Gore-Backed Car Firm Gets Large U.S. Loan. Piece of **** onlyruns 50 miles on a charge!

"dr_jeff" > wrote in message
...
> hls wrote:

>
> What are temporal cooling effects?
>
> Yet, we're increasing greenhouse gases. Does this sound like the
> intelligent choice?
>
> jeff

Temporal effects as in short term cooling and heating cycles, identifiable
but seeming to contradict (to some) the upward trend.

Increasing greenhouse gases doesnt seem to be wise, hence the nest comment.

dr_jeff wrote:
> PeterD wrote:
>> On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 18:45:10 -0400, dr_jeff > wrote:
>>
>>> Bill Putney wrote:
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> If it's so imaginary, why does every national science academy in the
>>>>> world say it's real?...
>>>> News flash: They don't. You're way behind on your reading, or just
>>>> tend to ignore what you choose to because it doesn't fit the idiot
>>>> agenda. Or you're looking at the data that NASA and others faked and
>>>> compiled before they were forced to correct it and they conveniently
>>>> hid it in hard to find pages of their web site.
>>> What data did NASA fake and compile? Please prove that they faked it.
>>> And, what do the corrected data show?
>>
>> This is common knowledge, they used bad data, got bad results. Then
>> they covered up... Been well documented.
>
> Gee, then it should be easy to support your claim.

It is - for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear the truth.
You'll have to find it yourself. If we spoon-fed it to you, you'd not
believe it anyway. You'll believe what you want anyway. In fact, it's
been documented before on this very news group - there - your homework
is mostly done for you. But you still won't believe it.

>>>>> Every scientific organization?...
>>>> News flash: They don't. You're way behind on your reading, or just
>>>> tend to ignore what you choose to because it doesn't fit the idiot
>>>> agenda. Or you're looking at the data that NASA and others faked and
>>>> compiled before they were forced to correct it and they conveniently
>>>> hid it in hard to find pages of their web site.
>>> So the only data that the scientific organizations used where those
>>> from NASA? Or was there other data that they looked at?
>>
>> Huh?
>
> You're saying that NASA lied about its data. These are not the only data
> that climatologists use to understand climate and climate change. Nor
> are the data in question that only data that NASA has.

Funny how before the mistakes were revealed the GW'ers would always
point to the NASA data and say "LOOK - the most respected scientific
organization of the U.S. Gov't says so - so it is indisputable", then
when it turns out they faked data - and on more than one occasion - it's
"These are not the only data that climatologists use to understand
climate and climate change".

Read up on the "hockey stick curve" that Al Gore used to "prove" global
warming. Turns out that no matter what numbers you plug into the
formula used to create the curve creates the same general shape curve of
increasing temperature over time. That's just one example of majorly
faked non-NASA data. There also the Cascades Mountains snow pack data
faking (actually cherry picking mins and max's to force the conclusion)
- Assistant State Climatologist in Washintgton state got removed from
his position for blowing the whistle on that one - that's how honest and
pure they were about "science". When data was corrected, it showed the
warming that was claimed was a lie. Duh!

Hints for NASA: (1) Don't claim your data is scientific when you control
your temperature measuring stations and data so sloppily that you allow
air conditioning units to be installed a few feet away from the station
and then soon after report a temperature rise. (2) When you falsify
October's data by copying over September's data to show warming over the
previous year, be aware that when you have to copy one day twice to make
a 30 day month fit the 31 day month, once people see the mistake and
correct the data, it will be pretty obvious that it had to be
intentional fakery. Nice try. Busted! (3) Oh - and don't launch
satellites to monitor actual temperatures that contradict the trends
"proven" by the faulty terrestrial based measurement data and throw all
of your faulty warming models into a cocked hat.

> Really? Why does Science and Nature, the preeminent science journals in
> the world both say otherwise?

You'd have to ask them. Vested interests in perpetuating the myth? But
really - you'd have to ask them.

