Let's see some "scientific" refutation, please:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/...ut_the_ti.html


http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemans.../81559212.html

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

"Swingman" wrote in message
...

Let's see some "scientific" refutation, please:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/...ut_the_ti.html

Ah yes, The American Thinker, home of Ed Lasky who never met a smear-tactic
he didn't like. Say, there's a real credible source, right up there with
DailyKOS in terms of believability.

DGDevin wrote:


"Swingman" wrote in message
...

Let's see some "scientific" refutation, please:


http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/...ut_the_ti.html

Ah yes, The American Thinker, home of Ed Lasky who never met a
smear-tactic
he didn't like. Say, there's a real credible source, right up there with
DailyKOS in terms of believability.

Yep, to the statist progressive, citing facts is considered a smear
tactic. You just threw in that Daily KOS (a site that does *not* deal in
facts, but rather feelings) statement to lend credibility to your smear.

--

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

Rob Leatham

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
...

Ah yes, The American Thinker, home of Ed Lasky who never met a
smear-tactic
he didn't like. Say, there's a real credible source, right up there with
DailyKOS in terms of believability.

Yep, to the statist progressive, citing facts is considered a smear
tactic. You just threw in that Daily KOS (a site that does *not* deal in
facts, but rather feelings) statement to lend credibility to your smear.

To the right-wingnut droid any suggestion that one of his parade marshals
doesn't speak the gospel truth brings forth just this sort of reaction.
Lasky smells like a garbage truck, but you'll happily hold your nose and
believe whatever he says tomorrow anyway. You know what the difference is
between left-wingnuts and right-wingnuts like you? Nothing.

DGDevin wrote:


"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
...

Ah yes, The American Thinker, home of Ed Lasky who never met a
smear-tactic
he didn't like. Say, there's a real credible source, right up there
with DailyKOS in terms of believability.

Yep, to the statist progressive, citing facts is considered a smear
tactic. You just threw in that Daily KOS (a site that does *not* deal in
facts, but rather feelings) statement to lend credibility to your smear.

To the right-wingnut droid any suggestion that one of his parade marshals
doesn't speak the gospel truth brings forth just this sort of reaction.
Lasky smells like a garbage truck, but you'll happily hold your nose and
believe whatever he says tomorrow anyway. You know what the difference is
between left-wingnuts and right-wingnuts like you? Nothing.

Did you read the cited article? If not, then you have no position to make
any kind of statement regarding it. If you did, please cite, where, in that
article there was any sort of smear -- all that were stated were events and
facts that happened along with some conclusions to be drawn. You might not
like the facts, you might not like the conclusions, but that gives you no
place to call those things a smear.

Let me give you a hint:
Right wingnut, left wingnut == smear

Cite of documented cases of historical temperature data records being
manipulated by AGW scientists == fact, not smear. One is certainly welcome
to investigate and question the assumptions or evidence of those facts,
engaging in ad hominem against the person citing those facts however, does
not negate them, nor does it bolster the questioner's case.

In the statist's book, a smear is citing of any facts detrimental to the
statist's arguments. Statist's response to that citing of facts detrimental
is generally an ad hominem attack. e.g. "right-wingnut like you."




--

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

Rob Leatham

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
...

Did you read the cited article? If not, then you have no position to
make
any kind of statement regarding it. If you did, please cite, where, in
that
article there was any sort of smear

Did I say the artice contained smears? No? Then what are you talking
about?

If I posted a link to an article on DailyKOS or some other looney-left
website, would you take it seriously? Of course you wouldn't (neither would
I) because that outlet doesn't do journalism, they do advocacy and they
don't much care how far from the truth they have to stray in doing so. Well
guess what, The American Thinker is cut from the same cloth, and Ed Lasky is
a smear-monger, not a journalist--yet he's in charge of "news" at TAT (which
he co-founded). Publications with that sort of repuation don't get to sit
at the big table and be taken seriously, that's just the way it works.

-- all that were stated were events and
facts that happened along with some conclusions to be drawn. You might
not
like the facts, you might not like the conclusions, but that gives you no
place to call those things a smear.

Let me give you a hint:
Right wingnut, left wingnut == smear

How about "red greens" -- do you seriously have trouble understanding that
equating environmentalism with communism qualifies as a smear, and a
childish one at that?

Pot--kettle --black, buster, don't demand from others what you are not
prepared to do yourself.

On Jan 23, 10:38*am, Dave Balderstone
wrote:
snip
One reporting station being used for everything north of 65 degrees in
Canada's north? A station in Hawaii being used to project data 1200
miles north?

Well, if there's only one station north of 65, this should result in
showing less warming. The temperatures in Canada's north have been
clearly and unequivocally warming.

I know, I live here. When I first moved to the Yukon in 1989, we used
to have at least 2-3 weeks of 40 below temperatures. Not any more. We
actually got a couple of days last year after a few years of the
temperatures staying above -35. And we had record hot temperatures
last summer. (As did Larry's Oregon)

Luigi

On 1/23/2010 11:37 PM, Luigi Zanasi wrote:
On Jan 23, 10:38 am, Dave Balderstone
wrote:
snip
One reporting station being used for everything north of 65 degrees in
Canada's north? A station in Hawaii being used to project data 1200
miles north?

Well, if there's only one station north of 65, this should result in
showing less warming. The temperatures in Canada's north have been
clearly and unequivocally warming.

I know, I live here. When I first moved to the Yukon in 1989, we used
to have at least 2-3 weeks of 40 below temperatures. Not any more. We
actually got a couple of days last year after a few years of the
temperatures staying above -35. And we had record hot temperatures
last summer. (As did Larry's Oregon)

As the AGW folks are fond of saying, methinks you're "mistaking weather
for climate" ...

Hey, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

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

On Jan 23, 10:15*pm, Swingman wrote:
On 1/23/2010 11:37 PM, Luigi Zanasi wrote:



On Jan 23, 10:38 am, Dave Balderstone
*wrote:
snip
One reporting station being used for everything north of 65 degrees in
Canada's north? A station in Hawaii being used to project data 1200
miles north?

Well, if there's only one station north of 65, this should result in
showing less warming. The temperatures in Canada's north have been
clearly and unequivocally warming.

I know, I live here. When I first moved to the Yukon in 1989, we used
to have at least 2-3 weeks of 40 below temperatures. Not any more. We
actually got a couple of days last year after a few years of the
temperatures staying above -35. And we had record hot temperatures
last summer. (As did Larry's Oregon)

As the AGW folks are fond of saying, methinks you're "mistaking weather
for climate" ...

Hey, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Yabbut 20 years of weather data shows what the climate is. :-)

Luigi

Luigi Zanasi wrote:
On Jan 23, 10:15 pm, Swingman wrote:
On 1/23/2010 11:37 PM, Luigi Zanasi wrote:



On Jan 23, 10:38 am, Dave Balderstone
wrote:
snip
One reporting station being used for everything north of 65
degrees in Canada's north? A station in Hawaii being used to
project data 1200 miles north?

Well, if there's only one station north of 65, this should result in
showing less warming. The temperatures in Canada's north have been
clearly and unequivocally warming.

I know, I live here. When I first moved to the Yukon in 1989, we
used to have at least 2-3 weeks of 40 below temperatures. Not any
more. We actually got a couple of days last year after a few years
of the temperatures staying above -35. And we had record hot
temperatures last summer. (As did Larry's Oregon)

As the AGW folks are fond of saying, methinks you're "mistaking
weather for climate" ...

Hey, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Yabbut 20 years of weather data shows what the climate is. :-)


Not according to the climatologists. 100 years of temperature data show
COOLING, which is clearly "weather." Only when "adjustments" are applied,
yielding "warming" do these readings indicate "climate."

In article , Luigi Zanasi wrote:
On Jan 23, 10:38=A0am, Dave Balderstone
wrote:
snip
One reporting station being used for everything north of 65 degrees in
Canada's north? A station in Hawaii being used to project data 1200
miles north?

Well, if there's only one station north of 65, this should result in
showing less warming. The temperatures in Canada's north have been
clearly and unequivocally warming.

You miss the point, and thus draw a completely incorrect conclusion:
temperatures at latitudes of, say, 70 degrees are generally quite a bit lower
than at latitudes of, say, 40 degrees. Removing temperature stations at high
latitudes necessarily skews the average temperature of the remaining stations
upward, even if their individual temperatures don't change at all.

For a concrete (although admittedly simplistic) example, suppose we're going
to determine the average temperature of North America by averaging the
temperatures today at Point Barrow AK; Whitehorse YK; Duluth MN; Houston TX;
San Diego CA; and Miami FL. Now, for tomorrow's reading, eliminate Point
Barrow and Whitehorse from that list. How do you suppose tomorrow's average
will compare to today's?

On Jan 24, 5:26*am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , Luigi Zanasi wrote:

On Jan 23, 10:38=A0am, Dave Balderstone
wrote:
snip
One reporting station being used for everything north of 65 degrees in
Canada's north? A station in Hawaii being used to project data 1200
miles north?

Well, if there's only one station north of 65, this should result in
showing less warming. The temperatures in Canada's north have been
clearly and unequivocally warming.

You miss the point, and thus draw a completely incorrect conclusion:
temperatures at latitudes of, say, 70 degrees are generally quite a bit lower
than at latitudes of, say, 40 degrees. Removing temperature stations at high
latitudes necessarily skews the average temperature of the remaining stations
upward, even if their individual temperatures don't change at all.

For a concrete (although admittedly simplistic) example, suppose we're going
to determine the average temperature of North America by averaging the
temperatures today at Point Barrow AK; Whitehorse YK; Duluth MN; Houston TX;
San Diego CA; and Miami FL. Now, for tomorrow's reading, eliminate Point
Barrow and Whitehorse from that list. How do you suppose tomorrow's average
will compare to today's?

Granted that the year (or day, or whatever period) after the northern
stations are eliminated will show a jump in temperature.

However, in subsequent years, assuming that the north is warming up
faster than the south, the measured increase will be less than the
real one. That is the point I was making, maybe not as well as I
should.

Luigi

On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 11:49:02 -0800 (PST), the infamous Luigi Zanasi
scrawled the following:

On Jan 24, 5:26*am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , Luigi Zanasi wrote:

On Jan 23, 10:38=A0am, Dave Balderstone
wrote:
snip
One reporting station being used for everything north of 65 degrees in
Canada's north? A station in Hawaii being used to project data 1200
miles north?

Well, if there's only one station north of 65, this should result in
showing less warming. The temperatures in Canada's north have been
clearly and unequivocally warming.

You miss the point, and thus draw a completely incorrect conclusion:
temperatures at latitudes of, say, 70 degrees are generally quite a bit lower
than at latitudes of, say, 40 degrees. Removing temperature stations at high
latitudes necessarily skews the average temperature of the remaining stations
upward, even if their individual temperatures don't change at all.

For a concrete (although admittedly simplistic) example, suppose we're going
to determine the average temperature of North America by averaging the
temperatures today at Point Barrow AK; Whitehorse YK; Duluth MN; Houston TX;
San Diego CA; and Miami FL. Now, for tomorrow's reading, eliminate Point
Barrow and Whitehorse from that list. How do you suppose tomorrow's average
will compare to today's?

Granted that the year (or day, or whatever period) after the northern
stations are eliminated will show a jump in temperature.

However, in subsequent years, assuming that the north is warming up
faster than the south, the measured increase will be less than the
real one. That is the point I was making, maybe not as well as I
should.

No, Luigi. They "homogenize" data from other sites to blend your one
temperature so it always looks higher, no matter what.


---
"Some of us are wondering if we have created a monster."
Kevin Vranes, climate scientist, University of Colorado
talking about global warming hysteria, January, 2007.

On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 21:37:04 -0800 (PST), the infamous Luigi Zanasi
scrawled the following:

On Jan 23, 10:38*am, Dave Balderstone
wrote:
snip
One reporting station being used for everything north of 65 degrees in
Canada's north? A station in Hawaii being used to project data 1200
miles north?

Well, if there's only one station north of 65, this should result in
showing less warming. The temperatures in Canada's north have been
clearly and unequivocally warming.

I know, I live here. When I first moved to the Yukon in 1989, we used
to have at least 2-3 weeks of 40 below temperatures. Not any more. We
actually got a couple of days last year after a few years of the
temperatures staying above -35. And we had record hot temperatures
last summer. (As did Larry's Oregon)

2nd hottest on record...for one day. WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!

C'mon, WeeGee, at least _read_ the other material instead of just
drinking your AGWK Koolaid.

"Oh, I see that skeptic's article was written by a man who drove a
vehicle to work. He must be sponsored by Big Oil!" won't cut it.

Do yourself a favor. Watch the vids and -research- what they report
on. You simply have to find something wrong with what's going on if
you do (because it's killing people!)

There are too many of the Chicken Littles faking the stats to hide it
any more. Please open your eyes, my friend. Your local weather is
changing, but it has been hotter there before, and it got cooler
again, just as it's doing right now.

You said to me that Algore was irrelevant. I disagree. He's leading
millions of people down a false path. That ain't irrelevant to me.
Only if he weren't causing any harm could he be considered irrelevant.

--
We either make ourselves happy or miserable.
The amount of work is the same.
-Carlos Castaneda, mystic and author (1925-1998)
-------

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 21:37:04 -0800 (PST), the infamous Luigi Zanasi
scrawled the following:

On Jan 23, 10:38 am, Dave Balderstone
wrote:
snip
One reporting station being used for everything north of 65 degrees in
Canada's north? A station in Hawaii being used to project data 1200
miles north?

Well, if there's only one station north of 65, this should result in
showing less warming. The temperatures in Canada's north have been
clearly and unequivocally warming.

I know, I live here. When I first moved to the Yukon in 1989, we used
to have at least 2-3 weeks of 40 below temperatures. Not any more. We
actually got a couple of days last year after a few years of the
temperatures staying above -35. And we had record hot temperatures
last summer. (As did Larry's Oregon)

2nd hottest on record...for one day. WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!

C'mon, WeeGee, at least _read_ the other material instead of just
drinking your AGWK Koolaid.

"Oh, I see that skeptic's article was written by a man who drove a
vehicle to work. He must be sponsored by Big Oil!" won't cut it.

Do yourself a favor. Watch the vids and -research- what they report
on. You simply have to find something wrong with what's going on if
you do (because it's killing people!)

There are too many of the Chicken Littles faking the stats to hide it
any more. Please open your eyes, my friend. Your local weather is
changing, but it has been hotter there before, and it got cooler
again, just as it's doing right now.

You said to me that Algore was irrelevant. I disagree. He's leading
millions of people down a false path. That ain't irrelevant to me.
Only if he weren't causing any harm could he be considered irrelevant.


Larry, the Debate is Over!

On Jan 23, 11:14*am, Swingman wrote:
Let's see some "scientific" refutation, please:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/...was_but_the_ti...

http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemans.../81559212.html

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

This whole topic has to be looked at from a simplified position.

You can break it into two camps. Those who are willing to believe, and
those who won't.
Those that won't believe any of it, will go to any length to prove
their point, they will argue that the speck of dirt on a thermometer
1000 miles away has skewed the readings. IOW, it doesn't matter what
you serve them up as fact, there is something wrong with it.

Those who are willing to believe that there is a threat from global
warming, will believe that, even if they don't have any evidence. (I'm
not saying that there isn't any evidence, all I am saying is that many
believers do not, themselves, have any evidence.) They just accept it
a gospel. You cannot argue/discuss this topic with people who have
become believers.

Now let's assume that there is a warming trend. How much of it is due
to the influence of man? How much of that influence can be helped?
Some CO2 escapes in each breath when I sleep. Etc.

So... what's in it for those who are willing to spend a wad of money
trying to convert the unbelievers?

Who benefits most from which position? Which research results are
skewed by the writers of the cheques that pay for such research?

I think I will go visit the website of The Onion, and get myself some
facts.

On 1/23/2010 1:50 PM, Robatoy wrote:

Those that won't believe any of it, will go to any length to prove
their point, they will argue that the speck of dirt on a thermometer
1000 miles away has skewed the readings. IOW, it doesn't matter what
you serve them up as fact, there is something wrong with it.

Please note that the _issue_ is AGW, NOT cyclic variations in global
climate.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/research...ural-response/

The original post asked for "scientific" refutation ... nothing but hot
air thus far ... maybe that's the problem, eh?

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

On Jan 23, 4:33*pm, Swingman wrote:
On 1/23/2010 1:50 PM, Robatoy wrote:

Those that won't believe any of it, will go to any length to prove
their point, they will argue that the speck of dirt on a thermometer
1000 miles away has skewed the readings. IOW, it doesn't matter what
you serve them up as fact, there is something wrong with it.

Please note that the _issue_ is AGW, NOT cyclic variations in global
climate.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/research...rming-as-a-nat...

The original post asked for "scientific" refutation ... nothing but hot
air thus far ... maybe that's the problem, eh?

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

Trying to make any of the science stick is like trying to sew a button
onto a poached egg.
It's like farting in a hurricane.... you KNOW that fart is in there
and you KNOW it HAS TO alter that hurricane in some way...but...

It is all hot air and bull**** feeding on itself. Hoping for real
science is optimistic...IMHO. G

I think that just because there is money to be made at undoing global
warming pretty much tells the tale.

On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 17:10:19 -0600, "Leon"
wrote:
I think that just because there is money to be made at undoing global
warming pretty much tells the tale.

Think that's a little pessismistic. Even if global warming and
polluting the atmosphere with all sorts of stuff is not as rampant as
some would like to believe, there's still people who are having
breathing difficulties because of it. That *has* to have some kind of
negative affect on our planet.

"Leon" wrote in message
...


I think that just because there is money to be made at undoing global
warming pretty much tells the tale.

Given that the small minority of scientists who dispute the scientific
consensus about man-made climate change (Richard Lindzen being a good
example) often have a history of being funded by the petroleum and coal
industries, it would appear that there is plenty of profit motive to go
around.

Robatoy wrote:

Trying to make any of the science stick is like trying to sew a button
onto a poached egg.
It's like farting in a hurricane.... you KNOW that fart is in there
and you KNOW it HAS TO alter that hurricane in some way...but...

It is all hot air and bull**** feeding on itself. Hoping for real
science is optimistic...IMHO. G

According to chaos theory, the flapping of a butterfly's wings in the Amazon
could trigger a hurricane in the Atlantic.

The proposed solutions to the possibility of AGW are the equivalent to
eradicating all the Amazonian butterflies in order to prevent hurricanes.

How about we study responses to global warming instead of trying to mitigate
it? That is, instead of shutting down industry, we create more businesses to
build dikes around coastal cities and the like?

On 1/23/2010 10:14 AM, Swingman wrote:
Let's see some "scientific" refutation, please:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/...ut_the_ti.html


http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemans.../81559212.html

You forgot the "OT:" in your subject line.

--
See Nad. See Nad go. Go Nad!
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/

On 1/24/2010 9:14 AM, Steve Turner wrote:
On 1/23/2010 10:14 AM, Swingman wrote:
Let's see some "scientific" refutation, please:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/...ut_the_ti.html



http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemans.../81559212.html

You forgot the "OT:" in your subject line.

If it bothers you that much, put it in your reply!

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

On 1/24/2010 9:15 AM, Swingman wrote:
On 1/24/2010 9:14 AM, Steve Turner wrote:
On 1/23/2010 10:14 AM, Swingman wrote:
Let's see some "scientific" refutation, please:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/...ut_the_ti.html




http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemans.../81559212.html

You forgot the "OT:" in your subject line.

If it bothers you that much, put it in your reply!

Nah, just bustin' your chops a little. I find I only have about this much time
(holds up thumb and index finger about yay far apart) to keep up with this
group, so I pretty much just skip over the off-topic threads and I need all the
help I can get avoiding the ones I don't plan to follow... :-)

--
See Nad. See Nad go. Go Nad!
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/

The right to exist and the survival of the State of Israel are of great
importance to us found on there "about us" page
We hate the muzzies lol kind of racist kind of unscientific probably idiots
if you ask me ....just saying
It's a don't let the liberals (be afraid) create laws that don't allow us to
rape and plunder the plant.
Woot Woot log it, burn it, pave it, then I can park my SUV on it.



"Swingman" wrote in message
...
Let's see some "scientific" refutation, please:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/...ut_the_ti.html


http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemans.../81559212.html

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

On 1/23/2010 10:14 AM, Swingman wrote:

Let's see some "scientific" refutation, please:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/...ut_the_ti.html
http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemans.../81559212.html

Instead of posting links to opinions of opinions, why not simply say
that there are too many thumbs on (both sides of) the scales to be able
to arrive at a conclusion you trust?

My question for you is this: If some of the numbers have been fudged, do
you think knowing that is a sufficient basis for a conclusion that there
is no global warming danger?

That would be a bit like saying that knowing someone is paranoid is a
sufficient basis for concluding that no one is out to get him...

Asking people to refute a reporter's opinion is just another way of
saying "Lets you and him fight". No thanks.

You may be that bored, but I'm not.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

Morris Dovey wrote:
On 1/23/2010 10:14 AM, Swingman wrote:

Let's see some "scientific" refutation, please:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/...ut_the_ti.html
http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemans.../81559212.html

Instead of posting links to opinions of opinions, why not simply say
that there are too many thumbs on (both sides of) the scales to be
able to arrive at a conclusion you trust?

My question for you is this: If some of the numbers have been fudged,
do you think knowing that is a sufficient basis for a conclusion that
there is no global warming danger?

That would be a bit like saying that knowing someone is paranoid is a
sufficient basis for concluding that no one is out to get him...

Asking people to refute a reporter's opinion is just another way of
saying "Lets you and him fight". No thanks.

You may be that bored, but I'm not.

I think that the real issue is whether it's a "danger". It's clear at this
point that treating it as such is going to result in much government
wheelspinning and redistribution of wealth and no corrective action to speak
of. So rather than treat it as a "danger", why not just assume that it's
going to happen and look for opportunities instead?

On 1/24/2010 2:34 PM, J. Clarke wrote:

I think that the real issue is whether it's a "danger". It's clear at this
point that treating it as such is going to result in much government
wheelspinning and redistribution of wealth and no corrective action to speak
of.

I'm inclined to agree - although now that the issue has been raised and
so much noise made, I'd like to see it resolved (but I'm not holding my
breath waiting for that to happen).

So rather than treat it as a "danger", why not just assume that it's
going to happen and look for opportunities instead?

I haven't been able to bring myself to make even that assumption. There
are already enough problems in the world to provide enormous amounts of
opportunity - and the Internet spreads those opportunities around fairly
well.

Did you finish your garage project?

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

Morris Dovey wrote:
On 1/24/2010 2:34 PM, J. Clarke wrote:

I think that the real issue is whether it's a "danger". It's clear
at this point that treating it as such is going to result in much
government wheelspinning and redistribution of wealth and no
corrective action to speak of.

I'm inclined to agree - although now that the issue has been raised
and so much noise made, I'd like to see it resolved (but I'm not
holding my breath waiting for that to happen).

I'd like to see it resolved too, but I don't see it happening.

So rather than treat it as a "danger", why not just assume that it's
going to happen and look for opportunities instead?

I haven't been able to bring myself to make even that assumption.
There are already enough problems in the world to provide enormous
amounts of opportunity - and the Internet spreads those opportunities
around fairly well.

Did you finish your garage project?

Got the roof done but that's as far as ambition went. Maybe this summer
I'll do more.

On 1/24/2010 2:18 PM, Morris Dovey wrote:
On 1/23/2010 10:14 AM, Swingman wrote:

Let's see some "scientific" refutation, please:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/...ut_the_ti.html

http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemans.../81559212.html

Instead of posting links to opinions of opinions, why not simply say
that there are too many thumbs on (both sides of) the scales to be able
to arrive at a conclusion you trust?

Sorry, I don't buy into the "we won't discuss it until you agree to our
fundamentally flawed premise" BS.

If you really mean "posting links" discussing an issue that you don't
agree with because the issues raised don't fit in with your POV, fine?

Tell me then, where else are you going to get the HEALTHY skepticism
that is an absolute necessity in ANY _legitimate_ scientific endeavor?

You damn sure don't see it discussed in the media in this country.

On that note, here is somewhat of a gasp HEALTHY "skeptic" who backs
up his skepticism with scientific research and advances an alternative
theory that could well be as valid as CO2 induced AGW:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/

... go ahead, since it's posting another link, dismiss/ignore him as
OPINION while you're at it.

My question for you is this: If some of the numbers have been fudged, do
you think knowing that is a sufficient basis for a conclusion that there
is no global warming danger?

Bzzzt ... who said there is "no global warming danger"?

And my answer is that that would be sufficient basis to do whatever an
INFORMED citizen can do to make sure that we are not stampeded into
International agreements, and conclusive proof that they are NOT what
they purport to be.

AAMOF, It is part of _your_ responsibility as a citizen ... along with
NOT continually denigrating those who attempt to exercise that
responsibility.

That would be a bit like saying that knowing someone is paranoid is a
sufficient basis for concluding that no one is out to get him...

Say what?

Asking people to refute a reporter's opinion is just another way of
saying "Lets you and him fight". No thanks.

You may be that bored, but I'm not.

Again, _nothing_ germane, whatsoever, to dispelling a necessary and
HEALTHY skepticism of an extremely important scientific endeavor.

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

On 1/24/2010 3:31 PM, Swingman wrote:
On 1/24/2010 2:18 PM, Morris Dovey wrote:
On 1/23/2010 10:14 AM, Swingman wrote:

Let's see some "scientific" refutation, please:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/...ut_the_ti.html


http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemans.../81559212.html

Instead of posting links to opinions of opinions, why not simply say
that there are too many thumbs on (both sides of) the scales to be able
to arrive at a conclusion you trust?

Sorry, I don't buy into the "we won't discuss it until you agree to our
fundamentally flawed premise" BS.

Then why do you expect it of others?

If you really mean "posting links" discussing an issue that you don't
agree with because the issues raised don't fit in with your POV, fine?

My point of view doesn't enter into it at all. I didn't express one
(other than that I don't find /opinion/ to be evidence of anything other
than itself).

Tell me then, where else are you going to get the HEALTHY skepticism
that is an absolute necessity in ANY _legitimate_ scientific endeavor?

Hmm. I can't speak for anyone else, but I think I have a reasonably good
store of skepticism. As you're noticing, my skepticism factor rises
considerably when someone (however correct they may turn out to be)
makes their emotion a visible part of their argument.

You damn sure don't see it discussed in the media in this country.

So what? Do you expect that even a perfectly honest media is capable of
doing anything more than adding a layer of distortion to /whatever/
facts come their way?

On that note, here is somewhat of a gasp HEALTHY "skeptic" who backs
up his skepticism with scientific research and advances an alternative
theory that could well be as valid as CO2 induced AGW:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/

... go ahead, since it's posting another link, dismiss/ignore him as
OPINION while you're at it.

Ok. He listed nine assumptions he'd made, none accompanied by his
reasons for making the particular assumption he chose - would you
consider it "healthy skepticism" for me to consider those?

My question for you is this: If some of the numbers have been fudged, do
you think knowing that is a sufficient basis for a conclusion that there
is no global warming danger?

Bzzzt ... who said there is "no global warming danger"?

And my answer is that that would be sufficient basis to do whatever an
INFORMED citizen can do to make sure that we are not stampeded into
International agreements, and conclusive proof that they are NOT what
they purport to be.

Do I come across as likely to stampede? If yes, then how so - and if no,
then why are you shouting?

AAMOF, It is part of _your_ responsibility as a citizen ... along with
NOT continually denigrating those who attempt to exercise that
responsibility.

This borders on megalomania. You are neither qualified nor entitled to
dictate the responsibilities of any other free citizen. Live with it.

Are we to understand that skepticism is a healthy thing unless directed
toward your notions, in which case it becomes "denigration"?

That would be a bit like saying that knowing someone is paranoid is a
sufficient basis for concluding that no one is out to get him...

Say what?

Asking people to refute a reporter's opinion is just another way of
saying "Lets you and him fight". No thanks.

You may be that bored, but I'm not.

Again, _nothing_ germane, whatsoever, to dispelling a necessary and
HEALTHY skepticism of an extremely important scientific endeavor.

Agreed. Sorry I don't have any new and conclusive data here and that I'm
not able to direct you to any I've found elsewhere.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

On 1/24/2010 7:01 PM, Morris Dovey wrote:

Ok. He listed nine assumptions he'd made, none accompanied by his
reasons for making the particular assumption he chose

Come now, Morris ... the man is well known for his work on using
satellite temperature data ... you are too smart to have missed that as
a basis for his research, so I'm wondering why the cutesy bit of
dissimulation?

My question for you is this: If some of the numbers have been fudged, do
you think knowing that is a sufficient basis for a conclusion that there
is no global warming danger?

Bzzzt ... who said there is "no global warming danger"?

And my answer is that that would be sufficient basis to do whatever an
INFORMED citizen can do to make sure that we are not stampeded into
International agreements, and conclusive proof that they are NOT what
they purport to be.

Do I come across as likely to stampede? If yes, then how so - and if no,
then why are you shouting?

I took your question seriously and answered it clearly and concisely,
and here you go with ad hominem remarks about "shouting"??

"Emphasis" ... and well you know that.

However, it is understandable to take such a tack when your argument is
insufficient to address the point, so we'll leave it at that.

AAMOF, It is part of _your_ responsibility as a citizen ... along with
NOT continually denigrating those who attempt to exercise that
responsibility.

This borders on megalomania. You are neither qualified nor entitled to
dictate the responsibilities of any other free citizen. Live with it.

Are we to understand that skepticism is a healthy thing unless directed
toward your notions, in which case it becomes "denigration"?

And here I thought I was wandering in the waste land looking for an
answer, but damn if you aren't more lost than I.

That would be a bit like saying that knowing someone is paranoid is a
sufficient basis for concluding that no one is out to get him...

Say what?

Asking people to refute a reporter's opinion is just another way of
saying "Lets you and him fight". No thanks.

You may be that bored, but I'm not.

Again, _nothing_ germane, whatsoever, to dispelling a necessary and
HEALTHY skepticism of an extremely important scientific endeavor.

Agreed. Sorry I don't have any new and conclusive data here and that I'm
not able to direct you to any I've found elsewhere.

Yep, and that's precisely how I summed up your last post ... thanks for
the verification, but you could have saved your breath my friend.

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

On 1/24/2010 7:44 PM, Swingman wrote:
On 1/24/2010 7:01 PM, Morris Dovey wrote:

Ok. He listed nine assumptions he'd made, none accompanied by his
reasons for making the particular assumption he chose

Come now, Morris ... the man is well known for his work on using
satellite temperature data ... you are too smart to have missed that as
a basis for his research, so I'm wondering why the cutesy bit of
dissimulation?

Not intended as cutesy - my own weather satellite work (TIROS-N) was
much earlier and I'm not completely ignorant of
hardware/software/interpretation issues. Well before that time I was
convinced that assumptions were dangerous (always so in a logical
context, and sometimes lethal in a physical context). In any
peer-reviewed articles, I expect he provided the rationale for those he
made - but he did not share them with us, just as he skipped any
discussion of accuracy limitations which may or may not have been
significant (but we'll never know).

My question for you is this: If some of the numbers have been
fudged, do
you think knowing that is a sufficient basis for a conclusion that
there
is no global warming danger?

Bzzzt ... who said there is "no global warming danger"?

And my answer is that that would be sufficient basis to do whatever an
INFORMED citizen can do to make sure that we are not stampeded into
International agreements, and conclusive proof that they are NOT what
they purport to be.

Do I come across as likely to stampede? If yes, then how so - and if no,
then why are you shouting?

I took your question seriously and answered it clearly and concisely,
and here you go with ad hominem remarks about "shouting"??

"Emphasis" ... and well you know that.

And this is usenet with long-established conventions for emphasis - and
I seriously doubt you're unfamiliar with them:

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/war...tm/allcaps.htm and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_caps#Internet

However, it is understandable to take such a tack when your argument is
insufficient to address the point, so we'll leave it at that.

I did not present any argument other than for quality of information.

AAMOF, It is part of _your_ responsibility as a citizen ... along with
NOT continually denigrating those who attempt to exercise that
responsibility.

This borders on megalomania. You are neither qualified nor entitled to
dictate the responsibilities of any other free citizen. Live with it.

