From: “A. Gayle Hudgens, PhD”Date: 17 December 2009 03:21:41 GMTSubject: unsubscribe
A. Gayle Hudgens, Ph.D.
From: Torstein ViddalDate: 17 December 2009 12:38:45 GMTSubject: Re: re-7: global warming – status of investigation
The warming since the last Ice Age is interesting, and puzzling to many, for sure.On a hiking map for our southernmost glacier Folgefonna – which covers 214 km² – about thrice the size of Copenhagen kommune – I found information that the glacier was in no way a remain from the Ice Age – it was gone completely until it reformed starting 5000 years ago.
From: “Ch.Triplett” <•••@••.•••>Date: 17 December 2009 12:42:23 GMTTo: •••@••.•••Subject: Re: re-7: global warming – status of investigationReturn-Path: <•••@••.•••>
Here, here! well stated!
From: Dion GilesDate: 17 December 2009 12:53:58 GMTSubject: re-7: global warming status of investigatio n
Alarm at trends is justified if the trends have actually appeared and are not merely computer simulations.
What islands have been submerged? How great a rise in sea level is enough to submerge them? Discount islands that are actually sinking because of undermining rather than the sea level rising. It has been said the islands are more vulnerable to storm surges. By how many centimetres? Presumably if the sea rises by 10 cm the storm surges are 10 cm higher than before. Computer simulations designed to be scary, and projected to 2100 (long after all the oil will be gone – but still assuming burning at the same rate or even (worse) on the same slope of increase) will certainly cause alarm in the islands.
And of course, how much of these rises are part of a natural progression in this geological period? A rain dance would be as effective against natural progression as all the New World Order schemes demanded at Copenhagen.
Glaciers? They are melting and have been all the way out of the last ice age. What evidence is there that this process has accelerated?
Droughts? Heat waves? Bush fires? Australia has had some droughts and heat waves. There was a terrible drought in the 1890s. There was an extremely destructive bush fire with scores of lives lost in 1939. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Friday_(1939)#Comparison_with_other_major_Australian_bushfires to put more recent (and older) fire disasters in context. Australia has destroyed most of its forests – surely a change in Australia’s climate can be expected from that alone: how much does it contribute compared with CO2 emission and extraterrestrial changes?
I have no idea what the answer to these questions is but strongly suspect – just from the way these pundits hype their case – that the answers are being ducked in service of economic pressures that have nothing to do with the weather. If they’d talk straight instead of trying to present a case as if it was a court room (and courtroom procedures are designed to conceal truth) they might be more credible, for longer before the popular mood swung back to ho hum.
What a height of absurdity when they vigorously debate whether to go for a rise of 2 degrees or 1.5 degrees! Who has a theory reliable enough to make such estimates, presumably based on some formula factoring in the amount of CO2 we produce.
From: “Madeline Bruce”Date: 17 December 2009 15:24:35 GMTTo: <•••@••.•••>Subject: Re: global warming – status of investigation
What a mind you have, Richard, to be able to take on all this scientific research, plus systems analysis, plus book writing, plus communicating with many people online. Thank you for all your efforts to help mankind. You are indeed beacon in the darkness. – Madeline Bruce, Nanaimo, B. C. Canada.
From: “Jerold Hubbard”Date: 17 December 2009 16:41:04 GMTTo: “Richard Moore” <•••@••.•••>Subject: Re: global warming – status of investigation
Dear Richard;Could you give me the direct email address for Mr. Blum? With his permission of course!Thanks for offering an interactive site!Jerold Hubbard
Dear Richard;Bill has already contacted me, so your site is responsible for lots of interaction! Please keep up the interactive dialogue!Jerold Hubbard
From: Tim Murphy <•••@••.•••>Date: 17 December 2009 17:27:00 GMTTo: •••@••.•••Subject: Re: re-7: global warming – status of investigation
I think you are having a mental health crisis and I have realised that you have a personality disorder… irrespective of whether AGW is right or wrong.You don’t let your corespondents talk to each other….You don’t permit dialogue, you only allow snippets of your subscribers opinions to appear in your messages as grist to your mill.You rarely include the full email address of others and often exclude the full references to things you quote.You are not the person to find out the truth about AGW or debate it with…Take me off your lists because you are obviously unwell and unsuitable to discuss this with both in terms of your censorship of the debate and in terms of your inability to respond to my points repeatedly made that you are recycling worthless, discredit material.The fact that you can say what you just have about the graph you have shown below is the final straw… the graph actually shows just the opposite of what you have said and you have removed it from it’s context and the full references.You are a typically psychologically disturbed American who can’t discern the truth from the UFO psychosis.A sad situation. You have already made up your mind about AGW and are bending the facts to fit your feeling. You feel it is a scam and are trying to prove it. Me personally I don’t know one way or the other but on balance I think we have to rely on science which shows that AGW is real… They could be wrong but the chances they are wrong and the corporate funded denialist are right are very slim.Take me off all your lists… now…
From: LynetteDate: 17 December 2009 23:22:55 GMTTo: “Richard Moore” <•••@••.•••>Subject: Re: global warming – status of investigation
Richard,I agree with your consensus that climate is cyclical and that data is being manipulated to suit the global warming viewpoint. Just think of all the money to be made primarily from us in the form of tax grabs and ‘cap and trade’, which will benefit the same elite the over excesses of the past have done. If there were not big bucks in this for the elite, it wouldn’t be pushed and they wouldn’t be manipulating the masses to pay for what will amount to double taxation for the masses to fill the coffers of all who have always profited at our expense.I am not saying we can’t live environmentally conscious either. But, we are the people who will be penalized while the elite live the profligate lifestyles in which they always have done. The Soylent Green scenario of the elite having fresh fruit while everyone else eats recycled garbage does come to mind.Lynette
From: John FellowesDate: 18 December 2009 00:45:39 GMTSubject: Insanity
I really enjoyed your work when you wrote the Matrix but it seems that you have not had an original thought since which has caused some sort of insanity. Your not making the world a better place with what your doing, only spreading the worst the sick have to offer. Please, please, take me off your list.
