*In the USA they wished it was warmer...
http://tinyurl.com/y9x8dns*
--

Jonno wrote:
*In the USA they wished it was warmer...
http://tinyurl.com/y9x8dns*

This is like a religious cult to you. You feel you must proselytise and at
the same time you never apply any critical faculties to the issue. Coleman
gives us the same old one-line half truths that you have dug up before but
never once do you consider that the spin that he gives has been debunked
many many times. And some of them are so *obviously* nonsense where you
don't need to be any sort of scientist to see that they are wrong..

About CO2

- It's natural and plants need it. (true) Suggesting that therefore it is
totally benign (Not true). Being natural does not mean it cannot cause
harm if the complex systems that include it are forced out of balance. Let
me give you an example where the weakness of this arguiment is clearer.
Hydrochloric acid is natural to your body and your digestion needs it,
therefore it is benign.

- It's always been here and it is a trace gas (true). Therefore CO2 is not
causing harm. (false this is a complete non sequitur) He presents no
evidence at all that being present in small quantities means it can do no
harm He is if fact assuming his conclusion. Many things that have always
been in the environment in small amounts can be harmful in excess.

About glacial and intergalcial periods

- There have been warmer and cooler periods throughout earth's long history
that were not caused by mankind. (True.) This warm period is just one of
those. (Presented with no evidence and despite evidence to the contrary)
Therefore this warm period is normal and nothing to worry about. (false
conclusion)

About graphs of CO2 and temperature.

- The graph of temperature in the last 200 years does not follow that of
CO2. (true) Therefore the temperature change cannot be because of CO2.
(false,) This is a strawman argument, climate scientists do not say that
these graphs must follow on to the other, they say that the system is more
complex than that but nevertheless anthropogenic CO2 is forcing that system.

- Radiation from the sun is responsible for the changes in temperature seen
recently because the graph of one follows the other (false) See
http://www.realclimate.org/ for the explanation.

And then we go into the "climategate" and "scientists take money for this"
smear campaign.

Jonno, please stop posting this stuff uncritically. Try checking out what
these deniers are saying and think about it instead. They keep pulling the
wool over your eyes.

And BTW being a TV weatherman for 55 years makes you an old TV weatherman in
an expensive suit not a climate scientist.

David

Dont be dogmatic.
See for yourself.
There are none so blind, comes to mind.
If there is climate change, then you must first prove that we can do
something about it.
The scientists who are employed by governments are seen to be toeing
their line or get sacked, like the CSIRO scientists we had leave here in
Australia, and yet were the very experts in weather/climate change.
I dont follow public opinion, I see whats happening.
Are you also employed by these people.....????
Your naivety here seems to be showing.
I dont see that by creating a self serving global institution for
climate change is going to work.
And just quietly, I dont think you do either.
Read further and see what I think of your comments, which I havent said
much about until now.

On 15/01/2010 9:38 AM, David Hare-Scott wrote:
Jonno wrote:
*In the USA they wished it was warmer...
http://tinyurl.com/y9x8dns*

This is like a religious cult to you. You feel you must proselytise
and at the same time you never apply any critical faculties to the
issue. Coleman gives us the same old one-line half truths that you
have dug up before but never once do you consider that the spin that
he gives has been debunked many many times. And some of them are so
*obviously* nonsense where you don't need to be any sort of scientist
to see that they are wrong..

About CO2

- It's natural and plants need it. (true) Suggesting that therefore it
is totally benign (Not true). Being natural does not mean it cannot
cause harm if the complex systems that include it are forced out of
balance. Let me give you an example where the weakness of this
arguiment is clearer. Hydrochloric acid is natural to your body and
your digestion needs it, therefore it is benign.

Yes thats true, But its not in the atmosphere in great amounts, nor is CO2.
- It's always been here and it is a trace gas (true). Therefore CO2
is not causing harm. (false this is a complete non sequitur) He
presents no evidence at all that being present in small quantities
means it can do no harm He is if fact assuming his conclusion. Many
things that have always been in the environment in small amounts can
be harmful in excess.
About glacial and intergalcial periods

The fact is when, its hits a certain level, (and it has) even if it
increased ten fold it will not continue to increase its effect
proportionally.
- There have been warmer and cooler periods throughout earth's long
history that were not caused by mankind. (True.) This warm period is
just one of those. (Presented with no evidence and despite evidence to
the contrary) Therefore this warm period is normal and nothing to
worry about. (false conclusion)

Why is this one not normal to you! What an idiotic statement.
About graphs of CO2 and temperature.

- The graph of temperature in the last 200 years does not follow that
of CO2. (true) Therefore the temperature change cannot be because of
CO2. (false,) This is a strawman argument, climate scientists do not
say that these graphs must follow on to the other, they say that the
system is more complex than that but nevertheless anthropogenic CO2 is
forcing that system.


- Radiation from the sun is responsible for the changes in temperature
seen recently because the graph of one follows the other (false) See
http://www.realclimate.org/ for the explanation.

And then we go into the "climategate" and "scientists take money for
this" smear campaign.


And BTW being a TV weatherman for 55 years makes you an old TV
weatherman in an expensive suit not a climate scientist.
Character assasination when all else fails. Your are pathetic.
You dont know his credentials do you. He's also a scientist. READ IT ALL
before you post YOUR stupid theories.
Jonno, please stop posting this stuff uncritically. Try checking out
what these deniers are saying and think about it instead. They keep
pulling the wool over your eyes.
Only sheep can have that done. They certainly worked on you!

David
Why should I be critical? Youre doing a great job...

I will not argue with you.
This is his submission, and you say, without proving it many things
yourself.
I haven't got a political agenda, but this has all happened before, and
is even mentioned in the bible.(Im dont believe in that either!)
but it has some good observations.
It happens that truth is truth, and while you reckon your explanations
are proof, my command of spin isn't as good as yours.
These people who write this are against what the weather changers would
try and do. The yare planetary inhabitants just like you and have the
freedom to be heard, especially if it affects them.
We cannot change weather. We can improve our lives. We can slow or stop
major polution, but lets not pretend that the economic climate, and I'm
not talking about weather here, inst involved with this and political
interference with science isn't on the agenda.
That is something that has been happening with every government of every
country since time began....

Testimony of John Coleman

before the

Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands

of the

Committee on Natural Resources

of the United States Congress

April 7, 2009

Thank you to the Committee for the invitation to appear here today. And
to any who listen to my remarks or read them later, thank you for your
consideration of my testimony.

I come before this Subcommittee with no allusions or expectations. I am
aware that for the majority of the Committee and most involved
government officials my conclusions will run counter to your interests
and agenda and will be ignored. None-the-less, I have made the effort to
be here today because I feel what I have to contribute should at least
be in the record.

Here is what I know as scientific fact: There is no significant man-made
global warming or climate change at this time, there has not been any in
the past and there is little reason to fear any in the future.

I did not say that the activities of man do not alter the weather and
climate, because it is clear they do. What I said there is no
significant man-made climate change and none should be reasonably
expected to occur in the future.

I have visited most of the National Parks in the United States and love
them. I have enormous appreciation for the efforts to protect our
environment and provide places and ways for the citizens to enjoy the
amazing beauty and powerful natural forces at work around us and
interact with the thousands of species that live in those parks and
related natural areas. Clearly, it is a huge task to balance between
access and protection. I honor that.

But here is crux of what I can contribute to the issue before us. The
science behind this current global warming, man-made climate change
commotion, has failed to verify. The hypothesis that our carbon
footprints produced by our use of fossil fuels is producing a
significant greenhouse effect that will lead to climate calamity has
failed to verify. So I repeat, there is no significant man-made global
climate change.

I have studied the research papers of the United Nation's
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and examined the science
presented by Al Gore in his books, his movie and his power point. I have
traced the history of the development of the concept of carbon dioxide
in the exhaust from our cars, power plants and industrial plants
entering the atmosphere and interacting with the primary greenhouse gas,
water vapor, to magnify warming. It all collapses into a failed theory
when examined with scientific care. I am not alone in reaching this
conclusion. In the past year, 34 thousand scientists, 10 thousand with
PhDs, have signed a statement debunking global warming.

There is solid scientific evidence that by burning fossil fuels our
civilization increases the amount of carbon dioxide, CO2, in the
atmosphere. However, even after 150 years of burning fossil fuels, CO2
remains a tiny trace gas. To be precise only 380 molecules out of every
one million are CO2. Scientists with an anti-fossil fuel agenda
developed a theory of radiative forcing to explain how this trace gas
could create runaway greenhouse warming. They put that theory into
general circulation computer models. Their models then projected a
continuous rapid rise in global temperatures year after year. In the
1980s and 1990's the models seemed on track as temperatures climbed. But
in 1998 the warming stopped. By 2002 a rapid cooling had begun. That
cooling continues today. The computer proof has failed. It has become
clear the warming in the 80s and 90s was at the peak of a solar cycle
and now that the sun has gone very quiet, cooling has gripped the
planet. Yet the models continue to predict warming that is not
happening. There is no significant warming from CO2.

I am painfully aware that global warming has become a political issue. I
deeply regret that. The latest Gallup Poll documents the wide divide on
the issue: 66 percent of Republicans are of the opinion that the claims
of global warming are exaggerated; only 22 percent of Democrats are of
that position. I want to make very clear my conclusion is in no way
politically based.

I was a science reporter for ABC News in the 1970's when there was a
similar flurry of excitement about a coming Ice Age. Thankfully our
government and political parties didn't get involved so when the science
got things straightened out, the frenzy faded away. Unfortunately, this
time people with the anti fossil fuel agenda had jumped on the global
warming bandwagon and just won't let go. They have calmed the rhetoric
to climate change, but they are still all wrapped up in cap and trade to
tax our use of fossil fuels. This will do great harm to our economy but
do nothing of consequence to protect the environment.

My advice to the National Park Service and the Subcommittee is: Do
nothing to mitigate man-made global warming or climate change, because
there is none. Reject the extremist agendas and concentrate on your
wonderful work protecting our natural resources and making natural
experiences available to us citizens of today and generations to follow.

To any who have an interest in pursuing the sources behind my scientific
conclusions I provide a list of internet links with my written testimony.

Again, thank you for allowing me to present my testimony and place it
into the record.

---------------------

Links referenced in John Coleman’s remarks


The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

http://www.ipcc.ch/


The Al Gore movie, “An Inconvenient Truth

http://www.climatecrisis.net/


An online article about the word “deniers” used to describe Global
Warming skeptics

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.p.../article/1782/


United Nations IPCC Chapter 9, the key chapter on CO2 Forcing

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-re...1-chapter9.pdf


Natural Resources Defense Council Global Warming report

http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/fcons.asp


Michael Mann and the Hockey Stick Chart

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Mann_(scientist)


Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick’s Paper refuting the Hockey Stick Chart

http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/mcintyre.grl.2005.pdf


Stephen McIntyre’s website

http://www.climateaudit.org

Ross McKitrick’s website

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/ross.html


NASA web pages on average annual temperatures

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/loo...arth_warm.html


Dr. Mayhay Khandekar and Joseph D’Aleo’s post on the problems with the
NASA average temperature calculations

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/PITFALLS.pdf


Dr. Roger Pielke Sr;’s post on problems with calculation average global
temperatures:

http://climatesci.org/2008/02/08/an-...e-temperature/



Ross McKitrick and Pat Michaels paper detailing how observation points
change over time influences global average temperatures

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/MM.JGRDec07.pdf


Anthony Watts discovers serious site problems with many official weather
observation stations in the United States and conducts a national effort
to survey every location

http://surfacestations.org/


Dr. Ben Herman investigates questionable exaggerations in maximum
temperatures at locations where certain types of new temperature sensors
have been installed.

http://climatesci.org/2008/01/21/gue...rature-trends/



The controversy about the influence of urban heat islands on global
temperatures is covered in the Wikipedia article at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_heat_island


Long term climate changes on Earth, resulting from natural causes,
primarily variations in the radiation received from the Sun are detailed
by D. Bruce Merrifield

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/...r_radia_1.html


I write about the solar influence on climate variations on Earth in my
brief The Force behind Climate Change

http://images.bimedia.net/documents/...al+Warming.pdf


Roger Revelle, the Grandfather of Global Warming and the man who
inspired Al Gore, cautioned against alarmism from the carbon dioxide
build-up

http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemans.../40867912.html


Carbon Dioxide characterized as a pollutant, the force behind global
warming

http://worldcoolers.org/co2map/


Typical newspaper article decrying carbon dioxide build-up in the
atmosphere

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm..._carbon22.html


Union of Concerned Scientists page on carbon dioxide

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles...l-warming.html



The key Paper by Arthur B. Robinson, Noah E. Robinson and Willie Soon
that explains that Carbon Dioxide Forcing is not valid

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/im...inson_Soon.pdf



Another excellent Paper by Allan M.R, MacRae showing that Carbon Dioxide
is not the primary force in climate change

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2vsTMacRae.pdf


Dr. David Evans Paper showing that Carbon Dioxide does not cause Global
Warming

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Evan...NotCauseGW.pdf


Alan Cheetham details the history of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change)

http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_History.htm

Dr. John McLean details the lack of significant peer review of the IPCC
documents

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/im...nal_9-5-07.pdf



Dr. Vincent Gray writes about his experience as a member of the IPCC

http://nzclimatescience.net/index.ph...155&Item id=1



The report on the over 700 scientists who have spoken out in opposition
to global warming

http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/ind...1-fc38ed4f85e3


The website of the global warming debunkers petition with over 31
thousand signatures:

http://www.petitionproject.org/


My webpage which contains numerous other documents and links:

http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner

I will not argue with you.
This is his submission, and you say (without proving it) many things
that are definitely unproven, yourself.
I haven't got a political agenda, but this has all happened before, and
is even mentioned in the bible.(Im dont believe in that either!)
but it has some good observations.
It happens that truth is truth, and while you reckon your explanations
are proof, my command of spin isn't as good as yours.
These people who write this are against what the weather changers would
try and do. They have the freedom to be heard, especially if it affects
them.
We cannot change weather. We can improve our lives. We can slow or stop
major polution, but lets not pretend that the economic climate, and I'm
not talking about weather here, isnt involved with this and political
interference with science isn't on the agenda.
That is something that has been happening with every government of every
country since time began....


