What's more disappointing than the MSM likely not paying attention to this story, is that our own Prime Minister will not either. Make no mistake, I am delighted that we do not have Dion and his ilk formally in charge, I am though extremely disappointed that our alternative has gone over to the dark side on this issue.

With luck, they will simply talk a good game and do nothing. Still a shame that its the best we can hope for.

So, Like their telling us something that we already didn't know....

'I am though extremely disappointed that our alternative has gone over to the dark side on this issue.'

It is getting a little nauseating hearing Conservatives whine that Mr. Harper has embraced climate change.

Has he adopted Kyoto?

Has he stated that he believes global warming is man-made?

Has he declared the Canadian government must waste untold resources saving the world from climate change?

No...no..and...no!!!

What he has done is take a pragmatic tone on the issue. Does anyone seriously believe he gives a rat's ass about the file? He cannot just ignore the squeaky wheels of the media concerning climate change. So, he plays the political game.

In the meanwhile he attacks the issues that really matter.

'I am though extremely disappointed that our alternative has gone over to the dark side on this issue.'

It is getting a little nauseating hearing Conservatives whine that Mr. Harper has embraced climate change.

Has he adopted Kyoto?

Has he stated that he believes global warming is man-made?

Has he declared the Canadian government must waste untold resources saving the world from climate change?

No...no..and...no!!!

What he has done is take a pragmatic tone on the issue. Does anyone seriously believe he gives a rat's ass about the file? He cannot just ignore the squeaky wheels of the media concerning climate change. So, he plays the political game.

In the meanwhile he attacks the issues that really matter.

'I am though extremely disappointed that our alternative has gone over to the dark side on this issue.'

It is getting a little nauseating hearing Conservatives whine that Mr. Harper has embraced climate change.

Has he adopted Kyoto?

Has he stated that he believes global warming is man-made?

Has he declared the Canadian government must waste untold resources saving the world from climate change?

No...no..and...no!!!

What he has done is take a pragmatic tone on the issue. Does anyone seriously believe he gives a rat's ass about the file? He cannot just ignore the squeaky wheels of the media concerning climate change. So, he plays the political game.

In the meanwhile he attacks the issues that really matter.

Is there an echo in here?

Is there an echo in here?

Yep...
Yep...
Yep...

Citoyen Dion has killed Kyoto. In what appears to be a Press release, the Liberals buried Kyoto with this obituary wherein Kyoto is not mentioned/included.
This is an admission that Kyoto is a dead puffin; a POS/excrement hidden/buried with AdScam and the rest of the crimes/corruption of the Liberals.
Kyoto has been bammed by Citoyen Dion.
Dion sets priorities, again and again and
...-

Liberals will continue to work for a richer, fairer and greener Canada, and pursue the following priorities: [...]
"Seek effective solutions to protect our environment, such as setting absolute reduction targets for the emission of green-house gases;"

http://www.nationalnewswatch.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=19865&Itemid=41

Remember when Liberal Pablo Rodriguez was cheered by Liberals, NDP and Bloc for embarassing Harper with presenting and passing a motion that corners the Government into implementing and meeting the Kyoto targets by 2012 which we all know is impossible even if we shutdown the whole country?

Just imagine if Harper's throne speech includes:
"We will not implement this Kyoto motion"...

What is Dion going to do? We all know the Fibs are going to try and avoid an election....Who is going to be embarrassed and cornered now?
GOOD WORK RODRIGUEZ!!!

I can't wait for next week!

I suspect that the only reason this case got traction in the UK was the fact that Gore is AMERICAN!

I now think that every kid should see Gore's film in school, together with a discussion of these 11 inaccuracies. Put in the proper context it would be an excellent way to teach critical thinking skills.

UK courts redeem themselves on this issue.

It would be very American to see it litigated. However opinion is opinion. But to get it properly labeled as opinion is important.

It does belong in a media studies course as an example of a phenomena, and how to spin data.

Will Al get the Nobel?

