Customer Discussions > Science Fiction forum

Global warming is nothing but a hoax and a scare tactic


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 151-175 of 650 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Feb 22, 2012 10:52:18 PM PST
A customer says:
Treehugger© - "you were sure Snowy Owls never went into the lower 48 until this winter."

I don't think she cares either way. It is what has to be claimed in order to make it look cold, so she claims it.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 22, 2012 10:56:43 PM PST
A customer says:
Ron Reagan - "I got degrees in chemical engineering and medical technology at a technological university Who has the better qualifications?"

The climatologists, obviously. All but abut three of whom say that AW is unquestionably happening.

"in the late 60s they were claiming we were in a mini ice age."

Citation required.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 22, 2012 11:08:16 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 22, 2012 11:15:31 PM PST
Truthseeker says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 22, 2012 11:10:19 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 22, 2012 11:10:53 PM PST
Truthseeker says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on Feb 22, 2012 11:30:47 PM PST
A customer says:
E. Vader - "They will either say that I am still lying"

After a year or so of listening to your ravings we simply take it for granted that you are lying. You are literally incapable of honesty.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 22, 2012 11:33:39 PM PST
Truthseeker says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 22, 2012 11:42:16 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 23, 2012 1:02:02 AM PST
A customer says:
E. Vader - "Read carefully the position of the climatologists versus the blatant lies of the IPCC which you worship as gospel:"

With 98% of all scientists in a field saying that something is fact which would be obvious anyway, the IPCC is simply irrelevant. It was only even created in the first place because science had reached a consensus on AW. AW is fact. It is that simple. Changing the subject, whether to Al Gore or the IPCC, does not change that.

The IPCC simply reports what all but about 3 of the scientists are saying. They would still be saying it if it did not exist. In fact, it is only you that even accords it any special prominence.

"Ron, it is clear to me who has the better qualifications."

What is clear to you is worthless. Private realities are private. You are so clumsy and obvious a liar that even your mendacious buddies back on the science thread are perceptibly relieved that you have gone off to embarrass a different community of fantasists. If rationalists were as scummy as you appear to be we would be using you as a surrogate for Al Gore as a symbol with which to ridicule denialism. Luckily, the claims of denialism are stupid enough not to require dishonesty in ridiculing them.

"Of course, when one tries to post this on the relevant Wiki article, one gets censored."

That's because it's a pack of lies. The mere fact that you cannot understand a discussion and carefully do not report its context does not mean that Wiki editors are stupid enough to swallow it.

Only you.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 22, 2012 11:42:39 PM PST
A customer says:
Name a fourth.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 22, 2012 11:43:52 PM PST
A customer says:
E. Vader - "That's an IPCC lie as shown by the climategate emails. ... Dishonest people are the first and quickest to accuse honest people of lying to cover up their web of serial lying."

Clumsy and stupid, as stated.

Posted on Feb 23, 2012 12:41:37 AM PST
Treehugger© says:
One of my books claims a crash in the Lemming population would cause the irruption. But with the large number it would have to be preceeded by a peak in the lemmings. She was so sure they never came into the lower48 until 'a massive chill' drove them out of the arctic! But they enter the lower 48 every winter.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 23, 2012 12:53:52 AM PST
Treehugger© says:
RonReagan has a good scifi twist on climate siensse' that the truthbender is sure to buy

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 23, 2012 1:31:17 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 23, 2012 1:31:56 AM PST
Truthseeker says:
EB: "Name a fourth".

Lol! You are worse than a cantakerous child in detention, who is crying because he can't get any candy from the world.

Just a sample below....

- Richard Lindzen,Pubs Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences: "We are quite confident (1) that global mean temperature is about 0.5 °C higher than it was a century ago; (2) that atmospheric levels of CO2 have risen over the past two centuries; and (3) that CO2 is a greenhouse gas whose increase is likely to warm the earth (one of many, the most important being water vapor and clouds). But - and I cannot stress this enough - we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to CO2 or to forecast what the climate will be in the future."[4] "[T]here has been no question whatsoever that CO2 is an infrared absorber (i.e., a greenhouse gas - albeit a minor one), and its increase should theoretically contribute to warming. Indeed, if all else were kept equal, the increase in CO2 should have led to somewhat more warming than has been observed."[5][6]