Testimony of John Coleman

before the

Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands

of the

Committee on Natural Resources

of the United States Congress

April 7, 2009

Thank you to the Committee for the invitation to appear here today. And
to any who listen to my remarks or read them later, thank you for your
consideration of my testimony.

I come before this Subcommittee with no allusions or expectations. I am
aware that for the majority of the Committee and most involved
government officials my conclusions will run counter to your interests
and agenda and will be ignored. None-the-less, I have made the effort to
be here today because I feel what I have to contribute should at least
be in the record.

Here is what I know as scientific fact: There is no significant man-made
global warming or climate change at this time, there has not been any in
the past and there is little reason to fear any in the future.

I did not say that the activities of man do not alter the weather and
climate, because it is clear they do. What I said there is no
significant man-made climate change and none should be reasonably
expected to occur in the future.

I have visited most of the National Parks in the United States and love
them. I have enormous appreciation for the efforts to protect our
environment and provide places and ways for the citizens to enjoy the
amazing beauty and powerful natural forces at work around us and
interact with the thousands of species that live in those parks and
related natural areas. Clearly, it is a huge task to balance between
access and protection. I honor that.

But here is crux of what I can contribute to the issue before us. The
science behind this current global warming, man-made climate change
commotion, has failed to verify. The hypothesis that our carbon
footprints produced by our use of fossil fuels is producing a
significant greenhouse effect that will lead to climate calamity has
failed to verify. So I repeat, there is no significant man-made global
climate change.

I have studied the research papers of the United Nation's
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and examined the science
presented by Al Gore in his books, his movie and his power point. I have
traced the history of the development of the concept of carbon dioxide
in the exhaust from our cars, power plants and industrial plants
entering the atmosphere and interacting with the primary greenhouse gas,
water vapor, to magnify warming. It all collapses into a failed theory
when examined with scientific care. I am not alone in reaching this
conclusion. In the past year, 34 thousand scientists, 10 thousand with
PhDs, have signed a statement debunking global warming.

There is solid scientific evidence that by burning fossil fuels our
civilization increases the amount of carbon dioxide, CO2, in the
atmosphere. However, even after 150 years of burning fossil fuels, CO2
remains a tiny trace gas. To be precise only 380 molecules out of every
one million are CO2. Scientists with an anti-fossil fuel agenda
developed a theory of radiative forcing to explain how this trace gas
could create runaway greenhouse warming. They put that theory into
general circulation computer models. Their models then projected a
continuous rapid rise in global temperatures year after year. In the
1980s and 1990's the models seemed on track as temperatures climbed. But
in 1998 the warming stopped. By 2002 a rapid cooling had begun. That
cooling continues today. The computer proof has failed. It has become
clear the warming in the 80s and 90s was at the peak of a solar cycle
and now that the sun has gone very quiet, cooling has gripped the
planet. Yet the models continue to predict warming that is not
happening. There is no significant warming from CO2.

I am painfully aware that global warming has become a political issue. I
deeply regret that. The latest Gallup Poll documents the wide divide on
the issue: 66 percent of Republicans are of the opinion that the claims
of global warming are exaggerated; only 22 percent of Democrats are of
that position. I want to make very clear my conclusion is in no way
politically based.

I was a science reporter for ABC News in the 1970's when there was a
similar flurry of excitement about a coming Ice Age. Thankfully our
government and political parties didn't get involved so when the science
got things straightened out, the frenzy faded away. Unfortunately, this
time people with the anti fossil fuel agenda had jumped on the global
warming bandwagon and just won't let go. They have calmed the rhetoric
to climate change, but they are still all wrapped up in cap and trade to
tax our use of fossil fuels. This will do great harm to our economy but
do nothing of consequence to protect the environment.

My advice to the National Park Service and the Subcommittee is: Do
nothing to mitigate man-made global warming or climate change, because
there is none. Reject the extremist agendas and concentrate on your
wonderful work protecting our natural resources and making natural
experiences available to us citizens of today and generations to follow.

To any who have an interest in pursuing the sources behind my scientific
conclusions I provide a list of internet links with my written testimony.

Again, thank you for allowing me to present my testimony and place it
into the record.

---------------------

Links referenced in John Coleman’s remarks


The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

http://www.ipcc.ch/


The Al Gore movie, “An Inconvenient Truth

http://www.climatecrisis.net/


An online article about the word “deniers” used to describe Global
Warming skeptics

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.p.../article/1782/


United Nations IPCC Chapter 9, the key chapter on CO2 Forcing

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-re...1-chapter9.pdf


Natural Resources Defense Council Global Warming report

http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/fcons.asp


Michael Mann and the Hockey Stick Chart

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Mann_(scientist)


Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick’s Paper refuting the Hockey Stick Chart

http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/mcintyre.grl.2005.pdf


Stephen McIntyre’s website

http://www.climateaudit.org

Ross McKitrick’s website

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/ross.html


NASA web pages on average annual temperatures

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/loo...arth_warm.html


Dr. Mayhay Khandekar and Joseph D’Aleo’s post on the problems with the
NASA average temperature calculations

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/PITFALLS.pdf


Dr. Roger Pielke Sr;’s post on problems with calculation average global
temperatures:

http://climatesci.org/2008/02/08/an-...e-temperature/



Ross McKitrick and Pat Michaels paper detailing how observation points
change over time influences global average temperatures

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/MM.JGRDec07.pdf


Anthony Watts discovers serious site problems with many official weather
observation stations in the United States and conducts a national effort
to survey every location

http://surfacestations.org/


Dr. Ben Herman investigates questionable exaggerations in maximum
temperatures at locations where certain types of new temperature sensors
have been installed.

http://climatesci.org/2008/01/21/gue...rature-trends/



The controversy about the influence of urban heat islands on global
temperatures is covered in the Wikipedia article at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_heat_island


Long term climate changes on Earth, resulting from natural causes,
primarily variations in the radiation received from the Sun are detailed
by D. Bruce Merrifield

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/...r_radia_1.html


I write about the solar influence on climate variations on Earth in my
brief The Force behind Climate Change

http://images.bimedia.net/documents/...al+Warming.pdf


Roger Revelle, the Grandfather of Global Warming and the man who
inspired Al Gore, cautioned against alarmism from the carbon dioxide
build-up

http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemans.../40867912.html


Carbon Dioxide characterized as a pollutant, the force behind global
warming

http://worldcoolers.org/co2map/


Typical newspaper article decrying carbon dioxide build-up in the
atmosphere

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm..._carbon22.html


Union of Concerned Scientists page on carbon dioxide

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles...l-warming.html



The key Paper by Arthur B. Robinson, Noah E. Robinson and Willie Soon
that explains that Carbon Dioxide Forcing is not valid

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/im...inson_Soon.pdf



Another excellent Paper by Allan M.R, MacRae showing that Carbon Dioxide
is not the primary force in climate change

