Robatoy wrote:

Now, after we all moved to Texas...go to Google Earth and centre Texas
in the middle of the globe....now zoom back. Rotate the Earth...keep
an eye on texas.. we all live there now....

Trust me on this ... it looks that way already!!

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

Leon wrote:
"jo4hn" wrote in message
m...
Take a look at climate.nasa.gov. Study it at some length with as little
prejudice as possible. Report back in a week. Do not cite wingnut blogs
as rebuttal - only refereed scientific papers.
TIA,


Nope! I want to see it not be told what I am seeing.


Well, if it gets really hot next year, don't come to me.

To all readers: look at that website anyway. Lots of information that
is quite understandable without a lot of science background.

On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 13:12:00 -0600, Swingman wrote:

Robatoy wrote:

Now, after we all moved to Texas...go to Google Earth and centre Texas
in the middle of the globe....now zoom back. Rotate the Earth...keep
an eye on texas.. we all live there now....

Trust me on this ... it looks that way already!!


Hee! I knew that dog wouldn't hunt.


Regards,

Tom Watson
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/

jo4hn wrote:

To all readers: look at that website anyway. Lots of information that
is quite understandable without a lot of science background.

Agreed ... damned trouble is it seems everyone has an agenda of some
sort, making any data, and any modeling using same, subject to suspicion.

All temperature data is massaged, supposedly to reduce error inherent in
historical readings, but I'm personally, and simply, at the point of not
trusting those doing the "massaging", and there is ample evidence to
back up that skepticism.

What should have been an age of enlightenment has demonstrably turned
into and age of skepticism and suspicion.

IOW, I've been right all along ... g

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

jo4hn wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
jo4hn wrote:
Mark & Juanita wrote:
Swingman wrote:

Larry Jaques wrote:

I've been on the environmental bandwagon for nearly 40 years, but
I no longer call myself an environmentalist because of what the
movement hath wrought. I think ecoterrorists may outnumber the
greenies now. sigh
As a home builder with a recent, alternative construction, "green"
project under my belt, I can guarantee you that more waste hit the
land fills due to its "green" nature then in any two of my usual
traditional construction projects.

.... still marveling at the sheer, unconscious ignorance of many
of the misguided folks who have embraced this "movement" ... all
warm, fuzzy, self congratulatory, and without a clue!

Read something today that makes a lot of sense regarding this.
There are two camps of people, materialists -- those people who say
that there is a material universe which behaves in a consistent
way, and if you study it you can learn the way it works, and
teleologists -- those who say that the universe is an ideal place.
From what I read: "More or less, it exists so that we humans
can live in it. And human thought is a fundamental force in the
universe. Teleology says that if a mental model is esthetically
pleasing then it must be true. Teleology implies that if you truly
believe in something, itll happen."

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/12/06/government-by-wishful-thinking/

The people you describe above Swingman are of the latter
persuasion. They don't care if what they want to try hasn't worked
before -- it just wasn't done correctly, they are going to do it
correctly. If the idea of a "green" economy feels good, by golly,
it will be good. Ignore those niggling little details like more
waste or less available resourced -- by golly it FEELS good!

So the doomsayers on the right believe that doing nothing besides
reciting mantras such as "there ain't no such thing as global
warming", that the problem will go away. And further that there
never was a problem and that scientists lie for any reason. Wow.
Thank you for clearing that up.

The "global warming" "scientists" are engaging in political activity
and using models that have not been validated to support their
politicking. There is a tendency toward "scientism" in our
society--trusting anyone who claims to be a "scientist" without
question. Most sciences are in their infancy--the only ones with
any real maturity are physics and chemistry, with biology getting
there. Climatology is very immature and basing social policy on its
models is about as wise as basing social policy on the ravings of
alchemists or astrologers.

Is that "scientism" or the opposite?

It is scientism. Google that word.

I am getting a lot of the latter
from the right wingers.

What, distrust of climatologists? Skepticism is a necessary part of the
scientific process--anyone who is calling the climatologists liars is
behaving more like a proper scientist than all the folks who are saying "we
should trust them because they are scientists".

Oh and your last sentence is just plain
ignorant meanness and bespeaks much of you.

Oh, now _there_ is a compelling rebuttal if ever I saw one.

jo4hn wrote:
Leon wrote:
"jo4hn" wrote in message
m...
Take a look at climate.nasa.gov. Study it at some length with as
little prejudice as possible. Report back in a week. Do not cite
wingnut blogs as rebuttal - only refereed scientific papers.
TIA,


Nope! I want to see it not be told what I am seeing.


Well, if it gets really hot next year, don't come to me.

I won't, I'll be too busy riding my motorcycle.

To all readers: look at that website anyway. Lots of information that
is quite understandable without a lot of science background.

In other words lots of propaganda.

"Chris Friesen" wrote in message
el...
snip

But every one was burning then not so now, actually few by contrast.

Before we were burning trees, now we burn oil, coal, and gas.

With less polution. I have no polution control device on my fireplace and I
doubt way back when there were any such devices either. Ther is all kind of
polution control devices on oil, coal, gas, and gasoline burning machines.



From 1850 to 2000, the total energy consumption of the USA increased by
a factor of 50. Of course a large amount of that is due to population
increase, but the per-capita energy consumption has increased roughly 4x
over that period.

So.. much cleaner energy consumption compared to way back when.

Cleaner in what sense? As the US switched from agrarian to modern it
uses 4x as much energy per person. How is that cleaner overall?

what,,,,, 4 times more people using cleaner burning fuels than wood.....

jo4hn wrote:
Swingman wrote:


Here is the GISS ranking I was looking for which does not involve a
right or left wing blog:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/gr...10.warmest.doc


vielen Dank.

Bitte schön ...

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

Leon wrote:
"Chris Friesen" wrote in message
el...
snip

But every one was burning then not so now, actually few by contrast.

Before we were burning trees, now we burn oil, coal, and gas.

With less polution. I have no polution control device on my
fireplace and I doubt way back when there were any such devices
either. Ther is all kind of polution control devices on oil, coal,
gas, and gasoline burning machines.

None of which affect CO2 emissions in the slightest.

From 1850 to 2000, the total energy consumption of the USA
increased by a factor of 50. Of course a large amount of that is
due to population increase, but the per-capita energy consumption
has increased roughly 4x over that period.

So.. much cleaner energy consumption compared to way back when.

Cleaner in what sense? As the US switched from agrarian to modern it
uses 4x as much energy per person. How is that cleaner overall?

what,,,,, 4 times more people using cleaner burning fuels than
wood.....

Cleaner in what sense?

J. Clarke wrote:
jo4hn wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
jo4hn wrote:
Mark & Juanita wrote:
Swingman wrote:

Larry Jaques wrote:

I've been on the environmental bandwagon for nearly 40 years, but
I no longer call myself an environmentalist because of what the
movement hath wrought. I think ecoterrorists may outnumber the
greenies now. sigh
As a home builder with a recent, alternative construction, "green"
project under my belt, I can guarantee you that more waste hit the
land fills due to its "green" nature then in any two of my usual
traditional construction projects.

.... still marveling at the sheer, unconscious ignorance of many
of the misguided folks who have embraced this "movement" ... all
warm, fuzzy, self congratulatory, and without a clue!

Read something today that makes a lot of sense regarding this.
There are two camps of people, materialists -- those people who say
that there is a material universe which behaves in a consistent
way, and if you study it you can learn the way it works, and
teleologists -- those who say that the universe is an ideal place.
From what I read: "More or less, it exists so that we humans
can live in it. And human thought is a fundamental force in the
universe. Teleology says that if a mental model is esthetically
pleasing then it must be true. Teleology implies that if you truly
believe in something, itll happen."

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/12/06/government-by-wishful-thinking/

The people you describe above Swingman are of the latter
persuasion. They don't care if what they want to try hasn't worked
before -- it just wasn't done correctly, they are going to do it
correctly. If the idea of a "green" economy feels good, by golly,
it will be good. Ignore those niggling little details like more
waste or less available resourced -- by golly it FEELS good!

So the doomsayers on the right believe that doing nothing besides
reciting mantras such as "there ain't no such thing as global
warming", that the problem will go away. And further that there
never was a problem and that scientists lie for any reason. Wow.
Thank you for clearing that up.
The "global warming" "scientists" are engaging in political activity
and using models that have not been validated to support their
politicking. There is a tendency toward "scientism" in our
society--trusting anyone who claims to be a "scientist" without
question. Most sciences are in their infancy--the only ones with
any real maturity are physics and chemistry, with biology getting
there. Climatology is very immature and basing social policy on its
models is about as wise as basing social policy on the ravings of
alchemists or astrologers.

Is that "scientism" or the opposite?

It is scientism. Google that word.

I am getting a lot of the latter
from the right wingers.

What, distrust of climatologists? Skepticism is a necessary part of the
scientific process--anyone who is calling the climatologists liars is
behaving more like a proper scientist than all the folks who are saying "we
should trust them because they are scientists".

Oh and your last sentence is just plain
ignorant meanness and bespeaks much of you.

Oh, now _there_ is a compelling rebuttal if ever I saw one.

The opposite of scientism or anti-scientism if you want. It's the idea
that if one spouts anything long enough and loudly enough, it will be
believed. It will still not be true however. A good example is calling
climatologists liars without any *scientific* proof.

Swingman wrote:
jo4hn wrote:

To all readers: look at that website anyway. Lots of information that
is quite understandable without a lot of science background.

Agreed ... damned trouble is it seems everyone has an agenda of some
sort, making any data, and any modeling using same, subject to suspicion.

All temperature data is massaged, supposedly to reduce error inherent in
historical readings, but I'm personally, and simply, at the point of not
trusting those doing the "massaging", and there is ample evidence to
back up that skepticism.

What should have been an age of enlightenment has demonstrably turned
into and age of skepticism and suspicion.

IOW, I've been right all along ... g

Massaging in science is removing wild points (or spikes), conversion
from data numbers to engineering/science values, applying instrument
calibration values, and the like. Fraud is very rare (Fox rants
notwithstanding), since it will be found out by ones peers.

"Leon" wrote:

Being able to look at the world through my own eyes and interpret
what I am seeing rather than being told what I am seeing.

I do not dispute that some places are getting warmer, at least for
this period of time but there are other places that are getting
colder. Take the South Pole for instance, its ice has been growing
for years.

I totally believe that those that believe in global warming "trend",
don't have enough data to make a proper assessment.

Would you mind sharing your vetted source you used to reach your
observations?

Lew

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
...

"Leon" wrote:

Being able to look at the world through my own eyes and interpret what I
am seeing rather than being told what I am seeing.

I do not dispute that some places are getting warmer, at least for this
period of time but there are other places that are getting colder. Take
the South Pole for instance, its ice has been growing for years.

I totally believe that those that believe in global warming "trend",
don't have enough data to make a proper assessment.

Would you mind sharing your vetted source you used to reach your
observations?

How about you show me scientific data from 800 years ago, and all years
since. Then let's see what the computer spits out.
"Normal" weather patterns run longer than what we have data for.

Global warming, climate changes, what ever todays click is was not a such a
concern before money was involved, or before scientists had to come up with
derived answers to justify the billions in research.

jo4hn wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
jo4hn wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
jo4hn wrote:
Mark & Juanita wrote:
Swingman wrote:

Larry Jaques wrote:

I've been on the environmental bandwagon for nearly 40 years,
but I no longer call myself an environmentalist because of
what the movement hath wrought. I think ecoterrorists may
outnumber the greenies now. sigh
As a home builder with a recent, alternative construction,
"green" project under my belt, I can guarantee you that more
waste hit the land fills due to its "green" nature then in any
two of my usual traditional construction projects.

.... still marveling at the sheer, unconscious ignorance of many
of the misguided folks who have embraced this "movement" ... all
warm, fuzzy, self congratulatory, and without a clue!

Read something today that makes a lot of sense regarding this.
There are two camps of people, materialists -- those people who
say that there is a material universe which behaves in a
consistent way, and if you study it you can learn the way it
works, and teleologists -- those who say that the universe is an
ideal place. From what I read: "More or less, it exists so
that we humans
can live in it. And human thought is a fundamental force in the
universe. Teleology says that if a mental model is esthetically
pleasing then it must be true. Teleology implies that if you
truly believe in something, itll happen."

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/12/06/government-by-wishful-thinking/

The people you describe above Swingman are of the latter
persuasion. They don't care if what they want to try hasn't
worked before -- it just wasn't done correctly, they are going
to do it correctly. If the idea of a "green" economy feels
good, by golly, it will be good. Ignore those niggling little
details like more waste or less available resourced -- by golly
it FEELS good!

So the doomsayers on the right believe that doing nothing besides
reciting mantras such as "there ain't no such thing as global
warming", that the problem will go away. And further that there
never was a problem and that scientists lie for any reason. Wow.
Thank you for clearing that up.
The "global warming" "scientists" are engaging in political
activity and using models that have not been validated to support
their politicking. There is a tendency toward "scientism" in our
society--trusting anyone who claims to be a "scientist" without
question. Most sciences are in their infancy--the only ones with
any real maturity are physics and chemistry, with biology getting
there. Climatology is very immature and basing social policy on
its models is about as wise as basing social policy on the ravings
of alchemists or astrologers.

Is that "scientism" or the opposite?

It is scientism. Google that word.

I am getting a lot of the latter
from the right wingers.

What, distrust of climatologists? Skepticism is a necessary part of
the scientific process--anyone who is calling the climatologists
liars is behaving more like a proper scientist than all the folks
who are saying "we should trust them because they are scientists".

Oh and your last sentence is just plain
ignorant meanness and bespeaks much of you.

Oh, now _there_ is a compelling rebuttal if ever I saw one.

The opposite of scientism or anti-scientism if you want. It's the
idea that if one spouts anything long enough and loudly enough, it
will be believed. It will still not be true however. A good example
is calling climatologists liars without any *scientific* proof.

Well, that is exactly what the global warming people are doing, spouting
something loud and long and hoping to be believed. And launching personal
attacks at anyone who questions them.

"Robatoy" wrote in message
...

If we take the earth's population at 7 billion, and moved them all
toTexas,

Wouldn't that put the planet out of balance and throw it out of it's
solar orbit? I mean, I can see it wobbling like the washing machine
when the big blanket bunches up on one side of the tub and then hurtling
out into deep space.

Dave in Houston

jo4hn wrote:
Swingman wrote:
jo4hn wrote:

To all readers: look at that website anyway. Lots of information
that is quite understandable without a lot of science background.

Agreed ... damned trouble is it seems everyone has an agenda of some
sort, making any data, and any modeling using same, subject to
suspicion.

All temperature data is massaged, supposedly to reduce error
inherent in historical readings, but I'm personally, and simply, at
the point of not trusting those doing the "massaging", and there is
ample evidence to back up that skepticism.

What should have been an age of enlightenment has demonstrably turned
into and age of skepticism and suspicion.

IOW, I've been right all along ... g

Massaging in science is removing wild points (or spikes), conversion
from data numbers to engineering/science values, applying instrument
calibration values, and the like. Fraud is very rare (Fox rants
notwithstanding), since it will be found out by ones peers.

Massaging data is not the issue. Taking a short term item of noise in a
long term cycle and claiming that your model projects the long term trend is
the problem. The climate cycle is at least 120,000 years, the models that
purport to project that cycle are working on 40 years of data. See the
problem?

Lew Hodgett wrote:
"Leon" wrote:

Being able to look at the world through my own eyes and interpret
what I am seeing rather than being told what I am seeing.

I do not dispute that some places are getting warmer, at least for
this period of time but there are other places that are getting
colder. Take the South Pole for instance, its ice has been growing
for years.

I totally believe that those that believe in global warming "trend",
don't have enough data to make a proper assessment.

Would you mind sharing your vetted source you used to reach your
observations?

One doesn't need a "vetted source" to see that the glaciation cycle runs on
a timeframe approximately 30,000 times longer than that on which the "global
warming" models are based. The ice core data is well known.

