Posted on 11/20/2009 9:29:41 PM PST by Minn
Well I guess that settles it, Sherlock. Why didn't I think of that. Trace gas has observed greenhouse effect. Concentration moves from tiny to not so tiny. There's no other variables involved in climate or anything, so it's obvious that your politics should run the world. Thanks for clearing that up for us, Bob. We submit to you obviously superior intellect.
The flailing has only begun. By next week, they’ll be stressing to us all that AGW is fake, but accurate.
It might have looked like these guys were making stuff up, but that’s just what oil companies and Jewish cabals want you to think to make you paranoid.....
Have any the “perp” scientists refuted that the emails are real? Guess its difficult to stand and speak when your runnin and hidin.
The global warming alarmists are spinning so fast their heads are going to fly off.
Ahh, yes, the age old tradition of the whistleblower only applies if it is against something that might be viewed as conservative in nature - blowing the whistle on liberals is simply a stunt.
AGW is total BS.
“...climate scientists and so-called sceptics,...”
So-called climate scientists...
The fact that the earth has been cooling for ten years, and the so-called climate scientists keep fudging the numbers doesn’t mean anything in the face of rising CO2 levels.
You can drag a liberal to the truth, but you can’t make them believe it. Bad politics is their god.
Will AGW become a race and claim racism?
“More importantly, these skeptics have not overturned the well-established basic physics of the greenhouse effect, namely that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and increasing its concentration in the atmosphere causes the earth to warm”
That simplistic analysis ignores the fact that taking into account water vapor, the dominant greenhouse gas, the human contribution is 0.02% (2/10000) of the total. This is very easily swamped by solar and volcanic influences (or forcings as the CAGW crowd prefers).
CAGW is a hoax, pure and simple. The Earth has likely entered at least a two decade cooling trend from here, based on both solar influences and ocean based trends. One hopes it’s not catastrophic cooling. ;-)
Sounds to me like... (wait for it...)
The debate is over!
Global Warming “SHIZEN-TISTS”
Considering ALL the data, there is no evidence for AGW !
oh, they are on conference calls, sending encrypted emails, engaging in encrypted chats.
This whole thing is going to be one big a55 hemorrhoid that they are just going to want to cut out but they can’t because these guys just weren’t any scientists. They were the top ones.
This discredits the entire movement. They are just a bunch of fraudsters covering for each other.
>> “...climate scientists and so-called sceptics,...”
Said the so-called journalist.
Why don’t they ever talk about these scientists?
Global warming is based 100% on junk science. The most vocal promoters are not interested in the details of physical science. They are interested in two things: political control over the general public and the establishment of international socialism.
Junk Science vs. Real Science
For a detailed, footnoted, 12-page article, written by three scientists, two with Ph.D’s from CalTech, click here.
This paper was sent to tens of thousands of natural scientists in the United States.
Over 31,000 scientists have put their reputations on the line and signed a politically incorrect petition opposing the 1997 Kyoto agreement or protocol. Here is a photocopy of a signed petition
http://www.garynorth.com/public/5156.cfm
There is more, did you see the emails where the amount of climate in the air has only increased .5%? And they have much much larger percentages in their model.
ipcc-tar-master.rtf is damning as hell, and everyone keeps talking about the damn emails.
from this doc
“The assumed atmospheric concentration figures for carbon dioxide for the SRES scenarios were included in the First Draft, but have now been deleted. Presumably you are ashamed to admit such absurd figures. Figures for all the other gases are given in Chapter 4 including ridiculously exaggerated figures for future methane concentrations.”
“47 out of 91 models listed in Chapter 9 assume that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing at the rate of 1% a year when the measured rate of increase, for the past 33 years, has been 0.4% a year. The assumption of false figures in models in order to boost future projections is fraudulent. What other figures are falsely exaggerated in the same way?”
Your point is well taken.
However.
That a scientist invents evidence to prove a phenomenon is real does not prove the phenomenon is not real. It only proves he should be kicked out of the scientists’ club.
Similarly, if police invent evidence against a criminal it doesn’t prove his innocence.
More from the “ipcc-tar-master.rtf”
“Our global Carbon Cycle Model reveals a half-life time of only 38 years for any CO2 excess. With present constant global CO2 emission until 2100, the temperature would only further increase by 0.15 °C. Scenario IS92a would end up with 571 ppm only. IPCC assumed that far more fossil reserves would be burnt than being available. Using a flawed eddy diffusion ocean model, the IPCC has grossly underestimated the future oceanic CO2 uptake. Hardly coping with biomass response, limited fossil reserves and using a factor 4 temperature sensitivity, all this leads to an IPCC exaggeration factor of about 6 in yr 2100. The usable fossil reserves of 1300 GtC burnt by 2090, merely cause 548 ppm – not even a doubling. The WRE 650, 750 and 1000 ppm scenarios, projected until 2300, are infeasible. Emission reduction is absolutely useless: the realistic temperature effect of Kyoto till 2050 will be only 0.02 °C.”
Junk science / “global warming” scam BUMP!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.