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2vsTMacRae.pdf


Dr. David Evans Paper showing that Carbon Dioxide does not cause Global
Warming

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Evan...NotCauseGW.pdf


Alan Cheetham details the history of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change)

http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_History.htm

Dr. John McLean details the lack of significant peer review of the IPCC
documents

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/im...nal_9-5-07.pdf



Dr. Vincent Gray writes about his experience as a member of the IPCC

http://nzclimatescience.net/index.ph...155&Item id=1



The report on the over 700 scientists who have spoken out in opposition
to global warming

http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/ind...1-fc38ed4f85e3



The website of the global warming debunkers petition with over 31
thousand signatures:

http://www.petitionproject.org/


My webpage which contains numerous other documents and links:

http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner

On 15/01/2010 9:38 AM, David Hare-Scott wrote:
Jonno wrote:
*In the USA they wished it was warmer...
http://tinyurl.com/y9x8dns*

This is like a religious cult to you. You feel you must proselytise
and at the same time you never apply any critical faculties to the issue.
Coleman gives us the same old one-line half truths that you have dug
up before but never once do you consider that the spin that he gives
has been debunked many many times. And some of them are so *obviously*
nonsense where you don't need to be any sort of scientist to see that
they are wrong..
Science is always open to question. You have a mind like a closed steel
trap. Coleman is right, the sky is not falling!
About CO2

- It's natural and plants need it. (true) Suggesting that therefore it
is totally benign (Not true). Being natural does not mean it cannot
cause harm if the complex systems that include it are forced out of
balance. Let me give you an example where the weakness of this
arguiment is clearer. Hydrochloric acid is natural to your body and
your digestion needs it, therefore it is benign.

The planet itself creates it. It shows no sign of causing direct harm,
only theorists say this. We are also having reports now that methane
from the Russian Tundra is creating another problem, but this is not
certain, but will be as soon as they work out the best way to use this
as propaganda.
- It's always been here and it is a trace gas (true). Therefore CO2 is
not causing harm. (false this is a complete non sequitur) He presents
no evidence at all that being present in small quantities means it can
do no harm He is if fact assuming his conclusion. Many things that
have always been in the environment in small amounts can be harmful in
excess.
So can hydrochloric acid in your stomach.
About glacial and intergalcial periods

- There have been warmer and cooler periods throughout earth's long
history that were not caused by mankind. (True.) This warm period is
just one of those. (Presented with no evidence and despite evidence to
the contrary) Therefore this warm period is normal and nothing to
worry about. (false conclusion)

You havent looked have you, nothing is presented here but freely seen on
the net.
About graphs of CO2 and temperature.

- The graph of temperature in the last 200 years does not follow that
of CO2. (true) Therefore the temperature change cannot be because of
CO2. (false,) This is a strawman
(scarecrow argument?)
argument, climate scientists do not say that these graphs must follow on
to the other, they say that the system is more complex than that but
nevertheless anthropogenic CO2 is forcing that system.
Still not proven!
- Radiation from the sun is responsible for the changes in temperature
seen recently because the graph of one follows the other (false) See
http://www.realclimate.org/ for the explanation.

And then we go into the "climategate" and "scientists take money for
this" smear campaign.
CSIRO scientists sacked for disagreeing in Australia (not once but
twice) a smear campaign? by whom? The governemnts?
Falsefied figures? And emails to this effect? Youre ignoring these at
your peril...

Jonno, please stop posting this stuff uncritically. Try checking out
what these deniers are saying and think about it instead.

They keep pulling the wool over your eyes.
You can only pull the wool over the eyes of sheep and they have done a
public opinion number on you havent they!

And BTW being a TV weatherman for 55 years makes you an old TV
weatherman in an expensive suit not a climate scientist.
He's good enough for me and 34000 other scientists, why not you?
What barrow are YOU pushing.
You must be involved with some organisation that wants to see it their way.
I'm not religious in any way, not do I treat it as such, but you have to
but in some.
Many have taken a stand....
David

--

Jonno wrote:
Dont be dogmatic.
See for yourself.
There are none so blind, comes to mind.
If there is climate change, then you must first prove that we can do
something about it.

No you have that backwards. First we must acknowledge that it is happening
and understand why and how it is happening. Then we are in a position to
decide on appropriate action. Why would you take action about something
that wasn't happening? I find this point of yours quite baffling.

The scientists who are employed by governments are seen to be toeing
their line or get sacked, like the CSIRO scientists we had leave here
in Australia, and yet were the very experts in weather/climate change.
I dont follow public opinion, I see whats happening.

You repeatedly give us pre-prepared cases made by other people that you have
accepted uncritically and it seems without understanding. You don't do your
own study. This is not independent thinking.

Are you also employed by these people.....????

No

Your naivety here seems to be showing.
I dont see that by creating a self serving global institution for
climate change is going to work.

Around the world right wing demagogues are claiming that climate change is
all a left wing plot to institute world government by stealth. This is just
an appeal to the fears of some and it seems to work well for them, it has
worked on you. But you say I am naive for not swallowing such mad
conspiracy theories.

And just quietly, I dont think you do either.
Read further and see what I think of your comments, which I havent
said much about until now.

On 15/01/2010 9:38 AM, David Hare-Scott wrote:
Jonno wrote:
*In the USA they wished it was warmer...
http://tinyurl.com/y9x8dns*

This is like a religious cult to you. You feel you must proselytise
and at the same time you never apply any critical faculties to the
issue. Coleman gives us the same old one-line half truths that you
have dug up before but never once do you consider that the spin that
he gives has been debunked many many times. And some of them are so
*obviously* nonsense where you don't need to be any sort of scientist
to see that they are wrong..

About CO2

- It's natural and plants need it. (true) Suggesting that therefore
it is totally benign (Not true). Being natural does not mean it
cannot cause harm if the complex systems that include it are forced
out of balance. Let me give you an example where the weakness of
this arguiment is clearer. Hydrochloric acid is natural to your body
and your digestion needs it, therefore it is benign.

Yes thats true, But its not in the atmosphere in great amounts, nor
is CO2.

If there is any hydrochloric acid in the atmosphere where you are you are
living in a very polluted area. It is in your gut, a component of your
digestive juices. I should have used a better example.

How can you keep repeating this mantra that CO2 is only in small quantities
therefore it is not doing any harm? You keep stating this without any
evidence at all.

Let me try another example. The gas radon is only present in exceedingly
small quantities in the air (less that 1 quadrillionth of the amount of CO2)
yet it is directly responsible for harm to humans. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radon

Do you see the point? By your argument radon couldn't possibly do any harm
for there is so liitle in the air - one part in 1000000000000000000000. It
is the *effect* of that tiny amount that is important.

It is not that CO2 is only 300 ppm (or whatever the figure) it is the
*effect* of that concentration that is important. It is the *effect* of
changing that value over a short period (in geological terms) that is
significant.


- It's always been here and it is a trace gas (true). Therefore CO2
is not causing harm. (false this is a complete non sequitur) He
presents no evidence at all that being present in small quantities
means it can do no harm He is if fact assuming his conclusion. Many
things that have always been in the environment in small amounts can
be harmful in excess.
About glacial and intergalcial periods

The fact is when, its hits a certain level, (and it has) even if it
increased ten fold it will not continue to increase its effect
proportionally.

But what is your point? Are you now saying that the graph of temperature
over time should not follow that of CO2 because the cause and effect is not
a direct relationship? I am glad you have come around on that one.

- There have been warmer and cooler periods throughout earth's long
history that were not caused by mankind. (True.) This warm period
is just one of those. (Presented with no evidence and despite
evidence to the contrary) Therefore this warm period is normal and
nothing to worry about. (false conclusion)

Why is this one not normal to you! What an idiotic statement.

It is not normal in the sense of being part of the natural cycle of long
term temperature changes because there is considerable evidence of the fact
that it is caused by emissions of GHG. Assuming it is "normal" is just
ignoring the evidence. That is all Coleman does he assumes it. You will
find this one debunked on realclimate too.


About graphs of CO2 and temperature.

- The graph of temperature in the last 200 years does not follow
that of CO2. (true) Therefore the temperature change cannot be
because of CO2. (false,) This is a strawman argument, climate
scientists do not say that these graphs must follow on to the other,
they say that the system is more complex than that but nevertheless
anthropogenic CO2 is forcing that system.


- Radiation from the sun is responsible for the changes in
temperature seen recently because the graph of one follows the other
(false) See http://www.realclimate.org/ for the explanation.


I notice that you skipped these two point. Does that mean you accept them?

And then we go into the "climategate" and "scientists take money for
this" smear campaign.


And BTW being a TV weatherman for 55 years makes you an old TV
weatherman in an expensive suit not a climate scientist.
Character assasination when all else fails. Your are pathetic.
You dont know his credentials do you. He's also a scientist. READ IT
ALL before you post YOUR stupid theories.

But Coleman says scientists are corrupt, they lie about climate change and
take money from vested interests for their own personal gain. It said so in
the video. How does this make being a scientist a credible witness?

BTW I was going on the credentials that the man himself gave in the video.
Now that you draw my attention to it he seems to have a degree in
journalism. Please tell us about his scientific credentials because I
cannot find any.


Jonno, please stop posting this stuff uncritically. Try checking out
what these deniers are saying and think about it instead. They keep
pulling the wool over your eyes.
Only sheep can have that done. They certainly worked on you!

No Jonno. I did not accept any of this uncritically. I did much reading
and thinking before coming to my current position. You on the other hand
show no interest in doing that instead just regurgitating propaganda that
supports gut feeling.


David
Why should I be critical? Youre doing a great job...

Eveybody should be critical. That is what I am asking you and the lurkers
to do. You are so emotionally wedded to your position that quite frankly I
see no chance of me convincing you otherwise. I make these responses
because I think others need to know that your position has been often
refuted.


David

This rhetoric sounds like a tail wagging the dog.
Youre not very convincing at all!
There is HCL in the atmossphere and H2so4 and many other things, as well
as modern aircraft which are spreading aerosols of over the stratosphere.
These are much worse, and of course a more immeadiate problem.
Theyre not mentioned. CO2 is not even in the race.
You keep popping up. Well, time will tell. Youre wrong,
How many scientists does it take to convince David Hare Scott?
None he only listens to the ones which will boost his shares.
End of rant....

On 16/01/2010 11:44 AM, David Hare-Scott wrote:
Jonno wrote:
Dont be dogmatic.
See for yourself.
There are none so blind, comes to mind.
If there is climate change, then you must first prove that we can do
something about it.

No you have that backwards. First we must acknowledge that it is
happening and understand why and how it is happening. Then we are in
a position to decide on appropriate action. Why would you take action
about something that wasn't happening? I find this point of yours
quite baffling.

The scientists who are employed by governments are seen to be toeing
their line or get sacked, like the CSIRO scientists we had leave here
in Australia, and yet were the very experts in weather/climate change.
I dont follow public opinion, I see whats happening.

You repeatedly give us pre-prepared cases made by other people that
you have accepted uncritically and it seems without understanding.
You don't do your own study. This is not independent thinking.

Are you also employed by these people.....????

No

Your naivety here seems to be showing.
I dont see that by creating a self serving global institution for
climate change is going to work.

Around the world right wing demagogues are claiming that climate
change is all a left wing plot to institute world government by
stealth. This is just an appeal to the fears of some and it seems to
work well for them, it has worked on you. But you say I am naive for
not swallowing such mad conspiracy theories.

And just quietly, I dont think you do either.
Read further and see what I think of your comments, which I havent
said much about until now.

On 15/01/2010 9:38 AM, David Hare-Scott wrote:
Jonno wrote:
*In the USA they wished it was warmer...
http://tinyurl.com/y9x8dns*

This is like a religious cult to you. You feel you must proselytise
and at the same time you never apply any critical faculties to the
issue. Coleman gives us the same old one-line half truths that you
have dug up before but never once do you consider that the spin that
he gives has been debunked many many times. And some of them are so
*obviously* nonsense where you don't need to be any sort of scientist
to see that they are wrong..

About CO2

- It's natural and plants need it. (true) Suggesting that therefore
it is totally benign (Not true). Being natural does not mean it
cannot cause harm if the complex systems that include it are forced
out of balance. Let me give you an example where the weakness of
this arguiment is clearer. Hydrochloric acid is natural to your body
and your digestion needs it, therefore it is benign.

Yes thats true, But its not in the atmosphere in great amounts, nor
is CO2.

If there is any hydrochloric acid in the atmosphere where you are you
are living in a very polluted area. It is in your gut, a component of
your digestive juices. I should have used a better example.

How can you keep repeating this mantra that CO2 is only in small
quantities therefore it is not doing any harm? You keep stating this
without any evidence at all.

Let me try another example. The gas radon is only present in
exceedingly small quantities in the air (less that 1 quadrillionth of
the amount of CO2) yet it is directly responsible for harm to humans.
See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radon

Do you see the point? By your argument radon couldn't possibly do any
harm for there is so liitle in the air - one part in
1000000000000000000000. It is the *effect* of that tiny amount that is
important.

It is not that CO2 is only 300 ppm (or whatever the figure) it is the
*effect* of that concentration that is important. It is the *effect*
of changing that value over a short period (in geological terms) that
is significant.


- It's always been here and it is a trace gas (true). Therefore CO2
is not causing harm. (false this is a complete non sequitur) He
presents no evidence at all that being present in small quantities
means it can do no harm He is if fact assuming his conclusion. Many
things that have always been in the environment in small amounts can
be harmful in excess.
About glacial and intergalcial periods

The fact is when, its hits a certain level, (and it has) even if it
increased ten fold it will not continue to increase its effect
proportionally.

But what is your point? Are you now saying that the graph of
temperature over time should not follow that of CO2 because the cause
and effect is not a direct relationship? I am glad you have come
around on that one.

