Risk Management: WWIII vs Climate Change

considered Tue, 22 Nov 2016 15:04:31 -0800 (PST)
the perfect time to write:

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 fossil fuel industry is queuing up to give grants to "scientists"
willing to abandon their principles and endorse their continued
pollution - it's far easier to get grants from them, and they are
becoming increasingly desperate to find supporters, and lowering the
level of qualifications for those they will support to that end.
Grants from governments are trivial by comparison, and it took decades
to convince governments of the facts.

The work I did was specifically aimed at commercial use

I rest my case.

On 11/23/2016 2:36 PM, wrote:
On Tuesday, November 22, 2016 at 8:28:33 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/22/2016 5:12 PM, wrote:


Frank - There is no question that we are in a warming period.

Ah. Some, of course, still insist that there is a question. I don't
know where they think the glaciers are hiding.

The question is: does MAN have any effect on it and that is NOT
believed by the vast majority of scientists ...

Oh, those dummies at NASA!
http://www.space.com/34637-global-wa...asa-video.html

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?

I certainly have a question about that latter statement. It disagrees
with everything I've seen - except, perhaps, Breitbart. Even Faux News
and that rude guy with the funny hair seem to have accepted the idea.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Tell me Frank - aren't YOU the one that has said before that correlation is not causation? What's more, All of these "predictions" start with the premise that we are continuing to warm. We haven't for the last almost 19 years now.

So, got data?


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Wed, 23 Nov 2016 11:52:33 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 9:36:35 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/23/2016 2:33 AM, John B Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 22 Nov 2016 23:28:27 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 11/22/2016 5:12 PM, wrote:


Frank - There is no question that we are in a warming period.

Ah. Some, of course, still insist that there is a question. I don't
know where they think the glaciers are hiding.

The question is: does MAN have any effect on it and that is NOT
believed by the vast majority of scientists ...

Oh, those dummies at NASA!
http://www.space.com/34637-global-wa...asa-video.html

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?

I certainly have a question about that latter statement. It disagrees
with everything I've seen - except, perhaps, Breitbart. Even Faux News
and that rude guy with the funny hair seem to have accepted the idea.

Admittedly I haven't made a study of it but from a casual look it
appears that it is getting warmer. And, apparently, at least some if
it can be blamed on CO2 in the atmosphere. And, I saw some estimates
on the amount of CO2 released during the most recent eruption of a
volcano in Indonesia and 24 hours of that volume makes the efforts of
mankind look positively anemic.

The NASA link I gave above included the effect of volcanoes. Check it out.


--
- Frank Krygowski

NASA research into the CO2 exhaust of volcanoes is deeply flawed as I've said elsewhere. It is based on the premise that they can tell the difference in the amount of man-made CO2 and that of Volcanoes by the ratio of carbon 14 isotope. The fact is that this is not the case.

To demonstrate - let's take paleontology as an example - virtually every single theory on dinosaurs has been changed at least a dozen times. The carbon 14 theory came from a single paper describing the air on a single volcano on Hawaii.There are some 200 known volcanoes in the world and perhaps that same number we do not know along the mid-oceanic ridges. Take for example the claim that there was a retreating ice sheet in Antarctica. This turned out to be a previously unknown undersea volcano and while it was melting one rather small area the total ice pack has grown to it's record level.

NASA is one of the very last sources to believe anymore. As I suggested - READ Scientific American October issue on "The Truth Brokers - How Science Gets Filtered" and "How the FDA manipulates the media". The upshot of these articles is that the government decides WHAT you're going to hear or read and the media goes right along with them seeking NO alternative opinions.

So if you want to maintain a closed mind that is your business. But don't pretend it's anything other than a closed mind.

Or, one could simply listen to Good Old Circling Tom, the last word in
almost everything.

On Wed, 23 Nov 2016 21:59:27 +0000, Phil Lee
wrote:

considered Tue, 22 Nov 2016 14:12:36 -0800 (PST)
the perfect time to write:

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?

The 5 warmest years on record have all been since 2010, so it's hardly
controversial, at least among people who look at the science instead
of the uneducated rhetoric or outright lies of those with a vested
interest in preserving the fossil fuel industry, even at the cost of
the planet.

Such people are traitors to the human race, and should be removed from
it.
And yes, that includes the idiot that the US broken electoral system
has proclaimed as the president elect, despite more people voting for
his opponent. How is that supposed to be democracy?

U.S. Democracy. Which is different from British democracy, or even the
original Greek democracy. In fact so vastly different from the
original that the ancient Greeks would not recognize it, nor, I
suspect, condone it as a viable political system.

John B Slocomb considered Thu, 24 Nov 2016
07:46:05 +0700 the perfect time to write:

On Wed, 23 Nov 2016 21:59:27 +0000, Phil Lee
wrote:

considered Tue, 22 Nov 2016 14:12:36 -0800 (PST)
the perfect time to write:

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?

The 5 warmest years on record have all been since 2010, so it's hardly
controversial, at least among people who look at the science instead
of the uneducated rhetoric or outright lies of those with a vested
interest in preserving the fossil fuel industry, even at the cost of
the planet.

Such people are traitors to the human race, and should be removed from
it.
And yes, that includes the idiot that the US broken electoral system
has proclaimed as the president elect, despite more people voting for
his opponent. How is that supposed to be democracy?

U.S. Democracy. Which is different from British democracy, or even the
original Greek democracy. In fact so vastly different from the
original that the ancient Greeks would not recognize it, nor, I
suspect, condone it as a viable political system.

I doubt if they'd recognise many of the current systems of so-called
democracy around the world.
They could be fixed, except that those holding the power to make the
change would be the ones to lose from it.

On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 4:46:12 PM UTC-8, John B Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 23 Nov 2016 21:59:27 +0000, Phil Lee
wrote:

considered Tue, 22 Nov 2016 14:12:36 -0800 (PST)
the perfect time to write:

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?

The 5 warmest years on record have all been since 2010, so it's hardly
controversial, at least among people who look at the science instead
of the uneducated rhetoric or outright lies of those with a vested
interest in preserving the fossil fuel industry, even at the cost of
the planet.

Such people are traitors to the human race, and should be removed from
it.
And yes, that includes the idiot that the US broken electoral system
has proclaimed as the president elect, despite more people voting for
his opponent. How is that supposed to be democracy?

U.S. Democracy. Which is different from British democracy, or even the
original Greek democracy. In fact so vastly different from the
original that the ancient Greeks would not recognize it, nor, I
suspect, condone it as a viable political system.

Could that be because the founders carefully considered all of the various systems and chose a Representative Republic over a Democracy because in a Democracy the population centers would have complete control over the rest of the nation?

Do you honestly believe that New York City, LA and San Francisco should be running the USA?

considered Sat, 26 Nov 2016 11:18:22 -0800 (PST)
the perfect time to write:

On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 4:46:12 PM UTC-8, John B Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 23 Nov 2016 21:59:27 +0000, Phil Lee
wrote:

considered Tue, 22 Nov 2016 14:12:36 -0800 (PST)
the perfect time to write:

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?

The 5 warmest years on record have all been since 2010, so it's hardly
controversial, at least among people who look at the science instead
of the uneducated rhetoric or outright lies of those with a vested
interest in preserving the fossil fuel industry, even at the cost of
the planet.

Such people are traitors to the human race, and should be removed from
it.
And yes, that includes the idiot that the US broken electoral system
has proclaimed as the president elect, despite more people voting for
his opponent. How is that supposed to be democracy?

U.S. Democracy. Which is different from British democracy, or even the
original Greek democracy. In fact so vastly different from the
original that the ancient Greeks would not recognize it, nor, I
suspect, condone it as a viable political system.

Could that be because the founders carefully considered all of the various systems and chose a Representative Republic over a Democracy because in a Democracy the population centers would have complete control over the rest of the nation?

Do you honestly believe that New York City, LA and San Francisco should be running the USA?

The founding fathers are very unlikely to have considered it that way,
if at all.
In their day, rural population would have exceeded urban population by
a considerable margin, and that the situation might someday be
reversed would not have been predictable to them with the information
and knowledge they had then.

On Sat, 26 Nov 2016 11:18:22 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 4:46:12 PM UTC-8, John B Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 23 Nov 2016 21:59:27 +0000, Phil Lee
wrote:

considered Tue, 22 Nov 2016 14:12:36 -0800 (PST)
the perfect time to write:

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?

