IPCC (Inept Panel Of Climate Clowns)

[Ext User(B0NZ0)]

Sunday, December 30, 2007

IPCC (Inept Panel Of Climate Clowns)



When hundreds of scientists issued a letter saying they weren't too keen
on Warmie hysterics, advocates of imminent climate doom like Andrew
Dessler, professor at the Department of Atmospheric Sciences, Texas A&M,
quickly got to work attacking their credentials.



What then of the UN's top global warming cheerleading body, the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change? Well ...



We decided to test Dessler's claim. So we downloaded IPCC WGII's latest
report on "Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability". There were 380
contributors to the report [PDF of contributors]. A thorough and
exhaustive analysis of the backgrounds of these experts (or were they?)
was too ambitious (it's Christmas, and we have wine to drink, and mince
pies to eat, too). So, we focused on the contributors who operate in the
UK.



Of the 51 UK contributors to the report, there were 5 economists, 3
epidemiologists, 5 who were either zoologists, entomologists, or
biologists. 5 worked in civil engineering or risk management /
insurance. 7 had specialisms in physical geography (we gave the benefit
of the doubt to some academics whose profiles weren't clear about
whether they are physical or human geographers). And just 10 have
specialisms in geophysics, climate science or modelling, or hydrology.
But there were 15 who could only be described as social scientists. If
we take the view that economics is a social science, that makes 20
social scientists.



This gives the lie to Dessler's claim that IPCC contributors are
analogous to medical doctors. There are economists working on saving
that dying child!!! That's got to be wrong, by Dessler's own standards.
(Climate Resistance)

This would be interesting, but of course the debate is over.



http://cheatseekingmissiles.blogspot.com/
--


Get The TRUE Facts At
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/index.html

Excellent Links At
http://www.warwickhughes.com/

Regards
Bonzo

"If the atmosphere was a 100 story building, our annual anthropogenic
CO2
contribution today would be equivalent to the linoleum on the first
floor"
D'Aleo


"...and I think future generations are not going to blame us for
anything except for being silly, for letting a few tenths of a degree
panic us"
Dr. Richard Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology MIT and Member of the
National Academy of Sciences


"What most commentators-and many scientists-seem to miss is that the
only thing we can say with certainly about climate is that it changes"
Dr. Richard Lindzen


[most of the current alarm over climate change is based on] "inherently
untrustworthy climate models, similar to those that cannot accurately
forecast the weather a week from now." Dr. Richard Lindzen

[Ext User(Bawana)]

On Jan 6, 8:42 pm, "B0NZ0" <boo...@optusnt.com.au> wrote:
> Sunday, December 30, 2007
>
> IPCC (Inept Panel Of Climate Clowns)

Insipid Pile of Consensus Cataclysm

[Ext User(Tom Gardner)]

"Bawana" <mrbawana2u@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:088b3b64-405e-4810-91c1-1aa28ee582ab@i3g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 6, 8:42 pm, "B0NZ0" <boo...@optusnt.com.au> wrote:
>> Sunday, December 30, 2007
>>
>> IPCC (Inept Panel Of Climate Clowns)
>
> Insipid Pile of Consensus Cataclysm

Indiscriminate Purloining of Civilization's Cash

[Ext User(Green Turtle)]

"Tom Gardner" <tom(spamless)@ohiobrush.com> wrote in message
news:32hgj.86393$YL5.53667@newssvr29.news.prodigy. net...
>
> "Bawana" <mrbawana2u@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:088b3b64-405e-4810-91c1-1aa28ee582ab@i3g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>> On Jan 6, 8:42 pm, "B0NZ0" <boo...@optusnt.com.au> wrote:
>>> Sunday, December 30, 2007
>>>
>>> IPCC (Inept Panel Of Climate Clowns)
>>
>> Insipid Pile of Consensus Cataclysm
>
> Indiscriminate Purloining of Civilization's Cash
Internatinal Pnale of Cash Cows

International Panel of Cash Cows

After all this whole farce all been about the money and power that they
want.

Super Turtle

[Ext User(B0NZ0)]

Insatiable Procurers Of Corrupt Commissions



Get The TRUE Facts At
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/index.html

Excellent Links At
http://www.warwickhughes.com/

Regards
Bonzo

"If the atmosphere was a 100 story building, our annual anthropogenic
CO2
contribution today would be equivalent to the linoleum on the first
floor"
D'Aleo


"...and I think future generations are not going to blame us for
anything except for being silly, for letting a few tenths of a degree
panic us"
Dr. Richard Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology MIT and Member of the
National Academy of Sciences


"What most commentators-and many scientists-seem to miss is that the
only thing we can say with certainly about climate is that it changes"
Dr. Richard Lindzen


[most of the current alarm over climate change is based on] "inherently
untrustworthy climate models, similar to those that cannot accurately
forecast the weather a week from now." Dr. Richard Lindzen

[Ext User(V-for-Vendicar)]

"Bawana" <mrbawana2u@yahoo.com> wrote
> Insipid Pile of Consensus Cataclysm

Put a bullet in your head Tard. You ain't got nothing to live for.

[Ext User(Don H)]

"B0NZ0" <boozoo@optusnt.com.au> wrote in message
news:4781837a@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> Sunday, December 30, 2007
>
> IPCC (Inept Panel Of Climate Clowns)
>
>
>
> When hundreds of scientists issued a letter saying they weren't too keen
> on Warmie hysterics, advocates of imminent climate doom like Andrew
> Dessler, professor at the Department of Atmospheric Sciences, Texas A&M,
> quickly got to work attacking their credentials.
>
>
>
> What then of the UN's top global warming cheerleading body, the
> Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change? Well ...
>
>
>
> We decided to test Dessler's claim. So we downloaded IPCC WGII's latest
> report on "Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability". There were 380
> contributors to the report [PDF of contributors]. A thorough and
> exhaustive analysis of the backgrounds of these experts (or were they?)
> was too ambitious (it's Christmas, and we have wine to drink, and mince
> pies to eat, too). So, we focused on the contributors who operate in the
> UK.
>
>
>
> Of the 51 UK contributors to the report, there were 5 economists, 3
> epidemiologists, 5 who were either zoologists, entomologists, or
> biologists. 5 worked in civil engineering or risk management /
> insurance. 7 had specialisms in physical geography (we gave the benefit
> of the doubt to some academics whose profiles weren't clear about
> whether they are physical or human geographers). And just 10 have
> specialisms in geophysics, climate science or modelling, or hydrology.
> But there were 15 who could only be described as social scientists. If
> we take the view that economics is a social science, that makes 20
> social scientists.
>
>
>
> This gives the lie to Dessler's claim that IPCC contributors are
> analogous to medical doctors. There are economists working on saving
> that dying child!!! That's got to be wrong, by Dessler's own standards.
> (Climate Resistance)
>
> This would be interesting, but of course the debate is over.
>
>
>
> http://cheatseekingmissiles.blogspot.com/
> --
>
>
> Get The TRUE Facts At
> http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/index.html
>
> Excellent Links At
> http://www.warwickhughes.com/
>
> Regards
> Bonzo
>
> "If the atmosphere was a 100 story building, our annual anthropogenic
> CO2
> contribution today would be equivalent to the linoleum on the first
> floor"
> D'Aleo
>
>
> "...and I think future generations are not going to blame us for
> anything except for being silly, for letting a few tenths of a degree
> panic us"
> Dr. Richard Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology MIT and Member of the
> National Academy of Sciences
>
>
> "What most commentators-and many scientists-seem to miss is that the
> only thing we can say with certainly about climate is that it changes"
> Dr. Richard Lindzen
>
>
> [most of the current alarm over climate change is based on] "inherently
> untrustworthy climate models, similar to those that cannot accurately
> forecast the weather a week from now." Dr. Richard Lindzen
>

# Immense Population Crash Coming.
The 6.5 billion human locusts chomping away at planet Earth, and
polluting it, won't last indefinitely - the Boom will be followed by a Crash
(decimation or extinction), and probably within the next few decades.
Oil reserves have peaked and are now in decline, yet Australia celebrates
record motor vehicle sales, and widens freeways.
Big is always better, so Melbourne is to deep channel dredge Port Phillip
Bay, to allow bigger container ships to enter this fragile ecosystem. Both
Business and Unions are in favour, so how could we possibly go wrong?
Yes, the race to extinction is on, and Homo Sapiens hasn't much time
left. But Global Warming Skeptics assure us there's no need for alarm, and
complacency is alright. Just carry on as usual, as we humans can't possibly
have any effect on Nature.
Nature doesn't care - one more species extinct.
God? Lots of people believe, but none can prove.
Yes, we're on our own, and it may already be too late.
The Mad Ape was clever, too clever.

[Ext User(Thomas)]

On Jan 7, 2:42 am, Bawana <mrbawan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jan 6, 8:42 pm, "B0NZ0" <boo...@optusnt.com.au> wrote:
>
> > Sunday, December 30, 2007
>
> > IPCC (Inept Panel Of Climate Clowns)


Indian Plays Cricket Constantly

[Ext User(Tunderbar)]

On Jan 6, 7:42*pm, "B0NZ0" <boo...@optusnt.com.au> wrote:
> Sunday, December 30, 2007
>
> IPCC (Inept Panel Of Climate Clowns)
>
> When hundreds of scientists issued a letter saying they weren't too keen
> on Warmie hysterics, advocates of imminent climate doom like Andrew
> Dessler, professor at the Department of Atmospheric Sciences, Texas A&M,
> quickly got to work attacking their credentials.
>
> What then of the UN's top global warming cheerleading body, the
> Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change? Well ...
>
> We decided to test Dessler's claim. So we downloaded IPCC WGII's latest
> report on "Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability". There were 380
> contributors to the report [PDF of contributors]. A thorough and
> exhaustive analysis of the backgrounds of these experts (or were they?)
> was too ambitious (it's Christmas, and we have wine to drink, and mince
> pies to eat, too). So, we focused on the contributors who operate in the
> UK.
>
> Of the 51 UK contributors to the report, there were 5 economists, 3
> epidemiologists, 5 who were either zoologists, entomologists, or
> biologists. 5 worked in civil engineering or risk management /
> insurance. 7 had specialisms in physical geography (we gave the benefit
> of the doubt to some academics whose profiles weren't clear about
> whether they are physical or human geographers). And just 10 have
> specialisms in geophysics, climate science or modelling, or hydrology.
> But there were 15 who could only be described as social scientists. If
> we take the view that economics is a social science, that makes 20
> social scientists.
>
> This gives the lie to Dessler's claim that IPCC contributors are
> analogous to medical doctors. There are economists working on saving
> that dying child!!! That's got to be wrong, by Dessler's own standards.
> (Climate Resistance)
>
> This would be interesting, but of course the debate is over.
>
> http://cheatseekingmissiles.blogspot.com/
> --
>
> Get The TRUE Facts At
> *http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/index.html
>
> Excellent Links At
> *http://www.warwickhughes.com/
>
> Regards
> Bonzo
>
> "If the atmosphere was a 100 story building, our annual anthropogenic
> CO2
> contribution today would be equivalent to the linoleum on the first
> floor"
> D'Aleo
>
> "...and I think future generations are not going to blame us for
> anything except for being silly, for letting a few tenths of a degree
> panic us"
> Dr. Richard Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology MIT and Member of the
> National Academy of Sciences
>
> "What most commentators-and many scientists-seem to miss is that the
> only thing we can say with certainly about climate is that it changes"
> Dr. Richard Lindzen
>
> [most of the current alarm over climate change is based on] "inherently
> untrustworthy climate models, similar to those that cannot accurately
> forecast the weather a week from now." Dr. Richard Lindzen

