Risk Management: WWIII vs Climate Change

On Sunday, November 20, 2016 at 5:45:12 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/20/2016 3:48 PM, wrote:
On Sunday, November 20, 2016 at 12:04:32 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/20/2016 12:58 PM, wrote:
Only a tiny percentage of climatologists believe in man-made global warming. Perhaps HALF of them believe in climate change.

Cite?

Wikipedia for a start: John Cook et al., 2013
Cook et al. examined 11,944 abstracts from the peer-reviewed scientific literature from 1991–2011 that matched the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'.[12] They found that, while 66.4% of them expressed no position on anthropogenic global warming (AGW), of those that did, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are contributing to global warming.

If you're referring to

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survey...climate_change

(which is where I find your quote)
you seem to be interpreting it backwards.

--
- Frank Krygowski

I must say that you had to work pretty hard to get that. Try https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scient...climate_change

I have spent a great deal of time on this subject since I designed gas chromatographs and none of the claims of CO2 made the slightest sense. When hundreds of climate predictions have been made and every one concerning effects of CO2 has failed miserably you would think that someone would start getting the message. The climate is not difficult to predict. It is stable and effected only by the Milankovitch Cycles and sunspot activity. The variations in the climate from these sources is only a percent or so. The reaction of the climate from these changes can be dramatic but most assuredly CO2 changes of one hundredth part of one percent is not effecting anything but the vastly increased plant growth all over the world.

On 11/21/2016 5:23 PM, wrote:
On Sunday, November 20, 2016 at 5:45:12 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/20/2016 3:48 PM, wrote:
On Sunday, November 20, 2016 at 12:04:32 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/20/2016 12:58 PM, wrote:
Only a tiny percentage of climatologists believe in man-made global warming. Perhaps HALF of them believe in climate change.

Cite?

Wikipedia for a start: John Cook et al., 2013
Cook et al. examined 11,944 abstracts from the peer-reviewed scientific literature from 1991–2011 that matched the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'.[12] They found that, while 66.4% of them expressed no position on anthropogenic global warming (AGW), of those that did, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are contributing to global warming.

If you're referring to

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survey...climate_change

(which is where I find your quote)
you seem to be interpreting it backwards.

--
- Frank Krygowski

I must say that you had to work pretty hard to get that. Try https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scient...climate_change

I found my link very easily. IIRC, it took two tries in Wikipedia. But
the important thing is, it says the opposite of what you claimed. So
does the link you just provided. So we still don't have a link
corroborating "Only a tiny percentage of climatologists believe in
man-made global warming," etc.

I suppose it's possible that the U.S. government is prohibiting the
publishing of papers that disprove anthropogenic climate change. And so
is the government of Britain. And France. And Germany. And Japan.
And Australia. And New Zealand. Etc., etc.

Well, I suppose that's all _possible_.

Thank God we have had the major oil corporations funding the truth!
;-)

(Although even they seem to be caving in to the universal conspiracy!)


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Monday, November 21, 2016 at 4:04:25 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/21/2016 5:23 PM, wrote:
On Sunday, November 20, 2016 at 5:45:12 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/20/2016 3:48 PM, wrote:
On Sunday, November 20, 2016 at 12:04:32 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/20/2016 12:58 PM, wrote:
Only a tiny percentage of climatologists believe in man-made global warming. Perhaps HALF of them believe in climate change.

Cite?

Wikipedia for a start: John Cook et al., 2013
Cook et al. examined 11,944 abstracts from the peer-reviewed scientific literature from 1991–2011 that matched the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'.[12] They found that, while 66.4% of them expressed no position on anthropogenic global warming (AGW), of those that did, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are contributing to global warming.

If you're referring to

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survey...climate_change

(which is where I find your quote)
you seem to be interpreting it backwards.

--
- Frank Krygowski

I must say that you had to work pretty hard to get that. Try https://en..wikipedia.org/wiki/Scien...climate_change

I found my link very easily. IIRC, it took two tries in Wikipedia. But
the important thing is, it says the opposite of what you claimed. So
does the link you just provided. So we still don't have a link
corroborating "Only a tiny percentage of climatologists believe in
man-made global warming," etc.

I suppose it's possible that the U.S. government is prohibiting the
publishing of papers that disprove anthropogenic climate change. And so
is the government of Britain. And France. And Germany. And Japan.
And Australia. And New Zealand. Etc., etc.

