Trivia question: how many weather stations are there to report on temperature from the Arctic (including the Arctic ocean, Canada, Russia, Greenland, and the rest of the Arctic)?
I'm posting it before I have scanned carefully through the entire page, but at first glance it does look like there are a good number of weather stations in and around the Arctic ...
Originally posted by fierobear: The science of the time, which was SPECTACTUARLY WRONG. Another point you completely miss.
To whom? Warmist scientists whose livelihood depends on grant money to prove warming? You've gotta be KIDDING.
Show you facts. I said facts now not some random quote from one guy 10 years ago.
Yeah, the emails to the authors of the studies you are questioning. Man up and let them know you've discovered flaws in their work and see what they say. You're so confident in your position on here why not prove yourself to the ones you really have issue with?
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 12-20-2010).]
Trivia question: how many weather stations are there to report on temperature from the Arctic (including the Arctic ocean, Canada, Russia, Greenland, and the rest of the Arctic)?
Wait which arguement are you going with now? The data is false or it's true but they can't read it right or they read it right but it actually shows something other than what they are saying? Ironic that your position seems to change as much as the weather does.
Originally posted by fierobear: Based on what, NASA GISS? What a f***ing joke.
Trivia question: how many weather stations are there to report on temperature from the Arctic (including the Arctic ocean, Canada, Russia, Greenland, and the rest of the Arctic)?
NASA GISS a f***ing joke? I don''t think so ...
quote
GISS uses publicly available data from three sources to conduct its temperature analysis. The sources are weather data from more than a thousand meteorological stations around the world, satellite observations of sea surface temperatures, and Antarctic research station measurements.
It's no joke, it is policy driven deception and fraud.... read the link. It is over 200 pages but worth the read.
Surface Temperature Records: Policy Driven Deception? This 111-page paper from the Science and Public Policy Institute examines how the three data centers collecting terrestrial temperatures (NASA, NOAA and the Hadley CRU) collaborated to reduce the number of climate measuring stations and manipulated data so as to overstate 20th century warming. http://scienceandpublicpoli...als/surface_temp.pdf
You need to go back and read the emails again. Here is a good link
The Science and Public Policy Institute has published a 149-page analysis by Australian physicist, John Costella, of the "Climategate" affair - the release of the emails from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. Dr. Costella begins by explaining why Climategate is so distressing to scientists. He then introduces the main characters (Michael Mann, Phil Jones, Tom Wigley, Keith Biffa and Ben Santer) and conducts a chronological examination of the key emails, including excerpts and a link to each email quoted. http://scienceandpublicpoli...ategate_analysis.pdf
The models used by NASA and the IPCC depend on the theoretically induced "hot spot" generated by increased water vapour around the equator. This theory has proven to be dead wrong. There is no "hot spot" and therefore the models predicting catastrophic global warming are further flawed. Read about this at
In reporting on retractions in the Sunday Times of London and an outlet in Frankfort, Germany, Newsweek called “Climategate” a “highly orchestrated, manufactured scandal.”
The Guardian UK reported on July 8 that: “Nothing about the so-called “Climategate” affair challenges the fact that climate change is real, urgent and increasing.”
On July 1, Time, in a post entitled “Climategate” Continues to Crumble,” wrote of the Mann exoneration: “Mann’s acquittal is just the most recent bit of news showing that “Climategate” – and the wave of climate skepticism that seemed to arise at the beginning of the year – had little basis.” It went on to report that: “It’s long since time to deal with the consequences, and stop arguing about the footnotes.”
Editorial writer, Eugene Robinson in The Washington Post, similarly concluded that the messages “do not suggest any fudging of data, according to a report issued Wednesday by a blue-ribbon panel in Britain, where the e-mails were hacked.”
In an editorial on July 10,The New York Times asserted: “Perhaps now we can put the manufactured controversy known as “Climategate” behind us and turn to the task of actually doing something about global warming.”
In the wake of multiple exonerations, on July 22 The Los Angeles Times reminded readers that: “[I]nvestigations have shown that the e-mails amounted to little more than fits of pique. The most recent review, conducted by an independent team funded by the University of East Anglia, found no evidence that the researchers had undermined scientific findings by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change or any other group, and that they neither withheld access to data nor tampered with it.”
SPPI - Exec. Director/President - Robert (Bob) Furguson
Ferguson was previously the initial Executive Director of the Center for Science and Public Policy (CSSP), a project of the corporate-funded Frontiers of Freedom Institute (FOF).[3] Exxon had provided $100,000 in 2002 specifically for the "Center for Sound Science and Public Policy" (sic) as well as a further $97,000 for "Global Climate Change Outreach Activities", and a further $35,000 for "Global Climate Change Science Projects";[4] In subsequent years Exxon continued it support for the project including $50,000 for "Project Support - Sound Science Center" in 2003[5], $70,000 for "Project Support- Science Center & Climate Change" in 2004;[6] $140,000 to the organization in 2005 but without a specific amount for CSPP identified, $90,000 for the "Science & Policy Center" in 2006[7] and $90,000 for "energy literacy" in 2007.[8] http://www.sourcewatch.org/...ic_Policy_Institute)
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 12-20-2010).]
I'm posting it before I have scanned carefully through the entire page, but at first glance it does look like there are a good number of weather stations in and around the Arctic ...
I read that they extrapolated the entire arctic from ONE station. I'll try to find that.
In the meantime, here is a good write up on the disparity between the GISS surface temp data and satellite data, and the UHI effect:
Show you facts. I said facts now not some random quote from one guy 10 years ago.
I just did, you dimwit. The "one guy" is a SCIENTIST from the UK's Hadley Center. The reason why I posted a quote from a scientist from 10 years ago is that if the warming is accelerating like they claim, and snowfall is alleged to disappear, then the snowfall from the last few years shows that they were very wrong about that conclusion.
quote
Yeah, the emails to the authors of the studies you are questioning. Man up and let them know you've discovered flaws in their work and see what they say. You're so confident in your position on here why not prove yourself to the ones you really have issue with?
I just did, you dimwit. The "one guy" is a SCIENTIST from the UK's Hadley Center. The reason why I posted a quote from a scientist from 10 years ago is that if the warming is accelerating like they claim, and snowfall is alleged to disappear, then the snowfall from the last few years shows that they were very wrong about that conclusion.
What would be the point?
Awwww back to name calling?
OK so what that one gentleman was quoted as saying 10 years ago proves that he was speaking for the scientific community or even his organization? Quite the stretch there.
The point? Prove your theory instead of spouting claims and insults to people that don't believe you. man up and confront the source of your problem.
What's the matter Colonel Sanders?
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 12-20-2010).]
Yeah, newf, because you're being a dimwit. Seriously. You say you believe the science, I present a quote from a scientist...a WARMING scientist...
quote
OK so what that one gentleman was quoted as saying 10 years ago proves that he was speaking for the scientific community or even his organization? Quite the stretch there.
...who works for the Hadley Center, who produce the HadCRUT temperature data set. It doesn't get more official than that. And you dismiss it. That makes you sound like a dimwit.
quote
The point? Prove your theory instead of spouting claims and insults to people that don't believe you. man up and confront the source of your problem.
What's the matter Colonel Sanders?
How would my sending emails to the scientists have any effect? I'll email anyone and say anything to them if I thought it would matter. It would be a waste of time, not a matter of being "chicken".
Why, so they can accuse me of being employed by big oil? I'd rather focus my efforts on political opposition, which I do.
I see, you already know what they will say to you, so you can't be bothered. haha, I didn't think you would, just wanted to see if you would put up or shut up. It seems you won't do either...I can't say I'm surprised.
I see, you already know what they will say to you, so you can't be bothered. haha, I didn't think you would, just wanted to see if you would put up or shut up. It seems you won't do either...I can't say I'm surprised.
Keep on truckin, man.
I've already seen what they do. "realclimate.org" is a good example. Others, including climate scientists, have tried to debate the subject there and their posts get deleted.
I've already seen what they do. "realclimate.org" is a good example. Others, including climate scientists, have tried to debate the subject there and their posts get deleted.
I already told you I'm not surprised, just let it go if you are afraid to. It's OK, just thought you might want an opportunity to prove yourself and your knowledge on the matter. Maybe you'll realize that you don't "know" and just have an opinion on Climate Change like most everyone else.
I already told you I'm not surprised, just let it go if you are afraid to. It's OK, just thought you might want an opportunity to prove yourself and your knowledge on the matter. Maybe you'll realize that you don't "know" and just have an opinion on Climate Change like most everyone else.
Wow, you've gotten this whole thing wrong. It's not about me "proving myself and my knowledge", it's about sharing information that I find. Global warming is a SCAM and must be stopped before our governments waste horribly large amounts of money on a non-issue. THAT'S what this is about, it's not about me, newf. Period.
Wow, you've gotten this whole thing wrong. It's not about me "proving myself and my knowledge", it's about sharing information that I find. Global warming is a SCAM and must be stopped before our governments waste horribly large amounts of money on a non-issue. THAT'S what this is about, it's not about me, newf. Period.
At least you finally admit you only have an opinion and don't know. We're making progress.
Wait, the facts are right there with dates of the media retractions. Are you saying they're made up?
First off you have to assume the report is quoted accurately, then you have to assume the reporter got it right.
And yes, the IPCC has proven it will lie to get its ends. It is logical to confirm everything you read on their website independently.
For the record, the enquiry that was done and absolved the scientists was done by their peers, the original old boys club. And if you have read their actual report, they find the science methodology was sound, not the actual facts being correct. In fact, they conveniently did not address the lack of weather stations in diverse locations, and the placing of weather stations in heat islands.
First off you have to assume the report is quoted accurately, then you have to assume the reporter got it right.
And yes, the IPCC has proven it will lie to get its ends. It is logical to confirm everything you read on their website independently.
For the record, the enquiry that was done and absolved the scientists was done by their peers, the original old boys club. And if you have read their actual report, they find the science methodology was sound, not the actual facts being correct. In fact, they conveniently did not address the lack of weather stations in diverse locations, and the placing of weather stations in heat islands.
Find another more reliable source.
Arn
Why would I need to? You are the one doing the assuming. Prove it wrong.
BTW last I heard it was no less than four independent investigations into the contents of these emails – conducted by scientists, universities, and governments, all coming to the same conclusion "absolutely no science was compromised by the contents of the emails. The CRU scientists weren’t as good as they should have been about making data easily accessible to others, but that was the only real criticism. These scientists are not frauds, although they are accused of it on a daily basis."
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 12-20-2010).]
LOL you call me "assuming". Well, you "assumed" that everything Al Gore told you, and the IPCC told you is the truth and never bothered to challenge it. So who is assuming? You or me? I am the critic and you are the assumptive one.
Now you assume that Global Warming is legit and this thread is full of information challenging that premise. I think it is for you to prove, not me. I think they are a bunch of crooks. You are the babe in the woods.
LOL you call me "assuming". Well, you "assumed" that everything Al Gore told you, and the IPCC told you is the truth and never bothered to challenge it. So who is assuming? You or me? I am the critic and you are the assumptive one.
Now you assume that Global Warming is legit and this thread is full of information challenging that premise. I think it is for you to prove, not me. I think they are a bunch of crooks. You are the babe in the woods.
Arn
Hahaha keep trying, I love it when people ASSUME to know me on here. I try not to assume too much and who the hell said I assumed or believed everything Al Gore said? Or are you assuming yet again?
You think they are bunch of crooks? Or you "Know" they are?
I'm sure you can use the emails I gave the other "expert" and submit your theories. Be a hero and save the world from the scam.
Or go ahead and think whatever you want but don't pretend to "know" and don't think that everyone that doesn't share your thoughts is somehow less than you.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 12-20-2010).]
Why would I need to? You are the one doing the assuming. Prove it wrong.
BTW last I heard it was no less than four independent investigations into the contents of these emails – conducted by scientists, universities, and governments, all coming to the same conclusion "absolutely no science was compromised by the contents of the emails. The CRU scientists weren’t as good as they should have been about making data easily accessible to others, but that was the only real criticism. These scientists are not frauds, although they are accused of it on a daily basis."
It was the fox investigating the henhouse. The investigations were conducted by the agencies on THEMSELVES. Given that climate science brings in millions of grant money for these universities and other agencies, the conclusion was foregone. Given the circumstances, I expected nothing other than a whitewash, and that's what we got.
It was the fox investigating the henhouse. The investigations were conducted by the agencies on THEMSELVES. Given that climate science brings in millions of grant money for these universities and other agencies, the conclusion was foregone. Given the circumstances, I expected nothing other than a whitewash, and that's what we got.
hahahaha of course, keep spinning and changing tacts. You are the expert.
It was the fox investigating the henhouse. The investigations were conducted by the agencies on THEMSELVES. Given that climate science brings in millions of grant money for these universities and other agencies, the conclusion was foregone. Given the circumstances, I expected nothing other than a whitewash, and that's what we got.
That's the problem with "peer reviews". They are done by people of like minds. Never a good thing, because it is impossible to arrive at a truely independant and unbiased result.
That's the problem with "peer reviews". They are done by people of like minds. Never a good thing, because it is impossible to arrive at a truely independant and unbiased result.
We are not talking about all peer reviews however these were investigations as far as I know. And you don't think there are people in any community of peers that would absolutely love to prove others wrong?
We are not talking about all peer reviews however these were investigations as far as I know. And you don't think there are people in any community of peers that would absolutely love to prove others wrong?
Not when they all are depending on both the grant money *and* not getting their reputations trashed by being wrong about something. Especially with all the predictions of disaster, scary talk and arm waving.
Not when they all are depending on both the grant money *and* not getting their reputations trashed by being wrong about something. Especially with all the predictions of disaster, scary talk and arm waving.
Wait..... the independent investigations were based on grants and they lied to protect their reputations?
I'm guessing you have reputable proof of all this, or do you just "know" it? Being an expert and all.
