Jonno wrote:
The Chicken Little Award, a dubious achievement award given by the
National Anxiety Center to people and organizations that they
consider to be engaged in deliberately false, media-driven scare
campaigns regarding environmental matters.

http://www.anxietycenter.com/climate/main.htm

This site is only for those who care about truth.

I wonder if that is true. They start out with a reference to the
mythological and mystical doom that awaits us in 2012. This gets people
thinking about myths and media driven rubbish. This has nothing to do with
climate change but it is a good debating trick. The trick is called guilt
by association. It goes: A is rubbish, assume B is like A, therefore B is
rubbish.

They then go on to bring out the old climate change is caused by the sun
canard. Specifically in this case it is the sunspot cycle. While it is
thought that solar forcing is a component of climate change it is not the
only factor. Something has caused a cycle of ice ages and warmer periods
over millions of years - the sun. However the claim that the current cycle
of warming is entirely due to the sun has been roundly debunked. The fact
that they quote this Marusek as gospel and fail to even mention there is a
good case against him, much less explain the case against his view, tells me
that the author is not even handed and looking for truth but pushing an
agenda.


If it is or not, I dont know eather, but keep searching. This is my
input.

Well I suggest that you keep looking. So far all you are finding are sites
(such as the above and junkscience.com) run by contrarians and lobbyists.
Why won't you read anything by actual climate scientists?

David

"David Hare-Scott" wrote in message
...
Jonno wrote:
The Chicken Little Award, a dubious achievement award given by the
National Anxiety Center to people and organizations that they
consider to be engaged in deliberately false, media-driven scare
campaigns regarding environmental matters.

http://www.anxietycenter.com/climate/main.htm

This site is only for those who care about truth.

I wonder if that is true. They start out with a reference to the
mythological and mystical doom that awaits us in 2012. This gets people
thinking about myths and media driven rubbish. This has nothing to do
with climate change but it is a good debating trick. The trick is called
guilt by association. It goes: A is rubbish, assume B is like A,
therefore B is rubbish.

They then go on to bring out the old climate change is caused by the sun
canard. Specifically in this case it is the sunspot cycle. While it is
thought that solar forcing is a component of climate change it is not the
only factor. Something has caused a cycle of ice ages and warmer periods
over millions of years - the sun. However the claim that the current
cycle of warming is entirely due to the sun has been roundly debunked.
The fact that they quote this Marusek as gospel and fail to even mention
there is a good case against him, much less explain the case against his
view, tells me that the author is not even handed and looking for truth
but pushing an agenda.


If it is or not, I dont know eather, but keep searching. This is my
input.

Well I suggest that you keep looking. So far all you are finding are
sites (such as the above and junkscience.com) run by contrarians and
lobbyists. Why won't you read anything by actual climate scientists?

David

Read the emails hitting the news.

"David Hare-Scott" wrote in message
...
Jonno wrote:

"David Hare-Scott" wrote in message
...
Jonno wrote:
The Chicken Little Award, a dubious achievement award given by the
National Anxiety Center to people and organizations that they
consider to be engaged in deliberately false, media-driven scare
campaigns regarding environmental matters.

http://www.anxietycenter.com/climate/main.htm

This site is only for those who care about truth.

I wonder if that is true. They start out with a reference to the
mythological and mystical doom that awaits us in 2012. This gets
people thinking about myths and media driven rubbish. This has
nothing to do with climate change but it is a good debating trick. The
trick is called guilt by association. It goes: A is rubbish,
assume B is like A, therefore B is rubbish.

They then go on to bring out the old climate change is caused by the
sun canard. Specifically in this case it is the sunspot cycle. While it
is thought that solar forcing is a component of climate
change it is not the only factor. Something has caused a cycle of
ice ages and warmer periods over millions of years - the sun. However
the claim that the current cycle of warming is entirely due
to the sun has been roundly debunked. The fact that they quote this
Marusek as gospel and fail to even mention there is a good case
against him, much less explain the case against his view, tells me
that the author is not even handed and looking for truth but pushing
an agenda.
If it is or not, I dont know eather, but keep searching. This is my
input.

Well I suggest that you keep looking. So far all you are finding are
sites (such as the above and junkscience.com) run by contrarians and
lobbyists. Why won't you read anything by actual climate scientists?

David

The truth is always surrounded by some mistruth.
You have to wade thru a lot of crap to get to the truth.
At least I was looking.

More than many citizens are doing. Have you considered also reading
sources other than from contrarians and lobbyists?

David
Some one wrote
where is the ocean rising exactly? not according to any Government tide
bureaus, not according to any investigation by scientists in the Maldives by
the director of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics Department at Stockholm
University,Nils Axel Morner. Not on the Island of the dead Tasmania where
the tide was marked ln the 1800s. There was a story about islanders leaving
their island in NZ territory by alarmists a couple of years ago but that was
refuted by the NZ government. We live beside the ocean and canals and have
for 50 years and nothing is happening, sorry to be a wet blanket but nothing
at all. I could build computer models that would show alarming results but
the climate really doesn't care it.. If anyone really thinks that the
majority of the worlds scientists are in agreement about this then go to the
US senate site
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...d-6e2d71db52d9
where you will find that the vast majority of climate scientists debunk
Global Warming altogether.

Jonno's comment:
So while the Arctic ocean is opening up, the antarctic is undecided, and a
large proportion arent following the Government line, do you really think
man kind can change the weather?

http://tinyurl.com/Sea-Rising
This one may work....
That file appears to have gone missing.........

Taken from Washington Post:

"I had the privilege of being fired by Al Gore, since I refused to go along
with his alarmism. I did not need the job that badly," Happer said this
week. Happer is a Professor at the Department of Physics at Princeton
University and former Director of Energy Research at the Department of
Energy from 1990 to 1993, has published over 200 scientific papers, and is a
fellow of the American Physical Society, The American Association for the
Advancement of Science, and the National Academy of Sciences.
US senate site
Still tracking this link it dioesnt work at the moment....
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...d-6e2d71db52d9
where you will find that the vast majority of climate scientists debunk
Global Warming altogether.

Jonno's comment:
So while the Arctic ocean is opening up, the antarctic is undecided, and a
large proportion arent following the Government line, do you really think
man kind can change the weather?

This page is as close as I can get....
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...Minority.Facts


"Jonno" wrote in message
...
Taken from Washington Post:

"I had the privilege of being fired by Al Gore, since I refused to go
along with his alarmism. I did not need the job that badly," Happer said
this week. Happer is a Professor at the Department of Physics at Princeton
University and former Director of Energy Research at the Department of
Energy from 1990 to 1993, has published over 200 scientific papers, and is
a fellow of the American Physical Society, The American Association for
the Advancement of Science, and the National Academy of Sciences.
US senate site
Still tracking this link it dioesnt work at the moment....
This link appears to be removed
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...d-6e2d71db52d9
where you will find that the vast majority of climate scientists debunk
Global Warming altogether.

Jonno's comment:
So while the Arctic ocean is opening up, the antarctic is undecided, and
a large proportion arent following the Government line, do you really
think man kind can change the weather?

"SG1" wrote in message
...

"David Hare-Scott" wrote in message
...
Jonno wrote:
The Chicken Little Award, a dubious achievement award given by the
National Anxiety Center to people and organizations that they
consider to be engaged in deliberately false, media-driven scare
campaigns regarding environmental matters.

http://www.anxietycenter.com/climate/main.htm

This site is only for those who care about truth.

I wonder if that is true. They start out with a reference to the
mythological and mystical doom that awaits us in 2012. This gets people
thinking about myths and media driven rubbish. This has nothing to do
with climate change but it is a good debating trick. The trick is called
guilt by association. It goes: A is rubbish, assume B is like A,
therefore B is rubbish.

They then go on to bring out the old climate change is caused by the sun
canard. Specifically in this case it is the sunspot cycle. While it is
thought that solar forcing is a component of climate change it is not the
only factor. Something has caused a cycle of ice ages and warmer periods
over millions of years - the sun. However the claim that the current
cycle of warming is entirely due to the sun has been roundly debunked.
The fact that they quote this Marusek as gospel and fail to even mention
there is a good case against him, much less explain the case against his
view, tells me that the author is not even handed and looking for truth
but pushing an agenda.


If it is or not, I dont know eather, but keep searching. This is my
input.

Well I suggest that you keep looking. So far all you are finding are
sites (such as the above and junkscience.com) run by contrarians and
lobbyists. Why won't you read anything by actual climate scientists?

