MNN - Mother Nature Network

contributions of CO2 emissions for several years yet global CO2 levels keep rising? Avoiding serious climate hell should be a good thing. Maybe fear wasn’t sustainable as George Bush Jr. found out. We need system change, not climate change as continued support of the climate change mistake is hurting the planet, science and progressivism. Now there is serious talk of the tea party Republicans charging those in Academia and leading news editors with TREASON for leading us to another Bush-like false war based on false evidence. If Climate Change were a real emergency and scientific consensus was real, the scientists would be acting like it, not cashing the remaining grant checks. The scientists if the emergency were real would be all over the media in person, warning us of the urgency of CO2 mitigation action. Now the media makes up it’s own climate change stories in place of the silence from the mysterious army of consensus scientists. And don’t forget that scientists also produced cruise missiles, cancer causing chemicals, land mine technology, nuclear weapons, germ warfare, cluster bombs, strip mining technology, Y2K, Y2Kyoto, deep sea drilling technology and now climate control. Scientific consensus was not real and these mystery saints of goodness were not saints. It was all a media illusion. Scientists made environmental protection necessary in the first place when they supposedly polluted the planet with their chemicals and cancer causing pesticides. How ironic is that, considering we bowed like fools to our Gods of science for 25 years of “unstoppable warming”. To condemn billions of children to a CO2 death just to get them to turn the lights out more often was unforgivable and history is watching.

of civilizations. Quoting measured temperature for which data only goes back 150 years is misleading and ONLY uses data for the latest warming period. It ignores older data. item 2. Consensus. BULL. There are disputes about the conclusion. There is even a dispute about the Arrhenius data used as the original source of the conclusion that More GHGs means more warming. Every day when the sun goes down and less energy comes in, the temperature goes DOWN, in spite of man adding more GHGS or CO2. That fact alone proves that more CO2 does NOT cause more warming. It is the number of energy photons that cause the warming. Arrhenius predeveloped his conclusion without looking at the daily reality. Just like your article is doing. I have a theory about anthropogenic climate change. Hansen says when you add more GHGs they ALL generate more warming. He says more CO2 means more water vapor (feedback) and ALL the water vapor undergoes the greenhouse effect. BUT if daily experience shows that the number of photons dictates the temperature then ALL of the CO2 and Water Vapor does NOT generate a greenhouse effect. There are GHGs left over as excess that do not generate warming. Aren't there GHGs in the ocean that are not warmed? The only way for that to happen is if all the photons are in use, & there are excess GHGs left over. IN other words only some of the man generated CO2 and some of the subsequent water vapor contributes to the GHE. IN other words Hansen's computer program is wrong. It is not valid. 4. Yes there is no correlation between the sun & global warming. There also is ABSOLUTELY no correlation between CO2 and warming. Every night in fact, the CO2 goes up & the temperature goes down. There MUST be another source of energy /photons into the Earth. The paper Gravity causes Climate Change" in www.scribd.com identifies gravity as another source. As Jupiter gets closer to Earth, it gets warmer (1998, 2010) as potential energy is released to become heat energy AND as more gravity causes more waves & wind and friction and heat. Gravity & potential energy has been totally ignores in the conventional global warming computer programs. 5. Global warming corresponds to civilization highs. Global cooling corresponds to periods of less activity & more suffering (ice ages, the little ice age, etc Arguments for the existence of Man Made change. 1. NO. Humans have cause the increase in the CO2. It is the number of energy photons that combine with the excess of GHGs that causes the warming. More photons means more warming, every morning. Fewer photons causes cooling every night. Since there is excess GHGs over the number of photons, then the amount of GHGs has no impact on temperature. It is impossible for CO2 to create energy or heat. You have to have more energy photons to do that. 2. The current computer models are pure garbage. They ignore the force of gravity. They assume that all GHGs cause warming, when in fact all the GHGs in the ocean do NOT.. They assume that only the water vapor produced in response to CO2 causes warming, while ignoring the water vapor GHGs already in existence in the air. The current computer models are so deficient they should be totally ignored. 3.Yes the arctic sea ice is melting. SO What? MOST of Earth's history has NOT has ice caps at the poles. It is only in the last million years that they have existed. Normal is no ice. 4.Ocean Acidification is rising. Yes so what. The PH has gone up by .1. It varies by much more than this from location to location in the ocean. 5 !0 of the warmest days on record were the hottest Garbage. Ice cores show hotter days in 1000AD, 100BC, 1350 BC and by as much as 2 degrees C. The 10 hottest days are ONLY in the last 160 years since we have been measuring. If we are in a 500 year warming cycle, you would expect the most recent to be the hottest. IF more CO2 means more warming, why was 1999 cooler than 1998? Why was 2006 cooler than 2005? The real reason is that Jupiter was further away & hence contributed less energy from gravity, NOT because of CO2 which has gone straight up & so does NOT correlate with the temperature. Your article is not valid. It should be ignores as propaganda.

have be given.