Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
1981 Climate Change Predictions Were Eerily Accurate
97 views
Skip to first unread message
Sam Wormley
Jun 3, 2012, 8:21:25 PM6/3/12
to
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Jun 3, 2012, 9:04:22 PM6/3/12
to
Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.universetoday.com/94468/1981-climate-change-predictions-were-eerily-accurate/
How to Lie with Statistics
- Darrell Huff, 1954
> http://www.universetoday.com/94468/1981-climate-change-predictions-were-eerily-accurate/
How to Lie with Statistics
- Darrell Huff, 1954
Sam Wormley
Jun 3, 2012, 9:56:39 PM6/3/12
to
Marvin the Martian
Jun 3, 2012, 11:41:07 PM6/3/12
to
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
Look in the column labeled Annual Mean, J-D.
There's a high peak in 1998. Do you see it on his graph on Wormley's
"Universe today"? No. The graph of temperature on that graph does not
match the data. The graph has been doctored to fake agreement with
prediction.
This is getting old. ALL of these AGW guys are dishonest and tell you
bald faced lies, and it's easy for them since their sources also contain
bald faced lies.
bjacoby
Jun 4, 2012, 1:19:51 AM6/4/12
to
On 6/3/2012 8:21 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
> http://www.universetoday.com/94468/1981-climate-change-predictions-were-eerily-accurate/
Oh look Muffy, the SAME Faked data appears in yet another place. THE
EXACT SAME FIGURE! I wonder who mailed this out and told them to
journalists and told them to pretend they did it themselves?
My same comments to the Australian version of this still apply here:
----------
From Article.
=====
A letter released overnight, signed by 49 former NASA scientists and
astronauts, criticises NASA’s public crusading on climate change. The
letter was sent late last month to NASA administrator Charles Bolden. It
reads in part:
“We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon
dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not
substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of
empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens
of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in
the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS
leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.
“The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate
change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment
of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public
statements.”
But Glikson said he did not recognise any of the 49 names from the list
as climate scientists and instead said most appeared to be astronauts,
engineers and various technical specialists, and therefore from a
scientific point of view their arguments were not based in peer
review-based science."
====
Obviously, only the astronomer turned AGW propagandist is permitted to
pretend to be a "climate scientist".
Of particular interest is Hansen's graph of GISS data 2000-2012 in this
piece. You will find it clearly shows the "continued rapid warming" that
Sam Warmley always insists is going on. His frightening graph shows a
clear continued rise of .15 degree over the period.
Unfortunately, the actual GISS data (linked below) shows no such thing.
http://www.mrk-inc.com/users/bspam/AGWGISSCHART.htm
This is "mouse-painting" at it's finest. More than reason enough for Dr.
Hansen to be fired and drummed out of science forever, had he no
political pull. One can only wonder what he has been snorting through
those rolled up $100 bills he collects for speaking around the world.
So much for Dr. Hansen's "tellingly accurate" fake data. As the letters
suggest, "mouse-painting" is "very unbecoming" of NASA. Science AND
"journalism" obviously hitting a new low here.
------------
Sam and Hansen seem to think that if you repeat a lie often enough,
somehow it suddenly becomes true!
> http://www.universetoday.com/94468/1981-climate-change-predictions-were-eerily-accurate/
Oh look Muffy, the SAME Faked data appears in yet another place. THE
EXACT SAME FIGURE! I wonder who mailed this out and told them to
journalists and told them to pretend they did it themselves?
My same comments to the Australian version of this still apply here:
----------
From Article.
=====
A letter released overnight, signed by 49 former NASA scientists and
astronauts, criticises NASA’s public crusading on climate change. The
letter was sent late last month to NASA administrator Charles Bolden. It
reads in part:
“We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon
dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not
substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of
empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens
of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in
the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS
leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.
“The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate
change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment
of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public
statements.”
But Glikson said he did not recognise any of the 49 names from the list
as climate scientists and instead said most appeared to be astronauts,
engineers and various technical specialists, and therefore from a
scientific point of view their arguments were not based in peer
review-based science."
====
Obviously, only the astronomer turned AGW propagandist is permitted to
pretend to be a "climate scientist".
Of particular interest is Hansen's graph of GISS data 2000-2012 in this
piece. You will find it clearly shows the "continued rapid warming" that
Sam Warmley always insists is going on. His frightening graph shows a
clear continued rise of .15 degree over the period.
Unfortunately, the actual GISS data (linked below) shows no such thing.
http://www.mrk-inc.com/users/bspam/AGWGISSCHART.htm
This is "mouse-painting" at it's finest. More than reason enough for Dr.
Hansen to be fired and drummed out of science forever, had he no
political pull. One can only wonder what he has been snorting through
those rolled up $100 bills he collects for speaking around the world.
So much for Dr. Hansen's "tellingly accurate" fake data. As the letters
suggest, "mouse-painting" is "very unbecoming" of NASA. Science AND
"journalism" obviously hitting a new low here.
------------
Sam and Hansen seem to think that if you repeat a lie often enough,
somehow it suddenly becomes true!
Sam Wormley
Jun 4, 2012, 5:57:54 AM6/4/12
to
On 6/3/12 10:41 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
> There's a high peak in 1998. Do you see it on his graph on Wormley's
> "Universe today"? No.
1998 statistical outlier
> There's a high peak in 1998. Do you see it on his graph on Wormley's
> "Universe today"? No.
Sam Wormley
Jun 4, 2012, 6:11:47 AM6/4/12
to
Basics for Ben
http://www.c2es.org/global-warming-basics/faq_s/glance_faq_science.cfm
> Discussing the science associated with climate change can elicit numerous questions. This Q&A document answers some of the most common questions about climate change, its causes, what scientists know, what the future with climate change will look like, and more. All of the answers draw on scientific knowledge about climate change to help you better understand the issue and effectively communicate about it.
> This FAQ was updated June 2011.
> Causes of Climate Change
> Current & Future Climate Change
> Science Behind Climate Change
> Scientists & Climate Change
> Climate Change Responses
>
http://www.c2es.org/global-warming-basics/faq_s/glance_faq_science.cfm
> Discussing the science associated with climate change can elicit numerous questions. This Q&A document answers some of the most common questions about climate change, its causes, what scientists know, what the future with climate change will look like, and more. All of the answers draw on scientific knowledge about climate change to help you better understand the issue and effectively communicate about it.
> This FAQ was updated June 2011.
> Causes of Climate Change
> Current & Future Climate Change
> Science Behind Climate Change
> Scientists & Climate Change
> Climate Change Responses
>
Sam Wormley
Jun 4, 2012, 6:17:41 AM6/4/12
to
On 6/4/12 12:19 AM, bjacoby wrote:
> So much for Dr. Hansen's "tellingly accurate" fake data.
Can you specifically articulate exactly what data is faked
> So much for Dr. Hansen's "tellingly accurate" fake data.
and compare that with "unfaked" data?
R Kym Horsell
Jun 4, 2012, 6:32:10 AM6/4/12
to
an outlier.
There are also snipped like:
[NASA] extrapolate Arctic temperatures using the northernmost latitude stations, whereas HadCRUT just omits the region. Since the warming is greatest at the highest latitudes, even NASA GISS's method likely underestimates the warming trend, but by less than HadCRUT underestimates it.
This was confirmed by an independent analysis of HadCRUT's record by the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts, which found "the Met Office’s HadCRUT record is at the lower end of likely warming...because HadCRUT is sampling regions that have exhibited less change, on average, than the entire globe over this particular period."
<http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2009/pr20091218b.html>
NASA GISS also compared their method to that of HadCRUT. GISS analysis puts 2005 as the hottest year on record, whereas HadCRUT has it at 1998. The GISS study found "there is 95 percent confidence that 2005 was warmer than 1998." More details in Section 7 here:
<http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/paper/gistemp2010_draft0601.pdf>
-- <http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100628154126AAa5eyw>
--
[Statistics illiteracy 101:]
[You claimed] 1998 was a "3 sigma outlier". I want to see how
you calculated this; common sense would immediately indicate that this is
complete bullshit. Please, don't bother dumbing it down, despite your
implication of the contrary, I am far from being a "statistics illiterate".
[From other conversations, Peter seems to confuse statistics and arithmetic
and is therefore just claiming here he is good at sums].
-- Peter Webb <r.peter.webb...@gmail.com>, 1 Feb 2012 12:54 +1100
Marvin the Martian
Jun 4, 2012, 7:55:41 AM6/4/12
to
Your graph is a damned lie.
And then the temperatures have been flat the last 15. Again, not shown.
It's a damned lie, and you keep posting it.
Marvin the Martian
Jun 4, 2012, 8:19:12 AM6/4/12
to
On Mon, 04 Jun 2012 01:19:51 -0400, bjacoby wrote:
> On 6/3/2012 8:21 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>> http://www.universetoday.com/94468/1981-climate-change-predictions-
were-eerily-accurate/
>
> Oh look Muffy, the SAME Faked data appears in yet another place. THE
> EXACT SAME FIGURE! I wonder who mailed this out and told them to
> journalists and told them to pretend they did it themselves?
Yes. That Data is FAKED. It is not the temperature data from the GISS
> On 6/3/2012 8:21 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>> http://www.universetoday.com/94468/1981-climate-change-predictions-
were-eerily-accurate/
>
> Oh look Muffy, the SAME Faked data appears in yet another place. THE
> EXACT SAME FIGURE! I wonder who mailed this out and told them to
> journalists and told them to pretend they did it themselves?
website that they said it was. The GISS temperature data shows a strong
peak at 1998. I guess there has been a higher peak since and I was wrong
about that, but that graph is definitely been faked to show a false
agreement with Hansen's hypothesis.
I hate being lied to. Guys like Hansen and Wormley are NOT to be trusted.
It goes beyond just making a little mistake, this is pure lying.
Marvin the Martian
Jun 4, 2012, 8:21:25 AM6/4/12
to
IT.
Look at the GISS data and look at your 'observable' on your graph.
The GISS data is already CRAP, but it doesn't support Hansen's conclusion
in that graph. Do you know how to make a graph?
Geeze, have you no ethics at all?!
G=EMC^2
Jun 4, 2012, 9:58:19 AM6/4/12
to
On Jun 3, 8:21 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.universetoday.com/94468/1981-climate-change-predictions-we...
I came up with my heavy air theory 13 years ago. I used the theory to
show flooding rains,more #4 tornadoes,and 5 hurricanes. Posted my
predictions in Alt.Astronomy Right on the money with Katrina. I have
figured out how to prevent the vortex from forming. Thus billions of $
$$$$ saved and many lives. My method can be proved in a lab. TreBert
> http://www.universetoday.com/94468/1981-climate-change-predictions-we...
I came up with my heavy air theory 13 years ago. I used the theory to
show flooding rains,more #4 tornadoes,and 5 hurricanes. Posted my
predictions in Alt.Astronomy Right on the money with Katrina. I have
figured out how to prevent the vortex from forming. Thus billions of $
$$$$ saved and many lives. My method can be proved in a lab. TreBert
Sam Wormley
Jun 4, 2012, 11:13:28 AM6/4/12
to
On 6/4/12 6:55 AM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
> So what? They threw it out to make a nice curve for propaganda purposes.
What did *you* do with 3-sigma outliers in *your job*?
> So what? They threw it out to make a nice curve for propaganda purposes.
Sam Wormley
Jun 4, 2012, 11:15:13 AM6/4/12
to
On 6/4/12 7:21 AM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
> On Mon, 04 Jun 2012 05:17:41 -0500, Sam Wormley wrote:
>
>> > On 6/4/12 12:19 AM, bjacoby wrote:
>>> >> So much for Dr. Hansen's "tellingly accurate" fake data.
>> >
>> > Can you specifically articulate exactly what data is faked and
>> > compare that with "unfaked" data?
> Goddamnit!! That's been done about 10 times already. You've been IGNORING
> IT.
Not to the satisfaction of anybody but some climate science deniers.
> On Mon, 04 Jun 2012 05:17:41 -0500, Sam Wormley wrote:
>
>> > On 6/4/12 12:19 AM, bjacoby wrote:
>>> >> So much for Dr. Hansen's "tellingly accurate" fake data.
>> >
>> > Can you specifically articulate exactly what data is faked and
>> > compare that with "unfaked" data?
> Goddamnit!! That's been done about 10 times already. You've been IGNORING
> IT.
Sam Wormley
Jun 4, 2012, 11:21:04 AM6/4/12
to
On 6/4/12 7:19 AM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
> Yes. That Data is FAKED. It is not the temperature data from the GISS
> website that they said it was.
So declares Marvin, without ans scientific justification.
> Yes. That Data is FAKED. It is not the temperature data from the GISS
> website that they said it was.
Where's the data that show the other data to be wrong?
Bill Snyder
Jun 4, 2012, 11:42:21 AM6/4/12
to
On Sun, 03 Jun 2012 22:41:07 -0500, Marvin the Martian
<mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
>On Mon, 04 Jun 2012 01:04:22 +0000, jimp wrote:
>
>> Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> http://www.universetoday.com/94468/1981-climate-change-predictions-
>were-eerily-accurate/
>>
>>
>> How to Lie with Statistics
>>
>> - Darrell Huff, 1954
>
>Here's the data...
>http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
>
>Look in the column labeled Annual Mean, J-D.
>There's a high peak in 1998. Do you see it on his graph on Wormley's
>"Universe today"? No. The graph of temperature on that graph does not
>match the data. The graph has been doctored to fake agreement with
>prediction.
Except of course that you do see that peak; it's right there in
<mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
>On Mon, 04 Jun 2012 01:04:22 +0000, jimp wrote:
>
>> Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> http://www.universetoday.com/94468/1981-climate-change-predictions-
>were-eerily-accurate/
>>
>>
>> How to Lie with Statistics
>>
>> - Darrell Huff, 1954
>
>Here's the data...
>http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
>
>Look in the column labeled Annual Mean, J-D.
>There's a high peak in 1998. Do you see it on his graph on Wormley's
>"Universe today"? No. The graph of temperature on that graph does not
>match the data. The graph has been doctored to fake agreement with
>prediction.
the plot of the unsmoothed year-by-year data, on the same graph as
the smoothed curve.
>This is getting old. ALL of these AGW guys are dishonest and tell you
>bald faced lies, and it's easy for them since their sources also contain
>bald faced lies.
looks can see at a glance is false. (Other than "Marvie's kind,"
I mean.)
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Jun 4, 2012, 12:34:58 PM6/4/12
to
How to Lie with Statistics
-Darrell Huff, 1954
An Introduction to Experimentation
-Darrell Huff, 1954
-Rabinowicz, 1970
Especially see chapter 4 in Rabinowicz for a discussion of "cleaning up"
outlying points.
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Jun 4, 2012, 12:36:02 PM6/4/12
to
How to Lie with Statistics
Surfer
Jun 4, 2012, 2:18:51 PM6/4/12
to
On Mon, 04 Jun 2012 10:21:04 -0500, Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com>
wrote:
There isn't any.
http://berkeleyearth.org/study/
<Start extract>
The most important indicator of global warming, by far, is the land
and sea surface temperature record. This has been criticized in
several ways, including the choice of stations and the methods for
correcting systematic errors. The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature
study sets out to do a new analysis of the surface temperature record
in a rigorous manner that addresses this criticism. We are using over
39,000 unique stations, which is more than five times the 7,280
stations found in the Global Historical Climatology Network Monthly
data set (GHCN-M) that has served as the focus of many climate
studies.
<End extract>
Here is a summary chart of their results for surface average
temperature.
http://berkeleyearth.org/analysis/
It shows that Berkeley got very similar results to GISS.
wrote:
http://berkeleyearth.org/study/
<Start extract>
The most important indicator of global warming, by far, is the land
and sea surface temperature record. This has been criticized in
several ways, including the choice of stations and the methods for
correcting systematic errors. The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature
study sets out to do a new analysis of the surface temperature record
in a rigorous manner that addresses this criticism. We are using over
39,000 unique stations, which is more than five times the 7,280
stations found in the Global Historical Climatology Network Monthly
data set (GHCN-M) that has served as the focus of many climate
studies.
<End extract>
Here is a summary chart of their results for surface average
temperature.
http://berkeleyearth.org/analysis/
It shows that Berkeley got very similar results to GISS.
