Part II

Then there's the NASA Web site

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Good. Since this is their "evidence", we can f'get about solid evidence of CO2 from humans causing significant global warming. Warm up the barbie!

Let's start with their points:

(1) IPCC.

They quote the IPCC. Tilt. They just blew their credibility, showed that they are just pushing rip-off, flim-flam, fraud, scam, political nonsense, and went to the back of the class with the D- students.

(2) The graph.

They show a graph of CO2 in the atmosphere over several hundred thousand years. Likely that data was from the ice core samples from the Russian Vostok site in Antarctica, although since then there is another sample from a US site that drilled deeper and went back further in time.

So, yes, over hundreds of thousands of years, CO2 levels have fluctuated, both up and down. We should have expected something else? And just now CO2 levels are relatively high.

But we were talking about temperature, just temperature, in degrees F, C, or K, and not CO2 levels. And when we measure temperature, just temperature, did I mention, temperature, we're okay.

Dragging CO2 levels into this discussion without a solid connection with a significant increase in temperature blows their credibility.

(3) CO2

They wrote:

> The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.2 Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many JPL-designed instruments, such as AIRS. Increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response.

True but trivial and says no more than if light a match then warm the planet.

Again, they blow their credibility.

(4) Ice Core Data.

They write:

> Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that the Earth’s climate responds to changes in solar output, in the Earth’s orbit, and in greenhouse gas levels. They also show that in the past, large changes in climate have happened very quickly, geologically-speaking: in tens of years, not in millions or even thousands.3

This is basically a lie, a deliberate, contemptible lie. Their lie is their statement that the ice core data shows that

"climate responds to ... greenhouse gas levels".

The ice core data shows that CO2 levels increased about 800 years AFTER the increases in temperature. So, the guess is that (A) from some cause there was an increase in temperature, (B) the higher temperature resulted in more biological activity, and (C) by 800 years later the increased biological activity resulted in higher CO2 levels.

With this lie, we should quit reading, but I will go on.

(5) Sea Levels

They write:

> Global sea level rose about 17 centimeters (6.7 inches) in the last century. The rate in the last decade, however, is nearly double that of the last century.4

Again, we were talking about temperature, just temperature, in degrees F, C or K. Did I mention we were talking about temperature? And in particular we were talking about significantly higher temperatures from higher CO2 concentrations from human activity -- for which we have zilch for good science. So now they are talking about sea levels. Where'd they get the importance of sea levels?

Maybe they want to use sea levels as a thermometer. BS. We have excellent thermometers and have had for well over 100 years. For measuring temperature over the past 2000 years, we have the results of a serious effort that I referenced above. For recent temperature, with high irony, from NASA we have satellites with just excellent measurements of global temperature. So, stuff it with the sea levels.

Of course, with the sea levels they are really trying to build a rolling snowball of emotional reaction from anecdotal evidence. That's contemptible.

Just what is it about temperature that NASA has so much trouble understanding?

That's enough.

NASA just wet it's pants and showed that it's a tool of some dirty politics.

The whole thing is not about science, CO2, global warming, or the planet. Instead mostly the subject is about a rip-off, flim-flam, fraud, scam that will let some people rip off some of what they want from some other people.

No sale: Not going to shut down our use of coal and pump more payoff, kickback, political machine money into more Solyndras and do more damage to our economy than was ever done by Tojo, Hitler, and Stalin combined. No thanks.

I'm torqued because I see an effort to sabotage the US.

My original question was, why is the media, e.g., the BBC, so eager to go along with this highly destructive scam?

My best explanation: The old KGB.