Infamous Pile of Cretinous Crapulence

[Ext User(B0NZ0)]

"Don H" <donlhumphries@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:S_ugj.464$421.391@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> "B0NZ0" <boozoo@optusnt.com.au> wrote in message
> news:4781837a@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>> Sunday, December 30, 2007
>> IPCC (Inept Panel Of Climate Clowns)
>> When hundreds of scientists issued a letter saying they weren't too
>> keen
>> on Warmie hysterics, advocates of imminent climate doom like Andrew
>> Dessler, professor at the Department of Atmospheric Sciences, Texas
>> A&M,
>> quickly got to work attacking their credentials.
>> What then of the UN's top global warming cheerleading body, the
>> Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change? Well ...
>> We decided to test Dessler's claim. So we downloaded IPCC WGII's
>> latest
>> report on "Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability". There were 380
>> contributors to the report [PDF of contributors]. A thorough and
>> exhaustive analysis of the backgrounds of these experts (or were
>> they?)
>> was too ambitious (it's Christmas, and we have wine to drink, and
>> mince
>> pies to eat, too). So, we focused on the contributors who operate in
>> the
>> UK.
>> Of the 51 UK contributors to the report, there were 5 economists, 3
>> epidemiologists, 5 who were either zoologists, entomologists, or
>> biologists. 5 worked in civil engineering or risk management /
>> insurance. 7 had specialisms in physical geography (we gave the
>> benefit
>> of the doubt to some academics whose profiles weren't clear about
>> whether they are physical or human geographers). And just 10 have
>> specialisms in geophysics, climate science or modelling, or
>> hydrology.
>> But there were 15 who could only be described as social scientists.
>> If
>> we take the view that economics is a social science, that makes 20
>> social scientists.
>> This gives the lie to Dessler's claim that IPCC contributors are
>> analogous to medical doctors. There are economists working on saving
>> that dying child!!! That's got to be wrong, by Dessler's own
>> standards.
>> (Climate Resistance)
>> This would be interesting, but of course the debate is over.
>> http://cheatseekingmissiles.blogspot.com/
>> Get The TRUE Facts At
>> http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/index.html
>> Excellent Links At
>> http://www.warwickhughes.com/
>> Regards
>> Bonzo
>> "If the atmosphere was a 100 story building, our annual anthropogenic
>> CO2
>> contribution today would be equivalent to the linoleum on the first
>> floor"
>> D'Aleo
>> "...and I think future generations are not going to blame us for
>> anything except for being silly, for letting a few tenths of a degree
>> panic us"
>> Dr. Richard Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology MIT and Member of the
>> National Academy of Sciences
>> "What most commentators-and many scientists-seem to miss is that the
>> only thing we can say with certainly about climate is that it
>> changes"
>> Dr. Richard Lindzen
>> [most of the current alarm over climate change is based on]
>> "inherently
>> untrustworthy climate models, similar to those that cannot accurately
>> forecast the weather a week from now." Dr. Richard Lindzen
> # Immense Population Crash Coming.
> The 6.5 billion human locusts chomping away at planet Earth, and
> polluting it, won't last indefinitely - the Boom will be followed by a
> Crash
> (decimation or extinction), and probably within the next few decades.
> Oil reserves have peaked and are now in decline, yet Australia
> celebrates
> record motor vehicle sales, and widens freeways.
> Big is always better, so Melbourne is to deep channel dredge Port
> Phillip
> Bay, to allow bigger container ships to enter this fragile ecosystem.
> Both
> Business and Unions are in favour, so how could we possibly go wrong?
> Yes, the race to extinction is on, and Homo Sapiens hasn't much time
> left. But Global Warming Skeptics assure us there's no need for
> alarm, and
> complacency is alright.

DEJA VU.
Ehrlich et al were also dead wrong!

"The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s, the world will

undergo famines. Hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to

death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. Population

control is the only answer" Paul Ehrlich The Population Bomb

1968



"I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000"

Paul Ehrlich 1969



"In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct.

Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the

stench of dead fish" Paul Ehrlich, Earth Day 1970



"Before 1985, mankind will enter a genuine age of scarcity . . . in

which the accessible supplies of many key minerals will be facing

depletion" Paul Ehrlich in 1976




Get The TRUE Facts At
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/index.html

Excellent Links At
http://www.warwickhughes.com/

Regards
Bonzo

"If the atmosphere was a 100 story building, our annual anthropogenic
CO2
contribution today would be equivalent to the linoleum on the first
floor"
D'Aleo


"...and I think future generations are not going to blame us for
anything except for being silly, for letting a few tenths of a degree
panic us"
Dr. Richard Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology MIT and Member of the
National Academy of Sciences


"What most commentators-and many scientists-seem to miss is that the
only thing we can say with certainly about climate is that it changes"
Dr. Richard Lindzen


[most of the current alarm over climate change is based on] "inherently
untrustworthy climate models, similar to those that cannot accurately
forecast the weather a week from now." Dr. Richard Lindzen

[Ext User(Don H)]