Will Janoschka
Jun 4, 2012, 2:54:43 PM6/4/12
to
is useful science? When do "averages" mean anything? Is that
the case for your AGW Bullshit or is it just a coverup?
bjacoby
Jun 4, 2012, 5:59:21 PM6/4/12
to
On 6/4/2012 6:11 AM, Sam Wormley wrote:
> Basics for Ben
> http://www.c2es.org/global-warming-basics/faq_s/glance_faq_science.cfm
Propaganda organization (formerly the PEW CENTER ON CLIMATE CHANGE)
> Basics for Ben
> http://www.c2es.org/global-warming-basics/faq_s/glance_faq_science.cfm
But is now "working... for the economy"! Right to grab a trillion
dollars a year out of it!
Thanks for the propaganda Wormley, but you know I think that you are
going to have to get out the rack to get me to start denying actual
science data.
Say, Warmley, please explain to me why their charts of "warming" only
seem to run to the year 2000? They sure seem out of date for "some"
reason!
bjacoby
Jun 4, 2012, 6:10:12 PM6/4/12
to
director by 49 former NASA scientists and astronauts taking the for
their "climate science" political advocacy. Somehow all those "climate
science experts" (at least as schooled as Hansen)somehow have stated
point blank that this science is NOT "settled". Sure sounds like proof
the other data is political propaganda to me!
And please note Sam, before you start demanding "proof" that this letter
was sent, this assertion appears right in the article which YOU linked
to us to "prove" your points. This is YOUR proof, NOT ours! You have
auto-sodomized yourself! :-)
bjacoby
Jun 4, 2012, 6:19:38 PM6/4/12
to
On 6/4/2012 2:18 PM, Surfer wrote:
> Here is a summary chart of their results for surface average
> temperature.
> http://berkeleyearth.org/analysis/
>
> It shows that Berkeley got very similar results to GISS.
Including the lack of warming for the past 10 years!
> Here is a summary chart of their results for surface average
> temperature.
> http://berkeleyearth.org/analysis/
>
> It shows that Berkeley got very similar results to GISS.
bjacoby
Jun 4, 2012, 6:29:05 PM6/4/12
to
This is more like truth on your side:
http://www.mrk-inc.com/users/bspam/AGWCartoon.htm
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Jun 4, 2012, 6:43:40 PM6/4/12
to
Anyway, while a value for sigma can be calculated for anything, it only
has a statistical meaning for a distribution.
Temperature data for the Earth is entirely chaotic and has no distribution,
therefore any calculated sigma is meaningless, and there is no justification
for removing so-called outliers unless you can show that all the thermometers
were broken for that year.
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Jun 4, 2012, 6:45:22 PM6/4/12
to
10 year average data which of course will not show what is currently
happening?
Bill Snyder
Jun 4, 2012, 6:57:54 PM6/4/12
to
On Mon, 4 Jun 2012 22:45:22 -0000, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
wrote:
It's amazing how often wackjobs find that other people "never seem
to notice" the products of their imaginations.
wrote:
to notice" the products of their imaginations.
Marvin the Martian
Jun 4, 2012, 7:14:48 PM6/4/12
to
proof of man made global warming.
Now you toss it out as bad data.
oooooo-Kay.
Marvin the Martian
Jun 4, 2012, 7:17:28 PM6/4/12
to
data, and I pointed out how obviously it isn't.
You also snipped that I hate how you're always deceptive. :-D
Bill Snyder
Jun 4, 2012, 7:18:08 PM6/4/12
to
right there on the graph. Maybe Marvie is hoping his dog will do
a job on somebody else's evidence, for a change.
Marvin the Martian
Jun 4, 2012, 7:20:58 PM6/4/12
to
protocol, and they processed it in the same way, only throwing out a few
data points.
They dismissed the UHI effect that 58% of the weather stations SHOULD
show by saying that only 1% of the stations were "urban", meaning in
cities, and thus insignificant, while ignoring that the UHI effect means
a RURAL weather station that has had development around it.
The BEST was nothing but political propaganda in the face of damning
evidence against the data for warming.
We went over this before.
Bill Snyder
Jun 4, 2012, 7:22:18 PM6/4/12
to
Marvin the Martian
Jun 4, 2012, 7:23:42 PM6/4/12
to
hypothesis. Sort of an anti-science thing you do, I guess. If your
hypothesis disagrees with experiment, throw out the experiment as it must
be wrong.
Bill Snyder
Jun 4, 2012, 7:27:38 PM6/4/12
to
anything to do with solubility, and that increasing greenhouse
gases have anything to do with greenhouse warming, and that
temperatures keep going up, and that a clearly-visible graph
exists, and . . .
Sam Wormley
Jun 4, 2012, 7:32:19 PM6/4/12
to
outliers in *your job*?
Sam Wormley
Jun 4, 2012, 7:36:46 PM6/4/12
to
data so's we can make a comparison. Or maybe there *isn't any faked*
data, after all.
bjacoby
Jun 4, 2012, 8:46:16 PM6/4/12
to
May this year set a record for tornado deaths! That's right NONE! May is
always the worst month for tornadoes and this year NOBODY was killed by
one in May! Must be the lack of "heavy air".
As for stopping hurricanes, the problem has already been solved by MIT
(of all places). A simple relatively inexpensive device installed in the
ocean at the right location can eliminate ALL damaging hurricanes!
There is just one problem with this, Out-of-your-Tree-Bert, Dr. Hansen
and Dr. Warmley and all the other AGW fundy believers do NOT want to
hear about geo-engineering. They WANT the problems there so damage can
be blamed on Global Warming.
Things caused by Anthropogenic Global Warming:
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/09/climate_100.html
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
PREVENTING property damage and loss of life ruins the party!
Marvin the Martian
Jun 4, 2012, 8:45:58 PM6/4/12
to
AGW". What's up with that?
If over 70% of the weather stations are sited WRONG and 58% of them
SHOULD show UHI, then yes, the data is bad. When they KNOW it is bad and
use it anyway because UHI works for their best interest, thats fraud.
Simple.
Marvin the Martian
Jun 4, 2012, 8:51:13 PM6/4/12
to
Becoming an honest man at last, eh!
Sam Wormley
Jun 4, 2012, 9:01:00 PM6/4/12
to
Sam Wormley
Jun 4, 2012, 9:02:51 PM6/4/12
to
bjacoby
Jun 4, 2012, 9:05:37 PM6/4/12
to
On 6/4/2012 7:27 PM, Bill Snyder wrote:
> Says the turd-tard who keeps denying that partial pressure has
> anything to do with solubility, and that increasing greenhouse
> gases have anything to do with greenhouse warming, and that
> temperatures keep going up, and that a clearly-visible graph
> exists, and . . .
Bill, perhaps you could use a little science education:
> Says the turd-tard who keeps denying that partial pressure has
> anything to do with solubility, and that increasing greenhouse
> gases have anything to do with greenhouse warming, and that
> temperatures keep going up, and that a clearly-visible graph
> exists, and . . .
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/gases-solubility-water-d_1148.html
You seem to have forgotten your statements that warm water dissolves
MORE CO2 than cold water. I hope you know better now.
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Jun 4, 2012, 9:14:57 PM6/4/12
to
Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Now why would Marvin be afraid to answer the question: What did
> *you* do with a 3-sigma outliers in *your job*?
swormely1 continues to be totally oblivious to the fact that sigma is
> Now why would Marvin be afraid to answer the question: What did
> *you* do with a 3-sigma outliers in *your job*?
meaningless for chaotic data like global temperature.
Try reading An Introduction to Experimentation by Rabinowicz, which is
derived from the lectures in a course in physical measurement and
analysis taught at MIT.
Will Janoschka
Jun 4, 2012, 9:46:01 PM6/4/12
to
Why do you repeatedly ask the same question, but never read a
response?
Dishonest, Liar,-- Sam Wormley-bot
Will Janoschka
Jun 4, 2012, 9:56:36 PM6/4/12
to
You are the one defending the faked data Show the
actual measurements Sam. Outliers included, i.e. the measured
un-homoginized numbers, Sam, Or was this never measured? Sam.
Will Janoschka
Jun 4, 2012, 10:11:31 PM6/4/12
to
On Tue, 5 Jun 2012 00:46:16, bjacoby <bja...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
> On 6/4/2012 9:58 AM, G=EMC^2 wrote:
> > On Jun 3, 8:21 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> http://www.universetoday.com/94468/1981-climate-change-predictions-we...
> >
> > I came up with my heavy air theory 13 years ago. I used the theory to
> > show flooding rains,more #4 tornadoes,and 5 hurricanes. Posted my
> > predictions in Alt.Astronomy Right on the money with Katrina. I have
> > figured out how to prevent the vortex from forming. Thus billions of $
> > $$$$ saved and many lives. My method can be proved in a lab. TreBert
>
> Sorry TreeBert, but you are STILL A moron! I just saw on the news that
> May this year set a record for tornado deaths! That's right NONE! May is
> always the worst month for tornadoes and this year NOBODY was killed by
> one in May! Must be the lack of "heavy air".
God, Ben, You cannot even recognize Herbs spoof of the whole AGW
> On 6/4/2012 9:58 AM, G=EMC^2 wrote:
> > On Jun 3, 8:21 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> http://www.universetoday.com/94468/1981-climate-change-predictions-we...
> >
> > I came up with my heavy air theory 13 years ago. I used the theory to
> > show flooding rains,more #4 tornadoes,and 5 hurricanes. Posted my
> > predictions in Alt.Astronomy Right on the money with Katrina. I have
> > figured out how to prevent the vortex from forming. Thus billions of $
> > $$$$ saved and many lives. My method can be proved in a lab. TreBert
>
> Sorry TreeBert, but you are STILL A moron! I just saw on the news that
> May this year set a record for tornado deaths! That's right NONE! May is
> always the worst month for tornadoes and this year NOBODY was killed by
> one in May! Must be the lack of "heavy air".
Bullshit. Herb is on your side, Ben. Herb has been a thorn in the
side
of Wormley for the last 20 years.
-Snip-
>
> >
Sam Wormley
Jun 4, 2012, 11:39:11 PM6/4/12
to
otherwise there is no reason to reject the scientific data.
Marvin the Martian
Jun 5, 2012, 7:43:42 AM6/5/12
to
function of temperature, and I've shown how that proves that CO2 levels
in the atmosphere is only a function of temperature.
These AGW idiots don't know enough about chemistry to distinguish a
concentration of a reactant form the reactions equilibrium constant.
G=EMC^2
Jun 5, 2012, 9:36:01 AM6/5/12
to
On Jun 4, 11:21 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/4/12 7:19 AM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
>
> > Yes. That Data is FAKED. It is not the temperature data from the GISS
> > website that they said it was.
>
> So declares Marvin, without ans scientific justification.
> Where's the data that show the other data to be wrong?
Now that my "heavy Air Theory has been widely excepted it makes for
> On 6/4/12 7:19 AM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
>
> > Yes. That Data is FAKED. It is not the temperature data from the GISS
> > website that they said it was.
>
> So declares Marvin, without ans scientific justification.
> Where's the data that show the other data to be wrong?
more accurate the type of storms to forecast. TreBert
Sam Wormley
Jun 5, 2012, 10:12:13 AM6/5/12
to
On 6/5/12 6:43 AM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
>
> Snider is an idiot. I said that the equilibrium constant is only a
> function of temperature, and I've shown how that proves that CO2 levels
> in the atmosphere is only a function of temperature.
>
> These AGW idiots don't know enough about chemistry to distinguish a
> concentration of a reactant form the reactions equilibrium constant.
>
> Snider is an idiot. I said that the equilibrium constant is only a
> function of temperature, and I've shown how that proves that CO2 levels
> in the atmosphere is only a function of temperature.
>
> These AGW idiots don't know enough about chemistry to distinguish a
> concentration of a reactant form the reactions equilibrium constant.
Bill Snyder
Jun 5, 2012, 10:12:58 AM6/5/12
to
Marvie, but that just proves how vast the conspiracy is.
erschro...@gmail.com
Jun 5, 2012, 12:03:25 PM6/5/12
to
On Jun 5, 7:43 am, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 04 Jun 2012 21:05:37 -0400, bjacoby wrote:
> > On 6/4/2012 7:27 PM, Bill Snyder wrote:
>
> >> Says the turd-tard who keeps denying that partial pressure has anything
> >> to do with solubility, and that increasing greenhouse gases have
> >> anything to do with greenhouse warming, and that temperatures keep
> >> going up, and that a clearly-visible graph exists, and . . .
>
> > Bill, perhaps you could use a little science education:
>
> >http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/gases-solubility-water-d_1148.html
>
> > You seem to have forgotten your statements that warm water dissolves
> > MORE CO2 than cold water. I hope you know better now.
>
> Snider is an idiot. I said that the equilibrium constant is only a
> function of temperature, and I've shown how that proves that CO2 levels
> in the atmosphere is only a function of temperature.
What kind of fool thinks a new equilibrium can be established in a
> On Mon, 04 Jun 2012 21:05:37 -0400, bjacoby wrote:
> > On 6/4/2012 7:27 PM, Bill Snyder wrote:
>
> >> Says the turd-tard who keeps denying that partial pressure has anything
> >> to do with solubility, and that increasing greenhouse gases have
> >> anything to do with greenhouse warming, and that temperatures keep
> >> going up, and that a clearly-visible graph exists, and . . .
>
> > Bill, perhaps you could use a little science education:
>
> >http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/gases-solubility-water-d_1148.html
>
> > You seem to have forgotten your statements that warm water dissolves
> > MORE CO2 than cold water. I hope you know better now.
>
> Snider is an idiot. I said that the equilibrium constant is only a
> function of temperature, and I've shown how that proves that CO2 levels
> in the atmosphere is only a function of temperature.
millisecond?
Oh, I see.
erschro...@gmail.com
Jun 5, 2012, 12:02:39 PM6/5/12
to
On Jun 4, 5:59 pm, bjacoby <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
> On 6/4/2012 6:11 AM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>
> > Basics for Ben
> >http://www.c2es.org/global-warming-basics/faq_s/glance_faq_science.cfm
>
> Propaganda organization (formerly the PEW CENTER ON CLIMATE CHANGE)
> But is now "working... for the economy"! Right to grab a trillion
> dollars a year out of it!
Yeah, Heartland and others that get paid by the Kochs or fossil fuel
industry are "fair and balanced" but a charitable organization that
gives money to nonprofits around the world and is trusted is?
Idiot.
>
> Thanks for the propaganda Wormley, but you know I think that you are
> going to have to get out the rack to get me to start denying actual
> science data.
>
> Say, Warmley, please explain to me why their charts of "warming" only
> seem to run to the year 2000? They sure seem out of date for "some"
> reason!
Why do all you denialists post anonymous graphs?
> On 6/4/2012 6:11 AM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>
> > Basics for Ben
> >http://www.c2es.org/global-warming-basics/faq_s/glance_faq_science.cfm
>
> Propaganda organization (formerly the PEW CENTER ON CLIMATE CHANGE)
> But is now "working... for the economy"! Right to grab a trillion
> dollars a year out of it!
Yeah, Heartland and others that get paid by the Kochs or fossil fuel
industry are "fair and balanced" but a charitable organization that
gives money to nonprofits around the world and is trusted is?
Idiot.
>
> Thanks for the propaganda Wormley, but you know I think that you are
> going to have to get out the rack to get me to start denying actual
> science data.
>
> Say, Warmley, please explain to me why their charts of "warming" only
> seem to run to the year 2000? They sure seem out of date for "some"
> reason!
Why do all you denialists post anonymous graphs?
bjacoby
Jun 5, 2012, 4:37:14 PM6/5/12
to
On 6/5/2012 9:36 AM, G=EMC^2 wrote:
> On Jun 4, 11:21 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 6/4/12 7:19 AM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
>>
>>> Yes. That Data is FAKED. It is not the temperature data from the GISS
>>> website that they said it was.
>>
>> So declares Marvin, without ans scientific justification.
>> Where's the data that show the other data to be wrong?
It's only been posted here about a MILLION time, Sam. You really are a
> On Jun 4, 11:21 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 6/4/12 7:19 AM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
>>
>>> Yes. That Data is FAKED. It is not the temperature data from the GISS
>>> website that they said it was.
>>
>> So declares Marvin, without ans scientific justification.
>> Where's the data that show the other data to be wrong?
shit-bot, aren't "you"?
> Now that my "heavy Air Theory has been widely excepted it makes for
> more accurate the type of storms to forecast. TreBert
Maybe a little actually science will prime the pump to get his brain
working again! And while you are at it, send your Heavy Air theory to
Dr. Hansen at NASA. I'll be he could get it to the right people fast!
bjacoby
Jun 5, 2012, 4:42:35 PM6/5/12
to
On 6/5/2012 12:02 PM, erschro...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jun 4, 5:59 pm, bjacoby<bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
>> Propaganda organization (formerly the PEW CENTER ON CLIMATE CHANGE)
>> But is now "working... for the economy"! Right to grab a trillion
>> dollars a year out of it!
>
> Yeah, Heartland and others that get paid by the Kochs or fossil fuel
> industry are "fair and balanced" but a charitable organization that
> gives money to nonprofits around the world and is trusted is?
>
> Idiot.
Actually Severn Trent mafia are behind it all.
> On Jun 4, 5:59 pm, bjacoby<bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
>> Propaganda organization (formerly the PEW CENTER ON CLIMATE CHANGE)
>> But is now "working... for the economy"! Right to grab a trillion
>> dollars a year out of it!
>
> Yeah, Heartland and others that get paid by the Kochs or fossil fuel
> industry are "fair and balanced" but a charitable organization that
> gives money to nonprofits around the world and is trusted is?
>
> Idiot.
>> Thanks for the propaganda Wormley, but you know I think that you are
>> going to have to get out the rack to get me to start denying actual
>> science data.
>>
>> Say, Warmley, please explain to me why their charts of "warming" only
>> seem to run to the year 2000? They sure seem out of date for "some"
>> reason!
> Why do all you denialists post anonymous graphs?
while each pretends they drew it themselves. Yet they are all identical.
I guess the presumption is that the hoi polloi aren't smart enough to
read more than one magazine or newspaper... unlike you educated
alarmists.
bjacoby
Jun 5, 2012, 4:47:53 PM6/5/12
to
data to the actual original data released by NASA. Since you constantly
quote NASA data as "proof" of your theories, I presume that is
"standard" enough for you. Is it not?
Sam, when the original data is FLAT while the media published graphs all
rise .15 degree in the same identical period, how scientifically
illiterate does a person have to be to NOT see the problem there? It's
no wonder that all "deniers" were found far more scientifically educated
and competent than "alarmists".
erschro...@gmail.com
Jun 5, 2012, 5:06:47 PM6/5/12
to
answered it.
bjacoby
Jun 5, 2012, 6:07:50 PM6/5/12
to
On 6/5/2012 5:06 PM, erschro...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Sam, when the original data is FLAT while the media published graphs all
>> rise .15 degree in the same identical period, how scientifically
>> illiterate does a person have to be to NOT see the problem there? It's
>> no wonder that all "deniers" were found far more scientifically educated
>> and competent than "alarmists".
> Who constructed your graph? Simple question, but no denialist has
> answered it.
Been already answered MANY Times: Bill Gates!
>> Sam, when the original data is FLAT while the media published graphs all
>> rise .15 degree in the same identical period, how scientifically
>> illiterate does a person have to be to NOT see the problem there? It's
>> no wonder that all "deniers" were found far more scientifically educated
>> and competent than "alarmists".
> Who constructed your graph? Simple question, but no denialist has
> answered it.
Data from NASA GISS (irrefutable as I'm told) typed into Excel.
Hit "plot" and voila!
I know, I know, you won't accept the plot as correct until you get a
chance to see the source code for EXCEL. Sorry, Bill doesn't give that
out, so I think that gives you a chance to keep denying!
Marvin did the same with with Mathematica (I think), but it doesn't give
out source code either so you can keep denying.
Bill Ward
Jun 5, 2012, 7:09:00 PM6/5/12
to
Marvin the Martian
Jun 5, 2012, 7:47:16 PM6/5/12
to
lame excuses to claim that idiot graph is temperature when it is some
sort of moving average of temperature, probably weighted, and you're
making up a claim that it is three sigma. It's not. What's more, we know
it is from an El Nino event.
And what do I do? I check the system to ensure everything is working
correctly; like wiring and grounding and all that. I might replace a
transducer and see if that makes a difference, sending the removed
transducer to the metrology lab to see if there is something wrong with
it. And if the signal is real, WE USE IT.
It is funny that you want to toss out the peak values that help prove
global warming, since every time there is a hot year, you crow about all
over the newsgroup for the next year.
Marvin the Martian
Jun 5, 2012, 7:48:33 PM6/5/12
to
false warming. Using it by mistake is a blunder. Using it when you KNOW
it is bad is fraud.
Marvin the Martian
Jun 5, 2012, 7:53:48 PM6/5/12
to
to know that the temperature reading you're getting is garbage.
Why are you throwing out this silly canard that you have to have good
data to know that bad data is bad? What kind of stupid shit is that,
Wormley? You think you can do a crappy experiment and just ASSUME the
data is good until someone comes up with the real data? You've never
worked in a real lab, have you? This is stupid. You're being stupid about
this. Real scientist in working labs always question the experimental set
up. I've been bitten by the earth's magnetic fields, EMI, noise in the
room, variations in wire lots, and so on. There are many things that a
good scientist has to look at in his experiment... you just can't assume
that the data is good because you don't have better data. Your QUESTION
is premised that you're a sloppy experimentalist that just takes whatever
garbage that the experiment puts out.
Falcon
Jun 5, 2012, 7:54:40 PM6/5/12
to
simple graph of temperature anomalies. Well. Enough said really.
--
Falcon:
fide, sed cui vide. (L)
Marvin the Martian
Jun 5, 2012, 8:16:33 PM6/5/12
to
what they can to make sure it is accurate. None of this finding out that
58% of your data is crap and just working with it because it HELPS to
support your favorite hypothesis (even though even the bad data refutes
the hypothesis!!)
Marvin the Martian
Jun 5, 2012, 8:21:02 PM6/5/12
to
to go out and survey the weather stations and remove all the bad data
sources. It is stupid to fund research based on data without even
checking to see if the data is good.
However, even the BAD DATA, which is biased for warming, refutes Hansen's
hypothesis. Knowingly using bad data is fraud.
Stupider still, is making a political policy based on a hypothesis that
has failed even WITH the bad data and spending the small amount to fix
the problem.
Marvin the Martian
Jun 5, 2012, 8:22:23 PM6/5/12
to
get.
You know where the data is. Make your own graph and compare.
This argument of yours is stupid; a fallacy of relevancy. Why am I not
surprised by that?
Marvin the Martian
Jun 5, 2012, 8:25:45 PM6/5/12
to
On Tue, 05 Jun 2012 18:07:50 -0400, bjacoby wrote:
mistake.
I suppose I could put it on graph paper and do it by hand.
My general ed physics students could do it. eshrodering is pretending he
can't. Nor can he even look at the data and verify that the graph is
correct. He needs to have a trusted source - one of the people who tells
him what to think. He doesn't even TRUST HIMSELF, I guess.
This is why I get so short with these AGW true believers. When you catch
them spreading bullshit, they spread more bullshit.
Marvin the Martian
Jun 5, 2012, 8:27:51 PM6/5/12
to
On Tue, 05 Jun 2012 09:03:25 -0700, erschro...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jun 5, 7:43 am, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
>> On Mon, 04 Jun 2012 21:05:37 -0400, bjacoby wrote:
>> > On 6/4/2012 7:27 PM, Bill Snyder wrote:
>>
>> >> Says the turd-tard who keeps denying that partial pressure has
>> >> anything to do with solubility, and that increasing greenhouse gases
>> >> have anything to do with greenhouse warming, and that temperatures
>> >> keep going up, and that a clearly-visible graph exists, and . . .
>>
>> > Bill, perhaps you could use a little science education:
>>
>> >http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/gases-solubility-water-d_1148.html
>>
>> > You seem to have forgotten your statements that warm water dissolves
>> > MORE CO2 than cold water. I hope you know better now.
>>
>> Snider is an idiot. I said that the equilibrium constant is only a
>> function of temperature, and I've shown how that proves that CO2 levels
>> in the atmosphere is only a function of temperature.
>
>
> What kind of fool thinks a new equilibrium can be established in a
> millisecond?
>
> Oh, I see.
So, you're confusing reaction rates with the equilibrium constant.
> On Jun 5, 7:43 am, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
>> On Mon, 04 Jun 2012 21:05:37 -0400, bjacoby wrote:
>> > On 6/4/2012 7:27 PM, Bill Snyder wrote:
>>
>> >> Says the turd-tard who keeps denying that partial pressure has
>> >> anything to do with solubility, and that increasing greenhouse gases
>> >> have anything to do with greenhouse warming, and that temperatures
>> >> keep going up, and that a clearly-visible graph exists, and . . .
>>
>> > Bill, perhaps you could use a little science education:
>>
>> >http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/gases-solubility-water-d_1148.html
>>
>> > You seem to have forgotten your statements that warm water dissolves
>> > MORE CO2 than cold water. I hope you know better now.
>>
>> Snider is an idiot. I said that the equilibrium constant is only a
>> function of temperature, and I've shown how that proves that CO2 levels
>> in the atmosphere is only a function of temperature.
>
>
> What kind of fool thinks a new equilibrium can be established in a
> millisecond?
>
> Oh, I see.
They let you teach this stuff, huh? Poor victims.
Marvin the Martian
Jun 5, 2012, 8:34:46 PM6/5/12
to
questioned his own data, and that when he fouled it up, someone else came
along and showed him how to take good data.
That's actually assuming a lot in favor of Wormley. Really, he's just
talking out of his ass and once again proving he's not a real working
scientist.
Again, he's making a fallacy of relevancy. I explained that the data is
bad because Watt has shown that 58% of the weather stations used are
subject to the UHI effect. Wormley doesn't accept that the data is bad
until someone provides the "correct" data. Now, why is that stupid?
Because the determination of the "correct" data is to look at which one
has the correct protocols to AVOID systematic errors like the UHI effect.
You already KNOW the current data set is bullshit.
But even with this bullshit GISS data, a freshman physics student would
be able to look at the GISS data and tell his Hansen graph is NOT a graph
of the temperature data. Wormley is doubling down on stupid here!! Now
he's claiming he can't do simple high school level of graphing data.
Marvin the Martian
Jun 5, 2012, 8:37:44 PM6/5/12
to
eschrodinger doesn't trust himself to graph the data correctly. I guess
he would know if he can't trust himself to correctly make a graph.
Will Janoschka
Jun 5, 2012, 9:20:50 PM6/5/12
to
On Wed, 6 Jun 2012 00:34:46, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org>
Marvin, Please tone it down a bit on the nonsense of
Computer-bot Wormley!
Currently 6-4-12 No data from NASA Goddard, or NASA Langley,
is considered true, without validation from some agency outside
of those controled by the US government. This is what the
ex-employees of NASA were complaining about. This is also
what your friend, Director James Hansen has created. -will-
Computer-bot Wormley!
Currently 6-4-12 No data from NASA Goddard, or NASA Langley,
is considered true, without validation from some agency outside
of those controled by the US government. This is what the
ex-employees of NASA were complaining about. This is also
what your friend, Director James Hansen has created. -will-
Sam Wormley
Jun 5, 2012, 11:41:27 PM6/5/12
to
On 6/5/12 6:53 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
> Why are you throwing out this silly canard that you have to have good
> data to know that bad data is bad? What kind of stupid shit is that,
> Wormley?
One needs a reference to conclude that the temperature data was
> Why are you throwing out this silly canard that you have to have good
> data to know that bad data is bad? What kind of stupid shit is that,
> Wormley?
"faked". What is that reference, Marvin?
Sam Wormley
Jun 5, 2012, 11:42:17 PM6/5/12
to
On 6/5/12 6:48 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
> I would throw out the GISS data set because 58% of the data would show
> false warming. Using it by mistake is a blunder. Using it when you KNOW
> it is bad is fraud.
How is the data "bad"?
> I would throw out the GISS data set because 58% of the data would show
> false warming. Using it by mistake is a blunder. Using it when you KNOW
> it is bad is fraud.
Sam Wormley
Jun 5, 2012, 11:44:26 PM6/5/12
to
On 6/5/12 7:16 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
> Wormley doesn't understand that real scientist question the data and do
> what they can to make sure it is accurate. None of this finding out that
> 58% of your data is crap and just working with it because it HELPS to
> support your favorite hypothesis (even though even the bad data refutes
> the hypothesis!!)
You are wrong about so many things you post about, Marvin, that I'll
> Wormley doesn't understand that real scientist question the data and do
> what they can to make sure it is accurate. None of this finding out that
> 58% of your data is crap and just working with it because it HELPS to
> support your favorite hypothesis (even though even the bad data refutes
> the hypothesis!!)
bet this is another of your misunderstandings.
Wally W.
Jun 6, 2012, 12:16:16 AM6/6/12
to
"I'll *bet* this is another?!"
No clue as to whether it is or not, just an ad hom based on the
willingness to entertain a wager?
bjacoby
Jun 6, 2012, 1:51:06 AM6/6/12
to
scientists". It is this supposed display of it that has suddenly
appeared all over the media (without any reference to source) claimed to
"prove" that Hansen's 1981 "prediction" is (to use your words) "Eerily
Accurate". Since this figure shows temperature doing things the actual
GISS data does not do, it's obvious the figure has been faked.
We do not believe the GISS data to be accurate, but it is clearly MORE
accurate than this faked media press release.
Sam, is it really true that you are getting paid per hit by warmist
organizations for all the crap you post here?
Marvin the Martian
Jun 6, 2012, 7:49:13 AM6/6/12
to
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
Your graph, and a brain that can make a simple graph.
You're missing one of those three items. Guess which one!
Marvin the Martian
Jun 6, 2012, 7:54:01 AM6/6/12
to
"What's wrong with this picture" thread), his claim that the Greenhouse
effect warms the air which warms the ocean (in the thread on El Nino
events), his claim that changing the partial pressure changes the
equilibrium constant... and many more are all my "misunderstandings".
I'm embarrassed when I make mistakes like that. Wormley just blames the
person who points out his mistakes.
Marvin the Martian
Jun 6, 2012, 7:59:16 AM6/6/12
to
eliminate a thing called "systematic errors". Putting a weather station
used to measure temperature next to an air conditioner exhaust is an
example of a systematic error if you're trying to measure climate and not
when the air conditioner is running.
Which is an entirely different issue than your silly graph. Even the bad
data doesn't follow the graph where your colored lines that were added to
Hansen's predictions. Those lines are supposed to be mean global
temperature, which is what Hansen predicted, but they are NOT. Some sort
of processed data I suppose, but it is NOT mean global temperature. The
real GISS data (which shows a false warming due to an systematic error)
STILL doesn't support Hansen's hypothesis.
Marvin the Martian
Jun 6, 2012, 8:00:59 AM6/6/12
to
erschro...@gmail.com
Jun 6, 2012, 11:39:06 AM6/6/12
to
On Jun 5, 8:22 pm, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
I want to know, where was the posted graph from and who made it?
What have you got to hide?
What have you got to hide?
erschro...@gmail.com
Jun 6, 2012, 11:41:54 AM6/6/12
to
On Jun 6, 1:51 am, bjacoby <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
> On 6/5/2012 11:42 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>
> > On 6/5/12 6:48 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
>
> >> I would throw out the GISS data set because 58% of the data would show
> >> false warming. Using it by mistake is a blunder. Using it when you KNOW
> >> it is bad is fraud.
>
> > How is the data "bad"?
>
> Sam, the data isn't "bad" it comes from your beloved NASA "climate
> scientists".
The graph claims it comes from there, but without knowing who made it
> On 6/5/2012 11:42 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>
> > On 6/5/12 6:48 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
>
> >> I would throw out the GISS data set because 58% of the data would show
> >> false warming. Using it by mistake is a blunder. Using it when you KNOW
> >> it is bad is fraud.
>
> > How is the data "bad"?
>
> Sam, the data isn't "bad" it comes from your beloved NASA "climate
> scientists".
and what url it's at, we've got no way to know if that's the case, or
if some data was omitted or changed.
Falcon
Jun 6, 2012, 11:52:04 AM6/6/12
to
On Wed, 6 Jun 2012 08:41:54 -0700 (PDT), erschro...@gmail.com wrote:
Is that what passes for the scientific method where you come from?
[..]
>
> On Jun 6, 1:51ï¿œam, bjacoby <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
> > On 6/5/2012 11:42 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
> >
> > > On 6/5/12 6:48 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
> >
> > >> I would throw out the GISS data set because 58% of the data would show
> > >> false warming. Using it by mistake is a blunder. Using it when you KNOW
> > >> it is bad is fraud.
> >
> > > How is the data "bad"?
> >
> > Sam, the data isn't "bad" it comes from your beloved NASA "climate
> > scientists".
>
> The graph claims it comes from there, but without knowing who made it
> and what url it's at, we've got no way to know if that's the case, or
> if some data was omitted or changed.
That is the most bizarre statement I have ever read.
> On Jun 6, 1:51ï¿œam, bjacoby <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
> > On 6/5/2012 11:42 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
> >
> > > On 6/5/12 6:48 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
> >
> > >> I would throw out the GISS data set because 58% of the data would show
> > >> false warming. Using it by mistake is a blunder. Using it when you KNOW
> > >> it is bad is fraud.
> >
> > > How is the data "bad"?
> >
> > Sam, the data isn't "bad" it comes from your beloved NASA "climate
> > scientists".
>
> The graph claims it comes from there, but without knowing who made it
> and what url it's at, we've got no way to know if that's the case, or
> if some data was omitted or changed.
Is that what passes for the scientific method where you come from?
[..]
erschro...@gmail.com
Jun 6, 2012, 11:38:15 AM6/6/12
to
On Jun 5, 6:07 pm, bjacoby <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
omitted or altered? Who made it?
Put up or shut up.
>
> I know, I know, you won't accept the plot as correct until you get a
> chance to see the source code for EXCEL. Sorry, Bill doesn't give that
> out, so I think that gives you a chance to keep denying!
>
> Marvin did the same with with Mathematica (I think), but it doesn't give
> out source code either so you can keep denying.
Who made the graph? What is the url?
What are you trying to hide?
> On 6/5/2012 5:06 PM, erschroedin...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >> Sam, when the original data is FLAT while the media published graphs all
> >> rise .15 degree in the same identical period, how scientifically
> >> illiterate does a person have to be to NOT see the problem there? It's
> >> no wonder that all "deniers" were found far more scientifically educated
> >> and competent than "alarmists".
> > Who constructed your graph? Simple question, but no denialist has
> > answered it.
>
>
> >> Sam, when the original data is FLAT while the media published graphs all
> >> rise .15 degree in the same identical period, how scientifically
> >> illiterate does a person have to be to NOT see the problem there? It's
> >> no wonder that all "deniers" were found far more scientifically educated
> >> and competent than "alarmists".
> > Who constructed your graph? Simple question, but no denialist has
> > answered it.
>
> Been already answered MANY Times: Bill Gates!
>
> Data from NASA GISS (irrefutable as I'm told) typed into Excel.
> Hit "plot" and voila!
Who did it? How do we know it's the GISS data -- that nothing was
>
> Data from NASA GISS (irrefutable as I'm told) typed into Excel.
> Hit "plot" and voila!
omitted or altered? Who made it?
Put up or shut up.
>
> I know, I know, you won't accept the plot as correct until you get a
> chance to see the source code for EXCEL. Sorry, Bill doesn't give that
> out, so I think that gives you a chance to keep denying!
>
> Marvin did the same with with Mathematica (I think), but it doesn't give
> out source code either so you can keep denying.
What are you trying to hide?
erschro...@gmail.com
Jun 6, 2012, 11:41:00 AM6/6/12
to
On Jun 5, 8:27 pm, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
A new equilibrium isn't established instantly, Marvin. It takes
time. Sometimes a short time (say in s beaker), sometimes a very long
time (say in the oceans).
Do you think it happens instantaneously? Is that it?
time. Sometimes a short time (say in s beaker), sometimes a very long
time (say in the oceans).
Do you think it happens instantaneously? Is that it?
erschro...@gmail.com
Jun 6, 2012, 11:43:16 AM6/6/12
to
"graph" but instead if you visit their web sites, you find a different
graph?
Now, between you and NASA/NOAA/EPA/etc, I know who I'd suspect faked
the data.
Falcon
Jun 6, 2012, 12:10:06 PM6/6/12
to
On Wed, 6 Jun 2012 08:38:15 -0700 (PDT), erschro...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> How do we know it's the GISS data -- that nothing was
> omitted or altered?
Are you really as unbelievably stupid as you're beginning to sound?
>
> How do we know it's the GISS data -- that nothing was
> omitted or altered?
You can see for yourself if it's GISS data because the GISS data is readily
available and with a little effort you can replicate the graph yourself. It
isn't rocket science. Anyone can do it. What are YOU afraid of?
Fredric L. Rice
Jun 6, 2012, 2:26:53 PM6/6/12
to
Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
>On Mon, 04 Jun 2012 21:05:37 -0400, bjacoby wrote:
>> On 6/4/2012 7:27 PM, Bill Snyder wrote:
>>> Says the turd-tard who keeps denying that partial pressure has anything
>>> to do with solubility, and that increasing greenhouse gases have
>>> anything to do with greenhouse warming, and that temperatures keep
>>> going up, and that a clearly-visible graph exists, and . . .
>> Bill, perhaps you could use a little science education:
>> http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/gases-solubility-water-d_1148.html
>> You seem to have forgotten your statements that warm water dissolves
>> MORE CO2 than cold water. I hope you know better now.
>Snider is an idiot.
All scientists are idiots to you right wing brainless cult morons. The
>> On 6/4/2012 7:27 PM, Bill Snyder wrote:
>>> Says the turd-tard who keeps denying that partial pressure has anything
>>> to do with solubility, and that increasing greenhouse gases have
>>> anything to do with greenhouse warming, and that temperatures keep
>>> going up, and that a clearly-visible graph exists, and . . .
>> Bill, perhaps you could use a little science education:
>> http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/gases-solubility-water-d_1148.html
>> You seem to have forgotten your statements that warm water dissolves
>> MORE CO2 than cold water. I hope you know better now.
>Snider is an idiot.
fact that *you* don't understand science means everyone else is an idiot,.
huh, rightard?
---
http://www.skeptictank.org/
Global warming: Because reality has a well-known liberal bias
Fredric L. Rice
Jun 6, 2012, 2:29:55 PM6/6/12
to
>These AGW idiots don't know enough about chemistry to distinguish a
>concentration of a reactant form the reactions equilibrium constant.
You tell 'em, rightarded genius, *walk* it to 'em, by Jesus. By
>concentration of a reactant form the reactions equilibrium constant.
golly getting an education, doing the science, learning about the
subject is the *first* thing 20 million climate scientists did
wrong, huh, ya frothing Republican moron?
Fredric L. Rice
Jun 6, 2012, 2:34:25 PM6/6/12
to
"erschro...@gmail.com" <erschro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Jun 5, 4:47=A0pm, bjacoby <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
>> Sam, when the original data is FLAT while the media published graphs all
>> Sam, when the original data is FLAT while the media published graphs all
>Who constructed your graph? Simple question, but no denialist has
>answered it.
Exxon/Mobile. Some Koch-sucker right wing corporate criminal.
>answered it.
Desertphile
Jun 6, 2012, 3:12:37 PM6/6/12
to
On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 18:29:55 GMT, fr...@skeptictank.org (Fredric
L. Rice) wrote:
> Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
> >These AGW idiots don't know enough about chemistry to distinguish a
> >concentration of a reactant form the reactions equilibrium constant.
> You tell 'em, rightarded genius, *walk* it to 'em, by Jesus. By
> golly getting an education, doing the science, learning about the
> subject is the *first* thing 20 million climate scientists did
> wrong, huh, ya frothing Republican moron?
"20 million" is far too high. Closer to about 40,000 is my guess,
L. Rice) wrote:
> Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
> >These AGW idiots don't know enough about chemistry to distinguish a
> >concentration of a reactant form the reactions equilibrium constant.
> You tell 'em, rightarded genius, *walk* it to 'em, by Jesus. By
> golly getting an education, doing the science, learning about the
> subject is the *first* thing 20 million climate scientists did
> wrong, huh, ya frothing Republican moron?
based upon publications in science journals. Assessment Report
Four, for example, cited over 6,000 peer reviewed science papers
written by over 2,200 climatologists and their teams.
Claudius Denk
Jun 6, 2012, 3:14:54 PM6/6/12
to
On Jun 6, 11:29 am, fr...@skeptictank.org (Fredric L. Rice) wrote:
> Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
>
> >These AGW idiots don't know enough about chemistry to distinguish a
> >concentration of a reactant form the reactions equilibrium constant.
>
> You tell 'em, rightarded genius, *walk* it to 'em, by Jesus. By
> golly getting an education, doing the science, learning about the
> subject is the *first* thing 20 million climate scientists did
> wrong, huh, ya frothing Republican moron?
>
> ---http://www.skeptictank.org/
> Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
>
> >These AGW idiots don't know enough about chemistry to distinguish a
> >concentration of a reactant form the reactions equilibrium constant.
>
> You tell 'em, rightarded genius, *walk* it to 'em, by Jesus. By
> golly getting an education, doing the science, learning about the
> subject is the *first* thing 20 million climate scientists did
> wrong, huh, ya frothing Republican moron?
>
> Global warming: Because reality has a well-known liberal bias
20 million AGW scientist, and not one of them is willing to debate.
What does this tell you?
bjacoby
Jun 6, 2012, 4:31:57 PM6/6/12
to
On 6/6/2012 3:12 PM, Desertphile wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 18:29:55 GMT, fr...@skeptictank.org (Fredric
> L. Rice) wrote:
> "20 million" is far too high. Closer to about 40,000 is my guess,
> based upon publications in science journals. Assessment Report
> Four, for example, cited over 6,000 peer reviewed science papers
> written by over 2,200 climatologists and their teams.
Well, shit. That settles it. We've had the democratic vote and it's now
> On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 18:29:55 GMT, fr...@skeptictank.org (Fredric
> L. Rice) wrote:
> "20 million" is far too high. Closer to about 40,000 is my guess,
> based upon publications in science journals. Assessment Report
> Four, for example, cited over 6,000 peer reviewed science papers
> written by over 2,200 climatologists and their teams.
"established science" that Marvin faked the data GISS published and is
lying about chemistry.
"It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you
have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers
your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your
hypothesis is wrong. Period."
Professor Richard Feynman, Nobel Laureate in Physics
PERIOD.
erschro...@gmail.com
Jun 6, 2012, 4:53:39 PM6/6/12
to
Falcon
Jun 6, 2012, 6:11:04 PM6/6/12
to
On Wed, 6 Jun 2012 13:53:39 -0700 (PDT), erschro...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> On Jun 6, 3:14 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > On Jun 6, 11:29 am, fr...@skeptictank.org (Fredric L. Rice) wrote:
> >
> > > Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
> >
> > > >These AGW idiots don't know enough about chemistry to distinguish a
> > > >concentration of a reactant form the reactions equilibrium constant.
> >
> > > You tell 'em, rightarded genius, *walk* it to 'em, by Jesus. By
> > > golly getting an education, doing the science, learning about the
> > > subject is the *first* thing 20 million climate scientists did
> > > wrong, huh, ya frothing Republican moron?
> >
> >
>
> On Jun 6, 3:14 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > On Jun 6, 11:29 am, fr...@skeptictank.org (Fredric L. Rice) wrote:
> >
> > > Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
> >
> > > >These AGW idiots don't know enough about chemistry to distinguish a
> > > >concentration of a reactant form the reactions equilibrium constant.
> >
> > > You tell 'em, rightarded genius, *walk* it to 'em, by Jesus. By
> > > golly getting an education, doing the science, learning about the
> > > subject is the *first* thing 20 million climate scientists did
> > > wrong, huh, ya frothing Republican moron?
> >
> >
> > 20 million AGW scientist, and not one of them is willing to debate.
> >
> > What does this tell you?
>
> That they're not going to dignify idiots like you.
Yes, but Lloyd, you can't draw a graph using GISS anomaly data. All it
> >
> > What does this tell you?
>
> That they're not going to dignify idiots like you.
tells me is that the environmentalists' capacity for egregious exaggeration
knows no bounds. 20 million AGW scientists, indeed. What fanciful bollocks.
1treePetrifiedForestLane
Jun 6, 2012, 6:06:35 PM6/6/12
to
no; I'm just going to dignify idiots,
like Sam "take the hits & run with Confirmerism" Warmley.
> That they're not going to dignify idiots like you.
thus:
so, here we see another verrrry interesting difference in the datums,
between Antarctica and Arctica (AnIS and GrIS) although
both icesheets appear to have only increased in heightt,
as far as we have known them.
> "Scientists have observed large increases in melting on GrIS, recently."
thus:
I don't know who my Congressman Waxman's cosponsor was,
in the Senate, but he created the very first USA (mandatory) cap-and-
trade bill in '91, to deal with acid rain; passed unanimously
in both houses!
his mandatory version of the CO2 cap-and-trade is still
sitting around, waiting for someone to propose a carbon tax,
instead. as it is, Sen. Obama's CCX and/or the later ICE
-- HQ in Atlanta, but legally bound in The City of London,
the financial district -- is big money for arbitrageurs,
as the OP seems to have garnered.
I have seen no estimate of the net cost of these voluntary schemes
to gas-hogs, although ti seems to be rapidly phasing-
out the coal-fired plants in the USA -- and
what a horrible waste of a great feedstock, they were!
thus:
there ain't no such a thing as "global" warming,
ever since some nut didn't bother to model a glasshouse,
at a particular plase, and applied the metaphor to Eaaarth,
a giant, spherical bubble -- *non sequiter*.
I know, because I read **** in *Eos*,
which occasionally mouths the party line about "global" warming.
thus:
undergrads are exposed to an endless litany
of lightconeheads, such as what's-his-name
(with the bongos). instead, use quaternions.
> You need to learn some basic physics.
thus:
the three largest icesheets
on Eaaarth continue to grow in heighth,
however incrementally that has to be,
given that they are all calving at the edges,
at various & cyclical rates (see the article
in a recent *Eos* about interpreting these surges,
and the various kinds of moraines).
thus:
GE is an adequate metaphor,
til no-one since Ahrrennius bothers to model a one,
at a lattitude, for the sake of the analogy, itself; thence,
"global" warming, which is the real nonsequiter, or
oxymoron, or mere misnomer.
thus:
I'm still blissed,
at the "finding" that T_sky is readily approximated
by the God-am water-vapors.
like Sam "take the hits & run with Confirmerism" Warmley.
> That they're not going to dignify idiots like you.
so, here we see another verrrry interesting difference in the datums,
between Antarctica and Arctica (AnIS and GrIS) although
both icesheets appear to have only increased in heightt,
as far as we have known them.
> "Scientists have observed large increases in melting on GrIS, recently."
thus:
I don't know who my Congressman Waxman's cosponsor was,
in the Senate, but he created the very first USA (mandatory) cap-and-
trade bill in '91, to deal with acid rain; passed unanimously
in both houses!
his mandatory version of the CO2 cap-and-trade is still
sitting around, waiting for someone to propose a carbon tax,
instead. as it is, Sen. Obama's CCX and/or the later ICE
-- HQ in Atlanta, but legally bound in The City of London,
the financial district -- is big money for arbitrageurs,
as the OP seems to have garnered.
I have seen no estimate of the net cost of these voluntary schemes
to gas-hogs, although ti seems to be rapidly phasing-
out the coal-fired plants in the USA -- and
what a horrible waste of a great feedstock, they were!
thus:
there ain't no such a thing as "global" warming,
ever since some nut didn't bother to model a glasshouse,
at a particular plase, and applied the metaphor to Eaaarth,
a giant, spherical bubble -- *non sequiter*.
I know, because I read **** in *Eos*,
which occasionally mouths the party line about "global" warming.
thus:
undergrads are exposed to an endless litany
of lightconeheads, such as what's-his-name
(with the bongos). instead, use quaternions.
> You need to learn some basic physics.
thus:
the three largest icesheets
on Eaaarth continue to grow in heighth,
however incrementally that has to be,
given that they are all calving at the edges,
at various & cyclical rates (see the article
in a recent *Eos* about interpreting these surges,
and the various kinds of moraines).
thus:
GE is an adequate metaphor,
til no-one since Ahrrennius bothers to model a one,
at a lattitude, for the sake of the analogy, itself; thence,
"global" warming, which is the real nonsequiter, or
oxymoron, or mere misnomer.
thus:
I'm still blissed,
at the "finding" that T_sky is readily approximated
by the God-am water-vapors.
Marvin the Martian
Jun 6, 2012, 8:11:25 PM6/6/12
to
temperature data on the GISS website.
Which makes you unfit to teach chemistry, doesn't it? I mean, if you
can't even graph a simple series of numbers, and you need someone else
that you trust to do it for you, what good are you?
Hey, that's YOUR argument to play stupid like that. The problem with
being obtuse is that people have no choice but to believe you really are
ignorant.
Marvin the Martian
Jun 6, 2012, 8:13:06 PM6/6/12
to
now. He's hoping to fool a few lurkers.
Marvin the Martian
Jun 6, 2012, 8:16:00 PM6/6/12
to
website is the data used to make the graph.
Why don't you just take an indelible marker and write ASSWIPE across your
forehead? I mean, really. Even I don't think you're that ignorant. You're
being silly and obtuse because you don't want to admit that Hansen's
hypothesis, like all the AGW hypothesis, failed to predict.
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages