Hawke wrote:

I guess you didn't think that the "weather" anywhere else mattered
except for in D.C., because while there was a bad snowstorm there in
Vancouver, B.C. it's balmy warm and there isn't enough snow for the
Olympics.


So what, near the 45th parallel in Michigan, back in the early 80's, we had like two years
of low and late snow. Wiped out a few snowmobile manufacturers and a shop I worked out
part time.

It is the weather, we never know whether it will be normal or not. Sheesh.

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

Wes wrote:
Hawke wrote:

I guess you didn't think that the "weather" anywhere else mattered
except for in D.C., because while there was a bad snowstorm there in
Vancouver, B.C. it's balmy warm and there isn't enough snow for the
Olympics.


So what, near the 45th parallel in Michigan, back in the early 80's, we had like two years
of low and late snow. Wiped out a few snowmobile manufacturers and a shop I worked out
part time.

It is the weather, we never know whether it will be normal or not. Sheesh.

Wes


That's what we have climate scientists for. To tell us what the facts
are regarding earth's climate. For a while now they have been telling us
that the data shows the planet is warming up and it's not a natural
event but one produced by human combustion of fossil fuels. When they
tell us something different we will change our view on the subject. But
until the consensus of climate scientists is that their conclusions
about global warming were in error we're going to keep believing in what
they tell us the science is on the subject. We're only firm believers in
global warming because that is what the scientists have said is
happening. When they say otherwise then we'll change our views too.
Unlike the deniers who never change their views no matter what.

Hawke

"Hawke" wrote in message
...
Wes wrote:
Hawke wrote:

I guess you didn't think that the "weather" anywhere else mattered
except for in D.C., because while there was a bad snowstorm there in
Vancouver, B.C. it's balmy warm and there isn't enough snow for the
Olympics.


So what, near the 45th parallel in Michigan, back in the early 80's, we
had like two years
of low and late snow. Wiped out a few snowmobile manufacturers and a
shop I worked out
part time.

It is the weather, we never know whether it will be normal or not.
Sheesh.

Wes


That's what we have climate scientists for. To tell us what the facts are
regarding earth's climate. For a while now they have been telling us that
the data shows the planet is warming up and it's not a natural event but
one produced by human combustion of fossil fuels. When they tell us
something different we will change our view on the subject. But until the
consensus of climate scientists is that their conclusions about global
warming were in error we're going to keep believing in what they tell us
the science is on the subject. We're only firm believers in global warming
because that is what the scientists have said is happening. When they say
otherwise then we'll change our views too. Unlike the deniers who never
change their views no matter what.

Hawke

Replace all the "we","us", and "we're"s in your diatribe above and you'll
have it pretty much correct. In other words, you will change your belief
system as often as the weather changes. LOL! Any way the wind blows.

"Hawke" wrote in message

That's what we have climate scientists for. To tell us what the facts
are regarding earth's climate. For a while now they have been telling
us that the data shows the planet is warming up and it's not a natural
event but one produced by human combustion of fossil fuels. When they
tell us something different we will change our view on the subject.
But until the consensus of climate scientists is that their
conclusions about global warming were in error we're going to keep
believing in what they tell us the science is on the subject. We're
only firm believers in global warming because that is what the
scientists have said is happening. When they say otherwise then we'll
change our views too. Unlike the deniers who never change their views
no matter what.

Hawke

Replace all the "we","us", and "we're"s in your diatribe above and
you'll have it pretty much correct. In other words, you will change your
belief system as often as the weather changes. LOL! Any way the wind blows.



Key Climate Change Data Laden With Errors:

A science blogger uncovered a catalogue of errors in records that form a
key part of the scientific evidence for global warming, it emerged Tuesday.

The mistakes, which led to the data from a large number of weather
stations being discarded or misused, were overlooked by professional
scientists and only discovered when Britain's national weather service,
the Met Office, made data publicly available in December after the
so-called Climate-gate e-mail scandal.

Although the errors did not alter the bigger picture on climate change,
they were seized upon as a further sign that scientific institutions
were not sufficiently transparent.

