[cbacba]

judging by observation with outings of sexual preferences, it would suggest that most involved in 'outing' whatever, are done so by others. That would make you a troll. Another observation would be that 'outing' is really more of a personal attack than anything else and could well be subject to fraud.

My presentation on Lampasas is quite a simple one. It merely shows that at least some data is being collected which is in gross error, perhaps fraudulently collected and used. It also shows that the supposed corrections to the data not only do nothing to correct the results for an obvious and extreme problem but that the corrections that have been done make the problem substantially worse, again an example of possible or even probable fraud and deceit with gross incompetence in the extreme being the only possible excuse that it isn't intentional fraud.

While it is only one example and one station, its impact on the data is quite small. however, that correction factor is applied to many stations, probably even many world wide. There's substantial reason to raise red flags about just how much of a problem this may be causing. What's more, if one station is screwed up this bad, how many more are screwed up as bad or perhaps even worse. Also, how many are left that do not have severe problems? If this is a matter of fraud, it could easily be the difference between accepted mean temperatures show ing a substantial increase even if the mean temperature is starting to significantly decline causing the world to miss the first warning sign of a catastrophe far worse than anything GW would or could actually cause (ignoring the total BS).

Many of your comments are hardly worth commenting on and almost none worth wasting my time looking up answers that you could find on your own.

It's quite telling the lack of response to the GISS Lampasas information. It's indicative of either outright fraud or gross incompetence combined with gross error yet you don't even think it is important. If 10% of the stations showed that much skewed output, it would account for all the supposed warming measured to date. It's possible that virtually all of the sites have had 'adjustements' made that lower actual temperatures measured years ago while leaving temperatures measured with heath bubble effects and urban changes unmodified. That could mean 90% or even 100% of the stations are off significantly, probably even enough to show warming even if there were cooling actually going on. The research being done here has netted station after station with severe problems. Lampasas isn't the only one and it isn't the worst one - it's just the Feb. 14th 2008 most recent one.

Next time you think about the wonders of science and how well they've done to establish that the mean earth temp has warmed by 0.7 degrees recently, ask yourself if that is really the right number. Is it +0.7, or +0.6999 or is it 0.2, or 0.0 or even -1.0?

It's important to ask because the notion, assumption, theory, that this number 0.7 was determined in an unbiased scientific method with accurate data and analysis has been falsified (scientific method falsification). The method has been shown compromised. Data has been shown to have serious error. And, even data correction methodology has been shown to be in error and perhaps shown to be a fraudulent attempt (criminal fraud). Such things tend to be instant job enders for researchers if not career enders, even without the prospect of intentional fraud.

Of course for those with an agenda that might be inconvenienced or hindered by such a disclosure, it's going to be no big deal. So, do you think it's no big deal?