David

Read the emails hitting the news.
Youre not up to date re these emails David?
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009...l-cooling/Then how about this.Inhofe Comments on Obama Copenhagen AnnouncementWashington, D.C.-Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of theSenate Committee on Environment and Public Works, today commented on thenews that President Obama will travel to Copenhagen, Denmark for the UnitedNations Climate Conference."I suspect President Obama is making the trip to Copenhagen in order to'save' the climate conference," Sen. Inhofe said. "Yet no amount of loftyrhetoric or promises of future commitments can save it. This is due in largepart to the fact cap-and-trade legislation in the Senate is dying on thevine, and, as important, recent revelations of leading climate scientistswho appear to have manufactured the climate 'consensus'-revelations thatcast doubt over the entire global warming enterprise."Moreover, it's clear that China, India, and the developing world, whichwill soon be responsible for the vast bulk of greenhouse gas emissions, willnot accept mandatory cuts in emissions-despite entreaties from PresidentObama. The U.S. Senate has made clear on numerous occasions that unilateralaction by the United States is unacceptable, because it will harm oureconomy and have virtually no effect on climate change."

Im gonna stop posting now
I think we have said enough.
Those that know seem to have won out.
Im not a skeptic.
Im a realist. Show me the proof.
Weve seem proof of lies, found out by honest men.
Youre all alowed to be fooled once,b ut twice is cutting it for me....

"Jonno" wrote in message
...

"SG1" wrote in message
...

"David Hare-Scott" wrote in message
...
Jonno wrote:
The Chicken Little Award, a dubious achievement award given by the
National Anxiety Center to people and organizations that they
consider to be engaged in deliberately false, media-driven scare
campaigns regarding environmental matters.

http://www.anxietycenter.com/climate/main.htm

This site is only for those who care about truth.

I wonder if that is true. They start out with a reference to the
mythological and mystical doom that awaits us in 2012. This gets people
thinking about myths and media driven rubbish. This has nothing to do
with climate change but it is a good debating trick. The trick is
called guilt by association. It goes: A is rubbish, assume B is like A,
therefore B is rubbish.

They then go on to bring out the old climate change is caused by the sun
canard. Specifically in this case it is the sunspot cycle. While it is
thought that solar forcing is a component of climate change it is not
the only factor. Something has caused a cycle of ice ages and warmer
periods over millions of years - the sun. However the claim that the
current cycle of warming is entirely due to the sun has been roundly
debunked. The fact that they quote this Marusek as gospel and fail to
even mention there is a good case against him, much less explain the
case against his view, tells me that the author is not even handed and
looking for truth but pushing an agenda.


If it is or not, I dont know eather, but keep searching. This is my
input.

Well I suggest that you keep looking. So far all you are finding are
sites (such as the above and junkscience.com) run by contrarians and
lobbyists. Why won't you read anything by actual climate scientists?

David

Read the emails hitting the news.
Youre not up to date re these emails David?
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009...l-cooling/Then
how about this.Inhofe Comments on Obama Copenhagen AnnouncementWashington,
D.C.-Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of theSenate Committee
on Environment and Public Works, today commented on thenews that President
Obama will travel to Copenhagen, Denmark for the UnitedNations Climate
Conference."I suspect President Obama is making the trip to Copenhagen in
order to'save' the climate conference," Sen. Inhofe said. "Yet no amount
of loftyrhetoric or promises of future commitments can save it. This is
due in largepart to the fact cap-and-trade legislation in the Senate is
dying on thevine, and, as important, recent revelations of leading climate
scientistswho appear to have manufactured the climate
'consensus'-revelations thatcast doubt over the entire global warming
enterprise."Moreover, it's clear that China, India, and the developing
world, whichwill soon be responsible for the vast bulk of greenhouse gas
emissions, willnot accept mandatory cuts in emissions-despite entreaties
from PresidentObama. The U.S. Senate has made clear on numerous occasions
that unilateralaction by the United States is unacceptable, because it
will harm oureconomy and have virtually no effect on climate change."

Seems like someone is blocking things....
This site has al lthe relevant links... for reasons why now the Australian
Liberal part is in disagreement re Climate change causes.
I am not involved in any of these power seekers. Nor am I part of any
political party, but its obvious "there's something rotten in the state of
Denmark" Shakespeare said it.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...Minority.Facts

"Jonno" wrote in message
...





Well I suggest that you keep looking. So far all you are finding are
sites (such as the above and junkscience.com) run by contrarians and
lobbyists. Why won't you read anything by actual climate scientists?

David

The truth is always surrounded by some mistruth.
You have to wade thru a lot of crap to get to the truth.
At least I was looking.

More than many citizens are doing. Have you considered also reading
sources other than from contrarians and lobbyists?

David

If you could come up with something we may get there.


Try this:

http://www.realclimate.org/

It's run by actual climate scientists

David

Real scientists who agree with Al Gore?

"David Hare-Scott" wrote in message
...

"Jonno" wrote in message
...