"It makes you wonder how many other problems there are in the data,"
said John Graham-Cumming, the programmer who spotted the mistakes. "The
whole idea of doing science without releasing your data is quite worrying."

After being alerted of the problems last month, the Met Office issued a
corrected version of its land-based temperature record on its Web site.

"We are grateful to Dr. Graham-Cumming, but they are quite minor
changes," said Peter Stott, head of climate monitoring and attribution
at the Met Office.

"It shows how open we are. We have put an exhaustive amount of
information out there to show people exactly what we do."

The errors related to the calculation of the average global temperature
trend since 1850, based on measurements from land-based thermometers.
The record is regarded as one of the most robust pieces of empirical
evidence for global warming during the past century.

After trying to reproduce figures shown in scientific publications and
on the Met Office Web site, Graham-Cumming identified a number of
problems with the way measurements from Australian weather stations were
averaged.

He found that data from seven stations was discarded. Data from a
further 112 Australian stations, 28 percent of the total, were not being
fully included in calculations of year-on-year temperature differences.

"I'm not a climate skeptic, I think it's pretty sure that the world is
warming up, but this does show why the raw data and not just the results
should be available," he said.

During the checking procedure, Met Office officials discovered further
problems with U.S. temperature calculations. They realized that 121 of
the U.S. stations did not have unique identifier codes, meaning that
data for these stations was either being overwritten or assigned to the
wrong location.

When all of the errors identified were corrected, the temperature trend
remained well within the 95 percent confidence range of the original
plot, meaning that the difference would not be considered scientifically
significant.



World May Not Be Warming, Say Scientists:

The United Nations climate panel faces a new challenge from scientists
casting doubt on its claim that global temperatures are rising
inexorably because of human pollution.

The predicted temperature changes (darker red indicating greater change)
due to global warming, based on data from the Hadley Centre that some
scientists now question.

In its last assessment, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) said the evidence that the world was warming was "unequivocal."
It warned that greenhouse gases had already heated the world by 0.7C and
that there could be 5C-6C more warming by 2100, with devastating impacts
on humanity and wildlife.

New research casts doubt on such claims, however. Some even suggest the
world may not be warming much at all.

"The temperature records cannot be relied on as indicators of global
change," said John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at the
University of Alabama in Huntsville, a former lead author on the IPCC.

The doubts of Christy and a number of other researchers focus on the
thousands of weather stations around the world, which have been used to
collect temperature data over the past 150 years.

These stations, they believe, have been seriously compromised by factors
such as urbanization, changes in land use and, in many cases, being
moved from site to site.

Christy has published research papers looking at these effects in three
different regions: east Africa, California and Alabama.

"The story is the same for each one," he said. "The popular data sets
show a lot of warming but the apparent temperature rise was actually
caused by local factors affecting the weather stations, such as land
development."

The IPCC faces similar criticisms from Ross McKitrick, professor of
economics at the University of Guelph, Canada, who was invited by the
panel to review its last report. The experience turned him into a strong
critic and he has since published a research paper questioning its methods.

"We concluded, with overwhelming statistical significance, that the
IPCC's climate data are contaminated with surface effects from
industrialization and data quality problems. These add up to a large
warming bias," he said.

Such warnings are supported by a study of U.S. weather stations
co-written by Anthony Watts, an American meteorologist and climate
change sceptic.

His study, which has not been peer reviewed, is illustrated with
photographs of weather stations in locations where their readings are
distorted by heat-generating equipment. Some are next to
air-conditioning units or are on waste treatment plants. One of the most
infamous: a weather station next to a waste incinerator.


Global Warming in Last 15 Years Insignificant, U.K.'s Top Climate
Scientist Admits:

The embattled ex-head of the research center at the heart of the
Climate-gate scandal dropped a bombshell over the weekend, admitting in
an interview with the BBC that there has been no global warming over the
past 15 years.

