On Thursday, February 20, 2014 7:39:10 PM UTC-5, deep wrote:



It's a bull**** article from World News Daily. There's no proof

anybody fudged anything. The evidence of climate change is conclusive

and overwhelming.

Actually the evidence of climate change is not conclusive and certainly not overwhelming. Todays WSJ has an article about how the actual climate change is much less than what is being predicted. The article does not say that there is no climate change, but does say no one has a handle on what part of it is due to man produced green house gases. And that pretty much all of the climate change predictions are wrong.

Dan

On 2/20/2014 6:52 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, February 20, 2014 7:39:10 PM UTC-5, deep wrote:



It's a bull**** article from World News Daily. There's no proof

anybody fudged anything. The evidence of climate change is conclusive

and overwhelming.

Actually the evidence of climate change is not conclusive and certainly not overwhelming. Todays WSJ has an article about how the actual climate change is much less than what is being predicted. The article does not say that there is no climate change, but does say no one has a handle on what part of it is due to man produced green house gases. And that pretty much all of the climate change predictions are wrong.

Dan

On 2/20/2014 6:52 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, February 20, 2014 7:39:10 PM UTC-5, deep wrote:



It's a bull**** article from World News Daily. There's no proof

anybody fudged anything. The evidence of climate change is conclusive

and overwhelming.

Actually the evidence of climate change is not conclusive and certainly not overwhelming.
Todays WSJ has an article about how the actual climate change is much
less than what is being
predicted. The article does not say that there is no climate change,
but does say no one has
a handle on what part of it is due to man produced green house gases.
And that pretty much
all of the climate change predictions are wrong.

Dan


Sorry about the fumble fingers...

All the climate hysteria is because the MODELS predict ...yadadayadada.

Not the actual data.

Close enough for Al Gore and the amazing US news media.

On Thu, 20 Feb 2014 22:55:45 -0600, Richard
wrote:

On 2/20/2014 6:52 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, February 20, 2014 7:39:10 PM UTC-5, deep wrote:



It's a bull**** article from World News Daily. There's no proof

anybody fudged anything. The evidence of climate change is conclusive

and overwhelming.

Actually the evidence of climate change is not conclusive and certainly not overwhelming.
Todays WSJ has an article about how the actual climate change is much
less than what is being
predicted. The article does not say that there is no climate change,
but does say no one has
a handle on what part of it is due to man produced green house gases.
And that pretty much
all of the climate change predictions are wrong.

Dan


Sorry about the fumble fingers...

All the climate hysteria is because the MODELS predict ...yadadayadada.

Not the actual data.

Close enough for Al Gore and the amazing US news media.

Given that normal temperature deviation, or perhaps we could say,
"temperatures preceding present hysteria" had a number of years of low
temperature in England. so low that the Thames River froze and skating
parties were held on the ice during the winter months, one wonders
from what baseline "warming" is calculated?
--
Cheers,

John B.

"Richard" wrote in message
m...

All the climate hysteria is because the MODELS predict
...yadadayadada.
Not the actual data.
Close enough for Al Gore and the amazing US news media.

Then they should support alternative sources instead of attacking them

http://www.washingtonpost.com/nation...VlJ_story.html
"The conservancy wants stronger regulations and penalties for the wind
industry, .."

http://www.fightnorthernpass.org/

http://e360.yale.edu/feature/blocked...ffective/2636/

or else voluntarily limit their own consumption of electricity and pay
a carbon tax on their fossil fuel use, as they demand of the rest of
us.

On Thursday, February 20, 2014 11:55:45 PM UTC-5, Richard wrote:

All the climate hysteria is because the MODELS predict ...yadadayadada.
Not the actual data.

Close enough for Al Gore and the amazing US news media.

Data doesn't predict anything. Data is a recording of actual past & present conditions. You CAN'T have data for the future unless you have a time machine. What you CAN do, is use models which fit the data that you do have to make predictions about what the future data will look like.

On 2/21/2014 6:13 AM, John B. wrote:

All the climate hysteria is because the MODELS predict ...yadadayadada.

Not the actual data.

Close enough for Al Gore and the amazing US news media.

Given that normal temperature deviation, or perhaps we could say,
"temperatures preceding present hysteria" had a number of years of low
temperature in England. so low that the Thames River froze and skating
parties were held on the ice during the winter months, one wonders
from what baseline "warming" is calculated?

http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/predict.shtml

And the update...
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/01mar_twinpeaks/

I can almost hear Al Gore claiming even THIS is caused by man...

On 2/21/2014 6:43 AM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
wrote in message
m...

All the climate hysteria is because the MODELS predict
...yadadayadada.
Not the actual data.
Close enough for Al Gore and the amazing US news media.

Then they should support alternative sources instead of attacking them

http://www.washingtonpost.com/nation...VlJ_story.html
"The conservancy wants stronger regulations and penalties for the wind
industry, .."

http://www.fightnorthernpass.org/

http://e360.yale.edu/feature/blocked...ffective/2636/

or else voluntarily limit their own consumption of electricity and pay
a carbon tax on their fossil fuel use, as they demand of the rest of
us.




Oops. Carbon tax?

Old quote -

When otherwise intelligent people do stupid things, politics is always
involved...

On 2/21/2014 10:11 AM, rangerssuck wrote:
On Thursday, February 20, 2014 11:55:45 PM UTC-5, Richard wrote:

All the climate hysteria is because the MODELS predict ...yadadayadada.
Not the actual data.

Close enough for Al Gore and the amazing US news media.

Data doesn't predict anything. Data is a recording of actual past&
present conditions. You CAN'T have data for the future unless you have
a time machine. What you CAN do, is use models which fit the data that
you do have to make predictions about what the future data will look like.

But? as the predictions are not matching the observed date?
Then what?

"Richard" wrote in message
m...
On 2/21/2014 6:43 AM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
wrote in message
m...

All the climate hysteria is because the MODELS predict
...yadadayadada.
Not the actual data.
Close enough for Al Gore and the amazing US news media.

Then they should support alternative sources instead of attacking
them

http://www.washingtonpost.com/nation...VlJ_story.html
"The conservancy wants stronger regulations and penalties for the
wind
industry, .."

http://www.fightnorthernpass.org/

http://e360.yale.edu/feature/blocked...ffective/2636/

or else voluntarily limit their own consumption of electricity and
pay
a carbon tax on their fossil fuel use, as they demand of the rest
of
us.


Oops. Carbon tax?

http://www.carbontax.org/

"Richard" wrote in message
m...
On 2/21/2014 10:11 AM, rangerssuck wrote:
On Thursday, February 20, 2014 11:55:45 PM UTC-5, Richard wrote:

All the climate hysteria is because the MODELS predict
...yadadayadada.
Not the actual data.

Close enough for Al Gore and the amazing US news media.

Data doesn't predict anything. Data is a recording of actual past&
present conditions. You CAN'T have data for the future unless you
have
a time machine. What you CAN do, is use models which fit the data
that
you do have to make predictions about what the future data will look
like.

But? as the predictions are not matching the observed date?
Then what?

Obviously the data was faulty.
http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.or.../9/v31n3-2.pdf

On 2/21/2014 11:30 AM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
wrote in message
m...
On 2/21/2014 6:43 AM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
wrote in message
m...

All the climate hysteria is because the MODELS predict
...yadadayadada.
Not the actual data.
Close enough for Al Gore and the amazing US news media.

Then they should support alternative sources instead of attacking
them

http://www.washingtonpost.com/nation...VlJ_story.html
"The conservancy wants stronger regulations and penalties for the
wind
industry, .."

http://www.fightnorthernpass.org/

http://e360.yale.edu/feature/blocked...ffective/2636/

or else voluntarily limit their own consumption of electricity and
pay
a carbon tax on their fossil fuel use, as they demand of the rest
of
us.


Oops. Carbon tax?

http://www.carbontax.org/



Yeah. These things do take on a life of their own, don't they.

On 2/21/2014 11:38 AM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
wrote in message
m...
On 2/21/2014 10:11 AM, rangerssuck wrote:
On Thursday, February 20, 2014 11:55:45 PM UTC-5, Richard wrote:

All the climate hysteria is because the MODELS predict
...yadadayadada.
Not the actual data.

Close enough for Al Gore and the amazing US news media.

Data doesn't predict anything. Data is a recording of actual past&
present conditions. You CAN'T have data for the future unless you
have
a time machine. What you CAN do, is use models which fit the data
that
you do have to make predictions about what the future data will look
like.

But? as the predictions are not matching the observed date?
Then what?

Obviously the data was faulty.
http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.or.../9/v31n3-2.pdf



This paper was published in 2008.

Pick it up about page 51 and check how many assumptions are made to
support his conclusions.

On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 07:43:42 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Richard" wrote in message
om...

All the climate hysteria is because the MODELS predict
...yadadayadada.
Not the actual data.
Close enough for Al Gore and the amazing US news media.

Then they should support alternative sources instead of attacking them

True enough.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/nation...VlJ_story.html
"The conservancy wants stronger regulations and penalties for the wind
industry, .."

I watched an anti-wind movie once and it scared the **** out of me. It
was legal to put a 400' tower within 1/4 mile of a farmhouse. The one
they built the windmill next to was like a farkin' strobe light, or
where someone turned the lights on and off at 1 second intervals. You
have no idea how bad that looked to the people living there. Yes,
regulate their proximity to human abodes, by all means! The people
couldn't live there and couldn't sell the place because of it.

The bird kill problems are pretty much a thing of the past, and were
miniscule by comparison to the numbers killed by glass windows in
buildings and houses.



http://www.fightnorthernpass.org/

"No, don't bring electricity here!" WTF?



http://e360.yale.edu/feature/blocked...ffective/2636/

"In the end, the challenges are daunting, and for a simple reason:
It’s asking a lot for a finned creature to take an elevator or to
climb a ladder."

Sheeeit, too. Have you ever seen a salmon swim over a riffle? It's a
series of boulders and shelves in the river which the fish ladders are
modeled after. Those idiots around here made us take out a teensy dam
because they said the poor fish were getting torn up in the ladders.
If you'd seen the rough rocks they swam in up to this point on the
river, you'd know that wasn't the case.


or else voluntarily limit their own consumption of electricity and pay
a carbon tax on their fossil fuel use, as they demand of the rest of
us.

Aw, c'mon. Libs don't pay attention to that themselves. g

--
Cogito, ergo armatum sum.

(I think, therefore I am armed.)

On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 18:16:49 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 07:43:42 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Richard" wrote in message
news:C56dnRfa1OkIQZvOnZ2dnUVZ_ucAAAAA@earthlink. com...

All the climate hysteria is because the MODELS predict
...yadadayadada.
Not the actual data.
Close enough for Al Gore and the amazing US news media.

Then they should support alternative sources instead of attacking them

True enough.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/nation...VlJ_story.html
"The conservancy wants stronger regulations and penalties for the wind
industry, .."

I watched an anti-wind movie once and it scared the **** out of me. It
was legal to put a 400' tower within 1/4 mile of a farmhouse. The one
they built the windmill next to was like a farkin' strobe light, or
where someone turned the lights on and off at 1 second intervals. You
have no idea how bad that looked to the people living there. Yes,
regulate their proximity to human abodes, by all means! The people
couldn't live there and couldn't sell the place because of it.


I didn't watch the movie so what is this strobe thing? Big fan blades
like a wind mill? Flashing lights? Guys in flying saucers?

The bird kill problems are pretty much a thing of the past, and were
miniscule by comparison to the numbers killed by glass windows in
buildings and houses.



http://www.fightnorthernpass.org/

"No, don't bring electricity here!" WTF?



http://e360.yale.edu/feature/blocked...ffective/2636/

"In the end, the challenges are daunting, and for a simple reason:
It’s asking a lot for a finned creature to take an elevator or to
climb a ladder."

Sheeeit, too. Have you ever seen a salmon swim over a riffle? It's a
series of boulders and shelves in the river which the fish ladders are
modeled after. Those idiots around here made us take out a teensy dam
because they said the poor fish were getting torn up in the ladders.
If you'd seen the rough rocks they swam in up to this point on the
river, you'd know that wasn't the case.

I was given to understand that spawning salmon all died very shortly
after spawning. It would seem as though if the fish can get back to
home port in sufficient health to spawn that is all that is required.
--
Cheers,

John B.

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 07:43:42 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

or else voluntarily limit their own consumption of electricity and
pay
a carbon tax on their fossil fuel use, as they demand of the rest of
us.

Aw, c'mon. Libs don't pay attention to that themselves. g


They do when their precious and fragile self-image is threatened:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/gorehome.asp

On Friday, February 21, 2014 12:13:06 PM UTC-5, Richard wrote:
On 2/21/2014 10:11 AM, rangerssuck wrote:

On Thursday, February 20, 2014 11:55:45 PM UTC-5, Richard wrote:



All the climate hysteria is because the MODELS predict ...yadadayadada..

Not the actual data.



Close enough for Al Gore and the amazing US news media.



Data doesn't predict anything. Data is a recording of actual past&

present conditions. You CAN'T have data for the future unless you have

a time machine. What you CAN do, is use models which fit the data that

you do have to make predictions about what the future data will look like..



But? as the predictions are not matching the observed date?

Then what?

Then you adjust the models.

You do this all the time in real life - When you are driving, for instance, you adjust the position of your throttle to maintain a given speed. You adjust the pressure on your brake pedal to stop at the stop sign, not before or after it. You do this based on the initial position and the observed speed and distance. The point is, you ADJUST. Further, as you do this, you remember the adjustments and take them into account the next time you're in a similar circumstance.

Mathematical modeling isn't an exact science, it's an adaptive one. Predictions of storm tracks are getting better all the time. Some times they're not so great, but overall, they're getting better as the models get refined. The same will be true of climate models.

Just because the models aren't perfect does not mean that the science is bad.

On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 11:10:45 -0600, Richard wrote:
On 2/21/2014 6:13 AM, John B. wrote:

All the climate hysteria is because the MODELS predict ...yadadayadada.

Not the actual data.

Close enough for Al Gore and the amazing US news media.

Given that normal temperature deviation, or perhaps we could say,
"temperatures preceding present hysteria" had a number of years of low
temperature in England. so low that the Thames River froze and skating
parties were held on the ice during the winter months, one wonders
from what baseline "warming" is calculated?

http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/predict.shtml

And the update...
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/01mar_twinpeaks/

I can almost hear Al Gore claiming even THIS is caused by man...

It's worse than that. According to Ken Ham of the Creation Museum,
science's assumption that we can judge the past from what we observe
in the present is not a fact, it is an article of faith since clearly
we were not there to observe what happened, say, 10,000,000 years ago.

In fact, after listening to this debate:

C-SPAN Evolution Versus Creationism Debate [2:30:18]
February 4, 2014
http://www.c-span.org/video/?317578-...tionism-debate

The Creation Museum hosted a debate on evolution versus creationism
between scientist Bill Nye ("The Science Guy") and the founder of
the Creation Museum, Ken Ham.€‚CNN correspondent Tom Foreman
moderated the debate on the question, €œIs creation a viable model of
origins in todays modern scientific era?€�

I realize that "I" can't even swear that "I" watched the debate, since
"I'm" not there now watching "me" watch it then. If I assume did
watch it, I will also assume that I definitely enjoyed seeing and
hearing Bill Nye at work.

( There's never an Epistomologist around when you really need one. )


Frank McKenney
--
Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most times
he will pick himself up and carry on.
-- Winston Churchill
--
Frank McKenney, McKenney Associates
Richmond, Virginia / (804) 320-4887
Munged E-mail: frank uscore mckenney aatt mindspring ddoott com

On Saturday, February 22, 2014 11:17:18 AM UTC-5, rangerssuck wrote:



Just because the models aren't perfect does not mean that the science is bad.

Certainly agree with that. Green house gases do raise the earth's temperature. In fact we would be in serious trouble if they did not. To me the question is how does one act when the models seems to be substantially off.

Dan

On 2/22/2014 10:19 AM, Frnak McKenney wrote:

It's worse than that. According to Ken Ham of the Creation Museum,
science's assumption that we can judge the past from what we observe
in the present is not a fact, it is an article of faith since clearly
we were not there to observe what happened, say, 10,000,000 years ago.

In fact, after listening to this debate:

C-SPAN Evolution Versus Creationism Debate [2:30:18]
February 4, 2014
http://www.c-span.org/video/?317578-...tionism-debate

The Creation Museum hosted a debate on evolution versus creationism
between scientist Bill Nye ("The Science Guy") and the founder of
the Creation Museum, Ken Ham.€‚CNN correspondent Tom Foreman
moderated the debate on the question, €œIs creation a viable model of
origins in todays modern scientific era?€�

I realize that "I" can't even swear that "I" watched the debate, since
"I'm" not there now watching "me" watch it then. If I assume did
watch it, I will also assume that I definitely enjoyed seeing and
hearing Bill Nye at work.

( There's never an Epistomologist around when you really need one. )


Frank McKenney

Albert Einstein said,

"Science without religion is lame,
Religion without science is blind"

I believe myself to be a strong Christian.

As such I don't believe I have any right
to decide how God does things or what
methods he used.

Those who think otherwise? I wonder what
He thinks of them...

On 2/22/2014 10:17 AM, rangerssuck wrote:
On Friday, February 21, 2014 12:13:06 PM UTC-5, Richard wrote:
On 2/21/2014 10:11 AM, rangerssuck wrote:

On Thursday, February 20, 2014 11:55:45 PM UTC-5, Richard wrote:



All the climate hysteria is because the MODELS predict ...yadadayadada.

Not the actual data.



Close enough for Al Gore and the amazing US news media.



Data doesn't predict anything. Data is a recording of actual past&

present conditions. You CAN'T have data for the future unless you have

a time machine. What you CAN do, is use models which fit the data that

you do have to make predictions about what the future data will look like.



But? as the predictions are not matching the observed date?

Then what?

Then you adjust the models.


YES!

Based on new data.

Data which may take a few more centuries to collect.

On 2/20/2014 11:55 PM, Richard wrote:
On 2/20/2014 6:52 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, February 20, 2014 7:39:10 PM UTC-5, deep wrote:



It's a bull**** article from World News Daily. There's no proof

anybody fudged anything. The evidence of climate change is conclusive

and overwhelming.

Actually the evidence of climate change is not conclusive and
certainly not overwhelming.
Todays WSJ has an article about how the actual climate change is much
less than what is being
predicted. The article does not say that there is no climate change,
but does say no one has
a handle on what part of it is due to man produced green house gases.
And that pretty much
all of the climate change predictions are wrong.

Dan


Sorry about the fumble fingers...

All the climate hysteria is because the MODELS predict ...yadadayadada.

Not the actual data.

Close enough for Al Gore and the amazing US news media.



I'm ashamed that I didn't invent it! Maybe the upcoming magnetic
controversy. There's money to be made!

On 2/21/2014 9:16 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 07:43:42 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Richard" wrote in message
m...

All the climate hysteria is because the MODELS predict
...yadadayadada.
Not the actual data.
Close enough for Al Gore and the amazing US news media.

Then they should support alternative sources instead of attacking them

True enough.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/nation...VlJ_story.html
"The conservancy wants stronger regulations and penalties for the wind
industry, .."

I watched an anti-wind movie once and it scared the **** out of me. It
was legal to put a 400' tower within 1/4 mile of a farmhouse. The one
they built the windmill next to was like a farkin' strobe light, or
where someone turned the lights on and off at 1 second intervals. You
have no idea how bad that looked to the people living there. Yes,
regulate their proximity to human abodes, by all means! The people
couldn't live there and couldn't sell the place because of it.

The bird kill problems are pretty much a thing of the past, and were
miniscule by comparison to the numbers killed by glass windows in
buildings and houses.


When windmills take energy from the system, how much damage is done to
the environment that now has lost that energy? It was important to
something!

On 2/21/2014 11:11 AM, rangerssuck wrote:
On Thursday, February 20, 2014 11:55:45 PM UTC-5, Richard wrote:

All the climate hysteria is because the MODELS predict ...yadadayadada.
Not the actual data.

Close enough for Al Gore and the amazing US news media.

Data doesn't predict anything. Data is a recording of actual past & present conditions. You CAN'T have data for the future unless you have a time machine. What you CAN do, is use models which fit the data that you do have to make predictions about what the future data will look like.



Funny how those models always predict exactly what the people that paid
for the models want.

On 2/22/2014 10:54 PM, Tom Gardner wrote:


When windmills take energy from the system, how much damage is done to
the environment that now has lost that energy? It was important to
something!

Is THAT what's diverting the jetstream?
No wonder the weather is so wonky!

On Sat, 22 Feb 2014 23:57:00 -0500, Tom Gardner Mars@Tacks wrote:

On 2/21/2014 11:11 AM, rangerssuck wrote:
On Thursday, February 20, 2014 11:55:45 PM UTC-5, Richard wrote:

All the climate hysteria is because the MODELS predict ...yadadayadada.
Not the actual data.

Close enough for Al Gore and the amazing US news media.

Data doesn't predict anything. Data is a recording of actual past & present conditions. You CAN'T have data for the future unless you have a time machine. What you CAN do, is use models which fit the data that you do have to make predictions about what the future data will look like.



Funny how those models always predict exactly what the people that paid
for the models want.

Well Damn, Tom. You hire a couple of guys to come in and paint the
barn red; well, you want to end up with a red barn, don't you?
Not going to pay for a green barn, are you?
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Saturday, February 22, 2014 12:28:30 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Saturday, February 22, 2014 11:17:18 AM UTC-5, rangerssuck wrote:

Just because the models aren't perfect does not mean that the science is bad.

Certainly agree with that. Green house gases do raise the earth's temperature. In fact we would be in serious trouble if they did not. To me the question is how does one act when the models seems to be substantially off.

If you are certain people in this group, you just throw out the baby with the bathwater and blame it all on the dinosaurs and Al Gore.

wrote in message
...
On Saturday, February 22, 2014 11:17:18 AM UTC-5, rangerssuck wrote:
Just because the models aren't perfect does not mean that the
science is bad.

Certainly agree with that. Green house gases do raise the earth's
temperature. In fact we would be in serious trouble if they did
not. To me the question is how does one act when the models seems
to be substantially off.
Dan

Without the greenhouse effect, primarily from water vapor, the Earth's
temperature would be about 0 degrees Fahrenheit.
http://www.uwmc.uwc.edu/geography/100/rad-temp.htm

jsw