It would be wasier for them to read with thier heads out of thier asses.
You don't find this illuminating?
From: Michael Mann <m...@meteo.psu.edu> To: Kevin Trenberth <trenb...@ucar.edu> Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 10:53:52 -0400 Cc: Tom Wigley <wig...@ucar.edu>, Stephen H Schneider <s...@stanford.edu>, Myles Allen <al...@atm.ox.ac.uk>, peter stott <peter.st...@metoffice.gov.uk>, "Philip D. Jones" <p.jo...@uea.ac.uk>, Benjamin Santer <sant...@llnl.gov>, Thomas R Karl <Thomas.R.K...@noaa.gov>, Gavin Schmidt <gschm...@giss.nasa.gov>, James Hansen <jhan...@giss.nasa.gov>, Michael Oppenheimer <omich...@Princeton.EDU>
thanks Kevin, yes, it's a matter of what question one is asking. to argue that the observed global mean temperature anomalies of the past decade falsifies the model projections of global mean temperature change, as contrarians have been fond of claiming, is clearly wrong. but that doesn't mean we can explain exactly what's going on. there is always the danger of falling a bit into the "we don't know everything, so we know nothing" fallacy. hence, I wanted to try to clarify where we all agree, and where there may be disagreement,
mike
On Oct 14, 2009, at 10:36 AM, Kevin Trenberth wrote:
Mike Here are some of the issues as I see them: Saying it is natural variability is not an explanation. What are the physical processes? Where did the heat go? **************************
Where did the heat go? Are you kidding?
-- Al Gore didn't invent the internet, but he did invent Global Warming.
> Thank you for this excellent editorial that I directly forwarded to my > local congressmen. I encourage everybody to do so.
> Stolen goods are no good merchandise as everybody should know,
> Q
I guess it depends whose ox is being gored. But then what is science but the unrelenting search for truth?
http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php 31,486 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,029 with PhDs. Apparently not as settled as you'd like to think.
-- Al Gore didn't invent the internet, but he did invent Global Warming.
On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 12:15:43 -0600, grey_ghost471-newsgro...@yahoo.com (Gray Ghost) wrote: >...petitionproject.org...
Wow are you ever stupid.
"The petition is a hoax. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists of the USA:
In the spring of 1998, mailboxes of US scientists flooded with packet from the "Global Warming Petition Project," including a reprint of a Wall Street Journal op-ed "Science has spoken: Global Warming Is a Myth," a copy of a faux scientific article claiming that "increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide have no deleterious effects upon global climate," a short letter signed by past-president National Academy of Sciences (NAS), Frederick Seitz, and a short petition calling for the rejection of the Kyoto Protocol on the grounds that a reduction in carbon dioxide "would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind."
The sponsor, little-known Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, tried to beguile unsuspecting scientists into believing that this packet had originated from the National Academy of the Sciences, both by referencing Seitz's past involvement with the NAS and with an article formatted to look as if it was a published article in the Academy's Proceedings, which it was not.
The NAS quickly distanced itself from the petition project, issuing a statement saying, "the petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy."
The petition project was a deliberate attempt to mislead scientists and to rally them in an attempt to undermine support for the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was not based on a review of the science of global climate change, nor were its signers experts in the field of climate science. In fact, the only criterion for signing the petition was a bachelor's degree in science. The petition resurfaced in early 2001 in a renewed attempt to undermine international climate treaty negotiations."
> It would be wasier for them to read with thier heads out of thier asses.
> You don't find this illuminating?
