[Gasification] Energy Research Habitat

Thu Feb 8 09:06:06 CST 2007

To all,

Earlier in this thread we were invited to look at this page 
http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/ as a proffered proof of rising CO2 
levels.

I did.

Now I have some questions for the Global-Warming Is 
Man-Made-And-Here's-What-Must-Be-Done-Now-To-Save-Us-From-Apocalypse 
Cultists.

1.  Why is a single CO2 data source - taken from the top of the world's 
largest and one of the most active volcanoes - Mauna Loa - evidence of 
anything?

2.  Why did the second lowest recorded annual increase,  0.45, only occur in 
1992?  This was 33 years after that station began operations.  Why is there 
so much variation in the reported annual increases when the world-wide 
growth in industrial consumption of fossil fuels over that time period has 
been nearly uniform?  And the rate of fossil fuel usage and presumbly CO2 
production increasing at higher annual rates?

I have looked deeply into this issue in the past.  This includes the 
outrageous behavior of Michael Mann and his cabal over MBH-98 and the IPCC 
98 report with its famous "Hockey Stick" graph of temperatures (produced by 
computer code Mann still refuses to disclose completely).  I discovered peer 
review in this field is typically not done, and when it is done it's usually 
whiffle balled by a small closed network of academic backscratchers.  I have 
read the conclusions of the NAS chief statistician, Dr. Wegman, concerning 
the sophomoric statistical incompetence of those regularly providing major 
input to the IPCC, and more regularly appearing as Global Warming talking 
heads on mass media or providing one liners to ideological agenda driven 
newspapers like The Guardian.

I have watched Global Warming Cultists routinely hide their data and/or 
their analytical algorithms from critical review.

And I have watched these reports - calling for massive increases in taxes, 
bureaucratic power and grant funding to 'in' circles of researchers - passed 
out with the imprimatur of the world's most corrupt bureaucracy, the UN 
Secretariat.

No Sale.  Repeat, No Sale.  Back to study hall.  Do your homework over 
again.

1.  Define what a useful average global temperature is.
2.  Is this temperature increasing or decreasing?  If so, over what time 
frame?
3.  What are the possible causes of these changes?
4.  What mechanism(s) cause(s) changes in CO2 levels in the atmosphere?
5.  What effect will changed CO2 levels have on 'temperature' and 'weather'? 
GloboWarming Cultists have been running into significant problems with 
meterologists here.

And we can usefully add, 100% transparent disclosure of all data and methods 
used to arrive at any conclusion proffered as a basis for public policy 
changes.  This used to be a commonly accepted rule in reporting 'scientific' 
results funded with public monies and provided in an academic setting.     A 
rule that has since been discovered not to be currently enforced or accepted 
in the field of  'Global Warming'.

I think we're entering a Dark Age where ignorance, superstititon, blind 
prejudice and religious fanaticism are again gaining dominance.  An era of 
ignorant demogogues and calculating con-men disguised as moral leaders 
leading ignorant emotionally driven mobs, all in the name of higher 
morality.  Most unfortunately some of the worst cultists leading the way 
into this New Dark Age are waving around Ph.d's and claiming to be 
'scientific'.

Mark

> Message: 2
> Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 12:01:11 +0100
> From: kenn johnsen <kennj at webspeed.dk>
> Subject: Re: [Gasification] Energy Research Habitat
> To: gasification at listserv.repp.org
> Message-ID: <AFC639F3-B763-11DB-84EC-000A95714808 at webspeed.dk>
> Content-Type: text/plain; delsp=yes; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Mark.
>
> I do not know about the Greenland ice core, I do not know if it is on
> the net, maybe I should look for it. What I have been looking at, is
> the Antarctic ice core data. And after looking for hours at the
> different graphic, I can not at my best will see that the temperature
> follow the CO2, I am convinced that the CO2 follow the temperature, and
> that means....? well if you call a swing of 10 degree F a stable
> temperature, what I understand it does not take much to make a
> difference, the difference between the little ice age and now was 2
> degree F between now and the viking time ( warmer ) was close to 10
> degree F.
> http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/
>
> Here is a graphic for the last 600,000,000 years, click warming hoax,
> nor do I see any here that CO2 have any to do with climate temperature.
> http://biocab.org/Academic_Curriculum.html
>
> Also how much does those gases mean, compare to water vapour, very
> little, this one is accused to to accept oil money by the believers,
> but that does not mean his calculation is wrong.
>