Are we to understand that skepticism is a healthy thing unless directed
toward your notions, in which case it becomes "denigration"?

And here I thought I was wandering in the waste land looking for an
answer, but damn if you aren't more lost than I.

I'm certainly not an expert in climatology - and I'm certainly not about
to tell anyone which information to accept and which to reject. My
ignorance doesn't need spreading - there's plenty enough already without
either of us adding to.

That would be a bit like saying that knowing someone is paranoid is a
sufficient basis for concluding that no one is out to get him...

Say what?

Asking people to refute a reporter's opinion is just another way of
saying "Lets you and him fight". No thanks.

You may be that bored, but I'm not.

Again, _nothing_ germane, whatsoever, to dispelling a necessary and
HEALTHY skepticism of an extremely important scientific endeavor.

Agreed. Sorry I don't have any new and conclusive data here and that I'm
not able to direct you to any I've found elsewhere.

Yep, and that's precisely how I summed up your last post ... thanks for
the verification, but you could have saved your breath my friend.

I could have, but thought it would be good to let you know that I didn't
particularly need you (or Al Gore) to cherry pick my sources for me.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

Morris Dovey wrote:

On 1/23/2010 10:14 AM, Swingman wrote:

Let's see some "scientific" refutation, please:


http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/...ut_the_ti.html
http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemans.../81559212.html

Instead of posting links to opinions of opinions, why not simply say
that there are too many thumbs on (both sides of) the scales to be able
to arrive at a conclusion you trust?

My question for you is this: If some of the numbers have been fudged, do
you think knowing that is a sufficient basis for a conclusion that there
is no global warming danger?

That would be a bit like saying that knowing someone is paranoid is a
sufficient basis for concluding that no one is out to get him...


If the cost to me of having to make that conclusion is a significant
portion of my way of life, then the prudent conclusion is to recognize that
the person is paranoid and most likely no one is out to get him. Putting
someone trustworthy to gather more evidence to determine whether or not the
paranoid person is really in danger might be prudent. Destroying the
economy to prevent what is most likely paranoid delusions is not.

Asking people to refute a reporter's opinion is just another way of
saying "Lets you and him fight". No thanks.

You may be that bored, but I'm not.


--

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

Rob Leatham

On 1/24/2010 4:36 PM, Mark & Juanita wrote:

Putting someone trustworthy to gather more evidence to determine
whether or not the paranoid person is really in danger might be
prudent.

This is the way I see it.

Destroying the economy to prevent what is most likely paranoid
delusions is not.

Agreed. (Is this /really/ Mark I'm responding to?) ;-)

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

Morris Dovey wrote:
On 1/24/2010 4:36 PM, Mark & Juanita wrote:

Putting someone trustworthy to gather more evidence to determine
whether or not the paranoid person is really in danger might be
prudent.

This is the way I see it.

Destroying the economy to prevent what is most likely paranoid
delusions is not.

Agreed. (Is this /really/ Mark I'm responding to?) ;-)

Perhaps we have reached a point where science is too important a matter to
be left to the scientists?

On 1/24/2010 8:54 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
Morris Dovey wrote:
On 1/24/2010 4:36 PM, Mark& Juanita wrote:

Putting someone trustworthy to gather more evidence to determine
whether or not the paranoid person is really in danger might be
prudent.

This is the way I see it.

Destroying the economy to prevent what is most likely paranoid
delusions is not.

Agreed. (Is this /really/ Mark I'm responding to?) ;-)

Perhaps we have reached a point where science is too important a matter to
be left to the scientists?

I don't think there's a choice, other than to remake those "scientists"
who cook data and/or publish conjecture-as-fact into lab rats.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 21:54:33 -0500, the infamous "J. Clarke"
scrawled the following:

Morris Dovey wrote:
On 1/24/2010 4:36 PM, Mark & Juanita wrote:

Putting someone trustworthy to gather more evidence to determine
whether or not the paranoid person is really in danger might be
prudent.

This is the way I see it.

Destroying the economy to prevent what is most likely paranoid
delusions is not.

Agreed. (Is this /really/ Mark I'm responding to?) ;-)

Perhaps we have reached a point where science is too important a matter to
be left to the scientists?

You meant "politicians", didn't you? REAL scientists don't skew data,
hide data, delete emails, or deny peer review for money or ideology.

---
"Some of us are wondering if we have created a monster."
Kevin Vranes, climate scientist, University of Colorado
talking about global warming hysteria, January, 2007.

J. Clarke wrote:

Perhaps we have reached a point where science is too important a
matter to be left to the scientists?

Hmm. There's EMPIRICAL science - math, physics, astronomy, chemistry, etc. -
and there's SOFT science (social science, psychology, climatology,
phrenology, astrology) which may not be quantifiable, reproducible, or even
believable.