Well, I suppose that's all _possible_.

Thank God we have had the major oil corporations funding the truth!
;-)

(Although even they seem to be caving in to the universal conspiracy!)


--
- Frank Krygowski

Frank - There is no question that we are in a warming period. The question is: does MAN have any effect on it and that is NOT believed by the vast majority of scientists and almost none of the lay people who are a great deal more clever than given credit for.

Let me reiterate - Oxygen composes 21% of the atmosphere and has a higher latent head content than CO2 that a change of 100 ppm is being claimed to be harmful.

Water composes 70% of the surface of the Earth in liquid or solid form and 4% of the atmosphere in gaseous form. Moreover water absorbs almost the entire IR to UV spectrum whereas CO2 has a very narrow band of absorption almost exactly in between the emission spectrum of the Sun and the "reflective" spectrum of the Earth.

What's more the "charts" showing absorption and bandwidth are ALL misrepresentations since NONE of them show the actual values of absorption. The entire CO2 in the atmosphere holds virtually NONE of the Earth's heat. Hence changes in the levels are inconsequential as far as "climate" is concerned.

Exactly what are you questioning? If any reality then perhaps you can explain why none (NONE) of those supporting warming because of CO2 can predict anything at all? Have you noticed that they have now decided to "predict" 100 years in the future "if this continues as it is"?

Do you have any questions about there being records of three other warming periods in the past of times warmer than at present? Or that we haven't had any measurable warming for the last 19 years?

wrote:
On Monday, November 21, 2016 at 4:04:25 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/21/2016 5:23 PM, wrote:
On Sunday, November 20, 2016 at 5:45:12 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/20/2016 3:48 PM, wrote:
On Sunday, November 20, 2016 at 12:04:32 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/20/2016 12:58 PM, wrote:
Only a tiny percentage of climatologists believe in man-made global
warming. Perhaps HALF of them believe in climate change.

Cite?

Wikipedia for a start: John Cook et al., 2013
Cook et al. examined 11,944 abstracts from the peer-reviewed
scientific literature from 1991–2011 that matched the topics 'global
climate change' or 'global warming'.[12] They found that, while 66.4%
of them expressed no position on anthropogenic global warming (AGW),
of those that did, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans
are contributing to global warming.

If you're referring to

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survey...climate_change

(which is where I find your quote)
you seem to be interpreting it backwards.

--
- Frank Krygowski

I must say that you had to work pretty hard to get that. Try
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scient...climate_change

I found my link very easily. IIRC, it took two tries in Wikipedia. But
the important thing is, it says the opposite of what you claimed. So
does the link you just provided. So we still don't have a link
corroborating "Only a tiny percentage of climatologists believe in
man-made global warming," etc.

I suppose it's possible that the U.S. government is prohibiting the
publishing of papers that disprove anthropogenic climate change. And so
is the government of Britain. And France. And Germany. And Japan.
And Australia. And New Zealand. Etc., etc.

Well, I suppose that's all _possible_.

Thank God we have had the major oil corporations funding the truth!
;-)

(Although even they seem to be caving in to the universal conspiracy!)


--
- Frank Krygowski

Frank - There is no question that we are in a warming period. The
question is: does MAN have any effect on it and that is NOT believed by
the vast majority of scientists and almost none of the lay people who are
a great deal more clever than given credit for.

Let me reiterate - Oxygen composes 21% of the atmosphere and has a higher
latent head content than CO2 that a change of 100 ppm is being claimed to be harmful.

Water composes 70% of the surface of the Earth in liquid or solid form
and 4% of the atmosphere in gaseous form. Moreover water absorbs almost
the entire IR to UV spectrum whereas CO2 has a very narrow band of
absorption almost exactly in between the emission spectrum of the Sun and
the "reflective" spectrum of the Earth.

What's more the "charts" showing absorption and bandwidth are ALL
misrepresentations since NONE of them show the actual values of
absorption. The entire CO2 in the atmosphere holds virtually NONE of the
Earth's heat. Hence changes in the levels are inconsequential as far as
"climate" is concerned.

Exactly what are you questioning? If any reality then perhaps you can
explain why none (NONE) of those supporting warming because of CO2 can
predict anything at all? Have you noticed that they have now decided to
"predict" 100 years in the future "if this continues as it is"?

