Videos don't show in my browser, & even if they did it would take FOREVER for them to load. My LOUSY didl-up usually loads at between 1.5 to 3 kps. Paul
dont worry about it, its supposed to be funny, *eg not scientific* so it has no importance in this thread.
Just something regarding Global Warming that I read in Newsweek last fall, and THIS is why I have a hard time listening to a majority of the people I run into or read about who are big time "activists" in this area.
To sum it up, the column in Newsweek said that...
Shortly after Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans, Global Warming Alarmists warned of a "worst on record hurricane season" that was looming DUE TO GLOBAL WARMING. Well, guess what. It DIDN'T HAPPEN. In fact, the actual hurricane season was about typical to mild. But the kicker? Guess what those SAME people, after figuring out that their prognostications did not come true said?
THEY SAID THAT THE LACK OF A MAJOR HURRICANE SEASON ONLY PROVED GLOBAL WARMING WAS REAL BECAUSE GLOBAL WARMING MAKES THE WEATHER TOO UNPREDICTABLE.
Yes. THEY SAID IT...Apparently with a straight face. Must be nice to have it BOTH WAYS. You can't win this argument with those who are "activists" who believe in global warming because they simply say "I reject your reality no matter how factually based it is and substitute my own."
[This message has been edited by FieroFanatic13 (edited 06-09-2008).]
THEY SAID THAT THE LACK OF A MAJOR HURRICANE SEASON ONLY PROVED GLOBAL WARMING WAS REAL BECAUSE GLOBAL WARMING MAKES THE WEATHER TOO UNPREDICTABLE.
Yes. THEY SAID IT...Apparently with a straight face. Must be nice to have it BOTH WAYS. You can't win this argument with those who are "activists" who believe in global warming because they simply say "I reject your reality no matter how factually based it is and substitute my own."
Oh, absolutely. They'll NEVER admit their enviro-religion is wrong. Another example is what they said after evidence was presented about the latest solar cycle, lack of sunspots, and the flat global temperatures (lack of overall warming) over the last 8 years. Rather than admit, or at least acknowledge, that the sun may be driving changes in climate, their answer? ... "the sun is just overriding what man is doing". *sigh*
But back to hurricanes. There have been a number of hurricane experts saying that hurricanes *won't* increase in number. Gosh, I'm so glad the debate is over and the science is settled...
One problem with the idea that the "oceans are warming" is that...they aren't. At least not according to NASA's Argo system of 3,000 buoys, designed to gather temperature data. Note the following article from NPR, of all places. Also note their bewilderment as to how the data could be showing something other than warming...
Quote from A Seattle Guitarist(apparently a valued opinion on global climate). "By all means, I'd rather not have bonfires than have global warming," he said. This demonstrated the level of logical thought. Thank God Seattle had the balls to save the world.(maybe they feel guilty for MT St.Helen's.More co2 came from that then all human combined pollution ever) Lets keep making electricity with fossil fuels but get rid of bonfires at the beach.
To some this seems very stupid and unbelievable but you have to consider how ignorant the vast majority of the population is. Even educated people get caught up in this crap. Education does not it seems always translate into logical thought.
'There is also the crowd that doesn't actually believe this crap at all but likes the idea of leading all the lambs to a better way. It thrill them to no end and in fact they will straight out lie and defend bogus science just to keep the lambs going in a certain direction.
Sure we have serious pollution problems and we probably will kill off most of the sea life before we get a clue but why can't we deal with these problems instead of purporting lies about global warming?
Lots of people think they are following a golden dragon and when they find out it is a blue belly lizard they won't be happy. People are going to be very dismayed with the science community when they find out it is in fact a political organization. Politics has washed out with the people so they needed to get a new venue to get the attention. Scientists have really hurt thier credibility as a whole.
We, the scientists and researchers in climate and related fields, economists, policymakers, and business leaders, assembled at Times Square, New York City, participating in the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change,
Resolving that scientific questions should be evaluated solely by the scientific method;
Affirming that global climate has always changed and always will, independent of the actions of humans, and that carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant but rather a necessity for all life;
Recognising that the causes and extent of recently-observed climatic change are the subject of intense debates in the climate science community and that oft-repeated assertions of a supposed ‘consensus’ among climate experts are false;
Affirming that attempts by governments to legislate costly regulations on industry and individual citizens to encourage CO2 emission reduction will slow development while having no appreciable impact on the future trajectory of global climate change. Such policies will markedly diminish future prosperity and so reduce the ability of societies to adapt to inevitable climate change, thereby increasing, not decreasing human suffering;
Noting that warmer weather is generally less harmful to life on Earth than colder:
Hereby declare:
That current plans to restrict anthropogenic CO2 emissions are a dangerous misallocation of intellectual capital and resources that should be dedicated to solving humanity’s real and serious problems.
That there is no convincing evidence that CO2 emissions from modern industrial activity has in the past, is now, or will in the future cause catastrophic climate change.
That attempts by governments to inflict taxes and costly regulations on industry and individual citizens with the aim of reducing emissions of CO2 will pointlessly curtail the prosperity of the West and progress of developing nations without affecting climate.
That adaptation as needed is massively more cost-effective than any attempted mitigation, and that a focus on such mitigation will divert the attention and resources of governments away from addressing the real problems of their peoples.
That human-caused climate change is not a global crisis.
Now, therefore, we recommend –
That world leaders reject the views expressed by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as well as popular, but misguided works such as “An Inconvenient Truth”.
That all taxes, regulations, and other interventions intended to reduce emissions of CO2 be abandoned forthwith.
Agreed at New York, 4 March 2008.
List of the signers (153 climate or climate related scientists so far) of the Manhattan Declaration
A New York Times article from 1993. ------------------------------------------------ Study of Greenland Ice Finds Rapid Change in Past Climate
By WALTER SULLIVAN
To the astonishment of climate specialists, an analysis of ice extracted from the full depth of the Greenland ice sheet has shown that except for the 8,000 to 10,000 years since the last glacial epoch, the climate over the past 250,000 years has changed frequently and abruptly.
The findings suggest that the period of stable climate in which human civilization has flourished might be unusual, and that the current climate may get either warmer or colder much more quickly than had been believed -- in spans of decades or even less.
I was advised by a liberal friend of mine that she believed global warming was caused by people smoking cigarettes. I guess she thinks holding that little glowing butt between the fingers gives off a lot of heat. If that's the case couldn't they just offset that temperature rise by eating an ice cream cone immediately after smoking a cigarette?
I can't believe there are so many people who will swallow this global warming crap hook line and sinker.
If we can raise the temperature we should do it every winter to reduce heating costs and then cool it back down again in the summer.
How about if we all turned on our air conditioners and left all the windows open. We should be able to cool the whole planet down to 72 in a couple weeks. Think how cold we could get it if we left the refrigerator doors open too.
If that doesn't work then we can ban jumping in the ocean.
I didn't start this thread because I don't care. I started it because we're being scammed. Clean the environment, reduce pollution, find an alternative to burning gas...fine. Just don't f***ing LIE to me about it. We're being lied to, and I'm going to show you how.
THIS. This sums up my stance on this topic. why must we have false pretenses in order to make us be environmentally conscious?
THIS. This sums up my stance on this topic. why must we have false pretenses in order to make us be environmentally conscious?
Because, to the proponents, it's become a religion. The ends justify the means. That, and they are using the specter of total disaster to get us to go along with this. Scare the s*** out of the public so they'll buy into it.
Because, to the proponents, it's become a religion. The ends justify the means. That, and they are using the specter of total disaster to get us to go along with this. Scare the s*** out of the public so they'll buy into it.
Even if global warming isn't being caused by man(I personally don't believe man is causing it), there is still a problem with co2 emissions and the ozone and smog.
I think LA speaks for itself.
I'm not sure what the agenda of the "for global warming" crowd and I'm really not sure what the agenda of the "against global warming crowd" is.
If nothing else, the ideas that the global warming crowd introduce would reduce pollution, which IS a problem.
I mean seriously, what are both sides trying to accomplish?
Even if global warming isn't being caused by man(I personally don't believe man is causing it), there is still a problem with co2 emissions and the ozone and smog.
It's not right to mix up CO2 with ozone and "smog". CO2 isn't a pollutant. It's completely and totally natural. Plant life wouldn't exist without it. It exists in relative abundance in our atmosphere with or without humans. The attempt to regulate it is nothing more than a power play and money grab.
smog - smoke and fog. Hazy humid days with high particulate matter pollution. That's smog.
CO2 is a natural part of our atmosphere. Plants require it just as we require oxygen.
Ozone is O3 and is a vital part of our atmosphere's ability to protect us from ultraviolet rays. Yes, the same Ozone they warn you about not breathing is the same stuff they tell us we MUST protect to prevent the atmosphere's hole in the Ozone layer from enlarging. It's just at ground level it can be harmful to animals and people. Well, gee, we got rid of everything that damages Ozone to protect the Ozone layer. Maybe we should bring all that stuff back to get rid of the Ozone in cities?
Bottom line - most "climate experts" don't have a flipping clue. Even when they can detect patterns, it's almost impossible for them to trace it to a source and say cars or industry or cow farts are causing it.
I saw an add for a Honda fuel cell vehicle - it's only exhaust byproduct is water vapor. Imagine if every motor vehicle on the planet was like that. Then you'd probably hear about increasing moisture content in the air. Water vapor is also a greenhouse gas and can trap heat. Water vapor is responsible for 36% - 70% of the greenhouse gas effect on Earth. CO2 only causes 9% - 26%. Clearly, if we listen to "science" we should do everything in our power to outlaw water. (the logic is just as sound as the typical global warming sermon)
Originally posted by Spektrum-87GT: there is still a problem with co2 emissions and the ozone and smog. HAHAHAHA
quote
Originally posted by Formula88:
smog - smoke and fog. Hazy humid days with high particulate matter pollution. That's smog. actually replace PM with NOx (nitrous oxides) PM is just optical HCs
CO2 is a natural part of our atmosphere. Plants require it just as we require oxygen.
Ozone is O3 and is a vital part of our atmosphere's ability to protect us from ultraviolet rays. Yes, the same Ozone they warn you about not breathing is the same stuff they tell us we MUST protect to prevent the atmosphere's hole in the Ozone layer from enlarging. It's just at ground level it can be harmful to animals and people. Well, gee, we got rid of everything that damages Ozone to protect the Ozone layer. Maybe we should bring all that stuff back to get rid of the Ozone in cities? According to Anthropogenic OZONE DETERIORATION believers, (ooh I said it...) CFCs themselves dont react with ozone, they need to be split apart by the high UV at the highest parts of the atmosphere to combine with the ozone (deteriorate it)
Of course thats IMPOSSIBLE becuase that would require CFCs to be lighter than "air" which they're not.....
Bottom line - most "climate experts" don't have a flipping clue. no they just had no job after the Ozone and diesel ordeal.... im serious.... Even when they can detect patterns, it's almost impossible for them to trace it to a source and say cars or industry or cow farts are causing it. Word.....
I saw an add for a Honda fuel cell vehicle - it's only exhaust byproduct is water vapor. Vs just Co2 and Water??? Imagine if every motor vehicle on the planet was like that. what was so bad about Co2 again?? Then you'd probably hear about increasing moisture content in the air. yep Water vapor is also a greenhouse gas and can trap heat. more effective at it than CO2 actually Water vapor is responsible for 36% - 70% of the greenhouse gas effect on Earth. CO2 only causes 9% - 26%. Clearly, if we listen to "science" we should do everything in our power to outlaw water. (the logic is just as sound as the typical global warming sermon)
and smog isn't a real problem... the only thing thats a problem in LA is lack of circulation (bowl effect) which causes a buildup of few HCs (smell and watery eyes, boo hoo) and lack of oxygen (which is lighter than Co2)
La is the ONLY place in the US where Emission controls are justified, again due to the "Bowl effect"
I think global warming is popular because that now that they've gotten diesels to emit the same things as modern gasoline engines.........
CO2 and FREAKING WATER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
They would of been out of the job so they needed something to make up.....