- Garth Paltridge,Pubs Visiting Fellow ANU and retired Chief Research Scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired Director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre."There are good and straightforward scientific reasons to believe that the burning of fossil fuel and consequent increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide will lead to an increase in the average temperature of the world above that which would otherwise be the case. Whether the increase will be large enough to be noticeable is still an unanswered question."[7]

- Hendrik Tennekes, retired Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute: "The blind adherence to the harebrained idea that climate models can generate 'realistic' simulations of climate is the principal reason why I remain a climate skeptic. From my background in turbulence I look forward with grim anticipation to the day that climate models will run with a horizontal resolution of less than a kilometer. The horrible predictability problems of turbulent flows then will descend on climate science with a vengeance."[8]

- Antonino Zichichi,Pubs emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists : "models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are incoherent and invalid from a scientific point of view".[9] He has also said, "It is not possible to exclude that the observed phenomena may have natural causes. It may be that man has little or nothing to do with it"[10]

- Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences: "Global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthy - almost throughout the last century - growth in its intensity...Ascribing 'greenhouse' effect properties to the Earth's atmosphere is not scientifically substantiated...Heated greenhouse gases, which become lighter as a result of expansion, ascend to the atmosphere only to give the absorbed heat away."[11][12][13]

- Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: "[T]he recent warming trend in the surface temperature record cannot be caused by the increase of human-made greenhouse gases in the air."[14]

- George V. Chilingar, Professor of Civil and Petroleum Engineering at the University of Southern California: "The authors identify and describe the following global forces of nature driving the Earth's climate: (1) solar radiation ..., (2) outgassing as a major supplier of gases to the World Ocean and the atmosphere, and, possibly, (3) microbial activities ... . The writers provide quantitative estimates of the scope and extent of their corresponding effects on the Earth's climate [and] show that the human-induced climatic changes are negligible."[15]

- Ian Clark,Pubs hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa: "That portion of the scientific community that attributes climate warming to CO2 relies on the hypothesis that increasing CO2, which is in fact a minor greenhouse gas, triggers a much larger water vapour response to warm the atmosphere. This mechanism has never been tested scientifically beyond the mathematical models that predict extensive warming, and are confounded by the complexity of cloud formation - which has a cooling effect. ... We know that [the sun] was responsible for climate change in the past, and so is clearly going to play the lead role in present and future climate change. And interestingly... solar activity has recently begun a downward cycle."[16]

- Chris de Freitas,Pubs Associate Professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland: "There is evidence of global warming. ... But warming does not confirm that carbon dioxide is causing it. Climate is always warming or cooling. There are natural variability theories of warming. To support the argument that carbon dioxide is causing it, the evidence would have to distinguish between human-caused and natural warming. This has not been done."[17]

- David Douglass, Pubssolid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester: "The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming."[18]

- Don Easterbrook,Pubs emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University: "global warming since 1900 could well have happened without any effect of CO2. If the cycles continue as in the past, the current warm cycle should end soon and global temperatures should cool slightly until about 2035"[19]

- William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus and head of The Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University: "This small warming is likely a result of the natural alterations in global ocean currents which are driven by ocean salinity variations. Ocean circulation variations are as yet little understood. Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes. We are not that influential."[20] "I am of the opinion that [global warming] is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people."[21] "So many people have a vested interest in this global-warming thing-all these big labs and research and stuff. The idea is to frighten the public, to get money to study it more."[22]

- William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy, Princeton University: "all the evidence I see is that the current warming of the climate is just like past warmings. In fact, it's not as much as past warmings yet, and it probably has little to do with carbon dioxide, just like past warmings had little to do with carbon dioxide"[23]

- William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology: "There has been a real climate change over the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries that can be attributed to natural phenomena. Natural variability of the climate system has been underestimated by IPCC and has, to now, dominated human influences."[24]

- David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware: "About half of the warming during the 20th century occurred prior to the 1940s, and natural variability accounts for all or nearly all of the warming."[25]
Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa: global warming "is the biggest scientific hoax being perpetrated on humanity. There is no global warming due to human anthropogenic activities. The atmosphere hasn't changed much in 280 million years, and there have always been cycles of warming and cooling. The Cretaceous period was the warmest on earth. You could have grown tomatoes at the North Pole"[26]

- Tim Patterson, Pubs paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada: "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years. On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"[27][28]

- Ian Plimer,Pubs Professor emeritus of Mining Geology, The University of Adelaide: "We only have to have one volcano burping and we have changed the whole planetary climate... It looks as if carbon dioxide actually follows climate change rather than drives it".[29]

- Tom Segalstad, head of the Geology Museum at the University of Oslo: "The IPCC's temperature curve (the so-called 'hockey stick' curve) must be in error...human influence on the 'Greenhouse Effect' is minimal (maximum 4%). Anthropogenic CO2 amounts to 4% of the ~2% of the "Greenhouse Effect", hence an influence of less than 1 permil of the Earth's total natural 'Greenhouse Effect' (some 0.03 °C of the total ~33 °C)."[30]

- Nicola Scafetta, Pubs research scientist in the physics department at Duke University, wrote a booklet proposing a phenomenological theory of climate change based on the physical properties of the data. Scafetta describes his conclusions writing "At least 60% of the warming of the Earth observed since 1970 appears to be induced by natural cycles which are present in the solar system. A climatic stabilization or cooling until 2030-2040 is forecast by the phenomenological model."[31][32]

- Nir Shaviv, Pubs astrophysicist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem: "[T]he truth is probably somewhere in between [the common view and that of skeptics], with natural causes probably being more important over the past century, whereas anthropogenic causes will probably be more dominant over the next century. ... [A]bout 2/3's (give or take a third or so) of the warming [over the past century] should be attributed to increased solar activity and the remaining to anthropogenic causes." His opinion is based on some proxies of solar activity over the past few centuries.[33]
Fred Singer, Pubs Professor emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia: "The greenhouse effect is real. However, the effect is minute, insignificant, and very difficult to detect."[34][35] "It's not automatically true that warming is bad, I happen to believe that warming is good, and so do many economists."[36]

- Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: "[T]here's increasingly strong evidence that previous research conclusions, including those of the United Nations and the United States government concerning 20th century warming, may have been biased by underestimation of natural climate variations. The bottom line is that if these variations are indeed proven true, then, yes, natural climate fluctuations could be a dominant factor in the recent warming. In other words, natural factors could be more important than previously assumed."[37]
Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville: "I predict that in the coming years, there will be a growing realization among the global warming research community that most of the climate change we have observed is natural, and that mankind's role is relatively minor".[38]

- Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London: "...the myth is starting to implode. ... Serious new research at The Max Planck Society has indicated that the sun is a far more significant factor..."[39]

- Henrik Svensmark, Pubs Danish National Space Center: "Our team ... has discovered that the relatively few cosmic rays that reach sea-level play a big part in the everyday weather. They help to make low-level clouds, which largely regulate the Earth's surface temperature. During the 20th Century the influx of cosmic rays decreased and the resulting reduction of cloudiness allowed the world to warm up. ... most of the warming during the 20th Century can be explained by a reduction in low cloud cover."[40]

- Jan Veizer, Pubs environmental geochemist, Professor Emeritus from University of Ottawa: "At this stage, two scenarios of potential human impact on climate appear feasible: (1) the standard IPCC model ..., and (2) the alternative model that argues for celestial phenomena as the principal climate driver. ... Models and empirical observations are both indispensable tools of science, yet when discrepancies arise, observations should carry greater weight than theory. If so, the multitude of empirical observations favours celestial phenomena as the most important driver of terrestrial climate on most time scales, but time will be the final judge."[41]
========================================================================================
Lindzen put it best here:

In a 2007 interview on the Larry King Show, Lindzen said:[51]

"we're talking of a few tenths of a degree change in temperature. None of it in the last eight years, by the way. And if we had warming, it should be accomplished by less storminess. But because the temperature itself is so unspectacular, we have developed all sorts of fear of prospect scenarios -- of flooding, of plague, of increased storminess when the physics says we should see less.
I think it's mainly just like little kids locking themselves in dark closets to see how much they can scare each other and themselves."

CORRECT!

