posted November 29, 2010 08:04 PM            

But acoustic, you don't understand a word of the so called science which rolls off their keyboards; conclusions only and...indeed, their science is not to be found in scientific discovery or scientific methodology. Their's is the in the realm of political/financial ideology...just like yours.

Randall is right.

Mt Kilauea and other active volcanos emit more carbon dioxide than all man's puny emissions.

One volcanic eruption...Krakatoa in 1883 spewed more carbon dioxide into earth's atmosphere than all of mankind since the industrial revolution.

posted November 29, 2010 08:30 PM            

It's completely wrong of you to disparage their scientific method as well, in as much as at least these people have been published and peer-reviewed in scientific journals.

posted November 30, 2010 07:13 AM            

quote:

---

It wasn't warmer 1,000 years ago.....acoustic

---

Really acoustic?

posted November 30, 2010 05:36 PM            

Gee, I wonder; which is better, an ice age where most people starve to death...but never have to worry about being too warm OR a few degrees of increased temperature, higher crop yields, more free time, more of everything really.

posted November 30, 2010 05:50 PM            

You'll notice that this chart doesn't end at 1900 like yours does. You have to look/think more carefully.

I doubt any of the names cited in my chart disagree with the IPCC's overall findings, and I would bet that some, if not all of them, participated in the IPCC.

posted November 30, 2010 09:14 PM            

The chart I posted doesn't end at 1900.

Like the bogus "Hockey Stick" chart you posted...the "Mann" chart which is thoroughly discredited by legitimate climate scientists...the charts both end at year 2000.

The chart I posted is from the United Nations IPCC. Even the fraudsters there realize no one is buying the "Hockey Stick" chart which sought to eliminate the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age.

Face it acoustic, you've aligned yourself with loser religionists of the man made global warming religion.

posted November 30, 2010 09:27 PM            

Earth to airheads. NO!

Cancun climate change summit: scientists call for rationing in developed world
Global warming is now such a serious threat to mankind that climate change experts are calling for Second World War-style rationing in rich countries to bring down carbon emissions.

By Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent 7:30AM GMT 29 Nov 2010

In a series of papers published by the Royal Society, physicists and chemists from some of world’s most respected scientific institutions, including Oxford University and the Met Office, agreed that current plans to tackle global warming are not enough.

Unless emissions are reduced dramatically in the next ten years the world is set to see temperatures rise by more than 4C (7.2F) by as early as the 2060s, causing floods, droughts and mass migration.

As the world meets in Cancun, Mexico for the latest round of United Nations talks on climate change, the influential academics called for much tougher measures to cut carbon emissions.

In one paper Professor Kevin Anderson, Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, said the only way to reduce global emissions enough, while allowing the poor nations to continue to grow, is to halt economic growth in the rich world over the next twenty years.

This would mean a drastic change in lifestyles for many people in countries like Britain as everyone will have to buy less ‘carbon intensive’ goods and services such as long haul flights and fuel hungry cars.

Prof Anderson admitted it “would not be easy” to persuade people to reduce their consumption of goods

He said politicians should consider a rationing system similar to the one introduced during the last “time of crisis” in the 1930s and 40s.

This could mean a limit on electricity so people are forced to turn the heating down, turn off the lights and replace old electrical goods like huge fridges with more efficient models. Food that has travelled from abroad may be limited and goods that require a lot of energy to manufacture.

“The Second World War and the concept of rationing is something we need to seriously consider if we are to address the scale of the problem we face,” he said.

Prof Anderson insisted that halting growth in the rich world does not necessarily mean a recession or a worse lifestyle, it just means making adjustments in everyday life such as using public transport and wearing a sweater rather than turning on the heating.

“I am not saying we have to go back to living in caves,” he said. “Our emissions were a lot less ten years ago and we got by ok then.” ................
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/8165769/Cancun-climate-change-summit-scientists-call-for-rationing-in-developed-world.html

posted November 30, 2010 11:18 PM            

It's not MY eyes that are deceptive. How in the world can you look at the chart YOU posted, and tell me it ends at 2000? There are only three dates listed on yours, and none of them are 2000AD.

Jwhop, you should understand that without the climate scientists that back the idea of global warming there wouldn't be data for the Medieval Warm Period. The same people that brought you that data, are the same people that insist global warming is real.

