Alvis Has Left The Building...

[grizzaholic]

Pussy

dback and Alex wore me out!

I hope that means they drank all your booze with you and when it was gone so were they.

[D1B]

Pussy

dback and Alex wore me out!

Use a an inflatabe donut for the first couple days, especially on the shitter. Trust me.....

[travelinman67]

I'm not a scientist...and I don't play one on television...

But everything I've read indicates to me that while man may be having some impact...it's simply some impact on a natural cycle...our carbon emmissions may have sped up the warming trend...that just gets us to the next cooling trend earlier than nature would have with no interference...

After spending a large portion of my life studying science and with more than a casual interest in paleontology, ecology, invertebrate and vertebrate zoology, evolutionary biology, and genetics...

I concur with Col Hogan...

The climate is changing (we've probably had an effect) but the earth has cycles... regardless of our destructive nature - we'll have to go through this eventually

"...we'll have to go through this eventually..."

What? Having dimwitted demagogues attempt to derail science for the purpose of forcing their social engineering/wealth redistribution schemes on the global society?

Cleets...with each passing day, scientists are collecting more and more data which disproves the so-called "consensus" lie.
Yet, it's already reached the point where otherwise thoughtful people have resigned themselves to accepting this "consensus" nonsense, simply because they lack the will to do their homework and speak out.

This isn't about cyclical patterns in weather which most scientists know to be fact. It's about politicians errantly using that information to further agendas.

Check out my following post about the EPA's Lisa Jackson's absurd remarks pertaining to her intent on "regulating" CO2 emissions.

[travelinman67]

In light of the EPA's decision to classify CO2 as a noxious compound, thereby making virtually every living organism on Earth a polluter, and subject not only to the leviathan regulatory arm of the EPA but also to private sector civil litigation, questions have arisen as to where the EPA will draw the line in their misuse of the Clean Air Act when imposing the Progressives social engineering agenda. This past week, EPA's slash-and-burn Queen of Control Regina McCarthy attempted to assuage those fears.

Her solution:

She's going to "talk to the litigants".

EPA Nominee Suggests New CO2 Rules May Expose Small Emitters
MAY 6, 2009, 6:13 P.M. ET
By IAN TALLEY

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124164614659693239.html

WASHINGTON -- New federal greenhouse gas emission regulation could expose a raft of smaller emitters to litigation, a nominee for a key post in the Environmental Protection Agency told lawmakers Thursday.

The potential for smaller emitters to be regulated under the Clean Air Act is one reason why business groups warn that EPA regulation of greenhouse gases could create a cascade of legal and regulatory challenges across a much broader array of sectors. The Obama administration has said that isn't their intent.

Regina McCarthy, nominated to be EPA's Director of Air and Radiation, told lawmakers that even while the government has flexibility in setting the threshold of emitting facilities to be regulated, she acknowledges the risk of lawsuits to challenge those levels for smaller emitters. Ms. McCarthy's office is responsible for drafting federal emission rules...

...Many legal experts say that based on clear Clean Air Act statutes, however, regulations could be applied to any facility that emits more than 100-250 tons a year, including hospitals, schools and farms. Taken in aggregate, farm animals are major greenhouse gas sources because of methane and nitrous oxide emissions from flatulence, belching and manure. Buildings often emit greenhouse gases from internal heating or cooling units.

"It is a myth … EPA will regulate cows, Dunkin Donuts, Pizza Huts, your lawnmower and baby bottles," EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said earlier this year, dismissing concerns raised by groups such as the Chamber and the National Association of Manufacturers.

But in responses to a senator's questioning, Ms. McCarthy acknowledged that legal suits could be brought against small emitters.

Asked how she would protect smaller sources against suits, Ms. McCarthy said she would talk with the litigants: "I will request that I be informed if any such notice is filed with regards to a small source, and I will follow-up with the potential litigants."

Bill Kovacs, the head of environment and regulatory affairs at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce said, "There's no way she can talk to the litigants and control them." By the Chamber's estimate, there are 1.5 million facilities -- such as large office buildings that have their own boilers -- that produce over the 250-ton limit.

Kassie Siegel, director of the Center for Biological Diversity's Climate Law Institute, says her group is prepared to sue for regulation of smaller emitters if the EPA stops at simply large emitters.

Of course, absent within this entire discussion is the EPA's failure to prove the damaging effects of CO2. And, if allowed to execute their scheme without challenge, hypothetically the EPA can then add ANY substance or compound to their list of "controlled chemicals", including oxygen (which, I might add, in concentrations higher than atmospheric norms CAN INDEED CAUSE DAMAGE TO THE ENVIRONMENT).

And with Environmental Law becoming the watershed career for many new law grads...

...creating the largest "government made" tort field since ADA Compliance will hardly be resolved by some pea-brained bureaucrat "talking to the litigants" and persuading them to forgive one another, hold hands and sing Kumbaya.

No sh!t! That was actually her solution.

Just as with the misuse of the Endangered Species Act to force the envirowhackos social engineering scheme...now the EPA throws their hat in the ring of folly thinking they can selectively control their misapplication of the Clean Air Act.

Lawyers, to be sure, are undoubtedly pouring over Caribbean real estate brochures trying to decide on which island to buy their new weekend getaway, while American businesses and building owners are barricading themselves behind locked doors in an attempt to save the livlihood of working class America.

American's best hope, unfortunately, is for an asteroid to strike EPA's headquarters on meeting day.

[D1B]

Cleets, congratulations, you are now a junior member of Tman's Nut Rant...ch.

[travelinman67]

Cleets, congratulations, you are now a junior member of Tman's Nut Rant...ch.

If you ever read any of this you might actually become wise.

SMFH...

[D1B]

Cleets, congratulations, you are now a junior member of Tman's Nut Rant...ch.

If you ever read any of this you might actually become wise.

SMFH...

Hey I read it. I'm always fascinated by what Fox News and Investors Daily has to say.

[travelinman67]

The datasets just keep dissappearing...

...but you can still take Al's word on it...

...AGW is alive and well.

The Dog Ate Global Warming

Interpreting climate data can be hard enough. What if some key data have been fiddled?
September 23, 2009
By Patrick J. Michaels

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZT ... WM=&w=MA==

Imagine if there were no reliable records of global surface temperature. Raucous policy debates such as cap-and-trade would have no scientific basis, Al Gore would at this point be little more than a historical footnote, and President Obama would not be spending this U.N. session talking up a (likely unattainable) international climate deal in Copenhagen in December.

Steel yourself for the new reality, because the data needed to verify the gloom-and-doom warming forecasts have disappeared.

Or so it seems. Apparently, they were either lost or purged from some discarded computer. Only a very few people know what really happened, and they aren’t talking much. And what little they are saying makes no sense...

...In the early 1980s, with funding from the U.S. Department of Energy, scientists at the United Kingdom’s University of East Anglia established the Climate Research Unit (CRU) to produce the world’s first comprehensive history of surface temperature. It’s known in the trade as the “Jones and Wigley” record for its authors, Phil Jones and Tom Wigley, and it served as the primary reference standard for the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) until 2007. It was this record that prompted the IPCC to claim a “discernible human influence on global climate.”...

...So the weather data that go into the historical climate records that are required to verify models of global warming aren’t the original records at all. Jones and Wigley, however, weren’t specific about what was done to which station in order to produce their record, which, according to the IPCC, showed a warming of 0.6° +/– 0.2°C in the 20th century.

Now begins the fun. Warwick Hughes, an Australian scientist, wondered where that “+/–” came from, so he politely wrote Phil Jones in early 2005, asking for the original data. Jones’s response to a fellow scientist attempting to replicate his work was, “We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”

Reread that statement, for it is breathtaking in its anti-scientific thrust. In fact, the entire purpose of replication is to “try and find something wrong.” The ultimate objective of science is to do things so well that, indeed, nothing is wrong.

Then the story changed. In June 2009, Georgia Tech’s Peter Webster told Canadian researcher Stephen McIntyre that he had requested raw data, and Jones freely gave it to him. So McIntyre promptly filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the same data. Despite having been invited by the National Academy of Sciences to present his analyses of millennial temperatures, McIntyre was told that he couldn’t have the data because he wasn’t an “academic.” So his colleague Ross McKitrick, an economist at the University of Guelph, asked for the data. He was turned down, too...

...It’s worth noting that McKitrick and I had published papers demonstrating that the quality of land-based records is so poor that the warming trend estimated since 1979 (the first year for which we could compare those records to independent data from satellites) may have been overestimated by 50 percent. Webster, who received the CRU data, published studies linking changes in hurricane patterns to warming (while others have found otherwise).

Enter the dog that ate global warming.

Roger Pielke Jr., an esteemed professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado, then requested the raw data from Jones. Jones responded:

Since the 1980s, we have merged the data we have received into existing series or begun new ones, so it is impossible to say if all stations within a particular country or if all of an individual record should be freely available. Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e., quality controlled and homogenized) data.

The statement about “data storage” is balderdash. They got the records from somewhere. The files went onto a computer. All of the original data could easily fit on the 9-inch tape drives common in the mid-1980s. I had all of the world’s surface barometric pressure data on one such tape in 1979.

If we are to believe Jones’s note to the younger Pielke, CRU adjusted the original data and then lost or destroyed them over twenty years ago. The letter to Warwick Hughes may have been an outright lie. After all, Peter Webster received some of the data this year. So the question remains: What was destroyed or lost, when was it destroyed or lost, and why?

All of this is much more than an academic spat. It now appears likely that the U.S. Senate will drop cap-and-trade climate legislation from its docket this fall — whereupon the Obama Environmental Protection Agency is going to step in and issue regulations on carbon-dioxide emissions. Unlike a law, which can’t be challenged on a scientific basis, a regulation can. If there are no data, there’s no science. U.S. taxpayers deserve to know the answer to the question posed above.

Oh, and one more thing...

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladni ... ists-incon

Global Warming Skepticism Grows as MSM Finally Notes Climatologist's 'Inconvenient' Findings

By P.J. Gladnick
September 24, 2009

[travelinman67]

"Mr. Gore, you have calls holding on every line. Mr. Gore? Mr. Gore, are you in there? Mr. Gore? What should I tell these people Mr. Gore? Oh, dear...I wonder if Mr. Tman is hiring? "

...another day, and the scam becomes a bit more apparent...

Huh...

...guess The Liar Gore had more pressing business...

...possibly an appointment with his off-shore bankers looking for a new haven when the dogs come sniffing..

Al Gore Cancels Climate Lecture in Copenhagen
Former Vice President Gore cancels lecture, citing unforeseen changes in his schedule.

December 03, 2009
AP

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12 ... openhagen/

COPENHAGEN -- Climate campaigner Al Gore has canceled a lecture he was supposed to deliver in Copenhagen.

The former vice president and Nobel Peace Prize winner had been scheduled to speak to more than 3,000 people at a Dec. 16 event hosted by the Berlingske Tidende newspaper group.

The group says Gore canceled the lecture Thursday, citing unforeseen changes in his schedule.

Gore spokeswoman Kalee Kreider says the decision was made because of "all the events going on with the summit." Dec. 16 is a key date for the meeting because that's when the ministerial segment starts.

Chief editor Lisbeth Knudsen says it's a "great disappointment" that Gore canceled and that all tickets will be refunded.

"Folks, cast your eyes upon my latest cure for all that ails. One bottle saves the world."

[Appaholic]

"Mr. Gore, you have calls holding on every line. Mr. Gore? Mr. Gore, are you in there? Mr. Gore? What should I tell these people Mr. Gore? Oh, dear...I wonder if Mr. Tman is hiring? "

...another day, and the scam becomes a bit more apparent...

Huh...

...guess The Liar Gore had more pressing business...

...possibly an appointment with his off-shore bankers looking for a new haven when the dogs come sniffing..

Al Gore Cancels Climate Lecture in Copenhagen
Former Vice President Gore cancels lecture, citing unforeseen changes in his schedule.

December 03, 2009
AP

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12 ... openhagen/

COPENHAGEN -- Climate campaigner Al Gore has canceled a lecture he was supposed to deliver in Copenhagen.

The former vice president and Nobel Peace Prize winner had been scheduled to speak to more than 3,000 people at a Dec. 16 event hosted by the Berlingske Tidende newspaper group.

The group says Gore canceled the lecture Thursday, citing unforeseen changes in his schedule.

Gore spokeswoman Kalee Kreider says the decision was made because of "all the events going on with the summit." Dec. 16 is a key date for the meeting because that's when the ministerial segment starts.

Chief editor Lisbeth Knudsen says it's a "great disappointment" that Gore canceled and that all tickets will be refunded.

"Folks, cast your eyes upon my latest cure for all that ails. One bottle saves the world."

Gore wasn't lying TMan...he really does have more urgent business to attend to......