High price for hot air( GlobalWarmingNOT!) CourierMail

[White_Male_Canada]

High price for load of hot air

On the same day, NASA chief Michael Griffin commented in a US radio interview that "I am not sure that it is fair to say that (global warming) is a problem that we must wrestle with".

NASA is an agency that knows a thing or two about climate change. As Griffin added: "We study global climate change, that is in our authorisation, we think we do it rather well.

"I'm proud of that, but NASA is not an agency chartered to, quote, battle climate change."

Such a clear statement that science accomplishment should carry primacy over policy advice is both welcome and overdue.

Nonetheless, there is something worrying about one of Griffin's other statements, which said that "I have no doubt . . . that a trend of global warming exists".

Griffin seems to be referring to human-caused global warming, but irrespective of that his opinion is unsupported by the evidence.

The salient facts are these. First, the accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998. Oddly, this eight-year-long temperature stasis has occurred despite an increase over the same period of 15 parts per million (or 4 per cent) in atmospheric CO2.

Second, lower atmosphere satellite-based temperature measurements, if corrected for non-greenhouse influences such as El Nino events and large volcanic eruptions, show little if any global warming since 1979, a period over which atmospheric CO2 has increased by 55 ppm (17 per cent).

Third, there are strong indications from solar studies that Earth's current temperature stasis will be followed by climatic cooling over the next few decades.

How then is it possible for Griffin to assert so boldly that human-caused global warming is happening?

Well, he is in good company for similar statements have been made recently by several Western heads of state at the G8 summit meeting. For instance, German Chancellor Angela Merkel asserts climate change (i.e. global warming) "is also essentially caused by humankind".

In fact, there is every doubt whether any global warming at all is occurring at the moment, let alone human-caused warming.

For leading politicians to be asserting to the contrary indicates something is very wrong with their chain of scientific advice, for they are clearly being deceived. That this should be the case is an international political scandal of high order which, in turn, raises the question of where their advice is coming from.

In Australia, the advice trail leads from government agencies such as the CSIRO and the Australian Greenhouse Office through to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change of the United Nations.

As leading economist David Henderson has pointed out, it is extremely dangerous for an unelected and unaccountable body like the IPCC to have a monopoly on climate policy advice to governments. And even more so because, at heart, the IPCC is a political and not a scientific agency.

Australia does not ask the World Bank to set its annual budget and neither should it allow the notoriously alarmist IPCC to set its climate policy.

It is past time for those who have deceived governments and misled the public regarding dangerous human-caused global warming to be called to account. Aided by hysterical posturing by green NGOs, their actions have led to the cornering of government on the issue and the likely implementation of futile emission policies that will impose direct extra costs on every household and enterprise in Australia to no identifiable benefit.

Not only do humans not dominate Earth's current temperature trend but the likelihood is that further large sums of public money are shortly going to be committed to, theoretically, combat warming when cooling is the more likely short-term climatic eventuality.

In one of the more expensive ironies of history, the expenditure of more than $US50 billion ($60 billion) on research into global warming since 1990 has failed to demonstrate any human-caused climate trend, let alone a dangerous one.

Yet that expenditure will pale into insignificance compared with the squandering of money that is going to accompany the introduction of a carbon trading or taxation system.

The costs of thus expiating comfortable middle class angst are, of course, going to be imposed preferentially upon the poor and underprivileged.

Professor Bob Carter is an environmental scientist at James Cook University who studies ancient climate change


http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,21920043-27197,00.html

[LG]

From the Sydney Morning Herald, a serious newspaper:

Minchin denies climate change man-made

Wendy Frew Environment Reporter
Sydney Morning Herald
March 15, 2007

A SENIOR Federal Government minister has expressed serious doubts global warming has been caused by humans, relying on non-scientific material and discredited sources to back his claim.

One month after a United Nations scientific panel delivered its strongest warning yet that humans were causing global warming, the Finance Minister, Nick Minchin, has questioned the link between fossil fuels and greenhouse gas pollution.

In a letter he wrote on March 5 to Clean Up Australia's founder, Ian Kiernan, Senator Minchin took issue with Mr Kiernan's criticism of the minister's scepticism.

"Putting whatever my views might be to one side, I am nevertheless interested in your apparent opinion that anyone who remains to be convinced that anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions are the cause of climate change is a scientific loony," Senator Minchin said. "I therefore enclose for your information material which indicates that a number of eminent scientists remain in the 'sceptical' camp."

Senator Minchin appears to have taken his advice in part from a collection of columns written by the Canadian newspaper columnist Lawrence Solomon. Among those was one promoting the work of Danish scientist Henrik Svensmark. But that research has proved to contain numerous calculation and methodological errors, say some other scientists.

Senator Minchin also referred Mr Kiernan to a critique of the economic review of global warming by Sir Nicholas Stern. One author of the critique was the retired James Cook University professor Bob Carter. Professor Carter, whose background is in marine geology, appears to have little, if any, standing in the Australian climate science community. He is on the research committee at the Institute of Public Affairs, a think tank that has received funding from oil and tobacco companies, and whose directors sit on the boards of companies in the fossil fuel sector.

A spokesman for Senator Minchin yesterday defended the credibility of the material sent to Mr Kiernan. "The senator stands by his comments in that letter," the spokesman said.

Professor Carter told the Herald yesterday the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had uncovered no evidence the warming of the planet was caused by human activity. He said the role of peer review in scientific literature was overstressed, and whether or not a scientist had been funded by the fossil fuel industry was irrelevant to the validity of research.

"I don't think it is the point whether or not you are paid by the coal or petroleum industry," said Professor Carter. "I will address the evidence."

A former CSIRO climate scientist, and now head of a new sustainability institute at Monash University, Graeme Pearman, said Professor Carter was not a credible source on climate change. "If he has any evidence that [global warming over the past 100 years] is a natural variability he should publish through the peer review process," Dr Pearman said. "That is what the rest of us have to do." He said he was letting the fossil fuel industry off the hook.

Of Senator Minchin's letter, he said: "I am worried that a federal minister would believe this crap."

And from Wiki:

Like most newspapers owned by News Corporation [also owners of Fox News], The Courier-Mail generally supports free market economic policies and the process of globalisation. It supported the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The quality of coverage is perceived to be more sensationalist and less serious compared to broadsheets The Sydney Morning Herald, The Age and The Australian, however its journalism is not as lurid or populist as other Australian tabloids such as The Daily Telegraph in Sydney.

Next, please!

[White_Male_Canada]

From the Sydney Morning Herald, a



Next, please!

Reid Bryson, the 87-year-old considered to be the father of scientific climatology, has once again spoken out strongly against anthropogenic global warming theories being regularly disseminated by alarmists in the media and the scientific community.


There is no question the earth has been warming. It is coming out of the "Little Ice Age," he said in an interview this week.

"However, there is no credible evidence that it is due to mankind and carbon dioxide. We've been coming out of a Little Ice Age for 300 years. We have not been making very much carbon dioxide for 300 years. It's been warming up for a long time," Bryson said.


The Little Ice Age was driven by volcanic activity. That settled down so it is getting warmer, he said.

Humans are polluting the air and adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, but the effect is tiny, Bryson said.

"It's like there is an elephant charging in [sic, the room] and you worry about the fact that there is a fly sitting on its head. It's just a total misplacement of emphasis," he said. "It really isn't science because there's no really good scientific evidence."

Just because almost all of the scientific community believes in man-made global warming proves absolutely nothing, Bryson said. "Consensus doesn't prove anything, in science or anywhere else, except in democracy, maybe."

For the alarmists who love to depict every skeptic as being on the take of oil companies:

Bryson, 87, was the founding chairman of the department of meteorology at UW-Madison and of the Institute for Environmental Studies, now known as the Gaylord Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies. He retired in 1985, but has gone into the office almost every day since. He does it without pay.

"I have now worked for zero dollars since I retired, long enough that I have paid back the people of Wisconsin every cent they paid me to give me a wonderful, wonderful career. So we are even now. And I feel good about that," said Bryson.


So, if global warming isn't such a burning issue, why are thousands of scientists so concerned about it?

"Why are so many thousands not concerned about it?" Bryson shot back.

"There is a lot of money to be made in this," he added. "If you want to be an eminent scientist you have to have a lot of grad students and a lot of grants. You can't get grants unless you say, 'Oh global warming, yes, yes, carbon dioxide.'"

Bryson then pointed out how the media work:

Reporters will often call the meteorology building seeking the opinion of a scientist and some beginning graduate student will pick up the phone and say he or she is a meteorologist, Bryson said. "And that goes in the paper as 'scientists say.'"

The word of this young graduate student then trumps the views of someone like Bryson, who has been working in the field for more than 50 years, he said. "It is sort of a smear."

Of course, then some ignoramus will copy the opinions of this graduate student and dissiminate them throughout the blogosphere as yet another example of the consensus.

Bryson said he recently wrote something on the subject and two graduate students told him he was wrong, citing research done by one of their professors. That professor, Bryson noted, is probably the student of one of his students.

"Well, that professor happened to be wrong," he said.


"There is very little truth to what is being said and an awful lot of religion. It's almost a religion. Where you have to believe in anthropogenic (or man-made) global warming or else you are nuts."


While Bryson doesn't think that global warming is man-made, he said there is some evidence of an effect from mankind, but not an effect of carbon dioxide.

For example, in Wisconsin in the last 100 years the biggest heating has been around Madison, Milwaukee and in the Southeast, where the cities are. There was a slight change in the Green Bay area, he said. The rest of the state shows no warming at all.

"The growth of cities makes it hotter, but that was true back in the 1930s, too," Bryson said. "Big cities were hotter than the surrounding countryside because you concentrate the traffic and you concentrate the home heating. And you modify the surface, you pave a lot of it."


Bryson didn't see Al Gore's movie about global warming, "An Inconvenient Truth."

"Don't make me throw up," he said. "It is not science. It is not true."

Wisconsin’s Capital Times

[Rogers]

High price for load of hot air
A load of hot air is all that article is, _Canada. From the same link:

To all the people who are so desperately offended by my revealing that Prof Carter's piece is not the result of patient scientific work in his field but mere opinion. Opinion, moreover, that can't be trusted because he never reveals his business affiliations.
Strangely many of you seem to be singing from the same fake songsheet about alleged 'scientific doubt' over anthropocentric Global warming, so may I make a small wager.
Give me one peer-reveiwed, published scientific paper that actually casts doubt on Global Warming and it's human causes and I'll never mention the subject here again. Just one that points to sunspots, the moon, the wobble of the Earth's orbit or the prevalence of extra-marital sex in our society as the pre-eminent cause of Global Warming instead of CO2, methane and nitrous oxide etc.
I can tell you now you won't find one, not in Nature, not in Science, not in Geophysical Letters or any other scientific journal - and if it aint in a scientific journal baby, it ain't science! Not even Prof Carter has published one. He can't because he has no evidence to back up his viewpoint! He gets published in the Courier Mail and a rightwing economics magazine (critiquing the Stern Report), neither of which are scientific journals which have to check the accuracy of the science.
Cheers Jeff
Posted by: Jeff Poole of Wynnum 5:02pm today

Very well said, Jeff Poole of Wynnum!

Science always trumps opinion, at least with any logical, reasoned person. New study by NASA:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070509210100.htm

Epic drought in Australia:
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/australasia/article2465960.ece
http://www.guardian.co.uk/australia/story/0,,1941942,00.html

Btw _Canada, has your scalp grown back yet? If not, I'll have to take your head if you lose the forthcoming rematch.

[North_of_60]

Got junk ?

Professor Robert (Bob) Carter, is "a researcher at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University", Australia. A March 2007 article in the Sydney Morning Herald noted that "Professor Carter, whose background is in marine geology, appears to have little, if any, standing in the Australian climate science community." He is a well known climate change skeptic.

Carter is a member of the right-wing think tank the Institute of Public Affairs, a right-wing, corporate funded think tank based in Melbourne. Its key policy positions include advocacy for privatisation, deregulation, reduction in the power of unions and denial of most significant environmental problems, including climate change.

Stop funding climate change denial"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/oil/story/0,,1876539,00.html

[White_Male_Canada]

A load of hot air is all that article is, _Canada. From the same link:


Cheers Jeff
Posted by: Jeff Poole of Wynnum 5:02pm today

Hilarious ! :lol: Wait, I`ll go retrieve a post from someone who posted their comment under his ! :lol:



Science always trumps opinion, at least with any logical, reasoned person. New study by NASA:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070509210100.htm

A 10 degree increse in by 2080 !? LOL :lol: I have a computer program that predicts the NYSE average for the next 100 years. Give me all your money and I`ll invest it for you. :lol:





Epic drought in Australia:
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/australasia/article2465960.ece
http://www.guardian.co.uk/australia/story/0,,1941942,00.html

Uh, yeah. :lol:

Cleanup begins as eastern Australia floods recede
http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/news/stories/s1948312.htm

Nine die in Australia floods
http://itn.co.uk/news/a7bcdf999001ba8014fca019a1d472f0.html


Btw _Canada, has your scalp grown back yet? If not, I'll have to take your head if you lose the forthcoming rematch.

Facts are facts, you`re a joke. 8)

[White_Male_Canada]

Got junk ?

Professor Robert (Bob) Carter, is "a researcher at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University", Australia. A March 2007 article in the Sydney Morning Herald noted that "Professor Carter, whose background is in marine geology, appears to have little, if any, standing in the Australian climate science community." He is a well known climate change skeptic.

Carter is a member of the right-wing think tank the Institute of Public Affairs, a right-wing, corporate funded think tank based in Melbourne. Its key policy positions include advocacy for privatisation, deregulation, reduction in the power of unions and denial of most significant environmental problems, including climate change.

Stop funding climate change denial"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/oil/story/0,,1876539,00.html

And you would prefer say, James Hansen ?

[Rogers]

Hilarious ! :lol: Wait, I`ll go retrieve a post from someone who posted their comment under his ! :lol:
Point still stands, and that goes for senior citizen Reid Bryson as well (I doubt he knows what a computer looks like, never mind a computer model):
Give me one peer-reveiwed, published scientific paper that actually casts doubt on Global Warming and it's human causes...



Science always trumps opinion, at least with any logical, reasoned person. New study by NASA:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070509210100.htm

A 10 degree increse in by 2080 !? LOL :lol: I have a computer program that predicts the NYSE average for the next 100 years. Give me all your money and I`ll invest it for you. :lol:
Yeah, 10 degrees Fahrenheit. Or is that your dyslexia again?



Epic drought in Australia:
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/australasia/article2465960.ece
http://www.guardian.co.uk/australia/story/0,,1941942,00.html

Uh, yeah. :lol:

Cleanup begins as eastern Australia floods recede
http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/news/stories/s1948312.htm

Nine die in Australia floods
http://itn.co.uk/news/a7bcdf999001ba8014fca019a1d472f0.html
Extreme Weather On The Rise As Greenhouse Gases Drive Climate
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/10/001006154052.htm



Btw _Canada, has your scalp grown back yet? If not, I'll have to take your head if you lose the forthcoming rematch.

You`re a joke. 8)
Oh look, you've lost again, _Canada. I'd be better off spending my time reading books by Al Gore and Lowell Ponte, than spending it debating with you. :lol: :lol: :lol: 8)

[Rogers]

Antarctica has a massive impact on the temperature of the Southern Hemisphere, and consequently the global mean temperature:
So what is happening in Antarctica? The cooling is due to a strengthening of the circular winds around the continent, which prevent warmer air reaching its interior. The increased wind speeds seem to be a result of cooling in the upper atmosphere, caused by the hole in the ozone layer above the pole, which is of course the result of chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) pollution.

Confusingly, it appears that one human impact on the climate – the Antarctic ozone hole – is currently compensating for another, global warming. If the ozone layer recovers over the decades as expected, the circular winds could weaken, resulting in rapid warming.
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11648

Northern Hemisphere temperature:
http://environment.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn11648/dn11648-2_726.jpg

Now I'm away to order Al Gore's book on Amazon, _Canada, so I can have something more intelligent to spend my time with than you. Face it, you got nothing. 8) 8) 8)

[White_Male_Canada]

Hilarious ! :lol: Wait, I`ll go retrieve a post from someone who posted their comment under his ! :lol:


Point still stands

Fuck off :lol: Points stands !? A-ha-haa. Now we have an opinion of an opinion masquerading as fact. :lol:

A 10 degree increse in by 2080 !? LOL :lol: I have a computer program that predicts the NYSE average for the next 100 years. Give me all your money and I`ll invest it for you. :lol:


Yeah, 10 degrees Fahrenheit. Or is that your dyslexia again?

I have an idea, let`s take faulty CGMs, extrapolate the graphs in some catastrophic way up to 2080 and beyond and shoot a cynical movie about all these threats. :lol:



Extreme Weather On The Rise As Greenhouse Gases Drive Climate
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/10/001006154052.htm


LOL :lol: Thanks, I needed a good laugh for the day. You`re droughts have dried up so you run back to the old " man-made CO2 is causing chaos" theory.


Max Mayfield, National Hurricane Center , told a congress that the Atlantic Ocean is in a cycle of increased hurricane activity that parallels an increase that started in the 1940s and ended in the 1960s.


Under questioning by members of the Senate Commerce subcommittee on disaster prevention and prediction, he shrugged off the notion that global warming played a role, saying instead it was a natural cycle in the Atlantic Ocean that fluctuates every 25 to 40 years.


Give me one peer-reveiwed, published scientific paper that actually casts doubt on Global Warming and it's human causes...

Peer review the facts dufus. 2006 was

-colder than 2005
-colder than 2004
-colder than 2003
-colder than 2002
-colder than 1998

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3vgl.txt

Still bringing butter knives to a gunfight retard? You`re easier than a 5 dollar Bangkok whore. 8)

[trish]

the following published by NASA can be found at

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

[White_Male_Canada]

And this graph, extrapolated from

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3vgl.txt

depicting 6 warmest years since 1998 according to their rank, shows how Al Gore and other people with comparable scientific standards would be presenting the recent temperature records if cooling or a new ice age became more convenient for their goals than warming.

[White_Male_Canada]

And this graph, extrapolated from

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3vgl.txt

depicting 6 warmest years since 1998 according to their rank, shows how Al Gore and other people with comparable scientific standards would be presenting the recent temperature records if cooling or a new ice age became more convenient for their goals than warming.

And this graph tell us it`s not as warm as it should be:

[Rogers]

Give me one peer-reveiwed, published scientific paper that actually casts doubt on Global Warming and it's human causes...

Peer review the facts dufus. 2006 was colder than:

-colder than 2005
-colder than 2004
-colder than 2003
-colder than 2002
-colder than 1998

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3vgl.txt[/b]
Acheeew!!! I'm sorry, I'm allergic to bullshit! Since when did data become a peer-reviewed paper? And I see you've completely ignored my point about what appears to be the man-made cooling of Antarctica lowering the global mean temperature. Weak, pathetic,

[Rogers]

Proof that the earth is cooling:

Global temperature
http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/archive/2486/24861402.jpg

Another angle:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png

Proof that the satellite data shows cooling:
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/7/7e/Satellite_Temperatures.png

Well, I’m impressed, not.

You got me thinking about you now, _Canada. :wink: :lol: 8)

[LG]

There is no question the earth has been warming. It is coming out of the "Little Ice Age," he said in an interview this week.

"However, there is no credible evidence that it is due to mankind and carbon dioxide. We've been coming out of a Little Ice Age for 300 years. We have not been making very much carbon dioxide for 300 years. It's been warming up for a long time," Bryson said.

The Little Ice Age was driven by volcanic activity. That settled down so it is getting warmer, he said.

Humans are polluting the air and adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, but the effect is tiny, Bryson said.

"It's like there is an elephant charging in [sic, the room] and you worry about the fact that there is a fly sitting on its head. It's just a total misplacement of emphasis," he said. "It really isn't science because there's no really good scientific evidence."

Just because almost all of the scientific community believes in man-made global warming proves absolutely nothing, Bryson said. "Consensus doesn't prove anything, in science or anywhere else, except in democracy, maybe."

For the alarmists who love to depict every skeptic as being on the take of oil companies:

Bryson, 87, was the founding chairman of the department of meteorology at UW-Madison and of the Institute for Environmental Studies, now known as the Gaylord Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies. He retired in 1985, but has gone into the office almost every day since. He does it without pay.

"I have now worked for zero dollars since I retired, long enough that I have paid back the people of Wisconsin every cent they paid me to give me a wonderful, wonderful career. So we are even now. And I feel good about that," said Bryson.

So, if global warming isn't such a burning issue, why are thousands of scientists so concerned about it?

"Why are so many thousands not concerned about it?" Bryson shot back.

"There is a lot of money to be made in this," he added. "If you want to be an eminent scientist you have to have a lot of grad students and a lot of grants. You can't get grants unless you say, 'Oh global warming, yes, yes, carbon dioxide.'"

Bryson then pointed out how the media work:

Reporters will often call the meteorology building seeking the opinion of a scientist and some beginning graduate student will pick up the phone and say he or she is a meteorologist, Bryson said. "And that goes in the paper as 'scientists say.'"

The word of this young graduate student then trumps the views of someone like Bryson, who has been working in the field for more than 50 years, he said. "It is sort of a smear."

Of course, then some ignoramus will copy the opinions of this graduate student and dissiminate them throughout the blogosphere as yet another example of the consensus.

Bryson said he recently wrote something on the subject and two graduate students told him he was wrong, citing research done by one of their professors. That professor, Bryson noted, is probably the student of one of his students.

"Well, that professor happened to be wrong," he said.

"There is very little truth to what is being said and an awful lot of religion. It's almost a religion. Where you have to believe in anthropogenic (or man-made) global warming or else you are nuts."

While Bryson doesn't think that global warming is man-made, he said there is some evidence of an effect from mankind, but not an effect of carbon dioxide.

For example, in Wisconsin in the last 100 years the biggest heating has been around Madison, Milwaukee and in the Southeast, where the cities are. There was a slight change in the Green Bay area, he said. The rest of the state shows no warming at all.

"The growth of cities makes it hotter, but that was true back in the 1930s, too," Bryson said. "Big cities were hotter than the surrounding countryside because you concentrate the traffic and you concentrate the home heating. And you modify the surface, you pave a lot of it."

Bryson didn't see Al Gore's movie about global warming, "An Inconvenient Truth."

"Don't make me throw up," he said. "It is not science. It is not true."

Wisconsin’s Capital Times

Interesting how you cut and paste stuff so that you leave out all the stuff that you disagree with, like:

Not so fast, say scientists: Galen McKinley, an assistant professor of atmospheric and oceanic sciences at UW-Madison disagrees with Bryson, whom she notes is a respected researcher and professor with a long history at the university.

"There are innumerable studies that show that the shoe fits for global warming, I guess you could say, and the human causation for it," McKinley said.

"We understand very well the basic process of the greenhouse effect, which is that we know that the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increases the heat trapped by the atmosphere. You put one dollar more in the bank and you have one dollar more there tomorrow. It's a very clear feedback," she said.

Carbon dioxide emissions have been increasing over the industrial period, about 200 years, and can be observed very clearly through about 100 monitoring stations worldwide, McKinley said.

The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing consistently with the amount that humans are putting into the atmosphere, she said.

"We know humans are putting it there, we understand the basic mechanism and we know that the temperatures are warming. Many, many, many studies illustrate that both at the global scale and at the regional scale."

She cited the work of John Magnuson, a UW-Madison professor emeritus of limnology who is internationally known for his lake studies. Magnuson records the number of days of ice on the lakes in southern Wisconsin, including Mendota and Monona.

