Re: Is Nob Really Dr. Joseph Goebbels?


"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" <artyguy04@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1137352000.906835.122320@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> From: <nyob...@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2006 23:06:38 GMT
>
>>> And even the people you quote disagree with you. Remember saying the
>>> American Meteorological Society thought GW was crap?
>
>>Man made GW. There is little doubt that some warming is going on, it's
>>the
>>cause that's in dispute. The AMS says "At present, observations suggest,
>>but
>>are insufficient to prove, that atmospheric warming caused by human
>>activities has already occurred."
>
> I note that you do not provide links to show them saying what you claim
> they do.
>
If you can't find them as easily as I did, you're not as smart as you think.

> Why don't we go see what they actually say, now, on their website?
>
> http://www.ametsoc.org/POLICY/climatechangeresearch_2003.html
>
> "Because human activities are contributing to climate change, we have a
>
> collective responsibility to develop and undertake carefully considered
>
> response actions..."
>
> http://www.ametsoc.org/amsnews/jointacademies.pdf
>
> Lying reduces the effectiveness of your arguments to zero.
>
>>Your categorizing junkscience.com as dubious is yours, it happens to be an
>>objective review of the current pseudo scientific crap that floats around,
>>essentially unchallenged.
>
> No, actually that is not my categorization. It's the categorization of
> realclimate.com, the site *you* referred me to.

My mistake. I'll have to live with it, but it doesn't amke their claims
true and certainly doesn't mean there is consensus. There are many
respected people stating that man made GW is bull***.

Junkscience obviously
> has an agenda, or else they do not understand science or the difference
> between fact and opinion:
> (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=229) (last paragraph):
>
Their agenda is to debunk bull*** science. I can't vouch for their fact
checking, but I have found the stuff I've found there is backed up elsewhere
by credible sources.


> "Our correspondents at the Montreal climate negotiations which
> concluded last week report that Esper et al was given a lot of play by
> the inaction lobby. The only major news outlet to pick up on the story,
>
> though was Fox News, whose report by "Junk Science" columnist Steve
> Milloy here arguably represents a new low in propaganda masquerading as
>
> science journalism. Milloy does not mention that Esper et al is an
> opinion piece, not a research article. He also fails to mention that
> Esper et al do not actually conclude that a downward revision in the
> importance of CO2 actually is necessary; they only attempt to say
> (albeit based on faulty logic) what would happen if higher estimates of
>
> climate variation proved right. Milloy also fails to note the final
> quote supporting Kyoto, for what that's worth. Of course, it is too
> much to expect that Milloy would look into other papers on the subject
> to see if there might be something wrong with the reasoning in Esper et
>
> al."
>
> So when you quote agenda-driven hack sites like junkscience, it
> drastically lowers the quality of your arguments. Using sites like that
> show that you will accept the opinion of ANYBODY that agrees with you.
> That you choose to call them 'objective' once again calls your
> intelligence into question.

They also have links to many well respceted scientific discussions on the
subject.
You don't like them because they arte against your agenda, which is more
government control.

>
>>> Regarding your quoted Gallup poll, by the way
>>> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change):
>>> "In a correction Gallup stated: "Most scientists involved in research
>>> in this area believe that human-induced global warming is occurring
>>> now."
>
>>That's like saying most people involved in audio believe that there are
>>vast
>>differences in amplifers even when they measure the same.
>
> Your brain doesn't work very well, now does it.
>
> If you want a better analogy, how about this one: most scientists agree
> that we understand enough about electricity and its control to make
> amplifiers and other audio electronics pieces that are virtually
> indistinguishable from one another, inexpensively. Richard Lindzen
> disagrees with those hundreds of his fellow scientists. Lindzen feels
> that not everything is understood and that power conditioners will
> improve the sound of your system. Nob follows Lindzen, whom nob
> considers his 'Messiah.'
>
Hardly, but he is an M.I.T. professor and expert on climate.