Do you have any questions about there being records of three other
warming periods in the past of times warmer than at present? Or that we
haven't had any measurable warming for the last 19 years?


http://www.climatechangenews.com/201...70th-birthday/
“As we stand at the brink of a second nuclear age and a period of
unprecedented climate change, scientists have a special responsibility,
once again to inform the public and to advise leaders about the perils that
humanity faces,� he said. “As scientists we understand the dangers of
nuclear weapons and their devastation effects, and we are learning how
human activities and technologies are affecting climate systems in ways
that may forever change life on Earth."


--
duane

On Tuesday, November 22, 2016 at 2:33:05 PM UTC-8, Duane wrote:
wrote:
On Monday, November 21, 2016 at 4:04:25 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/21/2016 5:23 PM, wrote:
On Sunday, November 20, 2016 at 5:45:12 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/20/2016 3:48 PM, wrote:
On Sunday, November 20, 2016 at 12:04:32 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/20/2016 12:58 PM, wrote:
Only a tiny percentage of climatologists believe in man-made global
warming. Perhaps HALF of them believe in climate change.

Cite?

Wikipedia for a start: John Cook et al., 2013
Cook et al. examined 11,944 abstracts from the peer-reviewed
scientific literature from 1991–2011 that matched the topics 'global
climate change' or 'global warming'.[12] They found that, while 66.4%
of them expressed no position on anthropogenic global warming (AGW),
of those that did, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans
are contributing to global warming.

If you're referring to

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survey...climate_change

(which is where I find your quote)
you seem to be interpreting it backwards.

--
- Frank Krygowski

I must say that you had to work pretty hard to get that. Try
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scient...climate_change

I found my link very easily. IIRC, it took two tries in Wikipedia. But
the important thing is, it says the opposite of what you claimed. So
does the link you just provided. So we still don't have a link
corroborating "Only a tiny percentage of climatologists believe in
man-made global warming," etc.

I suppose it's possible that the U.S. government is prohibiting the
publishing of papers that disprove anthropogenic climate change. And so
is the government of Britain. And France. And Germany. And Japan.
And Australia. And New Zealand. Etc., etc.

Well, I suppose that's all _possible_.

Thank God we have had the major oil corporations funding the truth!
;-)

(Although even they seem to be caving in to the universal conspiracy!)


--
- Frank Krygowski

Frank - There is no question that we are in a warming period. The
question is: does MAN have any effect on it and that is NOT believed by
the vast majority of scientists and almost none of the lay people who are
a great deal more clever than given credit for.

Let me reiterate - Oxygen composes 21% of the atmosphere and has a higher
latent head content than CO2 that a change of 100 ppm is being claimed to be harmful.

Water composes 70% of the surface of the Earth in liquid or solid form
and 4% of the atmosphere in gaseous form. Moreover water absorbs almost
the entire IR to UV spectrum whereas CO2 has a very narrow band of
absorption almost exactly in between the emission spectrum of the Sun and
the "reflective" spectrum of the Earth.

What's more the "charts" showing absorption and bandwidth are ALL
misrepresentations since NONE of them show the actual values of
absorption. The entire CO2 in the atmosphere holds virtually NONE of the
Earth's heat. Hence changes in the levels are inconsequential as far as
"climate" is concerned.

Exactly what are you questioning? If any reality then perhaps you can
explain why none (NONE) of those supporting warming because of CO2 can
predict anything at all? Have you noticed that they have now decided to
"predict" 100 years in the future "if this continues as it is"?

Do you have any questions about there being records of three other
warming periods in the past of times warmer than at present? Or that we
haven't had any measurable warming for the last 19 years?


http://www.climatechangenews.com/201...70th-birthday/
“As we stand at the brink of a second nuclear age and a period of
unprecedented climate change, scientists have a special responsibility,
once again to inform the public and to advise leaders about the perils that
humanity faces,� he said. “As scientists we understand the dangers of
nuclear weapons and their devastation effects, and we are learning how
human activities and technologies are affecting climate systems in ways
that may forever change life on Earth."


--
duane

Unfortunately Stephen Hawking is a particle physicist whose life work has been proven inaccurate. So instead of retiring quietly he makes predictions entirely outside of his line of expertise. Perhaps he is using the "shotgun" approach in where if you make enough predictions some of them are statistically liable to come true.

