That's the title of this work of Vincent Gray

http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/Spinning_the_Climate.pdf

.... The IPCC is claimed by some to have provided evidence that the earth’s climate is harmed by changes in the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. These claims are false. This report explains how dubious observations and some genuine science has been distorted and “spun” to support a global campaign to limit human emissions of certain greenhouse gases which has no scientific basis.

and the concluding remarks:

The disappearance of the IPCC in disgrace is not only desirable but inevitable. The reason is that the world will slowly realise that the “predictions” emanating from the IPCC will not happen. The absence of any “global warming” for the past eight years is just the beginning. Sooner or later all of us will come to realise that this organisation, and the thinking behind it, is phoney. Unfortunately severe economic damage is likely to be done by its influence before that happens.

Andre, please! "severe economic damage is likely to be done by its influence... "
Whether or not the climate will change one way or the other in the next fifty years (presumably you will be long gone) is but a side effect.
The producers of Greenhouse gases ( I don't care if you believe they effect the climate or not) are the biggest polluters on the planet, be they methane producing( unbelievably inefficient protein producing) cow farmers or oil companies or dumbfuck westerners with a carbon footprint the size of Texas ( ooh! I need a really fuckin' big house and an even bigger fleet of cars) will not actually be hurting too much from any adverse effects of said climate change. No those poor fuckers will short the stock market and their shit will smell like a rose.

Really Andre, the second para of your hero piece mocks the possibility that pesticides were in any way responsible for any environmental degradation ( in the sixties and seventies).
This assertion is so juvenile, preposterous and utterly ridiculous that your hero and therefore you relinquish any credibility. Any! At all! Ever!

Go home, take a good hard look at yourself and stop pretending you are remotely in tune.
Andre, I'm sure you have been considered intelligent for most of your life. Right now, you are deluded, dysfunctional and dangerous.

If you want to smoke cigars in the fireworks factory, great but you will not be the only one going down.

Spare us your misguided rhetoric and work out for yourself that whatever mental capacity you were once the master of has now been shrivelled by a variety of factors, not least of which is probably your advanced age.

What you advocate is like smoking yourself to a long and healthy life!
You are fooling very few but sadly, poignantly, yourself.

The producers of Greenhouse gases ( I don't care if you believe they effect the climate or not) are the biggest polluters on the planet, be they methane producing( unbelievably inefficient protein producing) cow farmers or oil companies or dumbfuck westerners with a carbon footprint the size of Texas

It's attitudes like this that make you realize that many followers of the "human caused" global warming theory are motivated by politics and not science.
It doesn't matter what scientific evidence you show to them that "human caused" global warming may be incorrect, they won't believe you, because they know that their theory is another way to attack the West.

No Cazzo, I'm in the West, albeit the pseudo-west.
Yes Human caused global warming may be incorrect. I absolutely do not deny this, although I suspect otherwise.
Denying that the producers of greenhouse gases have a substantial case to answer is moronic at best and akin to suicide bombers at worst is closer to the truth.
Delude yourself, you'll feel better. I'm quite sure of that.

Problem, Spud, is that there is abundant evidence that Vincent Gray is bluntly right.

Problem, Spud, is that there is abundant evidence that Vincent Gray is bluntly right.

Shit you've got me there.

I clearly won't sway you but then you'll just die.
And then the world might have an infinitessimally small chance.
Go on, fuck off!

Another book that I would recommend:

http://www.amazon.com/Planet-Green-Shackles-Vaclav-Klaus/dp/B001A3W3BK

President Klaus makes the case that policies being proposed to address global warming are not justified by current science and are, in fact, a dangerous threat to freedom and prosperity around the world.

Shit you've got me there.

I clearly won't sway you but then you'll just die.
And then the world might have an infinitessimally small chance.
Go on, fuck off!

Like I said before, the "human caused" global warming movement is like religious Inquisition movement of the Dark Ages. You can't show them the truth anymore than you could to the religious fanatics of the Dark Ages. And if you get in their way, they'll want you dead.
It's scarey, if enough of these radical environmentalists get in high political positions if the world becomes "1 government", they might round up a few billion people for extermination to "save Mother Earth".

Oooh! freedom and prosperity.
For fuck's sake Andre. Freedom to make a million at the expense of the less predisposed/advantaged/silver-spoon-gobbed.
Prosperity( insert your own greed-filled definition here).