I mean seriously... you cant even flippen kill yourself properly off the stuff anymore..... (at least very quickly...)
[This message has been edited by 4-mulaGT (edited 06-14-2008).]
and smog isn't a real problem... the only thing thats a problem in LA is lack of circulation (bowl effect) which causes a buildup of few HCs (smell and watery eyes, boo hoo) and lack of oxygen (which is lighter than Co2)
La is the ONLY place in the US where Emission controls are justified, again due to the "Bowl effect"
I think global warming is popular because that now that they've gotten diesels to emit the same things as modern gasoline engines.........
CO2 and FREAKING WATER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
They would of been out of the job so they needed something to make up.....
I mean seriously... you cant even flippen kill yourself properly off the stuff anymore..... (at least very quickly...)
The bowl effect causes it? Sure, tall building, little rain, I can buy that. It has nothing to do with the insane amount of traffic.
Only place it's justified? You've obviously never been to DC.
You do know that oxygen is important to us, right?
The bowl effect doesn't cause it - it just aggravates the problem. You get a temperature inversion with hot air trapped in the bowl below cooler air and it can't rise because the weight of the cold air is acting like a lid on a bowl. That just concentrates the problem.
Seriously, don't listen to scientists, what do they know. Instead, listen to idiots with political agendas.
Yes I have been to DC, and sat in traffic...
I felt fine....
Ive sat in traffic in Chicago to....... nope nothing... I did see some water from the exhaust condense on the side of a 08 Lexus though... OH MY GOD IM GONNA SUFFOCATE!!!!!!
That article is about the least Scientific piece of crap ive ever seen. Do you want to know why that article is worth nothing?
Energy sources such as hydrogen and petroleum seem poised to replace gasoline as the main automobile fuel source Warning #1, He has no clue what petroleum is....
CO2 emissions from a gallon of gasoline are 2421 grams per gallon, which is equivalent to 19.4 pounds of CO2 being pumped into the air for every gallon of gas. True.... but thats such a small amount its truly negligible, even if AGW is real.
Aromatics and olefins improve engine power and efficiency, yet they produce smoke and smog True... but again... AMOUNTS..... they are also cleaned from the air by water.
while lead additives are toxic air pollutants and benzene is a carcinogen a. AMOUNTS AMOUNTS AMOUNTS!!!! neither enough to do any harm b. carcinogen is just a fancy name for something that causes cancer, and about everything causes cancer by now but were not dead yet.... hmmm
An excess amount of light components in gasoline makes for an easy engine cold start, but can result in hydrocarbon loss and atmospheric pollution. Inversely, too many heavy components can cause the release of un-burnt hydrocarbons into the air. Amounts.... = negligible, HCs are flushed from the air at some point.
Sulfur compounds present in gasoline are corrosive, have a rank odor and cause sulfur trioxide emissions when used in context with engines, water does more corrosion damage.... due too.... take a wild guess..
while stability additives that reduce valve deposits, cause a greater amount of H, C and CO emissions. H is impossible to get in exhaust, it always combines with O2, C is harmless.... and CO is in the hundredth of thousandths of percent in output.
Gasoline emissions also cause damage to the water and disrupt aquatic ecosystems. Nitrogen outputted from the burning of fossil fuels, can cause loss of oxygen, the death of fish, loss of biodiversity, loss of coral reefs and plant beds, and toxic algal blooms, when introduced to aquatic ecosystems.
True, they Can... . . but they haven't.....
This paints a devastating picture of the affects of gasoline emissions; but what would happen if the use of gasoline and all fossil fuels were stopped today? So according to this guy.. we shouldn't have any ecosystem left at all by now....
What would happen??? We would all live in caves eating naturally grown plants and everybody would be happy alive and free. utopia sounds awesome dosent it!!!
I could pick apart this article for days on end, ( I already did most of it)
It all comes down to the fact that emission science is true!!! (OMMFG WTFF BBQ!) but when applied to the real world all of it becomes negligible, because in reality its just not enough, and even the small amounts have been handled flawlessly since the beginning. It is ARROGANT to think we have that much of an effect on the ecosystem.
