# Inhofe Exposes Global Warming Hoax



## PoliticalChic (Feb 9, 2011)

1. WASHINGTON  U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe on Wednesday not only stood by his famous hoax declaration on global warming, but the Oklahoma Republican somewhat reluctantly tipped his hand on plans to publish a book.

I wont tell you what its about, but the name of the book is The Hoax,? he said during testimony before a House subcommittee. 

Inhofe was the lead-off witness at a somewhat contentious and lengthy hearing on a proposal that he and Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, are pushing essentially to kill the U.S. Environmental Protection Agencys ability to regulate greenhouse gases. 

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, the other major attraction at the hearing, testified after Inhofe. 

Inhofe and House Republicans on the subcommittee focused on what they consider the enormous costs of EPAs efforts to regulate greenhouse emissions, the jobs that could be lost and the questions that, in their view, continue to surround climate change science. 

Science is mixed, Inhofe said, but the economic impact is not. 

In other words, all pain for no climate gain, he said in prepared remarks that he ignored so he could ramble through his testimony. 

Even if one assumes the predictions of more droughts, floods, intense storms and cases of disease are true, Inhofe said, EPAs expected regulations will not affect that. 

Jackson and Democrats on the panel argued the debate over science is over, a consensus by the nations leading researches that climate change is occurring and why has been reached, and the U.S. economy can continue to grow while addressing the issue. 
Inhofe, EPA administrator tackle greenhouse gas regulation | Tulsa World


2. The Environmental Protection Agency may have suppressed an internal report that was skeptical of claims about global warming, including whether carbon dioxide must be strictly regulated by the federal government, according to a series of newly disclosed e-mail messages.
EPA May Have Suppressed Report Skeptical Of Global Warming - Political Hotsheet - CBS News


3.


----------



## R.D. (Feb 9, 2011)

You mean Gore_ lied_?


----------



## The Infidel (Feb 9, 2011)

R.D. said:


> You mean Gore_ lied_?


----------



## Ernie S. (Feb 9, 2011)

R.D. said:


> You mean Gore_ lied_?


And people died!


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 9, 2011)

Inhofe, the completely owned whore for the energy corperations.


----------



## Mr. H. (Feb 9, 2011)

The only economic sector that will survive the EPA is the impotent, directly-subsidised, and over-hyped "green" industries. And if Obama has his way, it will be done at the expense of hundreds of thousands of jobs that actually contribute to the GDP of this country.


----------



## skookerasbil (Feb 10, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Inhofe, the completely owned whore for the energy corperations.






s0n......you are so fcukking politically stupid..................


Of course Inhofe is pwned by special interests.............

*but............but ..........but..............*



ALL of the global warming folks are pwned by the likes of the General Electrics of the world, chomping at the bit to produce billions and billions in inefficient and expensive 20th century technology like windmills and solar panels. Are you that politically fcukking naive not to know that s0n?????????????????? Thats what happens when you spend fcukking decades spending 5 or 6 days a week in the middle of a gigantic forest.

Im psyched the book is coming out............more public exposure of the great scam.


----------



## Mad Scientist (Feb 10, 2011)

How many times can a hoax be "exposed"? 

The uninformed of us (NPR and MSNBC viewers) still believe what they're being spoon fed.


----------



## konradv (Feb 10, 2011)

Gore lied, but Inhofe doesn't?  I've got a bridge to sell you, then.  Does he explain how we won't get warming, if GHGS keep going up?  Without a cogent scientific explanation of how that could happen, I'd have to say he's a bought-and-paid-for stooge


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 10, 2011)

Bought and paid for, a willing stooge and liar.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 10, 2011)

Mad Scientist said:


> How many times can a hoax be "exposed"?
> 
> The uninformed of us (NPR and MSNBC viewers) still believe what they're being spoon fed.



Nobody has yet exposed a hoax concerning AGW. In fact, with every passing day the evidence is more concrete that we have changed, and will further change the climate.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Feb 10, 2011)

Mr. H. said:


> The only economic sector that will survive the EPA is the impotent, directly-subsidised, and over-hyped "green" industries. And if Obama has his way, it will be done at the expense of hundreds of thousands of jobs that actually contribute to the GDP of this country.



Not only is this absurd AGW scam finding fewer and fewer adherents, but folks are beginning to see the bigger picture, how it advances the progressive attempts to engineer the lives of all of our citizens.

1. In his book "Freedom at Risk," James L. Buckley describes how the Progressive government creates more and more bureaucracies and agencies endowed with ever broarder responsibilties and discretion in defining the rules that govern our activities and lives, and have the full force of law!
No better example of this can be seen than the attempts of the EPA to attempt to regulate AIR!

2.	In the new Administrative State 1) politicians were to be elected, but 2) *technocrats, civil servants, bureaucrats, experts draft the regulations*. the agencies comprising the bureaucracy reside within the executive branch of our national government, but *their powers transcend *the traditional boundaries of executive power to include both legislative and judicial functions, and these powers are often exercised in a manner that is largely independent of presidential control and altogether independent of political control. The Birth of the Administrative State: Where It Came From and What It Means for Limited Government | The Heritage Foundation

3. Frank Goodnow, author of  The American Conception of Liberty and Government, a president  of Johns Hopkins University, he pioneered with Woodrow Wilson a science of *administration separated from the limits of constitutional government.*  In this essay, Goodnow both promotes the idea of separation of politics and administration, and critiques the human rights theory of the Declaration of Independence and its influence on the practice of American government.

The Progressives envision an Administrative State that moves to solve social ills as they develop by *expanding through the addition of unelected bureaucrats, czars, commissions and experts, *a la the European type of government.

Americans had best wake up to this encroachment by regulatory spider-webs.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 10, 2011)

Of course, it was all those regulations on business that create the 2008 economic debacle, correct? It was following the regulations that caused the near meltdown of the Three Mile Island reactor? Following regulations caused that river to catch fire in Ohio

Cuyahoga River Fire - Ohio History Central - A product of the Ohio Historical Society


----------



## Oddball (Feb 10, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> > How many times can a hoax be "exposed"?
> ...








And Japan is still at war with the stupid Americans!


----------



## PoliticalChic (Feb 10, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Of course, it was all those regulations on business that create the 2008 economic debacle, correct? It was following the regulations that caused the near meltdown of the Three Mile Island reactor? Following regulations caused that river to catch fire in Ohio
> 
> Cuyahoga River Fire - Ohio History Central - A product of the Ohio Historical Society



Oops...did I upset you, Rocks?

So sorry, now you go right back and lie down beside the fire, and nap, with visions of AlGore dancing in your head....

(Shhhhh!   Nobody tell Rocks that the best days of his silly obsession are behind him.)


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 10, 2011)

The neccessity of regulating businesses has been evident since the founding of the Republic. From Jefferson's polemics concerning corperations, to TR's trustbusting, the dangers of unfettored capitalism has always been evident.


----------



## daveman (Feb 10, 2011)

R.D. said:


> You mean Gore_ lied_?


----------



## daveman (Feb 10, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> The neccessity of regulating businesses has been evident since the founding of the Republic. From Jefferson's polemics concerning corperations, to TR's trustbusting, the dangers of unfettored capitalism has always been evident.



I'm sure that'll be a great comfort to you if Cap & Tax is passed and your electricity rates quadruple and you're paying $8 a gallon for gas.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Feb 11, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> The neccessity of regulating businesses has been evident since the founding of the Republic. From Jefferson's polemics concerning corperations, to TR's trustbusting, the dangers of unfettored capitalism has always been evident.



Taft.

Taft was the real "Trust-Buster," although it was the nick-name for TR. Taft brought more anti-trust suits in one term than TR in two, and broke up Rockefellers Standard Oil Company.  He got the eight-hour day for government workers, and supported the income tax amendment. Chace, "1912," p. 18

Of course, while an interesting side note, it doesn't speak to the fact that Progressives have tried to bind the citizenry in the ropes of regulation.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 11, 2011)

A much better solution that Cap and Trade is Fee and Dividend.

A tax on the carbon at the well head, mine, or dock. The tax to be then distributed equally to all citizens of voting age. That would not favor anyone but those that used less carbon emitting fuels than they recieved from the divident. The money from the fee could not be used for any other purpose than being distributed back to the citizens in equal shares. 

Another advantage to this, it would not favor any particular alternative form of energy, the market would decide that.


----------



## Oddball (Feb 11, 2011)

Right...Tax us, let the politicians and bureaucrats line their pockets, then give it back at pennies on the dollar.

You're a bloody genius!


----------



## signelect (Feb 11, 2011)

the climate is changing, so what?  Having the government try and do something about it is stupid, they can't run anything.  The only positive thing they have done is make them selves rich.  We need jobs not talk.  The Cuyahoga River caught fire because local industry was using it as a dump, now is it clean and a really neat place to take a hike.  By the way Al Gore is doing right well with the hoax, I still don't see any evidence that it is real.


----------



## Trajan (Feb 11, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Of course, it was all those regulations on business that create the 2008 economic debacle, correct? It was following the regulations that caused the near meltdown of the Three Mile Island reactor? Following regulations caused that river to catch fire in Ohio
> 
> Cuyahoga River Fire - Ohio History Central - A product of the Ohio Historical Society



tee up the china syndrome...


----------



## konradv (Feb 11, 2011)

signelect said:


> the climate is changing, so what?  Having the government try and do something about it is stupid, they can't run anything.  The only positive thing they have done is make them selves rich.  We need jobs not talk.  The Cuyahoga River caught fire because local industry was using it as a dump, now is it clean and a really neat place to take a hike.  By the way Al Gore is doing right well with the hoax, I still don't see any evidence that it is real.



You obviouisly don't know much about the topic or you'd discuss it.  People that talk about Gore usually fall in that category.  CO2 has gone up 30-40%, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution, and we emit more of it in days than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year.  If that trend continues, how can that not lead to warming?  Don't tell me about variations in the past.  Just because warming had a certain cause in the past doesn't mean it couldn't have a different one now.  You can't take the past as a template for the future, if underlying conditions have changed, i.e. the increasing emission of GHGs by human activity.


----------



## Oddball (Feb 11, 2011)

konradv said:


> signelect said:
> 
> 
> > the climate is changing, so what?  Having the government try and do something about it is stupid, they can't run anything.  The only positive thing they have done is make them selves rich.  We need jobs not talk.  The Cuyahoga River caught fire because local industry was using it as a dump, now is it clean and a really neat place to take a hike.  By the way Al Gore is doing right well with the hoax, I still don't see any evidence that it is real.
> ...


Total bullshit.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Feb 11, 2011)

konradv said:


> signelect said:
> 
> 
> > the climate is changing, so what?  Having the government try and do something about it is stupid, they can't run anything.  The only positive thing they have done is make them selves rich.  We need jobs not talk.  The Cuyahoga River caught fire because local industry was using it as a dump, now is it clean and a really neat place to take a hike.  By the way Al Gore is doing right well with the hoax, I still don't see any evidence that it is real.
> ...



"Just because warming had a certain cause in the past doesn't mean it couldn't have a different one now."
Excellent!  This provides a perfect opportunity to present my theory of warming...and based on your statement above, I'm certain you'll fall right in line on this one!

Having spent a great deal of time in dance clubs, I know about warming!

And my research indicates that Hip-Hop has gone up well over 40% since the Industrial Revolution!  

"...CO2 has gone up 30-40%, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution, ..."

The conclusion is obvious....need I say more?


----------



## MaggieMae (Feb 11, 2011)

Inhofe Admits Global Warming Is No Hoax | That's My Congress

» Inhofe Admits Global Warming Is Real - Irregular Times


> For years, Senator Jim Inhofe has argued, in spite all scientific evidence, that global warming isnt really happening, that all the thermometers are wrong and the big oil companies are right. Hes been telling us not to worry about climate change, because its a hoax.
> 
> Now, Senator Inhofe has signed his name onto a piece of legislation that admits that climate change is real, and that the government needs to act to deal with the problem. Signing this legislation, Jim Inhofe has admitted that global warming is real.
> 
> ...



http://barrasso.senate.gov/public/_files/Defending_America's_Affordable_Energy_and_Jobs_Act.pdf


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 11, 2011)

Oddball said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > signelect said:
> ...



Total bullshit yourself, ignoramous. You are just another willfully ignorant ass that will not take the time to actually investigate a scientific issue.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 11, 2011)

PoliticalChic said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > signelect said:
> ...



PC, you are just so scientifically ignorant. For you the world begins and ends with your Conservative Politics. Well, reality is going to bite your silly ass in the near future.


----------



## Sarah G (Feb 11, 2011)

Oh gosh.. Is Inhofe like a real scientist?


----------



## westwall (Feb 11, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...






For someone who claims to have taken three years of geology you are remarkably ignorant of its underlying principle.  Uniformitarianism, look it up you might actually learn something.  Though I doubt it.


----------



## Oddball (Feb 11, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...


I've investigated enough to know that the globalclimatecoolerwarming hoax is not:

1) Reproducible on demand.

2) Falsifiable.

3) Quantifiable.

The one who doesn't have science on his side is you, Scooter.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 11, 2011)

And, of course, all the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities in the world. Only you, just little you, truly know the truth. You are so much more learned and wiser than all them thar pointy headed librul scientists.


----------



## westwall (Feb 12, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> And, of course, all the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities in the world. Only you, just little you, truly know the truth. You are so much more learned and wiser than all them thar pointy headed librul scientists.







And with all of that the money is abandoning you.  Must suck to be so "right" and yet have the major players leaving you at the altar.


----------



## editec (Feb 12, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> A much better solution that Cap and Trade is Fee and Dividend.
> 
> A tax on the carbon at the well head, mine, or dock. The tax to be then distributed equally to all citizens of voting age. That would not favor anyone but those that used less carbon emitting fuels than they recieved from the divident. The money from the fee could not be used for any other purpose than being distributed back to the citizens in equal shares.
> 
> Another advantage to this, it would not favor any particular alternative form of energy, the market would decide that.


 
Bingo!

Note how cap and trade actually BENEFITS pollutors and taxes consumers?

Now that is, in my opinion, another perfect example of LIMO LIBERALISM, folks.

LL's pretend to care about the little guy and pass legislation with a title that sounds like a solution, but actually it's only a solution for THEIR CLASS, and one that the little guys, the guys who gained nothing from the problem to begin with, end up paying though the nose to implement.
.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 12, 2011)

Now I am not the source of that idea. A prominent scientist is. Care to guess which one?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Feb 12, 2011)

Sarah G said:


> Oh gosh.. Is Inhofe like a real scientist?



You see, you and Rocks are looking in the wrong direction...the Global Warming Scam has nothing to do with science....

it is politics.

A pure and simple global power grab.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 12, 2011)

Really? So show us a scientific society that backs your claim, PC. And how does politics melt ice caps? Glaciers? 

PC, either you are bone ignorant or a liar and tool like Westwall.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Feb 12, 2011)

editec said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > A much better solution that Cap and Trade is Fee and Dividend.
> ...



Allow me to shift this discussion back into the theatre in which it belongs...the question of government regulation.