- There have been warmer and cooler periods throughout earth's long
history that were not caused by mankind. (True.) This warm period
is just one of those. (Presented with no evidence and despite
evidence to the contrary) Therefore this warm period is normal and
nothing to worry about. (false conclusion)

Why is this one not normal to you! What an idiotic statement.

It is not normal in the sense of being part of the natural cycle of
long term temperature changes because there is considerable evidence
of the fact that it is caused by emissions of GHG. Assuming it is
"normal" is just ignoring the evidence. That is all Coleman does he
assumes it. You will find this one debunked on realclimate too.


About graphs of CO2 and temperature.

- The graph of temperature in the last 200 years does not follow
that of CO2. (true) Therefore the temperature change cannot be
because of CO2. (false,) This is a strawman argument, climate
scientists do not say that these graphs must follow on to the other,
they say that the system is more complex than that but nevertheless
anthropogenic CO2 is forcing that system.


- Radiation from the sun is responsible for the changes in
temperature seen recently because the graph of one follows the other
(false) See http://www.realclimate.org/ for the explanation.


I notice that you skipped these two point. Does that mean you accept
them?

And then we go into the "climategate" and "scientists take money for
this" smear campaign.


And BTW being a TV weatherman for 55 years makes you an old TV
weatherman in an expensive suit not a climate scientist.
Character assasination when all else fails. Your are pathetic.
You dont know his credentials do you. He's also a scientist. READ IT
ALL before you post YOUR stupid theories.

But Coleman says scientists are corrupt, they lie about climate
change and take money from vested interests for their own personal
gain. It said so in the video. How does this make being a scientist
a credible witness?

BTW I was going on the credentials that the man himself gave in the
video. Now that you draw my attention to it he seems to have a degree
in journalism. Please tell us about his scientific credentials
because I cannot find any.


Jonno, please stop posting this stuff uncritically. Try checking out
what these deniers are saying and think about it instead. They keep
pulling the wool over your eyes.
Only sheep can have that done. They certainly worked on you!

No Jonno. I did not accept any of this uncritically. I did much
reading and thinking before coming to my current position. You on the
other hand show no interest in doing that instead just regurgitating
propaganda that supports gut feeling.


David
Why should I be critical? Youre doing a great job...

Eveybody should be critical. That is what I am asking you and the
lurkers to do. You are so emotionally wedded to your position that
quite frankly I see no chance of me convincing you otherwise. I make
these responses because I think others need to know that your position
has been often refuted.


David

--

This rhetoric sounds like a tail wagging the dog.
Youre not very convincing at all!
There is HCL in the atmosphere and H2SO4 and many other things, as well
as modern aircraft which are spreading aerosols all over the stratosphere.
These are much worse, and of course a more immediate problem.
Theyre not mentioned. CO2 is, and its not even in the race.
You keep popping up. Well, time will tell. Youre wrong,
How many scientists does it take to convince David Hare Scott?
None, he only listens to the ones which will boost his shares.

End of rant....
I'm taking a break from you....


On 16/01/2010 11:44 AM, David Hare-Scott wrote:
Jonno wrote:
Dont be dogmatic.
See for yourself.
There are none so blind, comes to mind.
If there is climate change, then you must first prove that we can do
something about it.

No you have that backwards. First we must acknowledge that it is
happening and understand why and how it is happening. Then we are in
a position to decide on appropriate action. Why would you take action
about something that wasn't happening? I find this point of yours
quite baffling.

The scientists who are employed by governments are seen to be toeing
their line or get sacked, like the CSIRO scientists we had leave here
in Australia, and yet were the very experts in weather/climate change.
I dont follow public opinion, I see whats happening.

You repeatedly give us pre-prepared cases made by other people that
you have accepted uncritically and it seems without understanding.
You don't do your own study. This is not independent thinking.

Are you also employed by these people.....????

No

Your naivety here seems to be showing.
I dont see that by creating a self serving global institution for
climate change is going to work.

Around the world right wing demagogues are claiming that climate
change is all a left wing plot to institute world government by
stealth. This is just an appeal to the fears of some and it seems to
work well for them, it has worked on you. But you say I am naive for
not swallowing such mad conspiracy theories.

And just quietly, I dont think you do either.
Read further and see what I think of your comments, which I havent
said much about until now.

On 15/01/2010 9:38 AM, David Hare-Scott wrote:
Jonno wrote:
*In the USA they wished it was warmer...
http://tinyurl.com/y9x8dns*

This is like a religious cult to you. You feel you must proselytise
and at the same time you never apply any critical faculties to the
issue. Coleman gives us the same old one-line half truths that you
have dug up before but never once do you consider that the spin that
he gives has been debunked many many times. And some of them are so
*obviously* nonsense where you don't need to be any sort of scientist
to see that they are wrong..

About CO2

- It's natural and plants need it. (true) Suggesting that therefore
it is totally benign (Not true). Being natural does not mean it
cannot cause harm if the complex systems that include it are forced
out of balance. Let me give you an example where the weakness of
this arguiment is clearer. Hydrochloric acid is natural to your body
and your digestion needs it, therefore it is benign.

Yes thats true, But its not in the atmosphere in great amounts, nor
is CO2.

If there is any hydrochloric acid in the atmosphere where you are you
are living in a very polluted area. It is in your gut, a component of
your digestive juices. I should have used a better example.

How can you keep repeating this mantra that CO2 is only in small
quantities therefore it is not doing any harm? You keep stating this
without any evidence at all.

Let me try another example. The gas radon is only present in
exceedingly small quantities in the air (less that 1 quadrillionth of
the amount of CO2) yet it is directly responsible for harm to humans.
See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radon

Do you see the point? By your argument radon couldn't possibly do any
harm for there is so liitle in the air - one part in
1000000000000000000000. It is the *effect* of that tiny amount that is
important.

It is not that CO2 is only 300 ppm (or whatever the figure) it is the
*effect* of that concentration that is important. It is the *effect*
of changing that value over a short period (in geological terms) that
is significant.


- It's always been here and it is a trace gas (true). Therefore CO2
is not causing harm. (false this is a complete non sequitur) He
presents no evidence at all that being present in small quantities
means it can do no harm He is if fact assuming his conclusion. Many
things that have always been in the environment in small amounts can
be harmful in excess.
About glacial and intergalcial periods

The fact is when, its hits a certain level, (and it has) even if it
increased ten fold it will not continue to increase its effect
proportionally.

But what is your point? Are you now saying that the graph of
temperature over time should not follow that of CO2 because the cause
and effect is not a direct relationship? I am glad you have come
around on that one.

- There have been warmer and cooler periods throughout earth's long
history that were not caused by mankind. (True.) This warm period
is just one of those. (Presented with no evidence and despite
evidence to the contrary) Therefore this warm period is normal and
nothing to worry about. (false conclusion)

Why is this one not normal to you! What an idiotic statement.

It is not normal in the sense of being part of the natural cycle of
long term temperature changes because there is considerable evidence
of the fact that it is caused by emissions of GHG. Assuming it is
"normal" is just ignoring the evidence. That is all Coleman does he
assumes it. You will find this one debunked on realclimate too.


About graphs of CO2 and temperature.