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
: Leon wrote:
: "Chris Friesen" wrote in message
: el...
: On 12/07/2009 11:15 AM, Leon wrote:
:
: Really and truly none of the global warming/climate change
malarkey
: came about until we started trying to clean up the environment and
: stop air pollution. For hundreds of years a lot of wood was
: always being burned for
: cooking and heating, no global warming problem then.
:
: As long as the rate of burning doesn't exceed the rate of growth,
: burning wood for energy is carbon neutral.
:
: That sounds lile a fuzzy feels good formula.
:
: Not really. If there is a problem it is the result of suddenly
releasing a
: lot of carbon that was sequestered over millions of years. Trees are
short
: term--burn them and plant new ones where the old ones were and the new
ones
: store the same amount of carbon as the old ones released while being
burned.
:
: 200 years ago the population of the planet was under a billion
: people. Now it's 6x that.
:
: But every one was burning then not so now, actually few by contrast.
:
:
:
: From 1850 to 2000, the total energy consumption of the USA
increased
: by a factor of 50. Of course a large amount of that is due to
: population increase, but the per-capita energy consumption has
: increased roughly 4x over that period.
:
: So.. much cleaner energy consumption compared to way back when.
:
: How do you figure?

Do you really want him to answer that?

Dave in Houston
:

"jo4hn" wrote in message
m...
: Mark & Juanita wrote:
: Swingman wrote:
:
: Larry Jaques wrote:
:
: I've been on the environmental bandwagon for nearly 40 years, but
I no
: longer call myself an environmentalist because of what the
movement
: hath wrought. I think ecoterrorists may outnumber the greenies
now.
: sigh
: As a home builder with a recent, alternative construction, "green"
: project under my belt, I can guarantee you that more waste hit the
land
: fills due to its "green" nature then in any two of my usual
traditional
: construction projects.
:
: .... still marveling at the sheer, unconscious ignorance of many of
the
: misguided folks who have embraced this "movement" ... all warm,
fuzzy,
: self congratulatory, and without a clue!
:
:
: Read something today that makes a lot of sense regarding this.
There are
: two camps of people, materialists -- those people who say that there
is a
: material universe which behaves in a consistent way, and if you
study it you
: can learn the way it works, and teleologists -- those who say that
the
: universe is an ideal place. From what I read:
: "More or less, it exists so that we humans can live in it. And
human
: thought is a fundamental force in the universe. Teleology says that
if a
: mental model is esthetically pleasing then it must be true.
Teleology
: implies that if you truly believe in something, itll happen."
:
:
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/12/06/government-by-wishful-thinking/
:
: The people you describe above Swingman are of the latter
persuasion. They
: don't care if what they want to try hasn't worked before -- it just
wasn't
: done correctly, they are going to do it correctly. If the idea of a
"green"
: economy feels good, by golly, it will be good. Ignore those
niggling little
: details like more waste or less available resourced -- by golly it
FEELS
: good!
:
: So the doomsayers on the right believe that doing nothing besides
: reciting mantras such as "there ain't no such thing as global
warming",
: that the problem will go away. And further that there never was a
: problem and that scientists lie for any reason. Wow. Thank you for
: clearing that up.

I thought these scientists (and Big Al, of course) stand to make
brazillions and brazillions of dollars. Why else would you want to
dream up and perpetuate such a huge hoax?

Dave in Houston

jo4hn wrote:
....
... A good example is calling
climatologists liars without any *scientific* proof.

Well, we've just learned of a significant amount of proof in
falsification and misrepresentation of data and in scheming to prevent
dissenting scientific opinion and research from being accepted...

--

Bob Martin wrote:

What parts are getting warmer? The average temperature has been
steadily declining since 1996. And even if it IS getting warmer,
it's no where near what it was during the Medieval Warm Period (a
time of great prosperity).

Might I suggest you get your facts from NASA rather than from Fox
News or your childrens' comics?
The 10 warmest years on record have all occurred in the last 12 years.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/

You really should keep up. First, NASA recognized the mistake and corrected
their findings. Second, I'd be skeptical of taking my news from a player in
the Climategate fraud. Here's one opinion piece in the Denver Post.
http://neighbors.denverpost.com/blog...gate-cover-up/

Here's one basic flaw:
http://www.dailytech.com/Researcher+...ticle10973.htm

Another is the use of ZERO in an Excel spreadsheet to represent the absence
of a reading but nevertheless used to compute an average.

I don't take my news from Fox or children's books. Neither do I take if from
acolytes of a new religion.

J. Clarke wrote:
jo4hn wrote:
Swingman wrote:
jo4hn wrote:

To all readers: look at that website anyway. Lots of information
that is quite understandable without a lot of science background.
Agreed ... damned trouble is it seems everyone has an agenda of some
sort, making any data, and any modeling using same, subject to
suspicion.

All temperature data is massaged, supposedly to reduce error
inherent in historical readings, but I'm personally, and simply, at
the point of not trusting those doing the "massaging", and there is
ample evidence to back up that skepticism.

What should have been an age of enlightenment has demonstrably turned
into and age of skepticism and suspicion.

IOW, I've been right all along ... g

Massaging in science is removing wild points (or spikes), conversion
from data numbers to engineering/science values, applying instrument
calibration values, and the like. Fraud is very rare (Fox rants
notwithstanding), since it will be found out by ones peers.

Massaging data is not the issue. Taking a short term item of noise in a
long term cycle and claiming that your model projects the long term trend is
the problem. The climate cycle is at least 120,000 years, the models that
purport to project that cycle are working on 40 years of data. See the
problem?