Goodness gracious, the Goracle's Kyoto Karbon Kredit Kult or the KKKK (tm) are shown to contain 11 material falsehoods.

So who was the Judas who left out the 12th material falsehood?

I mean isn't the Kyoto Karbon Kredit Kult all about the money?

Hey, I have 30 pieces of silver, and BTW you can financially crucify your economy by being scientifically illerate.

I believe we should start a self help group with 12 steps to freedom. Perhaps we should call it:

Charlatans Anonymous

Hi I'm a charlatan and I'm addicted to parting fools from their money.

Come hither all yea shysters, mountebanks, quacks and snake oil salesmen!!

Cheers

Hans-Christian Georg Rupprecht BGS, PDP, CFP

Commander in Chief

Frankenstein Battalion

2nd Squadron: Ulanen-(Lancers) Regiment Großherzog Friedrich von Baden (Rheinisches) Nr.7(Saarbrucken)

Knecht Rupprecht Division

Hans Corps

1st Saint Nicolaas Army

Army Group “True North”

Do you suppose that this will affect his chances for the Nobel Peace Prize? If so, will it improve them or harm them?

Giving Gore a Nobel prize will take them down to nothing but shams.

"At least eleven material falsehoods" UK court.

More than enough for a fraud suit ?? Anywhere in the world ??

Global Frauding :)

since Al Gore is an "American" it is surprising that CBCpravda hasnt sent that noted Anti-American Kneel McDonald on an expose. It must irk them that the king of the AGW is a yank and not Dr. Bono Suzuki.

Today, the news about Earth's Greatest Hoax actually made it on the Drudge (from Breitbart)

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=071010140820.maha1rmv&show_article=1

Here is a good editorial in an Australian newspaper.... hello??? Is anyone out there listening? Do they not think it's terrible to be teaching false science to children, when it's known to be false?

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22559777-25717,00.html

I am sure that the UK court got it wrong somehow since:
1) they must have overlooked the 'right' data, or
2) the judges scope was too narrow as to be definitive, or
3) there are some other lame excuses to invalidate the ruling as having any serious implications about the film's credibility.

Also, I am sure that this really has no impact on the overall credibility of AGW theory, for similar reasons, but also since:
4) This was just a movie guys, it wasn't meant to be serious, or
5) Al Gore is a politician and may not understand all the science, or
6) there are some other lame excuses....

So, since all lot of Gore's arguments tend to get used by AGW proponents, enlighten me...tell me what I am missing here? How does this not really affect your arguments and/or not degrade AGW credibility?

Gentleman, start your spinning.....

You'll LOVE how the Comrades at the BBC spin this news!

And they even frame the text of their "coverage" with a right side of page column on the right with links to global warming" b*llsh*t stories.

They're shameless.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/7037671.stm

Frenchie 'toungue-in-cheek' 77, you are bang on !!

AGW was, is and always be a Kult. A long time ago Jane Stewart, then Enviro Min, said "so what if the science is all phooney, ..."

Science has been eliminated from the argument. All that is left is 'my faith is better than your faith', 'it is true because I believe', 'you will be rewarded -- trust me'.

Pathetic, when you think who fell for this;

The United Nations
Most Media
Hollywood (not surprising)
Democrats
Liberals
NDP (not the working man though, just Layton)
Many Professors
The public school system

Who didn't fall for the scam ?? All those not dependent on it.

Frankly i hope gore is forced to return his undeserved oscar and those accademy award hudges get canned

Where's John Cross when you need him.

And so children, let this be a lesson to you.

Never let a geneticist and a lawyer near a thermometer, or weather forecast, again.

The courts have not gone far enough.

Al Gore, Suzuki, et al should be accused and convicted of creating and conducting the most massive fraud in history.

And then the civil suits to finish them off.

Irwin: I totally agree. This is the most massive fraud in history. P.T. Barnum has been reincarnated.

