ka6uup wrote:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...b-bd9faf4dcdb7

http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics

In article ,
heatwave wrote:

ka6uup wrote:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...gs&ContentReco
rd_id=2674e64f-802a-23ad-490b-bd9faf4dcdb7

http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics

The two main things affecting earths climate is the sun and small
changes in the thermal conductivity of the solar system. What exists
between the earth and sun is not a perfect vacuum but one with solar
ejecta and dust in it. Some of the dust is from outside the solar
system.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

heatwave wrote:
ka6uup wrote:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...b-bd9faf4dcdb7


http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics


“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to
others. It doesn’t
have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been
given on
scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists.”
- Indian geologist
Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the
UN-supported
International Year of the Planet.
“So far, real measurements give no ground for concern about a
catastrophic future
warming.” - Scientist Dr. Jarl R. Ahlbeck, a chemical engineer at Abo
Akademi
University in Finland, author of 200 scientific publications and former
Greenpeace
member.
“Anyone who claims that the debate is over and the conclusions are firm
has a
fundamentally unscientific approach to one of the most momentous issues
of our time.”
- Solar physicist Dr. Pal Brekke, senior advisor to the Norwegian Space
Centre in Oslo.
Brekke has published more than 40 peer-reviewed scientific articles on
the sun and solar
interaction with the Earth.
“The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they
only are based
on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not
include, for
example, solar activity.” - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher
at the Institute of
Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico
“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is
only a fringe of
scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S
Government
Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research
Division of
NOAA.
“Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually
have little impact,
as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the
worldwide
scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the
Department of Chemical
and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.
“After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing
skeptics
to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet.” - Climate statistician
Dr. William M. Briggs,
who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the
American
Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an
Associate Editor of
Monthly Weather Review.
“The Kyoto theorists have put the cart before the horse. It is global
warming that triggers
higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the other way
round…A large
number of critical documents submitted at the 1995 U.N. conference in
Madrid vanished
without a trace. As a result, the discussion was one-sided and heavily
biased, and the
U.N. declared global warming to be a scientific fact,” Andrei Kapitsa, a
Russian
geographer and Antarctic ice core researcher.
5
“I am convinced that the current alarm over carbon dioxide is
mistaken...Fears about
man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good
science.” -
Award Winning Physicist Dr. Will Happer, Professor at the Department of
Physics at
Princeton University and Former Director of Energy Research at the
Department of
Energy, who 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.
“Nature's regulatory instrument is water vapor: more carbon dioxide
leads to less
moisture in the air, keeping the overall GHG content in accord with the
necessary
balance conditions.” – Prominent Hungarian Physicist and environmental
researcher Dr.
Miklós Zágoni reversed his view of man-made warming and is now a
skeptic. Zágoni was
once Hungary’s most outspoken supporter of the Kyoto Protocol.
“For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand
that the planet
is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" - Geologist Dr.
David Gee
the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International
Geological Congress who
has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala
University in
Sweden.
“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly
found myself
solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for
explaining climate
changes after the fact.” - Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who
reversed his belief in
man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN
IPCC
committee.
“The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural
circulation
between air, water and soil... I am doing a detailed assessment of the
UN IPCC reports
and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the
Summaries have
distorted the science.” - South Afican Nuclear Physicist and Chemical
Engineer Dr. Philip
Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150
refereed
publications.
“Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from
promoting
warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” -
Atmospheric
physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and
Coordination Center in

ka6uup wrote:

“The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they
only are based
on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not
include, for
example, solar activity.” - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher
at the Institute of

This is false. The models include long-term variations in solar output
and orbit.

This, unfortunately, is not false:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...ans-copenhagen

On Mar 10, 8:58*am, dave wrote:
ka6uup wrote:
“The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they
only are based
on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not
include, for
example, solar activity.” - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher
at the Institute of

This is false. *The models include long-term variations in solar output
and orbit.

This, unfortunately, is not false:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...n-emissions-oc...


- But was this study conducted by a Democrat or a Republican ?

and are they or are they NOT a

member in good standing of the NRA ?

-

In article ,
dave wrote:

ka6uup wrote:

³The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because
they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at
scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.² -
Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of

This is false. The models include long-term variations in solar
output and orbit.

Baloney, this is in the money. The UN panel are a bunch of unmitigated
twits.

This, unfortunately, is not false:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...ans-copenhagen

More BS. This is not science but alarmism. Congratulations on being
suckered one more time.

Realistic models do not support man made global warming period. Al Gore
is the biggest moron on the face of the earth.

You get an F in science.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

In article
,
wrote:

On Mar 10, 8:58*am, dave wrote:
ka6uup wrote:
³The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because
they only are based on mathematical models and presented results
at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.² -
Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of

This is false. *The models include long-term variations in solar
output and orbit.

This, unfortunately, is not false:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...on-emissions-o
c...


- But was this study conducted by a Democrat or a Republican ?

and are they or are they NOT a

member in good standing of the NRA ?

You want the political view huh. It's real simple. The liberal elite get
to use whatever energy resources they want when they want it BUT NOT YOU.

YOU must conserve energy. You must give up the warm house in the winter
and the air conditioning in the summer. You must give up or limit the
use of your car. You must spend money on expensive solar collection
systems. You must have the noisy windmill in your backyard.

None of this applies to the liberal elite though. They get a pass.

What a bunch of BS. Anyone that believes this man made global warming
crap should have their head examined.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

In article ,
dave wrote:

Telamon wrote:
In article ,
dave wrote:

ka6uup wrote:

³The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because
they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at
scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.² -
Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of
This is false. The models include long-term variations in solar
output and orbit.

Baloney, this is in the money. The UN panel are a bunch of unmitigated
twits.

This, unfortunately, is not false:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...sions-oceans-c
openhagen

More BS. This is not science but alarmism. Congratulations on being
suckered one more time.

Realistic models do not support man made global warming period. Al Gore
is the biggest moron on the face of the earth.

You get an F in science.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/629/629/7074601.stm

This is BS. It is not factual. This is no different than the Al Gore
temperature / CO chart where he misleads the audience about cause and
effect. The IPCC is in the business of selling Kool-Aid to further the
UN global power agenda.

This is all such nonsense. We are actually headed toward global cooling
not warming.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

In article ,
dave wrote:

ka6uup wrote:

³The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because
they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at
scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.² -
Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of

This is false. The models include long-term variations in solar output
and orbit.

This, unfortunately, is not false:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...ns-oceans-cope
nhagen

Dave, get a grip. Do you think these model work? Well, they don't. They
break with any kind of tweaking the modelers come up with. Not working
means they can't predict with them.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

"Telamon" wrote in message
...
In article ,
dave wrote:

Telamon wrote:
In article ,
dave wrote:

ka6uup wrote:

³The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because
they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at
scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.² -
Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of
This is false. The models include long-term variations in solar
output and orbit.

Baloney, this is in the money. The UN panel are a bunch of unmitigated
twits.

This, unfortunately, is not false:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...sions-oceans-c
openhagen

More BS. This is not science but alarmism. Congratulations on being
suckered one more time.

Realistic models do not support man made global warming period. Al Gore
is the biggest moron on the face of the earth.

You get an F in science.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/629/629/7074601.stm

This is BS. It is not factual. This is no different than the Al Gore
temperature / CO chart where he misleads the audience about cause and
effect. The IPCC is in the business of selling Kool-Aid to further the
UN global power agenda.

This is all such nonsense. We are actually headed toward global cooling
not warming.

There has been no warming for last 10 years yet CO levels continue to rise.
Oops.