See ya, .

आप एक व्यस्त बंदर क्या हैं पीएस,!

Teď, aby se zúžil hledání pro naše malé zombie …

Oh, and one more thing, hoolahoop…
तुम एक पेंच गेंद रहे हैं.

says… “If you want to know how I broke your site, send $ 20 WMZ: Z385450145510 and e-mail c3m3t3ry@gmail.com Thanks.”

to which I respond…

“Kung nais mong malaman kung paano ko isinalin na ang iyong mensahe, magpadala ng $ 40 para sa aking mga kaibigan sa Flopping Aces: Thanks.”

BTW, what do you mean “broke your site?” …getting by the spam filter using a foreign language?

It seems I messed up the link, but not to worry, here’s another with lots more scientists.
http://www.climatesceptics.com.au/sceptic-scientists.html

I know that won’t be enough to satisfy John Ryan, a genius in his own mind, but all you people out there who actually have a brain might be interesed.

ALSO…

Point 1.1: Global Warming has halted
Global mean temperature rose continuously from 1800-1850. The rate of increase was .05 degrees Celsius per 100 years. This was mostly unrelated to CO2 gas (CO2 began to increase suddenly after 1946. Until the sudden increase, the CO2 emissions rate had been almost unchanged for 100 years). However, since 2001, this increase halted. Despite this, CO2 emissions are still increasing.

According to the IPCC panel, global atmospheric temperatures should continue to rise, so it is very likely that the hypothesis that the majority of global warming can be ascribed to the Greenhouse Effect is mistaken. There is no prediction of this halt in global warming in IPCC simulations. The halt of the increase in temperature, and slight downward trend is “something greater than the Greenhouse Effect,” but it is in effect. What that “something” is, is natural variability.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/25/jstor_climate_report_translation/print.html

NASA’s propagandists call it a “speed bumb” and believe with perfect faith that AGW will take off again, ….as soon as their fantasy world becomes real.

Here’s one I’ll be posting again…

The Sun, then and now

Solar activity is down, and the earth has begun to cool. And it’s probably going to remain that way for a decade or two. D’OH!

My plans on moving north are currently on hold.

follow space weather here
http://www.spaceweather.com/

and here
http://umbra.nascom.nasa.gov/images/

No wonder Gore refuses.

Yep. That’s why I picked up on it; because you had earlier pointed that out. Otherwise I might not have made the connection.

I’m glad Lord Monckton caught it, and is screaming bloody murder. But perhaps his email should be forwarded to the editor, Jeffrey Marque as it is probably him, or his underlings, who added the disclaimer.

Thanks for staying up on the latest/greatest. Terrific add by you.

…or, as it’s titled at GreenieWatch, “Deceitful ass-covering by the American Physical Society exposed”

Here’s an excerpot from an email from Viscount Monckton of Brenchley to the president of the APS.

“The editors of Physics and Society, a newsletter of the American Physical Society, invited me to submit a paper for their July 2008 edition explaining why I considered that the warming that might be expected from anthropogenic enrichment of the atmosphere with carbon dioxide might be significantly less than the IPCC imagines. I very much appreciated this courteous offer, and submitted a paper.

The commissioning editor referred it to his colleague, who subjected it to a thorough and competent scientific review. I was delighted to accede to all of the reviewer’s requests for revision (see the attached reconciliation sheet). Most revisions were intended to clarify for physicists who were not climatologists the method by which the IPCC evaluates climate sensitivity – a method which the IPCC does not itself clearly or fully explain.

The paper was duly published, immediately after a paper by other authors setting out the IPCC’s viewpoint. Some days later, however, without my knowledge or consent, the following appeared, in red, above the text of my paper as published on the website of Physics and Society:

“The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review. Its conclusions are in disagreement with the overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community. The Council of the American Physical Society disagrees with this article’s conclusions.”

This seems discourteous. I had been invited to submit the paper; I had submitted it; an eminent Professor of Physics had then scientifically reviewed it in meticulous detail; I had revised it at all points requested, and in the manner requested; the editors had accepted and published the reviewed and revised draft (some 3000 words longer than the original) and I had expended considerable labor, without having been offered or having requested any honorarium.”

This is why I make no pretense of respecting the thoughtless drivel of arrogant sycophants who mock us because we think, and so don’t follow them in trusting those sleezy manipulators implicitly. Give the trolls thoughtful analysis, and they give us back raw sewage, … [good in followed by garbage out => defective processor. Interact at own risk].

Anyway, is it that the APS is no less human than Hillary, and they, like her, have “misspoken?” Heck no. THEY LIED, TOO!

The link to the “100 scientists” should have been…
http://www.globalwarming.org/node/1521

Sorry.

Also, here’s one I gave on another thread, but works here, too…
http://www.populartechnology.net/2007/10/no-consensus-on-global-warming.html

And it isn’t their number that should impress, but their credentials.

I wonder if we can go as far as saying the APS is having an “Obama moment?”

P.s., and pay no attention to the volcanic activity behind the curtain…
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071212103004.htm
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/06/0625_030625_gakkelridge.html

Finally (for now) the data they base their “temperatures are rising” = “sky is falling” prognostications is JUNK!
http://www.m4gw.com:2005/m4gw/2008/07/makin_up_climate_data_from_jun.html#more