Expect sea levels to go down - not up. C02/man made global warming a hoax:

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/10/20/lorne-gunter-thirty-years-of-warmer-temperatures-go-poof.aspx

Better buy a shoal keel sailboat.

Wilbur Hubbard

"Wilbur Hubbard" wrote in message
anews.com...
Expect sea levels to go down - not up. C02/man made global warming a hoax:

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/10/20/lorne-gunter-thirty-years-of-warmer-temperatures-go-poof.aspx

Better buy a shoal keel sailboat.

Wilbur Hubbard


How could all those computer models and the tremendous consensus be wrong?
If everyone agrees then it must be fact!

When contradictions exist, check your premises:

a. The models were wrong.

b. There never was a consensus.



When politics is mixed with science, it's no longer science.



"Let's throw those who disagree with global warming in jail!"

http://www.quebecoislibre.org/08/080315-3.htm


The only way the left can get their agenda implemented is at the point of a
gun, whether it's stealing an election, $200 million in unidentified
campaign contributions, beating up opposition supporters, jailing
dissenters, etc, etc.

The solar intensity has risen a bit in the last week and sunspot numbers
have risen from zero so there is a little uptick in solar output but still
far below any of the three predictive models used. So we have snow in South
Africa, record cold temps throughout the world, glaciers growing in Alaska
and elsewhere, record ice growth in the arctic all strongly correlated with
solar flux and sunspots (for hundreds of years). Will the proposed cures for
global warming make global cooling even worse? Take a vote on it - that's
the ticket!

Charles Momsen wrote:
"Wilbur Hubbard" wrote in message
anews.com...
Expect sea levels to go down - not up. C02/man made global warming a hoax:

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/10/20/lorne-gunter-thirty-years-of-warmer-temperatures-go-poof.aspx

Better buy a shoal keel sailboat.

Wilbur Hubbard


How could all those computer models and the tremendous consensus be wrong?
If everyone agrees then it must be fact!

When contradictions exist, check your premises:

a. The models were wrong.

b. There never was a consensus.

Or c. The "paper" referenced was not published in a peer reviewed
journal and thus has no credibility.

"jeff" wrote in message
. ..


Or c. The "paper" referenced was not published in a peer reviewed journal
and thus has no credibility.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...authority.html


"""Yes, the sun can't be responsible for warming :
http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2006/brightness.shtml (peer reviewed, no
less!)

"Our results imply that, over the past century, climate change due to human
influences must far outweigh the effects of changes in the Sun's
brightness," says Wigley.

Brightness variations are the result of changes in the amount of the Sun's
surface covered by dark sunspots and by bright points called faculae.

Data collected from radiometers on U.S. and European spacecraft show that
the Sun is about 0.07 percent brighter in years of peak sunspot activity,
such as around 2000, than when spots are rare (as they are now, at the low
end of the 11-year solar cycle). Variations of this magnitude are too small
to have contributed appreciably to the accelerated global warming observed
since the mid-1970s, according to the study, and there is no sign of a net
increase in brightness over the period."""

But yet:

http://www.oar.noaa.gov/spotlite/arc...unclimate.html
-----Bonus: Sailing related content!

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 19:01:40 -0400, jeff said:

Or c. The "paper" referenced was not published in a peer reviewed
journal and thus has no credibility.

Hmm. How do you suppose Galileo's discoveries would have fared in the
"peer
reviewed journals" of the time?


Hmmm... I suppose they would have been carefully reviewed by his *peers*,
such as Kepler, Giordano, Brahe (brother and sister), Cavendish (perhaps a
bit young at the time), and perhaps others. I don't think you can count the
Church as a peer, and we know how that worked out for him and Giordano.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 17:47:50 -0700, "Capt. JG"
said:

I don't think you can count the
Church as a peer, and we know how that worked out for him and Giordano.

Not at all that's a distinction that makes sense. From what I've observed,
environmentalism seems today's equivalent of Catholicism in Galileo's day.
Woe be it to anyone who reads the global warming scripture in a manner
different from that of the religion's high priests.


So, you're saying that when the vast majority of scientists accept
something, and another non-peer-reviewed person claims otherwise, the
scientists burn them at the stake? Or, do they just say they're wrong and
ask them to justify their claims? You're stretching the metaphor to the
point where it doesn't make sense. No non-peer-reviewed scientist dies or is
confined to house arrest because of a differing view. Wikipedia is a good
example.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Charles Momsen wrote:
"jeff" wrote in message
. ..


Or c. The "paper" referenced was not published in a peer reviewed journal
and thus has no credibility.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...authority.html


"""Yes, the sun can't be responsible for warming :
http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2006/brightness.shtml (peer reviewed, no
less!)

