Sunday February 24, 2008, 9:43 am
Blaming an infinitesimal rise in CO2 for the devastation humans have caused by pollution, bottom trawling, logging watersheds and over fishing is breathtakingly stupid...or evil.

Sunday February 24, 2008, 4:43 pm
We are allowing ourselves to be killed...and the rest of the world as well...there seems to be no stopping greed and ignorancefrom exterminating life on this planet.

Monday February 25, 2008, 6:55 am
A first step is to lower the quota of fish and not over fish, but the problem is that no fishermen will voluntarily do that because that is their livelihood. Some do it just for "science" like the Japanese. We need cleaner sources of energy, recycling, and people willing to downsize to show their ecological status and conscience, instead of people wanting out do their neighbors by showing off with bigger houses decorated with rare and exotic wood, expensive cars, and electronic toys. We need a change in attitude and a desire to be "green."

Monday February 25, 2008, 7:55 am
Denial of climate change impacts = stupid (and evil)

Monday February 25, 2008, 12:12 pm
"Climate models are being developed with very little ability to test out of sample. Furthermore, the climate science bandwagon has come about solely because of supposed anthropogenic climate change, which means that their funding is intrinsically tied to climate change happening /and/ being man-made. A more self-interested group I could not find anywhere, even looking at the researchers who were paid by big tobacco companies to tell us cigarettes are safe."

BTW Chris. The proof that 1998 was the peak of the present warming and every year since has been cooler is available from James Hansen's own corrected data.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt

When you are through looking at it, perhaps we could have a little talk about how evil it is to blame a trace gas upon which all life depends for everything gone wrong...like pollution and overfishing.

How evil do you think creating such a diversion away from real problems might be.

How much attention have you given the fact that something really, really toxic is being spread around the Earth? I'm talking about DEPLETED URANIUM.
Do you think that is better for fish than a 1F degree temperature rise over one hundred years?

Monday February 25, 2008, 1:09 pm
No author for the quote AGAIN - wonder why (Exxon scientist again???)

Thanks for sending us to a dead link for your evidence LOL

Here is a link which showes your 1998 claims are BS (as usual)

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

and that is not the first time you have seen this - why contine the fraud when it is easily disproven??

Evil is denying climate change and puting millions of lives and thousands of species at risk - especially when YOU KNOW YOU ARE WRONG! (THAT IS THE ESSENCE OF EVIL)

Climate change is in NO WAY diverting attention from other issueses - in fact it is focusing the issues such as pollution (like mercury from burning coal), dieseses (tropical diseases spreading noth as the earth warms), deforeststion (20% of the human CO2 contribution is from deforestation)and so on...

Depleted uranium - please show where this is killing thousands (potentially millions) of people and leading to the extinction(possibly thousands)of species - yes, it may be a problem but nothing compaired to climate change. Even it it is a problem, that in no way counters the facts that climate change is real and we can do something about the current warming trend...

Please get off your soap box and discuss the topic at hand - stop preaching your disproven dogma...

Monday February 25, 2008, 1:13 pm
Now for those who want to take action against climate change, please join me and the othe 1,600 plus members of my Global Warming group:

http://www.care2.com/c2c/group/StoppingGlobalWarming

Monday February 25, 2008, 2:52 pm
Chris, you keep pretending that valid links don't work. Is that to prevent people from seeing with their own eyes from a source you can not smear with Exxon, that THE WARMING STOPPED TEN YEARS AGO?

The whole thing is a fraud. Nothing unusual happened during the 1990s that hadn't happened in the 1920-1940 period and all you can do is lie about it and smear truthtellers.
Evil is pretending climate change is un-natural, warping ecomomies and causing food prices to escalate.

Deliberate starvation is evil Chris.

DU is a REAL DANGER to every living thing on the planet.

Monday February 25, 2008, 4:17 pm
Actually, 1998 was an El Ninio year, thus the spike in the data I provided...

Has anyone else tried this link with any success - its not working for me - I like to check Judy's "information" - its usually good for laughs...

Please people do a search on "temperature records" and look for yourself - or Judy are we supposed to just look at what you tell us to (and give a broken link at that)...Why one repeats prapaganda which can be easily fact checked is truely amazing to me...

Deliberate starvation is indeed evil - and telling us to ignore a serious problem (don't worry, there is nothing wrong)which will potentially starve millions is discusting... People, please do a search on "climate change hunger" and make your own decisions...

