Steve Wallis   wrote:

>I've just posted the following arguments on the thread
>"sci.environment censorship or deleted? Graphs justifying global
>warming theory fabricated" on the following newsgroups (sci.physics,
>sci.astro, sci.misc, sci.skeptic, sci.environment.waste)...
>
>On 15 Aug, 01:17, "Mike Jr."  wrote:
>> On Aug 14, 7:35 pm, "Mike Jr."  wrote:
>> > On Aug 14, 4:20 pm,Steve Wallis wrote:
>>
>> > [snip]
>>
>> > > Someone twice directed me to the "Skeptical Science" website,
>> > > subtitled "Examining the science of global warming skepticism". I have
>> > > just posted the following comments on the web page discussing the most
>> > > common argument used by those sceptical of global warming theory,
>> > > entitled "Solar activity & climate: is the sun causing global
>> > > warming?" (http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-
>> > > global-warming.htm).
>>
>> > > --
>>
>> > > No-one has yet commented on the massive disparity in temperatures
>> > > between the two graphs shown at the top of this page during the post-
>> > > war boom (roughly the first three decades after the Second World War)
>>
>> > When you talk about temperature you have to ask "where?".  Do you mean
>> > just land?  Land and ocean?  Surface or mid-troposphere?
>
>Good point.
>
>A graph showing cooling from the 1940s to 1970s (http://www.space.com/
>scienceastronomy/sun_output_030320.html) shows northern hemisphere
>land temperature.
>
>One of the Wikipedia pages used to justify global warming theory
>(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_temperature_record which
>redirects to "instrumental temperature record") states "The
>instrumental temperature record shows the fluctuations of the
>temperature of the atmosphere and the oceans as measured by
>temperature sensors."
>
>I've just discovered even more blatant evidence of fabrication that I
>didn't notice before - the Wikipedia page I mentioned above shows
>clear warming between 1950 and 1975, whereas the global dimming page
>(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming) shows fluctuations but
>no clear warming or cooling over the same period. Clicking on the
>graph on the latter page yields http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png,
>which supposedly explains it. The instrumental temperature record
>graph is shown on that image page, with the text "Instrumental
>temperature record of the last 150 years. This data is the same as the
>black curve in the figure." The two curves are actually very different
>as I have just explained!
>
>The graph at http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm
>supposedly shows the "land-ocean temperature anomaly" and very little
>change over the 1950-75 period (I presume this is on a similar basis
>to the Wikipedia pages - somebody please correct me if I'm wrong).
>It's nearly 48 hours since I posted my comments on that page and
>nobody has yet countered my arguments...
>
>> > Look at the graph found here:http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2004/04/07/nothings-changed/
>>
>> > Note that only the UAH scientists calibrated their satellite data to
>> > data collected by weather balloons.
>>
>> > --Mike Jr
>
>Thanks a lot for that link. It shows a later time frame than I was
>talking about, but that graph massively undermines the graphs
>suggesting substantial warming from the 1980s. If anybody objects to
>the UAH scientists' claim that only their data has been calibrated to
>that collected by weather balloons, please say so!
>
>> Better charts can be found here. See Figures 1, 2, and 3.
>>
>> http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm
>
>That's a very interesting and persuasive page giving counter-arguments
>to global warming theory. Have advocates of that theory critiqued Roy
>Spencer's arguments?


       What do you think you are doing, if you are down-playing
Global Warming, you may have really made the international socialist
leaders angry, Anthropogenic Global Warming is their last hope of
gaining the support of free thinking people.

Steve Wallis   wrote:

[snip]
>I have to confess that I am out of my depth with all those equations.
>Maybe I should bow out of this debate and leave the discussion to
>those who understand the physics. On the other hand, scientists have
>got to justify their arguments in ways that the general public can
>understand. With last week's New Scientist main story being about
>scientists predicting cooling over some if not all of the next ten
>years (see http://www.revolutionaryplatform.net/forum/index.php?topic=10244),
>it is going to be particularly difficult for those who agree with
>global warming theory to persuade the rest of us that massive action
>on CO2 emissions is vital for the future of humanity. And without mass
>pressure from the general public, politicians are likely to take
>little if no action.
>
>As I've stated in previous messages, I differ from most sceptics of
>global warming theory in being a strong advocate of renewable forms of
>energy 


      No, where you really differ is in advertising socialism, most
people favor viable alternate energy and energy efficient devices,
but only a percent or so of the US population even considers socialism
as acceptable.

      I know, federalism is almost as bad as socialism, but it does
not burn the bridges of returning to freedom if things get too bad.


      There is no real global warming, it is possible that it
hasn't been getting as cold at night or in winter, which an El Nino
could cause, and higher minimum temperatures have the same effect
on the silly meaningless global annual average temperature or anomaly
as higher maximum temperatures would.


      It should be easy to check in you area that there have not
been many all time record highs lately, or possibly no all time
record highs at all recently.


      What would happen in a socialist state if you were to try
advertising freedom with such fervor?

Steve Wallis wrote:
> On 21 Aug, 22:49, Whata Fool  wrote:
>>       No, where you really differ is in advertising socialism, most
>> people favor viable alternate energy and energy efficient devices,
> 
> People might not favour renewable forms of energy

There is no such thing as renewable energy. Violates the laws of
thermogodamics don't you know.

> if they have to pay more for it. 

What makes you think they'll get a choice?

> And politicians sceptical of global warming (or perhaps
> because they are funded by fossil fuel companies) 

Unlike science, which is funded by politicians.

> might not prioritise investment into such forms of energy,

They ain't forms of energy though.

> preferring to continue the
> divide-and-rule agenda, trying to get working and middle class people
> to blame each other for environmental problems...

The comminists here blame everybody, well, except for the Chinese,
Indians, and most of the rest of the world.

>> but only a percent or so of the US population even considers socialism
>> as acceptable.
> 
> I've heard that most people in the USA associate the word "socialism"
> with the Stalinist states that collapsed in the USSR and Eastern
> Europe. Very few leftists advocate that form of society any more.

Did they advocate it during the Stalinist days? Probably not. So what?

> If
> you ask people do they want freedom or socialism, most people would
> say "freedom". I would say both.

And it would never be a choice you are offered.

>>       What would happen in a socialist state if you were to try
>> advertising freedom with such fervor?
> 
> It really depends on what form of "socialist" state you live under.
> Trotskyists argue for hierarchies of committees based on workplaces,
> with only the working class in control of society,

No, workers are slaves of the state. The communist elite are the
deciders.

> and a "workers'
> militia" to try to ensure the continuation of that form of society.

Force is a common element in both capitalism and communism.

> Perhaps participating in discussions of socialism that could undermine
> David Walters' Trotskyist agenda is behind his objection to
> crossposting to alt.politics.socialism.trotsky...

Incomplete sentence.

> But do you really have "freedom" when the choice is between two very
> similar capitalist political parties,

Yes, what you don't have is choice, or you have Hobsen's choice.

> an extremely undemocratic
> electoral system, electoral fraud that kept Gore and Kerry out of
> power (see my group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/us-electoral-fraud)
> and big business control of the media?

Since no presidential election in the US has ever been elected by
the popular vote, I'm not even sure this is a valid issue. I also
think we were screwed either way. Gore is an internationalist, he'd
do everything to destroy America as a sovereign nation as possible,
same as Clinton did. Anyone wanna bet we'd be at war in Iraq with
Gore also? Maybe under a different pretext, maybe not.

> With the horrendous economic problems of the worldwide capitalist
> economic system (massive food and fuel price increases, collapsing
> house prices, companies going bust as a result of the credit crunch),
> more people can be won to socialist economic policies.

These are not problems with capitalism per se, but with the government's
putting industry in charge of things. The problem is the unlawful
abdication of power and responsibility.

> I advocate more moderate socialist policies than Trotskyism, which are
> winning mass support in Latin America. Arguing that socialism means
> you can't return to capitalist "freedom" (i.e. the freedom to exploit
> workers)

Communism exploits people, that's why it calls them workers, that
is their role.

> and the alleged unpopularity of socialism is contradicted by
> the recent referendum in Bolivia, won with over 67% of the vote by Evo
> Morales, who has nationalised energy, mining and telecommunications
> companies.

Why don't you move to Bolivia?

Cheers,

Rich

> --
> Steve Wallis (Glasgow, Scotland)
> For important/urgent communications, please email:
> warcrysteve@yahoo.co.uk
> Blogs: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/steve-wallis-socialist-blog,
> http://blog.myspace.com/galaxiasteve
> My socialist website: http://www.socialiststeve.me.uk
> My pages at MySpace: http://www.myspace.com/galaxiasteve and Bebo:
> http://www.bebo.com/SteveW519
> Founder, Good Intentions Network: http://www.goodintentionsnetwork.org
> Founder, Ethical Capitalism Network: http://www.ethicalcapitalism.net
> Founder, Foundation for PR-based Socialism: http://www.PRsocialism.org
> Founder, Revolutionary Platform Network: http://www.revolutionaryplatform.net
> My socialist band, Red Day: http://www.red-day.net
> Author, "Revolution Destroyed? Have I ensured that a world socialist
> revolution will never happen?": http://www.revolutiondestroyed.net
> For discussion of the credit crunch, go to
> http://www.revolutionaryplatform.net/forum/index.php?board=156
> For discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories, go to
> http://www.revolutionaryplatform.net/forum/index.php?board=89
> For discussion of the environment, including global warming
> scepticism, go to http://www.revolutionaryplatform.net/forum/index.php?board=106