I had the pleasure of viewing a Heritage lecture in which Senator James Buckley discussed his book, book Freedom at Risk: Reflections on Politics, Liberty, and the State.

His suggestion, I believe, would end this scam as it would allow the vast majority who see it as such, to put the brakes on government machinations in this area.

I present his argument for consideration:

Today, the creation of more and more bureaus and agencies endowed with ever broader responsibilities and discretion in defining the rules that govern our activities and our lives. And these rules have the full force of law! Congress has increased the number of rules whose infractions are criminalized, waiving the common law requirement that one knows he is breaking the law.  Today, one can be jailed for violating a regulation that one had no reason to know even existed! 

a.	While the officials in these agencies are generally good people, they become focused on their particular portfolio of duties, that, often,* they cannot see the consequences on other parts of society. *Put this together with human nature, and one can see bullying, and misuse of power, especially when these individuals are immune to penalty, and supported by free and extensive legal representation: *they have sovereign immunity in their positions. *

b.	A remedy would be *the ability of citizens to sue the federal government *to protect their legitimate interests, for damages. While currently unconstitutional, the *Congress can waive sovereign immunity,*

c.	Such a congressional waiver would not only protect the citizenry, but would go far toward *defining the limits of federal authority.*


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 12, 2011)

PoliticalChic said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Of course, it was all those regulations on business that create the 2008 economic debacle, correct? It was following the regulations that caused the near meltdown of the Three Mile Island reactor? Following regulations caused that river to catch fire in Ohio
> ...


The telltale sign of a brainwashed DittoTard!!! 
Pathological liar Stuttering LimpTard tells his DittoTards to spell Gore's name as one word, and the week-minded fools are powerless to do otherwise!


----------



## PoliticalChic (Feb 12, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Really? So show us a scientific society that backs your claim, PC. And how does politics melt ice caps? Glaciers?
> 
> PC, either you are bone ignorant or a liar and tool like Westwall.



Calm down, Rocks.

Now, I understand that I am criticizing your religion, but the explanion is so simple...

normal climate cycles.

You see, you are so caught up in your pseudo-science-expertise, that you refuse to allow yourself to consider 
a. who are the folks involved
b. what political entity benefits
c. how the 'theory' has changed as flaws are revealed, i.e., from 'global warming' to 'climate change.'
d. progressives love to control every aspect of everyone's lives...i.e., government regulation:

"But *another strand of modern liberal politics *encroaches so far on the private sphere that it begins to resemble the political religions. On the excellent webcast Uncommon Knowledge, Czech president Václav Klaus recently compared two ideologies that were structurally very similar. They are *against individual freedom. They are in favor of centralistic masterminding of our fates. They are both very similar in telling us what to do, how to live, how to behave, what to eat, how to travel, what we can do and what we cannot do. *The first of Klauss two ideologies was Communisma system with which he was deeply familiar, having participated in the Velvet Revolution in 1989. The second was environmentalism."
The Varieties of Liberal Enthusiasm by Benjamin A. Plotinsky, City Journal Spring 2010


I'm partial to this explanation myself:

"One spin-off of the Enlightenment was the desire to find *new myths *that would transcend daily existence and take one to a higher level of purification. Proto-fascist, and founder of ecology, *Ernst Haeckel,* invested *nature-worship *with the belief that all matter was alive and possessed mental attributes. In monism, he brought together hostility to Christianity and propaganda for Darwinism, a nature cult and theories of hygiene and selective breeding."
 J.W. Burrow, The Crisis of Reason: European Thought, 1848-1914, p. 218-19

Sorry if I ruined your epoch.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Feb 12, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Hey, CrackedEggsInTheAttic!

Good to see you again...I should have expected you today, as Rush is off, and you have the time to play!

But can't you be more circumspect???

See, the huge font woke Rocks up!

Bad boy!


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 12, 2011)

PoliticalChic said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


I'm curious what you think of this little bit of BRILLIANCE from your MessiahRushie?

April 3, 2007
RUSH:  *Mark my brilliant words on this.*  That's how this stuff starts.  Now, the question is: is CO2 even a pollutant?  Is it an air pollutant?  Because if it is, then all the water vapor on this planet is a pollutant.  *The vast majority of CO2 that's in the atmosphere comes from water vapor. *


----------



## Big Fitz (Feb 12, 2011)

Sarah G said:


> Oh gosh.. Is Inhofe like a real scientist?


The IPCC prefers 'evidence' from students and activists, so why should it matter?


----------



## konradv (Feb 14, 2011)

PoliticalChic said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> > Oh gosh.. Is Inhofe like a real scientist?
> ...



It's the deniers that have made it a political issue.  A true scientist knows the properties of GHGs, knows they've been going up since the advent of the Industrial Revolution and puts 2 and 2 together and gets the answer that warming is in the fuure.  THAT'S LOGIC.  The deniers rely on irrelevant distractions from the main issue and trashing anyone that doesn't agree with them.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 14, 2011)

PoliticalChic said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Really? So show us a scientific society that backs your claim, PC. And how does politics melt ice caps? Glaciers?
> ...



OK. So you are totally scientifically ignorant. Expected, I guess. You interpret everything through political glasses. Real dumb. 

As the effects of the ongoing climatic change resulting from the forcings from the AGW affect the agriculture of the world, people will come to realize that people like you have totally misled them. There was a time when conservatives were more scientifically based than liberals. Today's Conservatives are in complete denial of science. Science of any kind.


----------



## rightwinger (Feb 14, 2011)

Its about time we identified Global Warming as a hoax

It is brought to you by the same idiot liberal scientists who claim

- Cigarettes cause cancer
- Man evolved from apes
- The earth is not flat


----------



## PoliticalChic (Feb 14, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> Its about time we identified Global Warming as a hoax
> 
> It is brought to you by the same idiot liberal scientists who claim
> 
> ...



Now, see, wingy,...you've detracted from what you intended as an intelligent
and/or sarcastic comment by including the erroneous "Man evolved from apes."

Unless you'd like to support that statement...???

I believe that you'll find that many scientists hypothesize that man and apes had
a common ancestor, not that one 'evolved' from another....
but, in your case,....you may have something there...hmmmmm.

Bulletin: rdean just classified you as a Republican!


----------



## PoliticalChic (Feb 14, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



"You interpret everything through political glasses. "

Oh, yeah...well you interpret everything through your obsession!

Let me explain it to you is the simplest possible illustration:


The political explanaion is the man behind the curtain.

Get it?


It has nothing to do with science...it's manipulation of the less than perceptive,...

oops....did I hurt your feelings?


----------



## rightwinger (Feb 14, 2011)

PoliticalChic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Its about time we identified Global Warming as a hoax
> ...



How astute PC..

Of course real scientist claim man evolved from a common ancestor.  It was fundamentalist conservatives who twisted this to a "man evolved from apes" argument.

Just like they claimed......"We need more study to see if cigarettes really cause cancer"


----------



## konradv (Feb 14, 2011)

PoliticalChic said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > signelect said:
> ...



What a ridiculous analogy.  CO2 is known to trap energy.  Hip-hop has nothing to do with the topic.  Methinks the "party favors" sampled at those dance clubs has addled your brain.  Once again this is just another denier trick, i.e. muddying the issue with irrelevancies.


----------



## westwall (Feb 14, 2011)

konradv said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...







Riddle us this batman, the global temp now is the same as 30 years ago.  We've added "billions" more tons of CO2 to the atmosphere.  How is it the temps are the same? Your theory says that's impossible.  Hansen said that the temperature should now be 1.6 to 2 degrees higher with even less CO2 then actually exists....looks like you've got a problem there.  But hey keep on keepin on with that it's all about the gasses crap, it hasn't seemed to work too well for ya but hey eventually you may be right about something...some millenia.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Feb 14, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



You virtual chameleon!

Now you claim to be a 'fundementalist conservative...'

"...fundamentalist conservatives who twisted this to a "man evolved from apes""

Rightwinger, the leftwinger.....this is so...what? Schizophrenic?


----------



## Big Fitz (Feb 14, 2011)

konradv said:


> signelect said:
> 
> 
> > the climate is changing, so what?  Having the government try and do something about it is stupid, they can't run anything.  The only positive thing they have done is make them selves rich.  We need jobs not talk.  The Cuyahoga River caught fire because local industry was using it as a dump, now is it clean and a really neat place to take a hike.  By the way Al Gore is doing right well with the hoax, I still don't see any evidence that it is real.
> ...


Atmosphere of Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yeah, it's Wikipedia, but... these are settled measurements from long since.  You can find the data in any public school science text, this was just easiest to llink.



> Carbon dioxide (CO2) 390 ppmv (0.039%)





> Water vapor (H2O) ~0.40% over full atmosphere, typically 1%-4% at surface


Now, since CO2 is a weaker greenhouse gas than water vapor and there is more water vapor by a factor of 100 what exactly do you think is going to happen with the increase in CO2?  

Greenhouses artificially pump up their CO2 contents to over 1400ppm, almost 4 times that of normal atmospheric content, and the plants thrive with no ill effects to anyone working in it constantly.  Therefore, your worry about an increase in the CO2 content of the atmosphere is unfounded. Oooh shocker!

Secondly, CO2 equals a paltry 0.039% of atmospheric volume, which is approximately 300 trillion tons globally.  Mankind has produced less than 20 trillion tons over its history.  THIS is NOT a threat.  That means by atmospheric composition mankind, has produced less than 0.0006% of all CO2 in the atmosphere and does not include what has become sequestered by nature itself.

Water vapor which IS a greenhouse gas both warms and cools.  Not only that, they hydrological cycle prevents accurate measurements by man or nature.  So a variance of 4% of atmospheric volume is commonly considered standard.  

You are trying to create absolutes and blame off of an absolutely unpredictable system in the long run.  You are predicting an entire movie off of one frame, near the end of the film with no context.  You are placing blame on a species that cannot harm the weather, based on biased and silly theories created by nihilistic anti-human earth worshipers.

And you fail again.  It's pretty damn sad when just a basic knowledge of atmospheric composition and the weight of air debunks the entirety of the chicken little's argument.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Feb 14, 2011)

konradv said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



No, Konny...it's to put the silliness just where it belongs...in your bailiwick.

This nonsense has been revealed to be exactly what those of us who 'denied' same have always said it was: a political scam designed by the left to accrue power and do just what progressives always do: 
demand everyone march to their directions.

It's not science at all, it's an attempted global power grab.

Only the Hiroo Onoda Brigade is still at it.


----------



## boedicca (Feb 14, 2011)

Mr. H. said:


> The only economic sector that will survive the EPA is the impotent, directly-subsidised, and over-hyped "green" industries. And if Obama has his way, it will be done at the expense of hundreds of thousands of jobs that actually contribute to the GDP of this country.




Yesterday, Mr. Boe and I drove out to the Central Valley for a family birthday party.

As we traveled through the Altamont Pass, we did not see one windmill actually turning.  They were all stock still.   I've seen them like this before.

I'd really hate to get my 'lectricity from a huge installation of windmills that don't work on a windy afternoon.

Just sayin'.


----------



## Big Fitz (Feb 14, 2011)

konradv said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Sarah G said:
> ...


Opponents made this political?  Really?  Provide one solution... ONE that does not involve government control.

That means, no laws passed, no government agency, no treaties, no accords.  I want a PRIVATE INDUSTRY or FREE MARKET solution able to be adopted freely by those who desire to.

You do that, and I will be stunned.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 14, 2011)

westwall said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


When deniers lie like that they prove that they KNOW there is global warming.
Thank you.


----------



## konradv (Feb 14, 2011)

westwall said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Since when is the ability of CO2 to trap energy a theory?  That's proven scientific FACT.  You say the temps haven't gone up, but on the other hand claim there are other factors.  Those factors go up and down, but CO2 is constantly going up.  When they reverse themselves the contribution of CO2 will become evident to everyone.  In the meantime, that's why scientists have to use "tricks" of the statistical trade to "hide the decline" from other sources and winnow out the contribution of man.  Hope it's not too late, when y'all finally see the light.


----------



## konradv (Feb 14, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > signelect said:
> ...



I never said there'd be ill effects on people, just the climate, so your greenhouse analogy fails.

As for the concentration of CO2, what's important is the % increase, NOT the absolute amount.  Saying that it's not a threat is just bluster without backup.  If the carbon is being sequestered, why is its concentration in the atmosphere going up?

Water vapor is a stronger greenhouse gas, but that's not relevant to the discussion.  What IS relevant is that any rise in temp due to CO2 would introduce more vapor into the atmosphere, thereby amplifying its effect.

The last part of your analysis, proves my point that the deniers' positon is purely political, since I as I have shown the science is either above your head or being purposely twisted to fit your bias.


----------



## Big Fitz (Feb 14, 2011)

> I never said there'd be ill effects on people, just the climate, so your  greenhouse analogy fails.



And yet, you continue claim that a mild increase in such an insignificant gas will cause great damage.  My analogy points out that this planet would BENEFIT from a quadrupling of CO2.  Oh damn!  Missed the point again.



> As for the concentration of CO2, what's important is the % increase, NOT  the absolute amount.



You're kidding, right?  So how can the increase of an insignificant gas by an insignificant amount in only 200 years matter?



> Saying that it's not a threat is just bluster without backup.  If the  carbon is being sequestered, why is its concentration in the atmosphere  going up?



The fact is, there is no proof you will accept if it is contrary to your gaia worshiping religion.  Secondly, you can claim that mankind is a significant producer of CO2, but yet, the atmospheric compositional data just doesn't back that up.  20 trillion tons globally may seem like a lot, but compared to the other 200 trillion tons or so, produced by nature is negligible.



> Water vapor is a stronger greenhouse gas, but that's not relevant to the  discussion.



Bullshit it isn't.  It is many multiples stronger than CO2, in 100 times the concentration of CO2, yet you discount it because it debunks your faith utterly.



> What IS relevant is that any rise in temp due to CO2 would introduce  more vapor into the atmosphere, thereby amplifying its effect.



That's the theory, but proof is still lacking or mixed.  Why is it that CO2 has risen in the past only after temperatures increased?  Either your cart or your horse is backwards.  Regardless it makes you look like an ass.



> The last part of your analysis, proves my point that the deniers'  positon is purely political, since I as I have shown the science is  either above your head or being purposely twisted to fit your bias.



You make the claim but provide no proof.  I'm using junior high earth science data to defeat your faith.  I am pointing out that you have ZERO non-socialist/fascist solutions.  Therefore, global warming by logical extention is nothing more than a taco chip for this ecofascist salsa:  a delivery system to global tyranny by idiots.


----------



## MaggieMae (Feb 14, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



When you think about it, the conservatives wouldn't be trying to define a very real scientific phenomenon a "hoax" _if Al Gore hadn't written the heads-up book_. If it had been, say, Ann Coulter, they'd have already made sure that their energy focus was on alternative fuels which do less damage to the ozone and the capitalists would be building and hiring like gangbusters.


----------



## MaggieMae (Feb 14, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> And, of course, all the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities in the world. Only you, just little you, truly know the truth. You are so much more learned and wiser than all them thar pointy headed librul scientists.