From: Jim BeardenDate: 18 December 2009 03:29:57 GMTSubject: Re: “global warming” postings
Richard–I’ve been trying to follow your postings, basically denying the seriousness, or even the existence, of anthropogenic global warming. I’m not an expert in this field, and I suspect you’re not, either, so I’m not going to attack your ideas. However, before you get too deeply into bed with the climate-change deniers, you might want to take a look at a couple of review articles from “Scientific American” which deal with most of the arguments advanced by the deniers, some of which you have been repeating:As a non-expert, I wouldn’t go too far out on that limb, myself–Jim Bearden
From: rustyDate: 18 December 2009 03:48:21 GMTSubject: Re: hacked emails
“fudging numbers” counter argumentthe crucial question is whether these emails reveal that climate data has been falsified. The most quoted email is from Phil Jones in 1999 discussing paleo-data used to reconstruct past temperatures (emphasis mine):“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”What do the suggestive “tricks” and “hiding the decline” mean? Is this evidence of a nefarious climate conspiracy? “Mike’s Nature trick” refers to the paper Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries (Mann 1998), published in Nature by lead author Michael Mann. The “trick” is the technique of plotting recent instrumental data along with the reconstructed data. This places recent global warming trends in the context of temperature changes over longer time scales.The “decline” refers to the “divergence problem”. This is where tree ring proxies diverge from modern instrumental temperature records after 1960. The divergence problem is discussed as early as 1998, suggesting a change in the sensitivity of tree growth to temperature in recent decades (Briffa 1998). It is also examined more recently in Wilmking 2008 which explores techniques in eliminating the divergence problem. So when you look at Phil Jone’s email in the context of the science discussed, it is not the schemings of a climate conspiracy but technical discussions of data handling techniques available in the peer reviewed literature.
From: rustyDate: 18 December 2009 22:20:52 GMTTo: richard moore <•••@••.•••>Subject: soon/robinson/robinson
richard, for what it’s worth…..
Critical Review of Robinson, Robinson, and Soon’s “Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide”
prepared by Mike Powell (December 2007)
This document is a critical review of the first four pages of “Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide,” by Arthur B. Robinson, Noah E. Robinson, and Willie Soon, which was published in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons in 2007 (12:79-90).
Mike Powell (Kennewick, Washington) prepared this review in December 2007. The review is organized in a point-by-point format starting with the second paragraph of Robinson et al. and working forward through their paper. Quoted text below is from Robinson et al. unless otherwise noted.
From: •••@••.•••Date: 18 December 2009 07:45:04 GMTTo: Spam Moderators <•••@••.•••>Subject: Moderator’s spam report for •••@••.•••
The following suspicious messages were sent to your group, but are being held in your moderation queue because they are classified as likely spam messages.
——- 1 of 1 ——-Subject: re-8: global warming – temperatures 4,000 BC – 2010From: Richard Moore <•••@••.•••>Date: Dec 17 10:55PM
From: “bill aal”Date: 18 December 2009 03:04:53 GMTTo: “‘Richard Moore'” <•••@••.•••>Subject: FW: Ice cores show Co2 not climate driver
Richard,The scientific data is complex and I don’t claim to understand the complexities, but selective reading of one paper from 2003 is not good science. Here is an extract from a later article in Science that year that refutes the finding that this paper is based on.Bill
After constraining the “gas age – ice age difference” several studies have determined that initial Antarctic air temperature increase preceded CO2 rise on glacial terminations, typically by about 600 to 3000 years. One study used the δ40Αr isotopic temperature proxy, measured on the same air samples as CO2, and found a lead of 800+200 years at Termination 3. These observations suggest that CO2 rise did not trigger temperature increase.
However, these same studies show that approximately 80% of deglacial warming was synchronous with CO2 rise. Furthermore, sensitivity studies indicate that the magnitude of deglacial warming in response to orbital insolation changes requires substantial feedback from greenhouse gases. Scaling these results to make predictions about the next century is difficult, but past climate change is consistent with CO2 exerting a strong positive feedback on surface temperature.