His research shows that over the course of the last 150 years, the average has gone from about four months of ice cover to more like 2.5 months, McKinley said.

Bryson would say that it is due to coming out of an Ice Age, McKinley notes, "but the rate of change that we are seeing on the planet is inconsistent with changes in the past that have been due to an Ice Age."

The huge changes in temperature that scientists are seeing are happening much faster than have ever been observed in the past due to the change from an Ice Age phase to a non-Ice Age phase, she said.

"We know that humans are putting CO2 into the atmosphere at an incredibly fast rate, much, much faster than any natural process has done it in the last at least 400,000 years and probably more like millions of years."

The rate of change is consistent with human activity, she said. That is why so many major scientific societies are concerned about global warming, she added.

The release in February of the latest report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) put the likelihood that human beings are the cause of global warming at 90 percent. It noted that temperatures will continue to climb for decades, that heat waves and floods will become more frequent and that the last time the Arctic and the Antarctic were warmer than they are today for an extended period -- before the start of the last Ice Age -- global sea levels were at least thirteen feet higher.

IPCC, founded in 1988, is the joint venture of the United Nations Environment Program and the World Meteorological Organization. Every four or five years, it conducts an exhaustive survey of the available data and issues a multivolume assessment of the state of the climate. IPCC's reports are vetted by thousands of scientists and the organization's 190-plus participating governments.

"My views are very similar to those expressed by IPCC," said Steve Vavrus, an associate scientist at the UW-Madison Center for Climatic Research.

"Reid Bryson maintains his long-standing opinions on anthropogenic climate change, and he's certainly entitled to them," Vavrus said.

"The scientific process is never 100 percent sure and it could be proven wrong," McKinley added.

"But I would say that the chances of that based on all of the best information at this current time are incredibly slim. And even though that possibility is out there, it would be irresponsible of us as a society not to act based on the best scientific information we have at the moment, which is that humans are causing the warming of the planet," she said.

"If you saw smoke in your house, it would be irresponsible not to get your family out, right?"

That was from the same article and provided a different opinion, yet you left it out. I wonder why?

[trish]

because WMC has even less integrity than he has intellect.

[Quinn]

LMFAO... More of the same old, same old from White_Penetrated_Prevaricator I see. Nicely done, LG. Like Trish said, "WMC has even less integrity than he has intellect."

-Quinn

[White_Male_Canada]

Proof that the earth is cooling:




First, peer review, just because a particular paper has passed through peer review does not absolutely insure that the conclusions are correct or scientifically valid.

Sound familiar ?

Secondly:


And I see you've completely ignored my point about what appears to be the man-made cooling of Antarctica lowering the global mean temperature. Weak, pathetic

I usualy cease responding to morons but in this case I`ll make an exception one last time. From your own article that`s filled with suppostion:

This study was promptly seized upon as proof that the world is not warming, but a single example of localised cooling proves no such thing, as the lead author of the 2002 study has tried to point out.




Another angle:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.pn


Nice pic. Let`s take a closer look.

So, how is cooling actually warming ?

[White_Male_Canada]

There is no question the earth has been warming. It is coming out of the "Little Ice Age," he said in an interview this week.



That was from the same article and provided a different opinion, yet you left it out. I wonder why?

Why? Most of those are former students of his. So you`ve got these little saplings thinking their actually bigger and have deluded themselves into some sort of consensus, thinking they are casting their swadow over the massive oak tree who spawned them.

[specialk]

because WMC has even less integrity than he has intellect.

Hi Trish.....isn't this the guy everyone is bantering with? :shock: :P

[trish]

…just because a particular paper has passed through peer review does not absolutely insure that the conclusions are correct or scientifically valid.
This is true. But it’s also true that if an author can’t get his paper published in a any peer reviewed journals, then the paper just doesn’t pass muster.


Most of those are former students of his. So you`ve got these little saplings thinking their actually bigger and have deluded themselves into some sort of consensus, thinking they are casting their swadow over the massive oak tree who spawned them.
In other words, you’re saying that his mentoring is as pathetic as his research.

Here’s an idea, WMC. Why don’t you spend some time addressing the points people put to you? Fill up one hole before digging another? At least wipe your ass after you take a shit.

[Rogers]

First, peer review, just because a particular paper has passed through peer review does not absolutely insure that the conclusions are correct or scientifically valid.

Sound familiar ?
Hurrah! You've finally conceded that there is not one scientific paper that casts doubt on global warming and it's human causes. Ergo, skeptics have only got opinion. As Jeff Poole of Wynnum said, "if it ain't in a scientific journal baby, it ain't science!" Oh, but it's all a conspiracy isn't it? :screwy :lol: And it's ensure, not insure, but that will be your dyslexia again. :lol:


Secondly:


And I see you've completely ignored my point about what appears to be the man-made cooling of Antarctica lowering the global mean temperature. Weak, pathetic

So, how is cooling actually warming ?
Surely you're not that dumb, _Canada? Cooling of the Antarctic (which appears to have been caused by the hole in the ozone layer) has lowered the global mean temperature. The World is made up of a Northern Hemisphere (which is rapidly warming) AND a Southern Hemisphere (which contains the bulk of the World's Oceans, i.e. a big buffer of temperature, the World's least industrialized countries, AND a friggin' big island continent that has become colder thanks to man) don't you know. You essentially answered your question yourself:

This study was promptly seized upon as proof that the world is not warming, but a single example of localised cooling proves no such thing, as the lead author of the 2002 study has tried to point out.
Anyway, a few years data doesn't make a trend in climate. Lies, damn lies, and statistics, what.

It really is absolutely pointless debating with you, _Canada. I am of the opinion that you are only here to annoy others and spam this board with your bilious wingnut opinions. How sad is that? Real debate is about the exchange of informed opinions between fellow human beings who respect each other. I really don't know how trish and LG can stand your idiocy and obnoxiousness.

Hey, _Canada, peer review this,

[Rogers]

Why? Most of those are former students of his. So you`ve got these little saplings thinking their actually bigger and have deluded themselves into some sort of consensus, thinking they are casting their swadow over the massive oak tree who spawned them.
So you're into hero worship as well, _Canada? That has as much place in science as politics does, i.e. no place.

[White_Male_Canada]

And I see you've completely ignored my point about what appears to be the man-made cooling of Antarctica lowering the global mean temperature. Weak, pathetic


This study was promptly seized upon as proof that the world is not warming, but a single example of localised cooling proves no such thing, as the lead author of the 2002 study has tried to point out.


Anyway, a few years data doesn't make a trend in climate. Lies, damn lies, and statistics, what.

All data is not peer reviewed in journals and the facts are that the data have proven mean temp. cooling.

The piece de resistance is "anyway data doesn`t matter...".

I have qouted from your own link and it`s made you so dizzy and confused you don`t even know if you`re arguing global cooling or warming.
You argue global mean cooling and get contradicted by your own link to your own story.
When confronted with data proving global mean temps have fallen since `98 you state a "few years of data doesn`t a trend make...Lies, damn lies...", thereby clearly implying not global cooling but warming !

Phone algore, get your story straight, then go talk to other retards and leave rational thought to the adults.It`s offcial you moronic idiot, you`ve just won the asshole merit badge.

Congratulations, now get lost punk, you should be ashamed of yourself. 8)

[Rogers]

Data is not peer reviewed and the facts are that the data have proven mean temp. cooling.
ROTFLMAO. Still no papers to back up your position, so you have conceded!!! Haha. Nah, still don't see evidence of global cooling:
Global temperature:
http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/archive/2486/24861402.jpg
Another angle:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png
Satellite data:
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/7/7e/Satellite_Temperatures.png


The piece de resistance is "anyway data doesn`t matter...".
Never said that, never would. Cheating again, dyslexic _Canada. :smh


I have qouted from your own link and it`s made you so dizzy and confused you don`t even know if you`re arguing global cooling or warming.
You argue global mean cooling and get contradicted by your own link to your own story.
When confronted with data proving global mean temps have fallen since `98 you state a "few years of data doesn`t a trend make...Lies, damn lies...", thereby clearly implying not global cooling but warming !
Nah, the only one here that's "dizzy and confused" is you. What don't you understand, _Canada? Not all areas of the Earth will warm, and some will cool. Antarctica is cooling because of the strengthening of the circular winds that move around it, thus reducing the global mean temperature. It does not mean that the Earth is entering a cooling period.


Congratulations, now get lost punk, you should be ashamed of yourself. 8)
Coming from you, I'll take that as a compliment. I seem to have gotten under your skin very quickly, _Canada. That's the kind of reaction I like from a liar and a fraud. And all you can do is try and make it look like I said things I didn't. Very poor, very poor indeed! :lol: :lol: :lol: 8)

[White_Male_Canada]

Once more, you`ve contradicted yourself and apparently are either so fucking stupid you don`t even know it or are just feinging ignorance in a worthless attempt to save any last vestige of dignity.



And I see you've completely ignored my point about what appears to be the man-made cooling of Antarctica lowering the global mean temperature. Weak, pathetic


This study was promptly seized upon as proof that the world is not warming, but a single example of localised cooling proves no such thing, as the lead author of the 2002 study has tried to point out.

Global mean temperatures have dropped since 1998:

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3vgl.txt


Anyway, a few years data doesn't make a trend in climate. Lies, damn lies, and statistics, what.



The piece de resistance is "anyway data doesn`t matter...".

I have quoted from your own link and it`s made you so dizzy and confused you don`t even know if you`re arguing global cooling or warming.
You argue global mean cooling and get contradicted by your own link to your own story.
When confronted with data proving global mean temps have fallen since `98 you state a "few years of data doesn`t a trend make...Lies, damn lies...", thereby clearly implying not global cooling but warming !

Phone algore, get your story straight, then go talk to other retards and leave rational thought to the adults.

[trish]

oh, we're into repeating ourselves again, eh. ok

[trish]

oh, we're into repeating ourselves again, eh. ok

[muhmuh]

I really don't know how trish and LG can stand your idiocy and obnoxiousness.

Hey, _Canada, peer review this,

allright guys time to pay up!
who had his money on todays date?

[Rogers]

Once more, you`ve contradicted yourself and apparently are either so fucking stupid you don`t even know it or are just feinging ignorance in a worthless attempt to save any last vestige of dignity.



And I see you've completely ignored my point about what appears to be the man-made cooling of Antarctica lowering the global mean temperature. Weak, pathetic


This study was promptly seized upon as proof that the world is not warming, but a single example of localised cooling proves no such thing, as the lead author of the 2002 study has tried to point out.

Global mean temperatures have dropped since 1998:

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3vgl.txt


Anyway, a few years data doesn't make a trend in climate. Lies, damn lies, and statistics, what.



The piece de resistance is "anyway data doesn`t matter...".

I have quoted from your own link and it`s made you so dizzy and confused you don`t even know if you`re arguing global cooling or warming.
You argue global mean cooling and get contradicted by your own link to your own story.
When confronted with data proving global mean temps have fallen since `98 you state a "few years of data doesn`t a trend make...Lies, damn lies...", thereby clearly implying not global cooling but warming !

Phone algore, get your story straight, then go talk to other retards and leave rational thought to the adults.
What don't you understand, _Canada? The cooling of the Antarctic, which appears to be due to the hole in the ozone layer, i.e. man-made, has reduced the global MEAN temperature since 1966, making the increase look less than it has really been. Using the global MEAN temperature therefore underestimates AGW, hence my Disraeli quote, "lies, damn lies, and statistics". The central Antarctic is still most likely cooling, and will continue to do so until the ozone hole above it closes. And any dip in the global MEAN temperature since 1998 does not mean that the Earth has stopped warming. It's the trend that counts, dumbass. You are making straw men again, _Canada.