>>I've quoted people like Lindzen who is one of the formeost experts in the
>>field.
>
> And failed to note that MIT as a whole, where Lindzen is but one
> professor, seems to believe that GW with a man-made component is a
> reality.
>
> http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/nr/2003/co2.html
>
> You can always find one dissenter in any debate. There are credentialed
> 'scientists' who argue for Intelligent Design, for example. Are you an
> adherent of ID as well?
>
Now who's not being very smart?

> You go with your lone Messiah Lindzen. The rest of the world seems to
> feel that the fact that hundreds of other equally qualified, equally
> well-credentialed scientists who disagree with your Messiah carries
> more weight.
>
He's not alone by any means.
Some othe people:
Robert C. Balling Dir. Office of Climatology, Arizona State Univ., Author
of the Satanic Gases

William M. Gray Professor Atmospheric Science U of Colorado William M.
"Bill" Gray, PhD is Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Science at Colorado
State University (CSU), and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project at
CSU's Department of Atmospheric Sciences.

William M. Happer Professor of Physics, Princeton University

S. Fred Singer: Now President of The Science & Environmental Policy Project,
a non-profit policy research group he founded in 1990, Singer is also
Distinguished Research Professor at George Mason University and professor
emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia. His
previous government and academic positions include Chief Scientist, U.S.
Department of Transportation (1987- 89); Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Policy, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1970-71); Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Water Quality and Research, U.S. Department of the Interior
(1967- 70); founding Dean of the School of Environmental and Planetary
Sciences, University of Miami (1964-67); first Director of the National
Weather Satellite Service (1962-64); and Director of the Center for
Atmospheric and Space Physics, University of Maryland (1953-62).

John Christy University of Alabama Climatology Professor
William Ruddiman University of Virginia Professor Emeritus Environmental
Sciences University of Virginia Charlottesville, Virginia

Patrick J. Michaels Pat Michaels is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute
and a research professor of environmental sciences at the University of
Virginia. According to Nature magazine, Michaels is one of the most popular
lecturers in the nation on the subject of global warming. He is a past
president of the American Association of State Climatologists and was
program chair for the Committee on Applied Climatology of the American
Meteorological Society. Michaels is a contributing author and reviewer of
the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. He was an
author of the 2003 climate science "Paper of the Year" awarded by the
Association of American Geographers, for the demonstration that urban
heat-related mortality declined significantly as cities became warmer.






>>>You have no morals. You are intellectually dishonest. You clearly do not
>>>understand how science
>>> works. And you are a baseless liar to boot.
>
>>Projection is an ugly thing.
>
> Translation: "I know you are, but what am I?"
>

No, You accuse me of what you do.

> Loser. What I said applies to you. It is not name-calling. It is fact.
>
>>Disagree all you like, but saying this is settled and that there is
>>consensus is bull***.
>
> I've never said this is 'settled.' Perhaps in your world having a few
> crackpots disagree serves to say there is not consensus.

The crackpots are the ones trying to sellus a bill of goods about something
like GW.

When virtually
> every major world-wide scientific organization says that there is
> global warming and that man-made influences play a part, I call that
> consensus. Of course, I am not pulling out quotes from years ago, or
> whatever. I am looking at what they say on their websites now, as in
> the case of the AMS.
>

Let's look at some other views, something I doubt you do much.
Try some of these.
http://www.breakfornews.com/articles/GlobalCooling.htm
An excerpt: A sudy by William Ruddiman, Professor Emeritus of Environmental
Sciences and his team at the University of Virginia Charlottesville,
Virginia has shown that if ancient agriculturists had not systematically
cleared forests, planted crops and raised domesticated herds, global
temperatures today would be an average of two degrees centigrade lower.

And you thought that greenhouse gasses were at issue only in the recent
industrial era? You've been misled. The relentless focus on modern fossil
fuels ignores the dramatic climatic effect of the forest clearances and
other effects since the dawn of mass agriculture around 8,000 years ago.