> From: Michael Mann <m...@meteo.psu.edu> > To: Kevin Trenberth <trenb...@ucar.edu> > Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate > Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 10:53:52 -0400 > Cc: Tom Wigley <wig...@ucar.edu>, Stephen H Schneider <s...@stanford.edu>, > Myles Allen <al...@atm.ox.ac.uk>, peter stott <peter.st...@metoffice.gov.uk>, > "Philip D. Jones" <p.jo...@uea.ac.uk>, Benjamin Santer <sant...@llnl.gov>, > Thomas R Karl <Thomas.R.K...@noaa.gov>, Gavin Schmidt > <gschm...@giss.nasa.gov>, James Hansen <jhan...@giss.nasa.gov>, Michael > Oppenheimer <omich...@Princeton.EDU>
> thanks Kevin, yes, it's a matter of what question one is asking. to argue > that the observed global mean temperature anomalies of the past decade > falsifies the model projections of global mean temperature change, as > contrarians have been fond of claiming, is clearly wrong. but that doesn't > mean we can explain exactly what's going on. there is always the danger of > falling a bit into the "we don't know everything, so we know nothing" > fallacy. hence, I wanted to try to clarify where we all agree, and where > there may be disagreement,
> mike
> On Oct 14, 2009, at 10:36 AM, Kevin Trenberth wrote:
> Mike > Here are some of the issues as I see them: > Saying it is natural variability is not an explanation. What are the > physical processes? > Where did the heat go? > **************************
> Where did the heat go? Are you kidding?
<chuckle> If they can't figure out thermodynamics as taught in universities, there is no hope or trust in their findings. :D
-- Common sense is the collection of prejudices aquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein
>> It would be wasier for them to read with thier heads out of thier asses.
>> You don't find this illuminating?
>> From: Michael Mann <m...@meteo.psu.edu> >> To: Kevin Trenberth <trenb...@ucar.edu> >> Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate >> Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 10:53:52 -0400 >> Cc: Tom Wigley <wig...@ucar.edu>, Stephen H Schneider >> <s...@stanford.edu>, Myles Allen <al...@atm.ox.ac.uk>, peter stott >> <peter.st...@metoffice.gov.uk>, "Philip D. Jones" <p.jo...@uea.ac.uk>, >> Benjamin Santer <sant...@llnl.gov>, Thomas R Karl >> <Thomas.R.K...@noaa.gov>, Gavin Schmidt <gschm...@giss.nasa.gov>, James >> Hansen <jhan...@giss.nasa.gov>, Michael Oppenheimer >> <omich...@Princeton.EDU>
>> thanks Kevin, yes, it's a matter of what question one is asking. to >> argue >> that the observed global mean temperature anomalies of the past decade >> falsifies the model projections of global mean temperature change, as >> contrarians have been fond of claiming, is clearly wrong. but that >> doesn't mean we can explain exactly what's going on. there is always the >> danger of falling a bit into the "we don't know everything, so we know >> nothing" fallacy. hence, I wanted to try to clarify where we all agree, >> and where there may be disagreement,
>> mike
>> On Oct 14, 2009, at 10:36 AM, Kevin Trenberth wrote:
>> Mike >> Here are some of the issues as I see them: >> Saying it is natural variability is not an explanation. What are the >> physical processes? >> Where did the heat go? >> **************************
>> Where did the heat go? Are you kidding?
><chuckle> If they can't figure out thermodynamics as taught in > universities, there is no hope or trust in their > findings. :D
It's not just that, it's that they clearly don't know what is going on well enough to make any absolute claims.
-- Al Gore didn't invent the internet, but he did invent Global Warming.
> On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 12:15:43 -0600, grey_ghost471-newsgro...@yahoo.com > (Gray Ghost) wrote:
>>...petitionproject.org...
> Wow are you ever stupid.
> "The petition is a hoax. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists > of the USA:
> In the spring of 1998, mailboxes of US scientists flooded with > packet from the > "Global Warming Petition Project," including a reprint of a Wall Street > Journal op-ed "Science has spoken: Global Warming Is a Myth," a copy of a > faux scientific article claiming that "increased levels of atmospheric > carbon dioxide have no deleterious effects upon global climate," a short > letter signed by past-president National Academy of Sciences (NAS), > Frederick Seitz, and a short petition calling for the rejection of the > Kyoto Protocol on the grounds that a reduction in carbon dioxide "would > harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and > damage the health and welfare of mankind."
> The sponsor, little-known Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, > tried to beguile > unsuspecting scientists into believing that this packet had originated > from the National Academy of the Sciences, both by referencing Seitz's > past involvement with the NAS and with an article formatted to look as if > it was a published article in the Academy's Proceedings, which it was > not.
> The NAS quickly distanced itself from the petition project, issuing > a statement > saying, "the petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports > of the Academy."