The average air temperature at the Earth's surface has increased by 0.06 °C per decade during the 20th century1, and by 0.19 °C per decade from 1979 to 19982. ... Although previous reports suggest slight recent continental warming9, 10, our spatial analysis of Antarctic meteorological data demonstrates a net cooling on the Antarctic continent between 1966 and 2000, particularly during summer and autumn.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v415/n6871/abs/nature710.html

Maybe I should have explained myself a bit clearer, _Canada, but I'm not used to working with dyslexic dumbasses like yourself. Hey, I can't help it if you're dumb, now can I? :lol: 8)

[Rogers]

The following graph is taken from the University of East Anglia (U.K.) website that _Canada linked to. Still no sign of cooling there.
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/

[White_Male_Canada]

The cooling of the Antarctic, which appears to be due to the hole in the ozone layer, i.e. man-made, has reduced the global MEAN temperature since 1966, making the increase look less than it has really been.

Posting your opinion in hopes that they would be unquestionably accepted makes you look more and more like the VillageIdiot everyday.

You`re completely wrong, averaged over the past 40 years there has been a slight warming due to the mitigating factor that parts of the continent warmed coupled with the fact that of the thousands of weather stations, only 10 or so are situated in the Antarctic. These facts make it virtually statistically impossible for your personal theory to affect mean temps.

Added to your embarrassment is your own IPCC which stated, “It is very likely that: nearly all land areas will warm more rapidly than the global average, particularly those at high latitudes in the cold season...”

And, “There has been no statistically significant change in snowfall since the 1950s, indicating that Antarctic precipitation is not mitigating global sea level rise as expected, despite recent winter warming of the overlying atmosphere.”http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/313/5788/827?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=monaghan&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT

So basically the preponderance of evidence is telling you to get your head out of your ass.

[White_Male_Canada]

The following graph is taken from the University of East Anglia (U.K.) website that _Canada linked to. Still no sign of cooling there.
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/

Once more moron, let`s take a closer look:

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3vgl.txt

[trish]

OK, let's look more closely, using NASA's data from

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

[White_Male_Canada]

OK, let's look more closely, using NASA's data from

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

Indeed, let us.

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3vgl.txt

Uncertainties in the global calculations due largely to gaps in data coverage make 2006 statistically indistinguishable from 2005 and several other recent 'warm years' as shown by the error bars.

[Rogers]

The cooling of the Antarctic, which appears to be due to the hole in the ozone layer, i.e. man-made, has reduced the global MEAN temperature since 1966, making the increase look less than it has really been.

Posting your opinion in hopes that they would be unquestionably accepted makes you look more and more like the VillageIdiot everyday.
This from the guy who still has not presented one peer-reviewed scientific paper that backs up his anti-GW/AGW rants, only interviews of retired scientists published in local newspapers. ROTFLMAO. I don't think I have ever come across a person who so obviously projects his inadequacies onto other people as you before in my life. LMFAO. It is not my opinion that the Antarctic has cooled, it is the conclusions of scientific research published in the most prestigious scientific journal there is, Nature.


You`re completely wrong, averaged over the past 40 years there has been a slight warming due to the mitigating factor that parts of the continent warmed coupled with the fact that of the thousands of weather stations, only 10 or so are situated in the Antarctic. These facts make it virtually statistically impossible for your personal theory to affect mean temps.
Like I'm going to believe anything a proven serial liar like yourself says. :screwy :lol: The Antarctic Peninsula has warmed, but its interior has cooled according to the paper in Nature. There may be "only 10 or so" weather stations located in the Antarctic, but their measurements are averaged over the whole area of the continent before being included in the Southern and Global means. Fact are facts, if the Antarctic has cooled, as the paper in Nature says it has, then it will have dragged down both the Southern and Global means. It is not my "personal theory", it is basic maths, dumbass.


Added to your embarrassment is your own IPCC which stated, “It is very likely that: nearly all land areas will warm more rapidly than the global average, particularly those at high latitudes in the cold season...”
Because you've left out the date, I wouldn't be surprised if that's an old quote you've lifted. It still includes "nearly all", and the Antarctic has always been different because of its isolated position, the miles deep ice that covers it, and the fact that it is surrounded by the Southern Ocean which it chills. The large man-made hole in the ozone layer above the continent only serves to further differentiate it from other land masses.


So basically the preponderance of evidence is telling you to get your head out of your ass.
No, the preponderance of evidence is telling me that you are lying again, as seems always.

And do me a fucking favor, if you still think I'm Quinn, ask the mods, you paranoid fuck! And when they tell you I ain't Quinn, you will still no doubt not believe it, because everyone is out to get you, including Al Gore and the U.N.. :lol: :lol: :lol: 8)

[Rogers]

The following graph is taken from the University of East Anglia (U.K.) website that _Canada linked to. Still no sign of cooling there.
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/

Once more moron, let`s take a closer look:

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3vgl.txt
So you're trying to tell us that the World is now cooling, _Canada? :lol: :smh

"Climate... is a spiky beast" (Professor Peter Cox):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9ob9WdbXx0&mode=related&search=
http://www.esi-topics.com/gwarm2006/interviews/PeterCox.html

[White_Male_Canada]

You`re completely wrong, averaged over the past 40 years there has been a slight warming due to the mitigating factor that parts of the continent warmed coupled with the fact that of the thousands of weather stations, only 10 or so are situated in the Antarctic. These facts make it virtually statistically impossible for your personal theory to affect mean temps.


Like I'm going to believe anything a proven serial liar like yourself says. The Antarctic Peninsula has warmed, but its interior has cooled according to the paper in Nature. There may be "only 10 or so" weather stations located in the Antarctic, but their measurements are averaged over the whole area of the continent before being included in the Southern and Global means. Fact are facts, if the Antarctic has cooled, as the paper in Nature says it has, then it will have dragged down both the Southern and Global means. It is not my "personal theory", it is basic maths, dumbass.

Oh really, the math is in? Sorry junior, wrong again.

Let`s randomly sample data from the Antartica. Sorry dipshit, those trend lines are not exactly divebombing to the bottom.

CO2 levels remain but temps have fallen so you`re religious belief in agw looks like a tattered flag in the wind.

You`re ice core proxy data is faulty and undervalued by at least 55ppm.

You`re CGMs have been proven flawed. So much for those scenarios.

Algore has been proven a pathological exaggerator

The facts are you`ve tried to extricate your bullshit position that global mean temps are dropping due to the polar vortex with more bullshit. How do we know? The “maths” are in :

[White_Male_Canada]

.
.

[trish]

The following shows the GISS surface temperature anomaly over just one year (1999-2006, the last year over which NASA data is available). The base line is very current, namely 1999-2006. Even over this very recent baseline, the last available years anomaly shows a predominant global rise in temperature.

[Rogers]

In response to me saying, "... its interior has cooled according to the paper in Nature", _Canada, posts temperature graphs for the 3 Antarctic stations marked on the map below.

Makes sense I guess... to a dumb fucking pantywaist retard!!!

[Rogers]

Although previous reports suggest slight recent continental warming9, 10, our spatial analysis of Antarctic meteorological data demonstrates a net cooling on the Antarctic continent between 1966 and 2000, particularly during summer and autumn. The McMurdo Dry Valleys have cooled by 0.7 °C per decade between 1986 and 2000, with similar pronounced seasonal trends.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v415/n6871/abs/nature710.html

[trish]

Good work, Rogers. Still laughing that WMC thought those he could pass off three peripheral stations as representative of the interior. Either he's an idiot or a lowlife. Perhaps both.

Hey WMC...you lost this one. Time to start another thread on global warming.

[guyone]

No better way to debate than to call your opponent a retard. That really makes your point.

[trish]

hmmmm and which hypocrit among you persists in the use of name calling? i seem to recall terms like, bolshevik and libtard being thrown about on these forums...not slurs Rogers or I would've used.

[White_Male_Canada]

Although previous reports suggest slight recent continental warming9, 10, our spatial analysis of Antarctic meteorological data demonstrates a net cooling on the Antarctic continent between 1966 and 2000, particularly during summer and autumn. The McMurdo Dry Valleys have cooled by 0.7 °C per decade between 1986 and 2000, with similar pronounced seasonal trends.




Seriously, do you understand the difference between a regional anamoly and general continental trend data? You do but have taken one reading completely out of context and have hysterically tried to argue that as the mean. Not only are you attempting that foly you compound your ridiculous personal theory by stating one site reading has driven down the global mean temperatures.

One cluster of stations in ONE place IS NOT, CANNOT, NEVER WILL reduce the global mean temperature taken from thousands of stations around the globe.

You`re not qualified to discuss the science but do make a great propagandist.

On the other hand , BAS is qualified:


Few continuous observations of Antarctic climate are available before the International Geophysical Year of 1957-58. Since this time, surface temperatures have remained fairly stable over much of Antarctica.

The majority of stations in East Antarctica, including the two long-term records from the high plateau of East Antarctica (South Pole and Vostok) show no statistically-significant warming or cooling trends. By contrast, large and statistically-significant warming trends are seen at stations in the Antarctic Peninsula. Over the past 50 years, the west coast of the Peninsula has been one of the most rapidly-warming parts of the planet, with annual mean temperatures rising by nearly 3°C and the largest warming occurring in the winter season. Analysis of weather balloon data collected over the past 30 years has shown that the Antarctic atmosphere has warmed below 8 km and cooled above this height. The 30-year warming at 5 km over the Antarctic during winter (0.75°C) is over three times the average rate of warming at this level for the globe as a whole.


The facts are you simply don`t know. You think you know but you don`t. Yours is opinion.

The facts also dictate that anthropogenic CO2 is not the driver of temperatures changes. CO2 does not, and never has antedated temperature increases. The fact is that CO2 is only 0.038% of the atmosphere and only 3.6 per cent of greenhouse gases. Of that only 3.4 to 5% is man-made. CO2 as a result of man's activities was only 3.2 per cent of that, hence only about 0.12 per cent of the greenhouse gases in total. Human-related methane, nitrogen dioxide and CFCs etc made similarly minuscule contributions to the effect: 0.066, 0.047 and 0.046 per cent respectively.

You just don`t know, you`re a rank amateur, a fool who thinks man-made CO2 drives temperatures and actually believes a single regional anamoly dictates global mean temps.

You are dismissed, a fraud and a court jester propagandist.

[White_Male_Canada]

Good work, Rogers. Still laughing that WMC thought those he could pass off three peripheral stations as representative of the interior. Either he's an idiot or a lowlife. Perhaps both.

Hey WMC...you lost this one. Time to start another thread on global warming.

And you?

You should be ashamed of yourself for prostituting your intellect in a naked attempt to prop up quinn`s personal opinion.

I`ve exposed that encephalic know nothing long ago as being totally ignorant of his/her own Constitution.

Shame you on.

[trish]

You've done nothing but repeatedly expose your bias and lack of integrity.

[Rogers]

Good work, Rogers. Still laughing that WMC thought those he could pass off three peripheral stations as representative of the interior. Either he's an idiot or a lowlife. Perhaps both.

Hey WMC...you lost this one. Time to start another thread on global warming.

And you?

You should be ashamed of yourself for prostituting your intellect in a naked attempt to prop up quinn`s personal opinion.

I`ve exposed that encephalic know nothing long ago as being totally ignorant of his/her own Constitution.

Shame you on.
Why the hell should I continue to keep replying to someone who keeps falsely accusing me of being someone I am not? That is really fucked up. And don't go accusing trish of conspiring against you. That is totally paranoid. I told you, _Canada, you have my permission to ask the mods to check my IP to see if it matches Quinn's. Why the fuck do you think I'm Quinn in the first place? :screwy

[White_Male_Canada]

You`re a puerile fool who just thinks he knows. You merely think you know because of simplistic opinions that, one anomaly drives global mean temps and anthropogenic CO2 drives temp changes.

How do we know? For one I`ve already proven it. And now the coup de grace on your notion that one anomaly drives the global mean :

[Quinn]

Good work, Rogers. Still laughing that WMC thought those he could pass off three peripheral stations as representative of the interior. Either he's an idiot or a lowlife. Perhaps both.