Monday February 25, 2008, 5:38 pm
Unbelievable. OK, we will pretend that you are having trouble. 9 people noted the story and as of now the link works
Go to: http://www.care2.com/news/member/911565885/649740
. Although I think you are faking because the link is to is to James Hansen's GISS and you keep trying to pretend I'm making it up.


Here's an hour long interview with Christopher, Lord Monckton in which he tells how he caught out the IPCC faking data. You might enjoy it, especially the part about how they tried to pass off a figure for heating in which they had neglected to use the only equation which will give a correct answer. Priceless!
http://www.aim.org/podcast/lord-monckton-debunks-global-warming/

Monday February 25, 2008, 6:47 pm
I pasted an excerpt from the article below. Global warming is still debated whether it is temporary or part of a cyclical change. Man can only change what he is contributing to the problem of global warming and the health of the oceans. The question is what can governments do to decrease carbon dioxide that is absorbed by the oceans, because the more acidic they become, the less hospitable they are to sea life. And what can be done to decrease pollution and toxic run-off into the oceans that are creating dead zones where life cannot survive?

"There also is growing concern that the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, CO2, is steadily rising, and oceans directly assimilate CO2. As ocean concentration of CO2 increases, the oceans automatically become more acidic.

This, in turn, may interfere with the ability of shellfish to form their shells and corals to form their structures due to a lack of calcium and also is likely to affect tiny creatures at the base of the food chain.

Dead zones, ocean areas low in oxygen, are increasing as a result of pollution from urban and agriculture areas. There are an estimated 200 temporary or permanent dead zones up from around 150 in 2003, the UNEP report shows."

Monday February 25, 2008, 7:54 pm
The data in your "link" - the last one does work - is meaningless Judy :)
There is no reference as to where these data come from, how they were obtained or any thing at all for that matter...

Again - look at the data here, or do a search for your own information, and look at the long-term trends (speaking to the intellegent readers since Judy won't)

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

I will pass on the McChicken (I mean Monckton) vidio considering he is only "lord" of the denialists. Here is his background:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Monckton%2C_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley

Imagen that, Judy pushing prapaganda from a person associated with Exxon. What a surprise :)

Please folks, do some research yourself on the people Judy quotes and the data presents

Monday February 25, 2008, 8:02 pm
Oh, this is halarious. Here is the site Judy herself proclaims as the site with the facts (at least one table that is). I know I'm not supposed to look at other information on this site - since you are directing us to the important part (and you would not mislead us with only feeding us some of the information)

Why would Judy not direct us to this part of the site??

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

Tuesday February 26, 2008, 12:28 am
Judy sez: "When you are through looking at it, perhaps we could have a little talk about how evil it is to blame a trace gas upon which all life depends for everything gone wrong...like pollution and overfishing."

CO2 is not a trace gas, you buffoon! And too much of any good thing can be bad, of course.

What about ozone and how essential that is to life on Earth? Yet there is even less of that in our atmosphere than CO2!

Tuesday February 26, 2008, 7:11 am
Ok I am going to weigh in on the ozone thing-Dale It is true that upper level ozone is depleted -however lower level ozone which should not be here is increasing due to sunlight interaction with fossel fuels emmissions - and it is very bad for us -this data can be supported through NOOA and other sites if you care to google it and it is classified under good ozone bad ozone-thats how I found it-Blessings

Tuesday February 26, 2008, 7:36 am
Judy -the article stated that co2 was making our oceans more acidic -I did not see where it said it was causing global warming- the article was about the decline in our ocean life because of the acid problem brought on by co2 in the atmosphere which is one of many of the causes of acid rain -as prior stated in another comment PH is very important and to high or to low kills life within the biosystem affected and an acidic ocean will kill all life within it that cannot adjust and that is most of it- there are a ton of reasons to reduce co2 emissions from our current technology and the least of it is global warming-by the time everyone gets through trying to prove whether or not this is/is not the cause we may all be dead from something else like no life left on the planet from all the OTHER life killing things in our atmosphere-Did y'all know that millions of dollars in crop damage and loss- due to lower level ozone-acid rain ect. occur every year.and the loss of old growth forests in huge amounts is contributing to crazy weather and long droughts that are killing our food crops and causing starvation around the world! Not to mention increasing the intensity of straightline winds that would have been bad enough on their own but now that there are less trees and the problem is intensified? We balance out these things and the co2 level will balance itself out- also last but not by any means least there is a project out called greenfuel technologies that is an awesome thing-this company without having to modify existing things are trapping greenhouse emissions from coal plants ect. and using algae to clean our atmosphere- producing as by products biofuel and food for animal as well as reducing co2 emissions -thereby reducing acid rain-now if we can just keep on planting trees and stop them from clearing oldgrowth forests -this planet may just have a chance to survive global warming and mans pollution.

Tuesday February 26, 2008, 8:06 am
Will you all get a clue. The whole thing is a hoax. The oceans are basic and the ph doesn't ever go past 8 and 6 is neutral. CO2 isn't a problem, it is a neccesary component of life and even if we burned all the oil, coal and gas we might just double the amount in the air and it would still be a beneficial trace gas.
It is a con job by crooks.
Wake up.
You are being had.

Tuesday February 26, 2008, 8:16 am
Readers please do a search on "carbon dioxide ocean acidity" and read the facts for yourself. The only con job is from the denialists :)

By the way, thanks for directing us to that Hanson website - though your interpretation of the data is bogus, there is a good summary of the data by Hanson himself (note his discussion on the 1998 BS you are promoting)

Global Temperature Trends: 2007 Summation

The year 2007 tied for second warmest in the period of instrumental data. The unusual warmth in 2007 is noteworthy because it occurs at a time when solar irradiance is at a minimum and the equatorial Pacific Ocean is in the cool phase of its El Nino cycle which should be causing cooling.

http://www.care2.com/news/member/537645068/650227

Tuesday February 26, 2008, 8:22 am
Climate orthodoxy perpetrates a hoax
Monday, February 25, 2008
GORDON FULKS

G ov. Ted Kulongoski's successful purge of George Taylor -- Oregon's former state climatologist and soon-to-be former director of the Oregon Climate Service at Oregon State University -- has a clear message for scientists: agree with the governor or you too will disappear. Don't hint that man-made global warming is the greatest scientific hoax of our time. It offends the governor.

Many, like Taylor, are unwilling to support political agendas at odds with good science but also too polite to play the role of the little boy in "The Emperor's New Clothes." They will quietly say, "Let's look at the evidence concerning man-made global warming (more properly known as Anthropogenic Global Warming or AGW), because science is based entirely on evidence."

As a meteorologist, Taylor would show that the warm-up we saw peak in the 1990s was very similar to the warm-up in the Dust Bowl era of the 1930s, before there was significant use of fossil fuels. He would also mention the sharp decline in global temperature this January, returning us close to where we were decades ago. Climate change is perfectly normal.

As a physicist, let me point out that our understanding of climate was not "settled more than a decade ago," as global warming alarmists argue. Science is never settled, as Albert Einstein spectacularly demonstrated.

Our knowledge of the interplay between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature has gone through three stages over the past 20 years. Al Gore correctly points out that early ice-core data gathered from glaciers around the world showed a very strong correlation between carbon dioxide and temperature over 650,000 years. Because carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, most of us assumed that it regulated global temperature.

By 1999, improving ice-core techniques produced a stunning reversal, showing that the global temperature changed many centuries before carbon dioxide changed. This proved that natural climate cycles were causing changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide, probably by affecting how much remained dissolved in the oceans.

Using new ice-core evidence, Caillon, et al. (Science, March 2003), concluded that "CO2 is not the forcing that initially drives the climatic system."

This should have convinced alarmists that their scare was unwarranted. But too many would have been thrown out of work, and too many politicians would have lost a hot-button issue. So they ramped up the alarm, relying on ever-more-contrived theories to explain the ice-core data.

In 2007, their last theoretical bastion crumbled. Climatologists announced that a fundamental signature of greenhouse gases, predicted by all U.N. climate models, is missing. There is no "hot spot" from CO2 -induced warming at tropical latitudes. Satellites and weather balloons show normal temperature profiles. The climate models are fundamentally flawed. (Douglass, et al., International Journal of Climatology, Royal Meteorological Society, October 2007.)

Of course, with the abysmal state of science education and the near-total support of the media, global warming propagandists saw no reason to alter their strategy. We continue to hear that catastrophe is just around the corner, and we must sign up for ever more expensive and environmentally damaging "solutions."

A very important break in this discussion came from The New York Times on Jan.1: "In 2008, a 100 Percent Chance of Alarm" science writer, John Tierney, describes how we are being victimized by a vast array of opportunists. They point out anecdotal evidence of warming and ignore counter evidence -- such as the fact that the global temperature last year "was actually lower than any year since 2001. "Governor Kulongoski should understand that responsible science is nonpartisan. We follow scientific evidence, not those lacking scientific training.