Now, as to religionists, I've never been the person blindly believing something in this debate. I've looked at the evidence, and sided with the evidence. You and Randall and whoever else wishes to disbelieve in global warming are the ones doing so without reason. Someone believing in something in the absence of reason would have to be the "religious" one. Not the person backing observable science. What a ridiculous notion.

quote:

---

In a series of papers published by the Royal Society, physicists and chemists from some of world’s most respected scientific institutions, including Oxford University and the Met Office, agreed that current plans to tackle global warming are not enough.

---

Yes, exactly. "World's most respected scientific institutions." You caught that, right?

posted December 01, 2010 01:51 AM            

What's more, it doesn't matter anyway. If you ask any climate scientist about the Medieval warm period, they'll tell you that it was regional, and not global, which makes it a moot point when trying to compare it with global data.

posted December 01, 2010 09:47 AM            

So much you don't know acoustic. You're so far behind the curve I wonder if you'll ever catch up.

However acoustic, you could ask your nutty friends over at the UN/IPCC why there's a time period shown before the first date...since it's their chart.

As for why the chart line is relatively flat between the 1900-2000 marks; about 3/4ths of all the temperature rise in the 20th century happened between 1900 and 1940....and, the chart makes that clear.

Now acoustic, I'm going to tell you some real funnies.

Year 1934 was the hottest year of the 20th century....not 1998.

In 1970/1971 all the Chicken Littles, Henny Penneys, Ducky Luckys and assorted so called climate scientists and attention wh0res...including your little tin plated fraud over at NASA...Jim Hansen were screeching and screaming about a NEW ICE AGE.

So, what is it that has all these morons so exercised...to the point they hide input data, won't share data with other scientists, refuse legal FOIA requests, falsify temperature data, delete emails and delete temperature data used to construct their computer programs?

This is the really funny part acoustic.

All this fraud, huckerism, lying, screeching, whining and shrieking in unison...for more research money...because of a .7*C rise in temperature in the 20th century.

You read that right acoustic. Only a 7 tenths of one degree rise in temperature for the entire 20th century.

posted December 01, 2010 12:30 PM            

I don't see anyone believing an iota of what you've said without you linking to some stuff.

The year 1934 was only the hottest year in the U.S. Like the Medieval Warm period you're comparing the temperature from a localized place with a global climate measurement. Globally, the ten warmest years have occurred since 1998.

quote:

---

In 1970/1971 all the Chicken Littles, Henny Penneys, Ducky Luckys and assorted so called climate scientists and attention wh0res...including your little tin plated fraud over at NASA...Jim Hansen were screeching and screaming about a NEW ICE AGE.

---

Why you believe this negates global warming is a mystery.

quote:

---

You read that right acoustic. Only a 7 tenths of one degree rise in temperature for the entire 20th century.

---

posted December 02, 2010 01:09 PM            

quote:

---

I don't see anyone believing an iota of what you've said without you linking to some stuff....acoustic

---

As I said before, get your prescription checked. It's obvious you either can't read or can't see.

The rational for what I've said here about man made global warming is gleamed from many scientic papers and articles from the foremost climate scientists in the world...most of which have been linked by me.

I also notice you've utterly failed...after many months...to post a list of climate scientists you rely upon for your nonsense.

On the other hand acoustic, I've posted a list of 31,000 scientists who say man made global warming is a crock of crap. Many of those 31,000 American scientists are PhDs in climate related fields.

So acoustic, once again I ask you; where's your list of man made global warming nut scientists who argue man made global warming is real?

Surely acoustic you can come up with a similar list of scientists who agree with your nonsense...can't you?

In the meantime, here's an article relating to the real intentions of the nuts, fraud artists, con artists and climate fraudsters.

Man made global warming is about exactly what I said it was all about from the very beginning....and it has nothing at all to do with saving humanity or saving the earth by limiting carbon dioxide emissions.

December 02, 2010
UN Proposal to Prosecute the U.S. for "Ecocide"
William R. Hawkins

The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change conference, which opened in Cancun, Mexico on Monday, has yielded another example of how supposedly idealistic notions concocted by Western liberals, no matter how daft, can be transformed into weapons for international power politics. Bolivia has renewed its call for the establishment of an International Tribunal for Climate Justice that would be able to sanction governments that engage in "ecocide," defined as crimes against biodiversity, nature and Mother Earth.