The 5 warmest years on record have all been since 2010, so it's hardly
controversial, at least among people who look at the science instead
of the uneducated rhetoric or outright lies of those with a vested
interest in preserving the fossil fuel industry, even at the cost of
the planet.

Such people are traitors to the human race, and should be removed from
it.
And yes, that includes the idiot that the US broken electoral system
has proclaimed as the president elect, despite more people voting for
his opponent. How is that supposed to be democracy?

U.S. Democracy. Which is different from British democracy, or even the
original Greek democracy. In fact so vastly different from the
original that the ancient Greeks would not recognize it, nor, I
suspect, condone it as a viable political system.

Could that be because the founders carefully considered all
of the various systems and chose a Representative Republic over a
Democracy because in a Democracy the population centers would have
complete control over the rest of the nation?

As I said, U.S. Democracy" and designed, as you say, to prevent
densely populated states from controlling the government to the
detriment of less densely populated states.


Do you honestly believe that New York City, LA and San Francisco should be running the USA?

On Sun, 27 Nov 2016 02:02:18 +0000, Phil Lee
wrote:

considered Sat, 26 Nov 2016 11:18:22 -0800 (PST)
the perfect time to write:

On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 4:46:12 PM UTC-8, John B Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 23 Nov 2016 21:59:27 +0000, Phil Lee
wrote:

considered Tue, 22 Nov 2016 14:12:36 -0800 (PST)
the perfect time to write:

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?

The 5 warmest years on record have all been since 2010, so it's hardly
controversial, at least among people who look at the science instead
of the uneducated rhetoric or outright lies of those with a vested
interest in preserving the fossil fuel industry, even at the cost of
the planet.

Such people are traitors to the human race, and should be removed from
it.
And yes, that includes the idiot that the US broken electoral system
has proclaimed as the president elect, despite more people voting for
his opponent. How is that supposed to be democracy?

U.S. Democracy. Which is different from British democracy, or even the
original Greek democracy. In fact so vastly different from the
original that the ancient Greeks would not recognize it, nor, I
suspect, condone it as a viable political system.

Could that be because the founders carefully considered all of the various systems and chose a Representative Republic over a Democracy because in a Democracy the population centers would have complete control over the rest of the nation?

Do you honestly believe that New York City, LA and San Francisco should be running the USA?

The founding fathers are very unlikely to have considered it that way,
if at all.
In their day, rural population would have exceeded urban population by
a considerable margin, and that the situation might someday be
reversed would not have been predictable to them with the information
and knowledge they had then.

Do some research. The Electrical Collage was specifically designed to
protect the less densely populated states from being overwhelmed by
the more populated states.

Remember the Constitution was a document designed to allow, and
encourage, a number of independent states to join together to form a
government.

On 11/26/2016 8:02 PM, Phil Lee wrote:
considered Sat, 26 Nov 2016 11:18:22 -0800 (PST)
the perfect time to write:

On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 4:46:12 PM UTC-8, John B Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 23 Nov 2016 21:59:27 +0000, Phil Lee
wrote:

considered Tue, 22 Nov 2016 14:12:36 -0800 (PST)
the perfect time to write:

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?

The 5 warmest years on record have all been since 2010, so it's hardly
controversial, at least among people who look at the science instead
of the uneducated rhetoric or outright lies of those with a vested
interest in preserving the fossil fuel industry, even at the cost of
the planet.

Such people are traitors to the human race, and should be removed from
it.
And yes, that includes the idiot that the US broken electoral system
has proclaimed as the president elect, despite more people voting for
his opponent. How is that supposed to be democracy?

U.S. Democracy. Which is different from British democracy, or even the
original Greek democracy. In fact so vastly different from the
original that the ancient Greeks would not recognize it, nor, I
suspect, condone it as a viable political system.

Could that be because the founders carefully considered all of the various systems and chose a Representative Republic over a Democracy because in a Democracy the population centers would have complete control over the rest of the nation?

Do you honestly believe that New York City, LA and San Francisco should be running the USA?

The founding fathers are very unlikely to have considered it that way,
if at all.
In their day, rural population would have exceeded urban population by
a considerable margin, and that the situation might someday be
reversed would not have been predictable to them with the information
and knowledge they had then.


When written, the problem was that simple democracy would
allow Virginia to run roughshod over the smaller States in
all matters, making a Union undesirable.

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