Global Warming -The End

[spot1234]

Cbaca

That list was to show why I think one side of this debate is right and one side is wrong. It is by no meens a exhaustive list of real world data that I think calls into question yours and forfis argument.

I feel that you have attempted to counter a few items on my list with assertions with no references. and I have no way to cheak if its true or false, or reason to believe what you say is true. We just have to take your word for it I guess.

I could get references for most items on my list except where I use personal experience to make my point however if I spent time and did the research and supplied links to work by actual scientists I would be told that I didden't understand it or the people who did the work were wrong or corrupt and you would simply counter it with more assertions. It would be a waste of my time. No evidence that I or anybody else no matter how solid could convince you to change your mind, far better people then me have tried.

If you think the Lampass or wherever data is significant enough for me to change my mind why don't you start your own thread and people interested in that could discuss the merits or otherwise about that in isolation?

I have tried to out troll the trolls and failed, I give up.

[imp]

Originally Posted by genaman

What Happens IF You win And Humans Forget About Climate Change, But Then It Happens and You GrandChildren Suffer For It?
I mean you should be able to answer this question. Or is it you never considered being wrong? well if that is true then you could never be a research scientist ,because if they are lucky thet get only one right answer per question , but hundreds of thousands of wrong answers before the right one is found.
Now come on give us an answertr to this simple question. WHAT HAPPENS IF YOU ARE WRONG AND THERE REALLY IS MAN MADE CLIMATE CHANGE HAPPENING?

Oh all my spelling mistakes? Well they come from being a one shaking finger typist,and someone too impatient to recheeck his spelling more then once.

Your post implies that we (i.e. the government) should do something proactively to counter the effects of "climate change". Which, in turn, implies that you have never heard of the "invisible hand" of capitalism.

[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?

[spot1234]

Originally Posted by 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?

If it is just one station then yes is is no big deal you admit this in your post as I said start your own thread.

[forfi]

Originally Posted by spot1234

I feel that you have attempted to counter a few items on my list with assertions with no references. and I have no way to cheak if its true or false, or reason to believe what you say is true. We just have to take your word for it I guess.

Can I come in here and say that I seldom give references as I presume [prolly incorrectly ] that folks are reasonably familiar with the subject(s) being discussed.I have an aversion to people who constantly bugger up a discussion with references to something that they have recently discovered on Wiki , when that is their only source of knowledge on the subject .But lets progress this discussion Spot 1234,do a goolee on the Bodele depression, then follow the links from the first or second page that you find.Then after a while you will be taken back to the time when the Sahara was a garden and pretty soon you will see that the links to the subject are in the thousands so which ones will you quote when you become an expert on the Sahara ?

I could get references for most items on my list except where I use personal experience to make my point however if I spent time and did the research and supplied links to work by actual scientists I would be told that I didden't understand it or the people who did the work were wrong or corrupt and you would simply counter it with more assertions.

I use personal experience,look at my photies,they are not from Goolie or Wikzi. if you want to give details of your experience i promise not to be rude I only do that when the personal attack starts and I feel that there is yet another snot-nosed git trying to show off.I am in a minority in many forums as I don't know everything

I have tried to out troll the trolls and failed, I give up.

Now you will just have to say sorry for that remark,its just not true and you have been listening to garbage, there are no trolls in this forum, only gobshites who wheel out the term when their self anointed greatness is challenged.

[cbacba]

"If it is just one station then yes is is no big deal you admit this in your post as I said start your own thread.
__________________"

It's not just one. Corrections are widespread so erroneous corrections are being applied. Also it's one sample of several already discovered. Hence, there are more of them known. therefore it is not one station and even if it were, the defective corrections form a systematic problem with other stations regardless of whether they are problems otherwise.

[Bored Wombat]

Originally Posted by forfi

Wombat,why don't you take 50 bucks from the till and go get yourself laid.it will open up a whole new world to you and you will be a better person for it.
PS if you happen to be of the female persuasion ask for a man 'ho.The result will be the same.Have a really nice day.