I saw a video where Al is telling us how Global Warming is affecting education...

http://adognamedkyoto.blogspot.com/2007/10/global-warming-effecting-education.html#links

Bogus facts aside, the video footage is spectacular, the powerpoint slides compelling, and the emotional impact devastating. Al Gore a Nobel.

Irwin.....I couldn't agree more. This makes Enron,Adscam etc. look like child's play.I am racking my mind trying to remember a bigger scam in history.Problem is,where do you find a good civil lawyer who isn't owned by the KKKult?

If Al Gore gets a Nobel Peace prize it will confirm the perversion of the award, lowering it to the level of the Order of Canada, who's recipients include Suzuki and almost any other greenie that has stopped a logging truck.

So it is illegal to lie in the UK? I am stunned. There is no such law in Canada or the US because no politician will vote it! How did the Brits do it?

The Sound of Settled Law!!

If Al Gore gets a Nobel Peace prize it will confirm the perversion of the award........

The Nobel peace prize is a leftwing political award; they might as well print it on toilet paper.

The leftwing Ship of Fools™ commandeered by Al Gore has buried reason and given rise to anti-intellectualism.

Al Gore is a "falsehood." Need we say more????

The problem is that they are still using that bullshit video in classrooms throughout Ontario. If not for the fact that I take a keen interest in my children's education, they would be having friggin nightmares over this. I have had conversations with the board in the past, threatening legal action, if necessary. Reading this, I think it is time to call the board again. This just might get their attention!

Hey Kingston Lad. My Daughter is in Grade 2 and she knows the name of this movie. If the school mentions showing it to the class, she is to tell me so i can keep her home that day. I'll take her for a walk in the woods or go skiing instead.

RL: Just waiting for someone to ask me in ;-)

Frenchie77: I will say again I have never seen An Inconvenient Truth. I do not use Al Gore as a source for what ever science I present. I see nothing that would apply to me or the science in general, but if you would like to look at specific points I would be more than happy to do that. There are some listed where I tend to agree with what is presented and some listed that are quite wrong in their conclusions. I will not be able to comment on how Gore presents them apart from pointing out obvious wordings.

I will note that kmn136 at October 10, 2007 9:32 AM has an excellent idea and in fact if my school board ever wants to show it I will recommend that the 11 points be presented in a format that would allow me and someone else (with an opinion different than mine) if they wish to review the points and show the context of each. That would be fun (and educational).

Regards,
John

Why do several (or ten) errors in data collection render invalid the message being put forward by Al Gore and his "Inconvenient Truth"?

If his message promotes more debate before any large investments are made this too will be a benefit.

I am a very long time Reformer/Conservative. Yet I think we all need to acknowledge that the Ayn Rand Atlas Shrugged attitude towards the environment has to stop.

Any school that shows this junk science film should be reqiured to tell the students thats its pure speculation and not the truth

"If his message promotes more debate before any large investments are made this too will be a sbenefit."
The whole problem with Al Gore and David Suzuki is they claim the debate it over and that everything they say are indisputable facts. Al Gore has been challenged to to a debate by numerous scientist's and has refused, he even refuses to answer questions from reporters.
Tell one lie and you are a liar who could have been mistaken, tell 11 and you are totally unbelievable.

Is it true that along with the Nobel Prize comes a million dollar paycheck?

If it is, just add it to Gore's fraudulent pile of money from his movie, TerraPass, and humping around the country for global warming.

Looks good on all the lefties that are being separated from their money.

just read the "world without us"

not to worry a few million years and we are a 1 mm rust coloured layer in the geological record with a few aluminum, plastic and bronze shards.

There are some laws in Canada that could prove embarrassing for all promoters of AGW – including the Ministry of the Environment, the MSM, politicians, activists, et cetera.

However, what are the odds that the following would ever be applied?

Spreading False Information

Scott, supra, notes at p. 39 that it was upon this formulation of the offence that the Canadian Criminal Code provision was based. Enacted in 1892, s. 126 of the Criminal Code, S.C. 1892, c. 29, declared:

126. Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to one year's imprisonment who wilfully and knowingly publishes any false news or tale whereby injury or mischief is or is likely to be occasioned to any public interest.

This notion of mischief in the common law has relevance to section 136 of the Canadian Code because the word "mischief" appears in the section. The recent English cases show the doctrine is not obsolete. Canadian law, based on statute, is more clearly formulated and goes farther than the actual holding in any English decision. Its roots are nevertheless to be found in what is an operative principle of the common law. It is wrong for anyone knowingly to cause a public mischief by publishing or telling lies. Lying itself does not constitute the crime. Injuring the public interest does.

In 1955 (S.C. 1953-54, c. 51), the provision was removed from the "Sedition" section of the Code and re-enacted under the category of "Nuisance". In doing this, Parliament made it clear that while the import of s. 181 was not to punish sedition, it continued to have a role to play. Section 166 stated:

166. Every one who wilfully publishes a statement, tale or news that he knows is false and that causes or is likely to cause injury or mischief to a public interest is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for two years

Ron C says, "...I think we all need to acknowledge that the Ayn Rand Atlas Shrugged attitude towards the environment has to stop"

Quoting Ayn Rand, "to survive on this planet, you can either conquer nature or conquer people who conquer nature". In other words, you can live off the land (primary industries) or live off people who live off the land (service sector, government).

You have a third alternative?

Perhaps someone with more time than myself could obtain a copy of the decision and maybe even a transcript of the evidence of the "gov't expert". It may make very interesting reading.

How about everyone making copies of the newsbuster story and posting a copy where ever you see posters promoting Gore's movie. I know there is one in my sons high school and i will provide my son with a copy of the article to beside the poster.

If his message promotes more debate before any large investments are made this too will be a benefit.

Your narcissistic infantile belief that any amount of money can alter climate/weather is the pinnacle of hubris. But when its not the illiberal left being taxed for this scam what do they care? They’re all about feelings anyway, they’ll feel good despite any measurable results. Just tell them what they want to hear and they’ll be satisfied, then reject this utter propaganda designed to fleece nations and enrich the elites.

Old news Kate... I posted this under the "Stamps get stomped" post... Good to see your on the ball though.

clair voyant, this is from the October 8, 2007, edition of the Times of India:
"Laureates receive a gold medal, a diploma and 10 million Swedish kronor (1.53 million dollars, 1.08 million euros) which can be split between up to three winners per prize."

For what it's worth, I personally don't think ANYBODY who's hyping global warming --, er, climate change -- really believes it's caused by human beings' CO2 emissions, or farts from flatulent fauna, or even left-handed baseball pitchers, although the left-handed pitcher theory is arguably more plausible than anything yet posited by those who identify man made CO2 emissions as the cause of... which climate effect is it that CO2 emissions are supposed to cause? Warming, cooling, or change?

Al Gore doesn't believe the man made theory; for him it's just money in the bank.

Politicians, be they from Washington, London, Ottawa, or Timbuktu don't believe it; for them it's a means to steer public opinion away from fossil fuels towards alternative energy sources (read, nuclear energy).

Learned people, be they IPCC contributors or ersatz climate scientists like Suzuki, don't believe it; their politics dictate what public position they take on the issue.

In short, EVERYONE knows this entire climate issue is, well, just a crock of crap... yep, that seems to be the best way to put it.

"I will note that kmn136 at October 10, 2007 9:32 AM has an excellent idea and in fact if my school board ever wants to show it I will recommend that the 11 points be presented in a format that would allow me and someone else (with an opinion different than mine) if they wish to review the points and show the context of each. That would be fun (and educational)." (John Cross, 3:03PM)
Hey, maybe our kids could watch an old Leni Riefenstahl film in grade school, as long as there's an opposing point of view put forward.
Or maybe BOTH of the propaganda films (Riefenstahl's AND Gore's) are just a bunch of crapola.

Come on. We ALL know An Inconvenient Truth was laid out in such a way as to have the patina of being 100% fact, even though the producers right from Gore on down to the lowliest grip knew it was loaded with fluff, and utterly devoid of substance.