Indeed. There are no long term (paleo)climatological models that
operate on 40 years worth of data. Tree rings, earth cores, sea cores,
and even the written descriptions of various weather phenomena go back
hundreds, if not thousands of years. New Vostok data have extended the
historical record of temperature variations and atmospheric
concentrations of CO2, methane and other greenhouse trace gases (GTG)
back to 420,000 years before present.

This is all science that won't go away just because you will it so.
Perhaps nothing will come of it or even the massive amounts of fresh
water that are entering the oceans will alter the thermohaline
circulation patterns resulting in colder temperatures. Research in
these areas should not be curtailed despite the anti-science popularity
in certain political arenas.

jo4hn wrote:
....
hundreds, if not thousands of years. New Vostok data have extended the
historical record of temperature variations and atmospheric
concentrations of CO2, methane and other greenhouse trace gases (GTG)
back to 420,000 years before present.
....

Which all indicates that the previous temperature rises (greater by far
than the recent) all _precede_ the CO2 levels thereby negating the cause
of higher temperatures being CO2 but rather that it appears that the
rising temperatures resulted in higher CO2 levels (probably by
stimulating additional plant growth???)

IOW, it refutes the hypothesis currently being posited as the causative
factor.

--

On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 12:53:33 -0500, Tom Watson
wrote:

Beware the Yahoos, Googlectuals, WikiPaederasts and Bloglodytes.


The following is by Joe *******i, senior meteorologist for
Accu-Weather. It is presented for your edification.



MONDAY 6:30 AM..
A DELIGHTFUL DAY IN NYC AND COPENHAGEN SATURDAY... IF YOU ARE A POLAR
BEAR

The upcoming climate conference in Copenhagen will be attended by many
who for some reason, seem to believe they can control the planet's
temperature. Actually, this isn't about control of the planet's
temperature, but control of the planet's people, since that is much
easier to do if you can hoodwink them into believing they are being
controlled for a good reason.

Folks, it's the only logical conclusion. Why? Because while I will
acknowledge I am not 100% sure we humans have nothing to do with it,
there is no way any man alive can be 100% positive we are. And to
force feed ideas down another man's throat is simply trying to enslave
them to your ideas. It's that simple, given the evidence, which can
certainly fight any warming argument to a draw.

In any case, another example of a power greater than Al Gore is
showing up, and whether you believe it's simply nature, or whoever
created nature, it should not be lost on people that maybe someone is
trying to give this now immensely rich carbon crusader a hint, that he
should cash in his chips and leave the climate casino happy that he
made this much. Saturday will be cold day across the United States
after a brutal winter storm that will lead to a blizzard on the Plains
into the Great Lakes, an interior Northeast snow and ice storm, a
lake-effect outbreak that may be one of the nastiest in years, and a
pattern that is threatening to wreck many a holiday travel plan in the
longer term. And that is in the States. Meanwhile, back at the climate
debacle ranch where I was expecting that at least the attendees would
get there by horse and buggy, or fly coach (see headline below)
northeast winds and a big Scandinavian high should at least keep
Copenhagen chilly, if not snowy.

By the way, the "trick" in the Climategate scandal that is being
referred to is not getting rid of something minor like the last 10
years of cooling. IT WAS TO GET RID OF 350 YEARS OF WARMING FROM
1000-1350. I have already told you that this is simply because it got
so warm... the real cooling is getting ready to start, probably after
this El Nino, but more so in the middle of the next decade. Perish the
thought, but by 2015, the Earth's temps may be "normal" whatever that
mythical value is, and the melting icecaps, will be looked at as Peggy
Lee "is that all there is" meltdown. If this is all we can get,
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosph...area.withtrend.
jpg

it won't take much to have us well above normal in 10-15 years.

But on they go, these new Gods of our ages, with the wisdom of their
models which have plainly been busting and a generation of people who
believe they are "liberal" (what a joke... since when does a
liberal-minded person simply follow along like a sheep... another case
of a misnomer to describe a group... look at one of the definitions:
Liberalism is a broad class of political philosophies that considers
individual liberty and equality to be the most important political
goals...) If there was truly liberal thought here, people would be
looking at all the facts, not simply following along.

I still think that this whole Climategate fiasco will lead to an open
debate where men and women of good will can see this is not an
open-and-shut case, and they are being lead like sheep to the
slaughter. Problem is some of wolves don't want any part of it.

If these people meeting in Copenhagen really want to show us their
virtue, do not use any power at all while at the conference. That's
right... no heat, no electricity, none of the fruits of true
progressive and enlightened thinking. Let's see you put your money
where your mouth is. Fat chance with the arrogance of imagined
authority you display.

I want you to think about this. James Hansen may be arguably America's
greatest astronomer, but he is no expert on climate or weather. Sorry,
the facts are there. I don't think he understands what the weather was
like in this country in the 1930s-50s, nor does he understand that the
Earth's climate is constantly changing; there is no perfect climate.
That being said, I can't see how people will not question him on the
climate issue, where he came aboard as a concerned observer, with best
of intentions.. when he and his agency is missing what may be the
greatest astronomical event of our lifetimes, the falling asleep of
the Sun. It is now two years behind NASA's idea that this sunspot
cycle would come alive in 2007 and right in line with what Soviet
scientists back in the early 1990s were saying, the same people who
opined we could return to a little ice age around 2030. How is it that
the people who are actually right are shouted down, while people who
are not are allowed to jam their ideas down everyone's throat? That is
what this Climategate is about... the FREEDOM to debate and the scary
thought that yet another utopian idea-based movement is out to take
over the world. It's not done with guns, but with a more subtle
approach. SORRY, BUT THAT CONCLUSION IS JUST VALID AS "THE SCIENCE IS
SETTLED" idea. A degree or two up or down is not going to kill the
planet, and think about it, would you rather it colder or warmer.