- The graph of temperature in the last 200 years does not follow
that of CO2. (true) Therefore the temperature change cannot be
because of CO2. (false,) This is a strawman argument, climate
scientists do not say that these graphs must follow on to the other,
they say that the system is more complex than that but nevertheless
anthropogenic CO2 is forcing that system.


- Radiation from the sun is responsible for the changes in
temperature seen recently because the graph of one follows the other
(false) See http://www.realclimate.org/ for the explanation.


I notice that you skipped these two point. Does that mean you accept
them?

And then we go into the "climategate" and "scientists take money for
this" smear campaign.


And BTW being a TV weatherman for 55 years makes you an old TV
weatherman in an expensive suit not a climate scientist.
Character assasination when all else fails. Your are pathetic.
You dont know his credentials do you. He's also a scientist. READ IT
ALL before you post YOUR stupid theories.

But Coleman says scientists are corrupt, they lie about climate
change and take money from vested interests for their own personal
gain. It said so in the video. How does this make being a scientist
a credible witness?

BTW I was going on the credentials that the man himself gave in the
video. Now that you draw my attention to it he seems to have a degree
in journalism. Please tell us about his scientific credentials
because I cannot find any.


Jonno, please stop posting this stuff uncritically. Try checking out
what these deniers are saying and think about it instead. They keep
pulling the wool over your eyes.
Only sheep can have that done. They certainly worked on you!

No Jonno. I did not accept any of this uncritically. I did much
reading and thinking before coming to my current position. You on the
other hand show no interest in doing that instead just regurgitating
propaganda that supports gut feeling.


David
Why should I be critical? Youre doing a great job...

Eveybody should be critical. That is what I am asking you and the
lurkers to do. You are so emotionally wedded to your position that
quite frankly I see no chance of me convincing you otherwise. I make
these responses because I think others need to know that your position
has been often refuted.


David

--

Jonno wrote:
This rhetoric sounds like a tail wagging the dog.
Youre not very convincing at all!
There is HCL in the atmossphere and H2so4 and many other things, as
well as modern aircraft which are spreading aerosols of over the
stratosphere. These are much worse, and of course a more immeadiate
problem. Theyre not mentioned. CO2 is not even in the race.
You keep popping up. Well, time will tell. Youre wrong,
How many scientists does it take to convince David Hare Scott?
None he only listens to the ones which will boost his shares.
End of rant....



Nice deflection. Not a mention of the issues raised in the video you
posted.

David

Measuring temperature?
See how its done...

http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/sh1/t...ook_2-3_lq.pdf

The above will show you how crazy this situation has become....
I know nothing, you know nothing.
We are all fed through a filtered straw of newspapers, run by
politically influenced reports.
Think, out of the box (I hate that saying too), before we all get put
into one..

A statistician and a mathematical genius were interviewed for a job.
Asked what 1000 and 1000 added together equalled, the mathematician
answered, without referring to his calculator that two thousand was the
usual answer.
The statistician, closed the curtains, pulled out his scientific
calculator, which he'd previously brought from Kmart at a reduced price,
and asked, "what would you like it to be?"

That folks is what we are dealing with here.
Were using ALGore Rhythms.

On 16/01/2010 6:31 PM, David Hare-Scott wrote:
Jonno wrote:
This rhetoric sounds like a tail wagging the dog.
Youre not very convincing at all!
There is HCL in the atmossphere and H2so4 and many other things, as
well as modern aircraft which are spreading aerosols of over the
stratosphere. These are much worse, and of course a more immeadiate
problem. Theyre not mentioned. CO2 is not even in the race.
You keep popping up. Well, time will tell. Youre wrong,
How many scientists does it take to convince David Hare Scott?
None he only listens to the ones which will boost his shares.
End of rant....



Nice deflection. Not a mention of the issues raised in the video you
posted.

David

--

Jonno wrote:

I notice that you have now abandoned the issues raised by Coleman
altogether. I didn't think that they were wrth too much more effort either.

Measuring temperature?
See how its done...

http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/sh1/t...ook_2-3_lq.pdf


This climate change sceptic looks a little more reasonable than most of the
sources that you have found for us. At least not so obviously wrong as
Coleman. But before we play another round of whackamole (which I am getting
tired of) let me ask you this. Did you do any research to see if her
arguments stand up? Did you look to see if the debunker had been debunked?
If not you are ignoring her advise on page one. This does not need to be an
adversarial situation you know, you could check these things out yourself.

The above will show you how crazy this situation has become....
I know nothing, you know nothing.

If one can cause enough FUD you can paralyse decision making. There are
those who would like you to feel helpless but you can resist by using your
intellect. I repeat my invitation for you to do so.

We are all fed through a filtered straw of newspapers, run by
politically influenced reports.
Think, out of the box (I hate that saying too), before we all get put
into one..


Lead the way by doing something other than posting denial propaganda.

A statistician and a mathematical genius were interviewed for a job.
Asked what 1000 and 1000 added together equalled, the mathematician
answered, without referring to his calculator that two thousand was
the usual answer.
The statistician, closed the curtains, pulled out his scientific
calculator, which he'd previously brought from Kmart at a reduced
price, and asked, "what would you like it to be?"


Ho ho ho. All the arguments about long term trends are necessarily
statistical. Deal with it.


That folks is what we are dealing with here.
Were using ALGore Rhythms.

Very droll.

David

Youre a very uppity type person, and youre fooling no one...

On 20/01/2010 6:00 PM, David Hare-Scott wrote:
Jonno wrote:

I notice that you have now abandoned the issues raised by Coleman
altogether. I didn't think that they were wrth too much more effort
either.

Measuring temperature?
See how its done...

http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/sh1/t...ook_2-3_lq.pdf


This climate change sceptic looks a little more reasonable than most
of the sources that you have found for us. At least not so obviously
wrong as Coleman. But before we play another round of whackamole
(which I am getting tired of) let me ask you this. Did you do any
research to see if her arguments stand up? Did you look to see if the
debunker had been debunked? If not you are ignoring her advise on page
one. This does not need to be an adversarial situation you know, you
could check these things out yourself.

The above will show you how crazy this situation has become....
I know nothing, you know nothing.

If one can cause enough FUD you can paralyse decision making. There
are those who would like you to feel helpless but you can resist by
using your intellect. I repeat my invitation for you to do so.

We are all fed through a filtered straw of newspapers, run by
politically influenced reports.
Think, out of the box (I hate that saying too), before we all get put
into one..


Lead the way by doing something other than posting denial propaganda.

A statistician and a mathematical genius were interviewed for a job.
Asked what 1000 and 1000 added together equalled, the mathematician
answered, without referring to his calculator that two thousand was
the usual answer.
The statistician, closed the curtains, pulled out his scientific
calculator, which he'd previously brought from Kmart at a reduced
price, and asked, "what would you like it to be?"


Ho ho ho. All the arguments about long term trends are necessarily
statistical. Deal with it.


That folks is what we are dealing with here.
Were using ALGore Rhythms.

Very droll.