Bolivia's UN Ambassador Pablo Salon asserted it was unacceptable for some developed countries to refuse a new commitment under the Kyoto Protocol. "Developed countries were looking for solutions that would put the onus on developing countries to reduce emissions," Salon said. Making "ecocide" the equivalent of a war crime (or a crime against peace) would apply exclusively to the actions of developed countries.

The tribunal idea did not originate in Bolivia, but in the United Kingdom last April. It is the brainchild of labor lawyer-turned-Green activist Polly Higgins. Her idea was to prosecute industries such as fossil fuels, mining, agriculture, chemicals and forestry before the existing International Criminal Court at The Hague. Even more alarmingly, some supporters want to prosecute ''climate deniers'' who oppose actions to combat global warming as eco-criminals. It's the stuff from which fears of world government grow.

But the United Nations is a misnomer, and the climate issue has never been about saving the planet. The world is divided into contending nation states who have used the climate issue to press for a redistribution of wealth and power. Bolivia has taken the Luddite notion of Higgins and expanded it into an "anti-imperialist" campaign against the United States and Western civilization.

On November 30, Ambassador Salon had a column in the liberal UK Guardian newspaper laying the groundwork for why the U.S. should be first in the dock at a climate tribunal because it has "the largest historical responsibility for carbon emissions." He argued.

Unfortunately the US responsibility goes further than just inaction; it effectively sabotaged international progress on climate change. At Copenhagen and in the year since, the US has been the prime instigator behind attempts to end the Kyoto protocol, the only binding mechanism on climate change. Instead they harangue, bully, and insist that any climate negotiations must be based on the non-binding Copenhagen accord which would take us backwards in the fight against climate change.

Salon reportedly has a picture of Che Guevara hanging in his office. He works for President Evo Morales who was first elected in 2005 as head of the Movement Towards Socialism party and immediately proclaimed Bolivia was joining an "anti-imperialist front" with Cuba and Venezuela. Morales is slated to arrive in Cancún on Dec. 9, to make a speech which will include the climate tribunal proposal.

Last April, Morales hosted The World's People's Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth in Cochabamba, Bolivia, Salon claims 30,000 politicians, scientists, and activists from 140 countries attended what has been called the "Woodstock" of climate change summits. The theme then and now is that the developed countries must step back and end their growth so that the developing countries can move forward. The transfer of capital and technology to the developing world is a moral obligation of the West, which must not place any limits on what the developing countries do. And if the developed countries balk, they should be prosecuted for ecocide.

While the tribunal idea is unlikely to be adopted in Cancun, the international transfer of wealth and power has been at the core of the UNFCCC program from its inception and is the basis for the Kyoto Protocol. Even President Barack Obama could not accept its terms last year and hopefully Salon's denunciation of U.S. policy will be confirmed again.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/12/un_proposal_to_prosecute_the_u.html

posted December 02, 2010 02:17 PM            

quote:

---

The rational for what I've said here about man made global warming is gleamed from many scientic papers and articles from the foremost climate scientists in the world...most of which have been linked by me.

---

No they haven't. Don't be ridiculous. You're afraid of posting links, because then everyone will see that you don't reference legitimate climate scientists at all.

quote:

---

I also notice you've utterly failed...after many months...to post a list of climate scientists you rely upon for your nonsense.

---

Huh? I've linked to numerous legitimate climate scientists' work. I've referenced NASA, the NOAA, Real Climate, Pew, etc.

Are you attempting a snowjob here? Trying to put me on the defensive because you can't handle it yourself? Everyone has seen where my info comes from. Everyone assumes YOUR information is from political sites, because that's the primary source for seemingly all of your info in life.

quote:

---

On the other hand acoustic, I've posted a list of 31,000 scientists who say man made global warming is a crock of crap. Many of those 31,000 American scientists are PhDs in climate related fields.

---

We've been over that nonsense before, Jwhop. Those people are NOT vetted, legitimate climate scientists, nor were they provided with legitimate scientific data.

quote:

---

Surely acoustic you can come up with a similar list of scientists who agree with your nonsense...can't you?

---

You've tried this tack how many times now? Even if your list of opinionmakers is legitimate, it still doesn't disprove global warming. They're definitely not legitimate scientists in the field of climatology, or you'd cite their peer-reviewed work instead of trying to rely on what's an obviously questionable petition.