Got anything real Andre. Anything intelligent, anything connected to reality?

*Andre responds with lame rhetoric and pathetic presumptions of understanding*...go ahead Andre knock yourself out!

Like I said before, the "human caused" global warming movement is like religious Inquisition movement of the Dark Ages. You can't show them the truth anymore than you could to the religious fanatics of the Dark Ages. And if you get in their way, they'll want you dead.
It's scarey, if enough of these radical environmentalists get in high political positions if the world becomes "1 government", they might round up a few billion people for extermination to "save Mother Earth".

Yeah, close dickhead, the radical environmentalists will kill off cancerous practises , not people.
You have not got a fucking clue have you?!

How about intelligence I'd really like to highly recommend this superb article:

http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~dmo2/Chesser%20Baker%2006%20Chernobyl.pdf

The most important lesson:

Lesson 5: Scientists must have a single agenda: the truth.

and from the conclusion:

Scientists often find themselves in unpopular and uncomfortable positions. That’s just part of the job when you have to report the truth. A scientist’s conclusions help to guide public policy, write regulations and develop new technologies.

The results of good science are simply too important to be swayed by emotional appeals. Unfortunately, poor science often gets great publicity, especially if it stirs controversy or implies that governments are recklessly endangering the lives of their citizens. In the long run, poor science will beget poor policy.

Emphasis mine.

Compare that too:

http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/DetroitNews.pdf

To avert the risk (of potentially disastrous climate change) we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public imagination. That of course means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. …Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective, and being honest.

We are about to learn what this liberty with the truth is going to cost us

Andre, you would probably be ashamed to realise, if only you had the potential to externalise your thinking, that you are coming across like an addicted religious zealot on a misguided mission.
You can't help it but you would do well to realise the erroneous nature of your synapse-reduced logic.

Forgive him folks, he was once a beacon of forward thinking and is now reduced to a barely glowing ember about to snuff himself on his last aspiration.
Sad, sad, sad!

Yes I understand that the sobering up is a difficult and painfull process.

Anyway, meet some of my friends:

http://www.amazon.com/Deniers-Renowned-Scientists-Political-Persecution/dp/0980076315

As global warming is moving away quickly,

http://gallery.myff.org/gallery/274022/prediction-HC-RSS.PNG

Some people will have a lot of explaining to do.

Payday is coming soon.

Andre.
Offering up a book listed on Amazon which is selling below its break-even cost as some kind of evidence or argument is just shit.
Honestly, in the last half hour you have just chopped off your own argument, your fingers and your credibility.
What's next? your dick?
Sorry to resort to gutter talk but you took it there.
You have got absolutely nothing left.
Fuck it! emasculate yourself.
No-one will notice the difference.

Let's see if this reaction is explainable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink

Symptoms of groupthink

In order to make groupthink testable, Irving Janis devised eight symptoms that are indicative of groupthink (1977).

1 -Illusions of invulnerability creating excessive optimism and encouraging risk taking.
2 - Rationalising warnings that might challenge the group's assumptions.
3 - Unquestioned belief in the morality of the group, causing members to ignore the consequences of their actions.
4 - Stereotyping those who are opposed to the group as weak, evil, disfigured, impotent, or stupid.
5 - Direct pressure to conform placed on any member who questions the group, couched in terms of "disloyalty".
6 - Self censorship of ideas that deviate from the apparent group consensus.
7 - Illusions of unanimity among group members, silence is viewed as agreement.
8 - Mindguards — self-appointed members who shield the group from dissenting information

Yes, no problem at all to explain that.

Some may recognize that all the symtoms of groupthink are abundantly present in the global warming camp.

Andre, in an effort to clearly see things from your superior perspective, I did personal experiment and in a twenty-four hour period sucked up several cans of household grade pesticide, a few kilograms of vehicle exhaust(diesel, unleaded and otherwise), stood in the jetstream of not one but three 747's on takeoff, choofed down a 44 of DDT and hyperventilated on the putrescence of a herd of flatulent Fresians( talk about your bovine intervention!) and you know what?
You're right!..I've never felt better!

You've won me.

Don't worry, it's only temporarely. The result of trying to shape things to what we want them to be, not taking things as they are. Climate for instance, let a real scientist explain (as in the one with a single agenda, the truth):

http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm

You cannot misuse reality for enforcing any policy, however nobel the intent. But thanks for helping demonstrating.

Don't worry, it's only temporarely.

Forgive me for being a pedant but really, your credibility is shot.
You either meant 'it's only temporary' or 'It's only temporarily...something' but you forgot to include the something.

Yikes! What the fuck are you trying to peddle?
Be a good lad and pedal off into the sunset.
We'll play a nice tune and remember you well.

As global warming is moving away quickly, How many times does somebody have to debunk your conclusions from that stupid graph ? You keep posting the thing on this forum, and it doesn't mean shit, and either somebody has to go through the whole argument again and show your potential victims where exactly you are playing footsie with the facts, or the simple repetition stands as a standard propaganda effort - shout loud, long, and simple enough, and you can sell any lie.

Pah.

How about Roy Spencers version then from my last link?

http://www.weatherquestions.com/UAH_LT_since_1979.jpg

Could you please specify exactly where I lie?

The problem is that people begin to notice that the global warming bandwagon is grinding to a halt.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/07/10/do1004.xml

...The orthodox global-warming thesis, accepted by pretty well every politician in the Western world, but not by a growing number of scientists, is that, as CO2 levels in the atmosphere continue to rise, so too should global temperatures. Unless we can drastically reduce those CO2 levels, the world is thus threatened with catastrophe.

In the past year or two, however, evidence has been piling up to suggest that there may be a fundamental flaw in this theory. Even though atmospheric CO2 has continued to rise to levels not seen since the distant geological past, temperatures have not been following suit.

After 2000 the global temperature curve flattened out at a level significantly lower than the freak year 1998, and in recent months temperatures have dropped to levels not seen since the early 1980s....

People don't like being conned

Like I said before, the "human caused" global warming movement is like religious Inquisition movement of the Dark Ages. You can't show them the truth anymore than you could to the religious fanatics of the Dark Ages. And if you get in their way, they'll want you dead.
It's scarey, if enough of these radical environmentalists get in high political positions if the world becomes "1 government", they might round up a few billion people for extermination to "save Mother Earth".

Yet, warming zealots have come up with a model linking global temperature and CO2 levels. You can build a greenhouse and see for yourself if CO2 levels have anything to do with greenhouse temperatures.

Now, please tell me what evidences do YOU have supporting YOUR FAITH? You came up with a model saying that CO2 has nothing to do with global temperatures? You disproved 100+ years old scietific knowledge? You built a greenhouse to tast your Faith? What grounds do you base your FAITH? Church of HOLY LOCUST Bible? Share.

What do I do if I don't want to be a fanatical denier (or accepter) of climate change?

Is there a middle ground, or only room in either fanatical bunker?

Could you please specify exactly where I lie? Every time you repost graphs as supporting your assertions when their lack of support for your assertions has been exactly and carefully pointed out to you before, and you have not explained or countered those observations.

Every time you repost graphs as supporting your assertions when their lack of support for your assertions has been exactly and carefully pointed out to you before, and you have not explained or countered those observations.

Please be so kind to link or quote to those instances, so we could address those alleged omissions.

Meanwhile, since the discussion is now towards honesty, why not check this out:

http://www.sciencealert.com.au/opinions/20081007-17643.html

It’s an assertion repeated by politicians and climate campaigners the world over: “2500 scientists of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) agree that humans are causing a climate crisis.”

But it’s not true. And, for the first time ever, the public can now see the extent to which they have been misled. As lies go, it’s a whopper....cont'd

Hit the "agree"' button to check their numbers:

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Comments/wg1-commentFrameset.html

Please be so kind to link or quote to those instances, so we could address those alleged omissions.Every time I've seen you post a graph, it's claiming to support some idea, that turns out to be an idea you either can't or won't defend (at least with rational arguments).

Please stop posting stuff like that last effort. Or the above, which although it appears to point to your willingness to do so, I'm confident that it actually means you have no such intention.

How's that?

A collosal unfounded strawman, I would say. Not backed by any evidence, since obviously there isn't any. The rhethoric should do it. But that has had its longest time. Truth is catching up fast now.

It is miles beyound me how you can declare a graph plot of multiple open verifiable sources a lie, even with that other plot of a third source (UAH) showing exactly the same.

Listen, pal, here is little bit of sad news: you cannot put shit in atmosphere and expect nothing to happen and here is why:

The atmosphere acts like a greenhouse trapping heat that would otherwise radiate away into space. Atmosphere acts like the glass of a hot house, because it lets through the heat radiation of the sun but retains significant % of the heat radiaton of planet's surface.

While most of the atmospheric gases looks alike in that they are ‘colourless and invisible’, heat passed through them in very different ways. Gases like oxygen, nitrogen and hydrogen appeared transparent to heat while water vapour, carbon dioxide and methane contain heat. Most importantly carbon dioxide absorbs more heat
than the atmosphere itself.

Most, most importantly atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, water vapor, methane are measured in ppm (parts per million).

Only ppm(s) stand between you and coldness of space. This is not an opinion, this is not a theory, this is science fact that even staff members of "Creation Science Institutes" don't dare to dispute. Only hundreds of ppm stands between you and icy death. That alone shows how sensitive is Planet's temperature to ppm(s) of only three gases. Planet's life support is extremely fragile, Life is extremely fragile because it can exist only in very narrow temperature range.

Locust minded people, claiming that 50% CO2 jump from 200s into 300s ppm is not a big deal, just don't want to face the sad reality that 0 ppm = death; 200 ppm = life. In other words, each ppm weighs a lot, as far as Planet's temperature and your life are concerned.


Whatever murky graphs you come up with cannot change sad truth every ppm counts .

Andre, I'm sure you have been considered intelligent for most of your life. Right now, you are deluded, dysfunctional and dangerous.Wow... you make it sound like Andre is the... Antichrist...:rolleyes:

Hello dixonmassey, et al

There is also atmospheric continuum absorption (http://physics.nist.gov/Divisions/Div844/facilities/isam/isam.html) to be considered in the "green house gas" equation. Basically higher pressure areas will "hold" heat longer than lower pressure areas. This is just based on the fact that higher pressure areas have a higher probability of collision induced absorption of infrared radiation.

:)

Listen, pal, here is little bit of sad news: you cannot put shit in atmosphere and expect nothing to happen and here is why...

....Whatever murky graphs you come up with cannot change sad truth every ppm counts .

Not really Remember that those are merely hypotheses, falsified abundantly by reality, for instance:

Miskolczi, F.M. (2007) Greenhouse effect in semi-transparent planetary
atmospheres, Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Service
Vol. 111, No. 1, January–March 2007, pp. 1–40

the online version seems to be off now:

http://met.hu/doc/idojaras/vol111001_01.pdf

His ideas are based on earlier work (http://smsc.cnes.fr/documentation/IASI/Publications/LBL_EX.pdf), which basically show that the actual measurements of back radiation do not follow the models at all. But that's onlly one of many suppressed/ignored papers by the mindguards (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink)

Let's recap a bit about this greenhouse effect.

It is argued that the difference between Earth black body temperature of about 255 kelvin and the average global temperature of about 288 Kelvin is due to the greenhouse effect. See this (http://geography.berkeley.edu:16080/ProgramCourses/CoursePagesFA2006/Geog40/L5.pdf)

Is this correct? Suppose (null hypothesis) that there were no greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere and that heat exchange was only possible by convection and conduction.

So the sun would heat up the Earth surface, which would heat up the lowermost molecules of the atmosphere. Due to the expansion this air is lighter and would rise up, convection, transferring the heating to higher parts of the atmosphere, as it happens today (http://sol.sci.uop.edu/~jfalward/heattransfer/heattransfer.html). Because of the lapse rate/ temperature gradient, the expanding rising air cools but may remain above environment temperature, so that the upward convection may continue for a while, removing the energy away from the Earth surface.

When the sun sets, the radiating Earth surface cools down, cooling the lower part of the atmosphere by conduction. But the contracting air is denser than the environment and there is no tendency for convection at all. The air becomes stable, cool below and warmer in the upper layers. This is known as an 'inversion' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_inversion). Hence this warming of the atmosphere by conduction and convection is basically one way until there is a dynamic equilibrium in the energy exchange between the daytime convection and night conduction cooling of the lowermost layer.

Hence it appears that we don't need greenhouse effect to heat the atmosphere to above the black body temperature, just an atmosphere, consequently not all, if any, of that 33 degrees difference between average atmosphere temperature and black body temperature is caused by greenhouse effect.

But with the greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, it can radiate it's energy to the earth and space and hence it can cool again in that process. This means that greenhouse gasses also contribute to the cooling of the atmosphere, how much is uncertain, but one could just as easily assume: "the more greenhouse gasses, the more cooling".

Wow... you make it sound like Andre is the... Antichrist...:rolleyes:

Yeah, I have to admit to being unusually cranky when I wrote that(amongst other things, none of which were particularly nice to Andre). I thought about apologising for my behaviour but on reflection, the best I can do is reel back a bit and say he's dysfunctional and deluded. dangerous was taking it a bit far.

That kind of steadfast, irrational, non-yielding standpoint does wind me up though.

When the sun sets, the radiating Earth surface cools down, How exactly does that happen ?

And why doesn't the upper atmosphere similarly cool, at night ?

How about Roy Spencers version then from my last link?

http://www.weatherquestions.com/UAH_LT_since_1979.jpg

Could you please specify exactly where I lie?

Look at begin 2005, mid 2000, and end months into 1997..
Those points are about as low as the point you indicated (mid 2008).
Still the trend is UNmistakingly upwards, at least from 1985-2008..

How exactly does that happen ?

That's all a matter of energy. Radiating bodies loose the energy which they emit.

And why doesn't the upper atmosphere similarly cool, at night ?

It does a little, but mainly because there is no water vapor anymore, leaving the radiative energy emission and absorption only to the remaining few CO2 molecules. Those can simply not work hard enough to transfer the energy of the abundant other molecules.

That kind of steadfast, irrational, non-yielding standpoint does wind me up though.Hmmm...I could easily say about the AGW apostles... My religious link wasn't accidentally you know...

It strikes me that most alarmists do react rather (http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/20070810_LightUpstairs.pdf) irrationally (http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2007/Iowa_20070805.pdf) on different opinions.

That's all a matter of energy. Radiating bodies loose the energy which they emit. Not if it's trapped, and re-emitted back to them. Say by CO2.

It does a little, but mainly because there is no water vapor anymore, leaving the radiative energy emission and absorption only to the remaining few CO2 molecules. So we have the basic scene set: bodies cool by radiating energy - the earth cools by emitting radiation into space.

And something that prevents such radiation from traveling into space will cause the earth to remain warmer, or involve the trapped energy in other effects.

You might also check this out:

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a788582859~db=all~tab=content~orde r=page

abstract

The writers investigated the effect of CO2 emission on the temperature of atmosphere. Computations based on the adiabatic theory of greenhouse effect show that increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere results in cooling rather than warming of the Earth's atmosphere.

Excerpts from the article

Traditional anthropogenic theory of currently observed global warming states that release of carbon dioxide into atmosphere (partially as a result of utilization of fossil fuels) leads to an increase in atmospheric temperature because the molecules of CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) absorb the infrared radiation from the Earth's surface. This statement is based on the Arrhenius hypothesis, which was never verified (Arrhenius, 1896).The proponents of this theory take into consideration only one component of heat transfer in atmosphere, i.e., radiation. Yet, in the dense Earth's troposphere with the pressure pa > 0.2 atm, the heat from the Earth's surface is mostly transferred by convection (Sorokhtin, 2001a).

According to our estimates, convection accounts for 67%, water vapor condensation in troposphere accounts for 25%, and radiation accounts for about 8% of the total heat transfer from the Earth's surface to troposphere. Thus, convection is the dominant process of heat transfer in troposphere, and all the theories of Earth's atmospheric heating (or cooling) first of all must consider this process of heat (energy)-mass redistribution in atmosphere (Sorokhtin, 2001a, 2001b; Khilyuk and Chilingar, 2003, 2004).

When the temperature of a given mass of air increases, it expands, becomes lighter, and rises. In turn, the denser cooler air of upper layers of troposphere descends and replaces the warmer air of lower layers. This physical system (multiple cells of air convection) acts in the Earth's troposphere like a continuous surface cooler. The cooling effect by air convection can surpass considerably the warming effect of radiation.

The most important conclusion from this observation is that the temperature distribution in the troposphere has to be close to adiabatic because the air mass expands and cools while rising and compresses and heats while dropping. This does not necessarily imply that at any particular instant distribution of temperature has to be adiabatic. One should consider some averaged distribution over the time intervals of an order of months. [...]