Environmentalist False Prophets Of Doom
Sound of Trumpet
False prophets of doom - Environmentalists would prefer that we forget
these predictions
charlotte.com ^ | 5-10-08 | WALTER WILLIAMS
Posted on Friday, May 16, 2008 00:17:25 by kingattax
Now that another Earth Day has come and gone, let's look at some
environmentalist predictions that they would prefer we forget.
At the first Earth Day celebration, in 1969, environmentalist Nigel
Calder warned, "The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside
nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for
mankind." C.C. Wallen of the World Meteorological Organization said,
"The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough
that it will not soon be reversed."
In 1968, Paul Ehrlich, Vice President Gore's hero and mentor,
predicted there would be a major food shortage in the U.S. and "in the
1970s ... hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to
death." Ehrlich said 65 million Americans would die of starvation
between 1980 and 1989, and by 1999 the U.S. population would have
declined to 22.6 million. Ehrlich's predictions about England were
gloomier: "If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England
will not exist in the year 2000."
World `likely to be ruined' by 2000
In 1972, a report was written for the Club of Rome warning the world
would run out of gold by 1981, mercury and silver by 1985, tin by 1987
and petroleum, copper, lead and natural gas by 1992. Gordon Taylor, in
his 1970 work "The Doomsday Book," said Americans were using 50
percent of the world's resources and "by 2000 they [Americans] will,
if permitted, be using all of them." In 1975, the Environmental Fund
took out full-page ads warning, "The World as we know it will likely
be ruined by the year 2000."Harvard University biologist George Wald
in 1970 warned, "... civilization will end within 15 or 30 years
unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind."
That was the same year that Sen. Gaylord Nelson warned, in Look
Magazine, that by 1995 "... somewhere between 75 and 85 percent of all
the species of living animals will be extinct."
It's not just latter-day doomsayers who have been wrong; doomsayers
have always been wrong. In 1885, the U.S. Geological Survey announced
there was "little or no chance" of oil being discovered in California,
and a few years later they said the same about Kansas and Texas. In
1939, the U.S. Department of the Interior said American oil supplies
would last only another 13 years. In 1949, the Secretary of the
Interior said the end of U.S. oil supplies was in sight. Having
learned nothing from its earlier erroneous claims, in 1974 the U.S.
Geological Survey advised us that the U.S. had only a 10-year supply
of natural gas. According to the American Gas Association, there's a
1,000 to 2,500 year supply.
Here are my questions: In 1970, when environmentalists were making
predictions of manmade global cooling and the threat of an ice age and
millions of Americans starving to death, what kind of government
policy should we have undertaken to prevent such a calamity?
When Ehrlich predicted that England would not exist in the year 2000,
what steps should the British Parliament have taken in 1970 to prevent
such a dire outcome?
In 1939, when the U.S. Department of the Interior warned that we only
had oil supplies for another 13 years, what actions should President
Roosevelt have taken?
Why believe them this time?
Finally, what makes us think that environmental alarmism is any more
correct now that they have switched their tune to manmade global
warming?
A few facts: Over 95 percent of the greenhouse effect is the result of
water vapor in Earth's atmosphere. Without the greenhouse effect,
Earth's average temperature would be zero degrees Fahrenheit. Most
climate change is a result of the orbital eccentricities of Earth and
variations in the sun's output. And natural wetlands produce more
greenhouse gas annually than all human sources combined.
Walter
Williams
Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason
University. Write him c/o Creators Syndicate, 5777 West Century Blvd.,
Suite 700, Los Angeles, CA 90045.
4075 Dead
<soundof...@mailhaven.com> wrote:
>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2016513/posts
>
>
>
>False prophets of doom - Environmentalists would prefer that we forget
>these predictions
>
>
>charlotte.com ^ | 5-10-08 | WALTER WILLIAMS
>
>Posted on Friday, May 16, 2008 00:17:25 by kingattax
>
>
>
>Now that another Earth Day has come and gone, let's look at some
>environmentalist predictions that they would prefer we forget.
>
>At the first Earth Day celebration, in 1969, environmentalist Nigel
>Calder warned, "The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside
>nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for
>mankind." C.C. Wallen of the World Meteorological Organization said,
>"The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough
>that it will not soon be reversed."
Oddly enough, I can't find this quote outside of right wing
publications, all of which reference one another. Wallen, a Mexican
hydrologist, was a member of the WMO in 1969, and had exactly one
post-grad paper, written that year, under his belt.
His most recent work is a paper about "scientific problems" regarding
greenhouse gases.
--
What do you call a Republican with a conscience?
An ex-Republican.
http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=8827 (From Yang, AthD (h.c)
"Prosperity and peace are in the balance," -- Putsch, not admitting that he's against both
Putsch: leading America to asymetric warfare since 2001
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
Zepps_News...@yahoogroups.com
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
Zepps_essay...@yahoogroups.com
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
raven1
<soundof...@mailhaven.com> wrote:
>False prophets of doom - Environmentalists would prefer that we forget
>these predictions
Individual predictions based on inadequate data are often wrong. The
consensus of virtually every scientist in relevant fields, based on
overwhelming data, is unlikely to be very far off the mark.
raven1
<zepp22...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>"Prosperity and peace are in the balance," -- Putsch, not admitting that he's against both
I recall The Onion's prescient headline as Bush was inaugurated:
"National nightmare of peace and prosperity finally over"...
MarkA
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2016513/posts
>
>
>
> False prophets of doom - Environmentalists would prefer that we forget
> these predictions
>
You mean like the way the Xtians would prefer that we forget that Jesus
predicted his second coming within ONE GENERATION of his first?
--
MarkA
Keeper of the Butter Dish of Balshazar
V-for-Vendicar
Look at all those "o"'s lined up there. The trend is up, Up, UP.
And most recently the rate of increase is about 2'C per century.
View with mono spaced font.
1958 14.08 *******************o***************
1959 14.06 ********************o************
1960 13.99 *********************o******
1961 14.08 **********************o************
1962 14.04 ***********************o********
1963 14.08 ************************o**********
1964 13.79 **************===========o
1965 13.89 *********************====o
1966 13.97 **************************o
1967 14.00 ***************************o*
1968 13.96 **************************==o
1969 14.08 *****************************o*****
1970 14.03 ******************************o
1971 13.90 **********************=========o
1972 14.00 *****************************===o
1973 14.14 ********************************o******
1974 13.92 ***********************==========o
1975 13.95 *************************=========o
1976 13.84 ******************=================o
1977 14.13 ************************************o*
1978 14.02 ******************************=======o
1979 14.09 ***********************************===o
1980 14.18 ***************************************o**
1981 14.27 ****************************************o*******
1982 14.05 ********************************========o
1983 14.26 *****************************************o*****
1984 14.09 ***********************************=======o
1985 14.06 *********************************==========o
1986 14.13 **************************************======o
1987 14.27 *********************************************o**
1988 14.31 **********************************************o****
1989 14.19 ******************************************=====o
1990 14.38 ************************************************o*******
1991 14.35 ************************************************o****
1992 14.12 *************************************============o
1993 14.14 ***************************************===========o
1994 14.24 **********************************************=====o
1995 14.38 ****************************************************o***
1996 14.30 **************************************************===o
1997 14.40 ******************************************************o**
1998 14.57
*******************************************************o*************
1999 14.33 ****************************************************===o
2000 14.33 ****************************************************====o
2001 14.48 *********************************************************o*****
2002 14.56
**********************************************************o*********
2003 14.55
***********************************************************o*******
2004 14.49 ************************************************************o**
2005 14.62
*************************************************************o**********
2006 14.54
**************************************************************o****
2007 14.57
***************************************************************o*****
Correlation Coefficient .8529209
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VMu14mBXAs
James A. Donald
A beautiful straight line - but, in fact, until the
launch of the Aqua satellite there was no way we could
measure global temperature to anything like that
accuracy.
Therefore, this data is pulled out of someone's ass.
Among the sources of error:
Old weather stations are shut down from time to time,
and new ones set up, and temperatures are not comparable
between weather stations.
Whitewashed and bare wood enclosures were about a degree
cooler than latex painted enclosures in the hottest part
of the day.
Changes in thermometers led to weather stations being
relocated - generally relocated closer to human
habitation, habitation that is heated in winter, and
these days has air conditioning hot air outlets blowing
hot air in summer.
The various "corrections" made to the data tend to be
considerably larger than the actual temperature trend.
Urban heat island effect: Walk a thermometer from the
shopping center parking lot to a large park, or drive it
to the countryside, it will drop several degrees.
Therefore the expansion of cities is apt to raise
weather stations by a comparable amount.
I hear you asking:
"So what about global warming *since* the launch
of the Aqua satellite?"
The answer is, by an amazing coincidence, there has not
been any. That lovely straight line has developed a
curious bend at the top.
--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald
Preventer of Work
>
> Now that another Earth Day has come and gone, let's look at some
> environmentalist predictions that they would prefer we forget.
>
...
> Finally, what makes us think that environmental alarmism is any more
> correct now that they have switched their tune to manmade global
> warming?
>
<factoids>
No significant warming since 1998.
No warming expected until at least 2015 (World Meteorological Association).
</factoids>
Shall I shout it from the rooftops? Climate chnage has Ended?
No.
Those 17 years are no more evidence of climate stasis than any other
trend over a mere 17 years is proof of anything. The environmental
alarmism is not based on facts. The alarmism comes from a particular
kind of human being. Yes, there are environmental problems. But there is
another very serious problem as well:
"Humans are a virus" declared Paul Watson (Sea Shepard Conservation
Society). There are lots like him in the more extreme edges of the
environmental movement.
"Paul Watson and others holding similar anti-human / genocidal views are
an autoimmune disease within the human population," declares Preventer
of Work.
It is true the world has problems, and we humans have caused a fair bit
of damage. To not be an environmentalist to some degree is a mistake.
But to be a misanthropic extremist or alarmist does *nothing* to further
the cause. It just drives people away when they realize they were lied
to. It destroys the credibility of those who do have important concerns
backed by evidence. And it gives the 'business as usual' types a
powerful argument when it is discovered the alarmists are just shouting
as a way of making a profit (and I say this without mentioning Al Gore
by name).
V-for-Vendicar
Look at all those "o"'s lined up there. The trend is up, Up, UP.
And most recently the rate of increase is about 2'C per century.
View with mono spaced font.
