[Gasification] Energy Research Habitat

Thu Feb 8 09:29:15 CST 2007

Man, at last, one who is speaking out, sometimes I feel I am bloody  
alone.

torsdag 8. feb 2007 kl. 16:06 skrev Mark & Elena Gallmeier:

> 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.
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gasification mailing list
> Gasification at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/ 
> gasification_listserv.repp.org
> http://gasifiers.bioenergylists.org
>