CO2 emissions from a gallon of gasoline are 2421 grams per gallon, which is equivalent to 19.4 pounds of CO2 being pumped into the air for every gallon of gas.
I'm not trying to split hairs and I'm certainly not a believer in this man made global warming hype but a gallon of gasoline only weighs about 6 pounds. How could burning 6 pounds of fuel create 19.4 pounds of Co2?
CO2 emissions from a gallon of gasoline are 2421 grams per gallon, which is equivalent to 19.4 pounds of CO2 being pumped into the air for every gallon of gas.
I'm not trying to split hairs and I'm certainly not a believer in this man made global warming hype but a gallon of gasoline only weighs about 6 pounds. How could burning 6 pounds of fuel create 19.4 pounds of Co2?
because its gods will. this is mankinds pullution punishment, doncha know....throw your common sense away, and just believe! turn away or be turned to a pillar of salt you heratict! or maybe they are counting the whole process from dilling, refining, dispensing & driving?
CO2 emissions from a gallon of gasoline are 2421 grams per gallon, which is equivalent to 19.4 pounds of CO2 being pumped into the air for every gallon of gas.
I'm not trying to split hairs and I'm certainly not a believer in this man made global warming hype but a gallon of gasoline only weighs about 6 pounds. How could burning 6 pounds of fuel create 19.4 pounds of Co2?
It's not just fuel that is burned, so are elements in the air like oxygen. The burning of the mixture of air and fuel create that number.
[This message has been edited by Spektrum-87GT (edited 06-16-2008).]
CO2 emissions from a gallon of gasoline are 2421 grams per gallon, which is equivalent to 19.4 pounds of CO2 being pumped into the air for every gallon of gas.
I'm not trying to split hairs and I'm certainly not a believer in this man made global warming hype but a gallon of gasoline only weighs about 6 pounds. How could burning 6 pounds of fuel create 19.4 pounds of Co2?
I don't know if those numbers are accurate or not, but your analogy doesn't take everything into account. Remember, gas is burned to create CO2. That combines the gas with O2 from the air during combustion, so really the only part of the CO2 that comes from the gas is the Carbon itself. The O2 comes from the air. Carbon has an atomic weight of 12 and Oxygen is 8 (so O2 is 16). That means the gasoline only contributes 12/28, or 42.8% of the weight of the CO2 generated. The rest comes from the air.
Which would grow better? A plant in downtown manhattan or one in rural new york?
According to Treehuggers downtown Manhattan would be totally UN-inhabitable by plants due to all the lead, benzene, aromatics, and other toxins in the air, right?
CO2 emissions from a gallon of gasoline are 2421 grams per gallon, which is equivalent to 19.4 pounds of CO2 being pumped into the air for every gallon of gas.
I'm not trying to split hairs and I'm certainly not a believer in this man made global warming hype but a gallon of gasoline only weighs about 6 pounds. How could burning 6 pounds of fuel create 19.4 pounds of Co2?
Take a pound of steal and let it rust. Then weigh it again. I bet it weighs more. That increased weight is almost all oxygen. Rust is iron oxide, a molecule consisting of iron and oxygen. The mass of the iron in the rust molecules comes from the original nail, but the mass of the oxygen has come from the air. When rust forms on iron, the mass of the iron object is increased by the mass of the oxygen that has combined with some of the iron. A motor uses air and fuel. The two combine. In the proses you create more complex molecular structures. Thus it is possible to bind elements from two separate sources and make an enlarged weight out put.
yes, but the major gaseous products of both diesel- and gasoline-fuelled engines are not only carbon dioxide, but also water, and lower percentages of carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides as well as low molecular weight hydrocarbons and their derivatives. all kinds of oxides.
I really beleive their 19 pounds comes from all the involved processes of drilling, refining, distributing, etc. - not just the raw burn in you motor.
According to Treehuggers downtown Manhattan would be totally inhabitable by plants due to all the lead, benzene, aromatics, and other toxins in the air, right?
I believe the word you're looking for is uninhabitable.