1958 14.08 *******o***************
1959 14.06 ********o************
1960 13.99 *********o******
1961 14.08 **********o************
1962 14.04 ***********o********
1963 14.08 ************o**********
1964 13.79 **===========o
1965 13.89 *********====o
1966 13.97 **************o
1967 14.00 ***************o*
1968 13.96 **************==o
1969 14.08 *****************o*****
1970 14.03 ******************o
1971 13.90 **********=========o
1972 14.00 *****************===o
1973 14.14 ********************o******
1974 13.92 ***********==========o
1975 13.95 *************=========o
1976 13.84 ******=================o
1977 14.13 ************************o*
1978 14.02 ******************=======o
1979 14.09 ***********************===o
1980 14.18 ***************************o**
1981 14.27 ****************************o*******
1982 14.05 ********************========o
1983 14.26 *****************************o*****
1984 14.09 ***********************=======o
1985 14.06 *********************==========o
1986 14.13 **************************======o
1987 14.27 *********************************o**
1988 14.31 **********************************o****
1989 14.19 ******************************=====o
1990 14.38 ************************************o*******
1991 14.35 ************************************o****
1992 14.12 *************************============o
1993 14.14 ****************************===========o
1994 14.24 **********************************=====o
1995 14.38 ****************************************o***
1996 14.30 **************************************===o
1997 14.40 ******************************************o**
1998 14.57 *******************************************o*************
1999 14.33 ****************************************===o
2000 14.33 ****************************************====o
2001 14.48 *********************************************o*****
2002 14.56 **********************************************o*********
2003 14.55 ***********************************************o*******
2004 14.49 ************************************************o**
2005 14.62 *************************************************o**********
2006 14.54 **************************************************o****
2007 14.57 ***************************************************o*****
V-for-Vendicar
"kT" <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote
> James's Liberty file collection index
>
> This is a collection of files related to liberty, the right to bear
> arms, and the like. It contains mostly ancient philosophy rather than
> fast breaking news. The issues discussed here have been discussed for
> centuries or millennia, and the newest facts and newest arguments on
> these issues are mostly few decades old
Sounds like James needs to have a loaded gun discharged into his backside.
V-for-Vendicar
"Preventer of Work" <not_...@nospam.xxx> wrote
> <factoids>
> No significant warming since 1998.
Funny. Last month it was claimed by denialists that there was a
significant cooling.
Every day, a new denialist excuse.
"Preventer of Work" <not_...@nospam.xxx> wrote
> No warming expected until at least 2015 (World Meteorological
> Association).
>
> </factoids>
>
> Shall I shout it from the rooftops? Climate chnage has Ended?
James A. Donald
It is easy to get a nice straight line trend on statistics pulled out
of someone's ass.
Until the launch of the Aqua satellite, it was impossible to measure
world temperature to a tenth of a degree.
James A. Donald
<Jus...@ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote:
>
> "Preventer of Work" <not_...@nospam.xxx> wrote
> > <factoids>
> > No significant warming since 1998.
>
> Funny. Last month it was claimed by denialists that there was a
> significant cooling.
>
> Every day, a new denialist excuse.
For your edification, I have constructed a graph of recent world
temperatures - the rolling twelve month average of the satellite
temperature data.
<http://blog.jim.com/global-warming/recent-global-cooling-to-april-2008.html>
You will notice that the satellite data is strikingly different from
your uniformly ascending straight line graph.
Your graph is just a lie. My graph is the satellite data.
But your graph, is a simple lie, just made up data. The satellite
repor shows that the warmest year was 1998, and it has been cooling
since then.
>
> Correlation Coefficient .8529209
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VMu14mBXAs
>
--
4079 Dead
<jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 18 May 2008 01:41:31 -0400, "V-for-Vendicar"
><Jus...@ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Preventer of Work" <not_...@nospam.xxx> wrote
>> > <factoids>
>> > No significant warming since 1998.
>>
>> Funny. Last month it was claimed by denialists that there was a
>> significant cooling.
>>
>> Every day, a new denialist excuse.
>
>For your edification, I have constructed a graph of recent world
>temperatures - the rolling twelve month average of the satellite
>temperature data.
>
><http://blog.jim.com/global-warming/recent-global-cooling-to-april-2008.html>
>
>You will notice that the satellite data is strikingly different from
>your uniformly ascending straight line graph.
>
>Your graph is just a lie. My graph is the satellite data.
It's a silly little graph that you drew yourself.
What do you call a Republican with a conscience?
An ex-Republican.
http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=8827 (From Yang, AthD (h.c)
"Prosperity and peace are in the balance," -- Putsch, not admitting that he's against both
Putsch: leading America to asymetric warfare since 2001
James A. Donald
> >For your edification, I have constructed a graph of recent world
> >temperatures - the rolling twelve month average of the satellite
> >temperature data.
> >
> ><http://blog.jim.com/global-warming/recent-global-cooling-to-april-2008.html>
> >
> >You will notice that the satellite data is strikingly different from
> >your uniformly ascending straight line graph.
> >
> >Your graph is just a lie. My graph is the satellite data.
4079 Dead <zepp22...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
> It's a silly little graph that you drew yourself.
Go look up the satellite data for the earth's temperature.
The world is not warming
Go look up the satellite data for ice coverage.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
The ice is not melting.
Global warming is a scientific conjecture, not an observable fact.
What we observe is that 1998 is the warmest year for which we have
accurate data. It is also religious truth, like the miraculous
transubstantiation of the wine and wafer into the flesh and blood of
Christ. People believe in it without regard for the physical
observable evidence, and are merely irritated by directly observable
data, which is to them an irrelevance.
Preventer of Work
> 1998 14.57 *******************************************o*************
> 1999 14.33 ****************************************===o
> 2000 14.33 ****************************************====o
> 2001 14.48 *********************************************o*****
> 2002 14.56 **********************************************o*********
> 2003 14.55 ***********************************************o*******
> 2004 14.49 ************************************************o**
> 2005 14.62 *************************************************o**********
> 2006 14.54 **************************************************o****
> 2007 14.57 ***************************************************o*****
It's funny how you can look at those numbers which vary about +/- 0.1
degree for 1998-2007 and somehow extract a trend. It looks pretty random
to me.
The full chart is for a very short period, omitting among other things
the nasty 1934 peak (warmest year on record in the US), that happy
period when Greenland had a large Viking population, followed by a
severe fall in temperature which we are still recovering from.
You, Hansen and Mann should get together. You would make a great team.
1) Hansen will modify the historical data to fit the warming hypothesis.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?cat=54
2) Michael Mann will create a correlator that will find a hockey stick
even in random noise (just in case Hansen's edits aren't big enough).
3) You can then make a big ugly chart.
4) $$$$$$ in book publishing, and on the lecture circuit.
James A. Donald
> V-for-Vendicar wrote:
>
> > 1998 14.57 *******************************************o*************
> > 1999 14.33 ****************************************===o
> > 2000 14.33 ****************************************====o
> > 2001 14.48 *********************************************o*****
> > 2002 14.56 **********************************************o*********
> > 2003 14.55 ***********************************************o*******
> > 2004 14.49 ************************************************o**
> > 2005 14.62 *************************************************o**********
> > 2006 14.54 **************************************************o****
> > 2007 14.57 ***************************************************o*****
On Sun, 18 May 2008 21:32:46 GMT, Preventer of Work
> It's funny how you can look at those numbers which vary about +/- 0.1
> degree for 1998-2007 and somehow extract a trend. It looks pretty random
> to me.
Easy. He is not looking at the numbers. He is looking at the trend
marked by the little letter "o" - which trend he pulled out of his
ass.
The eye of faith looks at the data - and sees a perfect straight line
trend.
The global warmers, unlike actual scientists, never have problems with
noise in data, inaccurate measurements, imperfect proxies, and the
like.
For a detailed examination of the data underlying global warming and
anthropogenic global warming, I recommend climateaudit.org
By and large, the more reliable the data, the less the global warming.
James A. Donald
<not_...@nospam.xxx> wrote:
> It's funny how you can look at those numbers which vary about +/- 0.1
> degree for 1998-2007 and somehow extract a trend. It looks pretty random
> to me.
Aso, where are his numbers coming from? They are similar to my
numbers but definitely warminger. This is partly because they stop
dead in 2007, and things started getting colder late in 2007. But it
is also partly because they are just not the same. I gave the source
of my numbers. He gives no source - which typically means they came
out of someone's ass.
Maybe they are the GISS numbers - numbers supposedly based on the
data, after that data has been scientifically massaged by committed
global warmers. But he just does not tell us.
raven1
<jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
>Aso, where are his numbers coming from? They are similar to my
>numbers but definitely warminger.
Who is Aso?
BTW, I really like "warminger", it sounds like what Inspector Clouseau
might call President Bush.
V-for-Vendicar
Satellites don't measure surface temperatures.
MMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNN
> The world is not warming
LLLLLLLLIIIIIIIIIIAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRR
> The ice is not melting.
LLLLLLLLIIIIIIIIIIAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRR
Arctic ice melting at record rate: scientists Fri Dec 14, 12:05 AM ET
WASHINGTON (AFP) - The arctic ice cap melted at an unprecedented rate in
mid-2007, losing an area of ice the size of the state of Alaska, US
scientists
said at a conference this week.
"The average rate of loss of sea ice every summer year to year up to 2006
was
equal to an area the size of West Virginia," or about 62,800 square
kilometers
(24,250 square miles), said Michael Steele, the senior oceanographer at the
University of Washington in Seattle.
However the decrease in ice between 2006 and 2007 "was almost equivalent to
the
area of Alaska," or some 1.7 million kilometers (more than 663,000 square
miles), Steele told AFP in a telephone interview.
"It was a huge retreat," said Steele, one of the researchers who discussed
the
subject at the annual American Geophysical Union (AGU) conference in San
Francisco, California.
The arctic ice cap currently covers around 4.13 million square kilometers,
its
smallest surface in modern times, said another conference speaker, Wieslaw
Maslowski, an oceanographer at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey,
California.
The Arctic Ocean could thus be completely ice-free during the three summer
months by 2013, Maslowski said at the conference.
Steele refused to make the same prediction, but did say that the Arctic
Ocean
has never been as hot during the summer months.
"The ocean warmed up at temperatures never seen before ... it was five
degrees
Celsius warmer than average," said Steele. "It's very large."
In arctic areas usually covered by ice "the temperature was maybe two or
three
degrees warmer than the average." And in Alaska the temperature was
unusually
high -- between 12 and 13 degrees Centigrade. "We never saw that before," he
said.
Steele based his research on records over the past 100 years as well as
measurements taken with instruments in the field. More recently he has also
used
data from NASA satellites.
Other scientists at the AGU conference said the Arctic Ocean's heating was
self-sustained, with warmer water from the Atlantic and Pacific heading
north
and accelerating the melting of the ice caps.
Global warming due to greenhouse gas emissions produced by humans "is
basically
responsible for the ice getting thinner and thinner," said Steele.
"And when it gets thinner, the ice becomes more vulnerable to wind that can
blow
it away from Alaska and eastern Siberia. It's also more vulnerable to the
unusual summer time melting -- if you have thick ice that melts a little
bit,
it's still there, (but) when it's thin it melts completely away."
"It's just a fact that the ice is going away and the ocean can absorb the
sunlight," Steele said. With less ice to reflect the sunlight, the ocean
absorbs
the sun's heat, warms up and furthers the melting process.
"I don't know what the future holds, but most arctic scientists think that
is
not getting much better," he said.
V-for-Vendicar
> temperatures - the rolling twelve month average of the satellite
> temperature data.
Satellites don't measure surface temperature...
MMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNN
Meanwhile, back here in the reality based community...
Correlation Coefficient .8529209
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VMu14mBXAs
V-for-Vendicar
> V-for-Vendicar wrote:
>
>> 1998 14.57 *******************************************o*************
>> 1999 14.33 ****************************************===o
>> 2000 14.33 ****************************************====o
>> 2001 14.48 *********************************************o*****
>> 2002 14.56 **********************************************o*********
>> 2003 14.55 ***********************************************o*******
>> 2004 14.49 ************************************************o**
>> 2005 14.62 *************************************************o**********
>> 2006 14.54 **************************************************o****
>> 2007 14.57 ***************************************************o*****
"Preventer of Work" <not_...@nospam.xxx> wrote
> It's funny how you can look at those numbers which vary about +/- 0.1
> degree for 1998-2007 and somehow extract a trend. It looks pretty random
> to me.
The trend line shown is the trend line for the period 1958 to 2007. I
have posted the trend line for 1998 to 2007 several hundred times, and the
slope is somewhat higher, although due to the smaller number of data points
the correlation coefficient is lower.
"Preventer of Work" <not_...@nospam.xxx> wrote
> You, Hansen and Mann should get together. You would make a great team.
>
> 1) Hansen will modify the historical data to fit the warming hypothesis.
If you have any evidence of falsification of data you should write a paper
and get it published in Nature.
What's stopping you?
The fact that you are a liar?
1998 14.57 *******************************************o*************
1999 14.33 ****************************************===o
2000 14.33 ****************************************====o
2001 14.48 *********************************************o*****
2002 14.56 **********************************************o*********
2003 14.55 ***********************************************o*******
2004 14.49 ************************************************o**
2005 14.62 *************************************************o**********
2006 14.54 **************************************************o****
2007 14.57 ***************************************************o*****
Correlation Coefficient .8529209
V-for-Vendicar
> marked by the little letter "o" - which trend he pulled out of his
> ass.
Actually, I used the standard linear regression method that is a workhorse
of scientific analysis.
Feel free to verify it for yourself.
"James A. Donald" <jam...@echeque.com> wrote
> The eye of faith looks at the data - and sees a perfect straight line
> trend.
Couldn't be because it was fit to a straight line could it?
Ahahahahahahahahahah.. .You Pathetic
MMMMMMMMOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRROOOOOOONNNNNN
"James A. Donald" <jam...@echeque.com> wrote
> The global warmers, unlike actual scientists, never have problems with
> noise in data, inaccurate measurements, imperfect proxies, and the
> like.
What do you think the linear fit was for? Dung Eater? Maybe it's to
remove the noise from the data.
Ahahahahahahahahah You Pathetic MMMMMMOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOONNNNNNN
"James A. Donald" <jam...@echeque.com> wrote
> For a detailed examination of the data underlying global warming and
> anthropogenic global warming, I recommend realclimate.org
Here is a link.
V-for-Vendicar
> numbers but definitely warminger. This is partly because they stop
> dead in 2007, and things started getting colder late in 2007.
The stop dead at the end of 2007, and 2007 was the second warmest year in
recorded history.
Maybe they stop in 2007 because we are only 4.5 months into 2008.
YaThink?
MMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNN
> But it is also partly because they are just not the same. I gave the
> source
> of my numbers.
Yup. Satellites that don't measure surface temperatures.
Ahahahahahahahahah
MMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNN
V-for-Vendicar
> of someone's ass.
I had no idea that I invented the least squares method of Linear
Regression.
I don't remember inventing it. Perhaps James will tell us when I did so.
Correlation Coefficient .8529209
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VMu14mBXAs
James A. Donald
> might call President Bush.
We need terminology for someone ideologically committed to faith that
the evil of men is causing the earth to warm, that this a hurtful and
wicked thing, and that industrial civilization must be rolled back and
the excess human population eliminated in order to save the earth.
Perhaps "warmist" by analogy with fascist, communist, trotskyist, etc.
V-for-Vendicar
An excellent term that will only serve the final interests of communists,
fascists and trotskyists, etc.
James A. Donald
> Here are the global average temperatures since 1958.
> "o" = trend line.
Firstly, no one knows what global average temperatures
were in 1958 to the required accuracy. Most of the earth
is not covered by weather stations to this day. The
weather stations that exist move from time to time and
the technology by which temperature is measured has
changed. For example, in sunlight, white washed cages
around thermometers cause the thermometers to read about
a degree cooler than latex painted cages.
Most of your data is extrapolated, interpolated, and
otherwise comes out people's asses.
We did not have genuinely global coverage until the MSU
satellites were launched, and until the launch of the
Aqua series, the drift in the orbits of the MSU
satellites made it difficult to compare readings taken
by the microwave satellites at different times.
If you are talking about temperatures in 1958, you are
talking about surface readings from weather stations,
and there are various sources of systematic error, such
as latex paint, the urban hot spot effect, and the
introduction of air conditioning exhausts, that add up
to two or three degrees of systematic error - much
larger than the signal you are trying to detect, the
signal you report measuring.
An alternate way to go is to look at proxies. For
example, if the maple syrup season comes earlier, that
is an indication of warming. Weather stations have
changed, but maple trees have not changed.
Various proxies give various results, but the proxy that
has the broadest coverage, and is therefore most likely
to measure global change, is the proportion of the world
covered by ice - which has shown no particular tendency
to increase or decrease.
Indeed, the this is precisely why one hears so many loud
announcements that the ice is melting - because the ice
is *not* melting on net, and this is embarrassing the
global warmers.
James A. Donald
"James A. Donald" <jam...@echeque.com> wrote
> > Go look up the satellite data for the earth's
> > temperature.
"V-for-Vendicar"
> Satellites don't measure surface temperatures.
Satellites measure air temperatures - and they measure
broad areas with great accuracy, they measure the entire
earth, while one weather station cannot be directly
compared to another weather station, so every time a
weather station moves or changes, we lose the capability
to compare temperatures at different times.
So when you attempt to deduce global climate change from
weather stations, you need to look at stable and
unchanging weather stations in a stable and unchanging
environment - rural weather stations using old fashioned
technology and old fashioned enclosures. There are only
a handful of such weather stations, and arguably those
weather stations do not indicate significant global
warming - though there are so few of them, and it is so
debatable whether station X should be included and
station Y excluded that one can easily get any result
one wants by cherry picking.
James A. Donald
> > For your edification, I have constructed a graph of recent world
> > temperatures - the rolling twelve month average of the satellite
> > temperature data.
"V-for-Vendicar"
> Meanwhile, back here in the reality based community...
Your statistics are pulled out of someone's ass. For starters, you
cannot *get* global temperatures from 1958 surface weather stations.
The data just is not there. You are relying on interpolation,
extrapolation, and so forth. Your statistics for older temperatures
are just someone's guesses about what might have been.
V-for-Vendicar
> were in 1958 to the required accuracy.
The worlds scientists disagree with you on that point.
"James A. Donald" <jam...@echeque.com> wrote
> Most of the earth
> is not covered by weather stations to this day. The
> weather stations that exist move from time to time and
> the technology by which temperature is measured has
> changed. For example, in sunlight, white washed cages
> around thermometers cause the thermometers to read about
> a degree cooler than latex painted cages.
Which is why ocean tempertures are observed to be rising as well.
"James A. Donald" <jam...@echeque.com> wrote
> Most of your data is extrapolated, interpolated, and
> otherwise comes out people's asses.
Prove your Lunatic Assertion it in writing and submit your paper to
Nature. Get it reviewed and published.
"James A. Donald" <jam...@echeque.com> wrote
> We did not have genuinely global coverage until the MSU
> satellites were launched
They don't measure surface temeprature. But still show the atmosphere to
be warming.
"James A. Donald" <jam...@echeque.com> wrote
> If you are talking about temperatures in 1958, you are
> talking about surface readings from weather stations,
And ocean temperatures reported by ships, and baloon measurements, etc.
And of course there is also the borehole record, and the various proxy
records that all show that your head is firmly wedged up your ass.
MMMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNNN
raven1
<jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
>raven1
>> BTW, I really like "warminger", it sounds like what Inspector Clouseau
>> might call President Bush.
>
>We need terminology for someone ideologically committed to faith that
>the evil of men is causing the earth to warm, that this a hurtful and
>wicked thing, and that industrial civilization must be rolled back and
>the excess human population eliminated in order to save the earth.
I can't think of anyone who fits the bill for all of the above. Can
you list some examples?
V-for-Vendicar
> "V-for-Vendicar"
>> Satellites don't measure surface temperatures.
"James A. Donald" <jam...@echeque.com> wrote
> Satellites measure air temperatures
And up until the release of Terra and Aqua they measured the temperature
of the atmosphere at a minimum altitude of 5 to 10 miles.
"James A. Donald" <jam...@echeque.com> wrote
> and they measure broad areas with great accuracy
But not the surface of the earth. And their measurements have been
exceptionally poor because the devices doing the measuring were not intended
to do surface analysis and not designed to provide reliable data over long
periods of time.
"James A. Donald" <jam...@echeque.com> wrote
> they measure the entire earth
Not even close, and they don't measure at the same time, typically
measurements are performed in the local morning and local evening.
"James A. Donald" <jam...@echeque.com> wrote
> while one weather station cannot be directly compared to another weather
> station,
Standardization in weather station design allows that comparison.
MMMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNN
James A. Donald
> > The global warmers, unlike actual scientists, never
> > have problems with noise in data, inaccurate
> > measurements, imperfect proxies, and the like.
"V-for-Vendicar"
> What do you think the linear fit was for?
Your older data is extrapolated and interpolated, in
other words basically made up, so unsurprisingly fits a
straight line beautifully.
Whenever someone talks about "global" data, either he is
talking about satellite data, or he is talking about
data pulled out of someone's ass. And you are talking
about data pulled out of someone's ass.
We do not have sufficiently precise data for older
temperatures. We do, however have sufficiently precise
data for the area of the world covered by ice
starting in 1979, for one of the first things they did
with satellites was photograph the world from space
And the area of the world covered by ice is today the
same as it was in 1979, which is a mighty odd state of
affairs if your temperature data is connected to
reality.
V-for-Vendicar
They come from NASA.
"James A. Donald" <jam...@echeque.com> wrote
> For starters, you cannot *get* global temperatures from 1958 surface
> weather stations.
> The data just is not there. You are relying on interpolation,
> extrapolation, and so forth.
Oh we can go back much further than 1958.
Prove that the methods used are wrong and then get your findings
published in a peer reviewed science journal.
Until you manage to prove the hundreds of temperature data sets wrong, I
think I'll stick with the one developed by Scientists.
Here it is...
Preventer of Work
You are a good fit for Mann. You print the same line over and over and
gainsay anyone who disagrees or disputes it.
The Really Silly Thing is that you can fit a straight line to almost
pile of points you desire and get ... a meaningless straight line.
Preventer of Work
Paul Watson (Sea Shepard Conservation Society) if I may be a bit obvious.
David Suzuki. He also hates trees.