"B0NZ0" <boozoo@optusnt.com.au> wrote in message
news:4782b8ac$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> "Don H" <donlhumphries@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> news:S_ugj.464$421.391@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > "B0NZ0" <boozoo@optusnt.com.au> wrote in message
> > news:4781837a@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> >> Sunday, December 30, 2007
> >> IPCC (Inept Panel Of Climate Clowns)
> >> When hundreds of scientists issued a letter saying they weren't too
> >> keen
> >> on Warmie hysterics, advocates of imminent climate doom like Andrew
> >> Dessler, professor at the Department of Atmospheric Sciences, Texas
> >> A&M,
> >> quickly got to work attacking their credentials.
> >> What then of the UN's top global warming cheerleading body, the
> >> Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change? Well ...
> >> We decided to test Dessler's claim. So we downloaded IPCC WGII's
> >> latest
> >> report on "Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability". There were 380
> >> contributors to the report [PDF of contributors]. A thorough and
> >> exhaustive analysis of the backgrounds of these experts (or were
> >> they?)
> >> was too ambitious (it's Christmas, and we have wine to drink, and
> >> mince
> >> pies to eat, too). So, we focused on the contributors who operate in
> >> the
> >> UK.
> >> Of the 51 UK contributors to the report, there were 5 economists, 3
> >> epidemiologists, 5 who were either zoologists, entomologists, or
> >> biologists. 5 worked in civil engineering or risk management /
> >> insurance. 7 had specialisms in physical geography (we gave the
> >> benefit
> >> of the doubt to some academics whose profiles weren't clear about
> >> whether they are physical or human geographers). And just 10 have
> >> specialisms in geophysics, climate science or modelling, or
> >> hydrology.
> >> But there were 15 who could only be described as social scientists.
> >> If
> >> we take the view that economics is a social science, that makes 20
> >> social scientists.
> >> This gives the lie to Dessler's claim that IPCC contributors are
> >> analogous to medical doctors. There are economists working on saving
> >> that dying child!!! That's got to be wrong, by Dessler's own
> >> standards.
> >> (Climate Resistance)
> >> This would be interesting, but of course the debate is over.
> >> http://cheatseekingmissiles.blogspot.com/
> >> Get The TRUE Facts At
> >> http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/index.html
> >> Excellent Links At
> >> http://www.warwickhughes.com/
> >> Regards
> >> Bonzo
> >> "If the atmosphere was a 100 story building, our annual anthropogenic
> >> CO2
> >> contribution today would be equivalent to the linoleum on the first
> >> floor"
> >> D'Aleo
> >> "...and I think future generations are not going to blame us for
> >> anything except for being silly, for letting a few tenths of a degree
> >> panic us"
> >> Dr. Richard Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology MIT and Member of the
> >> National Academy of Sciences
> >> "What most commentators-and many scientists-seem to miss is that the
> >> only thing we can say with certainly about climate is that it
> >> changes"
> >> Dr. Richard Lindzen
> >> [most of the current alarm over climate change is based on]
> >> "inherently
> >> untrustworthy climate models, similar to those that cannot accurately
> >> forecast the weather a week from now." Dr. Richard Lindzen
> > # Immense Population Crash Coming.
> > The 6.5 billion human locusts chomping away at planet Earth, and
> > polluting it, won't last indefinitely - the Boom will be followed by a
> > Crash
> > (decimation or extinction), and probably within the next few decades.
> > Oil reserves have peaked and are now in decline, yet Australia
> > celebrates
> > record motor vehicle sales, and widens freeways.
> > Big is always better, so Melbourne is to deep channel dredge Port
> > Phillip
> > Bay, to allow bigger container ships to enter this fragile ecosystem.
> > Both
> > Business and Unions are in favour, so how could we possibly go wrong?
> > Yes, the race to extinction is on, and Homo Sapiens hasn't much time
> > left. But Global Warming Skeptics assure us there's no need for
> > alarm, and
> > complacency is alright.
>
> DEJA VU.
> Ehrlich et al were also dead wrong!
>
> "The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s, the world will
>
> undergo famines. Hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to
>
> death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. Population
>
> control is the only answer" Paul Ehrlich The Population Bomb
>
> 1968
>
>
>
> "I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000"
>
> Paul Ehrlich 1969
>
>
>
> "In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct.
>
> Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the
>
> stench of dead fish" Paul Ehrlich, Earth Day 1970
>
>
>
> "Before 1985, mankind will enter a genuine age of scarcity . . . in
>
> which the accessible supplies of many key minerals will be facing
>
> depletion" Paul Ehrlich in 1976
>
>
>
>
> Get The TRUE Facts At
> http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/index.html
>
> Excellent Links At
> http://www.warwickhughes.com/
>
> Regards
> Bonzo
>
> "If the atmosphere was a 100 story building, our annual anthropogenic
> CO2
> contribution today would be equivalent to the linoleum on the first
> floor"
> D'Aleo
>
>
> "...and I think future generations are not going to blame us for
> anything except for being silly, for letting a few tenths of a degree
> panic us"
> Dr. Richard Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology MIT and Member of the
> National Academy of Sciences
>
>
> "What most commentators-and many scientists-seem to miss is that the
> only thing we can say with certainly about climate is that it changes"
> Dr. Richard Lindzen
>
>
> [most of the current alarm over climate change is based on] "inherently
> untrustworthy climate models, similar to those that cannot accurately
> forecast the weather a week from now." Dr. Richard Lindzen
>

# Prophets of Doom are always likely to be proven wrong by subsequent
events, or lack of them.
Likewise, Prophets of Good Times can come to grief when things start to
go bad.
It is a matter of whom do we trust? and, is it prudent to ensure the
bad times don't come - or drift along, happily assuming they won't?
World human population continues to increase, soon to reach 9 billion,
in spite of contraction in some Western nations.
This is aggravated in its ecological impact by the constant mantra of
capitalism: for growth, profit, and development.
No, I'd claim Nature is closing in on us, due to our proliferation and
activity.
Pollution is a major factor, and, although some recycling of waste is
occurring, it is not uniform, and air pollution is the critical aspect at
the moment.
Forest and jungle elimination, for monoculture crops - pine trees, soya
beans, GM crops - and reduction in bio-diversity. This is another factor.
Raw materials are being used up in a hectic rush to create a moonscape,
of holes-in-the-ground.
Then there's threat of war, especially nuclear war, as we Mad Apes
cannot succeed in solving problems by reason and compromise, but lose out
tempers, and hit out at our enemies. Terrorism and Anti-terrorism will
finish us off, what Nature (as distorted by us) fails to accomplish.
By a supreme effort, we may avoid disaster, but the human capacity for
self-deception, complacency, and inertia, is probably too great.
The dinosaurs lasted for millions of years. Homo Sapiens, as such -
one million. RIP.

[Ext User(V-for-Vendicar)]

"Bonzo" <boozoo@optusnt.com.au> Lies:
> Sorry to expose your lies Popcock (not really!), but temperatures have
> plateaued since 1998 DESPITE soaring CO2 levels.
> Actually the globe has cooled a little since then and is now starting a
> cooling tend proper.

You are a Habitual Liar Bonzo. Here is the temperature data and a plot
showing the
increase in temperaure since 1998.


"HangEveryRepubliKKKan" <Justice@ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote
>> 1998 14.57 *********************o*****
>> 1999 14.33 *****************>>>>o
>> 2000 14.33 *****************>>>>>o
>> 2001 14.48 ************************o
>> 2002 14.56 *************************o**
>> 2003 14.55 **************************o*
>> 2004 14.49 *************************>>o
>> 2005 14.62 *****************************o**
>> 2006 14.54 ***************************>>>o
>>
>> Look at all those "o"'s lined up there.

"Bonzo" <boozoo@optusnt.com.au> wrote
> The "0"'s are NOT THE DATA!
> They have created a trend which does not exist in the data.
> Voodoo statistics!

Ahahahahahahahahaha... Stupid KKKonservative KKKlown. A trendline skirts
across the top of the data leaving equal portions of the data above and
below. In this instane 10 dots above, and 14 below as a result of the crude
nature of ascii graphics. Nevertheless it represents the best line that can
be fitted to the data based on minimizing the square of the distance between
the line and the real data. It's called a least squares curve fit.

You are completely ignorant when it comes to statistics and mathematics in
general aren't you Bonzo.

Ahahahahahaha.. You don't know what statistics are, where it comes from,
how it is used, or how to use it, and yet in your vast ignorance, you seem
to think that you know more about science than all of the worlds scientists.

"Voodoo statistics" Ahahahahahahahah... You need to go back to public
school and take a refresher course in basic technical literacy.

Stupid... Stupid.. KKKonservative KKKlown....


"Bonzo" <boozoo@optusnt.com.au> wrote
> Here is the data which shows NO TREND!
>
> 1998 366.50 2.5721 14.57
> 1999 368.14 2.6148 14.33
> 2000 369.41 2.6399 14.33
> 2001 371.07 2.6672 14.48
> 2002 373.16 2.7032 14.56
> 2003 375.80 2.7487 14.55
> 2004 377.55 NA 14.49
> 2005 379.75 NA 14.63
> 2006 381.90 NA 14.54

No? Lets plot the data and find out shall we? Here it is along with the
best linear fit to the data shown as "o".

1998 14.57 *********************o*****
1999 14.33 *****************>>>>o
2000 14.33 *****************>>>>>o
2001 14.48 ************************o
2002 14.56 *************************o**
2003 14.55 **************************o*
2004 14.49 *************************>>o
2005 14.62 *****************************o**
2006 14.54 ***************************>>>o

Look at all those "o"'s lined up there. The trend is up, Up, UP.

In fact the equation is...

o = 14.42 + (0.0195 *(YEAR-1998))

This shows a trend of 2'C (3.5'F) per century.

So Bonzo, who is paying you to post lies to this newsgroup?

[Ext User(V-for-Vendicar)]

"Bonzo" <boozoo@optusnt.com.au> Lies:
> Sorry to expose your lies Popcock (not really!), but temperatures have
> plateaued since 1998 DESPITE soaring CO2 levels.
> Actually the globe has cooled a little since then and is now starting a
> cooling tend proper.

You are a Habitual Liar Bonzo. Here is the temperature data and a plot
showing the
increase in temperaure since 1998.


"HangEveryRepubliKKKan" <Justice@ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote
>> 1998 14.57 *********************o*****
>> 1999 14.33 *****************>>>>o
>> 2000 14.33 *****************>>>>>o
>> 2001 14.48 ************************o
>> 2002 14.56 *************************o**
>> 2003 14.55 **************************o*
>> 2004 14.49 *************************>>o
>> 2005 14.62 *****************************o**
>> 2006 14.54 ***************************>>>o
>>
>> Look at all those "o"'s lined up there.

"Bonzo" <boozoo@optusnt.com.au> wrote
> The "0"'s are NOT THE DATA!
> They have created a trend which does not exist in the data.
> Voodoo statistics!

Ahahahahahahahahaha... Stupid KKKonservative KKKlown. A trendline skirts
across the top of the data leaving equal portions of the data above and
below. In this instane 10 dots above, and 14 below as a result of the crude
nature of ascii graphics. Nevertheless it represents the best line that can
be fitted to the data based on minimizing the square of the distance between
the line and the real data. It's called a least squares curve fit.

You are completely ignorant when it comes to statistics and mathematics in
general aren't you Bonzo.

Ahahahahahaha.. You don't know what statistics are, where it comes from,
how it is used, or how to use it, and yet in your vast ignorance, you seem
to think that you know more about science than all of the worlds scientists.

"Voodoo statistics" Ahahahahahahahah... You need to go back to public
school and take a refresher course in basic technical literacy.

Stupid... Stupid.. KKKonservative KKKlown....


"Bonzo" <boozoo@optusnt.com.au> wrote
> Here is the data which shows NO TREND!
>
> 1998 366.50 2.5721 14.57
> 1999 368.14 2.6148 14.33
> 2000 369.41 2.6399 14.33
> 2001 371.07 2.6672 14.48
> 2002 373.16 2.7032 14.56
> 2003 375.80 2.7487 14.55
> 2004 377.55 NA 14.49
> 2005 379.75 NA 14.63
> 2006 381.90 NA 14.54

No? Lets plot the data and find out shall we? Here it is along with the
best linear fit to the data shown as "o".

1998 14.57 *********************o*****
1999 14.33 *****************>>>>o
2000 14.33 *****************>>>>>o
2001 14.48 ************************o
2002 14.56 *************************o**
2003 14.55 **************************o*
2004 14.49 *************************>>o
2005 14.62 *****************************o**
2006 14.54 ***************************>>>o

Look at all those "o"'s lined up there. The trend is up, Up, UP.

In fact the equation is...

o = 14.42 + (0.0195 *(YEAR-1998))

This shows a trend of 2'C (3.5'F) per century.

So Bonzo, who is paying you to post lies to this newsgroup?

[Ext User(V-for-Vendicar)]

"Bonzo" <boozoo@optusnt.com.au> Lies:
> Sorry to expose your lies Popcock (not really!), but temperatures have
> plateaued since 1998 DESPITE soaring CO2 levels.
> Actually the globe has cooled a little since then and is now starting a
> cooling tend proper.

You are a Habitual Liar Bonzo. Here is the temperature data and a plot
showing the
increase in temperaure since 1998.


"HangEveryRepubliKKKan" <Justice@ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote
>> 1998 14.57 *********************o*****
>> 1999 14.33 *****************>>>>o
>> 2000 14.33 *****************>>>>>o
>> 2001 14.48 ************************o
>> 2002 14.56 *************************o**
>> 2003 14.55 **************************o*
>> 2004 14.49 *************************>>o
>> 2005 14.62 *****************************o**
>> 2006 14.54 ***************************>>>o
>>
>> Look at all those "o"'s lined up there.

"Bonzo" <boozoo@optusnt.com.au> wrote
> The "0"'s are NOT THE DATA!
> They have created a trend which does not exist in the data.
> Voodoo statistics!

Ahahahahahahahahaha... Stupid KKKonservative KKKlown. A trendline skirts
across the top of the data leaving equal portions of the data above and
below. In this instane 10 dots above, and 14 below as a result of the crude
nature of ascii graphics. Nevertheless it represents the best line that can
be fitted to the data based on minimizing the square of the distance between
the line and the real data. It's called a least squares curve fit.

You are completely ignorant when it comes to statistics and mathematics in
general aren't you Bonzo.

Ahahahahahaha.. You don't know what statistics are, where it comes from,
how it is used, or how to use it, and yet in your vast ignorance, you seem
to think that you know more about science than all of the worlds scientists.

"Voodoo statistics" Ahahahahahahahah... You need to go back to public
school and take a refresher course in basic technical literacy.

Stupid... Stupid.. KKKonservative KKKlown....


"Bonzo" <boozoo@optusnt.com.au> wrote
> Here is the data which shows NO TREND!
>
> 1998 366.50 2.5721 14.57
> 1999 368.14 2.6148 14.33
> 2000 369.41 2.6399 14.33
> 2001 371.07 2.6672 14.48
> 2002 373.16 2.7032 14.56
> 2003 375.80 2.7487 14.55
> 2004 377.55 NA 14.49
> 2005 379.75 NA 14.63
> 2006 381.90 NA 14.54

No? Lets plot the data and find out shall we? Here it is along with the
best linear fit to the data shown as "o".

1998 14.57 *********************o*****
1999 14.33 *****************>>>>o
2000 14.33 *****************>>>>>o
2001 14.48 ************************o
2002 14.56 *************************o**
2003 14.55 **************************o*
2004 14.49 *************************>>o
2005 14.62 *****************************o**
2006 14.54 ***************************>>>o

Look at all those "o"'s lined up there. The trend is up, Up, UP.

In fact the equation is...

o = 14.42 + (0.0195 *(YEAR-1998))

This shows a trend of 2'C (3.5'F) per century.

So Bonzo, who is paying you to post lies to this newsgroup?

[Ext User(V-for-Vendicar)]

"Tom Gardner" <tom(spamless)@ohiobrush.com>
> Indiscriminate Purloining of Civilization's Cash

1 The Climate System: an Overview
2 Observed Climate Variability and Change
3 The Carbon Cycle and Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
4 Atmospheric Chemistry and Greenhouse Gases
5 Aerosols, their Direct and Indirect Effects
6 Radiative Forcing of Climate Change
7 Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks
8 Model Evaluation
9 Projections of Future Climate Change
10 Regional Climate Information - Evaluation and Projections
11 Changes in Sea Level
12 Detection of Climate Change and Attribution of Causes
13 Climate Scenario Development
14 Advancing Our Understanding

Appendix I Glossary
Appendix II SRES Tables
Appendix III Contributors to the IPCC WGI Third Assessment Report
Appendix IV Reviewers of the IPCC WGI Third Assessment Report
Appendix V Acronyms and Abbreviations
Appendix VI Units
Appendix VII Some Chemical Symbols used in this Report
Appendix VIII Figures and Tables in this Report

[Ext User(Bawana)]

On Jan 6, 8:42 pm, "B0NZ0" <boo...@optusnt.com.au> wrote:
> Sunday, December 30, 2007
>
> IPCC (Inept Panel Of Climate Clowns)

Insipid Pile of Consensus Cataclysm

[Ext User(Don H)]

