Green, Green, Green… It’s Radon, It’s Not Seen!

LOL! And you were there to measure the sun's temperature, right?

It's a farse perpetrated by the IPCC... PERIOD! If the e-mail scandal wasn't enough to convince you, then perhaps the debunking of the so-called "Hockey stick" just might.

Don’t take my word for it, listen to the Danish Scientist, Dr. Eigil Friis-Christensien!
He is “director of the Danish National Space Center. (Among his numerous accomplishments), he is author or coauthor of some 100 peer-reviewed articles and has presented more than 50 invited papers oat international conferences. He holds a Magisterkonferens (PhD.) in geophysics from the University of Copenhagen.”
ref: Lawrence Solomon, The Deniers, (USA: Richard Vigilante Books, 2008), p. 139.

He, with a colleague, Knud Lassen, “a pioneer in research into the aurora borealis”
published a path-breaking study … showing a startling correlation between global temperature and the sunspot cycle. The significance was that by finding that (sunspot) cycle lengthy rather tan sunspot quantity correlated better to temperature change… The real value of a correlation is if it can indicate where to search for a physical mechanism.”

“To his surprise, the IPCC refused to consider the Sun’s influence on Earth’s climate as a topic worth of investigation.” (That’s not very scientific, is it? Now ask yourself WHY would the scientific community wish to stifle research that is germane to its investigation of climate change, unless their hiding something.)

"Solanski's 2004 paper marked a pivotal point in the climate-change debate, invigorating research into solar factors involved in climate change. The furious denunciations against Friis-Christensen began to ring rather hollow when Max Planck Institute (among others) joined the fray.”

“He insists, however, that much of the warming of the past 150 years cannot be explained by CO2 emissions and must have another source, with the Sun as an excellent candidate.” (Ibid, p. 150)

“Dr. (Edward J.) Wegman is a director at the Center for Computational Statistics at George Mason University, chair of the National Academy of Sciences Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics, and board member of the American Statistical Association…Wegman’s work challenged, and many say demolished, one of the hottest and most publicized claims of the science-is-settled side (the hockey stick).” (Ibid, p. 10)

“Wegman became involved in the global warming controversy after Energy and Commerce Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives asked him to assess the ‘hockey stick graph,’ the IPCC’s poster child in the global warming debate.” (Ibid)

Wegman correctly demonstrated that University of Massachusetts’ Michael Mann’s “‘hockey stick,’ eliminated the Medieval Warming Period, making our recent 20th-century cooling look far more dramatic compared to the rest of the record. The impact was explosive.” (Ibid, p. 12)

“Dr (Vincent) Gray has become known as one of the most persistent, even vitriolic, critics of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). He has gone so far as to denounce the entire IPCC process as a ‘swindle.’” (Ibid, p. 58)

Dr. Grays’ experience with the IPCC has made him, “an angry man, aghast at what he sees as an appalling absence of scientific rigor in the IPCC’s review process. ‘Right from the beginning, I have had difficulty with their procedures. Pertinent questions often ended without any answer Comments on the IPCC drafts were rejected without explanation, and attempts to pursue the matter were frustrated indefinitely.’” (Ibid)

Additionally, he commented, “I have been forced to the conclusion that for significant parts of the work of the IPCC, the data collection and scientific methods employed are unsound. Resistance to all efforts to try and discuss or rectify these problems has convinced me that normal scientific procedures are not only rejected by the IPCC, but that this practice is endemic, and was part of the organization from the very beginning.” (Ibid, p. 59)

“Dr. Vincent Gray, is a graduate of the University of Cambridge, with a Ph.D. in physical chemistry. He has published more then a hundred scientific papers and authored the book, The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of “climate Change 2001.” Dr. Gray has participated in all of the science reviews of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and in 2006 was a visiting scholar at the Beijing Climate Center.” (Ibid)

Now, debunk any of these scientists' documented evidence... if you can!

Ah, the Liberal dismissal of facts. I believe Hilliary called it the, "suspension of disbelief."

Rather than pronounce my evidence as false, PROVE IT, counselor!
Or lose your case.

I present it again...

Listen to the Danish Scientist, Dr. Eigil Friis-Christensien!
He is “director of the Danish National Space Center. (Among his numerous accomplishments), he is author or coauthor of some 100 peer-reviewed articles and has presented more than 50 invited papers oat international conferences. He holds a Magisterkonferens (PhD.) in geophysics from the University of Copenhagen.”
ref: Lawrence Solomon, The Deniers, (USA: Richard Vigilante Books, 2008), p. 139.

He, with a colleague, Knud Lassen, “a pioneer in research into the aurora borealis”
published a path-breaking study … showing a startling correlation between global temperature and the sunspot cycle. The significance was that by finding that (sunspot) cycle lengthy rather tan sunspot quantity correlated better to temperature change… The real value of a correlation is if it can indicate where to search for a physical mechanism.”

“To his surprise, the IPCC refused to consider the Sun’s influence on Earth’s climate as a topic worth of investigation.” (That’s not very scientific, is it? Now ask yourself WHY would the scientific community wish to stifle research that is germane to its investigation of climate change, unless their hiding something.)

"Solanski's 2004 paper marked a pivotal point in the climate-change debate, invigorating research into solar factors involved in climate change. The furious denunciations against Friis-Christensen began to ring rather hollow when Max Planck Institute (among others) joined the fray.”

“He insists, however, that much of the warming of the past 150 years cannot be explained by CO2 emissions and must have another source, with the Sun as an excellent candidate.” (Ibid, p. 150)

“Dr. (Edward J.) Wegman is a director at the Center for Computational Statistics at George Mason University, chair of the National Academy of Sciences Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics, and board member of the American Statistical Association…Wegman’s work challenged, and many say demolished, one of the hottest and most publicized claims of the science-is-settled side (the hockey stick).” (Ibid, p. 10)

“Wegman became involved in the global warming controversy after Energy and Commerce Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives asked him to assess the ‘hockey stick graph,’ the IPCC’s poster child in the global warming debate.” (Ibid)

Wegman correctly demonstrated that University of Massachusetts’ Michael Mann’s “‘hockey stick,’ eliminated the Medieval Warming Period, making our recent 20th-century cooling look far more dramatic compared to the rest of the record. The impact was explosive.” (Ibid, p. 12)

“Dr (Vincent) Gray has become known as one of the most persistent, even vitriolic, critics of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). He has gone so far as to denounce the entire IPCC process as a ‘swindle.’” (Ibid, p. 58)

Dr. Grays’ experience with the IPCC has made him, “an angry man, aghast at what he sees as an appalling absence of scientific rigor in the IPCC’s review process. ‘Right from the beginning, I have had difficulty with their procedures. Pertinent questions often ended without any answer Comments on the IPCC drafts were rejected without explanation, and attempts to pursue the matter were frustrated indefinitely.’” (Ibid)

Additionally, he commented, “I have been forced to the conclusion that for significant parts of the work of the IPCC, the data collection and scientific methods employed are unsound. Resistance to all efforts to try and discuss or rectify these problems has convinced me that normal scientific procedures are not only rejected by the IPCC, but that this practice is endemic, and was part of the organization from the very beginning.” (Ibid, p. 59)

“Dr. Vincent Gray, is a graduate of the University of Cambridge, with a Ph.D. in physical chemistry. He has published more then a hundred scientific papers and authored the book, The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of “climate Change 2001.” Dr. Gray has participated in all of the science reviews of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and in 2006 was a visiting scholar at the Beijing Climate Center.” (Ibid)

Now, debunk any of these scientists' documented evidence... if you can!

LOL! So far, you haven't quoted ONE scientist to prove your half-baked theory.

If you've BOTHERED to read my responses, I did answer you genius! Too bad the reception of facts seems to be a skill you've never mastered.

FACT: CO2 is NOT a polutant!
http://www.populartechnology....

FACT: Humans have no dominion over global temperatures (hot or cold)!
http://csanad.hubpages.com/hu...

And if you MUST call it "Anthroprogenic" global whining, I have an article for you on that subject, too:

Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'?
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&...


Hmm... even a sixth grader knows this:
http://www.oregoncitynewsonli...

FACT: AS the evidence above suggests, your uncoordinated "facts" have been debunked. But you are still hell-bent on ignoring them.

Pretty simple and undeniable, wouldn't you say?

I guess YOU don't know how to address a single one of THEIR facts.... Here's your final opportunity to do so... or LOSE your argument PERMANENTLY:

I present it again...

Listen to the Danish Scientist, Dr. Eigil Friis-Christensien!
He is “director of the Danish National Space Center. (Among his numerous accomplishments), he is author or coauthor of some 100 peer-reviewed articles and has presented more than 50 invited papers oat international conferences. He holds a Magisterkonferens (PhD.) in geophysics from the University of Copenhagen.”
ref: Lawrence Solomon, The Deniers, (USA: Richard Vigilante Books, 2008), p. 139.

He, with a colleague, Knud Lassen, “a pioneer in research into the aurora borealis”
published a path-breaking study … showing a startling correlation between global temperature and the sunspot cycle. The significance was that by finding that (sunspot) cycle lengthy rather tan sunspot quantity correlated better to temperature change… The real value of a correlation is if it can indicate where to search for a physical mechanism.”

“To his surprise, the IPCC refused to consider the Sun’s influence on Earth’s climate as a topic worth of investigation.” (That’s not very scientific, is it? Now ask yourself WHY would the scientific community wish to stifle research that is germane to its investigation of climate change, unless their hiding something.)

"Solanski's 2004 paper marked a pivotal point in the climate-change debate, invigorating research into solar factors involved in climate change. The furious denunciations against Friis-Christensen began to ring rather hollow when Max Planck Institute (among others) joined the fray.”

“He insists, however, that much of the warming of the past 150 years cannot be explained by CO2 emissions and must have another source, with the Sun as an excellent candidate.” (Ibid, p. 150)

“Dr. (Edward J.) Wegman is a director at the Center for Computational Statistics at George Mason University, chair of the National Academy of Sciences Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics, and board member of the American Statistical Association…Wegman’s work challenged, and many say demolished, one of the hottest and most publicized claims of the science-is-settled side (the hockey stick).” (Ibid, p. 10)

“Wegman became involved in the global warming controversy after Energy and Commerce Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives asked him to assess the ‘hockey stick graph,’ the IPCC’s poster child in the global warming debate.” (Ibid)

Wegman correctly demonstrated that University of Massachusetts’ Michael Mann’s “‘hockey stick,’ eliminated the Medieval Warming Period, making our recent 20th-century cooling look far more dramatic compared to the rest of the record. The impact was explosive.” (Ibid, p. 12)

“Dr (Vincent) Gray has become known as one of the most persistent, even vitriolic, critics of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). He has gone so far as to denounce the entire IPCC process as a ‘swindle.’” (Ibid, p. 58)

Dr. Grays’ experience with the IPCC has made him, “an angry man, aghast at what he sees as an appalling absence of scientific rigor in the IPCC’s review process. ‘Right from the beginning, I have had difficulty with their procedures. Pertinent questions often ended without any answer Comments on the IPCC drafts were rejected without explanation, and attempts to pursue the matter were frustrated indefinitely.’” (Ibid)

Additionally, he commented, “I have been forced to the conclusion that for significant parts of the work of the IPCC, the data collection and scientific methods employed are unsound. Resistance to all efforts to try and discuss or rectify these problems has convinced me that normal scientific procedures are not only rejected by the IPCC, but that this practice is endemic, and was part of the organization from the very beginning.” (Ibid, p. 59)

“Dr. Vincent Gray, is a graduate of the University of Cambridge, with a Ph.D. in physical chemistry. He has published more then a hundred scientific papers and authored the book, The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of “climate Change 2001.” Dr. Gray has participated in all of the science reviews of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and in 2006 was a visiting scholar at the Beijing Climate Center.” (Ibid)

Now, debunk any of these scientists' documented evidence... if you can!