Another cyclist killed in the lane

On 10/3/2015 9:23 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/2/2015 8:04 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/2/2015 7:33 PM, wrote:

A poll among hard scientist found that only 1-3% of them
believed that climate change was real let along man-made.
Maybe that's where that 97% came from. They just got it
opposite.

Got a link to that?



It's not secret or breaking news:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestay...arming-crisis/


http://www.inquisitr.com/1234575/nas...g-is-nonsense/

https://ricochet.com/archives/50-nas...lobal-warming/

Or see the many papers by Bjorn Lomborg in the past ten years

http://www.lomborg.com/

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I'll try again:

Got a link to the poll results showing only 1% to 3% of scientists
believe climate change is real?

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Friday, October 2, 2015 at 6:04:23 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/2/2015 7:33 PM, wrote:

A poll among hard scientist found that only 1-3% of them believed that climate change was real let along man-made. Maybe that's where that 97% came from. They just got it opposite.

Got a link to that?

Frank, for someone that's skeptical even of things even to the point of believing the mechanical strength of rims has no bearing on the reaction of a rim to a bump, how is it that you haven't bothered to even investigate the phony science of climate change?

http://justbunk.net/2014/02/27/97-of...-warming-bunk/

You do not appear to have any engineering training and yet make statements and comments as if you did. Jobst is no longer here to correct you so perhaps you should actually investigate things yourself.

"Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection, says the German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world's resources will be negotiated." - Ottmar Edenhofer author of the Fourth Assessment Report on Climate Change published by the IPCC in 2007. Can you say "socialist"?

On Saturday, October 3, 2015 at 6:23:51 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/2/2015 8:04 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/2/2015 7:33 PM, wrote:

A poll among hard scientist found that only 1-3% of them
believed that climate change was real let along man-made.
Maybe that's where that 97% came from. They just got it
opposite.

Got a link to that?



It's not secret or breaking news:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestay...arming-crisis/

http://www.inquisitr.com/1234575/nas...g-is-nonsense/

https://ricochet.com/archives/50-nas...lobal-warming/

Or see the many papers by Bjorn Lomborg in the past ten years

http://www.lomborg.com/

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

At least two Novel laureates have made similar statements. Climate Change is nothing more than a multimillion dollar money making machine.

On Saturday, October 3, 2015 at 7:27:02 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/3/2015 9:23 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/2/2015 8:04 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/2/2015 7:33 PM, wrote:

A poll among hard scientist found that only 1-3% of them
believed that climate change was real let along man-made.
Maybe that's where that 97% came from. They just got it
opposite.

Got a link to that?



It's not secret or breaking news:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestay...arming-crisis/


http://www.inquisitr.com/1234575/nas...g-is-nonsense/

https://ricochet.com/archives/50-nas...lobal-warming/

Or see the many papers by Bjorn Lomborg in the past ten years

http://www.lomborg.com/

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I'll try again:

Got a link to the poll results showing only 1% to 3% of scientists
believe climate change is real?

--
- Frank Krygowski

Frank - I'm getting rather tired of your "I don't like you so you're wrong" crap. If you cannot investigate OPEN information on the Internet please do not bother to post.

On Saturday, October 3, 2015 at 7:50:31 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Friday, October 2, 2015 at 6:04:23 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/2/2015 7:33 PM, wrote:

A poll among hard scientist found that only 1-3% of them believed that climate change was real let along man-made. Maybe that's where that 97% came from. They just got it opposite.

Got a link to that?

Frank, for someone that's skeptical even of things even to the point of believing the mechanical strength of rims has no bearing on the reaction of a rim to a bump, how is it that you haven't bothered to even investigate the phony science of climate change?

http://justbunk.net/2014/02/27/97-of...-warming-bunk/

I've always found lunatic blog sites with Pinocchio graphics highly persuasive. "Theory crushed." Ka-cha! Got you . . . you global warming idiots! Case closed.

-- Jay Beattie.