Forcing out a scientist because he won't go along with your favorite hoax hurts Oregon science and ultimately every citizen in this state.

Readers interested in more information from outstanding scientists (including George Taylor) should visit these Web sites: www.icecap.us/ www.worldclimatereport.com/ http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/ www.co2science.org

Gordon J. Fulks, Ph.D. lives in Corbett and can be reached at gordonfulks@hotmail.com. He holds a doctorate in physics from the University of Chicago, Laboratory for Astrophysics and Space Research.

Tuesday February 26, 2008, 8:31 am
Icecaps is funded by Exxon and you direct us there - what a supprise!

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=24

If you have read ANYTHING on the subject you would see how people, like Hanson above, that support manmade climate change have consistently been suppressed. Please don't give us Exxon "facts" on this matter...

Tuesday February 26, 2008, 8:33 am
and now you will blather about the "Exxon smear campaign"...

Readers, please see why this connection is important:

Scientists' Report Documents ExxonMobil’s Tobacco-like Disinformation Campaign on Global Warming Science

http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html

Tuesday February 26, 2008, 8:37 am
Hansen has been well paid for his con-job starting with $250,000 in 1992.
All you have left is your usual Exxon junk. You never talk about the $100 million a year Gore is spending on publicity for his scam, do you?

Gore plans to launch $100 million a year multimedia global…

Money – Not too long ago, a premier ad agency wouldn't touch a campaign warning about the effects of global warming, fearing backlash from the automakers and oil companies that keep Madison Avenue's lights on. But now one of the most hotly contended pitches out there is for the Alliance for Climate Protection, the organization formed last year by Al Gore.

Tuesday February 26, 2008, 8:46 am
and the spew continues - please people do your research...

I'm done here (btw, this is a typical Judy debate..running from one prapaganda pice to the next)

Tuesday February 26, 2008, 9:08 am
Yes, it is unfortunate for you that I bring up the real money and power behind the scam because then you have to disappear.

Exxon spent $19 million over 20 years. Compare that to the $100 million a year that is planned to push the climate hoax.

http://mobile.adage.com/blackberry/index.php

AdAge
Latest News
Madison Ave. Warms to Climate Change
Shops Vie for Al Gore's Alliance for Climate Protection Biz

ByMatthew CreamerandBrooke Capps

Published: August 27, 2007

Not too long ago, a premier ad agency wouldn't touch a campaign warning about the effects of global warming, fearing backlash from the automakers and oil companies that keep Madison Avenue's lights on. But now one of the most hotly contended pitches out there is for the Alliance for Climate Protection, the organization formed last year by Al Gore.

Four elite agencies -- Crispin Porter & Bogusky, Bartle Bogle Hegarty, the Martin Agency and Y&R -- are squaring off for the business and are expected to present to the former vice president himself early next month, according to executives familiar with the review. The budget for the "historic, three-to-five-year, multimedia global campaign," as the request for proposals puts it, is contingent on how much money the alliance raises. Media spending will likely be more than $100 million a year.
"

Tuesday February 26, 2008, 9:20 am
Judy i am awake -have been for a long time and if I am being had as you put it- then my dear I have been a fool for lesser things-so if being had has you put it- means we clean up our planet-bring it more into balance preserve life here-then so be it-I'll gladly be had with the rest of us who are working to bring a more earth friendly enviroment to our planet-Blessings

Tuesday February 26, 2008, 9:34 am
Do all you can to reduce pollution, but don't mix up CO2 production with pollution. That is the scam.

Tuesday February 26, 2008, 11:57 am
Merely asserting that the concerns about global warming is a scam, doesn't make it a scam. Assertions, cherry-picking, and flawed assumptions are all you got, Judy.

Tuesday February 26, 2008, 12:18 pm
Falsication Of
The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Eects
Within The Frame Of Physics
Version 3.0 (September 9, 2007)
replaces Version 1.0 (July 7, 2007) and later
Gerhard Gerlich
Institut fur Mathematische Physik
Technische Universitat Carolo-Wilhelmina
Mendelssohnstrae 3
D-38106 Braunschweig
Federal Republic of Germany
g.gerlich@tu-bs.de
Ralf D. Tscheuschner
Postfach 60 27 62
D-22237 Hamburg
Federal Republic of Germany
ralfd@na-net.ornl.gov
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v3.pdf