Hate to leave a good argument in progress, but I will be away from the internet till the 29th so don't feel rushed to reply to the post.

Mmmm...

You repeat the same old bunkum, repeatedly.

You do not engage in any scientific discussion.

You take care to remove contrary links to instead blindly repeat your point.

Your main argument appears to be that all scientists are all part of a conspiracy and that they are all liars and unreliable in any case.

And you don't post outside of office hours...


You one of those energy company sponsored FUD propagandists paid to pollute any and all discussions on Climate Change and Global Warming?

Regards,
Martin

Now who is talking about a conspiracy? I also think you may be trying to bait me. First, I am an Assembler programmer and part computer hardware designer. While you are correct about office hours, I am home office (most of the time) and I provide phone support 24/7 so it is almost impossible for me to leave the office. When I do get out of the house, with one exception, I don't have internet access. The four days I was gone, I had the office lines forwarded into my cell phone and a duplicate of company data on my laptop. I don't have a good reason to add internet access to my cell phone because I wouldn't use it enough to justify the $50.00 a month. I have lived for close to 50 years without internet access and while the internet is useful, I can still live without it.
I have also learned through embarrassing mistake to avoid the final post while I am tired. For long post, I like to do them off line when I have the time and give them another read while I am awake before I post them. The hours I have found that I am at my mental peek seem to be between about 10 am and 6 pm. That's what I get for not being able to use caffeine regularly.
I refer to my self as a JOAT (got the term from a science fiction story) which stands for Jack Of All Trades. I have interest in many areas including medicine, history, economics, computers and science. I am the type of person people come to when they aren't able to solve a problem or want to bounce ideas off someone. I don't always know the answer but sometimes I am able to give them another approach to solving the problem.
My interest in climate came one day when I decided I needed to figure out if warming was real or not. The more I looked, the more I found that the IPCC and Gore's argument didn't agree with historical data. Many scientist are skeptics however the warmers don't want to admit that fact or they call them pawns of the oil and coal industry. The IPCC said that they had 2500 scientist who wrote the final report that stated global warming exist. The truth is that 2500 people may have had their names on the report, but not all of them were scientist. If the writing didn't agree with what the IPCC wanted to say, it was discarded but the scientist name was listed as agreeing. Many scientist asked to have their names removed from the list and at least one went through the trouble of suing to get his name removed. To see more, look here.

---

heres another personal observation. As a teen living in North Texas we repeatedly had days that reached 0 Degrees F. After those days in the early 80's We've has a grand total of No single digit weather. Heck we're lucky if we get down to 20 degrees for a couple of days during winter. I'd say this is a warming trend.

Your memory may be right or wrong, however I have found if you go to www.weather.com , put in your zip code if you need to or click on your city and then click on the 10-day tab. On the bottom of the screen there is an average tab that will give you regular and record highs and lows.

---

Christopher Monckton of Brenchley has produced a 43 page document that reviews the history of climate gate and the political implications of it. In case you haven't heard of Christopher Monckton it's because you are not familiar with English Politics. As with anyone in politics, I am sure you will here good and bad about them. In any case, he is knowledgable about the climate issue and is associated with some of the big names in the skeptic camp. You can find his document hot off the press here.

---

If you have seen the movie 2012 it gives you a idea of what is to come. Yes they got it wrong .The alignment of the plants in 2012 will not cause the end . However there has been in Earths past big tidal waves. There are many reasons for this Earthquakes Volcanoes Sea shelf collapses . The one thing i have not heard of thou is the 1 thing i believe that may just happen . Assuming the Maim calender is correct and it has been in the past the symbol for the 2012 thing is a tidal wave , some say flood , i believe it will be a tidal wave .We have our self to blame for it .The south pole is melting and very fast so i put it out there for others to debate that if enough ice melts a tidal wave will be created when the ice sheet falls into the sea . I am not talking about the ice shelf but the 1.5 klm of ice on the land . Look at a topical map of the south pole and you will see that it appears to be warn smooth . I have been looking at what is called the SST for 12 years and you can see before it is reported what is happening . It has shown several week before it is reported on the news services that the north west passage has melted and is a pretty good thing to watch .I have told people 12 months before 9.11 happened when to the exact hr and minute when that event would occur, yes i was laughed at, said i was mad but that all changed after it happened ,i have told people other events since.I am not a sear, i do not have visions ,i do have ways which i will keep to myself . It's up to you's to heed my warning at you own risk stay away from the coastline in the month of December 2012 you will need to be at least 200klm inland to have any chance of living after this event occurs. This is the only warning that the beaver will give the only time you will here me warn people . Why ?. I have beliefs that mean i am not to tell the secrets i have learned ,it would go against the words of the bible . The bible says that for those with open minds the truth is out there all you have to do is listen . It goes on to say more about this . I wish i hadn't worked out the book of Daniel as it has a curse . I am taking a risk even now telling this but i can't help myself . Good luck to all in the future what is left of it . This is 1 time i hope i am wrong.

For those that now me i have gone to a bit of trouble to make this post as readable as i can so no smart ass comments please you know who you are .

---

Boy am I going to have a laugh in 2013.
There is no sane, rational, evidence supporting a supposed destruction of the world in 2012. This planet has been around for 4.5 billion years, so why should it end in a mere 3?

---

- Luke.

Luke, I think Glenn has been drinking tea made from the leaves of the River Red Gum tree...

He knows the world is going to end because he has 'secrets' that you and I are not privy to.

Jeez, I'm a Freemason and the Lodge has said nothing about a 2012 doomsday!

Here we go again read the post again the wold will not end in 2012 . I repeat the world will not end in 2012 . Man will still be around after ,only there will not be much of the cities or industry left we will be sent back to the dark ages . So if you don't whant to consider that what i am warning of has a reel possiblty then simple have a pinic on the beach if you live close to it and well if your still here after good if your wrong and i hope i am not right then i will still be here and you will die . I guess the south pole will melt slowly and there will not be any big pieces of ice falling into the ocean so you are safe right !!.Even if it not 2012 what i am saying may still happen .

---

It is amazing that we can be called an "intelligent" species, and yet believe in all this superstitious crap.
There is just as big as chance of a large-scale disaster happening in 2010 as there is in 2012.
I guarantee you, nothing out of the ordinary will happen in 2012.

Someone please tell me where it says anywhere (legitimate) that something of negative consequences will happen in 2012.

---

- Luke.

Luke humor me please how big would a block of ice , length width thickness ,and speed of a piece have to be to cause a tidal wave only 1 meter high .I am not a math person but i'm shore someone out there can work it out . Then work out how big a piece would have to be to cause a wave 10 meters high which is enough to do big damage .Then work out how big it needs to be to make a wave 1.5 klm.There has been big pieces break off in recent years that are bigger than some country's only they have come from the ice shelf witch is in the ocean already. I think you will be surprised that this could realy happen weather it 2010 ,2012,2014 .AS I SAID I won't tell you how or why i believe this may just happen but i can tell you it is not very far away. Remember what happened only a few years ago when 250,000 people died and that wave was only 4 meters high.

---

The answer to your question about humans believing in the supernatural things may lie in Quantum Mechanices . I saw a program a while ago that said the human nerves in our brain have the same structure as a carbon filament and it was seggested that our brains are Quantum computers weather this is true i don't know but if it is it opens up a whole load of explanations about seeing the possible future ,miracles,levitation and so on as weird things happen in the Quantum world yes it is a bit of a jump but i guess we may well find out that the impossible is not impossible but possible.

sorry but i have to take my time with these posts or you may have a lot of trouble reading them

---

Boy am I going to have a laugh in 2013.
There is no sane, rational, evidence supporting a supposed destruction of the world in 2012. This planet has been around for 4.5 billion years, so why should it end in a mere 3?

I knew someone that thought the toilets would flow backwards back in 2000...More and more will come out of the cracks as Dec 2012 gets nearer.

---

Official Abuser of Boinc Buttons...
And no good credit hound!

That post is about what i expected. 38% of Americans believe that dinosaurs lived at the same time as Jesus did , it's called Divine Creation .Not surprising America is a climate na sayer and have closed minds . At least my sister whom was in New york at the time of 9.11 , listened to me and got outa there that day . So laugh all you can . I do not give this type of warning lightly and i haven't been wrong yet .

