On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 12:08 PM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>
> Another source of historical temperature data are in the log files of
> various British and American naval ships. That data goes back at least
> a couple of centuries. Not only is temperature recorded but the ship's
> position and typica
Another source of historical temperature data are in the log files of
various British and American naval ships. That data goes back at least
a couple of centuries. Not only is temperature recorded but the ship's
position and typically other weather observations. From the articles
I've read about i
You do realize urban sprawl causes many to be moved?
Even when moved, if the data wasn't what they wanted they would adjust
the data. It was all in the emails, you should read them.
Congrats on the new resume addition. What chapter are you up to?
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 11:57 AM, Gruss Gott wro
> Sam wrote:
> You do remember the "hide the decline?"
> Those numbers were changed to make it look like it's warmer, the temps
> actually dropped last decade.
>
As an FYI, there is more than one source for outside air temperature.
Check your local network affiliate, your local airport, or your
You do remember the "hide the decline?"
Those numbers were changed to make it look like it's warmer, the temps
actually dropped last decade.
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 1:35 AM, Gruss Gott wrote:
>
>> RoMunn wrote:
>>
>> That's not true, and it goes to the heart of why I have objected to the
>> "sci
> RoMunn wrote:
>
> That's not true, and it goes to the heart of why I have objected to the
> "science" from the start.
And yet we still had the warmest decade in *at least* 130 years.
That duration happens to be over double the statistical amount
necessary to declare a decade-over-decade trend
Do you live in New Mexico?
On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 3:00 PM, Casey Dougall
wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 2:43 PM, Sam wrote:
>
>>
>> When you overthrow the governments involved you can force your new
>> subjects to pick nuts or whatever you want. As of today, we're talking
>> about the IPCC
On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 2:43 PM, Sam wrote:
>
> When you overthrow the governments involved you can force your new
> subjects to pick nuts or whatever you want. As of today, we're talking
> about the IPCC report and how CO2 will destroy 40% of said forest.
>
>
I'd believe acid rain but not CO2.
When you overthrow the governments involved you can force your new
subjects to pick nuts or whatever you want. As of today, we're talking
about the IPCC report and how CO2 will destroy 40% of said forest.
On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 2:01 PM, Casey Dougall
wrote:
>>
> Outside of providing about 20%
On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 1:39 PM, Sam wrote:
>
> More taliking points for ya
>
>
> http://hotair.com/archives/2010/01/26/more-bogus-agw-information-in-ipcc-report/
>
> Apparently Dr. Rowell made up some shit that made it into the well
> respected IPCC report. This time the Amazon has only a 40% c
More taliking points for ya
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/01/26/more-bogus-agw-information-in-ipcc-report/
Apparently Dr. Rowell made up some shit that made it into the well
respected IPCC report. This time the Amazon has only a 40% chance of
survival, or not.
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 3:21 PM
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 1:52 PM, Dana wrote:
>
> I agree that peer reviewed data is good, but made up shit works as well when
> needed
>
~|
Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? Let them know
on the
I agree that peer reviewed incontrovertible data is better. Merely
reflecting that some solid science cannot in fact be proven, and the
inclusion of hypotheses does not invalidate a set of conclusions
necessarily.
On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 10:39 PM, Judah McAuley wrote:
>
> But it is still importa
Start with the 50 million hungry people in Africa
When you're done, if you ask nice, I'll give you more.
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 3:21 PM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>
> not good enough sam, you're still parroting talking points.
>
> Lets put it this way. In your analysis what are the specific point
not good enough sam, you're still parroting talking points.
Lets put it this way. In your analysis what are the specific points.
Please support these with direct quotes from teh IPCC reports and
cross referenced by journal articles that support your points.
Otherwise its just your bloviating and
Here you go:
http://catallaxyfiles.com/2010/01/22/ipcc-and-peer-review/
We also know from the climategate emails that the data and models the
report uses was "modified" to hide the decline :)
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 2:39 PM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>
> I'm referring to page number and paragraph s
I'm referring to page number and paragraph sections of the report itself.
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 2:39 PM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
> specifics please and just don't quote your bloviators. Otherwise how
> else do we know you're not just blowing it out your ass.
>
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 2:10 PM,
specifics please and just don't quote your bloviators. Otherwise how
else do we know you're not just blowing it out your ass.
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 2:10 PM, Sam wrote:
>
> They used fake models.
> Modified temperature readings.
> Blocked dissent.
> Phony Glacier data and phony Africa drought r
They used fake models.
Modified temperature readings.
Blocked dissent.
Phony Glacier data and phony Africa drought reports.
Why are you still supporting this?
BTW, it was in the summary.
Same standard? When politicians constantly lie to me I turn against
them. So yes.
Not so with you. You're l
multiple times. Perhaps in your mind. But other than the
misrepresentation of the Himalayan data, what other prevarications are
you talking about. At he most 1 page out of 3000. What other errors?
You still have not answered my question, are you willing to apply the
same standard to the things yo
We caught them lying multiple times in this report. Now we're supposed
to believe it's all true except what ever else is found to be a lie?
The boy that cried wolf ring a bell?
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 1:30 PM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>
> so by your logic then anything published by the journal Na
Thank you for the article Robert, I had not seen it and I seem to be
wrong that it was an inadvertent mistake on the part of the people
including it in the IPCC report. I appreciate that.
See, recognizing that you were wrong about something and admitting it
isn't the difficult.
Now, how about th
so by your logic then anything published by the journal Nature or
Science is automatically invalid because once there were some invalid
data published in that data.
In other words that's thorough crap. All it does is invalidate the
Himalayan data, it does not change one whit the data involving th
Nice fail Judah
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 1:23 PM, Robert Munn wrote:
>
> That's not true, and it goes to the heart of why I have objected to the
> "science" from the start. They specifically put the glacier claim in to
> influence policy, and that admission taints everything the IPCC has done:
>
That's not true, and it goes to the heart of why I have objected to the
"science" from the start. They specifically put the glacier claim in to
influence policy, and that admission taints everything the IPCC has done:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245636/Glacier-scientists-says-knew-da
No one involved said it was put in the IPCC as a known lie nor was it
an attempt to influence politicians. It didn't even make it into any
of the summary documents for decision makers. Nice fail there Sam.
Judah
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 9:58 AM, Sam wrote:
>
> Dude, the guy said he put it in the
Hmmm, so tell me Mr Scientist, do you agree with the IPCC report
knowingly putting false info in the report so the stupid politicians
would react?
Didn't Gore pull the same stunt about Manhattan being 20ft under water
in five years?
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 12:12 PM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>
> I
Dude, the guy said he put it in the IPCC even though it was a lie to
influence politions. That and climate gate emails tell me it's all
political.
You, like Rather, claim I know the report is all faked but I feel it's
all true anyway.
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 11:48 AM, Judah McAuley wrote:
>
> A
I'd love to see Sam apply the same standards when it comes to things
he agrees with. Then again if wishes were cars all beggars would be
driving Rolls-Royces.
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 11:48 AM, Judah McAuley wrote:
>
> Ah, so one mistake invalidates an entire project? I'm sure that the
> people y
Ah, so one mistake invalidates an entire project? I'm sure that the
people you work for are happy to know that they don't have to pay you
if anyone finds a bug in your code.
Judah
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 6:17 AM, Sam wrote:
>
> I'm going to call that the Dan Rather defends.
>
> On Sun, Jan 24,
I'm going to call that the Dan Rather defends.
On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 7:26 PM, Judah McAuley wrote:
>
> The claim that Himalayan glaciers would be all gone by 2035 was not
> supported by the evidence at hand. The claim should not have made it
> into the IPCC report. Everyone, as far as I'm awar
But it is still important to make clear that Robert wasn't wrong about
the paper. It should not have been included, period. That was a
mistake and needs to be acknowledged as such. There are plenty of
strong claims that can be made with sufficient evidence behind them;
we do not need to lower the
>
>
> That being said, the Himalayan glaciers have been retreating for 5
> decades (see the link I posted earlier) and there is evidence that the
> rate is increasing. So the original claim may not be supported well
> enough to make it into the IPCC report but it also isn't a spurious
> claim eith
The claim that Himalayan glaciers would be all gone by 2035 was not
supported by the evidence at hand. The claim should not have made it
into the IPCC report. Everyone, as far as I'm aware, agrees on that.
That being said, the Himalayan glaciers have been retreating for 5
decades (see the link I
Of course that's the meaning of faith-based science.
On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 10:43 AM, Dana wrote:
>
> I did not see that in the link suppkied. But supposing you are right and I
> missed it, which is possible I gues, the nature of science is reluctance to
> make categorical statements about caus
I did not see that in the link suppkied. But supposing you are right and I
missed it, which is possible I gues, the nature of science is reluctance to
make categorical statements about causation. If you insist on them before
taking any action, then you eliminate among other things most of modern
m
the actual published report, once it was peer reviewed, said that there was
not enough statistical evidence to link the two things together.
On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 10:46 PM, Dana wrote:
>
> I hate to interrupt when you two are having such fun but all the Times
> article actually says is that
I hate to interrupt when you two are having such fun but all the Times
article actually says is that the citation for the claim is from an article
that isn't peer-reviewed, right? Not that there is evidence against it.
On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 9:43 PM, Judah McAuley wrote:
>
> My apologies. The
Speaking of data, you were convinced that the solar minimum was
putting us on a big global cooling trend and that 2008's data proved
it all and all those global warming folks were money grubbing, panic
driven frauds.
How's that data holding up? Care to show us how your theory is
matching observed
My apologies. The Himalaya's claim takes up less than 1 page of a 3000
page report. It was a minor claim, not making it into the summary for
policy makers even, and isn't even necessarily wrong. It is just not
evidentially supported in such a fashion that it should have been
allowed in.
The Hima
Of course, 99% of Hope and Change is accurate also.
On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 8:45 PM, Robert Munn wrote:
>
> I love how you throw out a random percentage number without any backing data
> to prove your point that science is working...
>
> On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 3:17 PM, Judah Mc wrote:
>
>
>> Of
I love how you throw out a random percentage number without any backing data
to prove your point that science is working...
On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 3:17 PM, Judah Mc wrote:
> Of course, 99% of the report is still found to be
> entirely accurate.
>
>
~~~
Yet, unlike your bullshit, the claims in the IPCC report continue to
get scrutinized by peer review process and publicly changed when found
to be incorrect. Of course, 99% of the report is still found to be
entirely accurate.
Hey, look, science is working!
Judah
On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 3:03 PM,
Funny, had you bet about the Himalayan glaciers disappearing by 2035, as
predicted in the IPCC report, you would have been wrong. Had you bet about
the relationship between increasing temperatures and global catastrophes
suggested by the IPCC, you would have been wrong as well:
http://www.timeson
Given that you're not a climate scientist nor so far have you shown
much understanding of climate science or for that matter science in
general, I figure I could bet against you in your so-called Pepsi
Challenge against the IPCC report and win every time.
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 10:20 PM, Robert
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 8:20 PM, Robert Munn wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 2:17 PM, Judah McA wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Solar minimalists be damned (I'm looking at you Robert), it was still
>> hotter than the previous decade which was hotter than the decade
>> before, etc.
>
>
> In the movie 2012, ev
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 2:17 PM, Judah McA wrote:
>
>
> Solar minimalists be damned (I'm looking at you Robert), it was still
> hotter than the previous decade which was hotter than the decade
> before, etc.
In the movie 2012, everyone dies when a solar maximum shoots hot neutrinos
into the pla
Did you guys even read the article:
'The U.S. space agency's data also revealed that 2009 was the second
warmest year since temperature records began in 1880, and only
narrowly cooler than 2005, the warmest year ever'
I was using my '130 years' based on that paragraph. I doubt we have
similar te
If you include the British Admiralty records, then they go back to the
late 1600's, ship captains were supposed to record temperatures etc at
least once a day.
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 5:17 PM, Judah McAuley wrote:
>
> We have data going back more than 130 years. We don't have detailed
> data goi
We have data going back more than 130 years. We don't have detailed
data going back farther than that. But even if you include things like
ice core samples, carbon concentrations (the absorption of various
chemicals differs based on temperature) and such, the headline would
still be incorrect. The
I don't think data only goes back 130 years. I myself did a study at UNM of
housing patterns following droughts in the 9th century using
dendrochronological data. Ergo, the data is there, unless you want to
dismiss it as not really data.
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 2:13 PM, morgan l wrote:
>
> Sens
I read James Hansen and LMAO
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 4:13 PM, morgan l wrote:
>
> Sensationalist headlines have been around as long as newspapers have been
> printed. Nothing new there.
>
> The article clearly states how far back the data being analyzed goes, but
> opponents of "global warming"
Sensationalist headlines have been around as long as newspapers have been
printed. Nothing new there.
The article clearly states how far back the data being analyzed goes, but
opponents of "global warming" won't even read that much of it, and
supporters don't care.
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 3:01 P
core samples of ice from Antarctica?
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 4:01 PM, Scott Stroz wrote:
>
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/science/01/22/nasa.warmest.decade.data/index.html
>
> How the last decade can be declared 'the warmest ever on Earth' when
> we only have data dating back 130 years?
>
> T
http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/science/01/22/nasa.warmest.decade.data/index.html
How the last decade can be declared 'the warmest ever on Earth' when
we only have data dating back 130 years?
This is the kind of bullshit hyperbole in the media that burns my ass.
I hate that shit.
--
Scott Stroz
-
55 matches
Mail list logo