Hate to say it, but it would seem to take a special kind of "ignorant" for anyone to buy into climate change, or... whatever... based on An Inconvenient Truth.

Joe B. which climate effect is it that CO2 emissions are supposed to cause?

The effect of increased CO2 emissions is an increase in IR radiation.

If you can put forward an argument that defends Leni Riefenstahl you are much better at propaganda than I am. I am afraid that I will stick to the science; which - if you wish to discuss - I am willing.

Regards,
John

Well, no John, I would never deign to defend a piece of crap like a Riefenstahl film.

You're not contending that you would try to defend a piece of crap like An Inconvenient Truth, are you?

I think you missed "the cut of my jib", as Mark Steyn would put it, by way of my comparison of 2 (TWO, mind you) films which were/are respectively propagating theories based solely on heaping piles of steaming b.s.

You like to challenge people to debates about this global "warming/cooling/climate change" stuff, what? You must be some kind of crackerjack on planet Earth's climate, eh? Maybe along the lines of Richard Lindtzen or Fred Singer.

Or one of these guys, maybe.
http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2007/02/quacks-cranks-and-junk-science.html

You believe the hype, good for you. I don't.

Joe B, unfortunately, unconveniently and ignorantly a whole lot of people have taken said propaganda as truth not fluff.
surely you jest

Joe B: Likewise, I think you missed my "cut" as well. My point is that the science behind AGW is being ignored by those who find it inconvienent.

As I have said, I have not seen Gore's movie (and to be honest, I have no intention to see it). But I am aware of the science behind it and while I remain open to alternative ideas (and in fact actively seek out alternative points of view) I have not seen anything that challenges the science in response to Gore's movie. If some people have issues with some of the examples that he uses, then great, lets look at them. But that does not change the underlying science.

That is what I think should be done, get past the hype and look at the science.

Regards,
John

But that's the whole point, john cross, the science does not support AGW. The reason people are rejecting AGW is not because they find it 'inconvenient' but because the science is flawed.

The fact that you accept the flawed 'science' in Al Gore's movie (regardless of whether or not you've seen the movie) is your business. The fact that it is flawed, is germane to a lot of people's conclusions to reject AGW.

I accept climate change as natural; I accept pollution caused by humans as requiring clean-up by humans because natural forces can't keep pace with the pollution. (I acknowledge that all organic systems 'pollute'). I accept the there is some measure of climate change caused by human activity, ie, industrial devt will warm up a local niche area. I don't accept global climate change as due to human activity. I don't accept human CO2 as causal of global climate change.

The number - and analysis- of scientists who reject AGW is enough evidence. The fact that you stick to it, - well, that's you.

et: do you accept that there is a "natural" greenhouse effect? Do you accept that CO2 is part of that greenhouse effect?

If so, what is different about the anthropogenic CO2 added over the last 100 years?

In regards to the number of scientists who reject - or for that matter accept - AGW it is largely irrelevant. It is the old consensus argument and as such is not particularly convincing.

But since it is relevant here, let me quote from the actual Judgement that raised the 9 points (and now that I have read the judgement, it is 9, not 11 points).

As Mr Chamberlain persuasively sets out at paragraph 11 of his skeleton:

"The Film advances four main scientific hypotheses, each of which is very well supported by research published in respected, peer-reviewed journals and accords with the latest conclusions of the IPCC:

(1) global average temperatures have been rising significantly over the past half century and are likely to continue to rise ("climate change");

(2) climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide ("greenhouse gases");

(3) climate change will, if unchecked, have significant adverse effects on the world and its populations; and

(4) there are measures which individuals and governments can take which will help to reduce climate change or mitigate its effects."

These propositions, Mr Chamberlain submits (and I accept), are supported by a vast quantity of research published in peer-reviewed journals worldwide and by the great majority of the world's climate scientists.

So they don't seem to feel that the number of scientists who reject AGW is "enough evidence".

John, you seem be having problems counting, I went to the link and counted 11 points? Do you have a filtered URL that only goes to AGW supporting sites? The first line in your quote renders all after it invalid, especially the bit about the "latest conclusions of the IPCC".

You just don't seem to understand that quoting BS doesn't make it real. We don't believe in Al Gores "science" nor the IPCC's "science" because it was all "settled" - once you decide to settle the debate on science it becomes a belief - which is faith based system. I would have to say that you are arguing a religious belief, which you are entitled to do but don't call it science.

John Cross,

I’m not interested in debating junk science but your last post is hard to resist; the baseless assertions you peddle have no merit whatsoever. First off increases in CO2 are in large part due to water evaporation because of slightly warming temperatures. It’s a symptom not the cause. If you’re so concerned about CO2 emission maybe all the liberals should hold their breath until they pass out and have a talk with the cows an d tell them to stop excreting all that methane.

By the way, to the liberal idiots [redundancy], if you’re so concerned about emissions then you should be the loudest ones demanding that America switch to the cleanest energy source available: Nuclear. Ironically the bedwetting French are one of the world’s leaders in this area. If liberals were as concerned as they claim they’d be all for nuclear but they’re not. Why? They’re not interested in real solutions; they’re interested in feel good babble that more often than not has dire unintended consequences; but such is the way of the mind of the liberal morons.

(3) climate change will, if unchecked, have significant adverse effects on the world and its populations; and

The same scientifically illiterate morons were saying there’s going to be global cooling, they claimed there would be a food shortage due to overpopulation, etc. Liberals using junk science to further their agenda is a long tradition.

(4) there are measures which individuals and governments can take which will help to reduce climate change or mitigate its effects."

Keep telling yourself that; the narcissism is staggering. Before you Global Climate Quijote’s go pushing windmills maybe you can get it to rain in some drought-ridden areas. See if you can affect weather in a few sq kilometers then you can go on your grandiose feel good mission to battle Mother Nature on a global level, at your expense.

(1) global average temperatures have been rising significantly over the past half century and are likely to continue to rise ("climate change");

Utter nonsense. The hottest temps on record are in the 1930’s and on average the temps between 1910-1930 were hotter than 1990-2007. Secondly, the recorded data only goes back approx 100 years.

(1) global average temperatures have been rising significantly over the past half century and are likely to continue to rise ("climate change");

Again more feelings based nonsense.

(2) climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide ("greenhouse gases");

Of course there’s no evidence to back this assertion up, but don’t let facts get in the way of your feelings, John.

(1) global average temperatures have been rising significantly over the past half century and are likely to continue to rise ("climate change");

John, when I was living [for a short while] in Israel as a kid about 17 years ago it was 126 degrees during the day in summer and about 90 degrees at night. Two years ago it snowed in Israel, which is unthinkable. How do you reconcile this?

Then I’d like to know what caused the half dozen or so Ice Ages to recede/melt. What happened to the ice sheet covering North America thousands of years ago?

john cross - your four points are ambiguous and empty rhetoric; they sound like any second rate political platform.

No, the majority of scientists do NOT accept AGW. And stop with the 'peer-reviewed' nonsense; publishing in a peer-reviewed journal is NOT indicative of truth. I'm an academic and I assure you that peer reviews can inhibit rather than advance knowledge.

I don't know what you mean by 'natural' greenhouse effect. And what's your point about CO2 - which is a greenhouse gas?

The question is, whether/not greenhouse gases are the primary cause of climate change, in particular, warming. I happen to find the scientific arguments against this far more convincing than the dogma proposing it.
You, of course, are convinced of AGW. Enjoy.

commsguy: If you re-read my post I was talking about the actual judgment, not Sheppard's interpretation of it. To quote Mr Justice Burton from paragraph 23 of the judgment

In the event I was persuaded that only some of them were sufficiently persuasive to be relevant for the purposes of his argument, and it was those matters – 9 in all – upon which I invited Mr Chamberlain to concentrate.

So it would appear that it is Mr. Sheppard who has a problem counting.

Regards,
John

Apollyon: I am not sure that I follow your comment about CO2 and water. The current increase in CO2 is due to anthropogenic sources, no doubt about it. I have gone through the reasons on this site several times but I am willing to do it once more if you doubt it. Also, I have expressed my views on nuclear power on this site if you are interested.

In regards to global cooling, I have also discussed this in the past but would be happy to go over it again

But this comment of yours is interesting. The point was:

(1) global average temperatures have been rising significantly over the past half century and are likely to continue to rise ("climate change");

And you said Utter nonsense. The hottest temps on record are in the 1930’s and on average the temps between 1910-1930 were hotter than 1990-2007. Secondly, the recorded data only goes back approx 100 years. .

Can you please back up your assertion that the hottest global temperatures are from the 1930’s (hint, you are thinking of the temperatures for the lower 48). And you are correct that the records only go back about a100 years – but I am not sure of the relevance since they are commenting on the last half century (last time I checked this was about 50 years).

You finished with this statement Then I’d like to know what caused the half dozen or so Ice Ages to recede/melt. What happened to the ice sheet covering North America thousands of years ago?

The answer (as I have gone over I the past) is Milankovitch cycles.

Regards,
John

et: First, they are not my points. I just quoted another part of the same judgment that raised the 9 “errors” in An Inconvenient Truth. If you don’t like it, tell it to the Judge!

In regards to natural greenhouse effect, that is the effect from greenhouse gases that have kept the earth at a livable temperature as opposed to -18C which it would be if there were no GHGs.

Having reviewed both sides of the argument, I have found the skeptical side to be less sound. However in science, nothing is final so I shall continue to look at both sides of the argument.

Will Al Gore win a Nobel Prize in a new category, "Serial Lying"?

Can you please back up your assertion that the hottest global temperatures are from the 1930’s (hint, you are thinking of the temperatures for the lower 48).

Heh, as if there are credible average global temp. records from the '30's to compare.

ol hoss: take it up with Apollyon. It was his comment.

By the way, hows that rewriting of physics going?

Regards,
John

Like all leftists, your reading comprehension isn't the best. You pointed out his comment referred to continental US temps. Mine doesn't.

Re the physics: still haven't figured out how a cooler object can heat a warmer object.

ol hoss: Ah, sorry, so you accept that the US temperatures are accurate but the global ones are not. Good enough, there are many here who would disagree with you on that, but I am not one of them.

In regards to your project to re-write the laws of physics, here is another thought experiment for you to consider:

Take an object at a temperature of 50 C in a vacuum. Near it, place an object at a temperature of 0 C. I think we agree that the 50 C object will emit IR radiation that the cooler object will absorb.

Now, beside the 0 C object, put one at 100 C. Now what happens? Does the 50 C stop emitting since there is a warmer one near by, or does the 100 C develop a reflective surface because there is a cooler one near. (As an aside, you just may want to put a hold on questioning people’s comprehension until you have finished overturning physics).

Regards,
John

...so you accept that the US temperatures are accurate...

I didn't say they are accurate. In fact I didn't say anything about them. You reading comprehension still needs improving. Which is why it's useless to discuss with you how the atmosphere can warm the earth.

ol hoss: your exact quote was "Heh, as if there are credible average global temp. records from the '30's to compare.

So what are you comparing to? I might suggest that it may be your comprehension skills that are in question as well as your physics.

Regards,
John

To compare to the present day average global temps.

Talk about dense.

ol hoss: we have come full circle, the only thing I can say is to take it up with Apollyon. It was his comment and the implication that the temperatures are accurate is his as well. I just pointed out that his error was that he was mixing up global and US temperatures.

I do find it somewhat telling that you seem more interested in trying to attribute Apollyon's comments to me as opposed to discussing the physics of radiation heat transfer, although - based on your apparent understanding - perhaps not surprising.

Regards,
John