On 10/3/2015 10:13 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, October 3, 2015 at 7:50:31 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Friday, October 2, 2015 at 6:04:23 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/2/2015 7:33 PM, wrote:

A poll among hard scientist found that only 1-3% of them believed that climate change was real let along man-made. Maybe that's where that 97% came from. They just got it opposite.

Got a link to that?

Frank, for someone that's skeptical even of things even to the point of believing the mechanical strength of rims has no bearing on the reaction of a rim to a bump, how is it that you haven't bothered to even investigate the phony science of climate change?

http://justbunk.net/2014/02/27/97-of...-warming-bunk/

I've always found lunatic blog sites with Pinocchio graphics highly persuasive. "Theory crushed." Ka-cha! Got you . . . you global warming idiots! Case closed.

-- Jay Beattie.


Links supplied earlier. Again this is hardly breaking news
or any surprise to those who have paid any attention at all
in the past 20 years.


"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, adding that:

The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is
not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic
conferences since the Second World War."

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/...n_goal_is.html

A quick web search will show thousands of similar links.




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

On Saturday, October 3, 2015 at 5:18:41 PM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:

Links supplied earlier. Again this is hardly breaking news
or any surprise to those who have paid any attention at all
in the past 20 years.


"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, adding that:

The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is
not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic
conferences since the Second World War."

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/..._goal_is..html

A quick web search will show thousands of similar links.

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

Further back you can discover that global warming was invented as a scare story by the Club of Rome in order to justify drastic (read "genocidal") action on population control:
"In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill." -- Club of Rome, The First Global Revolution (a book you can borrow from you library or buy on the net)

It wasn't a conspiracy conducted by some Baader-Meinhof or Rote Kapelle or Black Hand; it was done out in the open by men in suits and ties, almost all of them millionaires. The key man at the Club of Rome was Maurice Strong, a Canadian oil billionaire who conveniently was a very influential man at UNEP, one of the agencies which set up the IPCC to "study", read "create", global warming. Strong is infamous not only as the first Executive Director of UNEP but as Secretary General of both the 1972 United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, which launched the world environment movement, and the 1992 Earth Summit, which both served the Club of Rome agenda of "a new enemy". I've opened another thread to show how the IPCC cooked up "global warming threat imminent" reports from totally opposite "no global warming" papers from scientists.

The IPCC a scam from the beginning, and set up as such, to serve a political purpose, not a scientific one.

Andre Jute
We have seen the enemy, and he is us -- Club of Rome motto

On Sat, 03 Oct 2015 23:40:22 +0100, Phil W Lee
wrote:

John B. considered Sat, 03 Oct 2015 19:45:33
+0700 the perfect time to write:

On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 21:04:14 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/2/2015 7:33 PM, wrote:

A poll among hard scientist found that only 1-3% of them believed that climate change was real let along man-made. Maybe that's where that 97% came from. They just got it opposite.

Got a link to that?

Start with a look at the Wiki
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instru...erature_record

Which says in the opening paragraph:
"The longest-running temperature record is the Central England
temperature data series, that starts in 1659. The longest-running
quasi-global record starts in 1850."

And has a chart in the side bar showing annual mean and 5 year running
mean temperatures since 1880. But perhaps of more interest is the 49
references that they include for the various statements made.

The question of global warming is, I believe, not in question by any
competent party. And the only question seems to be "why".

As for "why" I suggest that if one charted the use of carbon producing
fuels compared with mean annual temperature it might well show a
correlation :-)

That's been done, and yes, it does correlate.
Which is exactly what you would expect, once you actually understand
how the various gasses that make up our atmosphere behave.
The only "scientists" who disagree with this are the fossil fuel
funded shills.

The only remaining uncertainty is how much of the carbon dioxide is
staying in the atmosphere and raising global temperatures, and how
much dissolves in the oceans and acidifies them.
Both are destructive, so there is now no doubt that we need to be
moving away from all carbon release into the atmosphere, and quickly.

Which I suspect is politically impossible.

Imagine the debate, wild claims, and furor that would result from a
proposal to legally limit the number of automobiles in one U.S. family
to "one". Or even more so to the banning of all internal combustion
engines :-)

Another point is that if use of hydro-carbon fuel was limited then use
of wood as fuel would likely increase and cutting of forests would
increase with a decrease in "oxygen production" and carbon absorption.

This was, by the way, not a myth. Indonesia actually subsidized the
cost of kerosene to wean people away from using wood for cooking as it
was a major problem both in cutting forests but also in
transportation. Can you imagine the amount of timber that has to be
hauled from somewhere to Jakarta, a city of 10 million, just to cook
three meals a day?

Ultimately the subsidy on fuel oil became so great that the government
was forced to stop the subsidy and of course that caused further
unrest. The next step was to encourage the use of LPG with the result
that although Indonesia was one of the largest producers of
hydro-carbon gas in that period they were forced to import LPG for
local consumption.

--
cheers,

John B.

On Saturday, October 3, 2015 at 11:00:16 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Saturday, October 3, 2015 at 7:27:02 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/3/2015 9:23 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/2/2015 8:04 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/2/2015 7:33 PM, wrote:

A poll among hard scientist found that only 1-3% of them
believed that climate change was real let along man-made.
Maybe that's where that 97% came from. They just got it
opposite.

Got a link to that?



It's not secret or breaking news:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestay...arming-crisis/


http://www.inquisitr.com/1234575/nas...g-is-nonsense/

https://ricochet.com/archives/50-nas...lobal-warming/

Or see the many papers by Bjorn Lomborg in the past ten years

http://www.lomborg.com/

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I'll try again:

Got a link to the poll results showing only 1% to 3% of scientists
believe climate change is real?

--
- Frank Krygowski

Frank - I'm getting rather tired of your "I don't like you so you're wrong" crap. If you cannot investigate OPEN information on the Internet please do not bother to post.

Wow. So defensive!

- Frank Krygowski

John B. writes:

On Sat, 03 Oct 2015 23:40:22 +0100, Phil W Lee
wrote:

John B. considered Sat, 03 Oct 2015 19:45:33
+0700 the perfect time to write:

On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 21:04:14 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/2/2015 7:33 PM, wrote:

A poll among hard scientist found that only 1-3% of them believed that climate change was real let along man-made. Maybe that's where that 97% came from. They just got it opposite.

Got a link to that?

Start with a look at the Wiki
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instru...erature_record

Which says in the opening paragraph:
"The longest-running temperature record is the Central England
temperature data series, that starts in 1659. The longest-running
quasi-global record starts in 1850."

And has a chart in the side bar showing annual mean and 5 year running
mean temperatures since 1880. But perhaps of more interest is the 49
references that they include for the various statements made.

The question of global warming is, I believe, not in question by any
competent party. And the only question seems to be "why".

As for "why" I suggest that if one charted the use of carbon producing
fuels compared with mean annual temperature it might well show a
correlation :-)

That's been done, and yes, it does correlate.
Which is exactly what you would expect, once you actually understand
how the various gasses that make up our atmosphere behave.
The only "scientists" who disagree with this are the fossil fuel
funded shills.

The only remaining uncertainty is how much of the carbon dioxide is
staying in the atmosphere and raising global temperatures, and how
much dissolves in the oceans and acidifies them.
Both are destructive, so there is now no doubt that we need to be
moving away from all carbon release into the atmosphere, and quickly.

Which I suspect is politically impossible.

Imagine the debate, wild claims, and furor that would result from a
proposal to legally limit the number of automobiles in one U.S. family
to "one". Or even more so to the banning of all internal combustion
engines :-)

Another point is that if use of hydro-carbon fuel was limited then use
of wood as fuel would likely increase and cutting of forests would
increase with a decrease in "oxygen production" and carbon absorption.

That's already happening. Wood grown in the US is being burned in
Britain:

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-22630815

This is, of course, absolutely ****ing nuts, but it meets the letter
of some renewable energy law.