CENTRAL HEATING FOR EARTH

Modern climatology has assumed that the relatively recent increases in
greenhouse gasses were driving up temperatures which were otherwise
historically stable.

But the latest research confirms that without ancient greenhouse gasses, a
decreasing level of solar radiation driven by Earth-orbital changes would
have caused global temperatures to plunge.

Professor Ruddiman's study, published in the journal Quaternary Science
Reviews reports
a test of this hypothesis using the GENESIS global climate computer model.

http://www.reason.com/rb/rb111004.shtml
University of Alabama at Huntsville climatologist John Christy, a climate
expert on whom I have relied for years, makes some interesting observations
about the Arctic Council's report. "If you look at the long term records,
the Arctic has been as warm or warmer than it is today," says Christy. He
cites temperature data from the Hadley Centre in the UK showing that from 70
degrees north latitude to the pole, the warmest years on record in the
Arctic were 1937 and 1938. This area is just slightly above the Arctic
Circle.
Furthermore, those same records show that the Arctic warmed twice as fast
between 1917 and 1937 as it has in the past 20 years. After 1940, the Arctic
saw a big cool-down and climatologists noted sea ice expanding in the
northern Atlantic. Christy argues that what he calls the Great Climate Shift
occurred in the late 1970s and caused another sudden warming in the Arctic.
Since the late 1970s there has not been much additional warming in the
region at all. In fact, on page 23, the Arctic Council Assessment offers
very similar data for Arctic temperature trends from 60 degrees north
latitude-the area that includes most of Alaska and essentially all of
Greenland, most of Norway and Sweden, and the bulk of Russia.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/climate_change/1023334.stm

By Professor William M Gray of Colorado State University

As a boy, I remember seeing articles about the large global warming that had
taken place between 1900 and 1945. No one understood or knew if this warming
would continue. Then the warming abated and I heard little about such
warming through the late 1940s and into the 1970s.

In fact, surface measurements showed a small global cooling between the
mid-1940s and the early 1970s. During the 1970s, there was speculation
concerning an increase in this cooling. Some speculated that a new ice age
may not be far off.

Then in the 1980s, it all changed again. The current global warming
bandwagon that US-European governments have been alarming us with is still
in full swing.

Not our fault

Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes.
We are not that influential.

There is a negative or complementary nature to human-induced greenhouse gas
increases in comparison with the dominant natural greenhouse gas of water
vapour and its cloud derivatives.

It has been assumed by the human-induced global warming advocates that as
anthropogenic greenhouse gases increase that water vapour and upper-level
cloudiness will also rise and lead to accelerated warming - a positive
feedback loop.

It is not the human-induced greenhouse gases themselves which cause
significant warming but the assumed extra water vapour and cloudiness that
some scientists hypothesise.

>From the Harvard Gazette: April 24, 2003

Global warming is not so hot:
1003 was worse, researchers find
By William J. Cromie
Gazette Staff

The heat and droughts of 2001 and 2002, and the unending winter of 2002-2003
in the Northeast have people wondering what on Earth is happening to the
weather. Is there anything natural about such variability?


To answer that question, researchers at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for
Astrophysics (CfA) - right in the heart of New England's bad weather - took
a look at how things have changed in the past 1,000 years. They looked at
studies of changes in glaciers, corals, stalagmites, and fossils. They
checked investigations of cores drilled out of ice caps and sediments lying
on the bottom of lakes, rivers, and seas. They examined research on pollen,
tree rings, tree lines, and junk left over from old cultures and colonies.
Their conclusion: We are not living either in the warmest years of the past
millennium nor in a time with the most extreme weather.

http://www.cdfe.org/lomborg_cleared.htm

http://www.cdfe.org/scientific.htm

http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/2005/09/sunwarm.html

Durham, N.C. -- At least 10 to 30 percent of global warming measured during
the past two decades may be due to increased solar output rather than
factors such as increased heat-absorbing carbon dioxide gas released by
various human activities, two Duke University physicists report.





.