Well I suggest that you keep looking. So far all you are finding are
sites (such as the above and junkscience.com) run by contrarians and
lobbyists. Why won't you read anything by actual climate scientists?

David

The truth is always surrounded by some mistruth.
You have to wade thru a lot of crap to get to the truth.
At least I was looking.

More than many citizens are doing. Have you considered also reading
sources other than from contrarians and lobbyists?

David

If you could come up with something we may get there.


Try this:

http://www.realclimate.org/

It's run by actual climate scientists

David

Resignations
a.. Tony Abbott
b.. Nick Minchin
c.. Sophie Mirabella
d.. Stephen Parry
e.. Eric Abetz
f.. Michael Johnson
g.. Tony Smith
h.. Judith Adams
i.. David Bushby
j.. Mathias Cormann
k.. Mitch Fifield
l.. Brett Mason
They cant agree either.
Youre not up to their class, and neither am I but I can see who is going to
pay for it.
But there is no garantee on a real solution either.




"ArSee" wrote in message
...
Real scientists who agree with Al Gore?

"David Hare-Scott" wrote in message
...

"Jonno" wrote in message
...





Well I suggest that you keep looking. So far all you are finding are
sites (such as the above and junkscience.com) run by contrarians and
lobbyists. Why won't you read anything by actual climate scientists?

David

The truth is always surrounded by some mistruth.
You have to wade thru a lot of crap to get to the truth.
At least I was looking.

More than many citizens are doing. Have you considered also reading
sources other than from contrarians and lobbyists?

David

If you could come up with something we may get there.


Try this:

http://www.realclimate.org/

It's run by actual climate scientists

David

A real scientist, not one with shares.

I'm sure you know who said it.



if you had any grasp on science you would know that consensus is not a
word that is used in the world of science. One thousand people could
support your theory or supposition, and one person can falsify it and
completely destroy it.

Since the IPCC has observed in its 2001 report that of all the CO2 in the
atmosphere, only 4% is of anthropogenic origin. Another recent report has
indicated that this ratio of natural to anthropogenic CO2 has remained the
same for over 15 years.

So, you could take every one off this planet, and every trace of them ever
being here, and reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by only 17 ppm,
which considering there is currently 388 ppm, is bugger all.

An ETS will not help this situation, nor anything that man can do, what we
need is the courage and sense to do nothing.

"David Hare-Scott" wrote in message
...

"Jonno" wrote in message
...





Well I suggest that you keep looking. So far all you are finding are
sites (such as the above and junkscience.com) run by contrarians and
lobbyists. Why won't you read anything by actual climate scientists?

David

The truth is always surrounded by some mistruth.
You have to wade thru a lot of crap to get to the truth.
At least I was looking.

More than many citizens are doing. Have you considered also reading
sources other than from contrarians and lobbyists?

David

If you could come up with something we may get there.


Try this:

http://www.realclimate.org/

It's run by actual climate scientists

David

"David Hare-Scott" wrote in message
...

"Jonno" wrote in message
...





Well I suggest that you keep looking. So far all you are
finding are sites (such as the above and junkscience.com) run by
contrarians and lobbyists. Why won't you read anything by actual
climate scientists? David

The truth is always surrounded by some mistruth.
You have to wade thru a lot of crap to get to the truth.
At least I was looking.

More than many citizens are doing. Have you considered also
reading sources other than from contrarians and lobbyists?

David

If you could come up with something we may get there.


Try this:

http://www.realclimate.org/

It's run by actual climate scientists

David

ArSee wrote:
Real scientists who agree with Al Gore?


Real scientists who are qualified and have made a career in their discipline
and publish in peer reviewed scientific journals. Unlike many others who
are scientists in some other discipline or who are just lobbyists,
journalists or politicians without any particular qualification, who publish
only in the popular press and internet.

We had the same contrast in sources of information and reliability of
opinion with the issue of the dangers of tobacco smoking. Not surprising
some of the so called experts who lobbied for Big Tobacco now lobby for Big
Oil and Big Coal. For example Miloy and Singer.


David

On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 05:39:42 +0000, ArSee wrote:

A real scientist, not one with shares.

I'm sure you know who said it.



if you had any grasp on science you would know that consensus is not a
word that is used in the world of science. One thousand people could
support your theory or supposition, and one person can falsify it and
completely destroy it.

correcto.

Since the IPCC has observed in its 2001 report that of all the CO2 in
the
atmosphere, only 4% is of anthropogenic origin.

The point is whether that additional (and very rapidly) CO2 is the
tipping point to a greenhouse effect.