> The petition project was a deliberate attempt to mislead scientists > and to rally > them in an attempt to undermine support for the Kyoto Protocol. The > petition was not based on a review of the science of global climate > change, nor were its signers experts in the field of climate science. In > fact, the only criterion for signing the petition was a bachelor's degree > in science. The petition resurfaced in early 2001 in a renewed attempt > to undermine international climate treaty negotiations."
>>Thank you for this excellent editorial that I directly forwarded to my >>local congressmen. I encourage everybody to do so.
>>Stolen goods are no good merchandise as everybody should know,
>>Q
> You're welcome, of course.
> While the dishonesty and disregard for laws is a reason > to dismiss the kookery of the climate denialists, the more > compelling reason is their total lack of any data.
Since East Anglia dumped the data there is none to be had.
But if you would like to lay out proof that the globe is warming and that is a bad thing and that it's man's fault and impoverishing the US will solve the problem, please go ahead and post it.
-- Al Gore didn't invent the internet, but he did invent Global Warming.
> Thank you for this excellent editorial that I directly forwarded to my > local congressmen. I encourage everybody to do so.
> Stolen goods are no good merchandise as everybody should know,
> Q
Is that what you say when the New York Times pubnlishes classified material and endangers troops in combat or large scale attempts to disrupt terror networks?
The Pentagon Papers, officially titled United States–Vietnam Relations, 1945–1967: A Study Prepared by the Department of Defense, were a top-secret United States Department of Defense history of the United States' political- military involvement in Vietnam from 1945 to 1967. Commissioned by United States Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara in 1967, the study was completed in 1968. The papers first surfaced on the front page of the New York Times in 1971.[1]
You pathetic losers. When it's your ox getting gored it's a crime, when you are endangering the security of the United States, it's Freedom of the Press.
What a load of crap.
Anyone who is taking this position is a hypocrite of the first order.
-- Al Gore didn't invent the internet, but he did invent Global Warming.
On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 14:52:10 -0600, grey_ghost471-newsgro...@yahoo.com (Gullible Gulper) wrote:
>... the 10 Commandments
"Thou shalt not steal" doesn't seem to resonate with you, and "Thou shalt not lie" doesn't hold you back at all.
>...we all believe like >good little robots.
You're actually a defective little robot.
>... credibilities issue [sic] of it's [sic]...
You never could get educated, could you, dimwit.
On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 12:15:43 -0600, grey_ghost471-newsgro...@yahoo.com (Gullible Gulper) wrote:
>...petitionproject.org...
Wow are you ever stupid.
"The petition is a hoax. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists of the USA:
In the spring of 1998, mailboxes of US scientists flooded with packet from the "Global Warming Petition Project," including a reprint of a Wall Street Journal op-ed "Science has spoken: Global Warming Is a Myth," a copy of a faux scientific article claiming that "increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide have no deleterious effects upon global climate," a short letter signed by past-president National Academy of Sciences (NAS), Frederick Seitz, and a short petition calling for the rejection of the Kyoto Protocol on the grounds that a reduction in carbon dioxide "would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind."
The sponsor, little-known Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, tried to beguile unsuspecting scientists into believing that this packet had originated from the National Academy of the Sciences, both by referencing Seitz's past involvement with the NAS and with an article formatted to look as if it was a published article in the Academy's Proceedings, which it was not.
The NAS quickly distanced itself from the petition project, issuing a statement saying, "the petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy."
The petition project was a deliberate attempt to mislead scientists and to rally them in an attempt to undermine support for the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was not based on a review of the science of global climate change, nor were its signers experts in the field of climate science. In fact, the only criterion for signing the petition was a bachelor's degree in science. The petition resurfaced in early 2001 in a renewed attempt to undermine international climate treaty negotiations."
On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 17:45:33 -0600, grey_ghost471-newsgro...@yahoo.com (Gullible Gulper) wrote:
>... there is none to be had.
You must be really stupid to be unable to find any data.
On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 16:03:43 +0100, Raving rabbit <rab...@dot.com> wrote: >The Very Model of Sweetness and Light wrote: >> "A fair reading of the e-mails reveals nothing to support >> the denialists' conspiracy theories."
>Thank you for this excellent editorial that I directly forwarded to my >local congressmen. I encourage everybody to do so.
>Stolen goods are no good merchandise as everybody should know,
>Q
You're welcome, of course.
While the dishonesty and disregard for laws is a reason to dismiss the kookery of the climate denialists, the more compelling reason is their total lack of any data.
On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 14:38:16 -0600, grey_ghost471-newsgro...@yahoo.com (Gullible Gulper) wrote:
>... clearly don't know what is going on ...
You sure don't, Gullible Gulper.
"the hacked e-mails don't mean what they seem, and that, even if they did, it would not undercut the multiple lines of evidence showing that greenhouse-gas emissions are causing climate change."
>> On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 16:03:43 +0100, Raving rabbit <rab...@dot.com> wrote:
>>>The Very Model of Sweetness and Light wrote: >>>> "A fair reading of the e-mails reveals nothing to support >>>> the denialists' conspiracy theories."
>>>Thank you for this excellent editorial that I directly forwarded to my >>>local congressmen. I encourage everybody to do so.
>>>Stolen goods are no good merchandise as everybody should know,
>>>Q
>> You're welcome, of course.
>> While the dishonesty and disregard for laws is a reason >> to dismiss the kookery of the climate denialists, the more >> compelling reason is their total lack of any data.
> Since East Anglia dumped the data there is none to be had.
> But if you would like to lay out proof that the globe is warming and that > is > a bad thing and that it's man's fault
> and impoverishing the US will solve the > problem, please go ahead and post it.
Solving this crisis won't impoverish the US. We have to do some work though. Just sitting down on our behind, tapping multi-million year old fossil energy from the soil is not helping to solve energy and climate problems of the future. There are solutions that will get the US off foreign oil, and off dirty coal, and off limited fossil fuels, and on to a future of energy freedom. We just need to have the willpower to get off our ass and start working on it.
> -- > Al Gore didn't invent the internet, but he did invent Global Warming.
>>> On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 16:03:43 +0100, Raving rabbit <rab...@dot.com> >>> wrote:
>>>>The Very Model of Sweetness and Light wrote: >>>>> "A fair reading of the e-mails reveals nothing to support >>>>> the denialists' conspiracy theories."
>>>>Thank you for this excellent editorial that I directly forwarded to my >>>>local congressmen. I encourage everybody to do so.
>>>>Stolen goods are no good merchandise as everybody should know,
>>>>Q
>>> You're welcome, of course.
>>> While the dishonesty and disregard for laws is a reason >>> to dismiss the kookery of the climate denialists, the more >>> compelling reason is their total lack of any data.
>> Since East Anglia dumped the data there is none to be had.
>> But if you would like to lay out proof that the globe is warming and >> that is a bad thing and that it's man's fault
Sorry, but since I beleive that the UN is a corrupt organization that is converned only with how to expand it's own power and since the IPCC seems far toself serving to trust (there's a crisis and only we can fix it, give us your money and liberty), no the IPCC is not an unimpeacable source.
Plus there is this: The United Nations IPCC also publishes a research review in the form of a voluminous, occasionally-updated report on the subject of climate change, which the United Nations asserts is “authored” by approximately 600 scientists. These “authors” are not, however – as is ordinarily the custom in science – permitted power of approval the published review of which they are putative authors. They are permitted to comment on the draft text, but the final text neither conforms to nor includes many of their comments. The final text conforms instead to the United Nations objective of building support for world taxation and rationing of industrially-useful energy.
So no, I do not consider IPCC an unbiased source of anything except hogwash.
>> and impoverishing the US will solve the >> problem, please go ahead and post it.
> Solving this crisis won't impoverish the US.
So you say. So a lot of people say. But franjly we've been lied to by so mnay experts and politicians that the common sense thinking takes precedent. Our engone os stalled right now and adding weight and constraints to it can't won't help.
> We have to do some work though. Just sitting down on our behind, tapping > multi-million year old fossil energy from the soil is not helping to > solve energy and climate problems of the future. > There are solutions that will get the US off foreign oil, and off dirty > coal, and off limited fossil fuels, and on to a future of energy freedom. > We just need to have the willpower to get off our ass and start working > on it.
Oh blow me, I'm so tired of hearing about how bad oil is. Oil is the lifeblood of the industrial world. We need it here and now. So unless you are willing to give up your car and find other ways to heat your home and renounce all petro derived products, piss off. Here's a thought for you, if we don't strangle the economy and make everyone have to live a sustenance life style there will be wealth and brain power available to develop alternatives. You think that won't happen? Are youy stupid, look at the improvements made in everything in the 20th century. Yeah I know big conspiracy the EVIL OIL COMPANIES are conspiring to keep such new technology off the market. To which I say bullshit, if someone had a better mousetrap, people would buy it. This is America, you know.
And "dirty" coal. You ever even been within 300 miles of a coal fired plant, zipperhead? 'Cause I get my electructy from one barely 10 miles away. I was stunned when I saw it the first time based on the bleating of you sheep. Very clean emmissions. And yes if you dickheads fuck with that plant my energy costs will go up, substantially. Less of my wealth for what I want, more to satisfy some insane one world freaks.
>> -- >> Al Gore didn't invent the internet, but he did invent Global Warming.
> Now that we are at it : > Which 'decline' was he referring to exactly when he wrote this ? > Since when have global temperatures declined ?
As I currently understand it, Briffa's work depends on a property of annual tree ring growth known as maximum latewood density (MXD). And the MXD-only- driven plots began to diverge from actual temperatures as early as 1960. Which suggests that the tree ring data's interpetation was incorrect and calls into question all of the tree ring data collected (if one is honest).
In a nutshell they, Briffa, Jones, Mann, created proxy data based on thier particular prejudices. Thet matched thier proxies against actual temperatures for the period 1930 to 1960 and choose the one that best matched the record. Then used that proxy methodology to rpoject temperature trends. Unfortuneately the proxies didn't match after 1960 suggesting ther wer problems with the proxies which was solved by the expedient of dropping the post 1960 actual data.
And nased on the 2 charts I'm looking at showing proxy versus instrumented temperatures it seems that there is a downward trend starting the mid 20th Century of thier proxy temps that does not match the instrumented temperatures. That alone should have called their proxies into quetion.
But it didn't. They just continued to make adjustments to thier proxies until they found thier hockey stick.
> Rob
Is that a verb?
-- Al Gore didn't invent the internet, but he did invent Global Warming.
> tankfixer wrote: >> In article <gmvkh51dlp84k9mho82cffnkjc6h2m3...@4ax.com>, >> ye_olde_muleskin...@yahoo.com says... >>> On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 16:03:43 +0100, Raving rabbit <rab...@dot.com> wrote:
>>>> The Very Model of Sweetness and Light wrote: >>>>> "A fair reading of the e-mails reveals nothing to support >>>>> the denialists' conspiracy theories."
>>>> Stolen goods are no good merchandise as everybody should know,
>>>> Q >>> You're welcome, of course.
>>> While the dishonesty and disregard for laws is a reason >>> to dismiss the kookery of the climate denialists, the more >>> compelling reason is their total lack of any data.
>> About that data... >> When do you GoreBots plan on sharing it...
>>> On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 16:03:43 +0100, Raving rabbit <rab...@dot.com> wrote:
>>> >The Very Model of Sweetness and Light wrote: >>> >> "A fair reading of the e-mails reveals nothing to support >>> >> the denialists' conspiracy theories."
>>> >Thank you for this excellent editorial that I directly forwarded to my >>> >local congressmen. I encourage everybody to do so.
>>> >Stolen goods are no good merchandise as everybody should know,
>>> >Q
>>> You're welcome, of course.
>>> While the dishonesty and disregard for laws is a reason >>> to dismiss the kookery of the climate denialists, the more >>> compelling reason is their total lack of any data.
>> About that data... >> When do you GoreBots plan on sharing it...
> If you would be specific in which data exactly you want to see, then maybe > we can help you.
OK. For starters.
ALL, yes ALL of the paleodata collected, ice cores, coral reefs, etc. Then I want to see the methods used to determine temperatures from such samples. Also atmospheric CO2 and O2 percentages.
Then I want to see all of the instrumented data from 1850 forwards.
The I want to see Briffa's tree ring data and subject that to a rigorous examination as to it's ability to record temperatures, especially since it appears to not be consistent with real temperatures post 1960.
Then I want a full explantion as to how they create "proxy" data to stand in for the genreally absent data.
Then I want to know how you get land surface temperature data of a sufficient volume to make these incredible assumptions when I'm pretty sure we don't have recorders over 100% of the earth's surface nor have we ever. It's nice that you can blanket the USA with USHON stations, but what of the rest of the world? Do they meet our high standards?
You zipperheads are making me dig for answers I don't think you want to hear. But the better your questons the more rigorous I am in delving into this hoax. And the more sunlight is shone upon it, the worse it looks.
-- Al Gore didn't invent the internet, but he did invent Global Warming.
> ""Our global temperature series tallies with those of other, completely > independent, groups of scientists working for NASA and the National > Climate Data Centre in the United States, among others. Even if you were > to ignore our findings, theirs show the same results. The facts speak for > themselves; there is no need for anyone to manipulate them.""
Would those be actual temperature series or proxy temperature series? If proxy, on what are they based? And how are they generated?
>>Thank you for this excellent editorial that I directly forwarded to my >>local congressmen. I encourage everybody to do so.
>>Stolen goods are no good merchandise as everybody should know,
>>Q
> You're welcome, of course.
> While the dishonesty and disregard for laws is a reason > to dismiss the kookery of the climate denialists, the more > compelling reason is their total lack of any data.
-- Al Gore didn't invent the internet, but he did invent Global Warming.
>> >> On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 16:03:43 +0100, Raving rabbit <rab...@dot.com> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >The Very Model of Sweetness and Light wrote: >> >> >> "A fair reading of the e-mails reveals nothing to support >> >> >> the denialists' conspiracy theories."
>> >> >Thank you for this excellent editorial that I directly forwarded to >> >> >my local congressmen. I encourage everybody to do so.
>> >> >Stolen goods are no good merchandise as everybody should know,
>> >> >Q
>> >> You're welcome, of course.
>> >> While the dishonesty and disregard for laws is a reason >> >> to dismiss the kookery of the climate denialists, the more >> >> compelling reason is their total lack of any data.
>> > About that data... >> > When do you GoreBots plan on sharing it...
>> If you would be specific in which data exactly you want to see, then >> maybe we can help you.
> The data that the East Anglia researchers origially used. > And admit to having deleted/destroyed...
> Or the data that a climate researcher has been trying to get out of NASA > for the last year with no success.
It's more complicated than that. The more I questioned and the more I was questioned the deeper I've been looking. It is easy to be sandbagged by these yokels if you don't know what exactly was done and how and why.
There is the paleodata (core samples for going way back), the instrumented data (the more recently recorded data which doens't go back very far and which has some rarther staggering flaws in it s collectiuon, the historical data meaning reported temperatures after we invented a way to get an objective measure but before organized collection started and the observcational data meaning tree rings data which goes back a long way but is also relevant up to this very moment.
Then there is the "proxy" data. Which is the computer generated data. The data was produced by an application whichn it appears to me (a professional programmer) some extremely serious flaws, not the least of which it failed a very basic test. Results in one area did not meet actual facts in any way. Post 1960 tree ring data (actual physical measures) were quite different from the generated data.
When this happens you are supposed to question the model you've contructed, the assumptions you've made, your calculations, etc. They chose to dick around with the data. Until the results fit the theory.
I beleive the reason the dog ate thier data was because if you have the original data you can then run your models and compare them to what really happened. Without a way to see if the models are correct then you have to take thier word for it.
-- Al Gore didn't invent the internet, but he did invent Global Warming.
>>> It would be wasier for them to read with thier heads out of thier asses.
>>> You don't find this illuminating?
>>> From: Michael Mann <m...@meteo.psu.edu> >>> To: Kevin Trenberth <trenb...@ucar.edu> >>> Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate >>> Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 10:53:52 -0400 >>> Cc: Tom Wigley <wig...@ucar.edu>, Stephen H Schneider >>> <s...@stanford.edu>, Myles Allen <al...@atm.ox.ac.uk>, peter stott >>> <peter.st...@metoffice.gov.uk>, "Philip D. Jones" <p.jo...@uea.ac.uk>, >>> Benjamin Santer <sant...@llnl.gov>, Thomas R Karl >>> <Thomas.R.K...@noaa.gov>, Gavin Schmidt <gschm...@giss.nasa.gov>, James >>> Hansen <jhan...@giss.nasa.gov>, Michael Oppenheimer >>> <omich...@Princeton.EDU>
>>> thanks Kevin, yes, it's a matter of what question one is asking. to >>> argue >>> that the observed global mean temperature anomalies of the past decade >>> falsifies the model projections of global mean temperature change, as >>> contrarians have been fond of claiming, is clearly wrong. but that >>> doesn't mean we can explain exactly what's going on. there is always the >>> danger of falling a bit into the "we don't know everything, so we know >>> nothing" fallacy. hence, I wanted to try to clarify where we all agree, >>> and where there may be disagreement,
>>> mike
>>> On Oct 14, 2009, at 10:36 AM, Kevin Trenberth wrote:
>>> Mike >>> Here are some of the issues as I see them: >>> Saying it is natural variability is not an explanation. What are the >>> physical processes? >>> Where did the heat go? >>> **************************
>>> Where did the heat go? Are you kidding?
>> <chuckle> If they can't figure out thermodynamics as taught in >> universities, there is no hope or trust in their >> findings. :D
> It's not just that, it's that they clearly don't know what is going on well > enough to make any absolute claims.
Exactly. I'm always astounded by their claims. I remember when the US Patent office back in the early 1900s saying that everything that can be invented has been invented and we will have to shut down. Better, is when one turns around and actually does what others consider impossible... like alternating current was supposed to be impossible.
-- Common sense is the collection of prejudices aquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein
>"Rob Dekker" <r...@verific.com> wrote in news:AbCdnfk80sZZ-YbWnZ2dnUVZ_u2dnZ2d@giganews.com: >> "Gray Ghost" <grey_ghost471-newsgro...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:Xns9CD8BEE223A5Wereofftoseethewizrd@216.196.97.142... >>> The Very Model of Sweetness and Light <ye_olde_muleskin...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:gmvkh51dlp84k9mho82cffnkjc6h2m389n@4ax.com: >>>> On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 16:03:43 +0100, Raving rabbit <rab...@dot.com> wrote: >>>>>The Very Model of Sweetness and Light wrote: >>>>>> "A fair reading of the e-mails reveals nothing to support >>>>>> the denialists' conspiracy theories." >>>>>> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7273/full/462545a.html >>>>>Thank you for this excellent editorial that I directly forwarded to my >>>>>local congressmen. I encourage everybody to do so. >>>>>Stolen goods are no good merchandise as everybody should know, >>>> You're welcome, of course. >>>> While the dishonesty and disregard for laws is a reason >>>> to dismiss the kookery of the climate denialists, the more >>>> compelling reason is their total lack of any data. >>> Since East Anglia dumped the data there is none to be had. >>> But if you would like to lay out proof that the globe is warming and >>> that is a bad thing and that it's man's fault >> OK. Here are a thousand+ papers for you to consider : >> http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/technical-papers/ccw/references.pdf
>Sorry, but since I beleive [sic]
You'd not need your false beliefs if you could learn facts and think about them.
>...converned [sic] only with how to expand it's [sic] own ... >... not an unimpeacable [sic] source.
You must be truly subliterate to post such rubbish.
Your total incapacity to dispute the data provided to you remains, of course, too.
>... But franjly [sic] we've been lied to by so mnay [sic]
Your idol Rush Limbaugh is definitely a liar.
>...engone [sic] os [sic] stalled right now and adding weight and constraints to it can't >won't help.
If you could have learned basic language skills, perhaps you wouldn't have been duped so easily.
>... I'm so tired ...
You're also really stupid.
>... electructy [sic]... emmissions [sic]...
Even a basic spellchecker is too difficult for you to use, isn't it.
>As I currently understand it...
There's no evidence that you would understand much of anything.
"Human activity has been increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (mostly carbon dioxide from combustion of coal, oil, and gas; plus a few other trace gases). There is no scientific debate on this point."
