MoveOn calls on Senate to preserve Clean Air Act in climate bill 14

Comments View as Threaded

1. 

   cleanwater&air; Posted 9:13 am
   09 Jul 2009

   The world is believing the BIGGEST LIE of the 20 and 21st century-"man-made global warming" does not exist. The "greenhouse gas effect" was disproved in 1909 by R.W.Wood and has been shown to Violate the Fundamental laws of Physics. Look up the publications of Dipl.-Ing Heinz Thieme and Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner. Other important web-sites with true information http://www.strata-sphere.com and "icecap.com" and a few hundred others.
   The "greenhouse gas effect" is a hypothesis that can not be proven and is a Fairy-tale, therefore Man-made global warming is a political & environmental wacko hoax.
   We are going into a natural global cooling climate change caused by a Solar hibernation- http://www.space and science research.com

   Permalink

2. 

   nobenno Posted 11:04 am
   09 Jul 2009

   Hey CW&A, why is that point of view only held by astroturfing sock puppets appealing to Neo-Luddites? Can you please explain it to me in terms a five year old can understand? 

   Permalink

3. 

   Ken Ward Posted 12:12 pm
   09 Jul 2009

   First, really great that MoveOn.org is running this campaign to highlight the fact that Waxman-Markey guts the Clean Air Act, a major reason why ACES is worse then nothing, because without any legislation, the EPA will have to implement carbon emissions restrictions under existing Clean Air Act, without any need to give away the store, as Waxman-Markey does, in order to buy votes.Second, I'm curious to know, CleanWater&Air, what you think of the dramatic reduction in Arctic sea ice?

   Permalink

4. 

   cleanwater&air; Posted 12:33 pm
   09 Jul 2009

   to Nebenno: as a five year old you are told Fairy-tales made up by people to keep you quite or to put you to sleep at bed time. They are fiction. The greenhouse gas effect is fiction. There is no prove that it happens .The EPA is hiding the report of Alan Carlin of their own staff that states that CO2 does not cause global warming.To Ken Ward- when I looked at the NASA data last week it showed that there is more ice in both the North and South pole than in 2004. That web site seen to be hidden now and one claiming the opposite is available I guess Jim Hansen head of NASA Goddard is manipulating the data again.The Waxman-Markey -Cap & Steal bill is the worst legislation that congress has ever proposed - Do you know what is in the 1400 page of wasted paper?The last time I checked the NASA temperature web-site it showed that the temperatures have been going down since 1998. I guess Jim Hansen has manipulated the data again.

   Permalink

5. 

   cleanwater&air; Posted 1:31 pm
   09 Jul 2009

   After looking at the NASA web-site and looking carefully at the graphs and then reading the text -they do not agree. Ice change data stops in 2000 and temperature data stops in 2007. But most interesting is a footnote from the IPCC report copied here with my emphasis with enlarged text.In the 1860s, physicist John Tyndall recognized the Earth's natural greenhouse effect and suggested that slight changes in the atmospheric composition could bring about climatic variations. In 1896, a seminal paper by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius first speculated that changes in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could substantially alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect.Neither had any prove just a guess. The greenhouse gas effect was disproved by R.W. Wood  in 1909 and has been shown to Violated the Second Law of Thermodynamics  thus it does not happen. Also the work of Nobel Prize in Physics Neils Bohr in 1922 shows that the greenhouse gas effect does not happen in spit of the lies of Nobel prize in Peace Al Gore.

   Permalink

6. 

   ucgreen Posted 1:52 pm
   10 Jul 2009

   R.W. Wood's note does not prove anything.  First off, it's a "note" -- it was an informal experiment that he performed.  His experiment was to see whether it was radiation trapping or convection that made real greenhouses warmer than their environment.  He did not impliacte anything further from there.  He ends by saying just that!
   Bohr's work that earned him the 1922 Nobel Prize in Physics is the groundwork for explaining the greenhouse effect.  The fact that atoms can absorb and emit radiation (such as infrared radiation -- heat) is the basis of the greenhouse effect.  How you can say otherwise is either complete ineptitude or deliberate lying.  It's so plain and clear that there isn't even a middle ground.

   Permalink

7. 

   cleanwater&air; Posted 12:07 am
   11 Jul 2009

   dear UCGReen: Your are more intelligent than most responder but not much more.You have not read the other references namely The greenhouse gas hypothesis Violates the fundamentals of physics.If you really understood that in 1909 there was no evidence that the greenhouse gas effect existed. There is still no evidence that the greenhouse  gas effect exists-experiments and data.At this time I am busy but I'll be happy to explain why  the work of Niels Bohr and the experiment of R.W. Wood proves that the ghg effect is a Fairy tale.In the mean time brush up on your knowledge of Quantum physics and thermodynamics.

   Permalink

8. 

   cleanwater&air; Posted 6:11 am
   11 Jul 2009

   Just a short comment :If the work of R.W.Wood was just a casual experiment Why was it given peer review and published.Included below is a E-mail from a noted atmospheric physicist:From: William Kininmonth To: cleanwater&air; (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
   
   //
   var l=new Array();
   
   var output = '';
   
   l[0]='>';l[1]='a';l[2]='/';l[3]='';l[26]='\"';l[27]=' 117';l[28]=' 97';l[29]=' 46';l[30]=' 117';l[31]=' 100';l[32]=' 101';l[33]=' 46';l[34]=' 117';l[35]=' 99';l[36]=' 106';l[37]=' 64';l[38]=' 114';l[39]=' 101';l[40]=' 116';l[41]=' 114';l[42]=' 97';l[43]=' 99';l[44]=' 46';l[45]=' 98';l[46]=' 111';l[47]=' 98';l[48]=':';l[49]='o';l[50]='t';l[51]='l';l[52]='i';l[53]='a';l[54]='m';l[55]='\"';l[56]='=';l[57]='f';l[58]='e';l[59]='r';l[60]='h';l[61]='a ';l[62]='';l[1]='a';l[2]='/';l[3]='';l[29]='\"';l[30]=' 109';l[31]=' 111';l[32]=' 99';l[33]=' 46';l[34]=' 100';l[35]=' 110';l[36]=' 111';l[37]=' 112';l[38]=' 103';l[39]=' 105';l[40]=' 98';l[41]=' 64';l[42]=' 104';l[43]=' 116';l[44]=' 110';l[45]=' 111';l[46]=' 109';l[47]=' 110';l[48]=' 105';l[49]=' 110';l[50]=' 105';l[51]=' 107';l[52]=' 46';l[53]=' 119';l[54]=':';l[55]='o';l[56]='t';l[57]='l';l[58]='i';l[59]='a';l[60]='m';l[61]='\"';l[62]='=';l[63]='f';l[64]='e';l[65]='r';l[66]='h';l[67]='a ';l[68]='

   Permalink

9. 

   ucgreen Posted 7:55 am
   11 Jul 2009

   Hah, nice try.You tell me that the theory of greenhouse gas effect violates the second law of thermodynamics (whicch I've never actually seen any evidence to support thus claim) and then you go ahead and quote a professor who says that "the
   so-called greenhouse gases (water vapour, CO2, etc) and clouds emit
   more radiation, both to space and back to Earth, than they absorb." which is a clear violation of the fundamental physical law of Conservation of Energy.  How can something emit more energy than it absorbs?  The laws of physics don't change to your needs.Frankly, I see now you're a deliberate liar and misleader.Good day.

   Permalink

10. 

    cleanwater&air; Posted 5:07 pm
    11 Jul 2009

    UCGREEN: i GAVE YOU TWO references that provide the information that the greenhouse gas effect violates the Second law  of thermodynamics -you have chose to Ignore them. You are " lying" when you say( you have whicch I've never actually seen any evidence to support thus claim). If you cannot find them on the Internet I'd be happy to send you pdf file of both.Greenhouse gas Hypnotise  Violate the Fundamentals of Physics. Look up the publications of Dipl.-Ing Heinz Thieme and Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. TscheuschnerTo address the language of the E-mail of William Kininmonth ,he is Australian and uses language differently than American English or Canadian English or British English.You are correct that Energy can not be increased But it can  change form. Language has to be used very carefully so as not to create the wrong impression. Kinimonth's comment says that some of the energy store in the cloud as heat or as "heat of vaporization" can be radiated out to space or to the earth as IR or as visible radiation -lightning.I will check with Mr. Kininmonth if this is his meaning.The world is being lied to by many scientist who are receiving hundreds of billions of dollars to do research on Man-made global warming . They will not tell the truth and cut off their pay checks. The politicians are lying for the same reasons. I am a profession engineer working in the field of environmental engineering for more than 46years.I take the Code of Ethic as a P.E. very seriously and will not lie to you or anyone else. I am preparing off line a more complete response to your earlier questions  or any others that may come up. I only ask that you read the paper " Greenhouse gas effect Violates Fundamentals of Physics" by Dipl-Ing Heinz Thieme-It is about 7 pages long and a bit technical and is a translation that may not be totally clear.Mr.  Kininmonth was a member of the IPCC research group but refused to go along with the falsifications that went into the reports.

    Permalink

11. 

    ucgreen Posted 8:30 am
    12 Jul 2009

    "Kinimonth's comment says that some of the energy store in the cloud as heat or as 'heat of vaporization' can be radiated out to space or to the earth as IR or as visible radiation -lightning."I think this line alone best exemplifies just how you are full of shit and lies.  I'm done replying to you.  You are not worth the time of day.

    Permalink

12. 

    cleanwater&air; Posted 9:22 am
    12 Jul 2009

    UCGREEN: thank you for letting the world know that you are probably a highschool freshman if that. I learned about the heat of vaporization etc in highschool chemistry. This enery is released from the gas phase of the water when it condenses to form clouds.I too have better things to do than try to  share facts with someone too ignorant to want to learn.

    Permalink

13. 

    nobenno Posted 6:11 pm
    14 Jul 2009

    You must be joking. You don't even know the difference between explaining something so a five year old can understand it and telling a five year old that they are reading a book written for a five year old. How do you expect anyone to take you seriously? And take off the aluminum foil hat, you'll scorch yourself playing on the chemgrass with that thing on.

    Permalink

14. 

    cleanwater&air; Posted 8:49 am
    15 Jul 2009

    Hello NOENNO: Well are you the 5 year old that need an explanation of advanced atmospheric physics at  a 5 year level or are you an adult with the educational understanding of a 5 year old?I doubt anyone can explain atmospheric physics so a 5 year old will understand, but its easy to tell them that there are many people that believe in fairy -tales even when true scientific evidence shows that "man- made global" warming does not happen. There are more polar bears today than 10 years ago and the glaciers in the Himalayas are growing not shrinking. Al Gore's book has been shown to be 90 % fiction and has been band from use in science classes in the UK( by court order)It would by a good thing if you wrapped your head in aluminum foil may be you would learn something.

    Permalink