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 23, 2012 3:14:10 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 23, 2012 3:15:29 AM PST
Treehugger© says:
Lindzen stands alone in the field of climate science and he has taken money from fossil fuel companies. Many others listed are similar

Posted on Feb 23, 2012 3:18:22 AM PST
A customer says:
I couldn't be arsed to read that in detail as running my eye down the list it does not even appear to contain a second, let alone a fourth. The only name on the list that even vaguely qualifies is Lindzen. Now try to concentrate for a moment sufficient to see the world as it is, rather than as you would prefer it to be, and then look again at the passage at issue:

"The climatologists, obviously. All but abut three of whom say that AW is unquestionably happening."

I repeat: SHOW ME A FOURTH. Not an astrophysicist. Not a geologist. Not a home economics teacher. Someone who knows what they are talking about. A FOURTH CLIMATOLOGIST.

Posted on Feb 23, 2012 4:49:17 AM PST
[Deleted by the author on Feb 23, 2012 5:24:44 AM PST]

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 23, 2012 4:49:33 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 23, 2012 4:54:39 AM PST
Truthseeker says:
Excuses! Excuses! Lies! Lies!

Lindzen
Christy
Spencer
William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus and head of The Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science,
Garth Paltridge,Pubs Visiting Fellow ANU and retired Chief Research Scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired Director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre."
William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology

(your 3 is already a ridiculous myth like your climatequackery myths)

+

Svensmark
Easterbrook
the rest of the list

all know more about the way the world's climate works than the lying climate quacks and yourselves.

And that's very little, because humans know very little about the world's climate, that's why the continuous quack predictions.

As to the climate quacks, a more appropriate term would be climate liars.

Examples:

Jones: Hide the Decline
Mann: Hockey Stick - mortally afraid of the FOIA
Sommervile: Lying smugly to ABC that they always predicted more snow for decades. They did not - the IPCC 3rd assessment report predicted ice storms
IPCC Himalyan Glaciers disappearing by 2030. Pure quackery, so quack that even the mainstream media came after them - ridiculous excuse of "clerical error" - they meant to say 2300 apparently. As if anyone except AGW fanatics believe them anymore. They can't even predict the weather tomorrow (meterologists do a much better job) and they claim to know the climate in 2300? LOL.

Quackery and more quackery.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 23, 2012 5:03:58 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 23, 2012 5:13:52 AM PST
Truthseeker says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 23, 2012 5:24:33 AM PST
Treehugger© says:
An internal document of the Global Climate Coalition (GCC) -- an industry front group that disbanded in 2002 -- reviewed some of the "contrarian" arguments used by Lindzen and other climate change skeptics that they later discarded. The document, which was obtained as part of a court action against the automobile industry.

In a section on the "Role of Water Vapor", the GCC's Science and Technical Advisory Committee wrote that "In 1990, Prof Richard Lindzen of MIT argued that the models which were being used to predict greenhouse warming were incorrect because they predicted an increase in water vapor at all levels of the troposphere. Since water vapor is a greenhouse gas, the models predict warming at all levels of the troposphere. However, warming should create convective turbulence, which would lead to more condensation of water vapor (i.e. more rain) and both drying and cooling of the troposphere above 5 km. This negative feedback would act as, a "thermostat" keeping temperatures from rising significantly."

However, the GCC's science advisers noted that this argument had been disproven to the point that Lindzen himself had ceased to use it. "Lindzen's 1990 theory predicted that warmer conditions at.the surface would lead to cooler, drier conditions at the top ofthe troposphere. Studies of the behavior of the troposphere in the tropics fail to find the cooling and drying Lindzen predicted. More recent publications have indicated the possibility that Lindzen's hypothesis may be correct, but the evidence is still weak. While Lindzen remains a critic of climate modeling efforts, his latest publications do not include the convective turbulence argument."

In conclusion the GCC's science advisers was that "Lindzen's hypothesis that any warming would create more rain which would cool and dry the upper troposphere did offer a mechanism for balancing the effect of increased greenhouse gases. However, the data supporting this hypothesis is weak, and even Lindzen has stopped presenting it as an alternative to the conventional model of climate change."

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 23, 2012 5:37:12 AM PST
A customer says:
E. Vader - "William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus and head of The Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science,"

And not a climatologist. Whereas Spencer does not deny that it is warming and Christy does not even deny anthropogenic warming, describing it as "scientifically inconceivable" that we are not influencing the climate.