There is almost no chance of nuclear war coming from anywhere but North Korea and Iran. NK is China's concern and for them to take care of. Chain has made VAST strides into the 21st Century and they are NOT going to return to rice and tea. We can expect sooner or later for them to take matters into their own hands regarding a maniacal dictator and a people dying for freedom.

As for Iran - Israel is only going to take just so much since Iran issues threats to them almost daily. But they too are in a position where the overwhelming majority of Iranians are extremely unhappy that their everyday lives are dictated by a religious maniac.

As I continue to insist - climate change is a naturally occurring event that is nothing more than part of the normal weather pattern of Earth.

On 11/22/2016 4:32 PM, Duane wrote:
wrote:
On Monday, November 21, 2016 at 4:04:25 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/21/2016 5:23 PM, wrote:
On Sunday, November 20, 2016 at 5:45:12 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/20/2016 3:48 PM, wrote:
On Sunday, November 20, 2016 at 12:04:32 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/20/2016 12:58 PM, wrote:
Only a tiny percentage of climatologists believe in man-made global
warming. Perhaps HALF of them believe in climate change.

Cite?

Wikipedia for a start: John Cook et al., 2013
Cook et al. examined 11,944 abstracts from the peer-reviewed
scientific literature from 1991–2011 that matched the topics 'global
climate change' or 'global warming'.[12] They found that, while 66.4%
of them expressed no position on anthropogenic global warming (AGW),
of those that did, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans
are contributing to global warming.

If you're referring to

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survey...climate_change

(which is where I find your quote)
you seem to be interpreting it backwards.

--
- Frank Krygowski

I must say that you had to work pretty hard to get that. Try
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scient...climate_change

I found my link very easily. IIRC, it took two tries in Wikipedia. But
the important thing is, it says the opposite of what you claimed. So
does the link you just provided. So we still don't have a link
corroborating "Only a tiny percentage of climatologists believe in
man-made global warming," etc.

I suppose it's possible that the U.S. government is prohibiting the
publishing of papers that disprove anthropogenic climate change. And so
is the government of Britain. And France. And Germany. And Japan.
And Australia. And New Zealand. Etc., etc.

Well, I suppose that's all _possible_.

Thank God we have had the major oil corporations funding the truth!
;-)

(Although even they seem to be caving in to the universal conspiracy!)


--
- Frank Krygowski

Frank - There is no question that we are in a warming period. The
question is: does MAN have any effect on it and that is NOT believed by
the vast majority of scientists and almost none of the lay people who are
a great deal more clever than given credit for.

Let me reiterate - Oxygen composes 21% of the atmosphere and has a higher
latent head content than CO2 that a change of 100 ppm is being claimed to be harmful.

Water composes 70% of the surface of the Earth in liquid or solid form
and 4% of the atmosphere in gaseous form. Moreover water absorbs almost
the entire IR to UV spectrum whereas CO2 has a very narrow band of
absorption almost exactly in between the emission spectrum of the Sun and
the "reflective" spectrum of the Earth.

What's more the "charts" showing absorption and bandwidth are ALL
misrepresentations since NONE of them show the actual values of
absorption. The entire CO2 in the atmosphere holds virtually NONE of the
Earth's heat. Hence changes in the levels are inconsequential as far as
"climate" is concerned.

Exactly what are you questioning? If any reality then perhaps you can
explain why none (NONE) of those supporting warming because of CO2 can
predict anything at all? Have you noticed that they have now decided to
"predict" 100 years in the future "if this continues as it is"?

Do you have any questions about there being records of three other
warming periods in the past of times warmer than at present? Or that we
haven't had any measurable warming for the last 19 years?


http://www.climatechangenews.com/201...70th-birthday/
“As we stand at the brink of a second nuclear age and a period of
unprecedented climate change, scientists have a special responsibility,
once again to inform the public and to advise leaders about the perils that
humanity faces,� he said. “As scientists we understand the dangers of
nuclear weapons and their devastation effects, and we are learning how
human activities and technologies are affecting climate systems in ways
that may forever change life on Earth."



The very same Stephen Hawking who admonishes not to contact
aliens because they might eat us? He's an expert in his
field but this isn't it.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Tuesday, November 22, 2016 at 2:12:39 PM UTC-8, wrote:
On Monday, November 21, 2016 at 4:04:25 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/21/2016 5:23 PM, wrote:
On Sunday, November 20, 2016 at 5:45:12 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/20/2016 3:48 PM, wrote:
On Sunday, November 20, 2016 at 12:04:32 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/20/2016 12:58 PM, wrote:
Only a tiny percentage of climatologists believe in man-made global warming. Perhaps HALF of them believe in climate change.

Cite?

Wikipedia for a start: John Cook et al., 2013
Cook et al. examined 11,944 abstracts from the peer-reviewed scientific literature from 1991–2011 that matched the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'.[12] They found that, while 66.4% of them expressed no position on anthropogenic global warming (AGW), of those that did, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are contributing to global warming.

If you're referring to

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survey...climate_change

(which is where I find your quote)
you seem to be interpreting it backwards.

--
- Frank Krygowski

I must say that you had to work pretty hard to get that. Try https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scient...climate_change

I found my link very easily. IIRC, it took two tries in Wikipedia. But
the important thing is, it says the opposite of what you claimed. So
does the link you just provided. So we still don't have a link
corroborating "Only a tiny percentage of climatologists believe in
man-made global warming," etc.

I suppose it's possible that the U.S. government is prohibiting the
publishing of papers that disprove anthropogenic climate change. And so
is the government of Britain. And France. And Germany. And Japan.
And Australia. And New Zealand. Etc., etc.

Well, I suppose that's all _possible_.

Thank God we have had the major oil corporations funding the truth!
;-)

(Although even they seem to be caving in to the universal conspiracy!)


--
- Frank Krygowski

Frank - There is no question that we are in a warming period. The question is: does MAN have any effect on it and that is NOT believed by the vast majority of scientists and almost none of the lay people who are a great deal more clever than given credit for.

Let me reiterate - Oxygen composes 21% of the atmosphere and has a higher latent head content than CO2 that a change of 100 ppm is being claimed to be harmful.

Water composes 70% of the surface of the Earth in liquid or solid form and 4% of the atmosphere in gaseous form. Moreover water absorbs almost the entire IR to UV spectrum whereas CO2 has a very narrow band of absorption almost exactly in between the emission spectrum of the Sun and the "reflective" spectrum of the Earth.

What's more the "charts" showing absorption and bandwidth are ALL misrepresentations since NONE of them show the actual values of absorption. The entire CO2 in the atmosphere holds virtually NONE of the Earth's heat. Hence changes in the levels are inconsequential as far as "climate" is concerned.

Exactly what are you questioning? If any reality then perhaps you can explain why none (NONE) of those supporting warming because of CO2 can predict anything at all? Have you noticed that they have now decided to "predict" 100 years in the future "if this continues as it is"?

Do you have any questions about there being records of three other warming periods in the past of times warmer than at present? Or that we haven't had any measurable warming for the last 19 years?

Does this mean we have carte blanche to cut down the rain forest? I sure hope so, because I love that ****ty furniture from Pier One.

I am firmly convinced that any policy that prevents me from doing whatever the f*** I want is wrong and part of a conspiracy to enslave the world. Everywhere I turn, it's ZOG, or the Trilateralists or the Illuminati. I am sure that the Knights Templar stole my Sunday Oregonian. I can't wait for Trump to drain the swamp -- and fill it, and build a hotel!

-- Jay Beattie.

On Tuesday, November 22, 2016 at 2:50:57 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 11/22/2016 4:32 PM, Duane wrote:
wrote:
On Monday, November 21, 2016 at 4:04:25 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/21/2016 5:23 PM, wrote:
On Sunday, November 20, 2016 at 5:45:12 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/20/2016 3:48 PM, wrote:
On Sunday, November 20, 2016 at 12:04:32 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/20/2016 12:58 PM, wrote:
Only a tiny percentage of climatologists believe in man-made global
warming. Perhaps HALF of them believe in climate change.

Cite?

Wikipedia for a start: John Cook et al., 2013
Cook et al. examined 11,944 abstracts from the peer-reviewed
scientific literature from 1991–2011 that matched the topics 'global
climate change' or 'global warming'.[12] They found that, while 66..4%
of them expressed no position on anthropogenic global warming (AGW),
of those that did, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans
are contributing to global warming.

If you're referring to

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survey...climate_change

(which is where I find your quote)
you seem to be interpreting it backwards.