---

/Offtopic. Glenn How is it that you rant about Dyslexia and you spelling goes to hell. You move to another thread and suddenly your spelling improves to better than average. I think you've been cured. that you are an out an out fraud. /end offtopic

Heck, go to Glenrose TExas. go to the dinosaur state park. look at the wonderful Dinosaur tracks. As you drive to the park you'll notice that their is another dinosaur park right outside the real park. This one is ran by Crazy Evangelical Christians. They claim to have found human foot prints in stone right along with Dinosaur prints. Even though "real" scientists have debunked their claim, they still attract the crazys that believe The Flintstones was a documentary

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

That post is about what i expected. 38% of Americans believe that dinosaurs lived at the same time as Jesus did , it's called Divine Creation .Not surprising America is a climate na sayer and have closed minds . At least my sister whom was in New york at the time of 9.11 , listened to me and got outa there that day . So laugh all you can . I do not give this type of warning lightly and i haven't been wrong yet .

You are too funny and no I don't believe that man walked with dinosaurs any more than I believe you are always right.

---

Official Abuser of Boinc Buttons...
And no good credit hound!

That post is about what i expected. 38% of Americans believe that dinosaurs lived at the same time as Jesus did , it's called Divine Creation .

And did you know 57% of statistics are made up on the spot? I cannot find a single study stating what you have claimed.

Not surprising America is a climate na sayer and have closed minds .

You cannot just judge and stereotype 300 million+ people like that, there is a large group of people out there who want action against climate change immediately. Anyway, last time I heard Australia isn't doing too great either. Same here in my country as well.

At least my sister whom was in New york at the time of 9.11 , listened to me and got outa there that day . So laugh all you can . I do not give this type of warning lightly and i haven't been wrong yet.

Whatever. Personally, I don't believe a thing that you are saying, because you haven't given any credible evidence to back any of your claims or suggest otherwise.

- Luke.

P.S.

...and i haven't been wrong yet .

And there is always a first time to being wrong...

And as Cameron in House M.D. once stated "You're never going to get everything right..."

---

- Luke.

What is normal for earth's temperature over history? What may be in our future? A very good place to look is Greenland's ice cores as they extend back hundreds of thousands of years. Watts up with that has an interesting post and an interesting way of looking at the ice cores that can be found here.

---

What is normal for earth's temperature over history? What may be in our future? A very good place to look is Greenland's ice cores as they extend back hundreds of thousands of years. Watts up with that has an interesting post and an interesting way of looking at the ice cores that can be found here.

Well... Well... Well...

Is that yet another change of tune and yet another piece of attempted FUD of incomplete and deliberately selective presenting?...

Sooo... Lets see in there for the conclusion:

In other words, we’re pretty lucky to be here during this rare, warm period in climate history. But the broader lesson is, climate doesn’t stand still. It doesn’t even stay on the relatively constrained range of the last 10,000 years for more than about 10,000 years at a time.

Does this mean that CO2 isn’t a greenhouse gas? No.

Does it mean that it isn’t warming? No.

Does it mean that we shouldn’t develop clean, efficient technology that gets its energy elsewhere than burning fossil fuels? Of course not. We should do all those things for many reasons — but there’s plenty of time to do them the right way, by developing nanotech. (There’s plenty of money, too, but it’s all going to climate science at the moment. :-) ) And that will be a very good thing to have done if we do fall back into an ice age, believe me.

For climate science it means that the Hockey Team climatologists’ insistence that human-emitted CO2 is the only thing that could account for the recent warming trend is probably poppycock.

So, the admission there is that it is indeed warming. So where's your 10 years ice age of now as presented earlier?

So, the admission there now is that CO2 is indeed a greenhouse gas.

And there is agreement there that we should indeed develop clean fuels.

In fact, their "denial argument" now appears to be that that we should merely procrastinate for whatever reason... Quoting "nanotech" in there is just a wild distraction of technobabble FUD. Very clever. Has the "Heartland mouthpiece" and it's sponsors now changed it's corporate strategy?