David

--

On 20/01/2010 6:00 PM, David Hare-Scott wrote:
Jonno wrote:

I notice that you have now abandoned the issues raised by Coleman
altogether. I didn't think that they were wrth too much more effort
either.
No, I havent. The guys on the level, and so is the matter at hand. He's
completely correct! His issues stand!


Measuring temperature?
See how its done...

http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/sh1/t...ook_2-3_lq.pdf


This climate change sceptic looks a little more reasonable than most
of the sources that you have found for us. At least not so obviously
wrong as Coleman. But before we play another round of whackamole
(which I am getting tired of) let me ask you this. Did you do any
research to see if her arguments stand up? Did you look to see if the
debunker had been debunked? If not you are ignoring her advise on page
one. This does not need to be an adversarial situation you know, you
could check these things out yourself.

Not necessarily possible, Who controls the data! You should be more
reasonalbe and logical.
Your sound like the argument booth in Monthy python.
Youre not backing of some are you?
The above will show you how crazy this situation has become....
I know nothing, you know nothing.

If one can cause enough FUD you can paralyse decision making. There
are those who would like you to feel helpless but you can resist by
using your intellect. I repeat my invitation for you to do so.
We are all fed through a filtered straw of newspapers, run by
politically influenced reports.
Think, out of the box (I hate that saying too), before we all get put
into one..


Lead the way by doing something other than posting denial propaganda.
Propaganda is what others use.
Prove this global warming as man made and youre doing something
"Intellectual". You cant!!!!!
And seeing these people are not out to prove anything, the ones who are
trying to raise funds, (like ilk being speed camera governments,
Remember the Sheriff of Nottingham?) should do so.
Meanwhile all the polluters are getting away scott free. Make the public
pay? Not this little black duck, we fight back!

BTW the Himalayan Glacier melting theory has now been found to be
critically impossible to implement, due to the lack of heat.
2035 the year I believe it was. DEBUNKED! But thats only one. But can
you see the reason for them chucking this into the equation?
The more lies the better.
BTW Worst winter for a long time in the northern part of the globe.
Just a blip on my compass, but overall very encouraging.....

A statistician and a mathematical genius were interviewed for a job.
Asked what 1000 and 1000 added together equalled, the mathematician
answered, without referring to his calculator that two thousand was
the usual answer.
The statistician, closed the curtains, pulled out his scientific
calculator, which he'd previously brought from Kmart at a reduced
price, and asked, "what would you like it to be?"


Ho ho ho. All the arguments about long term trends are necessarily
statistical. Deal with it.
Father Christmas, you're ho ho hoing too early...I am dealing with it
and seeing it for what is is: a global scam made all the more disgusting
by touts like yourself..
Youre painting yourself into a creditability corner.. I MAY BE ABLE to
reveal who you are soon enough...
There are people who could be interested.
I am sad others havent backed me so far.
I guess they havent the time to do so.


That folks is what we are dealing with here.
Were using ALGore Rhythms.

Very droll.
Glad you like it.
You couldnt have thought of it.

David

--

Jonno wrote:
On 20/01/2010 6:00 PM, David Hare-Scott wrote:
Jonno wrote:

I notice that you have now abandoned the issues raised by Coleman
altogether. I didn't think that they were wrth too much more effort
either.
No, I havent. The guys on the level, and so is the matter at hand.
He's completely correct! His issues stand!



In a blinding flash of revelation I see it all now. Oh thankyou! Just that
one sentence has completely destroyed my position.

Measuring temperature?
See how its done...

http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/sh1/t...ook_2-3_lq.pdf


This climate change sceptic looks a little more reasonable than most
of the sources that you have found for us. At least not so obviously
wrong as Coleman. But before we play another round of whackamole
(which I am getting tired of) let me ask you this. Did you do any
research to see if her arguments stand up? Did you look to see if
the debunker had been debunked? If not you are ignoring her advise
on page one. This does not need to be an adversarial situation you
know, you could check these things out yourself.

Not necessarily possible, Who controls the data!

But is it the Illuminati or the Creatures from Roswell who are in charge?

You should be more
reasonalbe and logical.
Your sound like the argument booth in Monthy python.

This conversation is an ex parrot.

Youre not backing of some are you?
The above will show you how crazy this situation has become....
I know nothing, you know nothing.

If one can cause enough FUD you can paralyse decision making. There
are those who would like you to feel helpless but you can resist by
using your intellect. I repeat my invitation for you to do so.
We are all fed through a filtered straw of newspapers, run by
politically influenced reports.
Think, out of the box (I hate that saying too), before we all get
put into one..


Lead the way by doing something other than posting denial propaganda.
Propaganda is what others use.
Prove this global warming as man made and youre doing something
"Intellectual". You cant!!!!!
And seeing these people are not out to prove anything, the ones who
are trying to raise funds, (like ilk being speed camera governments,
Remember the Sheriff of Nottingham?) should do so.

More speed cameras means more money to spend on global warming research
don't you get it?

Meanwhile all the polluters are getting away scott free. Make the
public pay? Not this little black duck, we fight back!


Man the barricades! Raise the scarlet banner high, beneath its folds we'll
live or die!


BTW the Himalayan Glacier melting theory has now been found to be
critically impossible to implement, due to the lack of heat.
2035 the year I believe it was. DEBUNKED!

Absolutely. By 2035 there will be no more heat. All the hot air will have
been used up. The ice caps are safe. Whew!

But thats only one. But can
you see the reason for them chucking this into the equation?
The more lies the better.

It's the ghost of Goebbels past. He knew the Big Lie was easier that the
little lie.

BTW Worst winter for a long time in the northern part of the globe.
Just a blip on my compass, but overall very encouraging.....

A statistician and a mathematical genius were interviewed for a job.
Asked what 1000 and 1000 added together equalled, the mathematician
answered, without referring to his calculator that two thousand was
the usual answer.
The statistician, closed the curtains, pulled out his scientific
calculator, which he'd previously brought from Kmart at a reduced
price, and asked, "what would you like it to be?"


Ho ho ho. All the arguments about long term trends are necessarily
statistical. Deal with it.
Father Christmas, you're ho ho hoing too early...I am dealing with it
and seeing it for what is is: a global scam made all the more
disgusting by touts like yourself..

But you should see what they gave me when I sold my soul, a year's
subscription to Crikey, a set of steakknives and Tasmania!

Youre painting yourself into a creditability corner.. I MAY BE ABLE to
reveal who you are soon enough...

Ha ha! You don't realise that I type under a cone of silence! Even your
towering intellect will never find out who I am.

Of all the clever disguises in the world I chose to masquerade as David
Hare-Scott. I'll bet you couldn't have come up with that.

There are people who could be interested.
I am sad others havent backed me so far.
I guess they havent the time to do so.


I am sorry to hear all the wild-eyed conspiracy theorists of aus.gardens are
out to lunch. Perhaps they are all dark and evil lefties who really do want
world government. You should find a safe haven, say on a small island,
where you can secede before they get back.



That folks is what we are dealing with here.
Were using ALGore Rhythms.

Very droll.
Glad you like it.
You couldnt have thought of it.

You are so cutting and cruel (sniff).

David

Ease up om the whisky.
It tends to create a hole in youre gut.