 365. 2006 2 0.297 0.516 0.078 28. 0.304 0.428 0.180 365. 2006 3 0.188 0.245 0.132 31. 0.294 0.409 0.180 365. 2006 4 0.109 0.183 0.034 30. 0.268 0.373 0.163 365. 2006 5 -0.062 0.175 -0.300 31. 0.243 0.367 0.118 365. 2006 6 0.097 0.283 -0.089 30. 0.229 0.350 0.108 365. 2006 7 0.129 0.267 -0.010 31. 0.211 0.331 0.092 365. 2006 8 0.177 0.235 0.119 31. 0.212 0.324 0.099 365. 2006 9 0.234 0.382 0.086 30. 0.202 0.319 0.085 365. 2006 10 0.278 0.267 0.289 31. 0.193 0.302 0.085 365. 93 months of increase and just 13 months of decrease. 46 consecutive warming months from late 2000 to mid 2004.Just two months was a cooling one since year 2000. Most of the decrease was in 1999. Still want to play this losing game of yours?

http://www.john-daly.com/nh-sh.htm Go look it up and see all the red since 1998. From 1979 to 1994 it was a cooling trend. From 1994 to 2006 it is a warming trend. Why lie to yourself?

It looks flat with no increase and no decrease. Just put a line through the middle from 98. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! It is mostly RED! Red means increase. Blue means decrease. You are losing this debate easily.

They show a lot of uncertainty and best guess. LOL, Funny that you say that since the chart you keep posting is from them. My link: HadCRUT3 Diagnostics: global average (NH+SH)/2 Your link: HadCRUT3 Global Monthly Mean Temperture Anomolies Both are found at this single link: http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Warming_Look.htm#CRUG Do pay any attention to the link addresses?

How many do you need. Three four, a hundred. The only fools are those duped into the man made global warming hoax. Those who advocte that theory have no proof of such, and border on being criminals. What is the matter with you? Bob Carter told us: He mentions in his article this SOURCE and none else. CRU is the place to see if it supports his claim. I have several times referred to it.Why not YOU go look it up?

Meanwhile from John Daly: Satellite data The record shows a clear warming trend even from 1998. Why you resist the obvious?

Better take a closer look. http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/NCDCanom.htm What is your intent posting this link? Was it to show that since 1998 there has been no increase in the warming trend? or Was it to show that since 1979 there has been a warming trend? or Was it to show that no year since 1998 has been as hot? Why not explain why you posted this link several times. I don't know what link you're talking about. They are likely different links to different graphs. Here is another one. Shows no warming since 98. http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/HadCRUG.png You mean this one also from Junckscience? http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagn...s/global/nh+sh/ They show a warming every year from 1998.

Better take a closer look. http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/NCDCanom.htm What is your intent posting this link? Was it to show that since 1998 there has been no increase in the warming trend? or Was it to show that since 1979 there has been a warming trend? or Was it to show that no year since 1998 has been as hot? Why not explain why you posted this link several times. I don't know what link you're talking about. They are likely different links to different graphs. Here is another one. Shows no warming since 98. http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/HadCRUG.png From YOUR post # 15 a link YOU posted but not read by you since you missed this quote about the source Bob Carter used to make his claim.It is right in the very first paragraph!: There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998 By Bob Carter (Filed: 09/04/2006) Excerpt: For many years now, human-caused climate change has been viewed as a large and urgent problem. In truth, however, the biggest part of the problem is neither environmental nor scientific, but a self-created political fiasco. Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero). YOU posted the link. It is obvious that you never looked it up since they do not at all support his insane claim. Bob made a fool of himself. You want follow him?

Quaternary Science Reviews Solar activity during the last 1000 yr inferred from radionuclide records SNIP: Received 12 March 2006; accepted 21 July 2006. Available online 13 November 2006. Abstract Identification of the causes of past climate change requires detailed knowledge of one of the most important natural factors—solar forcing. Prior to the period of direct solar observations, radionuclide abundances in natural archives provide the best-known proxies for changes in solar activity. Here we present two independent reconstructions of changes in solar activity during the last 1000 yr, which are inferred from 10Be and 14C records. We analyse the tree-ring 14C data (SHCal, IntCal04 from 1000 to 1510 AD and annual data from 1511 to 1950 AD) and four 10Be records from Greenland ice cores (Camp Century, GRIP, Milcent and Dye3) together with two 10Be records from Antarctic ice cores (Dome Concordia and South Pole). In general, the 10Be and 14C records exhibit good agreement that allows us to obtain reliable estimates of past solar magnetic modulation of the radionuclide production rates. Differences between 10Be records from Antarctica and Greenland indicate that climatic changes have influenced the deposition of 10Be during some periods of the last 1000 yr. The radionuclide-based reconstructions of past changes in solar activity do not always agree with the sunspot record, which indicates that the coupling between those proxies is not as close as has been sometimes assumed. The tree-ring 14C record and 10Be from Antarctica indicate that recent solar activity is high but not exceptional with respect to the last 1000 yr. Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 301 614 6213; fax: +1 301 614 6307.

Here's some more light reading for you all. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml.../05/nwarm05.xml The Stern report last week predicted dire economic and social effects of unchecked global warming. In what many will see as a highly controversial polemic, Christopher Monckton disputes the 'facts' of this impending apocalypse and accuses the UN and its scientists of distorting the truth Biblical droughts, floods, plagues and extinctions? Last week, Gordon Brown and his chief economist both said global warming was the worst "market failure" ever. That loaded soundbite suggests that the "climate-change" scare is less about saving the planet than, in Jacques Chirac's chilling phrase, "creating world government". This week and next, I'll reveal how politicians, scientists and bureaucrats contrived a threat of Biblical floods, droughts, plagues, and extinctions worthier of St John the Divine than of science. Sir Nicholas Stern's report on the economics of climate change, which was published last week, says that the debate is over. It isn't. There are more greenhouse gases in the air than there were, so the world should warm a bit, but that's as far as the "consensus" goes. After the recent hysteria, you may not find the truth easy to believe. So you can find all my references and detailed calculations here. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml.../12/nclim12.xml and this Wrong problem, wrong solution # Readers' responses to Christopher Monckton's first article [PDF] Christopher Monckton created considerable controversy last week with his article questioning the science that claims human activity is responsible for climate change. Now he challenges the economic assumptions of the Stern report Tilting at windfarms: It would take a windfarm the size of greater Manchester to match the output of one nuclear power station In the climate change debate, one figure is real. The Sunday Telegraph's website registered more than 127,000 hits in response to last week's article revealing that the UN had minimised the sun's role in changing past and present climate, persisted in proven errors and used unsound data, questionable graphs and meretricious maths to exaggerate future warming threefold. The views of 200 readers who emailed me are in the link above. About a third are scientists, including well-known climatologists and a physicist who confirmed my calculations. Some advise governments. Nearly all condemn the "consensus". Most feel that instead of apologising, the UN has misled them, especially by using the defective "hockey-stick" temperature graph. I am always suspicious of scaremongering pronouncements from people.The various people making extraordinary claims of impending runaway warming of the future are always the ones with control of the research and funding. The "consensus" claim is a long running lie.It is a tool of the politics.

I don't understand why you post links to media op-ed articles that have no bearing at all on the post you replied to, but I might join in posting links. Here for example is the excellent correlation again between the global surface record, and global satellite records for the lower troposphere: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Satelli...emperatures.png And this one is a bit more on topic - It's called "Climate Fraudit" http://www.scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/0...ate_fraudit.php Tim Lambert is really bad.He took a beating at the Climate Audit website. Is there someone better?