wrote in message
news:1192210418.885362.92730@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> October 12, 2007
>
> Gore's Noble Challenge
> by Patrick J. Michaels
>
> Patrick J. Michaels is senior fellow in environmental studies
at the
> Cato Institute and author of Meltdown: The Predictable
Distortion of
> Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media.
>
>
> Al Gore has finally won his Nobel Prize, reminiscent of the
proverbial
> little nut that stood his ground, evolving into a giant oak.
Now we
> can only hope that he runs for president, an office that, given
recent
> history, surely deserves him.
>
> Where else -- except perhaps via the Kyoto Protocol on global
warming,
> which Gore negotiated -- can someone accomplish so little while
> spending so much? But, to get there, or at least to the Demo
> nomination, Gore's going to have to do something he has
assiduously
> avoided: debate.
>
> Gore's standard rule on live TV has been there will be no live
> challenge. The last time he ran for president (2000), he
succeeded de
> facto, with George "Carbon Bonoxide" Bush as the token global
warming
> flyweight. This time, debates happen.
>
> That's because Gore represents a party gone global warming
ga-ga, with
> some of the world's goofiest environmental legislation in
history
> awaiting a Bush veto and a Gore signature.
>
> Consider what Bernie Sanders ("I"-VT) has in the docket: A
legislative
> magic wand that will require us to reduce our emissions of
carbon
> dioxide by 90% in a mere 42 years. Since 1990, we're up a
little under
> 20%. Sanders' legislation takes us back to the 1930s, a
technological
> stone age. True, there's other, more "moderate" legislation.
John
> Kerry's (D-MA) proposal would cut it back 80%. Dianne Feinstein
(D-CA)
> is at 50%.
>
> Each and every one has a good chance of Senate passage, and an
even
> better chance of a veto. So, now that you have your Nobel, come
out
> and fight like a man, Al, and don't even worry about picking on
> someone your own size.
>
> The fact is that Al has ducked, feinted, dived away from, or
fluffed
> each and every opportunity for a reasoned debate with any
global
> warming scientist not of his choice, a choice he no longer
enjoys.
> Heartland Institute, a Chicago think tank, spent over a million
> dollars filing ads in the Wall Street Journal, the New York
Times and
> their ilk, begging Al to debate. No dice. In a less public
venue, my
> own Cato Institute sent kind and courteous letters asking him
to share
> our pretty auditorium on Washington's Massachusetts Avenue, for
a
> civil discussion with our scholars. Again, no dice.
>
> Here's the rub: if any opposition were so easy to vanquish,
Gore would
> relish the opportunity. Obviously there's a substantive and
cogent
> argument he can't kill.
>
> In essence, it is that Gore has massively departed from the
scientific
> mainstream on global warming, even as that community may be
itself
> biased by the funding afforded by emphasizing the negative.
>
> For example, the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate
> Change (of which I am a member, while Gore is not) predicts a
mean sea-
> level rise of about 13 inches by 2100. Gore's book and movie
contain
> an undated montage showing Florida sliding beneath the waves,
> something that could only happen with 13 feet or more.
>
> How on earth does one accomplish such a disconnect from
scientific
> reality?
>
> Gore only has one scientist, James Hansen of NASA, whispering
the
> sweet nothings into his ear that sea-level could rise this much
or
> more in the next 92 years, as Greenland's ice sheets are
destabilized
> by climate change.
>
> No other scientist is willing to climb out on this limb,
because it is
> simply not supported by the observed climatic history of
Greenland
> since the end of the last ice age. For much of six millennia,
ending
> 3,000 years ago, it had to be warmer, and yet the ice stuck
like glue.
> Hansen's amazing response, which you can read on his blog,
documented
> at www.realclimate.org (not exactly a peer-reviewed scientific
> journal!) is that other scientists don't agree with him because
they
> suffer from what he calls "scientific reticence." In other
words, all
> his colleagues are chicken-bleeps because they don't agree with
him.
>
> How about the other pole? Every computer model mentioned by the
United
> Nations shows Antarctica gaining ice this century because a
slight
> warming will result in more precipitation which must fall as
snow.
> Would Gore like that out in public? Or how about the fact that
> Antarctica just set its record maximum for sea-ice extent, as
measured
> by satellite.
>
> The world can only hope that Gore's Nobel propels him into
another run
> for the Presidency. He received it for his climate lunacy. Now
he can
> defend it and the Nobel Prize by merely debating those who must
be so
> easy to defeat.
>
>
> This article appeared in the American Spectator on October 12,
2007.
>

We're all going to hell in a handbasket!