According to Treehuggers downtown Manhattan would be totally UN-inhabitable by plants due to all the lead, benzene, aromatics, and other toxins in the air, right?
I keep trying to warn you folks about the panic that the global warming advocates are stirring up. See here, first hand the result!
I love that show.... Its the exact opposite of the American Idle/ Emotional, BS that has put the us in the position its in,
There was a comment on there that perfectly summed up my thoughts:
Im socially conservative & believe in God, but I got to love this show. Even at times when I don't agree with the point they are making, at least you have to THINK a little more. And all this from a "cartoon". Maybe if Washington & our local leaders watched this, they will start doing the right things for ALL of us. Or we could start voting for the better leader not just for an "R" or "D"
And this is a perfect one liner: In reality they are an equal opportunity offender.
Anyway... I suppose I should contribute something scientific to bore everyone.......
His personal history seems unusual, he is probably easily "discredited" but I would love to see anyone here debate with him with same caliber of scientific facts.
His personal history seems unusual, he is probably easily "discredited" but I would love to see anyone here debate with him with same caliber of scientific facts.
That looks like an interesting site. I'll check it out. Thanks for posting it.
Kenneth Tapping, a researcher at Canada's National Research Council, wants to look for evidence of increased sunspot activity, according to IBD. "The lack of increased activity could signal the beginning of what is known as a Maunder Minimum, an event which occurs every couple of centuries and can last as long as a century."
A "solar hibernation" in the 17th Century "corresponded with a period of bitter cold that began around 1650 and lasted, with intermittent spikes of warming, until 1715," IBD reported. "Frigid winters and cold summers during that period led to massive crop failures, famine and death in Northern Europe."
On June 23, 1988 James Hansen, Astronomer by degree but climatologist by self appointment testified in front of congress. It was an orchestrated testimony coordinated by Senator Al Gore and a Senator from Colorado, Tim Wirth (now running Ted Turner’s UN Foundation) who admitted they picked the day after calling the National Weather Service to ensure it was a hot day. He admitted proudly later they opened all the windows the night before, making air conditioning ineffective and making sure all involved including Hansen would be seen mopping their brow for maximum effect. Hansen testified “Number one, the earth is warmer in 1988 than at any time in the history of instrumental measurements. Number two, the global warming is now large enough that we can ascribe, with a high degree of confidence, a cause-and-effect relationship to the greenhouse effect.”
See in the story below how hard Hansen has worked to try and make his prognostication verify by manipulating data. By his own comments to the UK Guardian “When you are in that kind of position, as the CEO of one the primary players who have been putting out misinformation even via organisations that affect what gets into school textbooks, then I think that’s a crime.” Well the disinformation that comprises the GISS data then by his own words is a crime, and in his own words he “should be put on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature”.
Here is the plot of actual NASA global satellite monthly temperatures since June 1988. Note the anomaly in May 2008 was lower than in June 1988 by nearly 0.3C. Of course, we don’t have June 2008 numbers yet. Please note I am not saying that cooling began in 1988. Satellites show clearly that since 1979 there was a moderate warming which peaked in 1998. A cooling has taken place the last 6 to 7 years. Global station and ocean data with all its warts shows the warming from the early 1900s to the 1930s, cooling from the 1940s to the 1970s then warming again peaking in 1998. I am just making an observation that it is ironic that 20 years after his first testimony about global warming, it is half a degree F oooler globally, not supporting the drastic measure he advocates. Also we can explain not only the trends but each spike or dip with some natural phenomena as we have shown in recent posts.
23 June 2008 The AGW-hypothesis asserts that increased greenhouse gases (GHGs) – notably carbon dioxide – in the atmosphere will cause the globe to warm (global warming: GW) and that anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide are increasing the carbon dioxide in the air with resulting anthropogenic (i.e. man-made) global warming (AGW). I think a clear distinction needs to be made between (a) the science of AGW, and (b) the perception of AGW - and the use of AGW - by non-scientists. The science The present empirical evidence strongly indicates that the AGW-hypothesis is wrong; i.e.
1. There is no correlation between the anthropogenic emissions of GHGs and global temperature.
2. Change to atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is observed to follow change to global temperature at all time scales.
3. Recent rise in global temperature has not been induced by rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. The global temperature fell from 1940 to 1970, rose from 1970 to 1998, and fell from 1998 to the present (i.e. mid-2008). This is 40 years of cooling and 28 years of warming, and global temperature is now similar to that of 1940. But atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has increased at a near-constant rate and by more than 30% since 1940.
4. Rise in global temperature has not been induced by increase to anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide. More than 80% of the anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide has been since 1940 and the increase to the emissions has been at a compound rate of ~0.4% p.a. throughout that time. But that time has exhibited 40 years of cooling with only 28 years of warming, and global temperature is now similar to that of 1940.
5. The pattern of atmospheric warming predicted by the AGW hypothesis is absent. The AGW hypothesis predicts most warming of the atmosphere at altitude distant from polar regions. Radiosonde measurements from weather balloons show slight cooling at altitude distant from polar regions. The above list provides a complete refutation of the AGW-hypothesis according to the normal rules of science: i.e.
Nothing the hypothesis predicts is observed in the empirical data and the opposite of the hypothesis' predictions is observed in the empirical data. But politicians and advocates adhere to the hypothesis. They have a variety of motives (i.e. personal financial gain, protection of their career histories and futures, political opportunism, etc.). But support of science cannot be one such motive because science denies the hypothesis. Hence, additional scientific information cannot displace the AGW-hypothesis and cannot silence its advocates (e.g. Hansen). And those advocates are not scientists despite some of them claiming that they are.
Richard S. Courtney DipPhil IPCC expert reviewer, energy and environmental consultant United Kingdom
[This message has been edited by fierobear (edited 07-12-2008).]
Not a scientific proof, but I thought this was interesting. Al Gore, the poster boy for "GLOBAL WARMING, WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!!", doesn't seem to put his money - or science - where his mouth is on global warming.
Written By: Dan Miller Published In: Environment & Climate News Publication Date: July 1, 2008 Publisher: The Heartland Institute
Al Gore, one of the world's leading proponents of the theory that global warming is an imminent crisis, missed a deadline to meet a global warming challenge issued by a leading expert in forecasting.
Scott Armstrong, a professor at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, issued the challenge to the former vice president in June 2007. Gore initially indicated interest in the challenge, but later expressed some concerns.
Armstrong said he could forecast global temperature change over the next 10 years more accurately than any climate model Gore might nominate.
Armstrong's forecast was to be that the global mean temperature would not change over the 10 years. His forecast is based on the so-called "naive model" that has been shown by prior research to be appropriate for complex situations with high uncertainty.
Armstrong proposed each man would put $10,000 into a charitable trust fund, and the one with the most accurate forecast would designate a recipient.
Backed Down Repeatedly
Gore indicated he was busy when the bet was first proposed, so Armstrong extended the deadline to March 26, 2008 and simplified the bet so Gore merely needed to put a checkmark beside a climate model that would produce forecasts for him. Gore then came back and said he did not believe in money wagers--so Armstrong proposed they forget the money and just conduct the challenge for scientific purposes.
Nothing more was heard from Gore, and the deadline passed.
On March 28, Armstrong sent a message to Gore, asking him, "When and under what conditions would you be willing to engage in a scientific test of your forecasts?"
Armstrong said, "Validation of forecasting methods is a key issue in climate change because, although we know that climate varies, we have been unable to locate a single scientific forecast that supports global warming. If Mr. Gore or anyone else is aware of such a forecast, they should reveal the source to the scientific community. Claims that science supports global warming forecasts have, to date, failed to provide sources."
A history of Armstrong's Global Warning Challenge to Gore is provided at http://theclimatebet.com. It includes all correspondence between Scott Armstrong and Al Gore.
Then you'd probably hear about increasing moisture content in the air. yep Water vapor is also a greenhouse gas and can trap heat. more effective at it than CO2 actually Water vapor is responsible for 36% - 70% of the greenhouse gas effect on Earth. CO2 only causes 9% - 26%. Clearly, if we listen to "science" we should do everything in our power to outlaw water. 