"B0NZ0" <boozoo@optusnt.com.au> wrote in message
news:4781837a@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> Sunday, December 30, 2007
>
> IPCC (Inept Panel Of Climate Clowns)
>
>
>
> When hundreds of scientists issued a letter saying they weren't too keen
> on Warmie hysterics, advocates of imminent climate doom like Andrew
> Dessler, professor at the Department of Atmospheric Sciences, Texas A&M,
> quickly got to work attacking their credentials.
>
>
>
> What then of the UN's top global warming cheerleading body, the
> Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change? Well ...
>
>
>
> We decided to test Dessler's claim. So we downloaded IPCC WGII's latest
> report on "Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability". There were 380
> contributors to the report [PDF of contributors]. A thorough and
> exhaustive analysis of the backgrounds of these experts (or were they?)
> was too ambitious (it's Christmas, and we have wine to drink, and mince
> pies to eat, too). So, we focused on the contributors who operate in the
> UK.
>
>
>
> Of the 51 UK contributors to the report, there were 5 economists, 3
> epidemiologists, 5 who were either zoologists, entomologists, or
> biologists. 5 worked in civil engineering or risk management /
> insurance. 7 had specialisms in physical geography (we gave the benefit
> of the doubt to some academics whose profiles weren't clear about
> whether they are physical or human geographers). And just 10 have
> specialisms in geophysics, climate science or modelling, or hydrology.
> But there were 15 who could only be described as social scientists. If
> we take the view that economics is a social science, that makes 20
> social scientists.
>
>
>
> This gives the lie to Dessler's claim that IPCC contributors are
> analogous to medical doctors. There are economists working on saving
> that dying child!!! That's got to be wrong, by Dessler's own standards.
> (Climate Resistance)
>
> This would be interesting, but of course the debate is over.
>
>
>
> http://cheatseekingmissiles.blogspot.com/
> --
>
>
> Get The TRUE Facts At
> http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/index.html
>
> Excellent Links At
> http://www.warwickhughes.com/
>
> Regards
> Bonzo
>
> "If the atmosphere was a 100 story building, our annual anthropogenic
> CO2
> contribution today would be equivalent to the linoleum on the first
> floor"
> D'Aleo
>
>
> "...and I think future generations are not going to blame us for
> anything except for being silly, for letting a few tenths of a degree
> panic us"
> Dr. Richard Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology MIT and Member of the
> National Academy of Sciences
>
>
> "What most commentators-and many scientists-seem to miss is that the
> only thing we can say with certainly about climate is that it changes"
> Dr. Richard Lindzen
>
>
> [most of the current alarm over climate change is based on] "inherently
> untrustworthy climate models, similar to those that cannot accurately
> forecast the weather a week from now." Dr. Richard Lindzen
>

# Immense Population Crash Coming.
The 6.5 billion human locusts chomping away at planet Earth, and
polluting it, won't last indefinitely - the Boom will be followed by a Crash
(decimation or extinction), and probably within the next few decades.
Oil reserves have peaked and are now in decline, yet Australia celebrates
record motor vehicle sales, and widens freeways.
Big is always better, so Melbourne is to deep channel dredge Port Phillip
Bay, to allow bigger container ships to enter this fragile ecosystem. Both
Business and Unions are in favour, so how could we possibly go wrong?
Yes, the race to extinction is on, and Homo Sapiens hasn't much time
left. But Global Warming Skeptics assure us there's no need for alarm, and
complacency is alright. Just carry on as usual, as we humans can't possibly
have any effect on Nature.
Nature doesn't care - one more species extinct.
God? Lots of people believe, but none can prove.
Yes, we're on our own, and it may already be too late.
The Mad Ape was clever, too clever.

[Ext User(Thomas)]

On Jan 7, 2:42 am, Bawana <mrbawan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jan 6, 8:42 pm, "B0NZ0" <boo...@optusnt.com.au> wrote:
>
> > Sunday, December 30, 2007
>
> > IPCC (Inept Panel Of Climate Clowns)


Indian Plays Cricket Constantly

[Ext User(Tunderbar)]

On Jan 6, 7:42*pm, "B0NZ0" <boo...@optusnt.com.au> wrote:
> Sunday, December 30, 2007
>
> IPCC (Inept Panel Of Climate Clowns)
>
> When hundreds of scientists issued a letter saying they weren't too keen
> on Warmie hysterics, advocates of imminent climate doom like Andrew
> Dessler, professor at the Department of Atmospheric Sciences, Texas A&M,
> quickly got to work attacking their credentials.
>
> What then of the UN's top global warming cheerleading body, the
> Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change? Well ...
>
> We decided to test Dessler's claim. So we downloaded IPCC WGII's latest
> report on "Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability". There were 380
> contributors to the report [PDF of contributors]. A thorough and
> exhaustive analysis of the backgrounds of these experts (or were they?)
> was too ambitious (it's Christmas, and we have wine to drink, and mince
> pies to eat, too). So, we focused on the contributors who operate in the
> UK.
>
> Of the 51 UK contributors to the report, there were 5 economists, 3
> epidemiologists, 5 who were either zoologists, entomologists, or
> biologists. 5 worked in civil engineering or risk management /
> insurance. 7 had specialisms in physical geography (we gave the benefit
> of the doubt to some academics whose profiles weren't clear about
> whether they are physical or human geographers). And just 10 have
> specialisms in geophysics, climate science or modelling, or hydrology.
> But there were 15 who could only be described as social scientists. If
> we take the view that economics is a social science, that makes 20
> social scientists.
>
> This gives the lie to Dessler's claim that IPCC contributors are
> analogous to medical doctors. There are economists working on saving
> that dying child!!! That's got to be wrong, by Dessler's own standards.
> (Climate Resistance)
>
> This would be interesting, but of course the debate is over.
>
> http://cheatseekingmissiles.blogspot.com/
> --
>
> Get The TRUE Facts At
> *http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/index.html
>
> Excellent Links At
> *http://www.warwickhughes.com/
>
> Regards
> Bonzo
>
> "If the atmosphere was a 100 story building, our annual anthropogenic
> CO2
> contribution today would be equivalent to the linoleum on the first
> floor"
> D'Aleo
>
> "...and I think future generations are not going to blame us for
> anything except for being silly, for letting a few tenths of a degree
> panic us"
> Dr. Richard Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology MIT and Member of the
> National Academy of Sciences
>
> "What most commentators-and many scientists-seem to miss is that the
> only thing we can say with certainly about climate is that it changes"
> Dr. Richard Lindzen
>
> [most of the current alarm over climate change is based on] "inherently
> untrustworthy climate models, similar to those that cannot accurately
> forecast the weather a week from now." Dr. Richard Lindzen