Remember when the Nobel prize meant something and we could all
look up it with awe and respect?

Now a winning chook raffle ticket has more respectability.

Sadly, it now appears that the loony left wing fringe has taken
over the Nobel committee and awarded the peace prize to a proven
lying and exaggerating hypocrite who won't even practice what he
preaches!

At least he's in good company, with other recipients, inter alia,
being that
murdering terrorist Yassar Arafat and that corrupt UN official
Kofi Anan!



Regards

Bonzo

[Climate change theory became the main focus of extremists after]
"world communism failed, the Wall came down and a lot of
peaceniks and political activists moved into the environmental
movement bringing their neo-Marxism with them and learnt to used
green language in a very clever way to cloak agendas that have
more to do with anti-capitalism and anti-globalisation than ...
ecology or science." Patrick Moore, Co-founder-Greenpeace

"HangEveryRepubliKKKan"  wrote
>> 1998 14.57  *********************o*****
>> 1999 14.33  *****************>>>>o
>> 2000 14.33  *****************>>>>>o
>> 2001 14.48  ************************o
>> 2002 14.56  *************************o**
>> 2003 14.55  **************************o*
>> 2004 14.49  *************************>>o
>> 2005 14.63  *****************************o**
>> 2006 14.54  ***************************>>>o
>>
>>   Look at all those "o"'s lined up there.

"Bonzo"  wrote
> The "0"'s are NOT THE DATA!
> They have created a trend which does not exist in the data.
> Voodoo statistics!

  Ahahahahahahahahaha... Stupid KKKonservative KKKlown. A trendline skirts
across the top of the data leaving equal portions of the data above and
below.  In this instane 10 dots above, and 14 below as a result of the crude
nature of ascii graphics.  Nevertheless it represents the best line that can
be fitted to the data based on minimizing the square of the distance between
the line and the real data.  It's called a least squares curve fit.

  You are completely ignorant when it comes to statistics and mathematics in
general aren't you Bonzo.

  Ahahahahahaha.. You don't know what statistics are, where it comes from,
how it is used, or how to use it, and yet in your vast ignorance, you seem
to think that you know more about science than all of the worlds scientists.

  "Voodoo statistics"  Ahahahahahahahah...  You need to go back to public
school and take a refresher course in basic technical literacy.

  Stupid... Stupid.. KKKonservative KKKlown....


"Bonzo"  wrote
> Here is the data which shows NO TREND!
>
> 1998 366.50 2.5721     14.57
> 1999 368.14 2.6148     14.33
> 2000 369.41 2.6399     14.33
> 2001 371.07 2.6672     14.48
> 2002 373.16 2.7032     14.56
> 2003 375.80 2.7487     14.55
> 2004 377.55 NA            14.49
> 2005 379.75 NA            14.63
> 2006 381.90 NA            14.54

  No?  Lets plot the data and find out shall we?  Here it is along with the
best linear fit to the data shown as "o".

1998 14.57  *********************o*****
1999 14.33  *****************>>>>o
2000 14.33  *****************>>>>>o
2001 14.48  ************************o
2002 14.56  *************************o**
2003 14.55  **************************o*
2004 14.49  *************************>>o
2005 14.63  *****************************o**
2006 14.54  ***************************>>>o

Look at all those "o"'s lined up there. The trend is up, Up, UP.

So Bonzo, who is paying you to post lies to this newsgroup?

AL WINS!
Media-shunning unsafe-for-children ecodunce Al Gore wins the
Nobel Peace Prize.

UPDATE. Al will lift the world:


  "We face a true planetary emergency," Mr. Gore said in the
statement. "The climate crisis is not a political issue, it is a
moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity. It is also our
greatest opportunity to lift global consciousness to a higher
level."