Helping people is a nice thing to do.

This post also adds nothing to your position. Nor the forum.

You were trying to support your contention that most scientists disagree with the IPCC. Just that none of this majority publish papers or partake in scientific organisations. Do you have any support for that yet?

[Bored Wombat]

Originally Posted by treekiller

Global Warming Petition

We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

This petition has been signed by over 19,000 American scientists.

This is the infamous Oregon Petition.

The NAS has moved to distance itself from this petition and the fraudulent covering paper, formatted by Seitz to look like a submission to PNAS so that people would think it was a resubmission and had been peer reviewed.

The Council of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is concerned about the confusion caused by a petition being circulated via a letter from a former president of this Academy. This petition criticizes the science underlying the Kyoto treaty on carbon dioxide emissions (the Kyoto Protocol to the Framework Convention on Climate Change), and it asks scientists to recommend rejection of this treaty by the U.S. Senate. The petition was mailed with an op-ed article from The Wall Street Journal and a manuscript in a format that is nearly identical to that of scientific articles published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal.

The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy.

In particular, the Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering (NAE), and the Institute of Medicine (IOM) conducted a major consensus study on this issue, entitled Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming (1991,1992). This analysis concluded that " ...even given the considerable uncertainties in our knowledge of the relevant phenomena, greenhouse warming poses a potential threat sufficient to merit prompt responses. ... Investment in mitigation measures acts as insurance protection against the great uncertainties and the possibility of dramatic surprises." In addition, the Committee on Global Change Research of the National Research Council, the operating arm of the NAS and the NAE, will issue a major report later this spring on the research issues that can help to reduce the scientific uncertainties associated with global change phenomena, including climate change.
source

Notable signatories have been Dr Geri Halliwell, PhD, Michael J. Fox and Perry S. Mason.

Scientific American reported:

Scientific American took a sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition —- one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers – a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community.

So perhaps 200 is nearer the mark than 19,000 if the signatories are restricted to those actively researching in the field, and to those who actually exist.

Neither is the statement incompatible with the IPCC 2001 statements that "Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations."

and

"Anthropogenic warming and sea level rise would continue for centuries due to the timescales associated with climate processes and feedbacks, even if greenhouse gas concentrations were to be stabilized, although the likely amount of temperature and sea level rise varies greatly depending on the fossil intensity of human activity during the next century (pages 13 and 1"

But many signatories would have thought the paper was real.

[Bored Wombat]

Originally Posted by forfi

Thanks for that Treekiller , I am not playing silly buggers with numbers of scientists except to say that too many of them have sold out.Hard not to I suppose if you have a mortgage and family but thats life.

But back to business,where did the heat come from to melt the 2 mile thick layer of ice which covered our backyards until 15k years or so ago? Was it from folks burning charcoal? mammoths farting methane into the blue yonder? volcanoes?

This post is inane, and it covers ground that you have been corrected on in this forum already.

Perhaps you think that the world's climate scientists don't know about ice ages?

For this trolling post you have chosen to forget that current greenhouse gas concentrations are much higher than they get to in the ice age cycle.

In fact the difference between the coldest part of an ice age, and the warmest part of an interglacial is about how much CO2 concentrations are above what they reach at the height of an interglacial.



Current CO2 concentration is about 385 ppm

[Bored Wombat]

Originally Posted by cbacba

Spot also thinks the sat. data matches the surface data.

Satellite data also shows warming.

So your claim that warming is an artefact of the urban heat island effect is clearly rubbish.

The oceans are also warming, and there are no urban districts on the ocean's surface.

So your claim that warming is an artefact of the urban heat island effect is clearly rubbish.

I suspect therefore that the corrections performed by the GISS are not as bad as you are attempting to make out. They make an urban station match the long term trend of nearby rural stations. That will correct for the urban heat island effect.