"Our results imply that, over the past century, climate change due to human
influences must far outweigh the effects of changes in the Sun's
brightness," says Wigley.

Brightness variations are the result of changes in the amount of the Sun's
surface covered by dark sunspots and by bright points called faculae.

Data collected from radiometers on U.S. and European spacecraft show that
the Sun is about 0.07 percent brighter in years of peak sunspot activity,
such as around 2000, than when spots are rare (as they are now, at the low
end of the 11-year solar cycle). Variations of this magnitude are too small
to have contributed appreciably to the accelerated global warming observed
since the mid-1970s, according to the study, and there is no sign of a net
increase in brightness over the period."""

But yet:

http://www.oar.noaa.gov/spotlite/arc...unclimate.html
-----Bonus: Sailing related content!







It is obvious that the sun has no effect on the temperature of the
surface of the earth. That the reason that there are no seasonal
changes in the temperature and the temperature of the earth is constant
from the north pole through the equator to the south pole. At any point
in time the earth temperature is constantly between 0 and about 110
degrees.

Any book on astronomy will tell you there are variations in the distance
from the sun as the earth revolves around the sun. It is a known fact
that the poles have shifted as the earth wiggles and spins on its axis.
I believe that the sun also expanse and contracts in a well established
cycle.

Shall we discuss how constant the moon revolves around the earth?

"Keith nuttle" wrote in message
...
Charles Momsen wrote:
"jeff" wrote in message
. ..


Or c. The "paper" referenced was not published in a peer reviewed
journal and thus has no credibility.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...authority.html


"""Yes, the sun can't be responsible for warming :
http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2006/brightness.shtml (peer reviewed,
no less!)

"Our results imply that, over the past century, climate change due to
human influences must far outweigh the effects of changes in the Sun's
brightness," says Wigley.

Brightness variations are the result of changes in the amount of the
Sun's surface covered by dark sunspots and by bright points called
faculae.

Data collected from radiometers on U.S. and European spacecraft show that
the Sun is about 0.07 percent brighter in years of peak sunspot activity,
such as around 2000, than when spots are rare (as they are now, at the
low end of the 11-year solar cycle). Variations of this magnitude are too
small to have contributed appreciably to the accelerated global warming
observed since the mid-1970s, according to the study, and there is no
sign of a net increase in brightness over the period."""

But yet:

http://www.oar.noaa.gov/spotlite/arc...unclimate.html
-----Bonus: Sailing related content!







It is obvious that the sun has no effect on the temperature of the surface
of the earth. That the reason that there are no seasonal changes in the
temperature and the temperature of the earth is constant from the north
pole through the equator to the south pole. At any point in time the
earth temperature is constantly between 0 and about 110 degrees.

Any book on astronomy will tell you there are variations in the distance
from the sun as the earth revolves around the sun. It is a known fact
that the poles have shifted as the earth wiggles and spins on its axis. I
believe that the sun also expanse and contracts in a well established
cycle.

Shall we discuss how constant the moon revolves around the earth?

I'd rather discuss that there is no such thing as a preferred reference
frame, the speed of light is constant for all observers, a changing electric
field creates a changing magnetic field, but most of all: The Michelson
Morley experiment "proves" ether does not exist yet the Lense Thirring
effect (measured by satellites) shows the rotating earth drags
space-time(the ether) around with it - which would explain the
Michelson-Morley "null" result.

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
easolutions...


No non-peer-reviewed scientist dies or is confined to house arrest because
of a differing view.


Put the view into practice/experiment and there may well be a jail sentence.
Stem cell research ring a bell?

http://californiastemcellreport.blog...o-to-jail.html

And these are peer reviewed scientists.


Publish the right thing on "Rochelle Salt synthesis" and "electromagnetic
absorption" and see what happens.

Publish a paper on "Ultra fast algorithms for generating finite apertures
using Floquets Thereom" and see how long you'll be around.

There is a great deal of science that is forbidden to be disclosed,
discussed or even mentioned under the penalty of jail or even death.

Robert Oppenhiemer's career was destroyed because of his views. In the 30's
and 40's he had views favoring Communism, which would make him a Democrat
today, and because of these views and associations he had his clearance
taken away.

http://capitalcentury.com/1953.html

I also have seen employees of a defense contractor lose their jobs because
they supported Kerry over Bush when asked by management. Can't happen? Check
out "at-will" employment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment

At least they weren't killed or detained for their views unlike dissenters
at Bush rallies:

http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/prote...s20030923.html