mnealtx 0 #176 December 1, 2009 Quote Quote .... Too bad you mistake a LINEAR TREND for a temperature record. C'mon, Mike. I really do not like beeing forced to have any doubts about your sanity. Why? Because I didn't buy the warming bullshit hook, line and sinker? Looks like the emails and data that were leaked proved me right. Quote How many LINEAR trends do you really need? (And not alone in this actual thread, there were others before ) You *do* realize that if you go back further, that the global warming trend becomes FLAT, right? So...which group is right? The ones that: Scream "OMG the planet is melting" after screaming "OMG new Ice Age" 30 years ago Skewed the temp records Blocked FOIA requests Blocked opposing research by hijacking peer review and pressuring journals to not accept dissenting views Threw away original data Had dissenting editors fired Couldn't recreate the scientists claims with over 3 years of work Or the ones that are saying "this looks like normal climate variability"?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #177 December 1, 2009 Exactly how far out are you going to find your "flat" claim? Do you go back further than 1880? Yes, I know the attached are from NASA GISS, so you'll ignore them as corrupted by the devil Hansen, but if you have a better source, please link to it. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/ - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skiskyrock 0 #178 December 1, 2009 QuoteQuoteYour graph shows heating since 2000. Why do you think it shows otherwise? It shows an overall cooling trend since 1998 - why do you think it doesn't? Woodfortrees is an interesting website, thanks for pointing it out. Did you know if you plot only one set of data at a time you can use the second channel to add a least squares trend line to the data? I added one to your RSS data set from your earlier, the UAH trend is basically identical. P.S. you can get a negative trend if you play with the smoothing, but the interval still has to start on 1998; 1997 or 1999 won't work. This is the sort of thing that doesn't get through peer review with out a really good explanation Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #179 December 1, 2009 And a couple more (link in previous post). - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #180 December 1, 2009 QuoteQuote Time will tell The COOL thing about science (as opposed to political or religious dogma) is that it is self-correcting despite any bias or foolishness of individual scientists. You seem to think you have found a smoking gun. YOU HAVEN'T. I agree with your first comments. And seeing how the "resignations" (at least until the investigations are over) started today, the validation is even more potent. But, before you spent much effort on many more comment regarding the "politics" of AWG, you may want to spend some time looking at the emails. I have. There is most defiantly "politics" involved in this. You may however, be pointing fingers at the wrong side. In the end this will bring the debate BACK to science. Something the CRU and IPCC took away from the topic years ago http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,578486,00.html http://www.usnews.com/blogs/paper-trail/2009/11/30/penn-state-will-investigate-climategate.html http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/57879"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #181 December 1, 2009 Quote Never mind. Yes, this is the latest "final nail in the coffin" for climate change; you have once again disproven physics. I now am convinced this is a religion to you and yours. Science has got squat to do with it as far as you are concerned"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #182 December 1, 2009 You can tell us all where the "smoking gun" is not, I guess from one of the links Quote“For instance,” Inhofe wrote, “one scientist wrote of a ‘trick he employed to ‘hide the decline’ in global temperature trends, as well as discussed attempts to ‘redefine what the peer-review literature is’ to prevent papers raising questions about anthropogenic global warming from appearing in IPCC reports."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe 1,523 #183 December 1, 2009 Quote Quote Never mind. Yes, this is the latest "final nail in the coffin" for climate change; you have once again disproven physics. I now am convinced this is a religion to you and yours. Science has got squat to do with it as far as you are concerned I won't argue that the "Sky Is Falling" AGW proponents demonstrate a "Religious Fervor" in their behavior. But the "Head In The Sand" deniers aren't a lot different. A representative from the coal industry in West Virgina (on NPR a couple weeks ago) said flat out that global warming doesn't exist, that burning coal isn't hurting the environment and that alternative energy sources are hurting the US. (paraphrased - I looked for a link without success). I see both sides (in the real world and on here) as equally bullheaded. There's another thread here that is a little more one sided, where the propnent of the theory insists that everyone believe his sources while ignoring anthing that refutes them, calling it "Kook Science". Again, I see both of the extermes in this debate doing the same thing. I think the earth is a hell of a lot more complex than most people realize. And that a simple "The CO2 is increasing, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, Thermodynamics works" is as naive as saying that because the temps haven't increased in the past few years means that AGW is a myth (please explain why the glaciers have decreased more than the models predicted). No I don't think this will convince anyone in an entrenched position, but I just want to say that there are some folks in the middle here."There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #184 December 1, 2009 Actually, it was a comparison of the 4 main temperatures indicators that I was thinking of, my apologies. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/30/what-do-we-really-know-about-climate-change/ Speaking of Hansen, you might want to anticipate another adjustment to GISS due to work by the deniers... with about 80% of the North American sites surveyed, some 70% of them have siting errors of more than 1 degree C. http://www.surfacestations.org/Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #185 December 1, 2009 Agreed"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #186 December 2, 2009 QuoteAnd that a simple "The CO2 is increasing, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, Thermodynamics works" THAT was the point I was trying to make - that's what we've been told for the last several years and the satellite data doesn't seem to support it. CO2 has continued to increase while temps haven't. Quoteis as naive as saying that because the temps haven't increased in the past few years means that AGW is a myth (please explain why the glaciers have decreased more than the models predicted). http://www.iceagenow.com/List_of_Expanding_Glaciers.htmMike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #187 December 2, 2009 QuoteQuoteAnd that a simple "The CO2 is increasing, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, Thermodynamics works" THAT was the point I was trying to make - that's what we've been told for the last several years and the satellite data doesn't seem to support it. CO2 has continued to increase while temps haven't. Quoteis as naive as saying that because the temps haven't increased in the past few years means that AGW is a myth (please explain why the glaciers have decreased more than the models predicted). http://www.iceagenow.com/List_of_Expanding_Glaciers.htm That seems to be a very short list Mike.. considering the far more numerous glaciers that are receeding and or now non existant. Answer me this.. what makes a glacier grow??? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #188 December 2, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteAnd that a simple "The CO2 is increasing, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, Thermodynamics works" THAT was the point I was trying to make - that's what we've been told for the last several years and the satellite data doesn't seem to support it. CO2 has continued to increase while temps haven't. Quoteis as naive as saying that because the temps haven't increased in the past few years means that AGW is a myth (please explain why the glaciers have decreased more than the models predicted). http://www.iceagenow.com/List_of_Expanding_Glaciers.htm That seems to be a very short list Mike.. considering the far more numerous glaciers that are receeding and or now non existant. Answer me this.. what makes a glacier grow??? Got a list of all those disappeared glaciers?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,076 #189 December 2, 2009 >Scream "OMG the planet is melting" after screaming >"OMG new Ice Age" 30 years ago Why would anyone listen to the popular media for scientific information? Indeed, imagine how stupid you would have looked in 1945 if you had claimed "there's no such thing as global warming! Temperatures are going DOWN!" >Skewed the temp records You mean like the deniers who use proven-wrong temperature records to push their agendas? Agreed - best to ignore them. >Blocked opposing research by hijacking peer review and pressuring journals >to not accept dissenting views Agreed. Imagine, a group that claims that "Victory will be achieved when uncertainties in climate science become part of the conventional wisdom" for "average citizens" and "the media." To think that some people actually take them seriously. >Couldn't recreate the scientists claims with over 3 years of work Indeed. I can think of several deniers who have NEVER been able to recreate the claims of their own cohorts.] Keep digging that hole! I'm sure you'll find the next "final nail in the coffin" at the bottom. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #190 December 2, 2009 Quote>Scream "OMG the planet is melting" after screaming >"OMG new Ice Age" 30 years ago Why would anyone listen to the popular media for scientific information? Indeed, imagine how stupid you would have looked in 1945 if you had claimed "there's no such thing as global warming! Temperatures are going DOWN!" >Skewed the temp records You mean like the deniers who use proven-wrong temperature records to push their agendas? Agreed - best to ignore them. >Blocked opposing research by hijacking peer review and pressuring journals >to not accept dissenting views Agreed. Imagine, a group that claims that "Victory will be achieved when uncertainties in climate science become part of the conventional wisdom" for "average citizens" and "the media." To think that some people actually take them seriously. >Couldn't recreate the scientists claims with over 3 years of work Indeed. I can think of several deniers who have NEVER been able to recreate the claims of their own cohorts.] Keep digging that hole! I'm sure you'll find the next "final nail in the coffin" at the bottom. Time to kneel and genuflect"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #191 December 2, 2009 Quote>Scream "OMG the planet is melting" after screaming >"OMG new Ice Age" 30 years ago Why would anyone listen to the popular media for scientific information? Indeed, imagine how stupid you would have looked in 1945 if you had claimed "there's no such thing as global warming! Temperatures are going DOWN!" Of course, it was HANSEN that was screaming about Ice Ages back in the 70's - but you knew that. Quote>Skewed the temp records You mean like the deniers who use proven-wrong temperature records to push their agendas? Agreed - best to ignore them. No, like Mann - you know, when he to correct MBH98 due to the deniers? Or when Hansen had to fix GISS due to Watts - how many times, now? Quote>Blocked opposing research by hijacking peer review and pressuring journals >to not accept dissenting views Agreed. Imagine, a group that claims that "Victory will be achieved when uncertainties in climate science become part of the conventional wisdom" for "average citizens" and "the media." To think that some people actually take them seriously. "One approach is to go direct to the publishers and point out the fact that their journal is perceived as being a medium for disseminating misinformation under the guise of refereed work. I use the word 'perceived' here, since whether it is true or not is not what the publishers care about -- it is how the journal is seen by the community that counts. I think we could get a large group of highly credentialed scientists to sign such a letter -- 50+ people. Note that I am copying this view only to Mike Hulme and Phil Jones. Mike's idea to get editorial board members to resign will probably not work -- must get rid of von Storch too, otherwise holes will eventually fill up with people like Legates, Balling, Lindzen, Michaels, Singer, etc. I have heard that the publishers are not happy with von Storch, so the above approach might remove that hurdle too. Quote>Couldn't recreate the scientists claims with over 3 years of work Indeed. I can think of several deniers who have NEVER been able to recreate the claims of their own cohorts.] That was their own programmer, with access to all the data and programs. QuoteKeep digging that hole! I'm sure you'll find the next "final nail in the coffin" at the bottom. Just keep holding onto those wires while you spin - I understand the supercollider is putting in a bid touse you as the power source for their next runs.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #192 December 2, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote And that a simple "The CO2 is increasing, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, Thermodynamics works" THAT was the point I was trying to make - that's what we've been told for the last several years and the satellite data doesn't seem to support it. CO2 has continued to increase while temps haven't. Quote is as naive as saying that because the temps haven't increased in the past few years means that AGW is a myth (please explain why the glaciers have decreased more than the models predicted). http://www.iceagenow.com/List_of_Expanding_Glaciers.htm That seems to be a very short list Mike.. considering the far more numerous glaciers that are receeding and or now non existant. Answer me this.. what makes a glacier grow??? Got a list of all those disappeared glaciers? Come visit I will take you to the North Cascades National Park and SHOW you hundreds that used to be there and are gone now. They talked about Glacier Peak.. its only about 20 miles from my house.. we have had some VERY wet years recently.. warmer waters.. more evaporation.... more snow... that turns into ice. IF and that is a big IF the summer is not so warm to melt it all. Mt Baker just a few years ago got 120 FEET of snow an all time record... almost all of it melted over the next couple years Over the years I have climbed all of the major NW Cascades peaks.. and I have seen many of them dissapear when I made my first climbs in 1972 when I came out here and was enthralled with the American Alps Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,076 #193 December 2, 2009 >Time to kneel and genuflect Feel free to pray to whoever you like. I prefer science to religion or politics, which makes me unwelcome in most denier circles. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,107 #194 December 2, 2009 QuoteYou can tell us all where the "smoking gun" is not, I guess from one of the links Quote“For instance,” Inhofe wrote, “one scientist wrote of a ‘trick he employed to ‘hide the decline’ in global temperature trends, as well as discussed attempts to ‘redefine what the peer-review literature is’ to prevent papers raising questions about anthropogenic global warming from appearing in IPCC reports. Inhofe is neither a scientist, nor is he unbiased. Better luck next time.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,076 #195 December 2, 2009 >Of course, it was HANSEN that was screaming about Ice Ages back in >the 70's - but you knew that. Cool, another lie! Well, when the heroes of the denier movement are criminals, I guess morality takes a back seat. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #196 December 2, 2009 Quote>Of course, it was HANSEN that was screaming about Ice Ages back in >the 70's - but you knew that. Cool, another lie! Well, when the heroes of the denier movement are criminals, I guess morality takes a back seat. I hardly consider the head of GISS to be a 'hero of the denier movement', but hey, whatever gets you through the night.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #197 December 2, 2009 Quote>Time to kneel and genuflect Feel free to pray to whoever you like. I prefer science to religion or politics, which makes me unwelcome in most denier circles. Really??? Your position here does not indicate that ."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #198 December 2, 2009 QuoteQuoteYou can tell us all where the "smoking gun" is not, I guess from one of the links Quote“For instance,” Inhofe wrote, “one scientist wrote of a ‘trick he employed to ‘hide the decline’ in global temperature trends, as well as discussed attempts to ‘redefine what the peer-review literature is’ to prevent papers raising questions about anthropogenic global warming from appearing in IPCC reports. Inhofe is neither a scientist, nor is he unbiased. Better luck next time. Oh. So, do you care to respond to my earlier post about "qualifications"? And then, after all of this YOU really want to bring up biases????? I doubt it"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,107 #199 December 2, 2009 Quote And then, after all of this YOU really want to bring up biases????? I doubt it People in glass houses... Your paycheck comes from one of the big CO2 polluters, doesn't it? “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.”... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #200 December 2, 2009 QuoteQuote And then, after all of this YOU really want to bring up biases????? I doubt it People in glass houses... Your paycheck comes from one of the big CO2 polluters, doesn't it? “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.” MY job does not depend you what you say. But, you already know that So, I ask again, YOU really want to go there? but I guess those being investigated for lying (something you post of often) manipulation of data (which YOU must now think is OK) withholding of requested info (you like that too) manipulation of the great peer review system you mention so oft and dumping of the data from which a peer review would be conducted are all acceptable practices for someone with no biases OoooooooooK"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