So that's one-and-a-half. Where are the other two point five?

"all know more about the way the world's climate works than the lying climate quacks and yourselves."

But all of them PLUS myself know more than yourself, rendering your attempts to acquire authority by lying and then appending their names not even pitiful.

"Jones: Hide the Decline"

I offer this as evidence that Vader not only endorses data theft but is so desperate to find something she can deny that she has to resort to sneering at a phrase whose meaning she cannot even state.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 23, 2012 5:39:26 AM PST
A customer says:
Vader's cross-posting notwithstanding, I have lived on and/or near the Bodensee (correct spelling) since 1999 and I HAVE seen this phenomenon there. Vader is lying again.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 23, 2012 5:46:00 AM PST
Dragi Raos says:
"The AGW scam is a $45 TRILLION scam. No small potatoes - it has already nearly bankrupted 2 countries - Spain and the UK. "

I'll be having what he is having - some new mushrooms, I guess?

"AGW theology is keeping the American economy from roaring forward"

But then the dosage was a bit too high, I am afraid.

German economy doesn't have problems with 20%+ of energy produced by windmills, and (probably counter-productively high) subsidies for solar power. Look for your scapegoats elsewhere.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 23, 2012 6:04:40 AM PST
Truthseeker says:
Unfortunately, there are plenty of people still stupid enough to believe in Climatequackery.

But the revealations unadulterated, without modification or spin don't lie. That's why they are censored by the climate quacks who are too afraid even to debate.

Example. Mann s***scared of the FOIA is on the record in the climategate mails.

http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=1107454306.txt&search=delete+the+file

From: Phil Jones <???@uea.ac.uk>
To: "Michael E. Mann" <???@virginia.edu>
Subject: Re: For your eyes only
Date: Thu Feb 3 13:11:46 2005

Mike,
It would be good to produce future series with and without the long
instrumental series and maybe the documentary ones as well. The long
measurements can then be used to validate the low-freq aspects at least
back to 1750, maybe earlier with the documentary. There are some key
warm decades (1730s, some in the 16th century) which the Moberg
reconstruction completely misses and gives the impression that all
years are cold between 1500 and 1750.
Away Feb 6-10 and 12-20 and 22-25 (last in Chicago - on the panel to
consider the vertical temp work of CCSP).
Cheers
Phil
Cheers
Phil
At 15:26 02/02/2005, you wrote:

Thanks Phil,
Yes, we've learned out lesson about FTP. We're going to be very careful in the future
what gets put there. Scott really screwed up big time when he established that directory
so that Tim could access the data.
Yeah, there is a freedom of information act in the U.S., and the contrarians are going
to try to use it for all its worth. But there are also intellectual property rights
issues, so it isn't clear how these sorts of things will play out ultimately in the U.S.
I saw the paleo draft (actually I saw an early version, and sent Keith some minor
comments). It looks very good at present--will be interesting to see how they deal w/
the contrarian criticisms--there will be many. I'm hoping they'll stand firm (I believe
they will--I think the chapter has the right sort of personalities for that)...
Will keep you updated on stuff...
talk to you later,
mike
At 09:41 AM 2/2/2005, Phil Jones wrote:

Mike,
I presume congratulations are in order - so congrats etc !
Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better
this time ! And don't leave stuff lying around on ftp sites - you never know who is
trawling
them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear
there
is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than
send
to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within
20 days? - our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it.
We also
have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried
email when he heard about it - thought people could ask him for his model code. He
has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that. IPR should be relevant
here,
but I can see me getting into an argument with someone at UEA who'll say we must adhere
to it !
Are you planning a complete reworking of your paleo series? Like to be involved if
you are.
Had a quick look at Ch 6 on paleo of AR4. The MWP side bar references Briffa, Bradley,
Mann, Jones, Crowley, Hughes, Diaz - oh and Lamb ! Looks OK, but I can't see it
getting past all the stages in its present form. MM and SB get dismissed. All the
right
emphasis is there, but the wording on occasions will be crucial. I expect this to be
the
main contentious issue in AR4. I expect (hope) that the MSU one will fade away. It
seems
the more the CCSP (the thing Tom Karl is organizing) looks into Christy and Spencer's
series, the more problems/issues they are finding. I might be on the NRC review panel,
so will keep you informed.
Rob van Dorland is an LA on the Radiative Forcing chapter, so he's a paleo expert
by GRL statndards.
Cheers
Phil
At 13:41 02/02/2005, you wrote:

