On 2010-08-01 19:04, Dannydoyle wrote:
John than you so much for proving my point for me. Let me ask you something. Do you deny that the global warming crowd is a political movement? If so, then I guess there is really nothing else to say.

On 2010-08-01 15:13, LobowolfXXX wrote:

Quote:

On 2010-07-30 18:45, Payne wrote:

Quote:

On 2010-07-30 16:25, Dannydoyle wrote:
Heidelberg Appeal. Authored in 1992 and signed by at least 4,000 scientists, including 72 Nobel Prize winners-all skeptics of man made global warming.

Also look at the Oregon Petition. This was eventually signed by 30,000 American scientists who "have formal training in the analysis of information in physical science". (Sort of what John claims huh?)

To save time, I guess they are all disgruntled right? All paid for by big business and have been paid for the opinion.

No, the signers of the so called "Oregon Petition" are mostly unknown. No checks have been done to validate the identities of any of the signers and the list sports the names of Ginger Spice, Hawkeye Pierce and Bozo the Clown.
The original petition was sent out under questionable and possibly fraudulent conditions to anyone holding any kind of academic degree. You could be a veterinarian and qualify to sign the original petition. It is doubtful that many qualified Climate Scientist signatures are actually on this document.

See more about this matter here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9mgT-xJNFA

I'm sure it's legit; ACORN handled the sign-ups.

On 2010-08-01 19:04, Dannydoyle wrote:
John than you so much for proving my point for me. Let me ask you something. Do you deny that the global warming crowd is a political movement? If so, then I guess there is really nothing else to say.

On 2010-08-01 22:53, Woland wrote:
John,

Briffa was one of the climatologists who engaged in a conspiracy to silence opposing views and conceal some of their own results ("hide the decline").

But for the sake of the argument, let me stipulate for the moment that the climate in the northern hemisphere has become warmer than it has been in the past 1,000 years.

You still haven't proven that human activity, specifically CO2 production from industrial processes, has anything to do with it.

And even if it did, what do you propose to do about it?

In order significantly to affect the climate, if the models you believe are correct, CO2 production worldwide would have to be cut to pre-1940 levels. Who reading these words would be able to get by on the energy use levels of 75 years ago? More importantly, could the world economy survive on such an energy starvation level?

Actually it's worse than that. Since the world's population in 1940 was roughly 1/3 of what it is today, the world would in effect have to go back to energy consumption levels of the pre-electrical, pre-industrial era in order to achieve the drastic CO2 reductions demanded by the climate models you believe.

Two things should be evident: (1) that to achieve such a reduction in CO2 production would condemn the world to a dark age of poverty, famine, and war. (Now since more than a few "environmentalists" are open advocates of human extinction, that may not be an undesirable outcome to them.) And (2) it just isn't going to happen. CO2 production in the United States is actually declining. But China, India, and Russia are not going to cripple themselves to please environmentalists in the west.

Finally, the majority of internationally prominent figures advocating drastic political measures to "save the world" have not shown in their own behavior the slightest evidence that they actually believe their own rhetoric is worth putting into personal action. Why should I do what they say, instead of what they do?

Woland

On 2010-08-01 22:53, Woland wrote:

And (2) it just isn't going to happen. CO2 production in the United States is actually declining. But China, India, and Russia are not going to cripple themselves to please environmentalists in the west.

On 2010-08-01 23:10, Woland wrote:
John,

The inquiry wasn't independent.

In my field, if I had done what their own emails documented, I would be banned for life, and quite possibly imprisoned.

Woland

On 2010-08-01 23:12, balducci wrote:...
Sure, it may not be easy to wean China off of less green energy sources, but it is making an effort. And in time, who knows.

On 2010-08-01 23:59, Woland wrote:
Tommy,

How could I have forgotten all that! I would never suggest any such thing!

John,

The British parliamentary (Oxburgh) panel's 5 page report did not involve any significant evaluation of the evidence. Moreover, it has been recently revealed that the 11 papers that the panel reviewed were selected for Lord Oxburgh by . . . Phil Jones. And only representatives of the CRU were interviewed. This panel was as "blue ribbon" as a "blue ribbon" panel gets. And about as far from a thorough inquiry as it is possible to be.

Woland

On 2010-08-01 12:50, Woland wrote:
John,

Thanks for your generous offer. I will present the sources upon which I base my comments in a stepwise fashion.

First, let's examine whether the historical surface temperature data is of any value.

In the pages of the following site, you will find the information showing that data from >70% of the surface stations in the United States is seriously flawed:

http://www.surfacestations.org/

1003 of the stations in the USHCN have been surveyed and photographed so far.

Please review and comment as you deem appropriate.

Woland

On 2010-08-01 13:00, Woland wrote:
John,

For a demonstration of how the "hockey stick" was artefactually modeled, you might start with this recent exposition:

http://climateaudit.org/2010/07/30/make-......re-11591

Woland