Infamous Pile of Cretinous Crapulence

[Ext User(B0NZ0)]

"Don H" <donlhumphries@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:S_ugj.464$421.391@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> "B0NZ0" <boozoo@optusnt.com.au> wrote in message
> news:4781837a@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>> Sunday, December 30, 2007
>> IPCC (Inept Panel Of Climate Clowns)
>> When hundreds of scientists issued a letter saying they weren't too
>> keen
>> on Warmie hysterics, advocates of imminent climate doom like Andrew
>> Dessler, professor at the Department of Atmospheric Sciences, Texas
>> A&M,
>> quickly got to work attacking their credentials.
>> What then of the UN's top global warming cheerleading body, the
>> Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change? Well ...
>> We decided to test Dessler's claim. So we downloaded IPCC WGII's
>> latest
>> report on "Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability". There were 380
>> contributors to the report [PDF of contributors]. A thorough and
>> exhaustive analysis of the backgrounds of these experts (or were
>> they?)
>> was too ambitious (it's Christmas, and we have wine to drink, and
>> mince
>> pies to eat, too). So, we focused on the contributors who operate in
>> the
>> UK.
>> Of the 51 UK contributors to the report, there were 5 economists, 3
>> epidemiologists, 5 who were either zoologists, entomologists, or
>> biologists. 5 worked in civil engineering or risk management /
>> insurance. 7 had specialisms in physical geography (we gave the
>> benefit
>> of the doubt to some academics whose profiles weren't clear about
>> whether they are physical or human geographers). And just 10 have
>> specialisms in geophysics, climate science or modelling, or
>> hydrology.
>> But there were 15 who could only be described as social scientists.
>> If
>> we take the view that economics is a social science, that makes 20
>> social scientists.
>> This gives the lie to Dessler's claim that IPCC contributors are
>> analogous to medical doctors. There are economists working on saving
>> that dying child!!! That's got to be wrong, by Dessler's own
>> standards.
>> (Climate Resistance)
>> This would be interesting, but of course the debate is over.
>> http://cheatseekingmissiles.blogspot.com/
>> Get The TRUE Facts At
>> http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/index.html
>> Excellent Links At
>> http://www.warwickhughes.com/
>> Regards
>> Bonzo
>> "If the atmosphere was a 100 story building, our annual anthropogenic
>> CO2
>> contribution today would be equivalent to the linoleum on the first
>> floor"
>> D'Aleo
>> "...and I think future generations are not going to blame us for
>> anything except for being silly, for letting a few tenths of a degree
>> panic us"
>> Dr. Richard Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology MIT and Member of the
>> National Academy of Sciences
>> "What most commentators-and many scientists-seem to miss is that the
>> only thing we can say with certainly about climate is that it
>> changes"
>> Dr. Richard Lindzen
>> [most of the current alarm over climate change is based on]
>> "inherently
>> untrustworthy climate models, similar to those that cannot accurately
>> forecast the weather a week from now." Dr. Richard Lindzen
> # Immense Population Crash Coming.
> The 6.5 billion human locusts chomping away at planet Earth, and
> polluting it, won't last indefinitely - the Boom will be followed by a
> Crash
> (decimation or extinction), and probably within the next few decades.
> Oil reserves have peaked and are now in decline, yet Australia
> celebrates
> record motor vehicle sales, and widens freeways.
> Big is always better, so Melbourne is to deep channel dredge Port
> Phillip
> Bay, to allow bigger container ships to enter this fragile ecosystem.
> Both
> Business and Unions are in favour, so how could we possibly go wrong?
> Yes, the race to extinction is on, and Homo Sapiens hasn't much time
> left. But Global Warming Skeptics assure us there's no need for
> alarm, and
> complacency is alright.

DEJA VU.
Ehrlich et al were also dead wrong!

"The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s, the world will

undergo famines. Hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to

death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. Population

control is the only answer" Paul Ehrlich The Population Bomb

1968



"I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000"

Paul Ehrlich 1969



"In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct.

Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the

stench of dead fish" Paul Ehrlich, Earth Day 1970



"Before 1985, mankind will enter a genuine age of scarcity . . . in

which the accessible supplies of many key minerals will be facing

depletion" Paul Ehrlich in 1976




Get The TRUE Facts At
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/index.html

Excellent Links At
http://www.warwickhughes.com/

Regards
Bonzo

"If the atmosphere was a 100 story building, our annual anthropogenic
CO2
contribution today would be equivalent to the linoleum on the first
floor"
D'Aleo


"...and I think future generations are not going to blame us for
anything except for being silly, for letting a few tenths of a degree
panic us"
Dr. Richard Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology MIT and Member of the
National Academy of Sciences


"What most commentators-and many scientists-seem to miss is that the
only thing we can say with certainly about climate is that it changes"
Dr. Richard Lindzen


[most of the current alarm over climate change is based on] "inherently
untrustworthy climate models, similar to those that cannot accurately
forecast the weather a week from now." Dr. Richard Lindzen