It's all part of the leftist/Communist/Muslim takeover, don't you know? The scientists are in on it.


----------



## Big Fitz (Feb 14, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > And, of course, all the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities in the world. Only you, just little you, truly know the truth. You are so much more learned and wiser than all them thar pointy headed librul scientists.
> ...


Hmmm... what is that 'statistic' Rdean likes to constantly parrot?

Oh that's right.  let's see if I can quote it properly...

94% of all scientists are liberal.

Hmm... doesn't sound quite right, but I think the math is for his quote.

Red letter day folks... I've actually quoted something stated by Rdean.  If it was true... (which is debatable) that would actually prove that point, now, wouldn't it?


----------



## MaggieMae (Feb 14, 2011)

PoliticalChic said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> > Oh gosh.. Is Inhofe like a real scientist?
> ...



And who made it political?

Merchants of Doubt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## MaggieMae (Feb 14, 2011)

PoliticalChic said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Really? So show us a scientific society that backs your claim, PC. And how does politics melt ice caps? Glaciers?
> ...



How did we get from climate change to intelligent design v. Darwinism? Once again, there are certainly more SCIENTIFIC facts to support the theory of evolution than there are some magical guy in a robe and a halo that made it all happen. As for "cult theories," all anyone has to do is look at Christian fundamentalists like Jim Jones.


----------



## Big Fitz (Feb 14, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Sarah G said:
> ...


Show me a 'global warming solution' that isn't based on government growth, increased power and decreased liberty and choice.

I'm still waiting for any chicken little to answer that.

Oh, and regarding the link:



> The *neutrality of this article  is disputed*. Please see the  discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this  message until the dispute is resolved. _(December  2010)_



Makes it pretty clear there are strong political attacks made upon the authors by groups that are completely unbiased and with no political goals whatsoever...


----------



## MaggieMae (Feb 14, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> > Oh gosh.. Is Inhofe like a real scientist?
> ...



There were over 800 Ph.D's who produced publications and material at the 2010 conference. Why do you prefer to look dumb?


----------



## MaggieMae (Feb 14, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



I believe the conservative punditry had already labeled global warming as "junk science" even before the NASA report came out, and which is why the report was ultimately censored. 

This is an indication of how real news gets distorted. Fox reports on the censorship, yet it's headline screams:

Report: *NASA* Distorted Global-Warming Studies - Science News | Science & Technology | Technology News - FOXNews.com

From the article^:



> It also found evidence that NASA headquarters press officials canceled a press conference on a mission monitoring ozone pollution and global warming because it was too close to the 2004 presidential election.
> 
> In addition, the report detailed more than a dozen other actions in which it said the NASA public affairs office unilaterally edited or downgraded press releases having to do with global warming or denied access to scientists.


----------



## Big Fitz (Feb 14, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > Sarah G said:
> ...


Yet the IPCC admitted publically they used data regarding glacial retreat from a geography student at the University of Berlin (IIRC) who was interviewing Ice Climbing Guides in Nepal as evidence for the disappearance of glaciers worldwide.  Furthermore, that student has been heavily involved with the WWF writing articles about the environment in crisis.

Doesn't matter if you have a Ph.D or not.  Bad data is bad data.

And there's the East Anglia fiasco which proved that all of Hansen's and Mann's results from data (the originals now destroyed to try to hide evidence of fraud) is potentially criminally fraudulent.

Then of course that there's the P-BO's administration goals to turn NASA into a global warming research center more than space exploration.

Again... regardless of your degrees and credentials, when you use bad data, knowingly or not, you get bad results.

Do some research on Climategate.  The discovered emails are now searchable online in an index, and you can see the amount of fraud that was intended and attempted.


----------



## MaggieMae (Feb 14, 2011)

PoliticalChic said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



I like this one better. Who's pulling YOUR strings?






Notice the elephant.


----------



## Big Fitz (Feb 14, 2011)

I also find it funny how fast the chicken littles are running away from both my request to provide a SINGLE free market solution to the threat of global warming, AND the math showing the insignificance of CO2 and our input to it.


----------



## R.D. (Feb 14, 2011)

konradv said:


> It's the deniers that have made it a political issue.  A true scientist knows the properties of GHGs, knows they've been going up since the advent of the Industrial Revolution and puts 2 and 2 together and gets the answer that warming is in the fuure.  THAT'S LOGIC.  The deniers rely on irrelevant distractions from the main issue and trashing anyone that doesn't agree with them.



Damn them!! Pointing out fake science being used to regulate and push a leftist agenda


*Isnt the only hope for the planet that the industrialized nations collapse?
Isnt it our responsibility to bring that about?* -Maurice Strong at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janiero ,   the puppet master behind Kyoto.


----------



## westwall (Feb 14, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...







There you go with the "lie" crap again.  Alarmists are the only folks who lie incessantly.  If you have a problem with what I said take it up with the satellite record.


----------



## Big Fitz (Feb 14, 2011)

R.D. said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > It's the deniers that have made it a political issue.  A true scientist knows the properties of GHGs, knows they've been going up since the advent of the Industrial Revolution and puts 2 and 2 together and gets the answer that warming is in the fuure.  THAT'S LOGIC.  The deniers rely on irrelevant distractions from the main issue and trashing anyone that doesn't agree with them.
> ...



  		 		As Mark Twain pointed out back in the day that the trip from St. Louis  to New Orleans was shortening a quarter mile or so every year.  In only  a few hundred years, New Orleans and St. Louis would be neighbors!

Or would they???


----------



## westwall (Feb 14, 2011)

konradv said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...






You people have said that natural cycles no longer apply.  You have repudiated the  fundamental basis of natural science such as uniformitarianism and even with all of that, with more CO2 than Hansen predicted the temps are the same.  30 years has passed and according to the sarellite record the global temp now is the same as it was in 1979.

That means your theory has a serious problem.  You have no basis in science so you're not capable of understanding that, but that's your problem, not mine nor the scientists like me who actually do understand the underlying problems.


----------



## MaggieMae (Feb 14, 2011)

boedicca said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> > The only economic sector that will survive the EPA is the impotent, directly-subsidised, and over-hyped "green" industries. And if Obama has his way, it will be done at the expense of hundreds of thousands of jobs that actually contribute to the GDP of this country.
> ...



They're not your basic windmills dotting landscapes in The Netherlands.

Wind FAQs - EcoEnergy - Renewable. Responsible. Right now.
*What if the wind doesn't blow?* 


> Our turbines may not be turning in one of our wind projects  but they're turning in another. The energy created by wind turbines is either sold to the wholesale power market comprising many utilities or to individual utilities directly, just like the power created from a fossil fuel plant, a nuclear facility, or a hydroelectric dam. Regardless of the exact sale arrangement, all commercial wind power is included in the wide scale regional planning that spans across many utilities and multiple states by what is known as the Regional Transmission Operator (RTO). *The result is that wind energy becomes part of the overall power supply mix and once planned over a large geographic area, it then becomes quite predictable because there are many facilities in the network.*
> 
> In other words, wind and weather patterns, which are taken carefully into consideration when planning wind facilities, ensure that wind energy is being produced somewhere on the network, even if the turbines you see at any given moment may not be turning. Once connected to the grid, power from wind energy  just like power from other renewable energy sources  is available virtually all the time, helping to reduce dependence on power created from non-renewable sources.


----------



## westwall (Feb 14, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. H. said:
> ...






And every wind power system on the panet is subsidized by taxpayer money.  Not one system is capable of standing on its own.  Thus it is GOVERNMENT REGULATION THAT IS ONCE AGAIN DRIVING THE BUS.  As was asked previously, show us one program that doesn't entail massive governement regulation and taxpayer subsidies to keep these "green" energy companies running.


----------



## MaggieMae (Feb 14, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



For one thing, surface temperatures are only part of the puzzle. This is a one-stop site which links all the scientific data, and the pro/con relevant studies and articles.

The Discovery of Global Warming - A History


----------



## logical4u (Feb 14, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Of course, it was all those regulations on business that create the 2008 economic debacle, correct? It was following the regulations that caused the near meltdown of the Three Mile Island reactor? Following regulations caused that river to catch fire in Ohio
> 
> Cuyahoga River Fire - Ohio History Central - A product of the Ohio Historical Society



Old Rocks, please say what you actually want for our society.  Do we pull the plug on all electricity in the country?  How do we determine who gets service and who doesn't?  If we tax each person for breathing (they exhale CO2), do we eliminate those that do not pay the tax?  If we tax "big industry" for expelling forms of carbon gas into the air, will it change the temperature of the earth?  If it doesn't is there any process to sue those that put the "ponzi scheme" in place?  Is there anything that people can do that has "proven" results to change the climate of the planet (besides cutting thousands and thousands of acres of forest in the same place)?

Seriously, the religion you follow is really cultish.  For someone that uses science to start discussions, why do you avoid scientific evidence so, when it comes to making your point?


----------



## logical4u (Feb 14, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> A much better solution that Cap and Trade is Fee and Dividend.
> 
> A tax on the carbon at the well head, mine, or dock. The tax to be then distributed equally to all citizens of voting age. That would not favor anyone but those that used less carbon emitting fuels than they recieved from the divident. The money from the fee could not be used for any other purpose than being distributed back to the citizens in equal shares.
> 
> Another advantage to this, it would not favor any particular alternative form of energy, the market would decide that.



This isn't "saving the world" from global warming, it is re-distribution of wealth.  Every where it has been tried, it has failed or, is failing.  Nice to see the real you.


----------



## logical4u (Feb 14, 2011)

konradv said:


> signelect said:
> 
> 
> > the climate is changing, so what?  Having the government try and do something about it is stupid, they can't run anything.  The only positive thing they have done is make them selves rich.  We need jobs not talk.  The Cuyahoga River caught fire because local industry was using it as a dump, now is it clean and a really neat place to take a hike.  By the way Al Gore is doing right well with the hoax, I still don't see any evidence that it is real.
> ...



Nitrogen is approximately 78% of our atmosphere.  Oxygen is approximately 21%.  Did the percentage of CO2 increase to over 1%, yet?  I don't believe it has.  Your information is limited.


----------



## MaggieMae (Feb 14, 2011)

konradv said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



Why are the ice shelfs in Antarctica melting, in addition to the glacier itself, the coldest place on earth? Those shelves reach down vertically at least 3 miles, possibly further. _Something_ is going on that cannot be denied. Whether it's trapped CO2 or a combination of other factors, it all leads to the same thing. SOMETHING is causing the planet to warm, although it may not have been a "warm winter" where I live! With the earth's population now just under 7 billion, with all of us now demanding high energy output "stuff" as part of our lifestyles, common sense tells me that MAN has a lot to do with global warming. I may be wrong, but I've seen no science that convinces me otherwise.


----------



## MaggieMae (Feb 14, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



I wasn't aware that all the scientists who are members of the IPCC had to turn in their political affiliation cards before being accepted. If so, I wonder if you have a link to that information.


----------



## westwall (Feb 14, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...







No one denies the globe is warming, that began 11,000 years ago.  The alarmists claim that all of the observed warming is mans fault and want to regulate the hell out of everyone for some effect that won't be noticed for 1000 years is the latest claim.  And the alarmists want to destroy the way of life for hundreds of millions of people for no noticeable effect (by their own admission mind you) oh and enrich a very, very few to the tune of trillions.

Our counter point is this all part of a natural cycle, and lo and behold, whenever some alarmist claims that some event is the result of AGW we can point to an analog long in the past long before man could have had any impact at all.  That supports us and not you.

That is the scientific principle called UNIFORMITARIANISM that you pseudo scientists repudiate on a daily basis.  When you want to find anti science people look in the mirror.


----------



## MaggieMae (Feb 14, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



You presently have all kinds of choices. What are you talking about? The fact that even nuclear power plants would not survive without the government subsidizing or at least guaranteeing loans for uranium extraction and enrichment, not to mention the actual physical plant construction certainly implies that private sector investors either can't or won't make the money available themselves.


----------



## MaggieMae (Feb 14, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Yes, and that certainly does prove that Wiki is fair, doesn't it... As for the link I provided, it was for the purpose of reviewing the book's content, period. Interesting that the purveyors of the hoax theory were the very ones who tried to convince the public that the perils of tobacco use was also a hoax. And yet, the left is supposed to be the ones with an "agenda."


----------



## MaggieMae (Feb 14, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...



Where's your link that they relied on ONE person? That's such hogwash. The Andrill project (Andrill is the largest deep water drill in the world) has been drilling through Antarctic ice since 2006, with hundreds of scientists and engineers affiliated with the project to discover why Antarctic ice is melting.


----------



## MaggieMae (Feb 14, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> I also find it funny how fast the chicken littles are running away from both my request to provide a SINGLE free market solution to the threat of global warming, AND the math showing the insignificance of CO2 and our input to it.



I think it would be great if the free market took up producing energy all on its own. The question is can they and will they? It's certainly not up to me to decide. Why don't big money Wall Street investors put more energy (pun intended) into what *WILL* become the industry of the future, employing millions of people? Isn't that a better question? Why?


----------



## logical4u (Feb 14, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Let's compare him to the anti-Christian cults: Charles Manson, Stalin, Hitler, Mao Tse Tung, Pol Pot, Ahmadinejad, Castro, Lenin, etc.  Yes those Christians know how to wipe 'em out!


----------



## westwall (Feb 14, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...






You might want to catch up on the Antarctic history as well.  Way back in the 1820's there was an Antarctic explorer who was able to sail 500 miles further south than we can today.
Everything runs in cycles yet the alarmists refuse to acknowledge that simple fact.


----------



## MaggieMae (Feb 14, 2011)

R.D. said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > It's the deniers that have made it a political issue.  A true scientist knows the properties of GHGs, knows they've been going up since the advent of the Industrial Revolution and puts 2 and 2 together and gets the answer that warming is in the fuure.  THAT'S LOGIC.  The deniers rely on irrelevant distractions from the main issue and trashing anyone that doesn't agree with them.
> ...



There's that silly "agenda" thingie again. What "agenda"??? What possible PURPOSE could there be in tackling a KNOWN threat such as global warming, regardless whether it's man made or made entirely because of cow farts or a combination of many things? Why should the United States be the last super power to get on board and stop being simply REactive to warning signs rather than PROactive, which makes much more sense. 

An "agenda"?? You people are so fucking gullible.


----------



## westwall (Feb 14, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > I also find it funny how fast the chicken littles are running away from both my request to provide a SINGLE free market solution to the threat of global warming, AND the math showing the insignificance of CO2 and our input to it.
> ...






Because the likes of Goldman Sachs found that if you can get the government to regulate a gas that every living thing uses and expels you make trillions while producing nothing.  It's the perfect scam, make bazillions of dollars for doing and producing nothing.  You really should ask yourself a simple question why is it that no carbon trading scheme has any mechanism for reducing pollution.  The companies can still pollute they just have to pay more for the priviledge and once again the taxpayer pays.

You r schemes all have one thing in common, taxpayers pay lots for nothing, no compaines are forced to reduce pollution, banking firms make bazillions of dollars for nothing.  Sounds like a great deal if you're a banker.


----------



## MaggieMae (Feb 14, 2011)

westwall said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



So what are your credentials? And why are you spending time chatting on a political message board?


----------



## logical4u (Feb 14, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Are there farms on Antartica now?  Antartica is a desert.  If precipitation is down, the heighth of ice and snow covering it will also decrease.


----------



## MaggieMae (Feb 14, 2011)

westwall said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...



Why is subsidizing green energy any different than subsidizing the oil and gas industry? T. Boone Pickens was ready to invest $1.5 billion of his own money in windmill technology, but has since decided to scale it down _because he can't afford it._ Maybe the Koch Brothers can help out.


----------



## westwall (Feb 14, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...







I am a semi retired PhD geologist.  My business is cleaning up environmental disasters left by mining companies of old.  I got my start way back when with Dames and Moore the first environmental engineering company in the US if not the world.  And I had open heart surgery 2 weeks ago so can't exactly move around very good!


----------



## boedicca (Feb 14, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...





Why do we need a Global Warming Solution in the first place?

Human history shows that humanity thrives when the global temps are warmer. There is more arable land and food production.  A Little Ice Age would be devasting for the billions who live at the subsistence level around the world.


----------



## MaggieMae (Feb 14, 2011)

logical4u said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > A much better solution that Cap and Trade is Fee and Dividend.
> ...



Off topic, but yes, redistribution of wealth HAS failed. Redistribution of wealth to the top 2% has meant the slow decline of the middle class.


----------



## MaggieMae (Feb 14, 2011)

westwall said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



No, they don't.


----------



## westwall (Feb 14, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...






T. Boone Pickens was prepared to invest his money because he figured the governement would help him by regulation.  They didn't so he tried it on his own the problem is he's a realist and figured for wind power to be viable the price of natural gas had to be around 9 dollars per million BTU's(wind costs around 7 to 8 bucks per MBTU).  With government regulation he was hoping to push the price up to 11 dollars per MBTU thus netting a nice profit.  

Unfortunately for T. Boone Pickens, the government didn't regulate like he wanted and the price of gas dropped to 4 bucks per MBTU.  In fact today it is 3.43 dollars per MBTU and analysts see that level being maintained for the next 17 years.  So now T.Boone is foisting off his very expensive wind turbines on the Canadians who have to take them.

As far as any corporate subsidy, there shouldn't be any.   The oil companies don't get as much as you think they do but they shouldn't rcieve even that.


----------



## MaggieMae (Feb 14, 2011)

logical4u said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Yes, let's go _there_.  Not today, pal. I don't feel like discussing religious effects _on politics_, and especially its history, which has nothing to do with "cults."


----------



## MaggieMae (Feb 14, 2011)

westwall said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



I wonder if that sailor could go no further because he hit an ice shelf that went five miles deep?

NO one is saying that cycles aren't involved. NO ONE. What they ARE saying is that the warming _cycle_ is being fast-tracked _BECAUSE OF_ the addition of man-made emissions.


----------



## westwall (Feb 14, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...







And yet tax law writtten by the wealthy for the wealthy means the wealthy don't pay taxes.
How many people in congress are millionaires?  Oh really 44% of them.  And looky here, it's not all Repubs who are wealthy, in fact Dems are among the wealthiest members of congress.  Who knew?

The 50 Richest Members of Congress : Roll Call Special Features


----------



## MaggieMae (Feb 14, 2011)

westwall said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...



Yeah, Goldman Sachs is at fault.  You obviously don't understand the purpose behind cap and trade, which was to limit the amount of emissions. But it's a moot point anyway, because it's off the table. I didn't object to the _purpose_, but I didn't think it would ever work because such a tradeoff would be subject to manipulation.


----------



## MaggieMae (Feb 14, 2011)

logical4u said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



Whut? That has nothing to do with anything.


----------



## westwall (Feb 14, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...






And there is not one iota of empirical data to support you.  Not one.  All of your claims are based on computer models.  Computer models that are so bad they can't recreate what we know occured five days ago.  There is a huge difference between computer models and the real world.  Clmatologists though, havn't figured that out yet.


----------



## Sallow (Feb 14, 2011)

PoliticalChic said:


> Americans had best wake up to this encroachment by regulatory spider-webs.



Last week NYC was like Nome, Alaska..this week it's springtime.

Springtime in the middle of Feburary..yeah..that's normal. 

The "new" normal.


----------



## westwall (Feb 14, 2011)

Sallow said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Americans had best wake up to this encroachment by regulatory spider-webs.
> ...







You should look through the New York Times archives some day.   You'll be amazed how many times this has happened.  Your problem is you're not 200 years old so you could remember the last time it happened.   Fortunately the NYT has a good archive.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Feb 14, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > Sarah G said:
> ...



OMG...you can't be serious...
The only difference between Custer&#8217;s Last Stand and what I&#8217;m about to do to you is that Custer didn&#8217;t have to read the post afterwards.

Here goes:

May 27, 2008
Global warming &#8216;consensus&#8217;: *31,000 scientists disagree*Filed under: energy, life, media, news, politics, religion, science &#8212; tadcronn @ 12:50 am 
Tags: Al Gore, fraud, global warming, scam, scientific consensus
Ads by Google
Global Warming Facts
Are you worried about climate change? Get the facts.
Get Energy Active - Value of Electricity - Supply and Demand - Climate Change - Use Electricity Wisely - Diverse Fuel - Ways to Save Energy Costs - Smart Energy Use




"Al Gore and global warm-mongers have won many converts with* their claim that 2,500 scientific reviewers of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change&#8217;s report constitutes a &#8220;consensus&#8221; among scientists *that man-made warming is destroying Earth.
Not only have *many of those reviewers made it known that they disagree with the U.N*. conclusions, but now there is a petition circulated Dr. Arthur Robinson, director of the Oregon Institute for Science and Medicine, signed by *more than 31,000 scientists who dispute the theory of man-made global warming. *The petition states, in part:

There is *no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth&#8217;s atmosphere *and disruption of the Earth&#8217;s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

*The 31,000 signers all hold scientific credentials; approximately 9,000 of them hold scientific Ph.D.s.*

Robinson held a press conference earlier this month. Although members of the media and Congress were invited, attendance was light.

Robinson points out that over the past 150 years, scientists have found that global temperatures have been predicted with 79 percent accuracy by *the sunspot index, which precedes climate changes by about 10 years. CO2, by comparison, has been only 22 percent accurate, and that number has rapidly declined in the past decade as temperatures have dipped and CO2 has continued to rise.*

In fact, 70 percent of the Earth&#8217;s warming in the past hundred years occurred before 1940, while nearly all of humanity&#8217;s industrial emissions have occurred after that date. Since 1940, the climate has only risen *0.2 Celsius*.
Robinson notes that the *U.N. has never produced any direct evidence that mankind is causing warming, *but that the IPCC report is only a summary, written by a handful of authors, of discussions among scientists invited to a U.N. conference."
http://tadcronn.wordpress.com/2008/05/27/global-warming-consensus-31000-scientists-disagree/

"Why do you prefer to look dumb?"


----------



## PoliticalChic (Feb 14, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Analogies, while interesting and often illuminating, have holes of various sizes in them...

Yours has one big enough to drive a Mack Truck through!

It doesn't speak well for you that you didn't see this coming:

"...if *Al Gore *hadn't written the heads-up book[/I]. If it had been, say, *Ann Coulter,..."*

A comparison which places you and Al Gore are on one side, and Ann Coulter and I on the other is somewhat akin to a comparison of a bamboo hut- *simple, but not without some level of charm-* to the palace at Versailles.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Feb 14, 2011)

westwall said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Hold up, Westy....I think he is 200 years old.

His high school field trip was the Gold Rush.


----------



## MaggieMae (Feb 14, 2011)

westwall said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



It all makes sense, of course. But the bottom line if private industry took over completely would still be as much profit as possible in an industry that has nowhere to go but up, and thus the cost to the private citizen would likewise go up and up and up. That would be fine if wages kept up with the pace, but if the last decade is any indication, that won't happen.


----------



## MaggieMae (Feb 14, 2011)

westwall said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



True that. I was thinking more of just Citizen Joe Millionaire, however. But you're right that wealthy lawmakers have no real incentive to do anything that will affect their own pocketbooks either.


----------



## MaggieMae (Feb 14, 2011)

westwall said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Okay then, to discount climate change/global warming as being a hoax, what if not computer models do _those_ folks use?

As far as dismissing computer models, I don't think we'd have space exploration or hundreds of satellites above us without computer models, so that argument is silly.

Human Space Flight (HSF) - Realtime Data


----------



## MaggieMae (Feb 14, 2011)

PoliticalChic said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...



I've looked at Tad Cronn's "reports" based on the petition by Professor Robinson, found the list of categories and some of the names, but I'm wondering if that data was ever collected in a single volume, because your links to that blogsite have no such animal. I did find it interesting in the second link, in the comments section, that Tad Cronn "defends" Robinson as follows:



> [Q]Source Watch has a particularly negative view of the list. Who the heck to believe!
> 
> [A]Well, OK, let me put it in starkest possible terms for you:
> 
> Arthur Robinson, who started the petition project, is a right-wing crank who wanted to throw a wrench in the spokes of the global warming bicycle (really a corn-fueled private jet at this point, but metaphor, metaphor ). He has never pretended to be otherwise, and his methods are all spelled out on his web site for the world to see.* His project was simply to gather names of people with scientific training who agree with him that man-made global warming is bunk*.



Got any better evidence than that flimsy stuff? You've got a list of 31,000 who may or may not have any "scientific" background in climatology, trying to "prove" that just because they say so that 2,500 members of the IPCC plus thousands of experts who are not members must be wrong. Got it.


----------



## MaggieMae (Feb 14, 2011)

PoliticalChic said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



I see you don't say it isn't true, though. You know damned well it is. I picked Ann Coulter only because she writes a lot of best sellers just by virtue of her general anti-liberal, anti-anything not far-out right.


----------



## skookerasbil (Feb 14, 2011)

westwall said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...





He's a kid........and easily gets caught up in all the PC shit going on. That is one thing the global warming FAITHERS have going for them = the brainwashed youngin's. Been pouring all the PC crap down their throats for 20 years now.......they never think outside the box, just like a fcukking homeless person. This asshole Sallow is a perfect example.....you see his posts in other forums.  Its called epic sheepness..........these people would buy a bag of dog shit for $1,000 a pop if it were packaged just right!!


Anyway.........I live a stones throw from NYC and while it certainly was nice today at around 50 degree's, I failed to see people out on benches sunning themselves. NOBODY  was walking around in short sleeves.............meathead makes it look like NYC was in a heat wave.


----------



## MaggieMae (Feb 14, 2011)

PoliticalChic said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



I see you've been going to Nasty School. Does that mean we can expect more insults and fewer one-sided history lessons?


----------



## boedicca (Feb 14, 2011)

Worst Freeze Since 1957 in Mexico.

Get ready for more food inflation that the government will refuse to recognize.

Mexico&#8217;s biggest freeze since 1957 means US produce price will skyrocket | Watts Up With That?


----------



## skookerasbil (Feb 14, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...






History is history sweets.............except to the k00ks. It doesnt exist!! This knucklehead Old Rocks on here thinks storms and hurricanes started in 1998!!


----------



## PoliticalChic (Feb 14, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Both.


----------



## westwall (Feb 14, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...







Computer models come in many varieties.  Some are fantastically good (think computational fluid dynamics used by supercomputers to determine aerodynamic effects of race cars or aircraft).  Some are average.  None of the climate models rate better than poor.  They ignore vast amounts of information in the pursuit of vilifying CO2 which is one of the few variables they use. 

 For a computer model to be effective it has to be able to recreate what is observed (CFD for example uses wind tunnel data to confirm its findings) to date no climate CM has ever even tried to determine a base line of reliability or reality.  None.  It's as if they are afraid to find out what they don't know.  That is not science, that is hand waving.


----------



## Big Fitz (Feb 14, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...


Good point.  It should all be ended and let the profitable forms of energy proliferate, while the failures go away.  Any bets on what would be ended?


----------



## Big Fitz (Feb 14, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...


No... Goldman Sachs is doing precisely the type of trick liberals hate: Profiteering by scam off of hundreds of million of innocent people based on a frauduent crisis created for the purpose of increasing government control and taxes.

Thank God the scam of the Chicago Carbon Exchange collapsed.


----------



## Big Fitz (Feb 14, 2011)

westwall said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


This is a classical example of the worst sides of free market and government intervention:  Using the system to force a false market and protect profits by unfair laws.  That's what T. Boone was after.  Unfair profits.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 14, 2011)

westwall said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Now of course, the satellite record doesn't support your lie. The 13 month running average shows an increase of +.4C from 1980 to 2011. But deniers being dishonest, they cherry pick individual months to falsely claim we are at the same temperature as 30 years ago. I can do the same cherry picking and say that the temp has gone up +.6C the last 25+ years.

Thank you again for showing the dishonesty of denier's data.


----------



## Big Fitz (Feb 14, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...


Yes... they do.  Konnie and Crockiepoo prove that one right here in this thread.


----------



## Big Fitz (Feb 14, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > I also find it funny how fast the chicken littles are running away from both my request to provide a SINGLE free market solution to the threat of global warming, AND the math showing the insignificance of CO2 and our input to it.
> ...


Well, how about we drop the out of control regulation through the EPA, over the top taxation, silly leasing system for petrochem and all subsidies in one fell swoop?

Used to be that way... maybe it's time to return to tried and true methods of generating energy by getting government out of the way.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 14, 2011)

Why don't we just declare the US a Fascist state, and channel the ghost of Mussilini? After, that is what fascism is, corperate statism.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 14, 2011)

skookerasbil said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...


It was 59F at the Jersey shore and I was in my short sleeve tee shirt picking up the fallen branches in my yard exposed by the melted snow and I was sweating.
Supposed to get over 60F on wednesday.


----------



## Big Fitz (Feb 14, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...


And we get the standard Chicken Little response: That's not credible!


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 14, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Yep, ol' Walleyes claims that January's anamoly of -0.01 puts it the same as 1979. Yet looking at the graph, we can see that the most of the temps before 1997 were lower than Januarys. 

But there are enough dumb asses that will just parrot Walleyes nonsense that he feels safe in stating such lies.


----------



## Big Fitz (Feb 14, 2011)

I'm still waiting for one 'solution' that isn't government based.

Not to mention someone to be able give me data as to why mankind's contribution of less than 0.6% of 0.039% of atmospheric composition is threat to all life on this planet?


----------



## westwall (Feb 14, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...






According to your bullcrap theory we shouldn't even be CLOSE to the temps from 1979, yet there we are......

You fail.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 14, 2011)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



There you go again, trying to put words into my mouth that I never said. The fact that we are warming will not change the fact that there is a lot of natural variation. However, let's look at that graph again. 

Note the low of January 2008. Now that was not near as strong of a La Nina as the present one was at it's depth. Yet we had nine months in the negative on that La Nina. By the looks of what February has thrown at us thus far, it looks to me like February, 2011, will be warmer than January. In spite of the very much stronger La Nina we just experianced.

Oh, I know, the La Nina is now fading. But just a few threads ago you fellows were argueing that it takes six months for the full effect of an Enso event to be felt. So why is January only -0.01 anamoly? Shouldn't that be at least -0.3? Not about 30 times less than it was on a weaker La Nina in 2008. 

Seems to me that the graph is a very strong arguement for the acceleration of AGW. A record El Nino in 1998 produces the hotest year on record. A run of the mill El Nino in 2010 matchs that year. Now a very strong La Nina cannot even match to low of a less strong La Nina in 2008. You brought up the January temperature, and it proves how very wrong you are. All one has to do is look at the graph.


----------



## MaggieMae (Feb 15, 2011)

boedicca said:


> Worst Freeze Since 1957 in Mexico.
> 
> Get ready for more food inflation that the government will refuse to recognize.
> 
> Mexicos biggest freeze since 1957 means US produce price will skyrocket | Watts Up With That?



What do you want the government to do? Issue more food stamps?


----------



## MaggieMae (Feb 15, 2011)

westwall said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



So to that, I'll _again_ ask what "models" are used by those who pooh-pooh the unconfirmed evidence in order to arrive at _their_ opinions/conclusions??

All I'm suggesting is that with reports that CAN be confirmed like the following, there's cause to worry and to be proactive.

State of the Climate | Global Analysis | Annual 2010
*Global Highlights*



> For 2010, the combined global land and ocean surface temperature tied with 2005 as the warmest such period on record, at 0.62°C (1.12°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F). 1998 is the third warmest year-to-date on record, at 0.60°C (1.08°F) above the 20th century average.
> 
> The 2010 Northern Hemisphere combined global land and ocean surface temperature was the warmest year on record, at 0.73°C (1.31°F) above the 20th century average. The 2010 Southern Hemisphere combined global land and ocean surface temperature was the sixth warmest year on record, at 0.51°C (0.92°F) above the 20th century average.
> 
> ...



Trying to figure out what caused the dramatic el Niño shouldn't be discounted as a bunch of "liberal" scientists who are making stuff up just to maintain government funding.


----------



## MaggieMae (Feb 15, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Frankly, I don't care who funds alternative energy, just so long as the addiction to oil starts at least winding down. I don't think wind power is the answer, although it may work in specified locations for local power just as nuclear power provides a good percentage in certain areas. But that's the problem: Developing what will work best needs to happen, but right now it's all talk and no action, or at best developed (in this country, anyway) only in spurts. Geothermal is a very real possibility, but who's even talking about that, other than in scientific journals?


----------



## MaggieMae (Feb 15, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



I'm unaware of any participation by Goldman-Sachs in the energy regulation business. If you're talking about the big investment firm scams in the housing industry, GS was only one of several.


----------



## MaggieMae (Feb 15, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...



I have to agree, but the energy industry didn't nearly bankrupt the country with its "false market," the banks that promised big payouts on investments when they had no assets sure did, though. Oddly, a large part of that resulted from regulations that already existed being ignored and given a pass by the government.


----------



## MaggieMae (Feb 15, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...



As I've said, that would be wonderful. But I don't think they can do it without government funding. Otherwise, they would be already doing it. I can think of no other venture where there would be a never-ending payoff, can you? And that fact is what attracts entrepreneurs and investors. 

So, once more...why haven't they? And I already anticipate the answer will be that they ar stifled by regulations. Obviously some kind of rules need to be applied to nuclear plants and the like or we could have been blown up long ago by some yahoo taking risks and a lot of finger-crossing (BP comes to mind). So I really don't think regulations applied to such potentially catastrophic endeavors such as producing energy should be tossed in the garbage and just allow anyone to become producers willy-nilly just because they've got some money to invest in a project.


----------



## MaggieMae (Feb 15, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



I'd just like to see some solid proof that it is. The irony is that if this entire situation were reversed, and some liberal demagogue had put out "information" like that trying to sell it as a counterpoint, you people would be all over it. Glenn Beck would be yammering nonstop for weeks, and...well you get my gist.


----------



## MaggieMae (Feb 15, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> I'm still waiting for one 'solution' that isn't government based.
> 
> Not to mention someone to be able give me data as to why mankind's contribution of less than 0.6% of 0.039% of atmospheric composition is threat to all life on this planet?



I think most everyone is waiting for answers to those questions. But I don't think the debate should center around who or what is causing it, but why the KNOWN facts aren't being taken seriously. Even if the warming trend *is* only a cyclical phenomenon, shouldn't we be better prepared? That's my only concern. And I don't mean tomorrow, or even next year. But if there's the possibility that coastline cities below sea level might be completely flooded, for example, shouldn't we be prepared for a mass exodus to other parts of the country by those residents?


----------



## Big Fitz (Feb 15, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Different crisis.  Good point but not germane.


----------



## westwall (Feb 15, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...






All climatologists prognostications are based on computer models and not empirical data.  When the computer models are checked vs empirical observation they are allways wrong.  For 30 years they have been wrong.  Hansens predictions are 300% off and there is more CO2 in the atmosphere then even he predicted.

Until climatologists abandon the use of computer models as their sole means of prediction they will never get anywhere and will continue to be the laughing stock of the science world.

It's not about liberal or conservative scientists, it's about good science vs bad science.  Climatologists are the poster children for horribly bad science, which is why they have had to venture into political activism and hyperbole.

GISS regularly falsifies data to further Hansens aims.  That is the antithesis of science, that is scientific fraud.

Data Corruption At GISS | Real Science


----------



## westwall (Feb 15, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > I'm still waiting for one 'solution' that isn't government based.
> ...







The problem is your definition of known facts.  There has been so much poor and fraudulent science that it is very hard to know what is true anymore.  New Zealand abandoned their official temperature record for 9 months when the activist scientists got caught falsifyin the the data to make New Zealand warmer than it actually was.  Parliament had hearings and the scientists were eventually censured and ALL of their modifications thrown out when they could not provide even the slightest reason for their altering of the record.

As far as being prepared, of course it is prudent to be prepared.  Wouldn't it be nice to have 20 or 30 billion dollars in a emercency slush fund to help mitigate disasters rather than give it to an organisation that is manufacturing data and producing nothing but papers telling us that mammoth farts helped cause global warming?

Mammoth farts kept planet warm | Australian Climate Madness


----------



## MaggieMae (Feb 15, 2011)

westwall said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



So what was your point? There are other similar graphs, and if you or anyone else thinks they've been corrupted, they can find others. (I think I posted one myself.) The reality is that Hansen, and of course many others, have determined (since 1999?) that the warming cycle is accelerating faster than originally thought. Hansen has been with NASA for over 30 years, studying earth science almost exclusively. Why would he lie? 

Actually, I liked this page from your link, which forewarns something much more formidable.

Arctic Melt Continues | Real Science


----------



## MaggieMae (Feb 15, 2011)

westwall said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...



I guess it all comes down to who do you trust? For me, I put much more faith in the accuracy of NOAA and NASA reporting than single instances of data falsification from other parts of the world.


----------



## westwall (Feb 15, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...






No, Maggie the reality is that Hansen was WRONG!  That's why he's falsifying the temperature record dear.  Hansen predicted in 1988 that we would be 1.6 degrees warmer now than we are.  Since 2002 there has been no appreciable warming (any warming is within the error +/- thus it is statistically meaningless) there has been no accelerating warming anyplace on the planet.  That is an illusion based on Hansens falsifications.


----------



## westwall (Feb 15, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...






All the agency's are doing it.  HADCRU, GISS, NIWA, the Australians have all been caught falsifying the temperature records, so far only the New Zealand government has done anything about it.  As for Hansens motives well he gets to play with a billion dollars a year, hows that for motivation.


----------



## Big Fitz (Feb 15, 2011)

westwall said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Don't forget, lots of NASA's data came from East Anglia and the fraudulant data networks.  Home, chronicles and documents temperature stations feeding false and corrupted data into the system constantly.

This is why you cannot trust the predictions and conclusions they have come up with.  Not to mention, they now have their budget intrinsically tied in many ways to perpetuating the fraud of Anthropogenic Climate effects.

The truth of the matter is that regardless of what the climate does, warms, cools or stays the same, it is not mankind's fault.  Poisoning the environment with toxic chemicals that kill life, yes, we can do that.  Change the climate?  No.  Never.

And this is also what makes it political in the end.  Blame people for a crisis, then create sociological change on a global scale.  It's only a delivery system for a sociopolitical system that has been trying to be legitimized for a century.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 15, 2011)

westwall said:


> Since 2002 there has been no appreciable warming (any warming is within the error +/- thus it is statistically meaningless) there has been no accelerating warming anyplace on the planet.  That is an illusion based on Hansens falsifications.


Gee you went from 30 years of the same temperature to less than 10 years (with an escape clause) in a matter of a few posts. 
Thank you.


----------



## westwall (Feb 15, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Since 2002 there has been no appreciable warming (any warming is within the error +/- thus it is statistically meaningless) there has been no accelerating warming anyplace on the planet.  That is an illusion based on Hansens falsifications.
> ...







No, I'm just reporting what is in the general media and agreed to by Jones, it's not my fault if you're so blinded by ideology that you ignore basic science in the seaking of your goal.  Your just doing what uneducated idealogues do.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 15, 2011)

westwall said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Really, Walleyes, you have proven yourself to be a liar repeatedly on this board. So, let's look at a record from someone other than Dr. Hansen. Say, Dr. Spencer. 

UAH Update for January 2011: Global Temperatures in Freefall « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

Now if you look at the 2002 running mean, it is higher than at any period since 1979, save the super El Nino year of 1998. But the mean was higher than that in 2005. And the mean of 2010 equaled that of 1998. On a mediocare El Nino. In fact, half the year was in a La Nina. Now how does that differ from the record at GISS?


----------



## westwall (Feb 15, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...







Oh just piss off, you really are just a useless troll aren't you....The second is a presentation from Dr. Arvid Pasto, former Director of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) High Temperature Materials Laboratory and he rips Hansen apart...enjoy.
Well if you read it you won't like it but anyone else enjoy.



Data Corruption At GISS | Real Science

http://www.ornl.gov/sci/aiche/presentations/AGW_AIChE.pdf


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 15, 2011)

Really, Walleyes. Steven Goddard? The man lies more than you do.

Göddardämmerung: Skeptical Science debunks climate cherry picking on sea level rise « Climate Progress

October 9, 2010 
As the widely discredited WattsUpWithThat has relied more on outside writers who can&#8217;t even meet his minimum standards for anti-science disinformation, his Wikio ranking have collapsed.  Coincidence?  You be the judge.

Certainly WattsUpWithThat is exemplary anti-scientific blogging (see for instance, Wattergate: Tamino debunks &#8220;just plain wrong&#8221; Anthony Watts).  Bizarrely, Watts continued to allow Steve Goddard to post even after he set the record for the fastest disinformer retraction:  Watts says Goddard&#8217;s &#8220;Arctic ice increasing by 50000 km2 per year&#8221; post is &#8220;an example of what not to do when graphing trends.&#8221;

Physicist John Cook of the always insightful website, Skeptical Science, shows how a recent by post Goddard on his own website is the very definition of cherry picking:


----------



## westwall (Feb 15, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Really, Walleyes. Steven Goddard? The man lies more than you do.
> 
> Göddardämmerung: Skeptical Science debunks climate cherry picking on sea level rise « Climate Progress
> 
> ...







Then read the other one nimrod.  You don't like my biased source then choose the one that isn't biased, I would assume the former director of Oak Ridge is credentialed enough for you and if not who cares.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 15, 2011)

LOL That clown on your second site is even battier. On page 32 of the site

http://www.ornl.gov/sci/aiche/presentations/AGW_AIChE.pdf

It show Dr. Spencer's graph, and in spite of the obvious differance in temperatures from 1979 to 2010, states at the top of the page, "No Change in 30 Years". Whom are we to believe, Arvid Pasto, or our eyes.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 15, 2011)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Really, Walleyes. Steven Goddard? The man lies more than you do.
> ...



I don't care who he is, when even Anthony Watt disavows his methods, you know the fellow is completely around the bend. Someone to keep you company.


----------



## westwall (Feb 15, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> LOL That clown on your second site is even battier. On page 32 of the site
> 
> http://www.ornl.gov/sci/aiche/presentations/AGW_AIChE.pdf
> 
> It show Dr. Spencer's graph, and in spite of the obvious differance in temperatures from 1979 to 2010, states at the top of the page, "No Change in 30 Years". Whom are we to believe, Arvid Pasto, or our eyes.








I'll take Dr. Pasto over your inane sillyness any day of the week, and so will the vast majority of intelligent people.  The rest of your ilk?  Who cares.


----------



## BrianH (Feb 15, 2011)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > LOL That clown on your second site is even battier. On page 32 of the site
> ...



Old Rocks reminds me of The Good Shephard.  He constantly talked about AGW and CONSTANTLY challenged the validity of a posted link and/or person who wrote it, somehow magically linking them to the energy companies.  Of course when it came to his links, they were all true! j/k


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 15, 2011)

Well, I look at the sites that ol' Walleyes posts, much to his chagrin. Now if you would post some site supporting your ignorance, I will look at them.


----------



## westwall (Feb 15, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Well, I look at the sites that ol' Walleyes posts, much to his chagrin. Now if you would post some site supporting your ignorance, I will look at them.







Why bother, you're a complete waste of time.  When you come up with something better than a ten year olds nya nnya I know you are but what am I we'll answer whatever bullcrap you post.  Till then enjoy your circle jerk.


----------



## daveman (Feb 16, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Why don't we just declare the US a Fascist state, and channel the ghost of Mussilini? After, that is what fascism is, corperate statism.



Or we could do like the AGW cultists want and have the government run every single aspect of our private lives.


----------



## Big Fitz (Feb 16, 2011)

daveman said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Why don't we just declare the US a Fascist state, and channel the ghost of Mussilini? After, that is what fascism is, corperate statism.
> ...


Fascism's guiding star is socialism combined with authoritarianism and jingoism.


----------



## MaggieMae (Feb 16, 2011)

westwall said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



So does NOAA lie?

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2010/13


----------



## MaggieMae (Feb 16, 2011)

westwall said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



So does NOAA lie?

State of the Climate | Global Analysis | Annual 2010


----------



## MaggieMae (Feb 16, 2011)

westwall said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Ideology has zero to do with any of this, but I'd hardly know that by all the little piles of "facts" you and others produce to try to make your case. Sorry, but as I said, I'll stick with known science produced by known experts. If they're wrong, that would be a _good_ thing. But if they're right and no one was paying enough attention because they were too busy trying to disprove their data, then we're in deep trouble. 

So you guys just carry on with your beliefs. I know where I stand, and no one will convince me otherwise unless YOU can make YOUR figures match your own predictions which, I believe you said previously, is also all guesswork. (Or something to that effect.)


----------



## MaggieMae (Feb 16, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Oh good gawd...is there EVER a thread where the holier-than-thou loudmouth cons jump in with their rhetorical bullshit?


----------



## westwall (Feb 16, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...






Some of what NOAA does is quite good.  However, when it comes to AGW then yes they have been caught too.  Satellitegate is something you should look into.  NOAA knowingly disseminated false data to news agencies and other organizations.  Their satellites were reading up to 15 degrees warmer than was actual,  and they were not informing the clients of that fact.  They are currently defending themselves from a lawsuit for that willfull fraud. 

There are a few threads here that describe it in great detail.


----------



## westwall (Feb 16, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...







Complete and utterly false.  Politics is all that is driving AGW theory now.  Every single thing that is reported is hyperbolic on the part of the AGW fraudsters.  There is no empirical science to back them up at all.  None.  All they have are failed computer models and they wish to use predictions based on those to completely alter the the lifestyle of everyone on Earth.

You'll have to try harder maggie, I am not ignorant of science like the vast majority of those here.  I have been a scientist for 40+ years and my company has done more environmental good for the planet than all of the climatologists combined for their whole existence.  They "research" and fabricate data to support their political and monetary agenda's.

I fix the environmental disasters that man has done.

However, feel free to believe what you wish.  Mother Nature is going to prove the AGW fraudsters wrong.  They missed the boat and the climate is going to cool for the next 20+ years in accord with the normal cycles of the world.  You say that you will follow known science from known experts and yet they have been consistently wrong for 30 years.  If you choose to follow that track record then you're no better then any of the other zealots here.  And that is sad, I had hoped you would actually review what has been said and do your own research to obtain a real idea of what is going on like Mathew has.


----------



## logical4u (Feb 16, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



How often was that equipment calibrated?  What is the margin of error?  Did the calibration favor the positive side or the negative side?
Seriously, if it was 3 degrees C in the last 25 years, with the limited number of samples taken (compared to the surface area of the planet), it would be a neglible number.  If you could demonstrate one area (say 1000 square miles) increased "steadily" by 5 degrees or more, you might be on to something.  .6 C, please....


----------



## logical4u (Feb 16, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...



Thank you for pointing out the obvious.  Use what is "proven" to work.


----------



## Big Fitz (Feb 16, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


yeah, it's irritating that Ole Rocks decided to do that.  But he's not a  con.  A moron, but not a con.


----------



## logical4u (Feb 16, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...



If government regulations price energy to high for the average citizen to purchase, won't it have more or less the same effect?  No one will be able to have a house that is energy driven.  No computers, no cars, no public sewage treatment, no public water, no well pumps, no street lights, no security systems, it will just be your average third world nation.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 16, 2011)

logical4u said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Logical, that is a graph from Dr. Roy Spencer, the fellow Rush Limpbaugh calls his own scientist. And his data leaves out the worst of the warmng in the Arctic.


----------



## westwall (Feb 16, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...







Oh you mean the crap data that GISS put out that is counter to what all the other systems say is happening?  That crap.  Where they average one weather station over 1200 km of terrain?  That crapola?  Sure olfruad sure.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 16, 2011)

Sure, Walleyes, sure. Here is what the satellites show in the Arctic;

Image: Satellite-derived Arctic surface temperature trends part of World warmer, short-term trends need study: report


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 16, 2011)

http://www.igsoc.org/journal/56/198/j09j079.pdf

Comparison of satellite, thermochron and air temperatures at
Summit, Greenland, during the winter of 2008/09
Lora S. KOENIG, Dorothy K. HALL
Cryospheric Sciences Branch, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Code 614.1, Greenbelt, Maryland 20771, USA
E-mail: lora.s.koenig@nasa.gov
ABSTRACT. Current trends show a rise in Arctic surface and air temperatures, including over the
Greenland ice sheet where rising temperatures will contribute to increased sea-level rise through
increased melt. We aim to establish the uncertainties in using satellite-derived surface temperature for
measuring Arctic surface temperature, as satellite data are increasingly being used to assess temperature
trends. To accomplish this, satellite-derived surface temperature, or land-surface temperature (LST),
must be validated and limitations of the satellite data must be assessed quantitatively. During the 2008/
09 boreal winter at Summit, Greenland, we employed data from standard US National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) air-temperature instruments, button-sized temperature sensors
called thermochrons and the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) satellite
instrument to (1) assess the accuracy and utility of thermochrons in an ice-sheet environment and (2)
compare MODIS-derived LSTs with thermochron-derived surface and air temperatures. The thermochron-
derived air temperatures were very accurate, within 0.10.38C of the NOAA-derived air
temperature, but thermochron-derived surface temperatures were 38C higher than MODIS-derived
LSTs. Though surface temperature is largely determined by air temperature, these variables can differ
significantly. Furthermore, we show that the winter-time mean air temperature, adjusted to surface
temperature, was 118C higher than the winter-time mean MODIS-derived LST. This marked difference
occurs largely because satellite-derived LSTs cannot be measured through cloud cover, so caution must
be exercised in using time series of satellite LST data to study seasonal temperature trends.


----------



## logical4u (Feb 17, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



You did not answer the questions.  If you are stating this data should "change" our lives, then you should be able to tell me if the equipment was within calibration and if it was calibrated, regularly.


----------



## logical4u (Feb 17, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> http://www.igsoc.org/journal/56/198/j09j079.pdf
> 
> Comparison of satellite, thermochron and air temperatures at
> Summit, Greenland, during the winter of 2008/09
> ...



Doesn't that say, use SWAG?????


----------



## obama6493 (Feb 21, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Inhofe, the completely owned whore for the energy corperations.



The only economic sector that will survive the EPA is the impotent, directly-subsidised, and over-hyped "green" industries. And if Obama has his way, it will be done at the expense of hundreds of thousands of jobs that actually contribute to the GDP of this country.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 21, 2011)

logical4u said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...


That's why they use ANOMALIES. With anomalies calibration is unimportant. But as an expert on the environment you already knew that.


----------



## westwall (Feb 21, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...







If the equipment is not correct how do you know the ANOMALIES even exist?


----------



## IanC (Feb 21, 2011)

westwall said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...





even if the equipment was inaccurate but precise you would still get useful information on trends. unfortunately it is those very trends that have been 'adjusted' by Hansen et al in data sets like GISS.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 21, 2011)

westwall said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...


Yet another environmental expert who doesn't know how anomalies work.

Let's say the meter is off by 5 degrees. Every reading will be off by the same 5 degrees. The 30 year average will be off by the same 5 degrees. The anomaly will be calculated by comparing the current reading, off by 5 degrees, to the 30 year average, also off by 5 degrees, and the DIFFERENCE is recorded as the anomaly. If the DIFFERENCE is positive the TREND is up and if the DIFFERENCE is minus the TREND is down. Anomalies accurately show the direction of the trend no matter how inaccurate the meter is. Anomalies only show trends, they do not give the actual temperature.


----------



## IanC (Feb 21, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...





and you dont understand that going back and lowering past temp data while increasing more recent data also dramatically affects the trends. these adjustments areo
 on the order of half of the trend.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 21, 2011)

IanC said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


You gotta love how deniers operate. They whine and bitch that some temperature stations are in bad locations and should be removed from the data. When they are removed and the new data is charted deniers then condemn them for "adjusting" the data, while these same deniers ignore their side deliberately using the opposite sign to correct for diurnal satellite drift to create data that shows global cooling. You never see the deniers post a blink comparator of Christy and Spencer's UAH satellite charts.


----------



## IanC (Feb 21, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...





so they magically found that old data was too high and new data was too low? riiiiiiiight. 

post up a link to Spencer and Christie' fraud. I'm sure we would all be interested.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 21, 2011)

IanC said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


I've already done that at least a dozen time for YOU and each time you cut and run.



*How can you tell natural from man caused warming? - US Message ...*

7 posts - 5 authors - Last post: Jun 1, 2010
Before _UAH_ were caught using the _opposite sign_, deniers claimed *...* by using the _OPPOSITE sign_ to compensate for _diurnal satellite drift_, *...*
www.usmessageboard.com  US Discussion  Environment - Cached

*Get more discussion results*
*US Message Board - Political Discussion  Forum - View Single Post ...*

Jun 1, 2010 *...* Before _UAH_ were caught using the _opposite sign_, deniers claimed Spencer and *...* has no idea how to correct for _diurnal satellite drift_, *...*
www.usmessageboard.com/2362813-post3.html - Cached

*warmest January on record - Page 7 - US Message Board - Political ...*

15 posts - 5 authors - Last post: Feb 13, 2010
*...* his partner in crime Christy at _UAH_ who got caught cooking the data by using the _opposite sign_ to correct for _diurnal satellite drift_ to *...*
www.usmessageboard.com  US Discussion  Environment - Cached

*Get more discussion results*
*Record cold Across California - Page 4 - US Message Board ...*

10 posts - 4 authors - Last post: Nov 30, 2010
Now that Christy and Spencer can no longer use the _opposite sign_ to correct for _diurnal satellite drift_ and even their data shows warming, *...*
www.usmessageboard.com  US Discussion  Environment - Cached

*Get more discussion results*
*2010 The hottest year on record - Page 5 - US Message Board ...*

15 posts - 4 authors - Last post: Sep 21, 2010
*...* _satellite_ data to contradict global warming by using the _opposite sign_ to correct for _diurnal satellite drift_, deniers said their _UAH_ *...*
www.usmessageboard.com  US Discussion  Environment - Cached

*Get more discussion results*
*2010 The hottest year on record - Page 3 - US Message Board ...*

15 posts - 3 authors - Last post: Sep 2, 2010
Christy and Spencer, the two frauds who got caught deliberately using the _opposite sign_ to correct for _diurnal satellite drift_, *...*
www.usmessageboard.com  US Discussion  Environment - Cached

*Get more discussion results*
*warmest January on record - Page 3 - US Message Board - Political ...*

15 posts - 7 authors - Last post: Feb 11, 2010
*...* using the _opposite sign_ to "correct" for _diurnal satellite drift_, the deniers were claiming _UAH satellite_ Troposphere data was the ONLY *...*
www.usmessageboard.com  US Discussion  Environment - Cached

*Get more discussion results*
*Global Temps are dropping fast - US Message Board - Political ...*

15 posts - 6 authors - Last post: Jan 6, 2010
Now look at that 25 month running average on the _UAH_ graph. *...* where they used the _opposite sign_ to correct for _Diurnal Satellite Drift_. *...*
www.usmessageboard.com  US Discussion  Environment - Cached

*Get more discussion results*
*Coldest Winter in 100 Years - Page 6 - US Message Board ...*

15 posts - 7 authors - Last post: Jan 4, 2010
Not only that, but after Christy at _UAH_ was caught using the _opposite sign_ to correct for _Diurnal Satellite Drift_, he co-authored a paper *...*
www.usmessageboard.com  US Discussion  Environment - Cached

*Get more discussion results*
*Coldest Winter in 100 Years - Page 5 - US Message Board ...*

15 posts - 10 authors - Last post: Jan 3, 2010
CON$ never use the RSS _satellite_ data or the _UAH_ data using the correct _sign_ for _Diurnal Satellite Drift_, they only and exclusively use data *...*
www.usmessageboard.com  US Discussion  Environment - Cached

*Get more discussion results*
*Roy Spencer has been showing evidence, for years, that climate ...*

15 posts - 5 authors - Last post: Feb 4
I've gone over Spencer and Christy's dishonestly and their deliberately using the _OPPOSITE sign_ to correct for _diurnal satellite drift_ with *...*
www.usmessageboard.com  US Discussion  Environment - Cached

*Get more discussion results*
*Coldest Winter in 100 Years - Page 26 - US Message Board ...*

15 posts - 6 authors - Last post: Jan 13, 2010
*...* set were deniers Christy and Spencer at _UAH_. They were caught red-handed using the _opposite sign_ to correct for _diurnal satellite drift_. *...*
www.usmessageboard.com  US Discussion  Environment - Cached

*Get more discussion results*
*Arctic Sea Ice Continues Expansion - Page 5 - US Message Board ...*

12 posts - 7 authors - Last post: Dec 18, 2009
Here is a chart of the Troposphere temps from RSS and _UAH_ along with *...* to use the _opposite sign_ to calculate _Diurnal Satellite Drift_ and *...*
www.usmessageboard.com/.../97557-arctic-sea-ice-continues-expansion-5.html - Cached

*Get more discussion results*
*Global Cooling Chills Summer - Page 10 - US Message Board ...*

Aug 2, 2009*...* the _opposite sign_ in their "correction" for _diurnal satellite drift_. *...* But what does that have to do with the undeniable fact that _UAH_ *...*
www.usmessageboard.com/.../82069-global-cooling-chills-summer-10.html - Cached

*97% of Scientists agree..........Al Gore knows what he is talking ...*

15 posts - 6 authors - Last post: Jun 30, 2010
*...* all attempts by deniers Christy and Spencer at _UAH_ to cook the data by using the _opposite sign_ to correct for _diurnal satellite drift_. *...*
www.usmessageboard.com/.../122176-9...l-gore-knows-what-he-is-talking-about-15.html - Cached

*Get more discussion results*
*Lets have some fun at the expense of Libs - Page 3 - US Message ...*

Feb 11, 2010 *...* Notice when CON$ lie about temp they ALWAYS use the _UAH_ data that used the _opposite sign_ to "correct" for _diurnal satellite drift_. *...*
www.usmessageboard.com/.../105161-lets-have-some-fun-at-the-expense-of-libs-3.html - Cached

*2010 is the 23rd warmest year since 1895 in USA - Page 2 - US ...*

15 posts - 5 authors - Last post: Jan 16
*...* the _satellite_ data at _UAH_ by using the _OPPOSITE sign_ to correct for _diurnal satellite drift_ to create data that showed global cooling, *...*
www.usmessageboard.com/.../150618-2010-is-the-23rd-warmest-year-since-1895-in-usa-2.html - Cached

*Get more discussion results*
*How those record temperatures were derived - Page 4 - US Message ...*

Jul 9, 2010 *...* Yet, the temp curves from the _UAH satellite_ data is almost exactly *...* by using the _opposite sign_ to correct for _diurnal satellite drift_, *...*
www.usmessageboard.com/.../124057-how-those-record-temperatures-were-derived-4.html - Cached

*The Death of Real Science - Page 11 - US Message Board - Political ...*

Jul 6, 2010*...* willingly using the _opposite sign_ to correct for _diurnal satellite drift_! *...* You cited his partner in crime at _UAH_ John Christy as an *...*
www.usmessageboard.com/.../121806-the-death-of-real-science-11.html - Cached

*The Death of Real Science - Page 2 - US Message Board - Political ...*

15 posts - 4 authors - Last post: Jun 20, 2010
*...* the _UAH satellite_ data of Christy and Spencer, they got caught fudging *...* the _OPPOSITE sign_ in correcting for _diurnal satellite drift_. *...*
www.usmessageboard.com/.../121806-the-death-of-real-science-2.html - Cached

*Get more discussion results*
*Climate Change: It's the Sun, Stupid - Page 5 - US Message Board ...*