Good luck with that.

UPDATE II. Al isn't in Oslo, possibly to spare himself the
embarrassment of collecting a prize for raising global warming
awareness while wearing four layers of clothing.



Regards

Bonzo

[The IPCC report released for policymakers February 2007] "was
written by 33 policymakers, not scientists. The scientific report
that will come out in May/June was written by 143 climatologists
and other scientists, reviewed by 27 scientists, and sent out to
about 1700 scientists for comment. That represents fewer than one
percent of the world's scientists, and they surely don't speak
for the entire scientific community. The truth is, there is no
'consensus.'" Don J. Easterbrook, Geologist, Western Washington
University
"I can get 9000 [scientists] who question it," Anon

This puts Gore and the IPCC in the same league as Yassar Arafat!
How appropriate!
AL WINS!
Media-shunning unsafe-for-children ecodunce Al Gore wins the
Nobel Peace Prize.

UPDATE. Al will lift the world:


  "We face a true planetary emergency," Mr. Gore said in the
statement. "The climate crisis is not a political issue, it is a
moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity. It is also our
greatest opportunity to lift global consciousness to a higher
level."

Good luck with that.

UPDATE II. Al isn't in Oslo, possibly to spare himself the
embarrassment of collecting a prize for raising global warming
awareness while wearing four layers of clothing.



Regards

Bonzo

[The IPCC report released for policymakers February 2007] "was
written by 33 policymakers, not scientists. The scientific report
that will come out in May/June was written by 143 climatologists
and other scientists, reviewed by 27 scientists, and sent out to
about 1700 scientists for comment. That represents fewer than one
percent of the world's scientists, and they surely don't speak
for the entire scientific community. The truth is, there is no
'consensus.'" Don J. Easterbrook, Geologist, Western Washington
University
"I can get 9000 [scientists] who question it," Anon

"Bonzo"  wrote in message 
news:47103bc8$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> AL WINS!
> Media-shunning unsafe-for-children ecodunce Al Gore wins the
> Nobel Peace Prize.
>
> UPDATE. Al will lift the world:
>
>
>  "We face a true planetary emergency," Mr. Gore said in the
> statement. "The climate crisis is not a political issue, it is a
> moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity. It is also our
> greatest opportunity to lift global consciousness to a higher
> level."

"HangEveryRepubliKKKan"  wrote
>> 1998 14.57  *********************o*****
>> 1999 14.33  *****************>>>>o
>> 2000 14.33  *****************>>>>>o
>> 2001 14.48  ************************o
>> 2002 14.56  *************************o**
>> 2003 14.55  **************************o*
>> 2004 14.49  *************************>>o
>> 2005 14.63  *****************************o**
>> 2006 14.54  ***************************>>>o
>>
>>   Look at all those "o"'s lined up there.

"Bonzo"  wrote
> The "0"'s are NOT THE DATA!
> They have created a trend which does not exist in the data.
> Voodoo statistics!

  Ahahahahahahahahaha... Stupid KKKonservative KKKlown. A trendline skirts
across the top of the data leaving equal portions of the data above and
below.  In this instane 10 dots above, and 14 below as a result of the crude
nature of ascii graphics.  Nevertheless it represents the best line that can
be fitted to the data based on minimizing the square of the distance between
the line and the real data.  It's called a least squares curve fit.

  You are completely ignorant when it comes to statistics and mathematics in
general aren't you Bonzo.

  Ahahahahahaha.. You don't know what statistics are, where it comes from,
how it is used, or how to use it, and yet in your vast ignorance, you seem
to think that you know more about science than all of the worlds scientists.

  "Voodoo statistics"  Ahahahahahahahah...  You need to go back to public
school and take a refresher course in basic technical literacy.

  Stupid... Stupid.. KKKonservative KKKlown....


"Bonzo"  wrote
> Here is the data which shows NO TREND!
>
> 1998 366.50 2.5721     14.57
> 1999 368.14 2.6148     14.33
> 2000 369.41 2.6399     14.33
> 2001 371.07 2.6672     14.48
> 2002 373.16 2.7032     14.56
> 2003 375.80 2.7487     14.55
> 2004 377.55 NA            14.49
> 2005 379.75 NA            14.63
> 2006 381.90 NA            14.54

  No?  Lets plot the data and find out shall we?  Here it is along with the
best linear fit to the data shown as "o".

1998 14.57  *********************o*****
1999 14.33  *****************>>>>o
2000 14.33  *****************>>>>>o
2001 14.48  ************************o
2002 14.56  *************************o**
2003 14.55  **************************o*
2004 14.49  *************************>>o
2005 14.63  *****************************o**
2006 14.54  ***************************>>>o

Look at all those "o"'s lined up there. The trend is up, Up, UP.

So Bonzo, who is paying you to post lies to this newsgroup?

"Bonzo"  wrote in message 
news:47103c54$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> This puts Gore and the IPCC in the same league as Yassar Arafat!
> How appropriate!
> AL WINS!
> Media-shunning unsafe-for-children ecodunce Al Gore wins the
> Nobel Peace Prize.
>
> UPDATE. Al will lift the world:
>
>
>  "We face a true planetary emergency," Mr. Gore said in the
> statement. "The climate crisis is not a political issue, it is a
> moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity. It is also our
> greatest opportunity to lift global consciousness to a higher
> level."

"HangEveryRepubliKKKan"  wrote
>> 1998 14.57  *********************o*****
>> 1999 14.33  *****************>>>>o
>> 2000 14.33  *****************>>>>>o
>> 2001 14.48  ************************o
>> 2002 14.56  *************************o**
>> 2003 14.55  **************************o*
>> 2004 14.49  *************************>>o
>> 2005 14.63  *****************************o**
>> 2006 14.54  ***************************>>>o
>>
>>   Look at all those "o"'s lined up there.

"Bonzo"  wrote
> The "0"'s are NOT THE DATA!
> They have created a trend which does not exist in the data.
> Voodoo statistics!

  Ahahahahahahahahaha... Stupid KKKonservative KKKlown. A trendline skirts
across the top of the data leaving equal portions of the data above and
below.  In this instane 10 dots above, and 14 below as a result of the crude
nature of ascii graphics.  Nevertheless it represents the best line that can
be fitted to the data based on minimizing the square of the distance between
the line and the real data.  It's called a least squares curve fit.

  You are completely ignorant when it comes to statistics and mathematics in
general aren't you Bonzo.

  Ahahahahahaha.. You don't know what statistics are, where it comes from,
how it is used, or how to use it, and yet in your vast ignorance, you seem
to think that you know more about science than all of the worlds scientists.

  "Voodoo statistics"  Ahahahahahahahah...  You need to go back to public
school and take a refresher course in basic technical literacy.

  Stupid... Stupid.. KKKonservative KKKlown....


"Bonzo"  wrote
> Here is the data which shows NO TREND!
>
> 1998 366.50 2.5721     14.57
> 1999 368.14 2.6148     14.33
> 2000 369.41 2.6399     14.33
> 2001 371.07 2.6672     14.48
> 2002 373.16 2.7032     14.56
> 2003 375.80 2.7487     14.55
> 2004 377.55 NA            14.49
> 2005 379.75 NA            14.63
> 2006 381.90 NA            14.54

  No?  Lets plot the data and find out shall we?  Here it is along with the
best linear fit to the data shown as "o".

1998 14.57  *********************o*****
1999 14.33  *****************>>>>o
2000 14.33  *****************>>>>>o
2001 14.48  ************************o
2002 14.56  *************************o**
2003 14.55  **************************o*
2004 14.49  *************************>>o
2005 14.63  *****************************o**
2006 14.54  ***************************>>>o

Look at all those "o"'s lined up there. The trend is up, Up, UP.

So Bonzo, who is paying you to post lies to this newsgroup?

"Bonzo"  babbled in message

<claptrap snipped>

There ought to be a bloody fine for littering Usenet?

Listen, Bozo, you fucking embarrassing hayseed, *stop* cluttering up this ng
with your mindless drivel.

You're an embarrassment to those of us with functioning neurones.

Now kindly do us all a favour and PISS-OFF!!!