Al Gore does not seem to care to kill off any one - he is busy making
money so he is happy.
Preventer of Work
>
> MMMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNNN
>
>
Wow! That's a PhD level response.
Why don't you have it published n Nature?
James A. Donald
James A. Donald
> > We need terminology for someone ideologically
> > committed to faith that the evil of men is causing
> > the earth to warm, that this a hurtful and wicked
> > thing, and that industrial civilization must be
> > rolled back and the excess human population
> > eliminated in order to save the earth.
raven1
> I can't think of anyone who fits the bill for all of
> the above. Can you list some examples?
Presumably you agree that lots of people fit the first
three requirements: "ideologically committed to faith
that the evil of men is causing the earth to warm, that
this a hurtful and wicked thing and that industrial
civilization must be rolled back"
You are suggesting that not many people fit the latter
requirement: "that the excess human population should
be eliminated in order to save the earth."
Right now we are in the midst of greenie created famine.
Anyone who continues to oppose oil drilling in Alaska
when people are going cold and hungry due to an
artificial fuel crisis, favors reducing the excess human
population in order to save the earth.
4079 Dead
It's an article of faith among these corporate lackies that
environmentalists all hate humanity.
He gets quite put out if you point out to him that global warmin isn't
a threat to the earth--quite the opposite, in fact, since it
eventually leads to greater fecundity and diversity of life--but that
it is a threat to humanity.
--
What do you call a Republican with a conscience?
An ex-Republican.
http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=8827 (From Yang, AthD (h.c)
"Prosperity and peace are in the balance," -- Putsch, not admitting that he's against both
Putsch: leading America to asymetric warfare since 2001
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
Zepps_News...@yahoogroups.com
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
Zepps_essay...@yahoogroups.com
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
V-for-Vendicar
"Preventer of Work" <not_...@nospam.xxx> wrote
> Wow! That's a PhD level response.
>
> Why don't you have it published n Nature?
You seem to have omitted the earlier section of the post. Here.. Let me
add it back in for you.
MMMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNNN
V-for-Vendicar
> three requirements: "ideologically committed to faith
> that the evil of men is causing the earth to warm, that
> this a hurtful and wicked thing and that industrial
> civilization must be rolled back"
Listen to the Sniveling and KKKowardly KKKonservative SLAVE whine about the
removal of his chains.
"But what shall I do? Massa will be angry."
MMMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNNN
"Soon medical science will enable the complete elimination of the need for
sleep. The resulting economic boom will be spectacular, allowing the work
week to grow from the current 40 hours to 80 hours."- Libertarian Hilbert
Conover.
V-for-Vendicar
.
"James A. Donald" <jam...@echeque.com> wrote
>> > The global warmers, unlike actual scientists, never
>> > have problems with noise in data, inaccurate
>> > measurements, imperfect proxies, and the like.
>
> "V-for-Vendicar"
>> What do you think the linear fit was for?
"James A. Donald" <jam...@echeque.com> wrote
> Your older data is extrapolated and interpolated, in
> other words basically made up, so unsurprisingly fits a
> straight line beautifully.
No it doesn't. The rate of temperature increase has accelerated as CO2
levels have risen. This is self evident from the upward excursion of the
measurements with respect to the linear fit.
The data is better fit with a second order equationm, but for the purposes
of this thread - and this newsgroup, it hardly makes any difference.
As for interpolation being a method of simply "making up data", the
interpolative techniques exist of course, exist as a replacement for simply
making up results.
Of course, your failure to concieive of any distinction between one and
the other, tells us that you are scientifically illiterate.
"James A. Donald" <jam...@echeque.com> wrote
> Whenever someone talks about "global" data, either he is
> talking about satellite data, or he is talking about
> data pulled out of someone's ass.
And you don't know how the satellite data is collected either. It relies
on an equally heavy use of interpolation not only in the spatial but also in
the time domain.
Aawwwwwwwww... So much for your claim that satellite observations are
global.
"James A. Donald" <jam...@echeque.com> wrote
> And you are talking about data pulled out of someone's ass.
You are talking without pulling your head out of your ass.
"James A. Donald" <jam...@echeque.com> wrote
> We do not have sufficiently precise data for older temperatures.
That is your claim - without analysis -. Provide your numerical analysis
here and then get it published in a scientific journal.
What's keeping you?
"James A. Donald" <jam...@echeque.com> wrote
> And the area of the world covered by ice is today the
> same as it was in 1979, which is a mighty odd state of
> affairs if your temperature data is connected to
> reality.
And now you are just a liar.
WWF warns Arctic ice melting faster than predicted Thu Apr 24, 4:46 AM ET
MONTREAL (AFP) - Arctic sea ice is melting "significantly faster" than
predicted
and is approaching a point of no return, conservation group the World
Wildlife
Fund (WWF) warned in a new study.
The volumes of the Greenland Ice Sheet and ice in the Arctic Ocean were
estimated at 2.9 million and 4.4 million cubic metres respectively in
September
2007 -- the lowest ever levels recorded, the organization said Wednesday.
The sea ice shrank to 39 percent below its 1979-2000 mean volume, it said.
"Recently observed changes are happening at rates significantly faster than
predicted" by the 2005 Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA) and last
year's
report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), WWF said.
The melting of arctic sea ice and the Greenland Ice Sheet was happening so
fast
that experts were now questioning whether the situation is close to "tipping
point," where sudden and possibly irreversible change takes place.
"When you look in detail at the science behind the recent Arctic changes it
becomes painfully clear how our understanding of climate impacts lags behind
the
changes that we are already seeing in the Arctic," said Martin Sommerkorn,
one
of the authors of the report.
The WWF will present its report, comprised of the latest research in the
region,
to the meeting Thursday of the Arctic Council, which groups Canada, Denmark,
Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden, and the United States.
The conservation group's researchers also warned of the devastating effect
the
rapid melting of the arctic ice could have on polar bears in Canada, where
two
thirds of the world's population of the animals live.
"Previous models had predicted that melting sea ice would mean some polar
bear
populations could become extinct by 2050. The new evidence points to even
earlier regional extinctions," said Peter Ewins, director of species
conservation at WWF-Canada.
The Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada will present
the
government with its estimates of the status of polar bears there on Friday.
---
Major Arctic sea ice melt is expected this summer By RANDOLPH E. SCHMID, AP
Science Writer
Fri May 2, 9:12 PM ET
WASHINGTON - The Arctic will remain on thinning ice, and climate warming is
expected to begin affecting the Antarctic also, scientists said Friday.
"The long-term prognosis is not very optimistic," atmospheric scientist
Jennifer
Francis of Rutgers University said at a briefing.
Last summer sea ice in the North shrank to a record low, a change many
attribute
to global warming.
But while solar radiation and amounts of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere
are
similar at the poles, to date the regions have responded differently, with
little change in the South, explained oceanographer James Overland of the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
What researchers have concluded was happening, was that in the North, global
warming and natural variability of climate were reinforcing one another,
sending
the Arctic into a new state with much less sea ice than in the past.
"And there is very little chance for the climate to return to the conditions
of
20 years ago," he added.
On the other hand, Overland explained, the ozone hole in the Antarctic
masked
conditions there, keeping temperatures low in most of the continent other
than
the peninsula reaching toward South America.
"So there is a scientific reason for why we're not seeing large changes in
the
Antarctic like we're seeing in the Arctic," he said.
But, Overland added, as the ozone hole recovers in coming years, global
warming
will begin to affect the South Pole also.
The briefing covered data being reported in a paper scheduled for
publication
next week in Eos, a journal of the American Geophysical Union.
Overland said he used to be among those skeptical about the effects of
global
climate change. The new findings, which he termed "startling," were
developed at
a recent workshop, he said.
There is agreement between weather observations, the output of computer
climate
models and scientific expectations for what should happen, added Francis.
All the evidence points toward human-made changes at both poles, she said, a
conclusion that "further depletes the arsenals of those who insist that
human-caused climate change is nothing to worry about."
Climatologist Gareth Marshall of the British Antarctic Survey said that
while
the term global warming is widely used, things are more complicated at the
regional level.
In the Antarctic, he explained, climate change strengthened winds blowing
around
the continent, helping trap colder air. But that will decrease in the
future,
allowing warmer conditions to begin, he said.
And, Marshall added, all studies now show that human activities are the
drivers
of climate change in the Antarctic.
Asked if this summer will match last year's record low sea ice in the North,
Overland that is likely.
"The tea leaves point to a minimal amount of sea ice next September, that
would
be the same as we had last summer, 40 percent loss compared to 20 years
ago," he
said. Overland added that the winter freeze got a late start last fall.
Francis added: "Over this entire fall, winter and right up 'till today the
ice
concentration, the amount of ice that's floating around on the Arctic, has
been
below normal every single day."
"All arrows are pointing towards, certainly not a recovery, something like
we
had last summer and possibly worse," she said.
___
V-for-Vendicar
"Preventer of Work" <not_...@nospam.xxx> wrote
> You are a good fit for Mann. You print the same line over and over and
> gainsay anyone who disagrees or disputes it.
You can disagree with any reality you want. It just makes you that much
more of a...
MMMMMMOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNNN
"Preventer of Work" <not_...@nospam.xxx> wrote
> The Really Silly Thing is that you can fit a straight line to almost pile
> of points you desire and get ... a meaningless straight line.
Well, no.... Actually you can't. But your claiming that you can, tells us
that you are Mathematically Illiterate.
From the previous posts we can conclude that you are Scientifically
Illiterate.
And that makes you a KKKonservative....
MMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNNN
V-for-Vendicar
"Preventer of Work" <not_...@nospam.xxx> wrote
Biologist David Suzuki hates trees?
Ahahahahaha... The Scum Sucking Stupidity you KKKonservatives come up
with.
That's why you all need to be executed.
James A. Donald
> > Firstly, no one knows what global average
> > temperatures were in 1958 to the required accuracy.
"V-for-Vendicar"
> The worlds scientists disagree with you on that
> point.
*Some* of the worlds scientists disagree with me. For
an examination of the mathematics and statistics that
they employ to obtain those oddly precise numbers, I
suggest you read climateaudit.org
"James A. Donald" <jam...@echeque.com> wrote
> > We did not have genuinely global coverage until the
> > MSU satellites were launched
"V-for-Vendicar"
> They don't measure surface temeprature. But still
> show the atmosphere to be warming.
They *did* show data suggesting the atmosphere to be
warming - back when they were not really designed to
make that measurement. Now that the Aqua series has
been launched, which was designed to be capable of
making global temperature measurements in a consistent
and repeatable fashion, they no longer show the
atmosphere to be warming.
"James A. Donald" <jam...@echeque.com> wrote
> > If you are talking about temperatures in 1958, you
> > are talking about surface readings from weather
> > stations,
"V-for-Vendicar"
> And ocean temperatures reported by ships, and baloon
> measurements, etc.
Again, the adjustments and corrections applied to the
ocean temperatures measured by ships are alarmingly
large compared to the alleged accuracy of the
temperature, and are made ad hoc without any very clear
physical basis.
raven1
<jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
> --
>James A. Donald
>> > We need terminology for someone ideologically
>> > committed to faith that the evil of men is causing
>> > the earth to warm, that this a hurtful and wicked
>> > thing, and that industrial civilization must be
>> > rolled back and the excess human population
>> > eliminated in order to save the earth.
>
>raven1
>> I can't think of anyone who fits the bill for all of
>> the above. Can you list some examples?
>
>Presumably you agree that lots of people fit the first
>three requirements: "ideologically committed to faith
>that the evil of men is causing the earth to warm, that
>this a hurtful and wicked thing and that industrial
>civilization must be rolled back"
And you'd be wrong in that presumption.
Again, names, please.
Lloyd
> On Sun, 18 May 2008 01:41:31 -0400, "V-for-Vendicar"
>
> <Just...@ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote:
>
> > "Preventer of Work" <not_t...@nospam.xxx> wrote
> > > <factoids>
> > > No significant warming since 1998.
>
> > Funny. Last month it was claimed by denialists that there was a
> > significant cooling.
>
> > Every day, a new denialist excuse.
>
> For your edification, I have constructed a graph of recent world
> temperatures - the rolling twelve month average of the satellite
> temperature data.
>
>
> You will notice that the satellite data is strikingly different from
> your uniformly ascending straight line graph.
>
> Your graph is just a lie. My graph is the satellite data.
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Preventer of Work" <not_t...@nospam.xxx> wrote
> > > No warming expected until at least 2015 (World Meteorological
> > > Association).
>
> > > </factoids>
>
> > > Shall I shout it from the rooftops? Climate chnage has Ended?
> repor shows that the warmest year was 1998, and it has been cooling
> since then.
> ----------------------
> We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
> of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
> right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
>
> http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald
I suggest instead that you read what all the scientific groups and
bodies have to say.
And look at:
http://www.remss.com/msu/msu_data_description.html#figures
Pay attention to the troposphere -- TLT and TMT -- since that's where
we live.
Lloyd
> > On Sun, 18 May 2008 22:21:48 +1000, James A. Donald
> > <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
>
> > >For your edification, I have constructed a graph of recent world
> > >temperatures - the rolling twelve month average of the satellite
> > >temperature data.
>
> > ><http://blog.jim.com/global-warming/recent-global-cooling-to-april-200...>
>
> > >You will notice that the satellite data is strikingly different from
> > >your uniformly ascending straight line graph.
>
> > >Your graph is just a lie. My graph is the satellite data.
> > It's a silly little graph that you drew yourself.
>
> Go look up the satellite data for the earth's temperature.
>
>
> The world is not warming
>
> Go look up the satellite data for ice coverage.
>
> http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area....
>
> The ice is not melting.
>
> Global warming is a scientific conjecture, not an observable fact.
That is a total lie.
> What we observe is that 1998 is the warmest year for which we have
> accurate data.
Because of El Nino. (And US data shows 2005 warmer.)
>It is also religious truth, like the miraculous
> transubstantiation of the wine and wafer into the flesh and blood of
> Christ. People believe in it without regard for the physical
> observable evidence, and are merely irritated by directly observable
> data, which is to them an irrelevance.
>
Learn the science, doofus.
Lloyd
> <not_t...@nospam.xxx> wrote:
> > V-for-Vendicar wrote:
>
> > > 1998 14.57 *******************************************o*************
> > > 1999 14.33 ****************************************===o
> > > 2000 14.33 ****************************************====o
> > > 2001 14.48 *********************************************o*****
> > > 2002 14.56 **********************************************o*********
> > > 2003 14.55 ***********************************************o*******
> > > 2004 14.49 ************************************************o**
> > > 2005 14.62 *************************************************o**********
> > > 2006 14.54 **************************************************o****
> > > 2007 14.57 ***************************************************o*****
>
>
> > It's funny how you can look at those numbers which vary about +/- 0.1
> > degree for 1998-2007 and somehow extract a trend. It looks pretty random
> > to me.
>
> marked by the little letter "o" - which trend he pulled out of his
> ass.
>
> The eye of faith looks at the data - and sees a perfect straight line
> trend.
>
> The global warmers, unlike actual scientists, never have problems with
> noise in data, inaccurate measurements, imperfect proxies, and the
> like.
>
> anthropogenic global warming, I recommend climateaudit.org
>
Yeah, you would. How about NASA? EPA? NOAA? CDC? WMO? AGU?
National Academy of Sciences? Royal Society?
Guess what? Every scientific group and body agrees that AGW is
happening. Not one is on your side.
> By and large, the more reliable the data, the less the global warming.
Lloyd
> On Sun, 18 May 2008 22:56:51 -0400, "V-for-Vendicar"
>
> > Here are the global average temperatures since 1958.
> > "o" = trend line.
>
> Firstly, no one knows what global average temperatures
> were in 1958 to the required accuracy.
How do you know that? It seems science feels differently.
>Most of the earth
> is not covered by weather stations to this day. The
> weather stations that exist move from time to time and
> the technology by which temperature is measured has
> changed. For example, in sunlight, white washed cages
> around thermometers cause the thermometers to read about
> a degree cooler than latex painted cages.
>
> Most of your data is extrapolated, interpolated, and
> otherwise comes out people's asses.
>
Learn the science.
> We did not have genuinely global coverage until the MSU
> satellites were launched, and until the launch of the
> Aqua series, the drift in the orbits of the MSU
> satellites made it difficult to compare readings taken
> by the microwave satellites at different times.
>
> If you are talking about temperatures in 1958, you are
> talking about surface readings from weather stations,
> and there are various sources of systematic error, such
> as latex paint, the urban hot spot effect, and the
> introduction of air conditioning exhausts, that add up
> to two or three degrees of systematic error - much
> larger than the signal you are trying to detect, the
> signal you report measuring.
>
> An alternate way to go is to look at proxies. For
> example, if the maple syrup season comes earlier, that
> is an indication of warming. Weather stations have
> changed, but maple trees have not changed.
>
> Various proxies give various results, but the proxy that
> has the broadest coverage, and is therefore most likely
> to measure global change, is the proportion of the world
> covered by ice - which has shown no particular tendency
> to increase or decrease.
>
A total lie.
> Indeed, the this is precisely why one hears so many loud
> announcements that the ice is melting - because the ice
> is *not* melting on net, and this is embarrassing the
> global warmers.
Yeah, all the scientists are in a big conspiracy to lie, and only you
denialists see through it.
Learn the science.
>
> --
> ----------------------
> We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
> of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
> right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
>
> http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald
And your screeching about marxism only shows how looney tunes you are.
Lloyd
> "James A. Donald"
>
> > > Firstly, no one knows what global average
> > > temperatures were in 1958 to the required accuracy.
>
> "V-for-Vendicar"
>
> > The worlds scientists disagree with you on that
> > point.
>
> *Some* of the worlds scientists disagree with me.
Pretty much all.
Find me one scientific organization or agency that does agree with
you. Just one.
>For
> an examination of the mathematics and statistics that
> they employ to obtain those oddly precise numbers, I
> suggest you read climateaudit.org
Yeah, then read a creationist site for an objective discussion of
evolution!
>
> "James A. Donald" <jam...@echeque.com> wrote
>
> > > We did not have genuinely global coverage until the
> > > MSU satellites were launched
>
> "V-for-Vendicar"
>
> > They don't measure surface temeprature. But still
> > show the atmosphere to be warming.
>
> They *did* show data suggesting the atmosphere to be
> warming - back when they were not really designed to
> make that measurement. Now that the Aqua series has
> been launched, which was designed to be capable of
> making global temperature measurements in a consistent
> and repeatable fashion, they no longer show the
> atmosphere to be warming.
Bzzt. Thanks for playing, but satellites show the atmosphere is
warming, except where ozone chemistry (well known) leads to cooling.
>
> "James A. Donald" <jam...@echeque.com> wrote
>
> > > If you are talking about temperatures in 1958, you
> > > are talking about surface readings from weather
> > > stations,
>
> "V-for-Vendicar"
>
> > And ocean temperatures reported by ships, and baloon
> > measurements, etc.
>
> Again, the adjustments and corrections applied to the
> ocean temperatures measured by ships are alarmingly
> large compared to the alleged accuracy of the
> temperature, and are made ad hoc without any very clear
> physical basis.
>
Someone ignorant might think so.
James A. Donald
> > Satellites measure air temperatures
"V-for-Vendicar"
> And up until the release of Terra and Aqua they
> measured the temperature of the atmosphere at a
> minimum altitude of 5 to 10 miles.
If global warming is anthropogenic then the middle
atmosphere should warm more than the ground level, not
less. Thus the middle atmosphere provides a more
sensitive measure of global warming. Middle atmosphere
measures also provide a more accurate indicator of
global warming than ground level measurements, because
less affected by local things such as trees, bitumen,
air conditioning outlets, the state of the ship buckets,
and other things that cause large systematic errors in
ground level and sea level temperature measurements,
cause systematic errors much larger than the effects
that we are trying to measure.
If you walk from the shopping center parking lot of a
small town to the rural outskirts, the temperature will
drop by a couple of degrees. You are trying to measure
changes the earth's temperature of a tenth of a degree,
while land use changes around your weather station has
very likely changed the local temperature by a degree or
so.
Plus, your ground station coverage is woefully
incomplete, so to get a "global" measurement from ground
stations, the climate modelers are necessarily and
unavoidably making up data, interpolating, extrapolating
and estimating - see http://climateaudit.org and
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/ for the gruesome
details.
"James A. Donald" <jam...@echeque.com> wrote
> they measure the entire earth
"V-for-Vendicar"
> Not even close,
Satellites measure vastly more of the earth than ground
stations do.
> and they don't measure at the same time, typically
> measurements are performed in the local morning and
> local evening.
Which is why we did not have an accurate measure of the
world's temperature until 2002. After 2002, satellites
measure the same places at the same times, several times
a day. And since 2002, since the start of accurate
data, NO GLOBAL WARMING.
And since we have no accurate measure of global
temperature until starting 2002, we should look at
global proxies, such as ice coverage.
And ice coverage tells us, since the start of global
measurement of ice coverage in 1978: NO GLOBAL
WARMING.
--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald
James A. Donald
> > Global warming is a scientific conjecture, not an
> > observable fact.
Lloyd
> That is a total lie.
The world has been cooling since 1998. Random
fluctuations are too large to say if the world is
warming or not over a mere decade or so and systematic
error in earlier temperature data is too large to detect
the rather small changes that are alleged to have
happened. We have only had really accurate data for
global temperatures since 2002.
We have had really accurate data for the amount of the
world covered by ice since 1979 - and what we see with
ice coverage is no net change in ice coverage from 1979
to 2008, not despite the loudly proclaimed panic every
time we have a unusually large ice melt - as we have had
every decade or so. The 2007 unusually large ice melt
was, as with past dramatic ice melts, followed by an
unusually large ice freeze as ice coverage returned to
its 1979 normal, as usual. Why don't we see you guys
panicking that the world is going to freeze over, because
since 2007 so much land and sea has become covered in
ice?
> Because of El Nino. (And US data shows 2005 warmer.)
Recall that in 2001, you guys were not talking about El
Nino. No, according to you guys, the warm weather of
1998 was global warming, not a temporary fluctuation,
but a harbingers of things to come.
And how are you guys explaining the abrupt re-appearance
of the ice caps? Supposedly the melt in 2007 was
compelling evidence of global warming and foreshadowed
the imminent extinction of the polar bears, but pretty
soon you are going to be explaining it away the way you
just explained away 1998 as a temporary extreme.
Preventer of Work
> "Preventer of Work" <not_...@nospam.xxx> wrote
>> Wow! That's a PhD level response.
>>
>> Why don't you have it published n Nature?
>
> You seem to have omitted the earlier section of the post. Here.. Let me
> add it back in for you.
>
> MMMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNNN
>
>
A smart little feller like you can probably masturbate hisself with only
one hand and cover the whole thing. But be careful, because one day you
gonna grow some hair and make you less attractive to Preacher Gore.
James A. Donald
> > Presumably you agree that lots of people fit the
> > first three requirements: "ideologically committed
> > to faith that the evil of men is causing the earth
> > to warm, that this a hurtful and wicked thing and
> > that industrial civilization must be rolled back"
raven1
> And you'd be wrong in that presumption.
>
> Again, names, please.
Al Gore is the obvious candidate, plus of course those
people who decided to a noble prize to him rather than
to Irena Sendler.
And of course, every congressman who decided that
preserving the arctic from pipelines was more important
than famine and human lives.
And of course all those fans of silent spring who feel
that the malarial deaths of millions of children every
year is a small price to pay that songbirds may have
anopheles mosquitoes to eat.
V-for-Vendicar
"Preventer of Work" <not_...@nospam.xxx> wrote
> one hand and cover the whole thing.
I defer to your claimed expertise at masturbating himself with only one
hand.
MMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNN
V-for-Vendicar
And now you are just a LIAR.
Here are the global average temperatures since 1998. "o" = trend line
computed since 1958
Look at all those "o"'s lined up there. The trend is up, Up, UP.
And most recently the rate of increase is about 2'C per century.
View with mono spaced font.
1998 14.57 *******************************************o*************
1999 14.33 ****************************************===o
2000 14.33 ****************************************====o
2001 14.48 *********************************************o*****
2002 14.56 **********************************************o*********
2003 14.55 ***********************************************o*******
2004 14.49 ************************************************o**
2005 14.62 *************************************************o**********
2006 14.54 **************************************************o****
2007 14.57 ***************************************************o*****
Correlation Coefficient .8529209
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VMu14mBXAs
raven1
<jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
>James A. Donald
>> > Presumably you agree that lots of people fit the
>> > first three requirements: "ideologically committed
>> > to faith that the evil of men is causing the earth
>> > to warm, that this a hurtful and wicked thing and
>> > that industrial civilization must be rolled back"
>
>raven1
>> And you'd be wrong in that presumption.
>>
>> Again, names, please.
For shits and giggles, let's restore the last part of your original
claim: "and the excess human population eliminated in order to save
the earth."
>Al Gore is the obvious candidate,
Really? When has he advocated such things, especially the last part
that I restored? Be specific.
> plus of course those
>people who decided to a noble prize
Umm, do you mean the Nobel Prize?
> to him rather than
>to Irena Sendler.
Who?
>And of course, every congressman who decided that
>preserving the arctic from pipelines was more important
>than famine and human lives.
Huh?
I somehow fail to see any connection to the topic under discussion.
Please feel free to explain what I'm missing here.
>And of course all those fans of silent spring who feel
>that the malarial deaths of millions of children every
>year is a small price to pay that songbirds may have
>anopheles mosquitoes to eat.
WTF?
Again, I somehow fail to see even the remotest possible connection
your remark above might have to the topic under discussion. Please
feel free to explain.
V-for-Vendicar
"Some" as in "Virtually all"
"James A. Donald" <jam...@echeque.com> wrote
> For an examination of the mathematics and statistics that
> they employ to obtain those oddly precise numbers, I
> suggest you read climateaudit.org
Why would I read something written by a paid liar from ClimateAudit?
V-for-Vendicar
> atmosphere should warm more than the ground level, not
> less.
For the same reason tha the middle of a blanket should be warmer than the
part beside your skin.
MMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNN
"James A. Donald" <jam...@echeque.com> wrote
> Thus the middle atmosphere provides a more sensitive measure of global
> warming.
Idiot.
constan...@gmail.com
<Just...@ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote:
> "James A. Donald" <jam...@echeque.com> wrote
>
> > The world has been cooling since 1998.
>
> And now you are just a LIAR.
It was all over the news a little while ago. For example:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7329799.stm
: Mr Jarraud told the BBC that the effect was likely
: to continue into the summer, depressing
: temperatures globally by a fraction of a degree.
: This would mean that temperatures have not risen
: globally since 1998 when El Nino warmed the world.
Blame it on El Nino if you want or point out that it's just a
projection into the summer which might not come to pass, but don't
pretend James is making this up out of whole cloth. Not when anyone
who pays attention to the news is already aware of it.
James A. Donald
<Jus...@ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote:
>
> "James A. Donald" <jam...@echeque.com> wrote
> > The world has been cooling since 1998.
"V-for-Vendicar"
> And now you are just a LIAR.
>
> Here are the global average temperatures since 1998. "o" = trend line
> computed since 1958
>
> Look at all those "o"'s lined up there. The trend is up, Up, UP.
>
> And most recently the rate of increase is about 2'C per century.
>
> View with mono spaced font.
>
> 1998 14.57 *******************************************o*************
> 1999 14.33 ****************************************===o
> 2000 14.33 ****************************************====o
> 2001 14.48 *********************************************o*****
> 2002 14.56 **********************************************o*********
> 2003 14.55 ***********************************************o*******
> 2004 14.49 ************************************************o**
> 2005 14.62 *************************************************o**********
> 2006 14.54 **************************************************o****
> 2007 14.57 ***************************************************o*****
>
> Correlation Coefficient .8529209
Your numbers are pulled out of someone's ass, probably your own.
But these days, we have good numbers, for example
<http://motls.blogspot.com/2008/05/rss-msu-april-as-warm-as-march.html>
Which unlike yourself gives the source of its numbers, so people these
days cannot get away with pulling numbers out of their ass, the way
they could in the past.
Trouble is, that when it comes to 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, the only
numbers we have all come from the same copious source as the numbers
you just gave us. And even the numbers for the 1990s are considerably
less accurate than is commonly claimed. The more the accuracy, the
less the warming.
And so once again I ask: If the world is a lot warmer than it was in
1979, how the area covered by ice
<http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg>
is the same as ever it was?
James A. Donald
<Jus...@ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote:
>
> "James A. Donald" <jam...@echeque.com> wrote
> > Your statistics are pulled out of someone's ass.
>
> They come from NASA.
>
> "James A. Donald" <jam...@echeque.com> wrote
> > For starters, you cannot *get* global temperatures from 1958 surface
> > weather stations.
> > The data just is not there. You are relying on interpolation,
> > extrapolation, and so forth.
> Oh we can go back much further than 1958.
If we go back much further than 1958 then the temperatures indeed
changes - changes by amounts large enough to be discernable even by
very approximate measures, such as whether the thames iced up, but if
we go back much further than 1958, the changes are clearly NOT
anthropogenic, since men were not emitting much in the way of
greenhouse gases back then.
Bottom line is that since humans have been emitting large amounts of
greenhouse gases, the world has only warmed, if it has warmed, by an
amount that is comparable to measurement error, whereas if we go back
a thousand years or so, we get some pretty substantial temperature
variations.
> Prove that the methods used are wrong and then get your findings
> published in a peer reviewed science journal.
Estimation, interpolation, extrapolation, and guessing is not provably
wrong, but neither is is particularly accurate.
>
> Until you manage to prove the hundreds of temperature data sets wrong, I
> think I'll stick with the one developed by Scientists.
>
> Here it is...
>
>
> Here are the global average temperatures since 1958. "o" = trend line.
>
> Look at all those "o"'s lined up there. The trend is up, Up, UP.
>
> And most recently the rate of increase is about 2'C per century.
>
> View with mono spaced font.
>
> 1998 14.57 *******************************************o*************
> 1999 14.33 ****************************************===o
> 2000 14.33 ****************************************====o
> 2001 14.48 *********************************************o*****
> 2002 14.56 **********************************************o*********
> 2003 14.55 ***********************************************o*******
> 2004 14.49 ************************************************o**
> 2005 14.62 *************************************************o**********
> 2006 14.54 **************************************************o****
> 2007 14.57 ***************************************************o*****
>
> Correlation Coefficient .8529209
Your numbers are simply made up. Now that we have accurate numbers,
endlessly repeating numbers concocted the old fashioned way is no
longer convincing.
James A. Donald
> > Firstly, no one knows what global average
> > temperatures were in 1958 to the required accuracy.
Lloyd
> How do you know that? It seems science feels
> differently.
Science does not feel diffently
Recall for example the loudly trumpeted and much
reported NASA announcement that 2006 average annual
temperature for the contiguous U.S. was the warmest on
record.
Real scientists pointed out that this could not possibly
true, that temperatures in those parts of the world
where we have accurate data, such as the US, have not
risen markedly, and in due course NASA quietly backed
down and revised its list of warmest years, changing the
list at the web site without announcing it had been
changed. We have lots of fairly accurate data for the
US, so they could not get away with making up the
numbers they way they can for the rest of the world.
In the new, less flagrantly bogus list, 2006 was cooler
than several years in the 1930s, cooler than 1921, and
cooler than 1934.
The new list of warmest years for the US, adjusted to
what NASA could get away with is:
1934 the warmest year on record 1998 the second warmest
1921 the third warmest
So what science thinks is that NASA was either making up
numbers for the US, or making some big mistakes.
Now for the rest of the world, we for the most part
don't really have numbers. We have estimates,
projections, and extrapolations.
So if science pisses on NASA when the numbers are
available, and NASA's numbers are obviously false,
science is quietly incredulous when no numbers are
available, yet the warmers publish numbers anyway.
You can see NASA new version at
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt
Its old, much publicized, much reported version, having
quietly and furtively disappeared.
> > Various proxies give various results, but the proxy
> > that has the broadest coverage, and is therefore
> > most likely to measure global change, is the
> > proportion of the world covered by ice - which has
> > shown no particular tendency to increase or
> > decrease.
> A total lie.
All the announcements that the ice is melting, panic,
panic, the sky is falling, declare that the ice was
melting in such and such an area over such and such a
period - cherry picked areas and cherry picked periods,
usually some quite short period such as three years, and
some very small area, typically about one percent of the
part of the world that is prone to being covered by ice.
For the global ice, and whole period, you will see that
there is no net trend
<http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg>
>
> > Indeed, the this is precisely why one hears so many
> > loud announcements that the ice is melting - because
> > the ice is *not* melting on net, and this is
> > embarrassing the global warmers.
> Yeah, all the scientists are in a big conspiracy to
> lie, and only you denialists see through it.
You need to distinguish between official science, and
actual science. Science bureaucrats are not science, as
the frequent furtive adjustments of their wilder claims
when those claims were subjected to scientific criticism
demonstrates.
Actual scientists believe there is no net trend on the
ice for the period for which we have accurate data.
Actual scientists are inclined to suspect that there may
have been some warming from the seventies to the
present, but do not believe we know how much, or even
whether there has been any.
Official science loudly announces that over the five
years from 2001 to 2007 lots of ice melted in the
arctic. Actual science looks at total world ice
coverage from 1979 to the present, and tells us that
total ice is much the same as ever it was, and we have
seen plenty of fluctuations like the recent one in the
arctic many times before.
James A. Donald
James A. Donald
> > *Some* of the worlds scientists disagree with me.
> > For an examination of the mathematics and statistics
> > that they employ to obtain those oddly precise
> > numbers, I suggest you read climateaudit.org
kT
> Steve McIntyre ... ahahaha hahahah ahahaha ha ...
> fucking rubes.
As a result of Steve McIntyre's criticisms, Nasa
radically revised past temperatures, dramatically
reducing its clams of global warming in recent decades.
If Steve McIntyre was a fucking rube, and past
temperatures were well known uncontroversial facts, Nasa
would not be running scared, and the record of past and
present temperatures would not undergo major radical
changes from time to time.
Nasa overreached, making claims of global warming that
were too easily proven false, and retreated before this
"fucking rube"
Its present claims are not provably false - but neither
are they provably true. Nasa made dramatic reductions
in its numbers - but failed to explain, or even to
claim, that the new numbers were better supported than
the old, rather different numbers.
The old numbers came out of someone's ass, and the new
numbers came out of someone's ass. The are better only
in that they cannot be easily proven wrong - not in that
they can be proven right.
> He holds a Bachelor of Science degree in mathematics
> from the University of Toronto. He studied philosophy,
> politics and economics at the University of Oxford.
And Nasa has retreated before him in debate.
The fact that the claimed past has changed so much, and
so often, as a result of these debates, shows these
numbers are estimates, some person's unexplained and
unsupported estimates, not observations.
Lloyd
> --
> James A. Donald
>
> > > *Some* of the worlds scientists disagree with me.
> > > For an examination of the mathematics and statistics
> > > that they employ to obtain those oddly precise
> > > numbers, I suggest you read climateaudit.org
>
> kT
>
> > Steve McIntyre ... ahahaha hahahah ahahaha ha ...
> > fucking rubes.
>
> As a result of Steve McIntyre's criticisms, Nasa
> radically revised past temperatures, dramatically
> reducing its clams of global warming in recent decades.
>
There was a slight adjustment (in the 2nd dec. pl., I believe). It
didn't change the fact that the warmest years ever, globally, have
been since 1990.
> If Steve McIntyre was a fucking rube, and past
> temperatures were well known uncontroversial facts, Nasa
> would not be running scared,
LOL! You really do not know what you're talking about.
>and the record of past and
> present temperatures would not undergo major radical
> changes from time to time.
>
> Nasa overreached, making claims of global warming that
> were too easily proven false, and retreated before this
> "fucking rube"
What claims were false? The hottest years on record have occurred in
the last 10 years.
>
> Its present claims are not provably false - but neither
> are they provably true. Nasa made dramatic reductions
> in its numbers
They did not.
> - but failed to explain, or even to
> claim, that the new numbers were better supported than
> the old, rather different numbers.
>
> The old numbers came out of someone's ass, and the new
> numbers came out of someone's ass. The are better only
> in that they cannot be easily proven wrong - not in that
> they can be proven right.
>
> > He holds a Bachelor of Science degree in mathematics
> > from the University of Toronto. He studied philosophy,
> > politics and economics at the University of Oxford.
>
> And Nasa has retreated before him in debate.
>
Oh this is too good. You should write for the Daily Show.
Preventer of Work
Why do your copy and paste antics remind me of Andrew B. Chung?
Maybe because both of you have religion.
Preventer of Work
It's looking more and more like:
1) There is a small amount of global warming evident on all that noise.
2) How big is the A in AGW ? Nobody knows. The best guesses are not well
supported by the evidence, despite the addition of much armwavium.
3) You can do very little about it. It is a political world out there.
With China's output having exceeded the US output a while ago, and no
real restrictions on them. You can get an idea of where things are going
here:
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12021&page=17
The most useful strategy is adaptation. Climate has changed before, and
the worst changes are generally regional, not global. Warming, cooling,
does not matter. Many people live in tropical regions and do just fine.
Many people live in other climates and do quite well. And more people in
the US at least tend to move to warmer rather than cooler areas.
But
Regionally, if we have built our societies around a particular
ecological or climactic state, any change to the state will be
disruptive. This is true regardless of cause. The same is true for the
so-called natural world (as if in some way we humans are not animals).
We are living at a slice of the much pruned bush of evolution, far after
more extinctions of species than there are species. Among other things,
a big player in the extinction game has always been climate.
Don't expect to change the climate.
Leaving you a simple choice - adapt or die (or at least get ready to move).
Preventer of Work
>> three requirements: "ideologically committed to faith
>> that the evil of men is causing the earth to warm, that
>> this a hurtful and wicked thing and that industrial
>> civilization must be rolled back"
>
> removal of his chains.
>
> "But what shall I do? Massa will be angry."
>
> MMMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNNN
>
> "Soon medical science will enable the complete elimination of the need for
> sleep. The resulting economic boom will be spectacular, allowing the work
> week to grow from the current 40 hours to 80 hours."- Libertarian Hilbert
> Conover.
>
>
So that is why you are so cluelesss. Lack of sleep. Probably drooling on
the keyboard too.
James A. Donald
wrote:
> Yeah, you would. How about NASA? EPA? NOAA? CDC? WMO? AGU?
> National Academy of Sciences? Royal Society?
Science is not done by consensus, especially the consensus of those
issuing the funding.
Science is a matter of evidence. Unexplained announcements as to what
the past was are not evidence.
To be evidence, to be normal science, the data and the method of
calculation has to be made available - which for the most part it was
not.
A key part of science is reproducibility. When someone announces that
he has calculated some numbers for past temperatures without
explaining how he calculated them in sufficient detail that someone
else can check the calculation, and check the sources for the
observations, this is not science, but religion.
A typical nasa web page announces that the ice is melting in most
alarmist tones - and in support of this claim, if you go through the
fine print, you find that the actual publication by actual scientists
shows that the ice is not melting.
Preventer of Work
I would still go with Paul Watson (Sea Shepard Conservation Society).
Quotes:
From a review:
The commentary reminded readers that Watson had called humans a disease
before and he wasn’t sorry. “I was once severely criticized for
describing human beings as being the ‘AIDS of the Earth.’ I make no
apologies for that statement,” the column continued.
Review: http://www.businessandmedia.org/printer/2007/20070506180903.aspx
From the column:
All consumption should be local. No food products need to be transported
over hundreds of miles to market. All commercial fishing should be
abolished. If local communities need to fish the fish should be caught
individually by hand.
Curing a body of cancer requires radical and invasive therapy, and
therefore, curing the biosphere of the human virus will also require a
radical and invasive approach
Column: http://www.seashepherd.org/editorials/editorial_070504_1.html
Direct link to columm provided Vinky Vinky will cry "big business,
therefore wrong".
If you every wanted a prime example of a psychopathic misanthrope,
Watson is your Eco-Hitler.
Preventer of Work
>>> 1999 14.33 ****************************************===o
>>> 2000 14.33 ****************************************====o
>>> 2001 14.48 *********************************************o*****
>>> 2002 14.56 **********************************************o*********
>>> 2003 14.55 ***********************************************o*******
>>> 2004 14.49 ************************************************o**
>>> 2005 14.62 *************************************************o**********
>>> 2006 14.54 **************************************************o****
>>> 2007 14.57 ***************************************************o*****
>>>
>> gainsay anyone who disagrees or disputes it.
>
> You can disagree with any reality you want. It just makes you that much
> more of a...
>
> MMMMMMOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNNN
>
>
> "Preventer of Work" <not_...@nospam.xxx> wrote
>> of points you desire and get ... a meaningless straight line.
>
> Well, no.... Actually you can't. But your claiming that you can, tells us
> that you are Mathematically Illiterate.
>
> From the previous posts we can conclude that you are Scientifically
> Illiterate.
>
> And that makes you a KKKonservative....
>
> MMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNNN
>
>
Do you have that paste job on a hot key, or do you hand type it over an
over?
James A. Donald
> > As a result of Steve McIntyre's criticisms, Nasa
> > radically revised past temperatures, dramatically
> > reducing its clams of global warming in recent
> > decades.
Lloyd
> There was a slight adjustment (in the 2nd dec. pl., I
> believe).
There were several "slight adjustments"
The adjustment to which I refer made the 1930s the
warmest period in the continental United States instead
of the 2000s, turning all those big scary headlines arse
over tit. That would seem like a fairly drastic
adjustment to me - turning alarmist headline news about
warming into a "let us bury this embarrassment" non
story.
Further, that was the biggest of quite a lot of "slight
adjustments", reminiscent of the Maxwell Smart dialog:
Maxwell Smart:
"At this moment we have this entire area
surrounded with two hundred marines backed by
twenty helicopter gunships"
Kaos:
"I find that quite hard to believe."
Maxwell Smart:
"Would you believe seven control agents with
machine guns?
Kaos:
"No."
Maxwell Smart:
How about a boy scout with a slingshot?
Kaos:
Mr. Smart ....!
Lloyd
> It didn't change the fact that the warmest years ever,
> globally, have been since 1990.
If the Nasa estimates for the Continental United States
were badly wrong, what should we think about the
accuracy of their estimates for parts of the world where
there is insufficient data to judge their estimates?
The fact that was claimed, and that did change, that
changed radically, was that the warmest years in the
continental united states supposedly have been since
1990. For the continental united states, unlike the
globe, we do have actual data. We got a pile of big
headlines about this claim, the claim was attacked, and
was quietly withdrawn.
Observe that they had to back down for the area for
which we have data, but do not have to back down for the
area for which we lack data.
James A. Donald
> > Nasa overreached, making claims of global warming
> > that were too easily proven false, and retreated
> > before this "fucking rube"
Lloyd
> What claims were false? The hottest years on record
> have occurred in the last 10 years.
They claimed that, and no one can prove them wrong
because there is no accurate data on surface
temperatures for most of the globe, but they also
claimed, and this made headlines, that the hottest years
in the CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES occurred in the last
ten years - which was of course easily disproven, for we
have actual data for the continental united states, not
just extrapolations, interpolations, and estimates.
This is part of a consistent pattern: The amount of
global warming that has occurred in recent decades is
proportional to the uncertainty in the data. The more
accurate and reliable the data, the less the warming.
The area covered by ice has not decreased, and the
continental united states has not warmed.
James A. Donald
> > Its present claims are not provably false - but
> > neither are they provably true. Nasa made dramatic
> > reductions in its numbers
Lloyd
> They did not.
Before the adjustments, the 2000s were the warmest years
in the continental united states, leading to huge
headlines. After the adjustments, the late 1920s, early
1930s were the warmest years in the continental united
states leading to a curious absence of headlines.
Wherever we have good data, we don't have anthropogenic
global warming.
James A. Donald
> Find me one scientific organization or agency that
> does agree with you. Just one.
It is not the job of scientific organizations or
agencies to have opinions about scientific issues. That
is the job of individual scientists. It is unusual and
extraordinary for scientific organizations and agencies
to take such positions, not normal science. If they
have such opinions, that is not science, but politics.
The way the global warming issue is being dealt with is
not the way science addresses scientific questions.
Rather, it is the way that government agencies and
political movements address political power struggles -
campaigning and lobbying.
James A. Donald
> Really? When has he advocated such things, especially
> the last part that I restored? Be specific.
If you oppose drilling for oil when lack of oil is
causing hunger, then you favor the elimination of those
people.
> >And of course all those fans of silent spring who
> >feel that the malarial deaths of millions of children
> >every year is a small price to pay that songbirds may
> >have anopheles mosquitoes to eat.
> WTF?
About three million children die every year because of
restrictions on persistent insecticides.
It is quite simple. If you want to stop various
tropical diseases, you need to wipe out a lot of
insects. If you kill a lot of insects, you starve a lot
of songbirds. Some people decided songbirds in the
tropics were more important than children in the
tropics.
James A. Donald
> If you every wanted a prime example of a psychopathic
> misanthrope, Watson is your Eco-Hitler.
Yes, most of the Greenies want Gaia to the killing, and
they will just refrain from obstructing Gaia by ensuring
that people don't have oil or effective insecticides,
but Watson wants to do the killing himself.
But if you point to Watson, then all the other greenies
can say, hey, we are not like Watson, we don't want to
kill people - we just want to stop people from having
stuff to keep themselves alive.
James A. Donald
> The trend line shown is the trend line for the period 1958 to 2007. I
> have posted the trend line for 1998 to 2007 several hundred times,
You have posted numbers pulled out of someone's ass several hundred
times.
James A. Donald
wrote:
> I suggest instead that you read what all the scientific groups and
> bodies have to say.
>
> And look at:
>
> http://www.remss.com/msu/msu_data_description.html#figures
Those are the figures I just posted. They show that we have been in a
cooling trend since 1998. Look at the numbers, not the politically
correct description of the numbers.
James A. Donald
On Mon, 19 May 2008 02:00:37 -0400, "V-for-Vendicar"
> The rate of temperature increase has accelerated as
> CO2 levels have risen.
Nope, the rate of increase has diminished as
measurements have become more accurate.
Back in the 1990 IPCC report, the warmists were telling
us that the temperature was increasing at 0.35 degrees
per decade.
In the 2001 IPCC report, the warmists were telling us
the temperature was increasing at 0.24 degrees per
decade.
And in 2007, the warmists are telling us the temperature
is increasing 0.18 degrees per decade.
Observe that these three points form a nice straight
line.
> This is self evident from the upward excursion of the
> measurements with respect to the linear fit.
The warmists always issue an upward curving graph, but
their early graphs curved up a lot, while their later
graphs, constrained by inconveniently accurate modern
measurements, curve up considerably less.
Thus in 1990, you would have been posting an upward
curving graph with a much steeper slope for 1980 than
the slope you post today.
The fact that the slope of the *past* keeps diminishing
tells us where the data is coming from - it is coming
right out of the warmists asses.
The warmists in 1990 drew a graph with temperatures
increasing rapidly throughout the 1980s, and
accellerating. The warmists in 2007 drew a graph with
temperatures increasing quite slowly through the 1980s,
so that they would have enough headroom for temperatures
to be accellerating in the 2000s.
> The data is better fit with a second order equationm,
> but for the purposes of this thread - and this
> newsgroup, it hardly makes any difference.
What you need is a third dimension, showing how the
warmists redraw the past every few years to suit their
political needs in the present.
> The volumes of the Greenland Ice Sheet and ice in the
> Arctic Ocean were estimated at 2.9 million and 4.4
> million cubic metres respectively in September 2007 --
> the lowest ever levels recorded, the organization said
> Wednesday.
It is very difficult to estimate the volume. It is easy
to measure the area.
This is part of a consistent pattern - that the less
reliable the data is, the better it supports
anthropogenic global warming.
They could have told us that the Greenland and arctic
ice was unusually small area in september 2007, as
indeed it was - but the *area* did not decrease nearly
as impressively as the volume supposedly did, and as
fast as the area of the arctic ice decreased, the area
of the antarctic ice increased.
And I might ask: How is that the volume supposedly
decrease so much faster than the area? If the area of
arctic ice only decreases by a modest percentage, then
the thickness of arctic ice should only decrease by
similarly modest percentage. Odd that.
> The melting of arctic sea ice and the Greenland Ice
> Sheet was happening so fast that experts were now
> questioning whether the situation is close to "tipping
> point," where sudden and possibly irreversible change
> takes place.
This is just holy rolling and fervent prayer. Look at
what we *can* measure accurately: What we *can* measure
accurately is the area of the world covered in ice and
snow, which is the same today as it was in 1979.
All the terrifying numbers you are producing are
estimates of quantities that are very hard to estimate.
Anyone can come up with any estimate he feels like, and
it is very hard to prove him wrong. No one knows the
*volume* of ice and snow, and those who claim to know
are lying. We can, however, precisely measure the AREA
of ice and snow - and the area of the world that is
today covered in ice and snow is the same as it was in
1979. Look up the numbers.
4079 Dead
wrote:
>On May 21, 6:51 am, James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
>
>> the warmists
>
>> the warmists
>
>> warmists
>
>> The warmists
>
>That's so cute. Did you get the memo?
I'm surprised he isn't calling us warm-mongers. (c) TM (r) All rights
reserved. Use this and die.
--
What do you call a Republican with a conscience?
An ex-Republican.
http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=8827 (From Yang, AthD (h.c)
"Prosperity and peace are in the balance," -- Putsch, not admitting that he's against both
Putsch: leading America to asymetric warfare since 2001
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
Zepps_News...@yahoogroups.com
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
Zepps_essay...@yahoogroups.com
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
leona...@gmail.com
> On Sun, 18 May 2008 21:32:46 GMT, Preventer of Work
>
> > It's funny how you can look at those numbers which vary about +/- 0.1
> > degree for 1998-2007 and somehow extract a trend. It looks pretty random
> > to me.
>
> numbers but definitely warminger. This is partly because they stop
> dead in 2007, and things started getting colder late in 2007. But it
> is also partly because they are just not the same. I gave the source
> of my numbers. He gives no source - which typically means they came
> out of someone's ass.
>
> data, after that data has been scientifically massaged by committed
> global warmers. But he just does not tell us.
>
>
** Excellent point. I don't need to remind you
that GISS and NASA is run by Hansen, the
chief proponent of AGW and data fabricator.
raven1
<jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 20 May 2008 01:53:00 -0400, raven1
>> Really? When has he advocated such things, especially
>> the last part that I restored? Be specific.
>
>If you oppose drilling for oil when lack of oil is
>causing hunger, then you favor the elimination of those
>people.
>
>> >And of course all those fans of silent spring who
>> >feel that the malarial deaths of millions of children
>> >every year is a small price to pay that songbirds may
>> >have anopheles mosquitoes to eat.
>
>> WTF?
>
>About three million children die every year because of
>restrictions on persistent insecticides.
>It is quite simple. If you want to stop various
>tropical diseases, you need to wipe out a lot of
>insects. If you kill a lot of insects, you starve a lot
>of songbirds. Some people decided songbirds in the
>tropics were more important than children in the
>tropics.
Again, what the Hell does that have to do with Global Warming?
Lloyd
wrote:
Perhaps we do need to remind you that every scientific agency and
group in the world agrees with Hansen and not witrh you. Perhaps we
need to ask you to read some journals and to learn some basic science.
James A. Donald
James A. Donald
> > About three million children die every year because
> > of restrictions on persistent insecticides. It is
> > quite simple. If you want to stop various tropical
> > diseases, you need to wipe out a lot of insects. If
> > you kill a lot of insects, you starve a lot of
> > songbirds. Some people decided songbirds in the
> > tropics were more important than children in the
> > tropics.
raven1
> Again, what the Hell does that have to do with Global
> Warming?
Like tropical diseases, the present famine is a
manifestation of the environmentalists faith that large
numbers of people have got to go.
The present famine is in large part caused by
environmentalist restrictions on oil drilling, refinery
building, and building coal to oil plants, which
restrictions are largely imposed in the name of global
warming, and also by environmentalist mandates requiring
food to be turned into fuel ethanol.
James A. Donald
> Perhaps we do need to remind you that every scientific
> agency and group in the world agrees with Hansen and
> not witrh you.
It is not normal science when *agencies* decide
scientific questions. In normal science, the job of
agencies is to support scientific inquiry, and
individual *scientists* decide scientific questions.
When *agencies* hold positions, this is not science, but
power politics.
The fact that "scientific agencies" promote warmism is
itself reason to doubt warmism, and to doubt alleged
facts that supposedly demonstrate the truth of warmism.
raven1
<jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
> --
>James A. Donald
>> > About three million children die every year because
>> > of restrictions on persistent insecticides. It is
>> > quite simple. If you want to stop various tropical
>> > diseases, you need to wipe out a lot of insects. If
>> > you kill a lot of insects, you starve a lot of
>> > songbirds. Some people decided songbirds in the
>> > tropics were more important than children in the
>> > tropics.
>
>raven1
>> Again, what the Hell does that have to do with Global
>> Warming?
>
>Like tropical diseases, the present famine is a
>manifestation of the environmentalists faith that large
>numbers of people have got to go.
>
>The present famine is in large part caused by
>environmentalist restrictions on oil drilling, refinery
>building, and building coal to oil plants, which
>restrictions are largely imposed in the name of global
>warming, and also by environmentalist mandates requiring
>food to be turned into fuel ethanol.
OK, let's try this one more time...
What the hell does this have to do with Global Warming?
James A. Donald
>
> What the hell does this have to do with Global Warming?
Famine is imposed with various justifications for various measures,
some of these justificaitions being global warming. Global warming is
one excuse, of several excuses, for getting rid of excess population.
raven1
<jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 21 May 2008 17:42:36 -0400, raven1
>> OK, let's try this one more time...
>>
>> What the hell does this have to do with Global Warming?
>
>Famine is imposed with various justifications for various measures,
>some of these justificaitions being global warming.
For example?
James A. Donald
> > Famine is imposed with various justifications for
> > being global warming.
raven1
> For example?
I gave a bunch of examples, and I will give one of them
again. Among other things, Congress imposed a mandate
to convert food into fuel - renewable fuels - which
converts enough food to feed four hundred fifty million
people.