Phil--thought I should let you know that its official now that I'll be moving to Penn
State next Fall.
I'll be in the Meteorology Dept. & Earth and Environmental Systems Institute, and plan
to head up a center for "Earth System History" within the institute. Will keep you
updated,
Mike

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 ???
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 ???
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email ???@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 23, 2012 6:06:31 AM PST
Truthseeker says:
Dragi, here's Spain. nearly Debt-free 3 years ago, nearly bankrupt today.
And guess what the PM Zapatero said and implemented 3 years ago?

http://www.groundreport.com/Business/Spain-Has-An-Advantage-With-Low-National-Debt_1/2892835

The Spanish Advantage? Low National Debt
by Angie Ortega March 27, 2009

Thanks to Spain's low public debt, Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero feels that his country will be able to put into effect new stimulus plans needed in the near future should current measures fail. During an interview with major financial newspapers he stated that he feels Spain has plenty of room regarding national debt.

Other European countries have already put in place new stiulus plans and Mr. Zapatero feels that there should be a "wait and see" time through at least the summer as those plans have already started to have an effect on the European economy. In the event that the stimulus plans of other European countries not help Spain's slugging economy, the Spanish government would then implement its own stimulus package.

Mr. Zapatero would like Spain and the European Union to focus on green energy to help not only climate change but also the economy. Adding that reforms regarding green energy would also help create new jobs and lower the dependancy on foreign oil.

=> And look at the Spanish debt situation today - It took barely 3 years for carbon garbage to transform a country with a low national debt to the verge of bankruptcy. Erbärmlich!

NOTE: The UK under Gordon Brown was a similar story of "green" waste condemning the country to near bankruptcy.

"Germany and Scandinavia are the greenest places in Europe"

Of course, they have more money that they can waste. Still even Germans are fed up of AGW junk.

Germany Dumps Global Warming - Climate Disruption is Last Green Gasp

German ministers and scientists finally abandon the global warming hype and preach `climate disruption' claims as last hope for new raft of taxes.

Germany's Federal Ministry of Education and Research (FMER) has signalled a decisive switch in global warming policy. In it's latest official press release titled, `Cold Winter in Europe Does Not Question Climate Change'release (February 22, 2011) Germany's pro-green government finally fell into line with the U.S. and British environmental campaigners; global warming is dead and `climate disruption' lives in the most populous (82 million inhabitants) nation of the European Union (EU).

Germany has long been a major force in the climate wars and Angela Merkel and her Christian Democratic Union (CDU) government, in particular, have shaped wider EU climate policy. With the realization that scares over catastrophic global warming have fooled no one Merkel is pinning her green taxation hopes on the `climate disruption' banner.

To sum up, despite increasing evidence contradicting the claims of global warming the deranged governments in Europe, including pro-green Germany, still clinging to the forlorn hope that voters are going to allow the imposition of some climate-related taxes, only today, the spin is firmly on `climate disruption' and `mitigation' because no one, not even the pro-green Germans, are buying the discredited global warming spiel any more!

Oh by the way, Gillard is going to be ousted - Australians no longer like quack taxes either.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 23, 2012 6:11:19 AM PST
A customer says:
E. Vader - "Dragi, here's Spain. nearly Debt-free 3 years ago, nearly bankrupt today"

This from a native of the country that has at one and the same time the largest national debt in history and the only political party in the Western world actively denying a scientific consensus.

Well, SEVERAL scientific consensus.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 23, 2012 8:24:46 AM PST
Dragi Raos says:
"It took barely 3 years for carbon garbage to transform a country with a low national debt to the verge of bankruptcy."

Yes, and my front left tire was punctured on the way to work - DAMN AGW QUACKERY! Oh, and a loaf of bread I forgot at the back of my breadbox got moldy - that's Al Gore's work!
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Science Fiction forum
Participants:  103
Total posts:  650
Initial post:  Feb 19, 2012
Latest post:  Nov 21, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 13 customers

Search Customer Discussions