Most significantly is the admission in there that our civilisation has enjoyed a very benign and beneficial period of climate for the last few thousand years.

Why then must we smash such beneficial conditions with vast industrial stupidity?


My MP, Nick Palmer, sums up the situation nicely including for the deniers:

... I understand statistics but I'm not a climatologist, so I'm not going to offer my own interpretation, and I'm slightly bemused by the way that some people read an article somewhere and become instantly certain that it's the only possible truth. But it's possible to make some objective comments:

• The overwhelming majority of climate scientists, though not all, believe that there is a global warming process in train, that human activity is mainly the cause, that its consequences will be catastrophic, and that it's still possible to ameliorate it, though not prevent it altogether.
• Scientists are not always right, and there are past cases where the overwhelming majority view turned out to be mistaken
• If the perceived problem is to be tackled, it needs to done globally. There are things that Britain can solve on its own, but this isn't one of them.

Given this starting point, what should British politicians say? It seems to me that we have to work on the assumption for now that the scientific advice is correct. If it's correct and we do nothing, we are quite literally betraying our children. If it's incorrect and we take unnecessary action, we are spending money that could have been spent on something else. That's a pity, but not catastrophic, and the actions generally have some useful benefits in themselves. For example, by switching away from fossil fuels, we reduce carbon emissions, but we also reduce dependence on imports of gas from places like Iran, Algeria and Russia whose long-term amiability it is…well… difficult to guarantee. ...


Hopefully we'll get a good result for all from the ongoing Copenhagen climate talks.

Here's hoping that the politics move usefully more quickly than the glaciers around the world retreat!

Regards,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Hopefully we'll get a good result for all from the ongoing Copenhagen climate talks.

Here's hoping that the politics move usefully more quickly than the glaciers around the world retreat!

Regards,
Martin

I find it comical how everyone is calling climate change false when the ice caps are still melting.

Also, does anyone realize that we are the killing of all these endangered species around the world? You just cannot say that is natural when Dodo birds would still be alive if not for man. :)

---

Overclock with the MSI G31M3-L and Intel E8600 3.33Ghz
Intel D865GLC Socket 478 Motherboard
~How To Overclock The Eee ASUS 1005HA Netbook To 1.9Ghz~

So, the admission there is that it is indeed warming. So where's your 10 years ice age of now as presented earlier?

Good question, I never said anything about a 10 year ice age. The little ice age lasted a great deal longer from around 1400 to 1850 but bottoming out from around 1650 to 1715. With the earth being that cold for that long, it has been recovering for the last 150 years. We have only recovered 1/3 of the temperature reached in the Medieval Warming period or the temperature that Jesus Christ knew. The lower than normal temperature of the ice age could be the result of two thing.
The first is vocanic activity and the production of sun blocking sulfur compounds. There was a large amount of vocanic activity in the time of the little ice age, far more than normal and the link between cooling and vocanic activity has been proven in modern times.
The second less clear cause is reduced sunspot activity that took place in the 1650 to 1715 time period. While a study of history shows that a lack of sun activity can cause cooling, the process by which it happens is still under study. It is not a straight forward case of the suns output being reduced, but it seems to be the solar wind allowing more cosmic rays in causing more cloud cover. This is important to learn about because our sun has gone inactive again as it does about every 400 year.

So, the admission there now is that CO2 is indeed a greenhouse gas.

Never said it wasn't. I did say it doesn't have the amount of warming power the warmer are giving it credit for. I have had a good deal of experience with another warming gas that is far more abundant called water vapor. I have lived in areas where the relative humidity was a constant 50% or more and where it didn't get much above 7%. I found the main difference between the two place was that the difference between the day and night temperatures was greater the lower the humidity was. You would have day time temperature of 100 degrees F in the day time and you would be hunting for covers at night or you would have 70 degree F days (short sleeve weather) and water would freeze at night. In areas where the humidity was higher, the temperature shift was much smaller between day and night. I think we are already trapping almost all of the heat the sun is sending us during the day and it is being radiated away at night adding more green house gasses will have little additional effect.

And there is agreement there that we should indeed develop clean fuels.

If you review my past post, I am all for Atomic power and I stated that we are burning far to much carbon fuel. The dumb thing is some of the approaches to clean fuel result in more carbon being produced that burning dirty oil and coal. We should not rush into solutions without evaluating the full impact of our decisions. We did that with ethanol and we now know that the way we do it in the USA didn't save much carbon and couldn't survive without government money making it more costly than gas. Also it resulted in higher food prices and people in poor countries starving because of the land we took out of food production.

In fact, their "denial argument" now appears to be that that we should merely procrastinate for whatever reason... Quoting "nanotech" in there is just a wild distraction of technobabble FUD. Very clever. Has the "Heartland mouthpiece" and it's sponsors now changed it's corporate strategy?

You will find few skeptics that think we have an unlimited supply of oil. It will run out someday and we need to be thinking about other ways of providing power 24 hours a day. Even coal will not last forever and in the future we will have to go deeper to recover it making it more costly as time goes on.
Nanotech may be a good idea, but I agree it may be a long time before it delivers. I still recall when I was a child in the 50's reading in the paper how we were only 20 years away from harnessing the power of the sun with fusion power. Well every so often, I still see an article that states the same thing, we are still 20 years away. Lets go with what we know. Reduce our usage whenever possible use atomic power and other clean source of power when possible, and oil, natural gas and coal when there is no other option.

Most significantly is the admission in there that our civilisation has enjoyed a very benign and beneficial period of climate for the last few thousand years.

The correct number is 10,000 year. It has been warmer that our current temperatures almost all of that time. I have little desire to live in an ice age which we get for a 100,000 between warming periods. The "normal" earth temperature means constant snow cover reaching to the northern united states and farming could only take place south of that.

Why then must we smash such beneficial conditions with vast industrial stupidity?

Do you know why the traditional drink of England and the United States is whisky, Ale and beer. It because before the little ice age, England could grow grapes and produced wine. When the little ice age hit, England became to cold to produce the grapes need for wine making so they were left with three options.
1. Go on the wagon. Not a good option.
2. Buy wine from the French. Not a good option because they were hard to get along with.
3. Produce drinks from grain.
We know which option was picked. and when the English moved to the new world, grain drinks came along with them even though it was possible to grow grapes in the U.S.
Cooling and warming are a part of the natural cycle, but when you start producing a fine wine in England, let me know because it may be time to take another look at warming.
Humans got to where we are today with temperatures that were WARMER than what we see today. What you are asking for by maintaining current temperatures is weather cooler than normal. Sometimes I am not sure what you are thinking and I am sure the only way we will get it that cool is if we return to another ice age.

---

... Cooling and warming are a part of the natural cycle, but when you start producing a fine wine in England, let me know because it may be time to take another look at warming. ...

Dena,

You really must be on an alternate 'reality'. I guess the supposed 'zero warming' of the last ten years has you convinced for an utter denial of the warming effects of CO2 and of the increasing rate of increase of CO2 in our atmosphere. How do you explain the records for this year 2009?

Or is it all yet more 'conspiracy'?

Again, please note: any CO2 that is added to our atmosphere stays in our atmosphere for centuries. In contrast, water vapour that is added to our atmosphere on average only stays there for a few days. The two are related in that the concentration of CO2 (and the subsequent warming effects) determines the amount of water vapour in our atmosphere. Hence, it is the increase in CO2 that is the significant factor.

By the time we are back to the Roman days of growing grapes in the UK, it will be all far far too late. The temperatures will then be on an unstoppable climb to very much higher temperatures. Until that is, the gulf stream is stopped and this part of Europe is then plunged into very much colder conditions. Even then, the rest of the world is still left baking.

Also note that the days of the Vikings in Greenland and Roman grapes in England and of the medieval cool periods were predominantly a northern hemisphere effect. The average world temperatures were unaffected. The temperatures were also a smaller change than that being wrought worldwide now...

Look again at the exponentially rising concentration of CO2. Do you really believe that is 'natural' and of no consequence?

Or do you expect to be soon dead and buried and you're hell bent to enjoy your last fling?

Regards,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)