Hey WMC...you lost this one. Time to start another thread on global warming.

And you?

You should be ashamed of yourself for prostituting your intellect in a naked attempt to prop up quinn`s personal opinion.

I`ve exposed that encephalic know nothing long ago as being totally ignorant of his/her own Constitution.

Shame you on.
Why the hell should I continue to keep replying to someone who keeps falsely accusing me of being someone I am not? That is really fucked up. And don't go accusing trish of conspiring against you. That is totally paranoid. I told you, _Canada, you have my permission to ask the mods to check my IP to see if it matches Quinn's. Why the fuck do you think I'm Quinn in the first place? :screwy

ROTFLMAO…. Don't sweat it, Rogers. White_Prevaricating_Poltroon has so many detractors on this forum – he's easily the least respected and most widely reviled poster here – that he can't keep them straight. His obsession with me is due to the fact that I've repeatedly given him the intellectual bitch slapping one usually associates with the worst cases of spousal abuse (the forum's feedback was overwhelmingly against his specious arguments in each case).

Either way, enjoy the laughter. Oh, and one more thing. White_Nancy_Boy will almost certainly not ask the mods to compare our IPs. He would much rather make statements that he can't back up than ever put himself in a position where said statements can be revealed for the imbecilic falsehoods they are. His bottomless capacity for dishonesty and cowardice are already well known to everyone. So don’t take the accusation too seriously; no one else does. He's already as beaten as any poster could ever be and little more than a cautionary tale at this point.

-Quinn

[guyone]

Doesn't O'Reilly use Poltroon a lot?

[Rogers]

You`re a puerile fool who just thinks he knows. You merely think you know because of simplistic opinions that, one anomaly drives global mean temps and anthropogenic CO2 drives temp changes.

How do we know? For one I`ve already proven it. And now the coup de grace on your notion that one anomaly drives the global mean :
How does that relate to my original statement:
The cooling of the Antarctic, which appears to be due to the hole in the ozone layer, i.e. man-made, has reduced the global MEAN temperature since 1966, making the increase look less than it has really been.

Where the fuck did I say anything about it driving the global mean?

I again give my source that the Antarctic is cooling, unlike yourself:

Nature 415, 517-520 (31 January 2002)
Antarctic climate cooling and terrestrial ecosystem response
Although previous reports suggest slight recent continental warming9, 10, our spatial analysis of Antarctic meteorological data demonstrates a net cooling on the Antarctic continent between 1966 and 2000, particularly during summer and autumn. The McMurdo Dry Valleys have cooled by 0.7 °C per decade between 1986 and 2000, with similar pronounced seasonal trends.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v415/n6871/abs/nature710.html

Facts are facts, if the Antarctic has cooled, and its data is included in the Southern Hemisphere and Global Means, which I'm assuming it is, it will have lowered them. I have not said anything about how much it has lowered them. You mentioned driving, not me. Again, you are trying to put words in my mouth. Hey, at least your not altering my quotes this time. You clearly have one or more of the following problems: dyslexia, just plain retarded, have mental problems, or are just an annoying jerk. :lol: 8)

[Quinn]

Doesn't O'Reilly use Poltroon a lot?

I wouldn't know. Does he?

-Quinn

[Rogers]

Good work, Rogers. Still laughing that WMC thought those he could pass off three peripheral stations as representative of the interior. Either he's an idiot or a lowlife. Perhaps both.

Hey WMC...you lost this one. Time to start another thread on global warming.

And you?

You should be ashamed of yourself for prostituting your intellect in a naked attempt to prop up quinn`s personal opinion.

I`ve exposed that encephalic know nothing long ago as being totally ignorant of his/her own Constitution.

Shame you on.
Why the hell should I continue to keep replying to someone who keeps falsely accusing me of being someone I am not? That is really fucked up. And don't go accusing trish of conspiring against you. That is totally paranoid. I told you, _Canada, you have my permission to ask the mods to check my IP to see if it matches Quinn's. Why the fuck do you think I'm Quinn in the first place? :screwy

ROTFLMAO…. Don't sweat it, Rogers. White_Prevaricating_Poltroon has so many detractors on this forum – he's easily the least respected and most widely reviled poster here – that he can't keep them straight. His obsession with me is due to the fact that I've repeatedly given him the intellectual bitch slapping one usually associates with the worst cases of spousal abuse (the forum's feedback was overwhelmingly against his specious arguments in each case).

Either way, enjoy the laughter. Oh, and one more thing. White_Nancy_Boy will almost certainly not ask the mods to compare our IPs. He would much rather make statements that he can't back up than ever put himself in a position where said statements can be revealed for the imbecilic falsehoods they are. His bottomless capacity for dishonesty and cowardice are already well known to everyone. So don’t take the accusation to seriously; no one else does. He's already as beaten as any poster could ever be and little more than a cautionary tale at this point.

-Quinn
He clearly is obsessed with you, Quinn. I can only assume it is because you have kicked his gay ass one to many times. He is clearly still smarting from me exposing his ignorance of the "Sixth Extinction". I really don't understand how anyone can tolerate him. He is fucking infuriating. How the hell can I hold a conversation with someone who thinks I am someone else? It's a totally fucked up situation, most likely just like his mind. :screwy :lol: 8)

[Rogers]

Doesn't O'Reilly use Poltroon a lot?

I wouldn't know. Does he?

-Quinn
Whoa, Quinn. We've made posts roughly at the same time. That is totally gonna freak _Canada out. :screwy :lol: 8)

[White_Male_Canada]

You`re a puerile fool who just thinks he knows. You merely think you know because of simplistic opinions that, one anomaly drives global mean temps and anthropogenic CO2 drives temp changes.

How do we know? For one I`ve already proven it. And now the coup de grace on your notion that one anomaly drives the global mean :



Where the fuck did I say anything about it driving the global mean?

I again give my source that the Antarctic is cooling, unlike yourself:

Nature 415, 517-520 (31 January 2002)
i]
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v415/n6871/abs/nature710.html

Facts are facts, if the Antarctic has cooled, and its data is included in the Southern Hemisphere and Global Means, which I'm assuming it is, it will have lowered them. [u]I have not said anything about how much it has lowered them

You`re sources are dated, your opinions jejune.

You`re full of shit junoir. The british antarctic survey is way ahead of five year old data. Like I stated:

Few continuous observations of Antarctic climate are available before the International Geophysical Year of 1957-58. Since this time, surface temperatures have remained fairly stable over much of Antarctica.

The majority of stations in East Antarctica, including the two long-term records from the high plateau of East Antarctica (South Pole and Vostok) show no statistically-significant warming or cooling trends. By contrast, large and statistically-significant warming trends are seen at stations in the Antarctic Peninsula. Over the past 50 years, the west coast of the Peninsula has been one of the most rapidly-warming parts of the planet, with annual mean temperatures rising by nearly 3°C and the largest warming occurring in the winter season. Analysis of weather balloon data collected over the past 30 years has shown that the Antarctic atmosphere has warmed below 8 km and cooled above this height. The 30-year warming at 5 km over the Antarctic during winter (0.75°C) is over three times the average rate of warming at this level for the globe as a whole. BAS

[Rogers]

You`re sources are dated, your opinions jejune.

You`re full of shit junoir. The british antarctic survey is way ahead of five year old data. Like I stated:
No, you're full of shit gay old man. Cite analyzed and published data, or shut the fuck up!

Nature 415, 517-520 (31 January 2002)
Antarctic climate cooling and terrestrial ecosystem response
Although previous reports suggest slight recent continental warming9, 10, our spatial analysis of Antarctic meteorological data demonstrates a net cooling on the Antarctic continent between 1966 and 2000, particularly during summer and autumn. The McMurdo Dry Valleys have cooled by 0.7 °C per decade between 1986 and 2000, with similar pronounced seasonal trends.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v415/n6871/abs/nature710.html

[White_Male_Canada]

You`re sources are dated, your opinions jejune.

You`re full of shit junoir. The british antarctic survey is way ahead of five year old data. Like I stated:



Cite analyzed and published data, or shut the fuck up!

It`s obvious now, you`re a complete ignoramus citing half decade old data and having no idea as to the reputation of the British Antarctic Survey.

[Rogers]

You`re sources are dated, your opinions jejune.

You`re full of shit junoir. The british antarctic survey is way ahead of five year old data. Like I stated:



Cite analyzed and published data, or shut the fuck up!

It`s obvious now, you`re a complete ignoramus citing half decade old data and having no idea as to the reputation of the British Antarctic Survey.
ROTFLMAO!!! When dipshit _Canada is asked to produce one peer-reviewed paper to back up his anti-GW/AGW rants he is unable to do so. When dipshit _Canada is asked to produce analyzed and published data that the Antarctic is not cooling he cannot do so. Yet this is the dipshit who demands unquestionable proof that proteins can form themselves, and that man is causing global warming.

IT'S OFFICIAL... YOU'RE A RETARD LIVING IN FAIRYLAND!!! NOW GO BACK TO BEING THE IRRELEVANT PANTYWAIST YOU ARE!!!

ROTFLMAO!!! ROTFLMAO!!! ROTFLMAO!!!

HAHA... YOU LOSE AGAIN!!!


... having no idea as to the reputation of the British Antarctic Survey.
That statement proves just how little you know about me. Is that enough to quell your paranoia that I ain't Quinn, you dumbfuck!

[Rogers]

:smh :lol: 8)

Fig.2. Diagram showing examples of surface air temperatures from Antarctic stations. The mean annual air temperature is indicated with a dot and the solid line represents the 5-year unweighted running mean. Stations within the Antarctic Peninsula region (Orcadas and Esperanza) show a late 20th century warming, while stations on the East Antarctic Plateau (Amundsen-Scott and Vostok) show cooling.
http://www.unis.no/research/geology/Geo_research/Ole/AntarcticTemperatureChanges.htm

[White_Male_Canada]

Rank amateur. You google from magazines,then cut and paste what you find on the first page, whereas people in the know refer to research and research papers.

Seriously, do you understand the difference between a regional anamoly and general continental trend data? You do but have taken one reading completely out of context and have hysterically tried to argue that as the mean. Not only are you attempting that foly you compound your ridiculous personal theory by stating one site reading has driven down the global mean.

One cluster of stations in ONE place IS NOT, CANNOT, NEVER WILL reduce the global mean temperature taken from thousands of stations around the globe.

You`re not qualified to discuss the science but do make a great propagandist.

On the other hand , BAS is qualified:

Few continuous observations of Antarctic climate are available before the International Geophysical Year of 1957-58. Since this time, surface temperatures have remained fairly stable over much of Antarctica.

The majority of stations in East Antarctica, including the two long-term records from the high plateau of East Antarctica (South Pole and Vostok) show no statistically-significant warming or cooling trends. By contrast, large and statistically-significant warming trends are seen at stations in the Antarctic Peninsula. Over the past 50 years, the west coast of the Peninsula has been one of the most rapidly-warming parts of the planet, with annual mean temperatures rising by nearly 3°C and the largest warming occurring in the winter season. Analysis of weather balloon data collected over the past 30 years has shown that the Antarctic atmosphere has warmed below 8 km and cooled above this height. The 30-year warming at 5 km over the Antarctic during winter (0.75°C) is over three times the average rate of warming at this level for the globe as a whole.
BAS

Trends show slight warming over most of the 50-90°S domain with maximum warming over the Antarctic Peninsula.The salient finding in the context of climate change is that the 45-year trends are small,generally within a range of +/- 0.3°C/decade. Changes in Antarctic Temperatures in Response to the A.O./ Synthesis of A.M.Temps (2005)

[White_Male_Canada]

.






.

[trish]

There's not a complete sentence nor a coherent thought in that entire sign. Is that first an attempt at an interrogative sentence or what? If so, where's the question mark? Is "From" capitalized because it begins a new attempt at a sentence, or is it part of the interrogative? Where's the verb in that last jumble from "An" to "Engines"? What is the idea you're trying to formulate there? Do you even know? You once claimed to be professor. Certainly you're not a professor in any of the language arts; and even more certainly you're not a professor in any of the sciences or science related fields.