--
- Frank Krygowski

I must say that you had to work pretty hard to get that. Try
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scient...climate_change

I found my link very easily. IIRC, it took two tries in Wikipedia. But
the important thing is, it says the opposite of what you claimed. So
does the link you just provided. So we still don't have a link
corroborating "Only a tiny percentage of climatologists believe in
man-made global warming," etc.

I suppose it's possible that the U.S. government is prohibiting the
publishing of papers that disprove anthropogenic climate change. And so
is the government of Britain. And France. And Germany. And Japan.
And Australia. And New Zealand. Etc., etc.

Well, I suppose that's all _possible_.

Thank God we have had the major oil corporations funding the truth!
;-)

(Although even they seem to be caving in to the universal conspiracy!)


--
- Frank Krygowski

Frank - There is no question that we are in a warming period. The
question is: does MAN have any effect on it and that is NOT believed by
the vast majority of scientists and almost none of the lay people who are
a great deal more clever than given credit for.

Let me reiterate - Oxygen composes 21% of the atmosphere and has a higher
latent head content than CO2 that a change of 100 ppm is being claimed to be harmful.

Water composes 70% of the surface of the Earth in liquid or solid form
and 4% of the atmosphere in gaseous form. Moreover water absorbs almost
the entire IR to UV spectrum whereas CO2 has a very narrow band of
absorption almost exactly in between the emission spectrum of the Sun and
the "reflective" spectrum of the Earth.

What's more the "charts" showing absorption and bandwidth are ALL
misrepresentations since NONE of them show the actual values of
absorption. The entire CO2 in the atmosphere holds virtually NONE of the
Earth's heat. Hence changes in the levels are inconsequential as far as
"climate" is concerned.

Exactly what are you questioning? If any reality then perhaps you can
explain why none (NONE) of those supporting warming because of CO2 can
predict anything at all? Have you noticed that they have now decided to
"predict" 100 years in the future "if this continues as it is"?

Do you have any questions about there being records of three other
warming periods in the past of times warmer than at present? Or that we
haven't had any measurable warming for the last 19 years?


http://www.climatechangenews.com/201...70th-birthday/
“As we stand at the brink of a second nuclear age and a period of
unprecedented climate change, scientists have a special responsibility,
once again to inform the public and to advise leaders about the perils that
humanity faces,†he said. “As scientists we understand the dangers of
nuclear weapons and their devastation effects, and we are learning how
human activities and technologies are affecting climate systems in ways
that may forever change life on Earth."



The very same Stephen Hawking who admonishes not to contact
aliens because they might eat us? He's an expert in his
field but this isn't it.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

When the only way that you can make a living is by getting a science grant from the government that you can ONLY get by trying to prove AGW it isn't surprising how many scientists are willing to stab their own mothers in the back. Let's remember that "science" per se is usually ONLY funded by government grants.

The work I did was specifically aimed at commercial use and none of it was directed at general research. But luckily you HAD to do some general research in order to get your special cases for commercial products. While there were ideas for "heart-lung machines" before the one I was working on, they could ONLY be used for very short periods of time because they were constant flow. e only got part-way through that project before running out of money but the research we did was used to produce the first actual working machines so that you could remove a patients heart and maintain his life. You can imagine my fumbling around and quickly teaching myself Calculus in order to calculate the expansion factor of the carotid artery. I probably would have felt foolish save I actually had a result whereas most of the others got little progress beyond outlining the work necessary. Who needs any more than a GED?

On Tuesday, November 22, 2016 at 2:58:11 PM UTC-8, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, November 22, 2016 at 2:12:39 PM UTC-8, wrote:
On Monday, November 21, 2016 at 4:04:25 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/21/2016 5:23 PM, wrote:
On Sunday, November 20, 2016 at 5:45:12 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/20/2016 3:48 PM, wrote:
On Sunday, November 20, 2016 at 12:04:32 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/20/2016 12:58 PM, wrote:
Only a tiny percentage of climatologists believe in man-made global warming. Perhaps HALF of them believe in climate change.

Cite?

Wikipedia for a start: John Cook et al., 2013
Cook et al. examined 11,944 abstracts from the peer-reviewed scientific literature from 1991–2011 that matched the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'.[12] They found that, while 66.4% of them expressed no position on anthropogenic global warming (AGW), of those that did, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are contributing to global warming.

If you're referring to

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survey...climate_change

(which is where I find your quote)
you seem to be interpreting it backwards.