Dec 20, 2010*...* falsifying the numbers by using the _opposite sign_ to compensate for _diurnal satellite drift_ were deniers Spencer and Christy at _UAH_. *...*
www.usmessageboard.com/.../146435-climate-change-its-the-sun-stupid-5.html - Cached

*The Death of Real Science - Page 10 - US Message Board - Political ...*

Jul 1, 2010 *...* You used Spencer who got caught willingly using the _opposite sign_ to correct for _diurnal satellite drift_!!!!! Your "criteria" involves any *...*
www.usmessageboard.com/.../121806-the-death-of-real-science-10.html - Cached

*Coldest Winter in 100 Years - Page 8 - US Message Board ...*

15 posts - 3 authors - Last post: Jan 4, 2010
As I have already posted, only the cooked _UAH satellite_ data showed *...* by using the _opposite sign_ for correcting _diurnal satellite drift_. *...*
www.usmessageboard.com/.../99896-coldest-winter-in-100-years-8.html - Cached

*Get more discussion results*
*The new normal.....rising temperatures - Page 5 - US Message Board ...*

15 posts - 4 authors
*...* partner in crime Christy at the _UAH_ have no credibility. They were caught deliberately using the _OPPOSITE sign_ to correct for _diurnal satellite drift_ in *...*
www.usmessageboard.com/.../126078-the-new-normal-rising-temperatures-5.html - Cached

*Get more discussion results*
*Answers wanted from "global warming" supporters - Page 6 - US ...*

Dec 21, 2009 *...* The Reference Frame: _UAH_ MSU: temperatures for 2009 and ranking *...* data which used the _opposite sign_ to calculate _Diurnal Satellite Drift_, *...*
www.usmessageboard.com/.../97841-answers-wanted-from-global-warming-supporters-6.html - Cached

*The new normal.....rising temperatures - Page 4 - US Message Board ...*

15 posts - 3 authors - Last post: Jul 27, 2010
*...* Christy at the _UAH_ have no credibility. They were caught deliberately using the _OPPOSITE sign_ to correct for _diurnal satellite drift_ in *...*
www.usmessageboard.com/.../126078-the-new-normal-rising-temperatures-4.html - Cached

*Get more discussion results*
*March, Dr. Roy Spencer - Page 3 - US Message Board - Political ...*

Apr 10, 2010*...* using the _opposite sign_ when calculating _diurnal satellite drift_, *...* For a  decade deniers claimed Christy and Spencer's cooked _UAH_ data *...*
www.usmessageboard.com/.../112368-march-dr-roy-spencer-3.html - Cached

*How those record temperatures were derived - Page 5 - US Message ...*

15 posts - 3 authors - Last post: Jul 9, 2010
When Spencer and Christy at _UAH_ were cooking the data to show global *...* by  using the _opposite sign_ to correct for _diurnal satellite drift_, *...*
www.usmessageboard.com/.../124057-how-those-record-temperatures-were-derived-5.html - Cached


----------



## IanC (Feb 21, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...





are there any links to anything besides you saying there was a fraud?


----------



## BrianH (Feb 21, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



I'm not quite sure about this specific equipment, or what "anomaly" they have.  I do, however, know something about instrumentation.  The problem with instrumentation is that it's designed to work a certain way, therefore, people assume that it is working correctly and how it's designed to work.  On top of that, they also assume that an instrument will only have one "anomaly" at a time.  Anyone involved in instrumentation knows that one anomaly is usually linked to another.  Are we sure that if the instrument was off 5 degrees, that this was the only anomaly caused by a certain problem?  I watch trends that are created by the monitoring of highly sensitive transmittors and radars. I work with level transmittors, temperature transmitters, PH transmittors, pressure transmittors and turbidity transmittors every day.  There's one thing I've learned about these transmittors and this expensive equipment.  You CANNOT trust them.


----------



## IanC (Feb 21, 2011)

edthecynic- is this the fraud you keep talking about but never showing us?



> While their criticism of the UAH diurnal cycle adjustment method is somewhat speculative, Mears & Wentz were additionally able to demonstrate to us, privately, that there is an error that arises from our implementation of the UAH technique. This very convincing demonstration, which is based upon simple algebra and was discovered too late to make it into their published report, made it obvious to us that the UAH diurnal correction method had a bias that needed to be corrected.
> 
> 
> Since we (UAH) had already been working on a new diurnal adjustment technique, based upon the newer and more powerful AMSUs that have been flying since 1998, we rushed our new method to completion recently, and implemented new corrections. As a result, the UAH global temperature trends for the period 1979 to the present have increased from +0.09 to +0.12 deg. C/decade -- still below the RSS estimate of +0.19 deg. C/decade.


Some Convergence of Global Warming Estimates - TCS Daily in responce to RSS paper http://www.remss.com/papers/mears_science_2005.pdf

as an aside, RSS has made a correction to their post 1999 figures that drops them very close to UAH. so far no explanation for the change has been put forth


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 21, 2011)

BrianH said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


The meter being off by 5 degrees is NOT the anomaly!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

An anomaly is the deviation from the 30 year average for that meter.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 21, 2011)

IanC said:


> edthecynic- is this the fraud you keep talking about but never showing us?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Questions about the "accuracy" of the UAH data began in 2000, and Christy and Spencer refused to check their "method." That  simple algebraic correction was using the correct sign for diurnal satellite drift. We're supposed to believe that the formost experts on satellite data were too stupid to know what sign to use and as deniers just happened to GUESS the sign that showed global cooling.

And even though Mears & Wentz showed them their algebraic error in 2005, Christy and Spencer didn't get around to correcting it till 2007.


----------



## westwall (Feb 22, 2011)

IanC said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...






That's my point.  There's no zero point.  If we had a baseline we could at least derive some useful information.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 22, 2011)

westwall said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


The baseline is the 30 year average for that particular meter!!!!
Geeeeezzzz you guys are THICK!


----------



## westwall (Feb 22, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...







No, thicker person, there is no baseline for the actual instruments because Hansen keeps "adjusting" them.  Try to keep up with what;s being discussed instead of blathering on about your particular bit of drivel.  We don't KNOW what the measurements are because they keep getting changed.  Got it?  That's the issue.  If the instruments keep getting adjusted after the fact you don't know what the hell the readings are do you smart guy.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 22, 2011)

westwall said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Bullshit!


----------



## IanC (Feb 22, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> Questions about the "accuracy" of the UAH data began in 2000, and Christy and Spencer refused to check their "method." That  simple algebraic correction was using the correct sign for diurnal satellite drift. We're supposed to believe that the formost experts on satellite data were too stupid to know what sign to use and as deniers just happened to GUESS the sign that showed global cooling.
> 
> And even though Mears & Wentz showed them their algebraic error in 2005, Christy and Spencer didn't get around to correcting it till 2007.




OK, so now we are getting somewhere. do you have some links that show it took two years to correct the mistake, and some that hint that it was a fraud? I looked pretty hard and didnt find anything like that but if it is true I would like to know about it.


----------



## IanC (Feb 22, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...









Hansen and his juggling act


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 22, 2011)

IanC said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Questions about the "accuracy" of the UAH data began in 2000, and Christy and Spencer refused to check their "method." That  simple algebraic correction was using the correct sign for diurnal satellite drift. We're supposed to believe that the formost experts on satellite data were too stupid to know what sign to use and as deniers just happened to GUESS the sign that showed global cooling.
> ...


As I said, their error in diurnal satellite was first published in 2000, but they refused to check their calculations. And the only way it is not fraud is if these "experts" are too stupid to know what sign to use to correct for diurnal satellite drift. If you are trying to claim that they actually are that stupid, then what are they doing handling any data???


----------



## IanC (Feb 22, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...




I am politely asking you to back up your accusations with some semblace of evidence. show me where they were told to correct an error and they failed to do it in a timely fashion.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 22, 2011)

IanC said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


I've done it a dozen times in a dozen other threads and you still will not admit it's been posted.

This was published in 2000. Now you show where Christy and Spencer corrected their diurnal satellite drift errors in a timely manor after this paper showed how to do it!

GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS,                      											VOL. 27, NO. 21,                       											PP. 3517-3520, 2000
doi:10.1029/2000GL011719                   
                   Global warming: Evidence from satellite observations
                   Global warming: Evidence from satellite observations
                   C. Prabhakara
                   NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD
                   R. Iacovazzi Jr.
                   Raytheon ITSS, Lanham, MD
                   J.&#8208;M. Yoo
                   EWHA Womans University, Seoul, South Korea
                   G. Dalu
                   CNR, Cagliari, Italy
                                          Observations made in Channel 2 (53.74 GHz) of  the Microwave Sounding Unit (MSU) radiometer, flown on&#8208;board sequential,  sun&#8208;synchronous,                         polar&#8208;orbiting NOAA operational satellites,  indicate that the mean temperature of the atmosphere over the globe  increased                         during the period 1980 to 1999. *In this study,  we have minimized systematic errors in the time series introduced by  satellite                         orbital drift in an objective manner. *This is  done with the help of the onboard warm&#8208;blackbody temperature, which is  used                         in the calibration of the MSU radiometer. The  corrected MSU Channel 2 observations of the NOAA satellite series reveal  that                         the vertically&#8208;weighted global&#8208;mean temperature  of the atmosphere, with a peak weight near the mid troposphere, warmed  at                         the rate of 0.13±0.05 Kdecade&#8722;1 during 1980 to 1999.


----------



## IanC (Feb 22, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...





the abstract doesnt mention S&C, and the article is behind a paywall. are you sure it calls S&C frauds? have you actually read the article?

the satellite wiki page and IPCC talk about many corrections and adjustments made over the years for various things and the calibration between different types and vintages of satellites but I can't find anything that disparages S&C. are you sure you have your facts straight?

or are you just saying that a different group did their own analysis of satellite data and mentioned satellite drift therefor S&C must have lied about their work? I think every group gets slightly different numbers because converting satellite data into temperature is complicated. as I said before, RSS has substantially dropped its numbers for the last ten years putting it very close to UAH. should we look to see if Mears et al were fudging their data? were they fraudulent too in your mind?


----------



## IanC (Feb 22, 2011)

I snipped a comment from Climate Audit 2006 by the great guest poster on WUWT, Willis Eschenbach-



> And in #26, you say
> 
> Re #20: One &#8220;small correction&#8221;? *snork* A couple of errors with pretty large consequences, as I recall. S+C&#8217;s stuff got a lot of attention mainly because they sought to portray their findings as an anti-AGW argument, underlined that stance by aligning themselves with the ExxonMobil-funded FUDtanks, and wound things up with the aforementioned bait-and-switch. Consider by way of contrast the treatment by all sides of the ocean cooling findings of Lyman et al.
> Setting aside your various ad-homs, I&#8217;d like to make a couple of points about Spencer and Christy:
> ...


----------



## BrianH (Feb 22, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



You're assuming that this meter is only off by 5 degrees and that being off by 5 degrees is the only problem it had.  How do you know?  Auto manufactures mass manufacture meters and transmittors in vehicles and the damn things don't work the way they're supposed to.  PH meters gradually drift and rise over time even though the real PH doesn't.  I'm just saying that you're assuming that this equipment (or any equipment) is etxtremely precise and works exactly how it's supposed to work.


----------



## BrianH (Feb 22, 2011)

westwall said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



That's correct, you can't have an "average" if the meter is constantly being adjusted and/or calibrated.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 22, 2011)

IanC said:


> I snipped a comment from Climate Audit 2006 by the great guest poster on WUWT, Willis Eschenbach-
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well, of course the whacko denier site WUWT is going to downplay the UAH error, and trust the source of their fudged data even more. Fudged data is all deniers have. But nothing in your two snippets is true. Spencer and Christy would only correct their errors when other people exposed them. 

Before they were first forced to correct their data they were claiming a COOLING of -0.05 C per decade in 1998. After several corrections of several errors in their data it was up to +0.123 C per decade by 2005, a hell of a lot bigger difference then WUWT's claim of only a +0.035 C per decade correction. If you notice, your snippets just pick each individual correction and compare it only to the previous data immediately before the new correction to make the errors seem as small as possible, and not the sum of all the corrections which is significant. They can't even be truthful about their corrections!!!


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 22, 2011)

BrianH said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > BrianH said:
> ...


I'm assuming nothing, you are. I picked 5 degrees as an arbitrary example. There could be 100 things wrong with the meter, it doesn't matter. The point is that the 30 year average will also contain all 100 problems and the trend shown by the anomaly will still be accurate.


----------



## Big Fitz (Feb 22, 2011)

Why even bother responding to the loony toon chicken littles?  They seem to believe their argument has credibility if you talk to them, when a junior high science text can debunk them.


----------



## westwall (Feb 22, 2011)

BrianH said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...






Exactly.  Without a unequivocal baseline you have nothing.  Hansens numbers are worthless because he has screwed with the data sets for so long and so frequently that no one has a clue what is correct.  The antithesis of science.  Science is about precision and Hansen destroyed whatever precision there was with the GISSTEMP record.  He should be prosecuted for that travesty alone.


----------



## westwall (Feb 22, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > I snipped a comment from Climate Audit 2006 by the great guest poster on WUWT, Willis Eschenbach-
> ...






That "whacko" denier sight frequently has opposing guest posters if you would ever bother to look.  WUWT is far more interested in good science than being a "denier" site.  You're a broken record pal, try looking at the science some day instead of parroting your fellow travellers.


----------



## westwall (Feb 22, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...






You can't get through your pointy little head  that we don't know WHAT the damn readings are because Hansen keeps changing them.  Can't you get that?  Are you so wrapped around the axle of alarmism that you can't grasp a simple concept?   Hansen has screwed it up so bad you can put ANY DAMNED NUMBER IN YOU WANT!  It doesn't matter because the record is so screwed up there is NO WAY TO KNOW WHAT WAS CORRECT.  Go it?


----------



## westwall (Feb 22, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> Why even bother responding to the loony toon chicken littles?  They seem to believe their argument has credibility if you talk to them, when a junior high science text can debunk them.





Man, ain't that the truth!


----------



## BrianH (Feb 22, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Now you're assuming that the 100 problems experienced 30 years ago are the same 100 problems it experiences now.  Maybe it has 99 problems now, and the one less problem it has now changed the entire meter's accuracy.  What if there were 100 problems 30 years ago and 130 problems now?  IF you were absolutely CERTAIN that the meter had a certain amount of problems, and these were the only problems they experienced, then you could possibly see a reliable trend in the data.  I have a big problem with the "average temperature" monitoring.  In areas where they have VERY WIDE ranges of temperatures, it makes "average temperatures" much less important than if they were placed in areas with narrow temperature ranges.


----------



## logical4u (Feb 22, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



If you are not measuring "ANOMALIES" accurately, you do not have an accurate picture.  It is a SWAG.


----------



## logical4u (Feb 22, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



One of the problems with electronic measurement systems, is that, the "error" is not consistant.  In an analog device, that is usually true.  With electronics (digital), those signals can vary with temperature, climate conditions, age and wear.  Depending on the condition, it can increase or decrease the reading.  It cannot be predicted, it cannot be calculated away (because you don't know the error).  That is why if you want accuracy, calibration is key.  