[Rogers]

ROTFLMAO!!! Still no peer-reviewed paper yet I see? LMAO!!! You're a fucking joke!!!

We can all repeat ourselves:

Nature 415, 517-520 (31 January 2002)
Antarctic climate cooling and terrestrial ecosystem response
Although previous reports suggest slight recent continental warming9, 10, our spatial analysis of Antarctic meteorological data demonstrates a net cooling on the Antarctic continent between 1966 and 2000, particularly during summer and autumn. The McMurdo Dry Valleys have cooled by 0.7 °C per decade between 1986 and 2000, with similar pronounced seasonal trends.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v415/n6871/abs/nature710.html

Tell me, _Canada, why do you think a spatial anaylsis of meteorological data made Nature? Could it be because of the following?
Although previous reports suggest slight recent continental warming9, 10, our spatial analysis of Antarctic meteorological data demonstrates a net cooling on the Antarctic continent between 1966 and 2000

I think I'll take Nature's word for it, and not that of a serial liar thank you very much. Even the last figure you posted suggests cooling of the Antarctic interior (green and blues denote cooling), dumbfuck!

And there is nothing stretching my asshole to make it the biggest thank you very much. I've heard differently about you though. And I know nothing about dicks other than my own. You, however, are now claiming to be an expert on dicks and assholes as well. I believe you:

I like toping Tgirls aka chicks with dicks. I also like being topped by men. Makes me feel like a panywaist after but it feels so good.
I thought it was only us "leftists" who have feelings. ROTFLMAO!!! :lol: :lol: :lol: 8)

[Rogers]

There's not a complete sentence nor a coherent thought in that entire sign. Is that first an attempt at an interrogative sentence or what? If so, where's the question mark? Is "From" capitalized because it begins a new attempt at a sentence, or is it part of the interrogative? Where's the verb in that last jumble from "An" to "Engines"? What is the idea you're trying to formulate there? Do you even know? You once claimed to be professor. Certainly you're not a professor in any of the language arts; and even more certainly you're not a professor in any of the sciences or science related fields.
You're forgetting, trish, he's dyslexic. 8)

[Quinn]

There's not a complete sentence nor a coherent thought in that entire sign. Is that first an attempt at an interrogative sentence or what? If so, where's the question mark? Is "From" capitalized because it begins a new attempt at a sentence, or is it part of the interrogative? Where's the verb in that last jumble from "An" to "Engines"? What is the idea you're trying to formulate there? Do you even know? You once claimed to be professor. Certainly you're not a professor in any of the language arts; and even more certainly you're not a professor in any of the sciences or science related fields.

LMFAO.... I thought it was some sort of ebonics or something. Either way, it was so desperately weak and involved so much projection so as to serve as little more than another tacit admission of defeat.

-Quinn

[White_Male_Canada]

There's not a complete sentence nor a coherent thought in that entire sign. Is that first an attempt at an interrogative sentence or what? If so, where's the question mark? Is "From" capitalized because it begins a new attempt at a sentence, or is it part of the interrogative? Where's the verb in that last jumble from "An" to "Engines"? What is the idea you're trying to formulate there? Do you even know? You once claimed to be professor. Certainly you're not a professor in any of the language arts; and even more certainly you're not a professor in any of the sciences or science related fields.

Yup, you really got me on that one. Boy, am I embarrassed.

http://images.google.com/images?q=asshole&ndsp=20&svnum=10&hl=en&start=320&sa=N

[trish]

Yup, good of you to say it, but Rogers got you ten times over. (What is that patch of green doing in the interior of Antarctica anyway?) Don't you think Jesus would want you to acknowledge ALL your failures and to try harder to be HONEST the next time?

[White_Male_Canada]

Still no peer-reviewed paper

Obvious you`re over-reaction and general quinn-behaviour is due to the fact that you`re full of shit in stating one temp anomaly is driving down the entire global mean. That of course is utter nonsense and complete bullshit.The temp changes are insignificant to alter the global mean. you`re a poser, a phony. Much like you`re fucked up Google, quickly cutting and pasting the long discredited MillerUrey junk science.

You know nothing. You just think you know and that is mere opinion.

I`m obviously dealing with one of those M.Mann types, who try pass off bullshit as real science.



"at the surface, the Antarctic Peninsula has warmed by several [degrees C] over the past several decades, while the interior of the Antarctic continent has exhibited weak cooling."

Thompson, D.W.J. and Solomon, S. 2002. Interpretation of recent Southern Hemisphere climate change.


10 stations allow 30-year temperature trends to be computed, “the warming trend
was greater during the 1961-1990 period compared to 1971-2000.”

Turner, J., Colwell, S.R., Marshall, G.J., Lachlan-Cope, T.A., Carleton, A.M., Jones, P.D., Lagun, V., Reid, P.A. and Iagovkina, S. 2005. Antarctic climate change during the last 50 years.

The British Antarctic Survey team determined that warming had taken place throughout the troposphere, with the maximum increase in temperature occurring in the mid-troposphere where they identified a 0.70°C per decade warming.

Turner, J., Lachlan-Cope, T.A., Colwell, S., Marshall, G.J. and Connolley, W.M. 2006. Significant warming of the Antarctic winter troposphere.

" It is notable that the reconstructed Antarctic temperature record is in phase with the Southern Hemisphere mean instrumental record.” The Antarctic temperature reconstruction, “provides evidence for long-term Antarctic warming,"

Schneider, D.P., Steig, E.J., van Ommen, T.D., Dixon, D.A., Mayewski, P.A., Jones, J.M. and Bitz, C.M. 2006. Antarctic temperatures over the past two centuries from ice cores.

Trends show slight warming over most of the 50-90°S domain with maximum warming over the Antarctic Peninsula.The salient finding in the context of climate change is that the 45-year trends are small,generally within a range of +/- 0.3°C/decade.
Changes in Antarctic Temperatures in Response to the A.O./ Synthesis of A.M.Temps U. of Ill. (2005)

[White_Male_Canada]

Yup, good of you to say it, but Rogers got you ten times over. (What is that patch of green doing in the interior of Antarctica anyway?)

You`re bias discredits you. And that green blotch? That`s the one anomaly that your boy refers to as evidence to attempt to explain why global mean temps have fallen since 1998. Believe it, I got a bridge I`ll sell ya. Cheap, it`s in Brooklyn.

[muhmuh]

wmc you should at least decide wether you think temps are rising or falling
yesterday they were falling according to you now you claim they rise


You`re bias discredits you.

bwahaha i know you like being topped but topping yourself is just unbelievable

[White_Male_Canada]

wmc you should at least decide wether you think temps are rising or falling
yesterday they were falling according to you now you claim they rise

Yes and no. The mean average has fallen since 1998. Others are trying to explain that drop by stating the Antarctic mean temps have fallen so dramatically they`ve brought down the entire global means with it.

Facts are, neither anthropogenic CO2 nor a minor net gain or loss of average temps in the Antarctic drive global temps.

[Rogers]

Awww, the little sissy has done some homework. :lol: Is that really best you can do, sissy _Candy? :lol: Do you actually realize what you’ve posted? :lol: If you are a scientist, you clearly aren't a very good one. :lol: Perhaps you’ve had your brains fucked out one too many times by your boyfriends. ROTFLMAO.

One more time:

Nature 415, 517-520 (31 January 2002)
Antarctic climate cooling and terrestrial ecosystem response
Although previous reports suggest slight recent continental warming9, 10, our spatial analysis of Antarctic meteorological data demonstrates a net cooling on the Antarctic continent between 1966 and 2000, particularly during summer and autumn. The McMurdo Dry Valleys have cooled by 0.7 °C per decade between 1986 and 2000, with similar pronounced seasonal trends.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v415/n6871/abs/nature710.html
You avoided this question the last time:

Tell me, _Canada, why do you think a spatial anaylsis of meteorological data made Nature? Could it be because of the following?
Although previous reports suggest slight recent continental warming9, 10, our spatial analysis of Antarctic meteorological data demonstrates a net cooling on the Antarctic continent between 1966 and 2000
So why was this paper so special it made Nature?:
Walsh and his colleague Peter Doran, who collaborated on the recent study that concluded Antarctica is cooling, say past reports of global warming in the region were skewed by the nature of the measurements.
Much of the data, they said, came from research stations along the Antarctic Peninsula, which divides the Weddell and Bellingshausen Sea. But, Walsh pointed out, temperatures on the Peninsula are not reliable indicators of what is happening in the whole of Antarctica. "The Antarctic Peninsula is an unusual hotspot on the continent," said Dolan.
According to Walsh and Doran, previous temperature trends for Antarctica were calculated by averaging 35 years of daily temperature readings from nearly three dozen stations. At least 15 of those stations are concentrated along the Antarctic Peninsula.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/01/0125_020125_antarcticaclimate.html

i.e. Almost 1/2 of the stations previously used were along the Antarctic Peninsula. Don't you know anything about scientific surveying, _Candy? Clearly not! :smh

If you still aren't convinced, _Candy, here's another paper by NASA that backs up the idea that the Anatarctic has cooled, and that the hole in the Ozone layer is responsible:
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 31, L18209, 2004
Southern Hemisphere climate response to ozone changes and greenhouse gas increases
While most of the Earth warmed rapidly during recent decades, surface temperatures decreased significantly over most of Antarctica. This cooling is consistent with circulation changes associated with a shift in the Southern Annular Mode (SAM). It has been suggested that both Antarctic ozone depletion and increasing greenhouses gases have contributed to these trends.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2004.../2004GL020724.shtml

So I think I'll take Nature's (and NASA's) word for it, and I’m pretty sure that everyone else who’s looking in, except perhaps guyone, will do so as well. Shit, even one of the papers you finally cited backs up these two studies:

"at the surface, the Antarctic Peninsula has warmed by several [degrees C] over the past several decades, while the interior of the Antarctic continent has exhibited weak cooling."
Thompson, D.W.J. and Solomon, S. 2002. Interpretation of recent Southern Hemisphere climate change.

I’ve said it before, do you realize how constantly stupid you look, _Candy. :lol: Still, I suppose a dumb bimbo like yourself, _Candy, can't help herself, eh? :lol: Do you actually read the things you cut and paste before you post them? And while we're on the subject, I never cut and pasted anything about the Miller-Urey experiment, I only linked to the Wikipedia articles on it and Panspermia. Where is the cut and paste job? :evil:
http://www.hungangels.com/board/viewtopic.php?p=283473&highlight=#283473
I would have discussed it further in detail, but I was questioning why I should bother continuing conversing with someone who is falsely accusing me of being another poster, which by the way, you are still doing. :evil: We can all make accusations about the identities of posters, _Candy. Perhaps I should e-mail some guys and see what they think about your many posts on global warming, eh? :wink: :lol: :evil:

There is little wrong with the Miller-Urey experiment, other than it‘s contrived. Do you remember our little discussion about science being flawed? Remember how you backpedalled like the little sissy bitch you are? :lol: Your accusation that I cut and paste is just another example of you projecting your inadequacies onto others. :evil: It suggests you are very weak man, or as Quinn has called you, a poltroon, or base coward. I couldn’t agree with myself, oops, him, more. :lol: :screwy The guy who spams this board with newspaper articles accusing me of cut and paste, huh? :smh That makes you a hypocrite, _Candy. :evil:

Your belief that the Antarctic has not cooled since 1966 is so filled with holes that it probably resembles the fish-net stockings you wear for your boyfriends. :lol: Phone Al Gore and get his advice. He’ll set you straight. And don’t ask him fuck to you in the ass like he‘s fucked most of your arguments, the man used to be the “next President of the United States“ after all. ROTFLMAO.

Now, _Candy, if you’re still not convinced, I suggest you write to Nature. You’ve wasted enough of my time with your idiocy, and I’m sure Nature would love a letter explaining why the Antarctic has not cooled since 1996 from a dumb fucking pantywaist like yourself, not. :lol: I mean, arguing against a paper in Nature that's only 5 years old, that’s just dumb. :lol: And before you start putting words in my mouth again, I’m not saying Nature is perfect, but it is the best.

I WARN YOU, _CANDY, DON'T FUCK WITH ME ANYMORE!!! :evil:

[Rogers]

wmc you should at least decide wether you think temps are rising or falling
yesterday they were falling according to you now you claim they rise


You`re bias discredits you.

bwahaha i know you like being topped but topping yourself is just unbelievable
ROTFLMAO!!! I see you got the joke, muhmuh. I already explained to _Candy on page 4 of this thread, that the dip in the global mean temperature since 1998 does not mean that the Earth is cooling. She never responded.
http://www.hungangels.com/board/viewtopic.php?p=282812&highlight=#282812
The cooling of the Antarctic affecting the global mean temperature was just a throw away statement of mine, which _Candy latched onto in her desperation. She mentioned driving, not me, in another failed attempt to put words in my mouth. :evil: When she started to try to say that the Antarctic has not cooled since 1966, I decided to play along with her. In her sheer stupidity to oppose everything I say, she has done a very good job in convincing everybody here, including myself, that the Antarctic has been warming long-term, thus strengthening the case for GW/AGW. The dumb bitch just can‘t help embarassing herself. :lol: Maybe that‘s what she‘s after here, more humiliation to make her feel like the pantywaist she is, because IT FEELS SO GOOD! ROTFLMAO.


"It is notable that the reconstructed Antarctic temperature record is in phase with the Southern Hemisphere mean instrumental record.” The Antarctic temperature reconstruction, “provides evidence for long-term Antarctic warming,"
Schneider, D.P., Steig, E.J., van Ommen, T.D., Dixon, D.A., Mayewski, P.A., Jones, J.M. and Bitz, C.M. 2006. Antarctic temperatures over the past two centuries from ice cores.
Note the part that says, the past two centuries. How that negates the Nature and NASA papers that state that the Antarctic has cooled since 1966, I really don't know? Maybe _Candy really is dyslexic? But thanks for strengthening the case for GW/AGW anyway, _Candy. Nice one! Hehe. You really are a joke! :lol: :lol: :lol: 8)

[White_Male_Canada]

There is little wrong with the Miller-Urey experiment, other than it‘s contrived. Do you remember our little discussion about science being flawed?

The science you cite is flawed because you`re a phony google cut and paste retard, you think you know but you don`t. The facts I cite are not. So it`s not my problem you`re a complete moron and had no idea Miller and Urey dumped ampicillin into their concoction, super heated, used purified water, centrifuged, used reagents, seeded and then came up with non-conclusive "potentials for sequentional evolution"



The cooling of the Antarctic affecting the global mean temperature was just a throw away statement of mine

:lol: Sure it was moron. It was a statement of bullshit parading as fact. Facts are, neither anthropogenic CO2 nor a minor net gain or loss of average temps in the Antarctic drive global temps. :lol:



that the Antarctic has been warming long-term, thus strengthening the case for GW/AGW. But thanks for strengthening the case for GW/AGW anyway.

Stupefying asinine. Anthropogenic CO2 is only 0.038% of the atmosphere and only 3.6 per cent of greenhouse gases.. Of that only 3.4 to 5% is man-made. CO2 as a result of man's activities was only 3.2 per cent of that, hence only 0.12 per cent of the greenhouse gases in total. To argue that man-made CO2 drives temperature changes is beyond insane. CO2 does not antedate temperature increases.

Laughable rank amateur. You best hobble back to your discredited M. Mann website and figure out your religious belief system in a little more detail lest you look like well, another M. Mann.

[White_Male_Canada]

I WARN YOU, _CANDY, DON'T FUCK WITH ME ANYMORE!!

You must be kidding,

this is like taking candy from an encephalic crybaby.

Besides, what are you gonna do about. You`re as dumb as a tree stump coming from that discredited M.Mann "the world is ending" site, have the debating skill of your typical google cut and paste poseur. So what`s left. Gonna come beat me up, muskets at 50 paces, get me banned?

ohhhhh :lol:

[Rogers]

The science you cite is flawed because you`re a phony google cut and paste reatrd. The facts I cite are not.
Sure the "facts" you cite are not flawed, _Candy:

You`re completely wrong, averaged over the past 40 years there has been a slight warming due to the mitigating factor that parts of the continent warmed
One more time:

Nature 415, 517-520 (31 January 2002)
Antarctic climate cooling and terrestrial ecosystem response
Although previous reports suggest slight recent continental warming9, 10, our spatial analysis of Antarctic meteorological data demonstrates a net cooling on the Antarctic continent between 1966 and 2000, particularly during summer and autumn. The McMurdo Dry Valleys have cooled by 0.7 °C per decade between 1986 and 2000, with similar pronounced seasonal trends.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v415/n6871/abs/nature710.html
Why was this paper so special it made Nature?:
Walsh and his colleague Peter Doran, who collaborated on the recent study that concluded Antarctica is cooling, say past reports of global warming in the region were skewed by the nature of the measurements.
Much of the data, they said, came from research stations along the Antarctic Peninsula, which divides the Weddell and Bellingshausen Sea. But, Walsh pointed out, temperatures on the Peninsula are not reliable indicators of what is happening in the whole of Antarctica. "The Antarctic Peninsula is an unusual hotspot on the continent," said Dolan.
According to Walsh and Doran, previous temperature trends for Antarctica were calculated by averaging 35 years of daily temperature readings from nearly three dozen stations. At least 15 of those stations are concentrated along the Antarctic Peninsula.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/01/0125_020125_antarcticaclimate.html

i.e. Almost 1/2 of the stations previously used were along the Antarctic Peninsula. Don't you know anything about scientific surveying, _Candy? Clearly not! :smh

If you still aren't convinced, _Candy, here's another paper by NASA that backs up the idea that the Anatarctic has cooled, and that the hole in the Ozone layer is responsible:
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 31, L18209, 2004
Southern Hemisphere climate response to ozone changes and greenhouse gas increases
While most of the Earth warmed rapidly during recent decades, surface temperatures decreased significantly over most of Antarctica. This cooling is consistent with circulation changes associated with a shift in the Southern Annular Mode (SAM). It has been suggested that both Antarctic ozone depletion and increasing greenhouses gases have contributed to these trends.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2004.../2004GL020724.shtml

Shit, even one of the papers you finally cited backs up these two studies:

"at the surface, the Antarctic Peninsula has warmed by several [degrees C] over the past several decades, while the interior of the Antarctic continent has exhibited weak cooling."
Thompson, D.W.J. and Solomon, S. 2002. Interpretation of recent Southern Hemisphere climate change.

Your belief that the Antarctic has not cooled since 1966 is so filled with holes that it probably resembles the fish-net stockings you wear for your boyfriends. :lol: Phone Al Gore and get his advice. He’ll set you straight. And don’t ask him fuck to you in the ass like he‘s fucked most of your arguments, the man used to be the “next President of the United States“ after all. ROTFLMAO.



The cooling of the Antarctic affecting the global mean temperature was just a throw away statement of mine

:lol: Sure it was moron. It was a statement of bullshit parading as fact. Facts are, neither anthropogenic CO2 nor a minor net gain or loss of average temps in the Antarctic drive global temps. :lol:
Quote me on drive, or shut the fuck up, clown _Candy. We can all try to put words in each others mouths, see:

I like big black guys. I just love their cocks. I can't get enough of them, both in my mouth and up my arse. My asshole is so fucked, I have to use feminine products so I don't leak.
:lol: :lol: :lol: 8)



that the Antarctic has been warming long-term, thus strengthening the case for GW/AGW. But thanks for strengthening the case for GW/AGW anyway.

Stupefying asinine. Anthropogenic CO2 is only 0.038% of the atmosphere and only 3.6 per cent of greenhouse gases.. Of that only 3.4 to 5% is man-made. CO2 as a result of man's activities was only 3.2 per cent of that, hence only 0.12 per cent of the greenhouse gases in total. To argue that man-made CO2 drives temperature changes is beyond insane. CO2 does not antedate temperature increases.
More straw men. *yawn*

[Rogers]

I WARN YOU, _CANDY, DON'T FUCK WITH ME ANYMORE!!

You must be kidding,

this is like taking candy from an encephalic crybaby.

Besides, what are you gonna do about. You`re as dumb as a tree stump coming from that discredited M.Mann "the world is ending" site, have the debating skill of your typical google cut and paste poseur. So what`s left. Gonna come beat me up, muskets at 50 paces, get me banned?

ohhhhh :lol:
You like to quote Lowell Ponte frequently, don't you _Candy? :wink: :lol: 8)

[White_Male_Canada]

Antarctic has been warming long-term, thus strengthening the case for GW/AGW.

Fuck you`re stupid.

[White_Male_Canada]

Much of the data, they said, came from research stations along the Antarctic Peninsula

You don`t even know where that is ! :lol:

This is so fucking funny.

One more time moron, take a look,that`s the peninsula:

[Rogers]

You like to claim the World is cooling as well, don't you Candy? :wink: :lol: 8)

"Climate... is a spiky beast" (Professor Peter Cox):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9ob9WdbXx0&mode=related&search=
http://www.esi-topics.com/gwarm2006/interviews/PeterCox.html

:repost



The science you cite is flawed because you`re a phony google cut and paste reatrd. The facts I cite are not.
Sure the "facts" you cite are not flawed, _Candy:

You`re completely wrong, averaged over the past 40 years there has been a slight warming due to the mitigating factor that parts of the continent warmed
One more time:

Nature 415, 517-520 (31 January 2002)
Antarctic climate cooling and terrestrial ecosystem response
Although previous reports suggest slight recent continental warming9, 10, our spatial analysis of Antarctic meteorological data demonstrates a net cooling on the Antarctic continent between 1966 and 2000, particularly during summer and autumn. The McMurdo Dry Valleys have cooled by 0.7 °C per decade between 1986 and 2000, with similar pronounced seasonal trends.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v415/n6871/abs/nature710.html
Why was this paper so special it made Nature?:
Walsh and his colleague Peter Doran, who collaborated on the recent study that concluded Antarctica is cooling, say past reports of global warming in the region were skewed by the nature of the measurements.
Much of the data, they said, came from research stations along the Antarctic Peninsula, which divides the Weddell and Bellingshausen Sea. But, Walsh pointed out, temperatures on the Peninsula are not reliable indicators of what is happening in the whole of Antarctica. "The Antarctic Peninsula is an unusual hotspot on the continent," said Dolan.
According to Walsh and Doran, previous temperature trends for Antarctica were calculated by averaging 35 years of daily temperature readings from nearly three dozen stations. At least 15 of those stations are concentrated along the Antarctic Peninsula.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/01/0125_020125_antarcticaclimate.html

i.e. Almost 1/2 of the stations previously used were along the Antarctic Peninsula. Don't you know anything about scientific surveying, _Candy? Clearly not! :smh

If you still aren't convinced, _Candy, here's another paper by NASA that backs up the idea that the Anatarctic has cooled, and that the hole in the Ozone layer is responsible:
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 31, L18209, 2004
Southern Hemisphere climate response to ozone changes and greenhouse gas increases
While most of the Earth warmed rapidly during recent decades, surface temperatures decreased significantly over most of Antarctica. This cooling is consistent with circulation changes associated with a shift in the Southern Annular Mode (SAM). It has been suggested that both Antarctic ozone depletion and increasing greenhouses gases have contributed to these trends.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2004.../2004GL020724.shtml

Shit, even one of the papers you finally cited backs up these two studies:

"at the surface, the Antarctic Peninsula has warmed by several [degrees C] over the past several decades, while the interior of the Antarctic continent has exhibited weak cooling."
Thompson, D.W.J. and Solomon, S. 2002. Interpretation of recent Southern Hemisphere climate change.

Your belief that the Antarctic has not cooled since 1966 is so filled with holes that it probably resembles the fish-net stockings you wear for your boyfriends. :lol: Phone Al Gore and get his advice. He’ll set you straight. And don’t ask him fuck to you in the ass like he‘s fucked most of your arguments, the man used to be the “next President of the United States“ after all. ROTFLMAO.

[White_Male_Canada]

. Almost 1/2 of the stations previously used were along the Antarctic Peninsula.





And here are the stations idiot:

[Rogers]

The "CO2 antedates temperature" argument is your baby as well, ain't it _Candy? :wink: :lol: 8)

:repost



The science you cite is flawed because you`re a phony google cut and paste reatrd. The facts I cite are not.
Sure the "facts" you cite are not flawed, _Candy:

You`re completely wrong, averaged over the past 40 years there has been a slight warming due to the mitigating factor that parts of the continent warmed
One more time:

Nature 415, 517-520 (31 January 2002)
Antarctic climate cooling and terrestrial ecosystem response
Although previous reports suggest slight recent continental warming9, 10, our spatial analysis of Antarctic meteorological data demonstrates a net cooling on the Antarctic continent between 1966 and 2000, particularly during summer and autumn. The McMurdo Dry Valleys have cooled by 0.7 °C per decade between 1986 and 2000, with similar pronounced seasonal trends.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v415/n6871/abs/nature710.html
Why was this paper so special it made Nature?:
Walsh and his colleague Peter Doran, who collaborated on the recent study that concluded Antarctica is cooling, say past reports of global warming in the region were skewed by the nature of the measurements.
Much of the data, they said, came from research stations along the Antarctic Peninsula, which divides the Weddell and Bellingshausen Sea. But, Walsh pointed out, temperatures on the Peninsula are not reliable indicators of what is happening in the whole of Antarctica. "The Antarctic Peninsula is an unusual hotspot on the continent," said Dolan.
According to Walsh and Doran, previous temperature trends for Antarctica were calculated by averaging 35 years of daily temperature readings from nearly three dozen stations. At least 15 of those stations are concentrated along the Antarctic Peninsula.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/01/0125_020125_antarcticaclimate.html

i.e. Almost 1/2 of the stations previously used were along the Antarctic Peninsula. Don't you know anything about scientific surveying, _Candy? Clearly not! :smh

If you still aren't convinced, _Candy, here's another paper by NASA that backs up the idea that the Anatarctic has cooled, and that the hole in the Ozone layer is responsible:
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 31, L18209, 2004
Southern Hemisphere climate response to ozone changes and greenhouse gas increases
While most of the Earth warmed rapidly during recent decades, surface temperatures decreased significantly over most of Antarctica. This cooling is consistent with circulation changes associated with a shift in the Southern Annular Mode (SAM). It has been suggested that both Antarctic ozone depletion and increasing greenhouses gases have contributed to these trends.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2004.../2004GL020724.shtml

Shit, even one of the papers you finally cited backs up these two studies:

"at the surface, the Antarctic Peninsula has warmed by several [degrees C] over the past several decades, while the interior of the Antarctic continent has exhibited weak cooling."
Thompson, D.W.J. and Solomon, S. 2002. Interpretation of recent Southern Hemisphere climate change.

Your belief that the Antarctic has not cooled since 1966 is so filled with holes that it probably resembles the fish-net stockings you wear for your boyfriends. :lol: Phone Al Gore and get his advice. He’ll set you straight. And don’t ask him fuck to you in the ass like he‘s fucked most of your arguments, the man used to be the “next President of the United States“ after all. ROTFLMAO.

[White_Male_Canada]

. Almost 1/2 of the stations previously used were along the Antarctic Peninsula.





And here are the stations idiot:




"at the surface, the Antarctic Peninsula has warmed by several [degrees C] over the past several decades, while the interior of the Antarctic continent has exhibited weak cooling."

Thompson, D.W.J. and Solomon, S. 2002. Interpretation of recent Southern Hemisphere climate change.

Several degrees is of more signifigance than "weak cooling" moron.
:lol:

10 stations allow 30-year temperature trends to be computed, “the warming trend
was greater during the 1961-1990 period compared to 1971-2000.”

Turner, J., Colwell, S.R., Marshall, G.J., Lachlan-Cope, T.A., Carleton, A.M., Jones, P.D., Lagun, V., Reid, P.A. and Iagovkina, S. 2005. Antarctic climate change during the last 50 years.

The British Antarctic Survey team determined that warming had taken place throughout the troposphere, with the maximum increase in temperature occurring in the mid-troposphere where they identified a 0.70°C per decade warming.

Turner, J., Lachlan-Cope, T.A., Colwell, S., Marshall, G.J. and Connolley, W.M. 2006. Significant warming of the Antarctic winter troposphere.

" It is notable that the reconstructed Antarctic temperature record is in phase with the Southern Hemisphere mean instrumental record.” The Antarctic temperature reconstruction, “provides evidence for long-term Antarctic warming,"

Schneider, D.P., Steig, E.J., van Ommen, T.D., Dixon, D.A., Mayewski, P.A., Jones, J.M. and Bitz, C.M. 2006. Antarctic temperatures over the past two centuries from ice cores.

Trends show slight warming over most of the 50-90°S domain with maximum warming over the Antarctic Peninsula.The salient finding in the context of climate change is that the 45-year trends are small,generally within a range of +/- 0.3°C/decade.
Changes in Antarctic Temperatures in Response to the A.O./ Synthesis of A.M.Temps U. of Ill. (2005)

[White_Male_Canada]

I WARN YOU, _CANDY, DON'T FUCK WITH ME ANYMORE!!

You must be kidding,

this is like taking candy from an encephalic crybaby.

Besides, what are you gonna do about. You`re as dumb as a tree stump coming from that discredited M.Mann "the world is ending" site, have the debating skill of your typical google cut and paste poseur. So what`s left. Gonna come beat me up, muskets at 50 paces, get me banned?

ohhhhh :lol:
You like to quote Lowell Ponte frequently, don't you

Not as much as you referance the discredited m.mann and his bs website moron!

NRC report on the UN`s IPCC/Mann chart stated that Mann`s method was biased towards producing hockey stick-shaped temp. chart, that uncertainties had been underestimated. In otherwords, the UN`s IPCC Temp. chart was false.

The NA committee asked scientists to model temperatures from a thousand years ago to within 0.5 °C (0.9 °F). None claimed they could, except for Mr. "hockey stick" himself, Mike Mann. And we all know his "hockey stick" temp. chart has been debunked long ago,regardless of "peer review" aka, fellow travellers.

[Rogers]

I WARN YOU, _CANDY, DON'T FUCK WITH ME ANYMORE!!

You must be kidding,

this is like taking candy from an encephalic crybaby.

Besides, what are you gonna do about. You`re as dumb as a tree stump coming from that discredited M.Mann "the world is ending" site, have the debating skill of your typical google cut and paste poseur. So what`s left. Gonna come beat me up, muskets at 50 paces, get me banned?

ohhhhh :lol:
You like to quote Lowell Ponte frequently, don't you

Not as much as you referance the discredited m.mann and his bs website moron!
Thanks, _Candy, you just confirmed my suspicions. You can almost feel the anger you have for the "other side" in your quote. I was hoping for a rise from you, and you've certainly obliged me. I think they call that as being well and truly PWND! So thanks. :lol: :lol: :lol: 8)

:repost



The science you cite is flawed because you`re a phony google cut and paste reatrd. The facts I cite are not.
Sure the "facts" you cite are not flawed, _Candy:

You`re completely wrong, averaged over the past 40 years there has been a slight warming due to the mitigating factor that parts of the continent warmed
One more time:

Nature 415, 517-520 (31 January 2002)
Antarctic climate cooling and terrestrial ecosystem response
Although previous reports suggest slight recent continental warming9, 10, our spatial analysis of Antarctic meteorological data demonstrates a net cooling on the Antarctic continent between 1966 and 2000, particularly during summer and autumn. The McMurdo Dry Valleys have cooled by 0.7 °C per decade between 1986 and 2000, with similar pronounced seasonal trends.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v415/n6871/abs/nature710.html
Why was this paper so special it made Nature?:
Walsh and his colleague Peter Doran, who collaborated on the recent study that concluded Antarctica is cooling, say past reports of global warming in the region were skewed by the nature of the measurements.
Much of the data, they said, came from research stations along the Antarctic Peninsula, which divides the Weddell and Bellingshausen Sea. But, Walsh pointed out, temperatures on the Peninsula are not reliable indicators of what is happening in the whole of Antarctica. "The Antarctic Peninsula is an unusual hotspot on the continent," said Dolan.
According to Walsh and Doran, previous temperature trends for Antarctica were calculated by averaging 35 years of daily temperature readings from nearly three dozen stations. At least 15 of those stations are concentrated along the Antarctic Peninsula.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/01/0125_020125_antarcticaclimate.html

i.e. Almost 1/2 of the stations previously used were along the Antarctic Peninsula. Don't you know anything about scientific surveying, _Candy? Clearly not! :smh

If you still aren't convinced, _Candy, here's another paper by NASA that backs up the idea that the Anatarctic has cooled, and that the hole in the Ozone layer is responsible:
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 31, L18209, 2004
Southern Hemisphere climate response to ozone changes and greenhouse gas increases
While most of the Earth warmed rapidly during recent decades, surface temperatures decreased significantly over most of Antarctica. This cooling is consistent with circulation changes associated with a shift in the Southern Annular Mode (SAM). It has been suggested that both Antarctic ozone depletion and increasing greenhouses gases have contributed to these trends.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2004.../2004GL020724.shtml

Shit, even one of the papers you finally cited backs up these two studies:

"at the surface, the Antarctic Peninsula has warmed by several [degrees C] over the past several decades, while the interior of the Antarctic continent has exhibited weak cooling."
Thompson, D.W.J. and Solomon, S. 2002. Interpretation of recent Southern Hemisphere climate change.

Your belief that the Antarctic has not cooled since 1966 is so filled with holes that it probably resembles the fish-net stockings you wear for your boyfriends. :lol: Phone Al Gore and get his advice. He’ll set you straight. And don’t ask him fuck to you in the ass like he‘s fucked most of your arguments, the man used to be the “next President of the United States“ after all. ROTFLMAO.

[LG]

The real Bozo...

[svenson]

now rogers joins many other persons on the HA to make a fool out of white-male-canada in a argumant. w-m-c is like jamie-michele

[Rogers]

The science you cite is flawed because you`re a phony google cut and paste reatrd. The facts I cite are not.
Sure the "facts" you cite are not flawed, _Candy:

You`re completely wrong, averaged over the past 40 years there has been a slight warming due to the mitigating factor that parts of the continent warmed
One more time:

Nature 415, 517-520 (31 January 2002)
Antarctic climate cooling and terrestrial ecosystem response
Although previous reports suggest slight recent continental warming9, 10, our spatial analysis of Antarctic meteorological data demonstrates a net cooling on the Antarctic continent between 1966 and 2000, particularly during summer and autumn. The McMurdo Dry Valleys have cooled by 0.7 °C per decade between 1986 and 2000, with similar pronounced seasonal trends.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v415/n6871/abs/nature710.html

GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 31, L18209, 2004
Southern Hemisphere climate response to ozone changes and greenhouse gas increases
While most of the Earth warmed rapidly during recent decades, surface temperatures decreased significantly over most of Antarctica. This cooling is consistent with circulation changes associated with a shift in the Southern Annular Mode (SAM). It has been suggested that both Antarctic ozone depletion and increasing greenhouses gases have contributed to these trends.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2004.../2004GL020724.shtml

This image shows temperature trends for the icy continent from 1982 to 2004. Red indicates areas where temperatures generally increased during that period, and blue shows where temperatures predominantly decreased.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=17257

Size/area matters, _Candy. I'm sure I don't need to tell you that, sissy! :lol: 8)