>> ""Our global temperature series tallies with those of other, completely >> independent, groups of scientists working for NASA and the National >> Climate Data Centre in the United States, among others. Even if you were >> to ignore our findings, theirs show the same results. The facts speak for >> themselves; there is no need for anyone to manipulate them.""
>Would those be actual temperature series or proxy temperature series? If >proxy, on what are they based? And how are they generated?
Are you too stupid to do any research at all, or even contact the source?
>> On Sat, 5 Dec 2009 20:50:35 -0800, tankfixer <paul.carr...@gmail.com> >> wrote:
>>>About that data...
>> You could find it for yourself if you weren't incapable.
>> On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 16:03:43 +0100, Raving rabbit <rab...@dot.com> wrote:
>>>The Very Model of Sweetness and Light wrote: >>>> "A fair reading of the e-mails reveals nothing to support >>>> the denialists' conspiracy theories."
>>>Thank you for this excellent editorial that I directly forwarded to my >>>local congressmen. I encourage everybody to do so.
>>>Stolen goods are no good merchandise as everybody should know,
>>>Q
>> You're welcome, of course.
>> While the dishonesty and disregard for laws is a reason >> to dismiss the kookery of the climate denialists, the more >> compelling reason is their total lack of any data.
> > In article <L7udnS5wGadi-4bWnZ2dnUVZ_umdn...@giganews.com>, > > r...@verific.com says...
> >> "tankfixer" <paul.carr...@gmail.com> wrote in message > >> news:MPG.2584d7f97d88f612a96@news.bytemine.net... > >> > In article <gmvkh51dlp84k9mho82cffnkjc6h2m3...@4ax.com>, > >> > ye_olde_muleskin...@yahoo.com says...
> >> >> On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 16:03:43 +0100, Raving rabbit <rab...@dot.com> > >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >The Very Model of Sweetness and Light wrote: > >> >> >> "A fair reading of the e-mails reveals nothing to support > >> >> >> the denialists' conspiracy theories."
> >> >> >Thank you for this excellent editorial that I directly forwarded to > >> >> >my local congressmen. I encourage everybody to do so.
> >> >> >Stolen goods are no good merchandise as everybody should know,
> >> >> >Q
> >> >> You're welcome, of course.
> >> >> While the dishonesty and disregard for laws is a reason > >> >> to dismiss the kookery of the climate denialists, the more > >> >> compelling reason is their total lack of any data.
> >> > About that data... > >> > When do you GoreBots plan on sharing it...
> >> If you would be specific in which data exactly you want to see, then > >> maybe we can help you.
> > The data that the East Anglia researchers origially used. > > And admit to having deleted/destroyed...
> > Or the data that a climate researcher has been trying to get out of NASA > > for the last year with no success.
> It's more complicated than that. The more I questioned and the more I was > questioned the deeper I've been looking. It is easy to be sandbagged by these > yokels if you don't know what exactly was done and how and why.
> There is the paleodata (core samples for going way back), the instrumented > data (the more recently recorded data which doens't go back very far and > which has some rarther staggering flaws in it > s collectiuon, the historical data meaning reported temperatures after we > invented a way to get an objective measure but before organized collection > started and the observcational data meaning tree rings data which goes back a > long way but is also relevant up to this very moment.
> Then there is the "proxy" data. Which is the computer generated data. The > data was produced by an application whichn it appears to me (a professional > programmer) some extremely serious flaws, not the least of which it failed a > very basic test. Results in one area did not meet actual facts in any way. > Post 1960 tree ring data (actual physical measures) were quite different from > the generated data.
> When this happens you are supposed to question the model you've contructed, > the assumptions you've made, your calculations, etc. They chose to dick > around with the data. Until the results fit the theory.
> I beleive the reason the dog ate thier data was because if you have the > original data you can then run your models and compare them to what really > happened. Without a way to see if the models are correct then you have to > take thier word for it.
I know. And they are suspect as well. Now if any of you people can read the actual computer code and know what it means you'd finally understand that the whole thing is a total outright scam. They want your money thru heavy taxes.
-- Common sense is the collection of prejudices aquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein
|