I don't need to understand everything in the science to understand that the "digital" temperature equipment used is rarely calibrated.  For the purpose installed, it just needs to be close.  The purpose, hijacked by the "global warming religion" (faith based), those figures are "corrected" based on the agenda of the religion.


----------



## logical4u (Feb 22, 2011)

BrianH said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...




Instrumentation is calibrated to "standards".  For temperature that could be as simple as a container of ice water ... the temperature should read exactly 32 degrees F.  For boiling ...212 degrees F at sea level.  There are calibrated standards to do the same thing.  If the meter is not calibrated, there can be quite a bit (comparatively speaking in tenths of degrees) of drift.  If your meter is checked periodically and found to be "in tolerance", you can be sure the readings are accurate, usually within hundreds of a degree.  If the meter is found out of tolerance, that should be noted and the meter data disregarded and the meter calibrated or replaced.  Has this been done?  
For most temperature readings in remote sites, a weather station is only checked when information is not being sent (transmitted).  The calibration is not checked until it is very obvious the readings are inaccurate.  The global warming religion uses these readings without verifying the accuracy.


----------



## westwall (Feb 22, 2011)

logical4u said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...






This is true, even more to the point they use weather stations in built up areas that will be affect by the Urban Island Effect and don't correct for that warming at all.  That's how they get "record" warm years year after year.  But edthecynic is too smart to be taken in by that nonsense_....right_


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 22, 2011)

westwall said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > BrianH said:
> ...


that's a load of crap, and YOU know it because it has been explained to you repeatedly on many different threads.

If the station is near a heat source, the 30 year average that the anomaly is measured against will be warmer compensating for the heat source.


----------



## westwall (Feb 22, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...






No, Ed you're wrong.  It is well documented that NOAA has dropped 6000 weather stations from rural areas and focused their attention on only those in urban settings.  We are using fewer weather stations than at any time since 1915.  You can thank your activist alarmists for the degradation of science here.  That is your side, not ours.  Pull your head out of your rear and check for yourself.

You are are the one here who doesn't seem to understand that you can't play with the temp records.  There is no temp record anymore, it is all crap thanks to Hansen and Co.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 22, 2011)

westwall said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


That is a complete load of crap from the whackos at WUWT who have no credibility at all. If they dropped 6,00 stations there would be no stations. Only DUPLICATE stations were eliminated because of Bush II budget cuts!!! Why don't you deniers fund the reopening of the duplicate sties???? Oh that's Right, you know they're duplicates and if you opened them you would only CONFIRM Hansen's data. Much better for deniers to make up lies.

BTW, they checked to see if there was a bias from poorly sited stations after you deniers whined about them and they found the bias was for mostly COOLER readings. So were deniers happy when the poorly sited stations were removed from the data sets? Hell no, they then condemned Hansen for correcting the data and posting adjusted charts with the poorly sited stations removed. NOAA make all this info freely available to all, including you deniers, but deniers prefer to ignore it.

The USHCN Version 2 Serial Monthly Dataset

Station siting and U.S. surface temperature trends
*Recent photographic documentation of poor siting conditions at stations in the USHCN has led to questions regarding the reliability of surface temperature trends over the conterminous U.S. (CONUS).* To evaluate the potential impact of poor siting/instrument exposure on CONUS temperatures, Menne et al. (2010) compared trends derived from poor and well-sited USHCN stations using both unadjusted and bias-adjusted data. *Results indicate that there is a mean bias associated with poor exposure sites relative to good exposure sites* in the unadjusted USHCN version 2 data; however, this bias is consistent with previously documented changes associated with the widespread conversion to electronic sensors in the USHCN during the last 25 years (see e.g., Menne et al. 2009). Moreover, the sign of the bias is counterintuitive to photographic documentation of poor exposure because *associated instrument changes have led to an artificial negative (cool) bias in maximum temperatures and only a slight positive (warm) bias in minimum temperatures.*

Adjustments applied to USHCN Version 2 data largely account for the impact of instrument and siting changes, although a small overall residual negative (cool) bias appears to remain in the adjusted USHCN version 2 CONUS average maximum temperature. Nevertheless, the adjusted USHCN CONUS temperatures are well aligned with recent measurements from the U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN). This network was designed with the highest standards for climate monitoring and has none of the siting and instrument exposure problems present in USHCN. The close correspondence in nationally averaged temperature from these two networks is further evidence that the adjusted USHCN data provide an accurate measure of the U.S. temperature.

The Menne et al. (2010) results underscore the need to consider all changes in observation practice when determining the impacts of siting irregularities. Further, the influence of non-standard siting on temperature trends can only be quantified through an analysis of the data which do not indicate that the CONUS average temperature trends are inflated due to poor station siting.

Four sets of USCHN stations were used in the Menne et al. (2010) analysis. Set 1 includes stations identified as having good siting by the volunteers at surfacestations.org. Set 2 is a subset of set 1 consisting of the set 1 stations whose ratings are in general agreement with an independent assessment by NOAAs National Weather Service. Set 3 are those stations with moderate to poor siting ratings according to surfacestations.org. Set 4 is a subset of set 3 consisting of the set 3 stations whose ratings are in agreement with an independent assessment by NOAAs National Weather Service. *For further information, please see Menne et al. (2010). The set of Maximum Minimum Temperature Sensor (MMTS) stations and Cotton Region Shelter (Stevenson Screen) sites used in Menne et al. (2010) are also available (see the "readme.txt" file as described below for a description of the station list format). Access to the unadjusted, time of observation adjusted, and fully adjusted USHCN version 2 temperature data is described below.*

Data Access
U.S. HCN version 2 monthly data are available via ftp at ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/. Please see the "readme.txt" file in this directory for information on downloading and reading U.S HCN v2 data. Version control information is provided in the "status.txt" file.


----------



## westwall (Feb 22, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...






I'm happy to see your blind hatred prevents you from looking at the evidence.  Reinforces my low opinion of you further.  NOAA still uses 1500 weather stations but hey don't let a little thing like a fact bother you.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 22, 2011)

westwall said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


You deniers produce no evidence!!! You maintain no land based temperature stations. You bitch about poorly sited stations and when the stations are removed you bitch about removing stations. You cry like babies that the data from poorly sited stations should not be included in the data sets, and when it is removed from the data sets you whine that the data sets are being adjusted.

Again, why don't you deniers set up your own temperature stations and publish your own data?????????????????????

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/Peterson-Vose-1997.pdf

3. Duplicate elimination

A time series for a given station can frequently be
obtained from more than one source. For example,
data for Tombouctou, Mali, were available in six different
source datasets. When merging data from
multiple sources, it is important to identify these duplicate
time series because 1) the inclusion of multiple
versions of the same station creates biases in areally
averaged temperature analyses, and 2) the same station
may have different periods of record in different
datasets; merging the two versions can create longer
time series.

The goal of duplicate station elimination is to reduce
a large set of n time series (many of which are
identical) to a much smaller set of m groups of time
series that are unique. In the case of maximum and
minimum temperature, 8000 source dataset time series
were reduced to 4964 unique time series. This was
accomplished in the following fashion. First, the data
for every station were compared with the data for every
other station. This naturally started with stations
whose metadata indicated they were in approximately
the same location. Similarity was assessed by computing
the total number of months of identical data as
well as the percentage of months of identical data.
Maximumminimum temperature time series were
considered duplicates of the same station if they shared
the same monthly value at least 90% of the time, with
at least 12 months of data being identical and no more
than 12 being different. This process identified the
duplicates, which were then merged to form time series
with longer periods of record after a manual inspection
of the metadata (to avoid misconcatenations).

This process was then repeated on the merged dataset
without the initial metadata considerations so every
time series was compared to all the other time series
in the database. Similarity of time series in this step
was judged by computing the length of the longest run
of identical values.

Cases where the time series were determined to be
duplicates of the same station but the metadata indicated
they were not the same station were examined
carefully and a subjective decision was made. This
assessment provided additional quality control of station
locations and the integrity of their data. For example,
a mean temperature time series for Thamud,
Yemen, had 25 yr (195681) of monthly values that
were exactly identical to the mean temperature data
from Kuwait International Airport (12° farther north).
Needless to say, one of these time series was in error.
As with most of these problems, determining which
time series was erroneous was fairly easy given the
data, metadata, knowledge about the individual data
sources, duplicate data, and other climatological information
available.

The procedure for duplicate elimination with mean
temperature was more complex. The first 10 000 duplicates
(out of 30 000+ source time series) were identified
using the same methods applied to the maximum
and minimum temperature datasets. Unfortunately,
because monthly mean temperature has been computed
at least 101 different ways (Griffiths 1997), digital
comparisons could not be used to identify the remaining
duplicates. Indeed, the differences between
two different methods of calculating mean temperature
at a particular station can be greater than the temperature
difference from two neighboring stations.
Therefore, an intense scrutiny of associated metadata
was conducted. Probable duplicates were assigned the
same station number but, unlike the previous cases,
not merged because the actual data were not exactly
identical (although they were quite similar). As a result,
the GHCN version 2 mean temperature dataset
contains multiple versions of many stations. For the
Tombouctou example, the six source time series were
merged to create four different but similar time series
for the same station (see Fig. 1).

Preserving the multiple duplicates provides some
distinct benefits. It guarantees no concatenation errors.
Adding the recent data from one time series to the end
of a different time series can cause discontinuities,
unless the mean temperature was calculated the same
way for both time series. It also preserves all possible
information for the station. When two different values
are given for the same stationyearmonth, it is often
impossible for the dataset compiler to determine which
is correct. Indeed, both may be correct given the different
methods used to calculate mean temperature.
Unfortunately, preserving the duplicates may cause
some difficulty for users familiar with only one correct
mean monthly temperature value at a station.
There are many different ways to use data from duplicates.
All have advantages and disadvantages. One
can use the single duplicate with the most data for the
period of interest; use the longest time series and fill
in missing points using the duplicates; average all data
points for that stationyearmonth to create a mean
time series; or combine the information in more complicated
ways, such as averaging the first difference
(FDyear 1 = Tyear 2 - Tyear 1) time series of the duplicates
and creating a new time series from the average first
difference series. Which technique is the best depends
on the type of analysis being performed.


----------



## westwall (Feb 22, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...






Because simpleton the PEOPLE of the United States have allready paid for them.  the alarmist activist "scientists" are the ones whos task it is to moniter them properly.  They aren't.  So just piss off and live in your stupid little hole.  I'm done with you.  You are as truthful as truthiness is.  What a waste of skin.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 23, 2011)

Poor, poor Walleyes. Cannot make a logical arguement. Just blame all them thar librul pointy headed scientists. Everybody knows them idjits don't know Jack!

But the lists still remain the same.


----------



## westwall (Feb 23, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Poor, poor Walleyes. Cannot make a logical arguement. Just blame all them thar librul pointy headed scientists. Everybody knows them idjits don't know Jack!
> 
> But the lists still remain the same.






olfraud you are of the same ilk as edthemoron (thanks DiveCon so apropo), you wouldn't know a good scientific experiment if it bit you on the ass.  You can crawl back into your hole as well.  You're just boring now, and I dislike boring boorish people.


----------



## IanC (Feb 23, 2011)

edthecynic is partially right. I don't believe that temp readings from bad sites would make a significant difference, and I don't think that shrinking the number of stations would either. 

there are two areas that I do think have made a significant difference. the first is in the corrections. Hansen's crew have tortured the numbers, and in a biased way so that past temps have gone down and recent temps have gone up. the second way is the fashionable trend for infilling temps in places that have not been measured, at least up to 1000 kilometers away, and sometimes those infills affect the next vacant grid. the statistical methods used for both corrections and infills are poorly coded and difficult to examine and test. just look at the recent debacle over Antarctica.

the other side of this whole data set problem is whether the beaurocracy looking after global warming issues is competent and dedicated to providing top class data. there are less than 10,000 stations to make sure are working right. the amazing amount of mistakes that have been made are very discouraging. stations lost even though they are still recording and reporting but the name was changed and no longer recognized. GPS positions mistakenly putting the station halfway around the world, or moved 500m into a lake thereby turning an urban staion into a rural one (they use night time illumination to designate). there are hundreds of these mistakes. GISS gets a lot of money to run their temp data site but they don't seem to care about making sure the readings are right, they just want to get the trends to match the computer models predictions.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 23, 2011)

So who is torturing the Arctic Ice, the alpine glaciers?


----------



## IanC (Feb 24, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> So who is torturing the Arctic Ice, the alpine glaciers?



I assume it is Mother Nature who occasionally warms the Arctic, or increases/decreases the flow of the frozen rivers known as glaciers. Do you think otherwise?









...






the end of the world didnt come in 1922, its not coming in 2011 either.


----------



## westwall (Feb 24, 2011)

Nor did the end of the world come in 1881.  Same old hyperbole, same result, the world keeps turnin and the alarmists keep making fools out of themselves.

THE NEW EQUATOR. - View Article - NYTimes.com


----------



## Grace (Feb 24, 2011)

Global warming is happening. Period.
Those who choose to laugh it off won't be laughing soon enough.


----------



## logical4u (Feb 24, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



s w a g


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 24, 2011)

IMEURU said:


> Global warming is happening. Period.
> Those who choose to laugh it off won't be laughing soon enough.


yes, the natural warming/cooling cycles of the planet, like have been happening since before man existed


----------



## westwall (Feb 24, 2011)

IMEURU said:


> Global warming is happening. Period.
> Those who choose to laugh it off won't be laughing soon enough.






Yes it is.  It began 12,000 years ago.  What started it then?  What kept it going?  Why was it 6 degrees warmer than the current time 2000 years ago during the Roman Warming Period?  Why was it warmer 1000 years ago during the Medieval Warming Period?  Why do you think there is any difference between the warming now and the warming that happened back then?

These are all facts.  These are also facts that the alarmists don't want you to kno about because it interferes with their claims that this is the warmest the planet has ever been, which is patently ridiculous.  Mann would not try to erase well known history like the MWP without reason don't you think?

BTW, get used to the cold because the planet has entered into yet another cooling phase and it will be colder for at least the next 20 years.


----------



## konradv (Feb 24, 2011)

westwall said:


> IMEURU said:
> 
> 
> > Global warming is happening. Period.
> ...



Per usual, westy wants us to believe that just because something had one cause in the past that it couldn't have another cause today.  That's just not logical and throws a bad light on his sources.  If one can't be logical in one's posts, how can we trust that his chosen sources don't have the same lack of logic?


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 24, 2011)

konradv said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > IMEURU said:
> ...


and you think its logical that something that happened in the past is not whats happening now?


----------



## Binky (Feb 24, 2011)

Damn, and alll this very long time I was under the impression that Gore, the bore, was speaking the truth..........................  Right.................


----------



## westwall (Feb 24, 2011)

konradv said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > IMEURU said:
> ...






An konnie once again shows his denial of basic concepts of science once again showing his hatred of science and all that science stands for.


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 24, 2011)

westwall said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


he is illogical while claiming being logical isnt


----------