--
- Frank Krygowski

I must say that you had to work pretty hard to get that. Try https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scient...climate_change

I found my link very easily. IIRC, it took two tries in Wikipedia. But
the important thing is, it says the opposite of what you claimed. So
does the link you just provided. So we still don't have a link
corroborating "Only a tiny percentage of climatologists believe in
man-made global warming," etc.

I suppose it's possible that the U.S. government is prohibiting the
publishing of papers that disprove anthropogenic climate change. And so
is the government of Britain. And France. And Germany. And Japan.
And Australia. And New Zealand. Etc., etc.

Well, I suppose that's all _possible_.

Thank God we have had the major oil corporations funding the truth!
;-)

(Although even they seem to be caving in to the universal conspiracy!)


--
- Frank Krygowski

Frank - There is no question that we are in a warming period. The question is: does MAN have any effect on it and that is NOT believed by the vast majority of scientists and almost none of the lay people who are a great deal more clever than given credit for.

Let me reiterate - Oxygen composes 21% of the atmosphere and has a higher latent head content than CO2 that a change of 100 ppm is being claimed to be harmful.

Water composes 70% of the surface of the Earth in liquid or solid form and 4% of the atmosphere in gaseous form. Moreover water absorbs almost the entire IR to UV spectrum whereas CO2 has a very narrow band of absorption almost exactly in between the emission spectrum of the Sun and the "reflective" spectrum of the Earth.

What's more the "charts" showing absorption and bandwidth are ALL misrepresentations since NONE of them show the actual values of absorption. The entire CO2 in the atmosphere holds virtually NONE of the Earth's heat. Hence changes in the levels are inconsequential as far as "climate" is concerned.

Exactly what are you questioning? If any reality then perhaps you can explain why none (NONE) of those supporting warming because of CO2 can predict anything at all? Have you noticed that they have now decided to "predict" 100 years in the future "if this continues as it is"?

Do you have any questions about there being records of three other warming periods in the past of times warmer than at present? Or that we haven't had any measurable warming for the last 19 years?

Does this mean we have carte blanche to cut down the rain forest? I sure hope so, because I love that ****ty furniture from Pier One.

I am firmly convinced that any policy that prevents me from doing whatever the f*** I want is wrong and part of a conspiracy to enslave the world. Everywhere I turn, it's ZOG, or the Trilateralists or the Illuminati. I am sure that the Knights Templar stole my Sunday Oregonian. I can't wait for Trump to drain the swamp -- and fill it, and build a hotel!

-- Jay Beattie.

Here is a what AGW is all about: "On Sunday, Ottmar Edenhofer, a German economist and IPCC Co-chair of Working Group III on Mitigation of Climate Change, told the Neue Zürcher Zeitung (translated) that “climate policy is redistributing the world's wealth� and that “it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization.�

Edenhofer went on to explain that in Cancun, the redistribution of not only wealth but also natural resources will be negotiated"

We can read in dozens of places on the Internet about how 1& of the world's population own 80% of the wealth.

Now what is that supposed to mean? Do you suppose they keep it in a lock box under their beds? This is nothing more than communist propaganda. Who CARES what someone ostensibly "owns"? This money DIES if it is not working. And it works by providing jobs to the rest of the entire world. If you were to take ALL of the world's complete wealth and equally distribute it to all on this globe each person would recieve $7500 and ONLY $1,000 would be in cash. How long do you suppose you could survive on a grand in cash and 3 1/2 square inches of San Francisco property?

Without these tycoons NO ONE would have the money to even die.

On Tuesday, November 22, 2016 at 4:02:51 PM UTC-8, wrote:
On Tuesday, November 22, 2016 at 2:58:11 PM UTC-8, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, November 22, 2016 at 2:12:39 PM UTC-8, wrote:
On Monday, November 21, 2016 at 4:04:25 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/21/2016 5:23 PM, wrote:
On Sunday, November 20, 2016 at 5:45:12 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/20/2016 3:48 PM, wrote:
On Sunday, November 20, 2016 at 12:04:32 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/20/2016 12:58 PM, wrote:
Only a tiny percentage of climatologists believe in man-made global warming. Perhaps HALF of them believe in climate change.

Cite?

Wikipedia for a start: John Cook et al., 2013
Cook et al. examined 11,944 abstracts from the peer-reviewed scientific literature from 1991–2011 that matched the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'.[12] They found that, while 66.4% of them expressed no position on anthropogenic global warming (AGW), of those that did, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are contributing to global warming.

If you're referring to

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survey...climate_change

(which is where I find your quote)
you seem to be interpreting it backwards.

--
- Frank Krygowski

I must say that you had to work pretty hard to get that. Try https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scient...climate_change

I found my link very easily. IIRC, it took two tries in Wikipedia. But
the important thing is, it says the opposite of what you claimed. So
does the link you just provided. So we still don't have a link
corroborating "Only a tiny percentage of climatologists believe in
man-made global warming," etc.

I suppose it's possible that the U.S. government is prohibiting the
publishing of papers that disprove anthropogenic climate change. And so
is the government of Britain. And France. And Germany. And Japan..
And Australia. And New Zealand. Etc., etc.

Well, I suppose that's all _possible_.

Thank God we have had the major oil corporations funding the truth!
;-)

(Although even they seem to be caving in to the universal conspiracy!)


--
- Frank Krygowski

Frank - There is no question that we are in a warming period. The question is: does MAN have any effect on it and that is NOT believed by the vast majority of scientists and almost none of the lay people who are a great deal more clever than given credit for.

Let me reiterate - Oxygen composes 21% of the atmosphere and has a higher latent head content than CO2 that a change of 100 ppm is being claimed to be harmful.

Water composes 70% of the surface of the Earth in liquid or solid form and 4% of the atmosphere in gaseous form. Moreover water absorbs almost the entire IR to UV spectrum whereas CO2 has a very narrow band of absorption almost exactly in between the emission spectrum of the Sun and the "reflective" spectrum of the Earth.

What's more the "charts" showing absorption and bandwidth are ALL misrepresentations since NONE of them show the actual values of absorption. The entire CO2 in the atmosphere holds virtually NONE of the Earth's heat. Hence changes in the levels are inconsequential as far as "climate" is concerned.

Exactly what are you questioning? If any reality then perhaps you can explain why none (NONE) of those supporting warming because of CO2 can predict anything at all? Have you noticed that they have now decided to "predict" 100 years in the future "if this continues as it is"?

Do you have any questions about there being records of three other warming periods in the past of times warmer than at present? Or that we haven't had any measurable warming for the last 19 years?

Does this mean we have carte blanche to cut down the rain forest? I sure hope so, because I love that ****ty furniture from Pier One.

I am firmly convinced that any policy that prevents me from doing whatever the f*** I want is wrong and part of a conspiracy to enslave the world. Everywhere I turn, it's ZOG, or the Trilateralists or the Illuminati. I am sure that the Knights Templar stole my Sunday Oregonian. I can't wait for Trump to drain the swamp -- and fill it, and build a hotel!

-- Jay Beattie.

Here is a what AGW is all about: "On Sunday, Ottmar Edenhofer, a German economist and IPCC Co-chair of Working Group III on Mitigation of Climate Change, told the Neue Zürcher Zeitung (translated) that “climate policy is redistributing the world's wealth� and that “it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization.�

Edenhofer went on to explain that in Cancun, the redistribution of not only wealth but also natural resources will be negotiated"

We can read in dozens of places on the Internet about how 1& of the world's population own 80% of the wealth.

Now what is that supposed to mean? Do you suppose they keep it in a lock box under their beds? This is nothing more than communist propaganda. Who CARES what someone ostensibly "owns"? This money DIES if it is not working. And it works by providing jobs to the rest of the entire world. If you were to take ALL of the world's complete wealth and equally distribute it to all on this globe each person would recieve $7500 and ONLY $1,000 would be in cash. How long do you suppose you could survive on a grand in cash and 3 1/2 square inches of San Francisco property?

I don't know. I think 3 1/2 square inches of San Francisco property is worth more than my house. I could get a reverse mortgage and live comfortably for the rest of my life -- which would be short because of my imminent murder by the sinister globalists. I can hear them now . . . circling . . . in my head.

Without these tycoons NO ONE would have the money to even die.

I'm not even going to bother listing the tycoons who have sodomized this country. Not that there aren't good tycoons. Some of my best friends are tycoons, and one day they just refused to show up to tycoon work. It was terrible. I and the other little people had to go foraging for nuts and berries -- whatever we could find to keep us alive until the world was rid of oppressive regulation and ready for the return of the tycoons.

-- Jay Beattie.