In any case, a word of advice to NASA, which seems to have some
linkage to all this:

Physician, heal thyself.







Regards,

Tom Watson
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/

On Dec 7, 1:29*pm, Swingman wrote:

What should have been an age of enlightenment has demonstrably turned
into and age of skepticism and suspicion.

I couldn't agree more. Especially with the truth hiding in plain
sight.


IOW, I've been right all along ... g

Well...

Karl... I wanted to stay out of this. But actually, blaming Canada
earlier was just a smoke screen on the real truth.

I didn't want to post the REAL truth, since (thinking of Jack
Nicholson here) many couldn't handle the truth. Well, here it is.
And it's been out there for many years, and NO ONE, no matter how they
internet search and quote, can disprove it.

In that vein, since I believe it and it can't be googled away
with foamy blather, doesn't that make it the truth according to the
group definition?

I didn't want to play this card as the "experts" are obviously not
finished. But...

http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speec...alwarming.html

I hope this clears things up. Now all of you can go back to being
friends again.... or can you....

Robert

jo4hn wrote:

calibration values, and the like. Fraud is very rare (Fox rants
notwithstanding), since it will be found out by ones peers.

Not if you don't allow, or actively discourage, peer review. Proof of
that happening is available, but you just don't seem to be hearing about
it from the AP.

Just call me skeptical/suspicious as to why ... but I'll be glad to
change my mind if someone can refute it beyond doubt and from an
unbiased source.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

Tom Watson wrote:
On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 12:53:33 -0500, Tom Watson
wrote:

Beware the Yahoos, Googlectuals, WikiPaederasts and Bloglodytes.


The following is by Joe *******i, senior meteorologist for
Accu-Weather. It is presented for your edification.

I like old Joe ... even after he said that Rita would come roaring down
the "Texas 59 Corridor" and basically "wipe out Houston" just hours
before it hit, well to the East, and leaving an evacuated Houston high
and dry, but many evacuee's in misery and/or dead.

(Being a skeptic, I watched it from my porch with a bottle of Pinot
noir, and had to water the grass the next day to keep it from dying)

Ahhh well, the fortunes of weather and climate modeling, win a few, lose
a few ...

BTW, I routinely watch Joe, on your favorite cable news channel, for all
hurricane build ups in the Gulf. g,d &r!

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

wrote:
On Dec 7, 1:29 pm, Swingman wrote:

What should have been an age of enlightenment has demonstrably turned
into and age of skepticism and suspicion.

I couldn't agree more. Especially with the truth hiding in plain
sight.


IOW, I've been right all along ... g

Well...

Karl... I wanted to stay out of this. But actually, blaming Canada
earlier was just a smoke screen on the real truth.

I didn't want to post the REAL truth, since (thinking of Jack
Nicholson here) many couldn't handle the truth. Well, here it is.
And it's been out there for many years, and NO ONE, no matter how they
internet search and quote, can disprove it.

In that vein, since I believe it and it can't be googled away
with foamy blather, doesn't that make it the truth according to the
group definition?

I didn't want to play this card as the "experts" are obviously not
finished. But...

http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speec...alwarming.html

I hope this clears things up. Now all of you can go back to being
friends again.... or can you....

But Robert, Robert, it's true!!

I see them every day, even on TV. I tell Linda I can spot'em a mile
away. Their eyes are close together, on either side of big noses; and
you can see all their front teeth, with even the whisp of a smile. Sorta
like the ballon boys father, or Jerry Seinfeld!

I tell ... it's true!!!

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 19:08:30 -0600, Swingman wrote:

Tom Watson wrote:
On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 12:53:33 -0500, Tom Watson
wrote:

Beware the Yahoos, Googlectuals, WikiPaederasts and Bloglodytes.


The following is by Joe *******i, senior meteorologist for
Accu-Weather. It is presented for your edification.

I like old Joe ... even after he said that Rita would come roaring down
the "Texas 59 Corridor" and basically "wipe out Houston" just hours
before it hit, well to the East, and leaving an evacuated Houston high
and dry, but many evacuee's in misery and/or dead.

(Being a skeptic, I watched it from my porch with a bottle of Pinot
noir, and had to water the grass the next day to keep it from dying)

Ahhh well, the fortunes of weather and climate modeling, win a few, lose
a few ...

BTW, I routinely watch Joe, on your favorite cable news channel, for all
hurricane build ups in the Gulf. g,d &r!


You know he's an Aggies fan, right?




Regards,

Tom Watson
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
Snip

The climate cycle is at least 120,000 years, the models that
purport to project that cycle are working on 40 years of data. See the
problem?



Eggsactly.

jo4hn wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
jo4hn wrote:
Swingman wrote:
jo4hn wrote:

To all readers: look at that website anyway. Lots of information
that is quite understandable without a lot of science background.
Agreed ... damned trouble is it seems everyone has an agenda of
some sort, making any data, and any modeling using same, subject to
suspicion.

All temperature data is massaged, supposedly to reduce error
inherent in historical readings, but I'm personally, and simply, at
the point of not trusting those doing the "massaging", and there is
ample evidence to back up that skepticism.

What should have been an age of enlightenment has demonstrably
turned into and age of skepticism and suspicion.

IOW, I've been right all along ... g

Massaging in science is removing wild points (or spikes), conversion
from data numbers to engineering/science values, applying instrument
calibration values, and the like. Fraud is very rare (Fox rants
notwithstanding), since it will be found out by ones peers.

Massaging data is not the issue. Taking a short term item of noise
in a long term cycle and claiming that your model projects the long
term trend is the problem. The climate cycle is at least 120,000
years, the models that purport to project that cycle are working on
40 years of data. See the problem?

Indeed. There are no long term (paleo)climatological models that
operate on 40 years worth of data. Tree rings, earth cores, sea
cores, and even the written descriptions of various weather phenomena
go back hundreds, if not thousands of years. New Vostok data have
extended the historical record of temperature variations and
atmospheric concentrations of CO2, methane and other greenhouse trace
gases (GTG) back to 420,000 years before present.

I am well aware of the _data_. You understand, do you not, that _data_ is
not a _model_?

Show me a _model_--something that allows computation--that accurately
describes a full glaciation cycle and that is accepted by IPCC, and then
tell us why NASA Goddard is not using _that_ model instead of the one that
they _are_ using which according to their own reports has only been
validated for the period subsequent to 1951.

This is all science that won't go away just because you will it so.

I have been asking you people to present me with a model that accurately
describes the full glaciation cycle for years and you are the first who has
not simply told me that I was crazy for wanting such a thing. If the model
exists please present it and then explain to us why _that_ model is not
being used by IPCC instead of the Hansen model.

A model will not spring into existence simply because you wish it so.

Perhaps nothing will come of it or even the massive amounts of fresh
water that are entering the oceans will alter the thermohaline
circulation patterns resulting in colder temperatures. Research in
these areas should not be curtailed despite the anti-science
popularity in certain political arenas.

Who has advocated "curtailing research". Research anything you want to.
But don't tell me that something is proven because somebody got some numbers
out of a computer.

You seem to have only the most nebulous familiarity with the scientific
method and even less with the actual basis for the assertions of global
warming.

dpb wrote:
jo4hn wrote:
...
hundreds, if not thousands of years. New Vostok data have extended
the historical record of temperature variations and atmospheric
concentrations of CO2, methane and other greenhouse trace gases (GTG)
back to 420,000 years before present.
...

Which all indicates that the previous temperature rises (greater by far
than the recent) all _precede_ the CO2 levels thereby negating the cause
of higher temperatures being CO2 but rather that it appears that the
rising temperatures resulted in higher CO2 levels (probably by
stimulating additional plant growth???)

IOW, it refutes the hypothesis currently being posited as the causative
factor.

--
The cause and effect relationships are not known at this time. Data
supports neither possibility.

jo4hn wrote:

Swingman wrote:
jo4hn wrote:

To all readers: look at that website anyway. Lots of information that
is quite understandable without a lot of science background.

Agreed ... damned trouble is it seems everyone has an agenda of some
sort, making any data, and any modeling using same, subject to suspicion.

All temperature data is massaged, supposedly to reduce error inherent in
historical readings, but I'm personally, and simply, at the point of not
trusting those doing the "massaging", and there is ample evidence to
back up that skepticism.

What should have been an age of enlightenment has demonstrably turned
into and age of skepticism and suspicion.

IOW, I've been right all along ... g

Massaging in science is removing wild points (or spikes), conversion
from data numbers to engineering/science values, applying instrument
calibration values, and the like. Fraud is very rare (Fox rants
notwithstanding), since it will be found out by ones peers.

Well, one case in point, if you feed a flat temperature reading into one
of CRU's models, it returns the infamous "Hockey Stick" result. i.e., it
massages data in a way that appears to have hardcoded in the researcher's
bias.

All of this bleating about peer reviews would be a lot more credible if
the peer review process had not been subverted. *That* is definitely shown
in the released e-mails. When the only peers who review your work are those
who agree with your conclusions, and the only papers accepted for peer
review in journals are those that agree with AGW, and when journals that
dare publish peer reviewed papers that don't agree with AGW are threatened
and coerced into stopping that behavior, one no longer has science. One has
dogma and religion. In this case, the collars and cassocks have been
replaced with white labcoats. Still religion with orthodoxy being strictly
enforced.

--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham

jo4hn wrote:

J. Clarke wrote:
jo4hn wrote:
Swingman wrote:
jo4hn wrote:

To all readers: look at that website anyway. Lots of information
that is quite understandable without a lot of science background.
Agreed ... damned trouble is it seems everyone has an agenda of some
sort, making any data, and any modeling using same, subject to
suspicion.

All temperature data is massaged, supposedly to reduce error
inherent in historical readings, but I'm personally, and simply, at
the point of not trusting those doing the "massaging", and there is
ample evidence to back up that skepticism.

What should have been an age of enlightenment has demonstrably turned
into and age of skepticism and suspicion.

IOW, I've been right all along ... g

Massaging in science is removing wild points (or spikes), conversion
from data numbers to engineering/science values, applying instrument
calibration values, and the like. Fraud is very rare (Fox rants
notwithstanding), since it will be found out by ones peers.

Massaging data is not the issue. Taking a short term item of noise in a
long term cycle and claiming that your model projects the long term trend
is
the problem. The climate cycle is at least 120,000 years, the models
that
purport to project that cycle are working on 40 years of data. See the
problem?

Indeed. There are no long term (paleo)climatological models that
operate on 40 years worth of data. Tree rings, earth cores, sea cores,
and even the written descriptions of various weather phenomena go back
hundreds, if not thousands of years. New Vostok data have extended the
historical record of temperature variations and atmospheric
concentrations of CO2, methane and other greenhouse trace gases (GTG)
back to 420,000 years before present.


The warmist religion is attempting to predict disaster with average
temperature increases on the order of 0.6 deg C (~1.2 deg F). In order for
the models to be believable to that degree of precision, then the records
going back in time must be accurate on the order of 0.1 deg C. Do you
seriously believe that tree rings, driven by multiple confounding factors,
average temperature being much smaller in contribution than rainfall, or ice
core samples, again driven by multiple confounding factors can be relied
upon to that degree of precision? That isn't science, that's reading goat
entrails.


This is all science that won't go away just because you will it so.
Perhaps nothing will come of it or even the massive amounts of fresh
water that are entering the oceans will alter the thermohaline
circulation patterns resulting in colder temperatures. Research in
these areas should not be curtailed despite the anti-science popularity
in certain political arenas.

--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham

On Mon, 7 Dec 2009 16:01:36 -0600, "Dave in Houston"
wrote:


"Robatoy" wrote in message
...

If we take the earth's population at 7 billion, and moved them all
toTexas,

Wouldn't that put the planet out of balance and throw it out of it's
solar orbit? I mean, I can see it wobbling like the washing machine
when the big blanket bunches up on one side of the tub and then hurtling
out into deep space.

Dave in Houston

So in theory they could move the population around the planet to
control the orbit around the sun and control the climate. 8-)
Mike M

Tom Watson wrote:

You know he's an Aggies fan, right?

Probably the cause his apparently built in skepticism ...

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

"Mike M" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 7 Dec 2009 16:01:36 -0600, "Dave in Houston"
wrote:


"Robatoy" wrote in message
...

If we take the earth's population at 7 billion, and moved them all
toTexas,

Wouldn't that put the planet out of balance and throw it out of it's
solar orbit? I mean, I can see it wobbling like the washing machine
when the big blanket bunches up on one side of the tub and then hurtling
out into deep space.

Dave in Houston

So in theory they could move the population around the planet to
control the orbit around the sun and control the climate. 8-)
Mike M


NASA Proposed an idea not to far from that. They suggested moving the planet
away from the sun to mitigate global warming.

Mark & Juanita wrote:
jo4hn wrote:

problem?

Indeed. There are no long term (paleo)climatological models that
operate on 40 years worth of data. Tree rings, earth cores, sea cores,
and even the written descriptions of various weather phenomena go back
hundreds, if not thousands of years. New Vostok data have extended the
historical record of temperature variations and atmospheric
concentrations of CO2, methane and other greenhouse trace gases (GTG)
back to 420,000 years before present.


The warmist religion is attempting to predict disaster with average
temperature increases on the order of 0.6 deg C (~1.2 deg F). In order for
the models to be believable to that degree of precision, then the records
going back in time must be accurate on the order of 0.1 deg C. Do you
seriously believe that tree rings, driven by multiple confounding factors,
average temperature being much smaller in contribution than rainfall, or ice
core samples, again driven by multiple confounding factors can be relied
upon to that degree of precision? That isn't science, that's reading goat
entrails.


This is all science that won't go away just because you will it so.
Perhaps nothing will come of it or even the massive amounts of fresh
water that are entering the oceans will alter the thermohaline
circulation patterns resulting in colder temperatures. Research in
these areas should not be curtailed despite the anti-science popularity
in certain political arenas.


Mark is mixing micro- with macro-climatology here. Models of this type
deal with long term trends. I will sign off now. Good night and good
grief.
yours in science,
jo4hn

Mark & Juanita wrote:
jo4hn wrote:

Swingman wrote:
jo4hn wrote:

To all readers: look at that website anyway. Lots of information that
is quite understandable without a lot of science background.
Agreed ... damned trouble is it seems everyone has an agenda of some
sort, making any data, and any modeling using same, subject to suspicion.

All temperature data is massaged, supposedly to reduce error inherent in
historical readings, but I'm personally, and simply, at the point of not
trusting those doing the "massaging", and there is ample evidence to
back up that skepticism.

What should have been an age of enlightenment has demonstrably turned
into and age of skepticism and suspicion.

IOW, I've been right all along ... g

Massaging in science is removing wild points (or spikes), conversion
from data numbers to engineering/science values, applying instrument
calibration values, and the like. Fraud is very rare (Fox rants
notwithstanding), since it will be found out by ones peers.

Well, one case in point, if you feed a flat temperature reading into one
of CRU's models, it returns the infamous "Hockey Stick" result. i.e., it
massages data in a way that appears to have hardcoded in the researcher's
bias.

All of this bleating about peer reviews would be a lot more credible if
the peer review process had not been subverted. *That* is definitely shown
in the released e-mails. When the only peers who review your work are those
who agree with your conclusions, and the only papers accepted for peer
review in journals are those that agree with AGW, and when journals that
dare publish peer reviewed papers that don't agree with AGW are threatened
and coerced into stopping that behavior, one no longer has science. One has
dogma and religion. In this case, the collars and cassocks have been
replaced with white labcoats. Still religion with orthodoxy being strictly
enforced.

OK. You are resorting to snottiness now. Good night.

"Leon" wrote:

How about you show me scientific data from 800 years ago, and all
years since.

Interesting comment but how does it provide a vetted source to support
your previous observation?

Lew