--
Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

Bill Putney wrote:
> dr_jeff wrote:
>> PeterD wrote:
>>> On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 18:45:10 -0400, dr_jeff > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bill Putney wrote:
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> If it's so imaginary, why does every national science academy in the
>>>>>> world say it's real?...
>>>>> News flash: They don't. You're way behind on your reading, or just
>>>>> tend to ignore what you choose to because it doesn't fit the idiot
>>>>> agenda. Or you're looking at the data that NASA and others faked
>>>>> and compiled before they were forced to correct it and they
>>>>> conveniently hid it in hard to find pages of their web site.
>>>> What data did NASA fake and compile? Please prove that they faked
>>>> it. And, what do the corrected data show?
>>>
>>> This is common knowledge, they used bad data, got bad results. Then
>>> they covered up... Been well documented.
>>
>> Gee, then it should be easy to support your claim.
>
> It is - for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear the truth.
> You'll have to find it yourself. If we spoon-fed it to you, you'd not
> believe it anyway. You'll believe what you want anyway. In fact, it's
> been documented before on this very news group - there - your homework
> is mostly done for you. But you still won't believe it.

Yes, I looked at it. It turns out NASA correct the data, and it is still
clear that the globe is getting warming.

So, no, you can't support your claim. If you think you can, go ahead.

>>>>>> Every scientific organization?...
>>>>> News flash: They don't. You're way behind on your reading, or just
>>>>> tend to ignore what you choose to because it doesn't fit the idiot
>>>>> agenda. Or you're looking at the data that NASA and others faked
>>>>> and compiled before they were forced to correct it and they
>>>>> conveniently hid it in hard to find pages of their web site.
>>>> So the only data that the scientific organizations used where those
>>>> from NASA? Or was there other data that they looked at?
>>>
>>> Huh?
>>
>> You're saying that NASA lied about its data. These are not the only
>> data that climatologists use to understand climate and climate change.
>> Nor are the data in question that only data that NASA has.
>
> Funny how before the mistakes were revealed the GW'ers would always
> point to the NASA data and say "LOOK - the most respected scientific
> organization of the U.S. Gov't says so - so it is indisputable", then
> when it turns out they faked data - and on more than one occasion - it's
> "These are not the only data that climatologists use to understand
> climate and climate change".

First, no one said that it is "indisputable." Nothing is. Did they fake
data or was there an error in the data? The answer: There was an error
in the data which they corrected. Those are two very different things.

> Read up on the "hockey stick curve" that Al Gore used to "prove" global
> warming. Turns out that no matter what numbers you plug into the
> formula used to create the curve creates the same general shape curve of
> increasing temperature over time. That's just one example of majorly
> faked non-NASA data. There also the Cascades Mountains snow pack data
> faking (actually cherry picking mins and max's to force the conclusion)
> - Assistant State Climatologist in Washintgton state got removed from
> his position for blowing the whistle on that one - that's how honest and
> pure they were about "science". When data was corrected, it showed the
> warming that was claimed was a lie. Duh!
>
> Hints for NASA: (1) Don't claim your data is scientific when you control
> your temperature measuring stations and data so sloppily that you allow
> air conditioning units to be installed a few feet away from the station
> and then soon after report a temperature rise.

Really? Demonstrate that what they do is sloppy. Do they even have
temperature measuring stations? Or is that a different gov't agency?

> (2) When you falsify
> October's data by copying over September's data to show warming over the
> previous year, be aware that when you have to copy one day twice to make
> a 30 day month fit the 31 day month, once people see the mistake and
> correct the data, it will be pretty obvious that it had to be
> intentional fakery. Nice try. Busted!

Was this intential or an error? Unfortunately, when an organization
tries to get data out faster, there will be some errors. This is an
example of how one organization made and error and corrected it.

> (3) Oh - and don't launch
> satellites to monitor actual temperatures that contradict the trends
> "proven" by the faulty terrestrial based measurement data and throw all
> of your faulty warming models into a cocked hat.

There were some errors. There are always are. However, the trends are
overwhelmingly clear. Just like the trends of leaves appearing on trees
earlier in the spring (or winter), snow on the ground for less time of
the year, decreasing ice caps on mountains and smaller glaciers.

