No subject

"when congressman Joe Barton brought it up to try to discredit Al Gore=E2=
=80=99s congressional testimony. Barton said:=20

In your movie, you display a timeline of temperature and compared to CO 2 l=
evels over a 600,000-year period as reconstructed from ice core samples. Yo=
u indicate that this is conclusive proof of the link of increased CO 2 emis=
sions and global warming. A closer examination of these facts reveals somet=
hing entirely different. I have an article from Science magazine which I wi=
ll put into the record at the appropriate time that explains that historica=
lly, a rise in CO 2 concentrations did not precede a rise in temperatures, =
but actually lagged temperature by 200 to 1,000 years. CO 2 levels went up =
after the temperature rose. The temperature appears to drive CO 2 , not vic=
e versa. On this point, Mr. Vice President, you=E2=80=99re not just off a l=
ittle. You=E2=80=99re totally wrong.=20
Indeed, post hoc ergo proctor hoc cannot prove causality.=20
However, as in www.jpands.org 2007, 12, 79-90 Robinsons and Soon=20
point out that an event cannot cause if it follows=20
(comment on 7"/century sea level rise and glacier shortening preceding=20
CO2 rise and hydrocarbon use).=20

Viva science, not the government-academic complex (GAC)=20

Howard Long=20

---- Original Message -----=20
From: "Jess Addis" <ajess at clemson.edu>=20
To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List" =
<radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>=20
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2010 10:36:53 AM=20
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Keeping an open mind Are we keeping an open mind?=
=20

If you have time to read a little and really care for an explanation of the=
=20
lag time and probable cause for the initiation of the warming cycles this=
=20
article is one place to start. It's climate science from people who really=
=20
are climate scientist.=20

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-=
a=20
nd-co2/=20

The letter at the end of the article is also interesting and succinct.=20

Of course if one's mind is already made and maybe takes for granted that=20
hard working ethical scientist are all really just frauds spewing huge load=
s=20
of BS from universities, government agencies, and scientific bodies=20
.....well, it would be a waste of one's time.=20

And remember, "chickens do not lay eggs, because they have been observed to=
=20
hatch from them". Love that one.=20

Jess Addis, RSO=20
Clemson U.=20

-----Original Message-----=20
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu=20
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Jim Hardeman=20
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2010 11:22 AM=20
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List=20
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Keeping an open mind Are we keeping an open mind?=
=20

To all --=20

All of us, whether climate scientists or not (and I assume that most of us=
=20
on this list are NOT) should be astute enough scientifically to recognize=
=20
that correlation does not imply causation. While it may be true that levels=
=20
of CO2 in the atmosphere are rising, and it may also be true that the globa=
l=20
climate is changing (as it has done continually since the formation of the=
=20
planet) that doesn't mean that one "causes" the other.=20

I remember a presentation at Georgia Tech several years ago by a climate=20
scientist who looked at the available info, including pre-historic info re:=
=20
carbon levels and global temperatures -- however derived. As I recall, the=
=20
data appear to support the thought that levels of CO2 in the atmosphere=20
"follow" rises in global temperature by tens to hundreds of years --=20
although if you plot them on time scales of hundreds of thousands of years,=
=20
the curves appear to be coincident.=20

Jim Hardeman=20

>>> <garyi at trinityphysics.com> 10/18/2010 10:22 >>>=20
Three words for you, Parthasarathy, "...hide the decline."=20

That should be enough to make anyone very sceptical, but it is just the tip=
=20
of the melting iceberg. As far as your comments go, you have commited a=20
sin, and a pretty serious one=20
too: the fallacy of appealing to authority.=20

You don't need a climate scientist to evaluate charges of fraud. Again: the=
=20
question is NOT how much or why temperatures are changing. The question is=
=20
did Mann et al fake temperatures, suppress conflicting scholarship, and the=
n=20
destroy their data when they could no longer hide what they were doing. The=
=20
evidence is widely available and overwhelmingly damning.=20

Not that it should matter, but the Royal Society has just been forced by it=
s=20
membership to=20
backtrack:=20
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1316469/Royal-Society-issues=
-=20
new-climate-=20
change-guide-admits-uncertainties.html=20

Here's a snippet from the article:=20
'The Royal Society now also agrees with the GWPF that the warming trend=20
of=20
the 1980s and 90s has come to a halt in the last 10 years.=20

'In their old guide, the Royal Society demanded that governments should=20
take "urgent=20
steps" to cut CO2 emissions "as much and as fast as possible." This=20
political activism=20
has now been replaced by a more sober assessment of the scientific=20
evidence and=20
ongoing climate debates.=20

'If this voice of moderation had been the Royal Society's position all=20
along, its=20
message to Government would have been more restrained and Britain's=20
unilateral=20
climate policy would not be out of sync with the rest of the world.'=20

Focus on the evidence of fraud, not on the evidence of warming. If you find=
=20
the evidence of fraud compelling, as I do, then the inescapable corollary i=
s=20
that a hugh load of BS is spewing from the involved universities, governmen=
t=20
agencies, and scientific bodies. Talk about an environmental problem!=20

-Gary Isenhower=20

On 17 Oct 2010 at 1:37, parthasarathy k s wrote:=20

[ Double-click this line for list subscription options ]=20

Dear Dr Gary Isenhower,=20