Phil Jones, former head of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the
University of East Anglia, made a number of eye-popping statements to
the BBC's climate reporter on Sunday. Data from CRU, where Jones was the
chief scientist, is key evidence behind the claim that the growth of
cities (which are warmer than countryside) isn't a factor in global
warming and was cited by the U.N.'s climate science body to bolster
statements about rapid global warming in recent decades.

Jones's latest statements seemed to contradict the CRU's data.

In response to the question, "do you agree that from 1995 to the present
there has been no statistically significant global warming?", Jones said
yes, adding that the average increase of 0.12C per year over that time
period "is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical
significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods,
and much less likely for shorter periods."

Jones is nevertheless 100% confident that the climate has warmed, he
stated, admitting that the Climate-gate scandal has undermined public
confidence in science. The scandal has worn down Jones as well: Since
the e-mails emerged -- and were subsequently posted online at
www.EastAngliaEmails.com -- Jones has stepped down from his position,
been forced to admit that he “misjudged” the handling of requests for
information, and even acknowledged contemplating suicide.

Jones also allowed for the possibility that the world as a whole was
warmer in medieval times than it is today -- a concession that may also
undermine theories that global warming is caused by man.

In addition, Jones admitted that an overall lack of organization, and
his poor record keeping and office-tidying skills, had contributed to
his reluctance to share data with critics, which he regretted.

"To say when you're the record keeper for the globe's temperature that
you're not a good record keeper, well, that's going to come back to
haunt you for a long, long time," Pat Michaels.of the Cato Institute, a
public-policy think tank, told Fox News.


--
Steve W.

On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 09:41:16 -0500, the infamous "Steve W."
scrawled the following:

"Hawke" wrote in message

That's what we have climate scientists for. To tell us what the facts
are regarding earth's climate. For a while now they have been telling
us that the data shows the planet is warming up and it's not a natural
event but one produced by human combustion of fossil fuels. When they
tell us something different we will change our view on the subject.
But until the consensus of climate scientists is that their
conclusions about global warming were in error we're going to keep
believing in what they tell us the science is on the subject. We're
only firm believers in global warming because that is what the
scientists have said is happening. When they say otherwise then we'll
change our views too. Unlike the deniers who never change their views
no matter what.

Hawke

[So, Parakeet, did the following reports from Steve ruffle your
feathers a bit? Your Gods are all fessin' up to their dirty deeds,
and 1 has even contemplated suicide because of the heavy guilt. And
that is as it should be. "They" have killed people with their lies.
Let us know when you finally see the light. It just keeps getting
brighter and brighter out here. All you have to do is look. (Your
reply to me will be killed since you're still filtered, but I'll see
if it someone quotes you.)]


Replace all the "we","us", and "we're"s in your diatribe above and
you'll have it pretty much correct. In other words, you will change your
belief system as often as the weather changes. LOL! Any way the wind blows.



Key Climate Change Data Laden With Errors:
--snip--

World May Not Be Warming, Say Scientists:
--snip--

Global Warming in Last 15 Years Insignificant, U.K.'s Top Climate
Scientist Admits:
--snip--

Thanks for your post, Steve. It's all good news. Now, if only the
leaders of this scam would get together for a Jonestown Koolaid party,
maybe at Algore's place in TN...

--
Note to The O -

You can't build a reputation on what you are going to do.
-- Henry Ford

Larry Jaques wrote:

[So, Parakeet, did the following reports from Steve ruffle your
feathers a bit? Your Gods are all fessin' up to their dirty deeds,
and 1 has even contemplated suicide because of the heavy guilt. And
that is as it should be. "They" have killed people with their lies.
Let us know when you finally see the light. It just keeps getting
brighter and brighter out here. All you have to do is look. (Your
reply to me will be killed since you're still filtered, but I'll see
if it someone quotes you.)]

No Pierre, nothing Steve can say or do could possibly ruffle me in any
way. The opinions of lightweights like you folks are pretty much
completely irrelevant. Look at you, you don't even have the sand to
debate with people who don't agree with you. How much more of a baby can
you possibly be? As usual you can't analyze data worth a darn, which is
why you come to the wrong conclusion when a few scientists are caught
doing something wrong. Unlike you, I look at what decades of science on
climate change shows us. And I listen to what the preponderance of the
experts say not just the ones who work for energy companies. Or a few
that have been proven to be liars. So far I don't hear the scientists of
the world saying oops, we screwed up, there is no global warming. But
since I am not a climate scientist myself and took the word of the
experts, if they say they made a mistake they I'll change my view too.
So far I see no reason to throw out all the data from decades of
research because a few scientists did something wrong. Science doesn't
work like that.



Global Warming in Last 15 Years Insignificant, U.K.'s Top Climate
Scientist Admits:
--snip--

Thanks for your post, Steve. It's all good news. Now, if only the
leaders of this scam would get together for a Jonestown Koolaid party,
maybe at Algore's place in TN...


And you can get together with the worlds gross polluters and the energy
industry as they celebrate the conning of the masses of asses, of which
you are one. They had all their "experts" and had their company
"scientists" tell you that none of the burning of fossil fuels by the
millions of tons has any negative effect, and you bought it. It's just
too bad you can't apply your skepticism to the energy industry the way
you do to anything Democrats do. But you can't so whatever the energy
companies tell you automatically becomes a fact to you. Climate
scientists you question but energy company polluters you do not. See
what happens in a year. I'd be willing to bet that the experts are going
to say the same thing next year they have said for the last decade.
Global warming exists and man is doing it. Me, I'd rather be safe than
sorry. I don't know what you use for your logic. I can't find any.

Hawke

Burled Frau wrote:

That's what we have climate scientists for. To tell us what the facts
are regarding earth's climate. For a while now they have been telling
us that the data shows the planet is warming up and it's not a natural
event but one produced by human combustion of fossil fuels. When they
tell us something different we will change our view on the subject.
But until the consensus of climate scientists is that their
conclusions about global warming were in error we're going to keep
believing in what they tell us the science is on the subject. We're
only firm believers in global warming because that is what the
scientists have said is happening. When they say otherwise then we'll
change our views too. Unlike the deniers who never change their views
no matter what.

Hawke

Replace all the "we","us", and "we're"s in your diatribe above and
you'll have it pretty much correct. In other words, you will change your
belief system as often as the weather changes. LOL! Any way the wind blows.


Yeah, pretty much. That's how science works, which you seem not to
understand. Unlike religion which starts with received knowledge from on
high and works from there. You have a belief system that works like
religion and mine works like science. I take it you're a Christian,
right? In other words, when the evidence points in a different direction
I adapt my views to the new evidence. You should try it some time. It's
a lot better than just asking god for answers like you do.

Hawke

"Hawke" wrote in message
...
Burled Frau wrote:

That's what we have climate scientists for. To tell us what the facts
are regarding earth's climate. For a while now they have been telling us
that the data shows the planet is warming up and it's not a natural
event but one produced by human combustion of fossil fuels. When they
tell us something different we will change our view on the subject. But
until the consensus of climate scientists is that their conclusions
about global warming were in error we're going to keep believing in what
they tell us the science is on the subject. We're only firm believers in
global warming because that is what the scientists have said is
happening. When they say otherwise then we'll change our views too.
Unlike the deniers who never change their views no matter what.

Hawke

Replace all the "we","us", and "we're"s in your diatribe above and you'll
have it pretty much correct. In other words, you will change your belief
system as often as the weather changes. LOL! Any way the wind blows.


Yeah, pretty much. That's how science works, which you seem not to
understand. Unlike religion which starts with received knowledge from on
high and works from there. You have a belief system that works like
religion and mine works like science. I take it you're a Christian, right?
In other words, when the evidence points in a different direction I adapt
my views to the new evidence. You should try it some time. It's a lot
better than just asking god for answers like you do.

Hawke

I haven't claimed a religion, but God tells me you are a libtard. The
science that God created verifies that you are a libtard. Now, if you have
science that you can produce about so-called Gorbal Warming, let's see it.
Post your research. If you don't have any research to share, post a link to
where the research exists.

My science teacher always said, don't take my word for it, look at the
research, or do your own research. So, convince me libtard. Show your work.