>> Really? Why does Science and Nature, the preeminent science journals
>> in the world both say otherwise?
>
> You'd have to ask them. Vested interests in perpetuating the myth? But
> really - you'd have to ask them.

As a member of AAAS (the American Association for the Advancement of
Science; the publisher of Science), I am part of them. And the answer is
that the data overwhelmingly support global warming.

Jeff

dr_jeff wrote:
> Bill Putney wrote:
>> PeterD wrote:
>>
>>> There is NO scientific consensus that global warming is caused by man,
>>> is anything other than a natural occurance, or that it is even
>>> happening at all... Again, just as others are saying, you are choosing
>>> to belive the sky is falling.
>>
>> Even more, the earth has actually been cooling off. The biggest
>> driver? Solar activity. Gee - imagine that!!! LOL!
>>
>> (The warmest year on record in relatively recent history was in the
>> 30's - 1936 or 1938 - I think - I forget which. When you look at the
>> false NASA data, it looks like it was in the last 10 years, but when
>> you look at the corrected data, not even then - it was back in the
>> 30's. Talk about your inconvenient truth!)
>
> Actually, the corrected NASA data show it was in the last few years.
>
> http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/
>
> If I am incorrect show the link that demonstrates this.
>
> Jeff

http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/200...ttest_yea.html

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt

1934 and 2008 tied.

--
Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

Bill Putney wrote:
> dr_jeff wrote:
>> Bill Putney wrote:
>>> PeterD wrote:
>>>
>>>> There is NO scientific consensus that global warming is caused by man,
>>>> is anything other than a natural occurance, or that it is even
>>>> happening at all... Again, just as others are saying, you are choosing
>>>> to belive the sky is falling.
>>>
>>> Even more, the earth has actually been cooling off. The biggest
>>> driver? Solar activity. Gee - imagine that!!! LOL!
>>>
>>> (The warmest year on record in relatively recent history was in the
>>> 30's - 1936 or 1938 - I think - I forget which. When you look at the
>>> false NASA data, it looks like it was in the last 10 years, but when
>>> you look at the corrected data, not even then - it was back in the
>>> 30's. Talk about your inconvenient truth!)
>>
>> Actually, the corrected NASA data show it was in the last few years.
>>
>> http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/
>>
>> If I am incorrect show the link that demonstrates this.
>>
>> Jeff
>
> http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/200...ttest_yea.html

That's one of many stations.

In addition, the data I am talking about are global averages, not just
the averages for the US. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

> http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt
>
> 1934 and 2008 tied.

When you look at the US highest temps and the highest global temps, you
will see that there are differences:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/gr...10.warmest.doc

Jeff

Are the

dr_jeff wrote:
> Bill Putney wrote:
>> dr_jeff wrote:
>>> PeterD wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 18:45:10 -0400, dr_jeff > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Bill Putney wrote:
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If it's so imaginary, why does every national science academy in the
>>>>>>> world say it's real?...
>>>>>> News flash: They don't. You're way behind on your reading, or
>>>>>> just tend to ignore what you choose to because it doesn't fit the
>>>>>> idiot agenda. Or you're looking at the data that NASA and others
>>>>>> faked and compiled before they were forced to correct it and they
>>>>>> conveniently hid it in hard to find pages of their web site.
>>>>> What data did NASA fake and compile? Please prove that they faked
>>>>> it. And, what do the corrected data show?
>>>>
>>>> This is common knowledge, they used bad data, got bad results. Then
>>>> they covered up... Been well documented.
>>>
>>> Gee, then it should be easy to support your claim.
>>
>> It is - for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear the truth.
>> You'll have to find it yourself. If we spoon-fed it to you, you'd not
>> believe it anyway. You'll believe what you want anyway. In fact,
>> it's been documented before on this very news group - there - your
>> homework is mostly done for you. But you still won't believe it.
>
> Yes, I looked at it. It turns out NASA correct the data, and it is still
> clear that the globe is getting warming.

No such thing is clear. NASA corrects data only when publicly
embarrassed into doing so.

> So, no, you can't support your claim. If you think you can, go ahead.

As I said already done.

>>>>>>> Every scientific organization?...
>>>>>> News flash: They don't. You're way behind on your reading, or
>>>>>> just tend to ignore what you choose to because it doesn't fit the
>>>>>> idiot agenda. Or you're looking at the data that NASA and others
>>>>>> faked and compiled before they were forced to correct it and they
>>>>>> conveniently hid it in hard to find pages of their web site.
>>>>> So the only data that the scientific organizations used where those
>>>>> from NASA? Or was there other data that they looked at?
>>>>
>>>> Huh?
>>>
>>> You're saying that NASA lied about its data. These are not the only
>>> data that climatologists use to understand climate and climate
>>> change. Nor are the data in question that only data that NASA has.
>>
>> Funny how before the mistakes were revealed the GW'ers would always
>> point to the NASA data and say "LOOK - the most respected scientific
>> organization of the U.S. Gov't says so - so it is indisputable", then
>> when it turns out they faked data - and on more than one occasion -
>> it's "These are not the only data that climatologists use to
>> understand climate and climate change".
>
> First, no one said that it is "indisputable." Nothing is.

Yet above, you said it is clear. Can it be both clear and not indisputable?

> Did they fake
> data or was there an error in the data? The answer: There was an error
> in the data which they corrected. Those are two very different things.

Sorry - we're supposed to believe that data from a 30 day month gets
copied to a 31 day month, and one day just happens to get duplicated to
fill in the extra day. Sorry - not credible.

Funny how all the errors that get discovered after the fact are in the
direction of pushing the data to show warming over time - never the
opposite.

>> Read up on the "hockey stick curve" that Al Gore used to "prove"
>> global warming. Turns out that no matter what numbers you plug into
>> the formula used to create the curve creates the same general shape
>> curve of increasing temperature over time. That's just one example of
>> majorly faked non-NASA data. There also the Cascades Mountains snow
>> pack data faking (actually cherry picking mins and max's to force the
>> conclusion) - Assistant State Climatologist in Washintgton state got
>> removed from his position for blowing the whistle on that one - that's
>> how honest and pure they were about "science". When data was
>> corrected, it showed the warming that was claimed was a lie. Duh!
>>
>> Hints for NASA: (1) Don't claim your data is scientific when you
>> control your temperature measuring stations and data so sloppily that
>> you allow air conditioning units to be installed a few feet away from
>> the station and then soon after report a temperature rise.
>
> Really? Demonstrate that what they do is sloppy. Do they even have
> temperature measuring stations? Or is that a different gov't agency?

Maybe it is of another agency. So they use the data to publish
conclusions and attempt to shape policy. So tell me how it affects this
discussion one iota who owns the stations that they report data from.
If the owner is sloppy but they use the data, does that make their data
any better or themselves any more or less credible? (answer: no)

>> (2) When you falsify October's data by copying over September's data
>> to show warming over the previous year, be aware that when you have to
>> copy one day twice to make a 30 day month fit the 31 day month, once
>> people see the mistake and correct the data, it will be pretty obvious
>> that it had to be intentional fakery. Nice try. Busted!
>
> Was this intential or an error? Unfortunately, when an organization
> tries to get data out faster, there will be some errors. This is an
> example of how one organization made and error and corrected it.

Go ahead and explain the 31 days of data being altered by duplicating
one day to fill in the extra day of the 31 day normally colder month.
Like I said, it's funny how the errors *always* push the data in the
direction of showing warming aver time - never the reverse. Defies
credibility.

>> (3) Oh - and don't launch satellites to monitor actual temperatures
>> that contradict the trends "proven" by the faulty terrestrial based
>> measurement data and throw all of your faulty warming models into a
>> cocked hat.
>
> There were some errors. There are always are. However, the trends are
> overwhelmingly clear. Just like the trends of leaves appearing on trees
> earlier in the spring (or winter), snow on the ground for less time of
> the year, decreasing ice caps on mountains and smaller glaciers.

Much of that is cherry picked out of *lots* of data. Where the desired
trend doesn't exist, that parameter is not discussed.

Then, again, there's the example of the Cascade Mountain snow pack where
"mistakes" were made. What were the "mistakes"? When they wanted to
show warmer, they skewed the sample point to be the nearest local
maxima, and when they wanted to show cooler, they skewed it to nearest
local minima. That *can't* be random error.

Then they removed the guy who pointed it out from his position as
Assistant State Climatologist. Yeah - real "science" going on there.

>>> Really? Why does Science and Nature, the preeminent science journals
>>> in the world both say otherwise?
>>
>> You'd have to ask them. Vested interests in perpetuating the myth?
>> But really - you'd have to ask them.
>
> As a member of AAAS (the American Association for the Advancement of
> Science; the publisher of Science), I am part of them. And the answer is
> that the data overwhelmingly support global warming.

Ahh - I see - so you are involved in the inner workings of the
organization at the highest levels? I doubt it. You or your employer
pay annual or bi-annual dues to maintain your membership. You might
even participate at some level. Doesn't prove anything. The word
"science" has been so misused and abused that it has no credibility when
it is used to try to establish authority anymore. And the global
warmers have done more to damage the reputation of true science than
practically anything else in modern times. It is a false- or
pseudo-science if there ever was one. Yet it effects policy change that
is very damaging.

--
Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

dr_jeff wrote:
> Bill Putney wrote:

>> http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/200...ttest_yea.html

> That's one of many stations.

That is correct, yet the very small temperature changes that are being
talked about were affected enough to make a significant difference when
averaged over all the data stations. You will even see references on
the NASA site that the minor changes being shown are smaller than the
resolution of the data.

Read up on gage R&R.

--
Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

Bill Putney wrote:
> dr_jeff wrote:
>> Bill Putney wrote:
>>> dr_jeff wrote:
>>>> PeterD wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 18:45:10 -0400, dr_jeff > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Bill Putney wrote:
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If it's so imaginary, why does every national science academy in
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> world say it's real?...
>>>>>>> News flash: They don't. You're way behind on your reading, or
>>>>>>> just tend to ignore what you choose to because it doesn't fit the
>>>>>>> idiot agenda. Or you're looking at the data that NASA and others
>>>>>>> faked and compiled before they were forced to correct it and they
>>>>>>> conveniently hid it in hard to find pages of their web site.
>>>>>> What data did NASA fake and compile? Please prove that they faked
>>>>>> it. And, what do the corrected data show?
>>>>>
>>>>> This is common knowledge, they used bad data, got bad results. Then
>>>>> they covered up... Been well documented.
>>>>
>>>> Gee, then it should be easy to support your claim.
>>>
>>> It is - for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear the truth.
>>> You'll have to find it yourself. If we spoon-fed it to you, you'd
>>> not believe it anyway. You'll believe what you want anyway. In
>>> fact, it's been documented before on this very news group - there -
>>> your homework is mostly done for you. But you still won't believe it.
>>
>> Yes, I looked at it. It turns out NASA correct the data, and it is
>> still clear that the globe is getting warming.
>
> No such thing is clear. NASA corrects data only when publicly
> embarrassed into doing so.
>
>> So, no, you can't support your claim. If you think you can, go ahead.
>
> As I said already done.
>
>>>>>>>> Every scientific organization?...
>>>>>>> News flash: They don't. You're way behind on your reading, or
>>>>>>> just tend to ignore what you choose to because it doesn't fit the
>>>>>>> idiot agenda. Or you're looking at the data that NASA and others
>>>>>>> faked and compiled before they were forced to correct it and they
>>>>>>> conveniently hid it in hard to find pages of their web site.
>>>>>> So the only data that the scientific organizations used where
>>>>>> those from NASA? Or was there other data that they looked at?
>>>>>
>>>>> Huh?
>>>>
>>>> You're saying that NASA lied about its data. These are not the only
>>>> data that climatologists use to understand climate and climate
>>>> change. Nor are the data in question that only data that NASA has.
>>>
>>> Funny how before the mistakes were revealed the GW'ers would always
>>> point to the NASA data and say "LOOK - the most respected scientific
>>> organization of the U.S. Gov't says so - so it is indisputable", then
>>> when it turns out they faked data - and on more than one occasion -
>>> it's "These are not the only data that climatologists use to
>>> understand climate and climate change".
>>
>> First, no one said that it is "indisputable." Nothing is.
>
> Yet above, you said it is clear. Can it be both clear and not
> indisputable?
>
>> Did they fake data or was there an error in the data? The answer:
>> There was an error in the data which they corrected. Those are two
>> very different things.
>
> Sorry - we're supposed to believe that data from a 30 day month gets
> copied to a 31 day month, and one day just happens to get duplicated to
> fill in the extra day. Sorry - not credible.
>
> Funny how all the errors that get discovered after the fact are in the
> direction of pushing the data to show warming over time - never the
> opposite.
>
>>> Read up on the "hockey stick curve" that Al Gore used to "prove"
>>> global warming. Turns out that no matter what numbers you plug into
>>> the formula used to create the curve creates the same general shape
>>> curve of increasing temperature over time. That's just one example
>>> of majorly faked non-NASA data. There also the Cascades Mountains
>>> snow pack data faking (actually cherry picking mins and max's to
>>> force the conclusion) - Assistant State Climatologist in Washintgton
>>> state got removed from his position for blowing the whistle on that
>>> one - that's how honest and pure they were about "science". When
>>> data was corrected, it showed the warming that was claimed was a
>>> lie. Duh!
>>>
>>> Hints for NASA: (1) Don't claim your data is scientific when you
>>> control your temperature measuring stations and data so sloppily that
>>> you allow air conditioning units to be installed a few feet away from
>>> the station and then soon after report a temperature rise.
>>
>> Really? Demonstrate that what they do is sloppy. Do they even have
>> temperature measuring stations? Or is that a different gov't agency?
>
> Maybe it is of another agency. So they use the data to publish
> conclusions and attempt to shape policy. So tell me how it affects this
> discussion one iota who owns the stations that they report data from. If
> the owner is sloppy but they use the data, does that make their data any
> better or themselves any more or less credible? (answer: no)
>
>>> (2) When you falsify October's data by copying over September's data
>>> to show warming over the previous year, be aware that when you have
>>> to copy one day twice to make a 30 day month fit the 31 day month,
>>> once people see the mistake and correct the data, it will be pretty
>>> obvious that it had to be intentional fakery. Nice try. Busted!
>>
>> Was this intential or an error? Unfortunately, when an organization
>> tries to get data out faster, there will be some errors. This is an
>> example of how one organization made and error and corrected it.
>
> Go ahead and explain the 31 days of data being altered by duplicating
> one day to fill in the extra day of the 31 day normally colder month.
> Like I said, it's funny how the errors *always* push the data in the
> direction of showing warming aver time - never the reverse. Defies
> credibility.
>
>>> (3) Oh - and don't launch satellites to monitor actual temperatures
>>> that contradict the trends "proven" by the faulty terrestrial based
>>> measurement data and throw all of your faulty warming models into a
>>> cocked hat.
>>
>> There were some errors. There are always are. However, the trends are
>> overwhelmingly clear. Just like the trends of leaves appearing on
>> trees earlier in the spring (or winter), snow on the ground for less
>> time of the year, decreasing ice caps on mountains and smaller glaciers.
>
> Much of that is cherry picked out of *lots* of data. Where the desired
> trend doesn't exist, that parameter is not discussed.
>
> Then, again, there's the example of the Cascade Mountain snow pack where
> "mistakes" were made. What were the "mistakes"? When they wanted to
> show warmer, they skewed the sample point to be the nearest local
> maxima, and when they wanted to show cooler, they skewed it to nearest
> local minima. That *can't* be random error.
>
> Then they removed the guy who pointed it out from his position as
> Assistant State Climatologist. Yeah - real "science" going on there.
>
>>>> Really? Why does Science and Nature, the preeminent science journals
>>>> in the world both say otherwise?
>>>
>>> You'd have to ask them. Vested interests in perpetuating the myth?
>>> But really - you'd have to ask them.
>>
>> As a member of AAAS (the American Association for the Advancement of
>> Science; the publisher of Science), I am part of them. And the answer
>> is that the data overwhelmingly support global warming.
>
> Ahh - I see - so you are involved in the inner workings of the
> organization at the highest levels? I doubt it.

No, but I am a proud member. I have been for years.

> You or your employer
> pay annual or bi-annual dues to maintain your membership. You might
> even participate at some level. Doesn't prove anything. The word
> "science" has been so misused and abused that it has no credibility when
> it is used to try to establish authority anymore. And the global
> warmers have done more to damage the reputation of true science than
> practically anything else in modern times.

That's incorrect. You have so far have shown that one dataset had some
errors in it that were corrected. That's it. You have failed to address
why so much ice is melting at the poles and on the tops of mountains,
why the ocean levels are rising, why the leaves appear earlier in the
year and stay on trees longer, why trees and other wildlife that are
adapted to particular climates are moving north or up mountains (where
is is cooler) or how the fact the CO2, methane and other gases trap heat.

> It is a false- or
> pseudo-science if there ever was one. Yet it effects policy change that
> is very damaging.

That's incorrect. The evidence that global warming is occurring is
overwhleming. And, the models are getting better. As new data are
generated, the data are incorporated into the models or the models are
rejected. This is how science is done.

Jeff

dr_jeff wrote:
> Bill Putney wrote:
>> dr_jeff wrote:

>>> As a member of AAAS (the American Association for the Advancement of
>>> Science; the publisher of Science), I am part of them. And the answer
>>> is that the data overwhelmingly support global warming.
>>
>> Ahh - I see - so you are involved in the inner workings of the
>> organization at the highest levels? I doubt it.
>
> No, but I am a proud member. I have been for years.
>
>> You or your employer pay annual or bi-annual dues to maintain your
>> membership. You might even participate at some level. Doesn't prove
>> anything. The word "science" has been so misused and abused that it
>> has no credibility when it is used to try to establish authority
>> anymore. And the global warmers have done more to damage the
>> reputation of true science than practically anything else in modern
>> times.
>
> That's incorrect. You have so far have shown that one dataset had some
> errors in it that were corrected...

No - two - the air conditioner fiasco, and the copying September data
into October (and somehow mysteriously copying the one day twice to fill
in the 31 days - quite by accident you understand).


> That's it. You have failed to address
> why so much ice is melting at the poles and on the tops of mountains,
> why the ocean levels are rising, why the leaves appear earlier in the
> year and stay on trees longer, why trees and other wildlife that are
> adapted to particular climates are moving north or up mountains (where
> is is cooler) or how the fact the CO2, methane and other gases trap heat.

You are self-selecting your sources to reinforce your beliefs. Nothing
I can say will convince you, which I started out saying. And that's OK.
I am not responsible for your beliefs. Let's talk in another 5 years
(but unfortunately the politicians will have possibly done irreparable
damage due to acting on this false science).

The real die hards will be those that can "scientifically" explain how
global warming causes ice ages (not to say that we are headed for an ice
age, but to explain what we have already started seeing and will
continue to see, that's the kind of insanity one will have to exhibit to
keep denying the reality). To paraphrase Bill Clinton's campaign: "It's
the sun, stupid."

>> It is a false- or pseudo-science if there ever was one. Yet it
>> effects policy change that is very damaging.
>
> That's incorrect. The evidence that global warming is occurring is
> overwhleming. And, the models are getting better. As new data are
> generated, the data are incorporated into the models or the models are
> rejected. This is how science is done.

Yeah - like they had to do when the NASA satellite proved that the
models were absolutely worthless - that things had actually been cooling
off, or at best, not heating up nearly as their false models had been
saying they were.

Oh - BTW - read *this* NASA web page:
http://spacescience.spaceref.com/new...d06oct97_1.htm
(hey - it's on a NASA site, so it must be true, right?)

"Over the past century, global measurements of the temperature at the
Earth's surface have indicated a warming trend of between 0.3 and 0.6
degrees C. But many - especially the early - computer-based global
climate models (GCM's) predict that the rate should be even higher if it
is due to the man-made 'Greenhouse Effect'."


Like I said elsewhe The amount of changes they are talking about -
less than a degree C over a century - are less than the resolution and
repeatability of their measurements. It's laughable.


"Unlike the surface-based temperatures, global temperature measurements
of the Earth's lower atmosphere obtained from satellites reveal no
definitive warming trend over the past two decades. The slight trend
that is in the data actually appears to be downward. The largest
fluctuations in the satellite temperature data are not from any man-made
activity, but from natural phenomena such as large volcanic eruptions
from Mt. Pinatubo, and from El Niño. So the programs which model global
warming in a computer say the temperature of the Earth's lower
atmosphere should be going up markedly, but actual measurements of the
temperature of the lower atmosphere reveal no such pronounced activity.

"In theory, one could argue that the computer models are accurate, and
that the real measurements have some problem. However this is not the
case. An incredible amount of work has been done to make sure that the
satellite data are the best quality possible. Recent claims to the
contrary by Hurrell and Trenberth have been shown to be false for a
number of reasons, and are laid to rest in the September 25th edition of
Nature (page 342). The temperature measurements from space are verified
by two direct and independent methods."

Anyway - when you keep reading, you find out that now they're saying
it's water vapor, not CO2, that has the effects. So the question
arises: If that's the case, why are we supposed to control CO2 emissions?

Oh - and don't forget to check out this page linked from that one:
http://spacescience.spaceref.com/new...strat_temp.htm

You are one of a dwindling set of people who are called scientists who
still believe the religion of global warming. Unfortunately the
politicians are lagging the true science - some possibly honestly doing
so, some due to vested interests or corruption (yeah - shocking, I know).

Why don't you ask some of your science buddies why they are now calling
it "Climate Change" and have suddenly stopped calling it "Global
Warming" (hint: It's because they realize that they can no longer claim
it is warming, but they can't yet publicly admit it - by the time people
start asking them why they used to call it global warming when it
clearly is cooling off, they will be able to say with a straight face:
"Oh I never believed that - those were some *earlier* well-intentioned
kooks who didn't quite understand what was going on. All *real*
scientists know it was cooling off." But the thing they will have a
hard time explaining is why they forced everyone to reduce CO2 emissions
when it is claimed that CO2 causes warming and yet things were cooling
off and not warming up - but I'm sure by then they will have come up
with something equivalent to "Well, you see - warming causes ice ages.").

--
Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

Global warming exists. The reason you can conclude that is because it is
something which can be measured.

The disagreement occurs when the cause is trumpeted to be man's puny
efforts as opposed to natural occurrences. The climatic models are so
complex that there are very few people who could pretend to understand
them. The result is "thousands of dermatologists all agree on the best
way to treat your brain cancer".

The political nonsense and public stupidity lead to waste in the
trillions. A favorite bully boy target is the automobile. There are few
industries that can match the improvement made here. They simply choose
to take a number and lower it no matter how it is to be achieved or if
the effort is better expended elsewhere. The burning of rain forests
adds more pollution than the ENTIRE PLANET's content of autos. No
regulation there.

Then you have the electric car. How will you charge it? Coal fired power
plants, of course. You can speak of the naivety of the people who refuse
to drink the supplied Kool-Aid. It is dwarfed by the utter stupidity
ingrained in the "green" movement.

So "everyone" agrees, like "everyone agreed" global cooling was
inevitable in headlines from the 70s and 80s.

Oh my gosh, a glacier is melting. But is it worse than the 20 or 30
times it has melted before based on historic samples?

The number of hurricanes! But gee, historical testing shows we are in a
"mild" 1500 year hurricane cycle.

Then what happens if you spend all of these trillions of dollars which
could be spent elsewhere and Krakatoa blows up again?