So just why is GW of such interest to Socialist International?

[John Carson]

fat_boy wrote:

Cant answer can you. You havent got a clue have you. You dont know jack sh*t about this do you. You just regurgitate stuff you read on Hansens lackies website.

http://www.codeproject.com/script/Forums/View.aspx?fid=2605&msg=2870850[^]

John Carson

[Oakman]

Well, if you were looking for a little new proof of the ties between the two - and perhaps a sign that the US is about to dismember what is left of its industrial base, try this: Obama climate czar has socialist ties[^] or, simply google on Obama socialist climate[^]

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[BoneSoft]

Exactly. It's their best argument to date for a global government. AGW isn't the concern, hell it isn't even real, it's just turned out to be a very powerful tool to further their socialist agenda. But then, the stance of the left on most issues, and the issues they choice to stand on all point to that same agenda as well. Funny how they work so hard to hide their real agenda behind other issues, they know their true wish wouldn't be accepted by most people.

---

Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.

[KaRl]

You won't answer my question will you?

When they kick at your front door How you gonna come? With your hands on your head Or on the trigger of your gun?

Fold with us! ¤ flickr

[BoneSoft]

Dalek Dave wrote:

After the Fall of the USSR, the world had nothing to fear

The west's biggest mistake, and exactly what the Kremlin wanted the world to think. Russia didn't go away with the wall fell, they just comitted all their resources and efforts into clandestine approaches to further their agenda. They abandoned Lenon (bloody take over) for Gramsci (turn em' from the inside out). They still want a world socialist government, and they're making far more progress than anybody imagines. The fall of the Union gave them a lot of power, just because people stopped looking at them. And what are they doing now?

Dalek Dave wrote:

People are being manipulated because they are too stupid to see they are being herded into the gas chambers again.

Very very true, though even those of us who see it still don't know for sure who's pulling the strings.

---

Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.

[Lost User]

Karl: "Please explain why the current, exceptional rise of CO2 would this time have no effect at all whatsover on the climate? " Me: "Because the rise is very slight in terms of total atmospheric concentration. 0.03 to 0.038 percent to be exact and although CO2 absorbs IR its effect is not linear so further increase in CO2 will not trap any more IR and thus not cause any extra radiated warming. The very slight warming CO2 causes is masked by many other factors, particularly albedo, which is affected by aerosols. Look at the post war cooling as proof of how much more powerfull aerosols are than CO2." Karl: "nice try, but you don't answer my question. I repeat: Vostok data show a clear correlation between CO2 and temperature: why this time would there be no correlation?" Me: "And temperature precedes CO2 by centuries. Are you saying higher temperatures cause higher CO2 because thats what the data suggests." I answered your question why I think the current CO2 rise will have a minimal effect and then I answered your question about CO2 temperature correlation and how you have it backwards. What more do you want me to answer?

Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription

[KaRl]

fat_boy wrote:

"Because the rise is very slight in terms of total atmospheric concentration.

vostok data show a correlation CO2/temperature with a much smaller of CO2 proportion into the atmosphere. Why this time, when the level of CO2 reaches values never seen in the last 650,000 years, would there be no correlation?

fat_boy wrote:

I answered your question

You did not, and twice. No, 3 times now.

When they kick at your front door How you gonna come? With your hands on your head Or on the trigger of your gun?

Fold with us! ¤ flickr

[Lost User]

Ka?l wrote:

vostok data show a correlation CO2/temperature

Where temperature precedes CO2 by many centuries. Around 8 on average.

Ka?l wrote:

when the level of CO2 reaches values never seen in the last 650,000 years

But no where near the values it attained prior to 650,000 years ago, like 5000 plus PPM.

Ka?l wrote:

would there be no correlation

There isnt a correlation between CO2 and temperature in the last 150 years. CO2 has shot up, temperature hasnt. And yes, there isnt a warming trend globally for the last 100 years. Some regions have got warmer, colder and warmer (much of the northern hemisphere) and some have got warmer and colder (like some places in the southern hemisphere). And its not surprising since CO2 has a slight affect on temperature.

Ka?l wrote:

You did not, and twice. No, 3 times now.

If you keep changng it each time I answer it you wont ever get a satiffactory response.

Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription

[KaRl]

fat_boy wrote:

Where temperature precedes CO2 by many centuries. Around 8 on average.

And? I never pretended Vostok data shows that the past variation of temperature were caused by CO2 variation but that there is a correlation.

fat_boy wrote:

But no where near the values it attained prior to 650,000 years ago, like 5000 plus PPM.

Your comment is irrelevant. Yes, Earth knew higher concentrations of CO2. And? The point is, current rise of CO2 is something never seen in the last 650,000 years at last, and this rise is due to human activity. Do you agree with this fact?

fat_boy wrote:

If you keep changng it each time I answer it you wont ever get a satiffactory response.

I asked the same question 3 times. Where is the change?

When they kick at your front door How you gonna come? With your hands on your head Or on the trigger of your gun?

Fold with us! ¤ flickr

[Lost User]

KaЯl wrote:

And? I never pretended Vostok data shows that the past variation of temperature were caused by CO2 variation but that there is a correlation

So do you accept that the correlation is due to higher temperatures causing higher CO2?

KaЯl wrote:

Your comment is irrelevant.

No it isnt. Because if it is temperature that causes CO2, and if planet earth has coped with CO2 levels at 5000 PPM then there isnt any reason to limit CO2. Can you argue with that?

KaЯl wrote:

The point is, current rise of CO2 is something never seen in the last 650,000 years at last, and this rise is due to human activity. Do you agree with this fact?

Why human? You have already accepted that temperature preceedes CO2, and since this interglacial has a uniquely long duration in this 650,000 year time period isnt it logical that the longer the temperatur stays at this level the more CO2 will be produced by whatever natural cause that is behind the correlation?

Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription