OT: AGW - to what depths will those crooks sink?

SNIP

Now you sound like an apologist for AGW.

Emails which discuss criminal behaviour such as deleting data subject to a freedom of information request and physical assault show an immaturity level of an undergrad on drugs. Several of the emails discussing deleting emails and data are prima facie evidence of a criminal conspiracy.

Such emails discovered in a business, even as small as mine, would lead to an escort with a black sack to help you clear your desk.

These "scientists" are so childish that they can not control what they write. Yet we are expected to accept their output without question?

SNIP

I do not see the required he level of taxation and interference in the economy as benign, relative or otherwise.

However that is a political judgement and where you or I stand on this is down to being a leftist weanie or right wing not or somewhere inbetween. It is not about science. And that is the point AGW is a political debate.

SNIP

(snip)

I am sorry you have so much trouble making sense of things.

With old mercury thermometers someone had to trudge out to the site perhaps no more often than twice a day depending on location. Later recording thermometers captured temperture swings throughout the full night and day. There could be other issues as well, we do not know since neither of us are experts in the field.

Why specifically do you EXPECT it to average out, and to what level,

0.000001 deg? 0.1 deg.? 10.0 deg? Announcing conclusions about a large set of data without analyzing the data is arrogant bullshit. Perhaps later automation allowed more stations to be placed in remote or mountainous areas that are colder and previously undersampled. Neither of us knows for sure.

I can think of at least one very easily: snow storms hindered access to non-automated stations.

Ubanization would make some stations trend up, but does that fully negate other effects or only partially, and how much? One would have to re-do a very complicated analysis to know for sure.

The point is it is ridiculous to argue the minutiae of a complicated scientific field without a serious study of ALL the issues and a thorough understanding of the scientific method. The climate change issue has suddenly spawned many amateur climatologists such as yourself who seem only motivated by ideology and can not see the obvious such as what I pointed out above.

You clearly didn't bother to look at the link I posted. It is for a site run my a professional meterologist. So I am willing to believe he knows how to measure temperature. When you see working climate stations measuring in parking lots and on the roof near air conditioners you know that current measurements are inaccurate. You don't have to go further than the home page to see there is a problem in the US with the source data for temperature measurement.

And not just the US. There is a related survey project over here in the UK.

And I know how to measure temperature, I've been designing and manufacturing temperature and humidity measuring kit since 1981 and I know how to use it and how it used and installed. So just because you don't understand something doesn't mean every one else is the same.

Gunner Asch wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

it's ridiculous to think that humans have such an effect on global climate,and even more foolish to believe that humans can do anything to change it in the direction they want.Most foolish is the viewpoint that nations of the world are going to work together to "combat climate change".

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

There are certainly genetic characteristics that make some people more suceptable to various cancers. I'm not aware of any human populations that are immune to cancer. Some animals, like sharks, seem to be nearly immune to cancer. That's probably a consequence of being "perfectly evolved", which has its own dangers.

Are you one of those people like Rich who consider themselves immune to cancer, because of your genetics or your attitude?

Do you smoke?

John

On Fri, 4 Dec 2009 17:23:59 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman wrote:>

--
According to their web site it\'s the "National Climate Data Center".

 
JF

At least you are thinking about the question. The deniers all just accept the position of industry, period. They accept whatever industry says, which is, don't blame us for global warming, which doesn't exist anyway. They scientists will say whatever the data tells them. They don't have a side. All they are supposed to do is collect data and analyze it. If it says the temperature variations of the planet over the last 150 years fall within the normal range then that is what they would say. If the data says the temperature is rising faster than it should be due to normal variation that is what they would say, and that is what they have said.

All one needs to keep in mind is what are the corporate interests who are producing large amounts of greenhouse gases saying. Because whatever they say it needs to be questioned just because they have a conflict of interest on the issue. If it is proven they are causing the planet to heat up they will be penalized. They will want to avoid this. This is their bias. Knowing this you can't just accept it as gospel when they deny they have a role in global warming. That is unless you are the blind follower type.

Hawke

And the scientists are funded by the politicians to a vastly greater extent than industry funds denialists.

Knowing this you can't accept as gospel anything the scientists say.

And what do you make of industry funding climate research?

The dispute between enviromentalists and the heavy industry appears to be US specific, since in Europe, even the heavy industry is using quite green themes in their slogans in order to maintain profitability.

This would be the correct scientific approach, but based on the leaked e-mails, quite significant manipulation of the data was used to fit the initial assumptions.

A true scientist would do that, but unfortunately the IPCC "scientists" did not (pre 1850).

Tax write off?

Propaganda has always been more sucessful in Europe

Gunner

"First Law of Leftist Debate The more you present a leftist with factual evidence that is counter to his preconceived world view and the more difficult it becomes for him to refute it without losing face the chance of him calling you a racist, bigot, homophobe approaches infinity.

This is despite the thread you are in having not mentioned race or sexual preference in any way that is relevant to the subject." Grey Ghost

The freedom of Information Act is a piece of US legislation (and one that I happen to approve of).

U.K. scientists are entirely entitled to get around foreign legislation - no matter how criminal their behaviour might have been if they had be subject to the US legislation - so they weren't taking part in any criminal conspiracy.

It could be argued that the freedom of information requests were entirely frivolous, and purely intended to harrass. the researchers involved. The UK statute book used to recognises the crime of barratry and it is still an offsnse in some parts of the US.

Only if the business were subject to US legislation.

Interesting question, coming from Ravinghorde.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

".

Jim Yanik beleives that he can ridicule the idea the we have burnt enough fossil carbon to raise the CO2 content of the atmosphere from

280ppm (before 1750) to 385ppm at tthe moment.

This just means that he doesn't know what he is talking about. I could refer him to the ice core data (from Greeland and Antartica) for evidence of CO2 levels in the past, and to the Mauna Loa obsevsations (for the last 50 years)

but if he had the education to appreciate this evidence he wouldn't have just made an ass of himself.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

And your evidnece is?

Not the conclusion of the majority of the world's climatologists.

Who'd make just as - or as little - money from their academic speciality if anthropogenic global warming wasn't happening.

The current terms of abuse are ill-informed and ignorant, but theses are more or less unavoidable, granting the intellectual content (or more precsiely the lack of it) in the arguments coming from the denialist side.

Granting that you are a rightist, Grey Ghost seems to have got it the wrong way around.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

hree

n

Which must be a great comfort to every one of that smaller number.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

ee

But more people seem to be susceptible to lung cancer if they have been exposed to asbestos - they get lung cancer five times more frequently than the general population, which isn't actually as bad as being exposed to tobacco smoke (11 times worse) or being a smoker who has been eexposed to asbestos (16 times worse).

And since we don't yet know in advance who is - or isn't - going to be susceptible to lung cancer, it probably isn't a good idea to assume that you are one of the lucky ones who aren't.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

s n t

ing

For the obvious reason that scientists are being funded to do research, and the denialists are being funded to produce propaganda.

Climate research isn't actually all that expensive - give or take the occasional satellite launch, but the politicians have also funded the Hubble space telescope and a couple of other satellite observatories, and you don't accuse astronomers of faking their results

Not everybody in industry is quite as crazily unrealistic as the guy that used to run Exxon-Mobil.

King Canute was consciously making a point when he told the tide to turn back. Exxon-Mobil clearly failed to get that particular message.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

ng

The level of proof that is currently available is more than enough to convince anybody who understands the evidence. Your problem isn't scepticism, but ignorance, coupled with a slightly irrational enthusiasm for conspiracy theories.

So how much of a disaster will you need before you are convinced?

One of the more depressing things about the science is that we haven't yet got the fiull benefit of the CO2 we have already injected into the atmosphere. 30% of it has gone into the oceans, which are warming up rather more slowly than the dry land.

The ice core data tells us that it takes the oceans about 800 years to move to a new equilibrium, so at some point the oceans are going to give us back that 30% and a little bit more besides, and we may get the benefit of the descomposition of a whole lot of methane hydrates as a bonus. The methane hydrates don't seem to have cut loose for the past 55 million years, but when they did cut loose they pushed up the global temeprature by some 6 =B0C

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen