JANUARY WAS THE WARMEST ON LAND IN 128 YEARS BY A *W*I*D*E* MARGIN!!!! JANUARY IS THE WARMEST MONTH ON THE 1525 MONTH LAND RECORD!!!!
Roger Coppock
JANUARY IS THE WARMEST MONTH ON THE 1525 MONTH LAND RECORD!!!!
These globally averaged temperature data come from NASA:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts.txt
They represent the results of tens of millions of readings
taken at thousands of stations covering all the lands of the
Earth over the last 128 years. Yes, the data are corrected
for the urban heat island effect.
The Mean January temperature over the last 128 years is 14.007 C.
The Variance is 0.14376.
The Standard Deviation, or SIGMA, is 0.3792.
Rxy 0.665351 Rxy^2 0.442692
TEMP = 13.56657 + (0.006828 * (YEAR-1879))
Degrees of Freedom = 126 F = 100.086699
Confidence of nonzero correlation = approximately
0.9999999999999999 (16 nines)
The month of January in the year 2007,
is linearly projected to be 14.441,
yet it was 15.08. <-- 1.7 SIGMA above projection!!
The sum of the residuals is 26.4993
Exponential least squares fit:
TEMP = 13.567704 * e^(.0004883 * (YEAR-1879))
The sum of the residuals is 26.4150
Rank of the months of January
Year Temp C Anomaly Z score
2007 15.08 1.073 2.83 <--
2005 14.87 0.863 2.28
2002 14.84 0.833 2.20
1882 14.79 0.783 2.07
2003 14.79 0.783 2.07
2004 14.61 0.603 1.59
1981 14.57 0.563 1.48
1998 14.57 0.563 1.48
2006 14.56 0.553 1.46
1999 14.55 0.543 1.43
1932 14.52 0.513 1.35
1988 14.52 0.513 1.35
2001 14.51 0.503 1.33
MEAN 14.007 0.000 0.00
1886 13.54 -0.467 -1.23
1892 13.49 -0.517 -1.36
1911 13.49 -0.517 -1.36
1917 13.49 -0.517 -1.36
1895 13.48 -0.527 -1.39
1918 13.48 -0.527 -1.39
1881 13.46 -0.547 -1.44
1887 13.46 -0.547 -1.44
1904 13.45 -0.557 -1.47
1885 13.43 -0.577 -1.52
1894 13.38 -0.627 -1.65
1909 13.31 -0.697 -1.84
1891 13.22 -0.787 -2.08
1893 12.47 -1.537 -4.05
The most recent 170 continuous months, or 14 years and 2 months,
on this GLB.Ts.txt data set are all above the 1951-1980
data set norm of 14 C.
There are 1525 months of data on this data set:
-- 735 of them are at or above the norm.
-- 790 of them are below the norm.
This run of 170 months above the norm is the result of a warming
world. It is too large to occur by chance at any reasonable level
of confidence. A major volcano eruption, thermonuclear war, or
meteor impact could stop this warming trend for a couple of years,
otherwise expect it to continue.
Bawana
> JANUARY WAS THE WARMEST ON LAND IN 128 YEARS BY A *W*I*D*E* MARGIN!!!!
> JANUARY IS THE WARMEST MONTH ON THE 1525 MONTH LAND RECORD!!!!
> <globaloney porn snipped>
Wow, the 1525 month land record!
I'm sold on the CO2 Apocalypse!
It is CO2 that's fueling "THE WARMEST ON LAND IN 128 YEARS" and " THE
WARMEST MONTH ON THE 1525 MONTH LAND RECORD", isn't it?
If man-made CO2 disappeared, all our problems would be solved, right?
It's not a trick question, Coppick.
AGW is a scam
Roger try doing a Poisson distribution on your data to see if January
2007 was outside the expected range.
ctyguy
"Roger Coppock" <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote in message
news:1170879989.1...@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> JANUARY WAS THE WARMEST ON LAND IN 128 YEARS BY A *W*I*D*E* MARGIN!!!!
> JANUARY IS THE WARMEST MONTH ON THE 1525 MONTH LAND RECORD!!!!
>
AGW is a scam
WARMER NOT THAT CO2 IS THE CAUSE.
raylopez99
> "Roger Coppock" <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1170879989.1...@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...> JANUARY WAS THE WARMEST ON LAND IN 128 YEARS BY A *W*I*D*E* MARGIN!!!!
> > JANUARY IS THE WARMEST MONTH ON THE 1525 MONTH LAND RECORD!!!!
>
> Praise God! Lettuce celebrate <LOL>
>
LOL! Roger used to say "with six nine's certainty" (69 certainly) but
now it's Sweet 16 nines! LOL. Yet if you ask Roger what the
probability an large asteroid or comet will hit the earth, he says
it's close to zero, notwithstanding that a large comet (Shomaker-Levy)
hit Jupiter a mere 18 months after it was first discovered. Imagine
that hitting the earth! Came out of nowhere, or perhaps the Oort
Cloud, which historically sends them towards earth periodically in
bunches (another one perhaps due this way soon?) Gave Jupiter a black
eye for months. Would have wiped out lots of life on earth--yet
nobody is too worried about a foreign body hitting earth--which IMO is
a far greater danger than GW.
Was talking to the son of a diehard Euro communist who told me:
ideology is a poison, it never goes away.
RL
hurt_beyo...@yahoo.com
> NASA:http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts.txt
> They represent the results of tens of millions of readings
> taken at thousands of stations covering all the lands of the
Roger, you remind of a criminal who keeps coming back to the scene of
the crime.
Please take a look at the table data at the link you provided.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts.txt
You will notice an abrupt change at around 1980. All of a sudden the
temperatures become predominantly positive. Global warming?
Now at the same associated site, take a look at the middle graph
showing the number of reporting stations. Notice something
coincidentally strange?
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/
The number of reporting stations drops off precipitously at around
1980 too!
Did they only keep the stations with the temperatures "they" wanted?
Sztefan
> JANUARY WAS THE WARMEST ON LAND IN 128 YEARS BY A *W*I*D*E* MARGIN!!!!
> JANUARY IS THE WARMEST MONTH ON THE 1525 MONTH LAND RECORD!!!!
That means 128 ago was as warm as this year!?
And they didn't use as many cars?
;)
hurt_beyo...@yahoo.com
> And they didn't use as many cars?
>
> ;)
Here are some typical turbo gas numbers:
Typically the 800º C gases have a velocity of 60m/s and a mass flow
rate of 0.05 kg/s, providing enough energy to spin the generator at up
to 80,000 rpm and create electrical power of up to 6kW-sufficient to
handle the car's electrical systems.
Not enough for global warming.
JimmyD®
Yo' Momma
<hurt_beyo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1170889898.4...@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
No. The reporting stations were replaced by other methods of monitoring
temperatures.
Joe King
"JimmyD®" <Don'tBla...@IVotedRepublican.com> wrote in message
news:24OdnZ_Pie_h51fY...@comcast.com...
since the end of the Little Ice Age. Medieval times were much warmer than
today so temps will continue to rise.
hurt_beyo...@yahoo.com
> No. The reporting stations were replaced by other methods of monitoring
> temperatures.
Oh really. In 1980? Can you point out where they state this. And
even if it were true, wouldn't, shouldn't, you question what these
"other" methods are such that global "warming" coincides with them.
Come on. Most of the people reading these groups aren't that stupid.
Well except maybe for Roger. ;)
Roger Coppock
> On 7 Feb, 20:26, "Roger Coppock" <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > JANUARY WAS THE WARMEST ON LAND IN 128 YEARS BY A *W*I*D*E* MARGIN!!!!
> > JANUARY IS THE WARMEST MONTH ON THE 1525 MONTH LAND RECORD!!!!
>
> > These globally averaged temperature data come from NASA:http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts.txt
> > They represent the results of tens of millions of readings
> > taken at thousands of stations covering all the lands of the
> > Earth over the last 128 years. Yes, the data are corrected
> > for the urban heat island effect.
>
> > The Mean January temperature over the last 128 years is 14.007 C.
> > The Variance is 0.14376.
> > The Standard Deviation, or SIGMA, is 0.3792.
>
> > Rxy 0.665351 Rxy^2 0.442692
> > TEMP = 13.56657 + (0.006828 * (YEAR-1879))
> > Degrees of Freedom = 126 F = 100.086699
> > Confidence of nonzero correlation = approximately
> > 0.9999999999999999 (16 nines)
>
> > The month of January in the year 2007,
> > is linearly projected to be 14.441,
> > yet it was 15.08. <-- 1.7 SIGMA above projection!
A Poisson distribution is totally inappropriate.
The residuals are normally distributed.
Roger Coppock
Your wish, my command:
WHAT IS WARMING THE EARTH
There are many factors, the predominate one, and the one
which is growing fastest, is an increase in the concentrations
of greenhouse gases. These gases trap the Earth's heat.
The heat that is trapped is measured in Watts per square
meter of the Earth's surface. Please see:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/
Note that the green line, representing accumulating man-made
greenhouse gas emissions easily dominates all other potential
causes of the observed warming today and that they are growing
the fastest. Also, please see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-3.htm
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/crowley.html
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/gcmoutput/crowley2000/forc-total-4_12_01.txt
To show that man is the largest source of the recent warming,
One needs to show two very important things:
1) THAT MAN IS THE SOURCE OF THE OBSERVED INCREASE
IN ATMOSPHERIC GREENHOUSE GAS CONCENTRATIONS
There are three kinds of greenhouse gases to deal with:
A) The easiest gas to demonstrate anthropogenic origins
for are the organo-halogens. Most of the atmospheric
organo-halogens have no significant natural sources.
Therefore, their increasing concentrations must be
anthropogenic.
B) There are two ways to show that the increase of CO2 in
the atmosphere is anthropogenic. Both of them are very
convincing demonstrations.
Radio isotope analysis of Carbon in atmospheric CO2 shows
that the increasing CO2 concentrations come from fossil
fuel origins. This is known as "The Seuss Effect," after
its discoverer, Dr. Hans Seuss.
Or, if one simply has to have all the trivia, one can
trace inputs and outputs of the Carbon cycle. See:
http://www.radix.net/~bobg/faqs/scq.CO2rise.html
or: http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/095.htm
C) Perhaps the hardest gas increase to attribute to humans
is Methane, CH4. There are many sources and sinks for
this gas, so its history can be quite a puzzle at first.
Sources, sinks, and trends for CH4 are summarized in
this table from the IPCC:
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/134.htm#tab42
2) THAT GREENHOUSE GASES TRAP INFRARED RADIATION LEAVING EARTH.
There are at least two ways to show the greenhouse gases
heat the planet by trapping outgoing long wave, or
infrared, radiation. Both of them are very convincing.
It's called "Radiative Forcing Theory," and you find it
in any good college level text on atmospheric chemistry
or atmospheric physics. It is 19th century science,
the works of Fourier, Tyndall, and Arrhenius. Infrared
spectrums taken from the ground looking-up and from
space looking down are very convincing evidence for
this theory. They have the peeks of greenhouse gases.
See:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html#contents
http://science.widener.edu/svb/ftir/ir_ln.html
There is another way of demonstrating the action of
greenhouse gases: the spacial and temporal distribution
of their effects is their unique fingerprint:
1) There is more warming in winter than summer.
http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Northern%20Seasons.jpg
http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Southern%20Seasons.jpg
2) There is more warming at night than in the day.
3) There is more warming at high latitudes than
the tropics.
http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/GISS_ZonAnn_Latitude.jpg
These can be attributed to "Infrared Band Saturation."
(Other minor effects enhance these three as well.)
Water and CO2 share peeks in their infrared spectrum.
Increased humidity, in summer, at night, and in the
tropics can block CO2's effect. No other cause of
global warming can work quite this way. See the
Widener URL above, and the textbook PDF file here:
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/PS134/
Roger Coppock
> Roger Coppock wrote:
> > JANUARY WAS THE WARMEST ON LAND IN 128 YEARS BY A *W*I*D*E* MARGIN!!!!
> > JANUARY IS THE WARMEST MONTH ON THE 1525 MONTH LAND RECORD!!!!
>
> That means 128 ago was as warm as this year!?
Roger Coppock
> "JimmyD®" <Don'tBlam...@IVotedRepublican.com> wrote in message
Simply NO!
Roger Coppock
In order to find facts for your conjecture you could look
at the individual station records. The data are originally
GHCN, before GISS adds their satellite based UHI correction.
Roger Coppock
> Roger Coppock wrote:
> > JANUARY WAS THE WARMEST ON LAND IN 128 YEARS BY A *W*I*D*E* MARGIN!!!!
> > JANUARY IS THE WARMEST MONTH ON THE 1525 MONTH LAND RECORD!!!!
>
> > These globally averaged temperature data come from NASA:
> >http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts.txt
> > They represent the results of tens of millions of readings
> > taken at thousands of stations covering all the lands of the
> > Earth over the last 128 years. Yes, the data are corrected
> > for the urban heat island effect.
>
> > The Mean January temperature over the last 128 years is 14.007 C.
> > The Variance is 0.14376.
> > The Standard Deviation, or SIGMA, is 0.3792.
>
> > Rxy 0.665351 Rxy^2 0.442692
> > TEMP = 13.56657 + (0.006828 * (YEAR-1879))
> > Degrees of Freedom = 126 F = 100.086699
> > Confidence of nonzero correlation = approximately
> > 0.9999999999999999 (16 nines)
>
> > The month of January in the year 2007,
> > is linearly projected to be 14.441,
> > yet it was 15.08. <-- 1.7 SIGMA above projection!
The data are released monthly by NASA.
Expect February data this time next month.
hurt_beyo...@yahoo.com
Roger, mine is NOT conjecture, yours is. Mine IS a statement of FACT
regarding your psychobabble which is based on the "corrected" numbers
in that table.
Nosmo/King.
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
It's not over yet. You might check to see what the Southern Hemisphere is
doing. That IS part of the planet and it's summer there right now,
believe it or not.
> Attachment decoded: untitled-2.txt
> --------------040102090400040206090605--
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
matt_sykes
>
> There is another way of demonstrating the action of
> greenhouse gases: the spacial and temporal distribution
> of their effects is their unique fingerprint:
>
> 1) There is more warming in winter than summer.
> http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Northern%20Seasons.jpg
> http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Southern%20Seasons.jpg
>
> 2) There is more warming at night than in the day.
>
> 3) There is more warming at high latitudes than
> the tropics.
> http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/GISS_ZonAnn_Latitude.jpg
>
> These can be attributed to "Infrared Band Saturation."
> (Other minor effects enhance these three as well.)
> Water and CO2 share peeks in their infrared spectrum.
> Increased humidity, in summer, at night, and in the
> tropics can block CO2's effect. No other cause of
> global warming can work quite this way. See the
>
> - Show quoted text -
So?
Wheres the proof the world is heading for total chaos?
The only proof so far is that a warmer, CO2 richer world increases
food crops by between 16% and 40%, and extends the growing season. On
other crops it improves their drought resistance.
Fact is, if the GW scientists hadnt come up with the 'warming = chaos'
theory, they wouldnt have got any funding and would still be toiling
away in obscurity, not the limelight they are in now.
Thats the scam, thats the BS, and thats the crap the media are feeding
the ignorant masses every hour of the day, and it stinks.
Roger Coppock
>
[ . . . ]
> So?
>
> Wheres the proof the world is heading for total chaos?
>
> The only proof so far is that a warmer, CO2 richer world increases
> food crops by between 16% and 40%, and extends the growing season. On
> other crops it improves their drought resistance.
That's quite a list of unsupported statements.
Provide citations please.
Beelzebub
>
> > There is another way of demonstrating the action of
> > greenhouse gases: the spacial and temporal distribution
> > of their effects is their unique fingerprint:
>
> > 1) There is more warming in winter than summer.
> > http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Northern%20Seasons.jpg
> > http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Southern%20Seasons.jpg
>
> > 2) There is more warming at night than in the day.
>
> > 3) There is more warming at high latitudes than
> > the tropics.
> > http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/GISS_ZonAnn_Latitude.jpg
>
> > These can be attributed to "Infrared Band Saturation."
> > (Other minor effects enhance these three as well.)
> > Water and CO2 share peeks in their infrared spectrum.
> > Increased humidity, in summer, at night, and in the
> > tropics can block CO2's effect. No other cause of
> > global warming can work quite this way. See the
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> So?
>
> Wheres the proof the world is heading for total chaos?
There is no proof that your house will burn down in the next 50 yrs,
so cancel you insurance contract and buy a new car instead. Then I can
arrange for you to crash the car into the house and catch fire,
causing what remains of your family to be obliged to decamp to the
streets without their bread winner... Or hedge your bets and sell me
your immortal soul, so that I play nice for a while.
Roger Coppock
That they only kept the stations with warm temperatures
is a conjecture. In order to find facts for that conjecture
you must look at the individual station records of the
stations that are no longer included and see if they were
cooling prior to their removal.
kT
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> So?
>
> Wheres the proof the world is heading for total chaos?
On the streets.
--
The Tsiolkovsky Group : http://www.lifeform.org
My Planetary BLOB : http://cosmic.lifeform.org
Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator :
hurt_beyo...@yahoo.com
> That they only kept the stations with warm temperatures
> is a conjecture. In order to find facts for that conjecture
That last line was a question in jest; but one worth a valid answer.
What is FACT is that the table data that you use as your statistical
"proof" of global warming abruptly changes simultaneously with a huge
drop in the number of reporting stations. That automatically makes it
suspect.
> you must look at the individual station records of the
> stations that are no longer included and see if they were
> cooling prior to their removal.
I've informally looked at a small sampling at various latitudes and I
see some trending up, some down, but most are approximately the same.
Perhaps you can point me to the page that explains their adjustments
to make the final table change so dramatically in 1980. Which by the
way seems a little late to be AGW.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/topics
raylopez99
No they aren't: they're a Levy-Madelbrot distribution that is
decidedly not Gaussian and in fact may look more like a Poisson
distribution.
When will you ever learn Croppock? Climate is not weather: it is NON-
linear.
RL
Roger Coppock
> On Feb 7, 5:56 pm, "Roger Coppock" <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 7, 12:49 pm, "AGW is a scam" <bryn.hu...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> > > Roger try doing a Poisson distribution on your data to see if January
> > > 2007 was outside the expected range.
>
> > A Poisson distribution is totally inappropriate.
> > The residuals are normally distributed.
>
> No they aren't: they're a Levy-Madelbrot distribution that is
> decidedly not Gaussian and in fact may look more like a Poisson
> distribution.
A Shapiro-Wilk test for the yearly land and sea data
indicates that they are normal at 95% confidence. The
residuals from the linear regression are normal at 99%
confidence. Both these statements are confirmed
graphically by normal Q-Q plots.
However, if you want show us how to do statistics, Mr. Lopez,
the data are here:
land and sea data:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
land data
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts.txt
Roger Coppock
That they only kept the stations with warm temperatures
is a conjecture. In order to find facts for that conjecture
raylopez99
> A Shapiro-Wilk test for the yearly land and sea data
> indicates that they are normal at 95% confidence. The
> residuals from the linear regression are normal at 99%
> confidence. Both these statements are confirmed
> graphically by normal Q-Q plots.
THis means nothing Coppock. The stock market before 1987 was found to
be normally distributed according to a Shapiro-Wilk test --then came
the crash of Black Monday, October 1987. Showed the market is
nonlinear.
When will you ever learn? Weather is not climate, and both are NON-
linear.
We need more data.
RL
Roger Coppock
> The stock market before 1987 was found to
Another Ray Lopez lie.
Philip H. Hart
> On Feb 7, 5:56 pm, "Roger Coppock" <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 7, 12:49 pm, "AGW is a scam" <bryn.hu...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> > > Roger try doing a Poisson distribution on your data to see if January
> > > 2007 was outside the expected range.
>
> > A Poisson distribution is totally inappropriate.
> > The residuals are normally distributed.
>
> No they aren't: they're a Levy-Madelbrot distribution that is
> decidedly not Gaussian and in fact may look more like a Poisson
> distribution.
A Poisson distribution is a model for discontinuous (ie. meristic)
variables. Temperature is a continuous variable. You need to brush up
your knowledge of stats Mr. L.opez.
Philip H. Hart
> On 7 Feb, 20:26, "Roger Coppock" <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > JANUARY WAS THE WARMEST ON LAND IN 128 YEARS BY A *W*I*D*E* MARGIN!!!!
> > JANUARY IS THE WARMEST MONTH ON THE 1525 MONTH LAND RECORD!!!!
>
> > They represent the results of tens of millions of readings
> > taken at thousands of stations covering all the lands of the
> 2007 was outside the expected range
A Poisson distribution is a model for discontinuous (ie. meristic)
variables. Temperature is a continuous variable. A genuine scientist
would know this.
raylopez99
This is well known in the literature. That's quite a list of
Saddam's Noose, Exxon's Neck
Google Ray Lopez NAMBLA Kiddie-Porn
This Posting by Ray Lopez is an advertisement sponsored by EXXON
RAY LOPEZ uses the "cover story" that he is a troll and spews flame-
bait, to conceal the archived pattern that he only posts to disrupt
discussions in topic areas where fatcat corporations pay saboteurs to
disrupt and harrass and fatigue posters trying to discuss the issues
that the corporations do not want discussed.
===========
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/46d576d0a067e85a?hl=en&
From: raylopez99 - view profile
Date: Tues, Oct 11 2005 11:51 am
So by acting like an idiot in the sense of
using provocative flame bait (albeit asking good questions at times) I
was able to generate some answers/opinions about the topics I was
interested in. Standard flamebait tactics, that I learned from the
early 1990s when the Internet evolved (note to reader: you will not
get many responses if you don't bait your reader--that's a fact I
learned over the years from experience).
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/89a25acd044c7e9b?hl=en&
From: raylopez99 - view profile
Date: Tues, Sep 27 2005 3:12 pm
CB--are you a troll like me? I've said I am a provocative troll, one
that makes good points, and sometimes I wonder if we're not in the
same
camp.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.os.linux/msg/f6b753f5b4daa4cd?hl=en&
From: Ray Lopez - view profile
Date: Fri, May 26 2000 12:00 am
Bob, you're not that bright, are you? This thread is flame bait. I
thought I made that clear last year, that I troll this NG just to see
what
morons will reply to my provocative posts.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/a2c54f90abe8f1e7?hl=en&
From: raylopez99 - view profile
Date: Thurs, Jun 15 2006 1:17 a
You realize that a lot of what I say here is flame bait I hope.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/079cb918b552dba7?hl=en&
From: raylopez99 - view profile
Date: Tues, Mar 7 2006 8:29 pm
Truth is however that despite my provocative flame-bait language--
which
I've cultivated since the beginning of my posts to the Internet in
1994, when it was still text based--I am more right than wrong.
Flaming is just the spice to my posts.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/de2c6640b88b91b3?hl=en&
From: raylopez99 - view profile
Date: Mon, Jul 10 2006 1:30 am
But I am a troll.
RL
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/f48a8717e2a9b59b?hl=en&
From: raylopez99 - view profile
Date: Wed, Oct 5 2005 10:58 pm
Coby Beck you know by now I am a troll. Learning is almost
incidental,
but I do learn a few things.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/044ef5d56fae1d3c?hl=en&
From: raylopez99 - view profile
Date: Tues, Jul 12 2005 1:52 pm
and, if you've read this far --and you probably
shouldn't if you believe Owl's theory that I'm just a troll-- (I am,
but a honest troll who raises good points, not a polemic hack
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/1d14c0bebb1d7e52?hl=en&
From: raylopez99 - view profile
Date: Sat, Mar 11 2006 9:43 am
I was flaming in Usenet from the get-go. Even
once had Marvin Minsky bite on one of my trolls.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/dc0145fce8cc8260?hl=en&
From: raylopez99 - view profile
Date: Thurs, Mar 31 2005 10:49 pm
Truth be told I was trying to be
provocative with my language just to flame-bait you, but you did not
rise to the occasion.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.os.linux/msg/3db46f0d0a19d088?hl=en&
From: Ray Lopez - view profile
Date: Mon, Jul 17 2000 12:00 am
Truth is, I am not JUST a troll.
Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty has received
$160,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Africa Fighting Malaria has received $30,000 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
American Council for Capital Formation Center for Policy Research
has received $1,309,523 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
American Council on Science and Health has received $110,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research has
received $1,625,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
American Enterprise Institute-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory
Studies has received $105,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
American Friends of the Institute for Economic Affairs has received
$50,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
American Legislative Exchange Council has received $1,189,700 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
American Spectator Foundation has received $15,000 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
Arizona State University Office of Cimatology has received $49,500
from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Aspen Institute has received $61,500 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Atlantic Legal Foundation has received $20,000 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
Atlas Economic Research Foundation has received $680,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
Capital Research Center and Greenwatch has received $190,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
Cato Institute has received $90,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Center for American and International Law has received $177,450
from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Center for Strategic and International Studies has received
$1,112,500 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise has received $230,000
from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Center for the New West has received $5,000 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change has
received $90,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Centre for the New Europe has received $170,000 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
Chemical Education Foundation has received $80,000 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
Citizens for A Sound Economy and CSE Educational Foundation has
received $380,250 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow has received $472,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
Communications Institute has received $125,000 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
Competitive Enterprise Institute has received $2,005,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
Congress of Racial Equality has received $250,000 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
Consumer Alert has received $70,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies has received
$75,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment has
received $210,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Fraser Institute has received $120,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Free Enterprise Action Institute has received $50,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
Free Enterprise Education Institute has received $80,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
Frontiers of Freedom Institute and Foundation has received $857,000
from ExxonMobil since 1998.
George C. Marshall Institute has received $630,000 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
George Mason University, Law and Economics Center has received
$185,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Harvard Center for Risk Analysis has received $30,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
Heartland Institute has received $561,500 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
Heritage Foundation has received $555,000 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace, Stanford
University has received $295,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Hudson Institute has received $25,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Independent Institute has received $70,000 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
Institute for Energy Research has received $147,000 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
Institute for Regulatory Science, 9200 Rumsey Road, Suite 205
Columbia, MD 21045 USA
Institute for Senior Studies has received $30,000 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
Institute for the Study of Earth and Man has received $76,500 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
International affiliate of the American Council for Capital
Formation.
International Policy Network - North America has received $295,000
from ExxonMobil since 1998.
International Republican Institute has received $105,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
James Madison Institute has received $5,000 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
Landmark Legal Foundation has received $30,000 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
Lexington Institute has received $10,000 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
Lindenwood University has received $10,000 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
Mackinac Center has received $30,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Manhattan Institute for Policy Research has received $175,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
Media Institute has received $60,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Media Research Center has received $150,000 from ExxonMobil since
1998.
Mercatus Center, George Mason University has received $80,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
Mountain States Legal Foundation has received $2,500 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
National Association of Neighborhoods has received $75,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
National Black Chamber of Commerce has received $150,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
National Center for Policy Analysis has received $390,900 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
National Center for Public Policy Research has received $280,000
from ExxonMobil since 1998.
National Environmental Policy Institute has received $75,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
National Legal Center for the Public Interest has received $215,500
from ExxonMobil since 1998.
National Wilderness Institute has received $10,000 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
New England Legal Foundation has received $7,500 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
Pacific Legal Foundation has received $110,000 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy has received $370,000
from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Property and Environment Research Center, Political Economy
Research Center has received $115,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Reason Foundation has received $381,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Science and Environmental Policy Project has received $20,000 from
ExxonMobil since 1998.
Stanford University GCEP has received $100,000 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
Tech Central Science Foundation or Tech Central Station has
received $95,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Texas Public Policy Foundation has received $15,000 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
The Advancement of Sound Science Center, Inc. has received $40,000
from ExxonMobil since 1998.
The Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy has received
$688,575 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
The Justice Foundation (formerly Texas Justice Foundation) has
received $10,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Washington Legal Foundation has received $185,000 from ExxonMobil
since 1998.
Weidenbaum Center on the Economy, Government, and Public Policy has
received $120,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
"Doubt is our product." "Doubt is our product." "Doubt is our
product."
http://www.markhertsgaard.com/Articles/2006/WhileWashingtonSlept/
"... But if the deniers appear to have lost the scientific argument,
they prolonged the policy battle, delaying actions to reduce emissions
when such cuts mattered most. "For 25 years, people have been warning
that we had a window of opportunity to take action, and if we waited
until the effects were obvious it would be too late to avoid major
consequences," says Oppenheimer. "Had some individual countries,
especially the United States, begun to act in the early to mid-1990s,
we might have made it. But we didn't, and now the impacts are here."
"The goal of the disinformation campaign wasn't to win the debate,"
says Gelbspan. "The goal was simply to keep the debate going. When the
public hears the media report that some scientists believe warming is
real but others don't, its reaction is 'Come back and tell us when
you're really sure.' So no political action is taken."
Representative Henry Waxman, the California Democrat who chaired the
1994 hearings where tobacco executives unanimously declared under oath
that cigarettes were not addictive, watches today's global-warming
deniers with a sense of déjà vu. It all reminds him of the
confidential slogan a top tobacco flack coined when arguing that the
science on smoking remained unsettled: "Doubt is our product." Now,
Waxman says, "not only are we seeing the same tactics the tobacco
industry used, we're seeing some of the same groups. For example, the
Advancement of Sound Science Coalition was created [in 1993] to debunk
the dangers of secondhand smoking before it moved on to global
warming."
The scientific work Frederick Seitz oversaw for R. J. Reynolds from
1978 to 1987 was "perfectly fine research, but off the point," says
Stanton A. Glantz, a professor of medicine at the University of
California, San Francisco, and a lead author of The Cigarette Papers
(1996), which exposed the inner workings of the Brown & Williamson
Tobacco Corporation. "Looking at stress, at genetics, at lifestyle
issues let Reynolds claim it was funding real research. But then it
could cloud the issue by saying, 'Well, what about this other possible
causal factor?' It's like coming up with 57 other reasons for
Hurricane
Katrina rather than global warming."
For his part, Seitz says he was comfortable taking tobacco money, "as
long as it was green. I'm not quite clear about this moralistic issue.
We had absolutely free rein to decide how the money was spent." Did
the
research give the tobacco industry political cover? "I'll leave that
to
the philosophers and priests," he replies. ..."
http://snipurl.com/txkv
http://tobaccodocuments.org/all/?mode=listing&pattern=%22Doubt+is+our+product%22&document_code=&date_op=&date=&records_per_page=100&sort_by=date
"Doubt is our product." "Doubt is our product." "Doubt is our
product."
http://tobaccodocuments.org/bliley_bw/680110947.html
"... memorandum dated August 21, 1969 from J. W. Burgard to Mr. R. A:
Pittman and others. The subject of the memo is "Doubt. " The memo
reads approximately as follows: "Doubt is our product since it is the
best means of competing with the body of fact that exists in the mind
of the general public. It is also the means of establishing that there
is a controversy. ...
"Doubt is our product." "Doubt is our product." "Doubt is our
product."
http://tobaccodocuments.org/nysa_ti_m2/TI04450339.html
It cited an Aug. 21, 1969, internal memorandum W. Burgard, Brown &
Williamson's vice president for marketing, saying. "Doubt is our
product since it is the best means of competing with the body of fact
that exists in the minds of the general public. It is also the means
of establishing a controversy."
"Doubt is our product." "Doubt is our product." "Doubt is our
product."
http://tobaccodocuments.org/nysa_ti_s3/TI22182043.html
http://tobaccodocuments.org/bw/12515397.html
http://tobaccodocuments.org/nysa_ti_s4/TI25930219.html
http://tobaccodocuments.org/bw/267023.html Page 212: 0000267023
http://tobaccodocuments.org/bw/11839935.html Page 213: 0011839935
"Doubt is our product." "Doubt is our product." "Doubt is our
product."
http://tobaccodocuments.org/nysa_ti_m2/TI09110286.html Page 2:
TI09110286
Documents obtained by the Federal Trade Commission show that as early
as 1969 one tobacco company had a plan to sow doubt and confusion in
the public's mind about the validity of evidence linking smoking to
disease and death. The company's document says Doubt is our product
since it is the best means of competing with the "body of fact" that
exists in the mind of the general public. It is also the means of
establishing a controversy.
"Doubt is our product." "Doubt is our product." "Doubt is our
product."
http://tobaccodocuments.org/bw/332501.html
... our product as doubt, our message as truth -- welt stated, and our
competition as the body of anti-cigarette fact that exists in the
public mind. We have chosen the mass public as our consumer for
several reasons: - This is where the misinformation about smoking und
health has been focused. The Congress and federal agencies are
already being dealt with -- and perhaps as effectively as possible --
by the Tobacco Institute. It is a group with little exposure to the
positive side of smoking and health. It is the prime force in
influencing Congress and federal agencies without public support
little effort would be given to a crusade against cigarettes. Doubt is
our product since it is the best means of competing with the "body of
fact" that exists in the mind of the general public. It is also the
means of establishing a controversy. Within the business we recognize
that a controversy exists. However, with the general public the
consensus is that cigarettes are in some way harmful to the health. If
we are successful in establishing a controversy at the public level,
then there is an opportunity to put across the real facts about
smoking and health. Doubt is also the limit of our "product".
http://tobaccodocuments.org/bw/332506.html
"Doubt is our product." "Doubt is our product." "Doubt is our
product."
"Doubt is our product." "Doubt is our product." "Doubt is our
product."
"Doubt is our product." "Doubt is our product." "Doubt is our
product."
"Doubt is our product." "Doubt is our product." "Doubt is our
product."
Vendicar Decarian
<hurt_beyo...@yahoo.com> wrote
> Did they only keep the stations with the temperatures "they" wanted?
My Gawd, your right. It is an Space Alien Conspiracy.
Ahahahahahahahaha... You fucking Stupid Moron.
Vendicar Decarian
<hurt_beyo...@yahoo.com> wrote
> Oh really. In 1980? Can you point out where they state this.
It is hardly necessary, as it is patently obvious. Satellites were poviding
an abundance of surface measurements at that time. Although none that were
designed for long term climate monitoring.
How long have you been eating your own Dung?
Vendicar Decarian
<hurt_beyo...@yahoo.com> wrote
> That last line was a question in jest; but one worth a valid answer.
> What is FACT is that the table data that you use as your statistical
> "proof" of global warming abruptly changes simultaneously with a huge
> drop in the number of reporting stations. That automatically makes it
> suspect.
And gosh, I started to go bald sometime in the early 1980's. My hair
follicle count declined coincident to the decline in reporting stations.
Obviously my hair was somehow magically controlling the number of climate
monitoring stations in YankVille.
I had no idea my hair was so powerful.
Vendicar Decarian
"JimmyD®" <Don'tBla...@IVotedRepublican.com> wrote
> What about February????????????
I believe Feb is the 5th warmest on record.
Vendicar Decarian
"Joe King" <jef...@pacbell.net> wrote
> Of course temperatures are rising. Temperature have been slowly rising
> since the end of the Little Ice Age.
No they haven't. And temperatures aren't slowly rising. They are rapidly
rising, and doing so at an accelerating rate.
"Joe King" <jef...@pacbell.net> wrote
> Medieval times were much warmer than today
Didn't you just finish saying that temperatures have been slowly rising?
You do realize that you have just contradicted yourself, don't you?
Moron.
"Joe King" <jef...@pacbell.net> wrote
>... so temps will continue to rise.
Sorry, that doesn't follow at all.
You have just said that <Yesterday I was much further east than I am
today, so I must continue to move west.>
You are just jabbering Scientifically Incoherent, Childish, Nonsense.
Vendicar Decarian
"Sztefan" <ghn...@hotmail.com> wrote
> That means 128 ago was as warm as this year!?
>
> And they didn't use as many cars?
When continuously flipping a coin, you can get a string of 10 heads in a
row. It doesn't require a biased coin, but a biased coin can be employed to
improve the odds.
Stupid... Stupid... Sztefan...