How to get the damaging leaked University of East Anglia CRU files about AGW
Eeyore
Enter the Validation Code and click on "download file". Free, no
registration required. Took me 4 minutes.
Sorry if you already know all this but I've been amazingly busy recently
and haven't been in the groups or keeping up with the news much.
Graham
Others I like ....
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/about-us/
"World Climate Report, a concise, hard-hitting and scientifically
correct response to the global change reports which gain attention in
the literature and popular press. As the nation�s leading publication in
this realm, World Climate Report is exhaustively researched, impeccably
referenced, and always timely. This popular web log points out the
weaknesses and outright fallacies in the science that is being touted as
�proof� of disastrous warming. It�s the perfect antidote against those
who argue for proposed changes to the Rio Climate Treaty, such as the
Kyoto Protocol, which are aimed at limiting carbon emissions from the
United States.
Acclaimed by those on both sides of the global warming debate, World
Climate Report has become the definitive and unimpeachable source for
what Nature now calls the �mainstream skeptic� point of view, which is
that climate change is a largely overblown issue and that the best
expectation is modest change over the next 100 years. WCR is often cited
by prominent scientists and lawmakers and is a surprisingly enjoyable
read�which may account for its broad appeal."
http://www.sas.org/tcs/weeklyIssues_2009/2009-12-04/feature1/index.html
"04 December 2009
Amateur scientist Willis Eschenbach, who resides in Honiara, Solomon
Islands, has studied changes in sea level and coral. His unsuccessful
Freedom of Information Act requests to obtain climate data from East
Anglia University�s Hadley Climatic Research Unit (CRU) figured in the
Climategate scandal described in this month�s Editorial. He described
his unsuccessful attempts to receive information in "The People Versus
the Climate Research Unit (CRU)," an 11,000-word article that has been
published on various blogs. It is presented here without editing and
with the permission of the author. Editor
The People Versus the Climate Research Unit (CRU)
by Willis Eschenbach
As far as I know, I am the person who made the original Freedom Of
Information Act to CRU that started getting all this stirred up. I was
trying to get access to the taxpayer funded raw data out of which they
built the global temperature record. I was not representing anybody, or
trying to prove a point. I am not funded by Mobil, I�m an amateur
scientist with a lifelong interest in the weather and climate. I�m not
"directed" by anyone, I�m not a member of a right-wing conspiracy. I�m
just a guy trying to move science forwards.
People seem to be missing the real issue in the discussion of the hacked
CRU climate emails. Gavin Schmidt over at RealClimate keeps distracting
people by saying the issue is the scientists being nasty to each other,
and what Trenberth said, and the Nature "trick", and the like. Those are
side trails that he would like people to follow. To me, the main issue
is the frontal attack on the heart of science, which is transparency.
Science works by one person making a claim, and backing it up with the
data and methods that they used to make the claim. Other scientists then
attack the claim by (among other things) trying to replicate the first
scientist�s work. If they can�t replicate it, it doesn�t stand. So
blocking my Freedom of Information request for his data allowed Phil
Jones to claim that his temperature record was valid science, even
though it has never been scientifically examined.
This is not just trivial gamesmanship, this is central to the very idea
of scientific inquiry. This is an attack on the heart of science, by
keeping people who disagree with you from ever checking your work and
seeing if your math is correct.
The recent release of the hacked emails from CRU has provided me with an
amazing insight into the attempt by myself, Steve McIntyre, and others
from CA and elsewhere to obtain the raw station data from Phil Jones at
the CRU. We wanted the data that was used to make the global temperature
record that is relied on to claim "unprecedented" global warming. This
is a chronological account of my attempts to get that vital data
released to public view.
A few housekeeping notes first. While we don�t know if all of these
emails are valid, the comments of the researchers involved such as Gavin
Schmidt and Michael Mann clearly indicate that they think the emails are
authentic. The emails certainly fit with my experience. I have only
included the relevant parts of emails, and indicated where I have
snipped text by an ellipsis (...). Numbers of the emails are in
parentheses. "Codes" is shorthand for the computer programs used to
analyze the data.
CRU is the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia (UEA),
arguably the top climate research unit in the world. Dr. Phil Jones is
the Director of CRU. CA is ClimateAudit, a web site run by Steve
McIntyre that audits scientific papers for errors of all types. MM is
Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, who have authored papers together.
Michael Mann is one of the three authors, with Bradley and Hughes, of
the now discredited iconic "Hockeystick" paper that was heavily promoted
by the UN IPCC. The Hockeystick paper claimed this is the warmest period
in six hundred years. The Hockeystick paper was discredited largely
through the efforts of Steve McIntyre, so Michael Mann and the others do
not like Steve at all. Gavin Schmidt is a climate modeler that runs a
web site called RealClimate. This purports to be a scientific blog, but
the CRU emails confirm that it is a well-controlled mouthpiece for
Michael Mann and others who believe in anthropogenic (human-caused)
global warming (AGW). RealClimate ruthlessly censors comments and
questions, in stark contrast to ClimateAudit, which allows free
expression of any scientific questions and ideas. (Although in response
to the intense scrutiny caused by the emails, RealClimate immediately
started accepting a number of opposing comments for the first time. This
is a smart move, as newcomers will be fooled into thinking there is no
censorship � but the emails prove otherwise.)
The IPCC is the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change. AR4 is the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (2007). WMO is the
World Meteorological Organization, which collates and supplies weather
information. FOI or FOIA is the UK Freedom of Information Act.
The story actually starts with Warwick Hughes, an Australian climate
researcher who had previously been in cordial contact with Phil Jones. I
find only one email in the archive (0969308954) where Phil emails
Warwick, from 2000. This is in response to some inconsistencies that
Warwick had found in Phil�s work:
Warwick Hughes to Phil Jones, September '04:
Dear Phillip and Chris Folland (with your IPCC hat on),
Some days ago Chris I emailed to Tom Karl and you replied re the grid
cells in north Siberia with no stations, yet carrying red circle grid
point anomalies in the TAR Fig 2.9 global maps. I even sent a gif file
map showing the grid cells barren of stations greyed out. You said this
was due to interpolation and referred me to Phillip and procedures
described in a submitted paper. In the last couple of days I have put up
a page detailing shortcomings in your TAR Fig 2.9 maps in the north
Siberian region, everything is specified there with diagrams and
numbered grid points.
[1] One issue is that two of the interpolated grid cells have larger
anomalies than the parent cells !!!!?????
This must be explained.
[2] Another serious issue is that obvious non-homogenous warming in
Olenek and Verhojansk is being interpolated through to adjoining grid
cells with no stations, like cancer.
[3] The third serious issue is that the urbanization affected trend from
the Irkutsk grid cell neare Lake Baikal, looks to be interpolated into
its western neighbour.
I am sure there are many other cases of this, 2 and 3 happening.
Best regards,
Warwick Hughes (I have sent this to CKF)
Phil to Warwick, same email:
Warwick,
I did not think I would get a chance today to look at the web page. I
see what boxes you are referring to. The interpolation procedure cannot
produce larger anomalies than neighbours (larger values in a single
month). If you have found any of these I will investigate. If you are
talking about larger trends then that is a different matter. Trends say
in Fig 2.9 for the 1976-99 period require 16 years to have data and at
least 10 months in each year. It is conceivable that at there are 24
years in this period that missing values in some boxes influence trend
calculation. I would expect this to be random across the globe.
Warwick,
Been away. Just checked my program and the interpolation shouldn�t
produce larger anomalies than the neighbouring cells. So can you send me
the cells, months and year of the two cells you�ve found ? If I have
this I can check to see what has happened and answer (1). As for (2) and
(3) we compared all stations with neighbours and these two stations did
not have problems when the work was done (around 1985/6). I am not
around much for the next 3 weeks but will be here most of this week and
will try to answer (1) if I get more details. If you have the names of
stations that you�ve compared Olenek and Verhojansk with I would
appreciate that.
Cheers
Phil
OK, so far we have a couple of scientists discussing issues in a
scientific work, usual tone, no problem. But as he found more
inconsistencies, in order to understand what was going on, in 2005
Warwick asked Phil for the dataset that was used to create the CRU
temperature record. Phil Jones famously replied:
Subject: Re: WMO non respondo
� Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or
so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to
you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it. �
Cheers Phil
Hmmm � not a good start. Or as they say in the novel "1984", double-plus
ungood. Science can only progress if there is a free exchange of
scientific data. The scientific model works like this:
* A scientist makes claims, and reveals the data and methods he
used to come to his conclusions.
* Other scientists who don�t agree attack the claim by (inter
alia) seeing if they can replicate the result, using the first
scientist�s data and methods.
* If the claims cannot be replicated, the claim is adjudged to be
false.
Obviously, if the data or the methods are kept secret, the claims cannot
be verified. Attacking other scientist�s claims is what what scientists
do, that's their job description. This adversarial system is the heart
of science. Phil Jones refusing scientific data because someone will
attack it is an oxymoron, of course they will attack it. That's science.
When I found out about Phil Jones saying this, I couldn�t believe it. I
thought, a scientist can�t do that, can he? He can't refuse to reveal
his data. This is science, not hide and seek. I literally didn't think
Jones had been quoted correctly. So to find out, I wrote to the
University of East Anglia (of which the CRU is a Department) on
September 8, 2006, saying:
I would like to obtain a list of the meteorological stations used in the
preparation of the HadCRUT3 global temperature average, and the raw data
for those stations. I cannot find it anywhere on the web. The lead
author for the temperature average is Dr. Phil Jones of the Climate
Research Unit.
Many thanks, Willis Eschenbach
I got no response from Phil Jones or anyone at CRU or UEA. So I filed a
Freedom of Information act request for the data.
Now at this point, let me diverge from my application to what was
happening at CRU before and during this time. The first reference to
Freedom of Information in their emails is from 2005, before they had
received a single request. Immediately, they start to plan how to evade
requests should some come in:
Tom Wigley, Former Director of CRU, to Phil Jones, 21/01/2005
Phil,
�
I got a brochure on the FOI Act from UEA. Does this mean that, if
someone asks for a computer program we have to give it out?? Can you
check this for me (and Sarah). ...
Thanks,
Tom.
Phil replies to Tom:
Tom,
�
On the FOI Act there is a little leaflet we have all been sent. It
doesn�t really clarify what we might have to do re programs or data.
Like all things in Britain we will only find out when the first person
or organization asks. I wouldn�t tell anybody about the FOI Act in
Britain. I don�t think UEA really knows what�s involved.
As you�re no longer an employee I would use this argument if anything
comes along. I think it is supposed to mainly apply to issues of
personal information � references for jobs etc.
...
Cheers
Phil
So the coverup starts immediately, even before the first request. "I
wouldn�t tell anyone about the FOI act in Britain".
Tom to Phil
Phil,
Thanks for the quick reply. The leaflet appeared so general, but it was
prepared by UEA so they may have simplified things. From their wording,
computer code would be covered by the FOIA. My concern was if Sarah
is/was still employed by UEA. I guess she could claim that she had only
written one tenth of the code and release every tenth line.
�
Tom
You can see how they plan to observe the spirit of the FOI Act. Claim a
temporary employee isn't really an employee so they are not covered.
Phil to Tom
Tom,
�
As for FOIA Sarah isn�t technically employed by UEA and she will likely
be paid by Manchester Metropolitan University. I wouldn�t worry about
the code. If FOIA does ever get used by anyone, there is also IPR to
consider as well. Data is covered by all the agreements we sign with
people, so I will be hiding behind them. I�ll be passing any requests
onto the person at UEA who has been given a post to deal with them.
Cheers
Phil
Phil Jones has just gotten the news that FOI will apply, and immediately
he starts to plan how he is going to hide from an FOI request. Cite
technicalities, claim IPR (Intellectual Property Rights), those are good
hiding places.
The next email (1109021312) is later in 2005:
At 09:41 AM 2/2/2005, Phil Jones wrote to Michael Mann:
Mike,
�
Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents
everything better this time ! And don�t leave stuff lying around on ftp
sites � you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after
the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of
Information Act now in the UK, I think I�ll delete the file rather than
send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to
enquiries within 20 days? � our does ! The UK works on precedents, so
the first request will test it.
We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley
has sent me a worried email when he heard about it � thought people
could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so
he can hide behind that. IPR should be relevant here, but I can see me
getting into an argument with someone at UEA who�ll say we must adhere
to it !
�.
Phil
So now we have two more ways for Phil to hide from the FOI Act � along
with a threat to delete the data rather than release it. Astounding. And
this is before they've even received a single FOI request.
Mann replies to Jones:
Thanks Phil,
Yes, we�ve learned out lesson about FTP. We�re going to be very careful
in the future what gets put there. Scott really screwed up big time when
he established that directory so that Tim could access the data.
Yeah, there is a freedom of information act in the U.S., and the
contrarians are going to try to use it for all its worth. But there are
also intellectual property rights issues, so it isn�t clear how these
sorts of things will play out ultimately in the U.S�.
mike
Next, from February 05. Jones to Mann, cc to Hughes and Bradley,
co-authors of the "hockeystick" study (1109021312)
From: Phil Jones:
To: mann
Subject: Fwd: CCNet: PRESSURE GROWING ON CONTROVERSIAL RESEARCHER TO
DISCLOSE SECRET DATA [This was in reference to the pressure on Michael
Mann to release the "Hockeystick" data]
Date: Mon Feb 21 16:28:32 2005
Cc: "raymond s. bradley", "Malcolm Hughes"
Mike, Ray and Malcolm,
�
Leave it to you to delete as appropriate !
Cheers
Phil
PS I�m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station
temperature data. Don�t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a
Freedom of Information Act !
The first rule of the Freedom of Information act is � nobody talks about
the Freedom of Information Act ...........
And much more. It comes to 11,000 words total.
Bret Cahill
Might be a reputable operation. Where do they get their money?
> "World Climate Report, a concise, hard-hitting and scientifically
> correct response to the global change reports which gain attention in
> the literature and popular press.
Does WCR have a response to the wacky sun spot theory of AGW that has
been debunked?
>As the nation’s leading publication in
> this realm, World Climate Report is exhaustively researched, impeccably
> referenced, and always timely.
That's what all web pages say about themselves!
Is this a coincidence or WHAT?
Bret Cahill
Tom Gootee
<rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@removethishotmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.megaupload.com/?d=75j4xo4t
>
> Enter the Validation Code and click on "download file". Free, no
> registration required. Took me 4 minutes.
>
> Sorry if you already know all this but I've been amazingly busy recently
> and haven't been in the groups or keeping up with the news much.
>
> Graham
>
> Others I like ....
>
> http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/about-us/
>
> "World Climate Report, a concise, hard-hitting and scientifically
> correct response to the global change reports which gain attention in
> this realm, World Climate Report is exhaustively researched, impeccably
> referenced, and always timely. This popular web log points out the
> weaknesses and outright fallacies in the science that is being touted as
> who argue for proposed changes to the Rio Climate Treaty, such as the
> Kyoto Protocol, which are aimed at limiting carbon emissions from the
> United States.
>
> Acclaimed by those on both sides of the global warming debate, World
> Climate Report has become the definitive and unimpeachable source for
> that climate change is a largely overblown issue and that the best
> expectation is modest change over the next 100 years. WCR is often cited
> by prominent scientists and lawmakers and is a surprisingly enjoyable
>
> http://www.sas.org/tcs/weeklyIssues_2009/2009-12-04/feature1/index.html
>
> "04 December 2009
>
> Amateur scientist Willis Eschenbach, who resides in Honiara, Solomon
> Islands, has studied changes in sea level and coral. His unsuccessful
> Freedom of Information Act requests to obtain climate data from East
> Climategate scandal described in this month’s Editorial. He described
> his unsuccessful attempts to receive information in "The People Versus
> the Climate Research Unit (CRU)," an 11,000-word article that has been
> published on various blogs. It is presented here without editing and
> with the permission of the author. Editor
>
> The People Versus the Climate Research Unit (CRU)
>
> by Willis Eschenbach
>
> As far as I know, I am the person who made the original Freedom Of
> Information Act to CRU that started getting all this stirred up. I was
> trying to get access to the taxpayer funded raw data out of which they
> built the global temperature record. I was not representing anybody, or
> scientist with a lifelong interest in the weather and climate. I’m not
> "directed" by anyone, I’m not a member of a right-wing conspiracy. I’m
> just a guy trying to move science forwards.
>
> People seem to be missing the real issue in the discussion of the hacked
> CRU climate emails. Gavin Schmidt over at RealClimate keeps distracting
> people by saying the issue is the scientists being nasty to each other,
> and what Trenberth said, and the Nature "trick", and the like. Those are
> side trails that he would like people to follow. To me, the main issue
> is the frontal attack on the heart of science, which is transparency.
>
> Science works by one person making a claim, and backing it up with the
> data and methods that they used to make the claim. Other scientists then
> attack the claim by (among other things) trying to replicate the first
> blocking my Freedom of Information request for his data allowed Phil
> Jones to claim that his temperature record was valid science, even
> though it has never been scientifically examined.
>
> This is not just trivial gamesmanship, this is central to the very idea
> of scientific inquiry. This is an attack on the heart of science, by
> keeping people who disagree with you from ever checking your work and
> seeing if your math is correct.
>
> The recent release of the hacked emails from CRU has provided me with an
> amazing insight into the attempt by myself, Steve McIntyre, and others
> from CA and elsewhere to obtain the raw station data from Phil Jones at
> the CRU. We wanted the data that was used to make the global temperature
> record that is relied on to claim "unprecedented" global warming. This
> is a chronological account of my attempts to get that vital data
> released to public view.
>
>
> The IPCC is the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
> Change. AR4 is the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (2007). WMO is the
> World Meteorological Organization, which collates and supplies weather
> information. FOI or FOIA is the UK Freedom of Information Act.
>
> The story actually starts with Warwick Hughes, an Australian climate
> researcher who had previously been in cordial contact with Phil Jones. I
> find only one email in the archive (0969308954) where Phil emails
> Warwick, from 2000. This is in response to some inconsistencies that
> produce larger anomalies than the neighbouring cells. So can you send me
> this I can check to see what has happened and answer (1). As for (2) and
> (3) we compared all stations with neighbours and these two stations did
> not have problems when the work was done (around 1985/6). I am not
> around much for the next 3 weeks but will be here most of this week and
> will try to answer (1) if I get more details. If you have the names of
> appreciate that.
>
> Cheers
>
> Phil
>
> OK, so far we have a couple of scientists discussing issues in a
> scientific work, usual tone, no problem. But as he found more
> inconsistencies, in order to understand what was going on, in 2005
> Warwick asked Phil for the dataset that was used to create the CRU
> temperature record. Phil Jones famously replied:
>
> Subject: Re: WMO non respondo
>
> so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to
>
> Cheers Phil
>
> Hmmm … not a good start. Or as they say in the novel "1984", double-plus
> ungood. Science can only progress if there is a free exchange of
> scientific data. The scientific model works like this:
>
> * A scientist makes claims, and reveals the data and methods he
> used to come to his conclusions.
> alia) seeing if they can replicate the result, using the first
> * If the claims cannot be replicated, the claim is adjudged to be
> false.
>
> Obviously, if the data or the methods are kept secret, the claims cannot
> do, that's their job description. This adversarial system is the heart
> of science. Phil Jones refusing scientific data because someone will
> attack it is an oxymoron, of course they will attack it. That's science.
>
> thought, a scientist can’t do that, can he? He can't refuse to reveal
> his data. This is science, not hide and seek. I literally didn't think
> Jones had been quoted correctly. So to find out, I wrote to the
> University of East Anglia (of which the CRU is a Department) on
> September 8, 2006, saying:
>
> I would like to obtain a list of the meteorological stations used in the
> preparation of the HadCRUT3 global temperature average, and the raw data
> for those stations. I cannot find it anywhere on the web. The lead
> author for the temperature average is Dr. Phil Jones of the Climate
> Research Unit.
>
> Many thanks, Willis Eschenbach
>
> I got no response from Phil Jones or anyone at CRU or UEA. So I filed a
> Freedom of Information act request for the data.
>
> Now at this point, let me diverge from my application to what was
> happening at CRU before and during this time. The first reference to
> Freedom of Information in their emails is from 2005, before they had
> received a single request. Immediately, they start to plan how to evade
> requests should some come in:
>
> Tom Wigley, Former Director of CRU, to Phil Jones, 21/01/2005
>
> Phil,
>
>
> I got a brochure on the FOI Act from UEA. Does this mean that, if
> someone asks for a computer program we have to give it out?? Can you
> check this for me (and Sarah). ...
>
> Thanks,
>
> Tom.
>
> Phil replies to Tom:
>
> Tom,
>
>
> On the FOI Act there is a little leaflet we have all been sent. It
> Like all things in Britain we will only find out when the first person
> Britain. I don’t think UEA really knows what’s involved.
>
> As you’re no longer an employee I would use this argument if anything
> comes along. I think it is supposed to mainly apply to issues of
>
> ...
>
> Cheers
>
> Phil
>
> So the coverup starts immediately, even before the first request. "I
>
> Tom to Phil
>
> Phil,
>
> Thanks for the quick reply. The leaflet appeared so general, but it was
> prepared by UEA so they may have simplified things. From their wording,
> computer code would be covered by the FOIA. My concern was if Sarah
> is/was still employed by UEA. I guess she could claim that she had only
> written one tenth of the code and release every tenth line.
>
>
> Tom
>
> You can see how they plan to observe the spirit of the FOI Act. Claim a
> temporary employee isn't really an employee so they are not covered.
>
> Phil to Tom
>
> Tom,
>
>
> As for FOIA Sarah isn’t technically employed by UEA and she will likely
> be paid by Manchester Metropolitan University. I wouldn’t worry about
> the code. If FOIA does ever get used by anyone, there is also IPR to
> consider as well. Data is covered by all the agreements we sign with
> onto the person at UEA who has been given a post to deal with them.
>
> Cheers
>
> Phil
>
> Phil Jones has just gotten the news that FOI will apply, and immediately
> he starts to plan how he is going to hide from an FOI request. Cite
> technicalities, claim IPR (Intellectual Property Rights), those are good
> hiding places.
>
> The next email (1109021312) is later in 2005:
>
> At 09:41 AM 2/2/2005, Phil Jones wrote to Michael Mann:
>
> Mike,
>
>
> Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents
> sites – you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after
> the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of
> send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to
> the first request will test it.
>
> We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley
> could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so
> he can hide behind that. IPR should be relevant here, but I can see me
> to it !
>
> ….
>
> Phil
>
> So now we have two more ways for Phil to hide from the FOI Act … along
> with a threat to delete the data rather than release it. Astounding. And
> this is before they've even received a single FOI request.
>
> Mann replies to Jones:
>
> Thanks Phil,
>
> in the future what gets put there. Scott really screwed up big time when
> he established that directory so that Tim could access the data.
>
> Yeah, there is a freedom of information act in the U.S., and the
> contrarians are going to try to use it for all its worth. But there are
> sorts of things will play out ultimately in the U.S….
>
> mike
>
> Next, from February 05. Jones to Mann, cc to Hughes and Bradley,
> co-authors of the "hockeystick" study (1109021312)
>
> From: Phil Jones:
>
> To: mann
>
> Subject: Fwd: CCNet: PRESSURE GROWING ON CONTROVERSIAL RESEARCHER TO
> DISCLOSE SECRET DATA [This was in reference to the pressure on Michael
> Mann to release the "Hockeystick" data]
>
> Date: Mon Feb 21 16:28:32 2005
>
> Cc: "raymond s. bradley", "Malcolm Hughes"
>
> Mike, Ray and Malcolm,
>
>
> Leave it to you to delete as appropriate !
>
> Cheers
>
> Phil
>
> temperature data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a
> Freedom of Information Act !
>
> the Freedom of Information Act ...........
>
> And much more. It comes to 11,000 words total.
Thank you, Graham.
Apparently it's just as many have long suspected and "Global Warming"
is a fraudulent political/economic power grab. It is the worst type
of outrage and now is the time to stop it.
I received an email from an engineer I've known since the 1970s, whom
I deeply respect for both his intelligence and his objectiveness. I
will post it, below.
There is a link to a PDF file that lays out and summarizes much of the
outrageous climate data tampering that has been foisted on the
public. It also involves some entities in the USA. I recommend
reading the PDF in its entirety.
Cheers,
Tom
Here is the email I received:
As you may know, a hacker accessed information illegally concealed by
the East Anglia Climate Research Unit (CRU) in Britain, on Nov 20 of
this year. The materials recovered included emails between the co-
conspirators as well as portions of the software code used to modify
actual climate data to create the appearance of a global warming
crisis. These materials are being reviewed by legitimate scientists
and software engineers around the globe in order to understand the
full extent of the crimes committed by the global warming fraudsters.
Not surprisingly, little is being said about it by most media outlets
in the US, though some strident global warming supporters (BBC,
Australian news outlets) have broken ranks and started reporting the
truth. President Barack “I’ve never seen a spending bill I didn’t
like” Obama continues to ignore the building outcry, but some
congressional Republicans are picking up on it.
Over the next two weeks it is important that the White House and our
congressional representatives hear from the public that we’re not
interesting in paying “reparations” to third world countries for
alleged contributions to the man-made global warming that exists only
in the imaginations of the global warming scammers. Obama has
indicated that he plans to support these payments, and his EPA
administrators this week declared the carbon dioxide that occurs
naturally in our atmosphere and without which life would be impossible
to be a “pollutant” so they can force punitive taxes on the American
people without Congress having to stick their necks out. If you don’t
like paying $2.65 per gallon for gas, I guarantee you won’t like the
results of the Obama administration’s “solution” to this non-problem.
You can read a preliminary analysis of the materials obtained from the
CRU at:
This report explains in clear terms some of the methods the CRU used
to misrepresent real temperature data as well as their efforts to
conceal their fraud. It has a great section on how science is
supposed to work, and how the CRU’s work falls far short of scientific
standards for openness and integrity. Share it with your friends and
contact your representatives before Obama commits the US to paying
third world countries for natural variations in earth’s climate.
Tom Gootee
> to misrepresent real temperature data as well as their efforts to
> conceal their fraud. It has a great section on how science is
> supposed to work, and how the CRU’s work falls far short of scientific
> standards for openness and integrity. Share it with your friends and
> contact your representatives before Obama commits the US to paying
> third world countries for natural variations in earth’s climate.
---------------------------------------------------
Below is something else I received.
Cheers,
Tom
---------------------------------------------------
Increasingly, the evidence reveals the massive fraud perpetrated by
Global Warming Scammers.
Lord Monckton's excellent speech on the subject, in which he
identifies 8 of the main Scammer criminals, can be seen at http://vimeo.com/8023097
.
Watch it, tell your friends about it, and urge your Congressional
representatives to view it too. You can contact your Senators at
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm and
your Representative at https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml.
Do it soon, do it often, or these criminals will succeed in helping
Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid steal your money in the name
of non-existent anthropogenic global warming.
Martin Brown
> supposed to work, and how the CRU�s work falls far short of scientific
> standards for openness and integrity. Share it with your friends and
> contact your representatives before Obama commits the US to paying
> third world countries for natural variations in earth�s climate.
Lord Monckton is from the UK's lunatic fringe equivalent of the US
rednecked fuckwit brand of "Dittohead Science". Nothing he says can be
trusted.
CRU's sins such as they are were an attempt to keep denialist propaganda
out of peer reviewed journals. It is a bit naughty of them but in no way
does it alter the scientific evidence or weaken the case for AGW except
in the minds of delusional right whingers. And the braying donkey...
Regards,
Martin Brown
Sylvia Else
> Tom Gootee wrote:
>> On Dec 14, 12:24 am, Eeyore
>> <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@removethishotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> You can read a preliminary analysis of the materials obtained from the
>> CRU at:
>>
>> http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/Monckton-Caught%20Green-Handed%20Climategate%20Scandal.pdf.
>>
>>
>> This report explains in clear terms some of the methods the CRU used
>> to misrepresent real temperature data as well as their efforts to
>> conceal their fraud. It has a great section on how science is
>> supposed to work, and how the CRU�s work falls far short of scientific
>> standards for openness and integrity. Share it with your friends and
>> contact your representatives before Obama commits the US to paying
>> third world countries for natural variations in earth�s climate.
>
> Lord Monckton is from the UK's lunatic fringe equivalent of the US
> rednecked fuckwit brand of "Dittohead Science". Nothing he says can be
> trusted.
Looks like an ad-hominem to me.
>
> CRU's sins such as they are were an attempt to keep denialist propaganda
> out of peer reviewed journals.
To keep *what they regarded as* denialist propaganda out of the peer
reviewed journals. But who's to judge, in absence of data?
> It is a bit naughty of them but in no way
> does it alter the scientific evidence or weaken the case for AGW except
> in the minds of delusional right whingers. And the braying donkey...
It's more than a bit naughty. It's not their roll to determine what
their peers should, or should not, see.
>
> Regards,
> Martin Brown
So, given the trouble that strategy is now causing, they'll release all
the data, and allow such people as are capable to form their own views?
Sylvia.
Jan Panteltje
<|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote in
<ImqVm.91063$Wf2....@newsfe23.iad>:
>
>Lord Monckton is from the UK's lunatic fringe equivalent of the US
>rednecked fuckwit brand of "Dittohead Science". Nothing he says can be
>trusted.
>
>CRU's sins such as they are were an attempt to keep denialist propaganda
>out of peer reviewed journals. It is a bit naughty of them but in no way
>does it alter the scientific evidence or weaken the case for AGW except
>in the minds of delusional right whingers. And the braying donkey...
The only donkey here is you who are manipulated by the Gore media to
part with some more of your money for environment related taxes.
Attempt to qualify for plonk file noted.
>Regards,
>Martin Brown
>
Nik Rim
"Martin Brown" <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ImqVm.91063$Wf2....@newsfe23.iad...
> Tom Gootee wrote:
>> On Dec 14, 12:24 am, Eeyore
>> <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@removethishotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> You can read a preliminary analysis of the materials obtained from the
>> CRU at:
>>
>> http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/Monckton-Caught%20Green-Handed%20Climategate%20Scandal.pdf.
>>
>> This report explains in clear terms some of the methods the CRU used
>> to misrepresent real temperature data as well as their efforts to
>> conceal their fraud. It has a great section on how science is
>> standards for openness and integrity. Share it with your friends and
>> contact your representatives before Obama commits the US to paying
>
> Lord Monckton is from the UK's lunatic fringe equivalent of the US
> rednecked fuckwit brand of "Dittohead Science". Nothing he says can be
> trusted.
>
> CRU's sins such as they are were an attempt to keep denialist propaganda
> out of peer reviewed journals. It is a bit naughty of them but in no way
> does it alter the scientific evidence or weaken the case for AGW except in
> the minds of delusional right whingers. And the braying donkey...
>
> Regards,
> Martin Brown
Agreed, it's amusing that the deniers need to childishly posture their words
to try and give them some emphasis:
"How to get the ***damaging*** ***leaked**** University of East Anglia CRU
files about AGW"
Hammy
<|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Tom Gootee wrote:
>> On Dec 14, 12:24 am, Eeyore
>> <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@removethishotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> You can read a preliminary analysis of the materials obtained from the
>> CRU at:
>>
>> http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/Monckton-Caught%20Green-Handed%20Climategate%20Scandal.pdf.
>>
>> This report explains in clear terms some of the methods the CRU used
>> to misrepresent real temperature data as well as their efforts to
>> conceal their fraud. It has a great section on how science is
>> supposed to work, and how the CRU�s work falls far short of scientific
>> standards for openness and integrity. Share it with your friends and
>> contact your representatives before Obama commits the US to paying
>> third world countries for natural variations in earth�s climate.
>
>Lord Monckton is from the UK's lunatic fringe equivalent of the US
>rednecked fuckwit brand of "Dittohead Science". Nothing he says can be
>trusted.
>
>CRU's sins such as they are were an attempt to keep denialist propaganda
>out of peer reviewed journals. It is a bit naughty of them but in no way
>does it alter the scientific evidence or weaken the case for AGW except
>in the minds of delusional right whingers. And the braying donkey...
>
>Regards,
>Martin Brown
Yea Gore is in it just for the humanity of it!
Al Gore, the world's first carbon billionaire?
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2009/11/03/al-gore-the-worlds-first-carbon-billionaire/
His concern for the common peasant is touching as he fleeces them with
his paranoid delusion. Reminds me of a snake oil salesman. I didn't
really think people were still so naive.
People ramble on about how the so called denialist all have financial
incentive for there views well so do the warmest.
Jan Panteltje
>Agreed, it's amusing that the deniers need to childishly posture their words
>to try and give them some emphasis:
>
>"How to get the ***damaging*** ***leaked**** University of East Anglia CRU
>files about AGW"
Those files are damaging,
well more damaging then the disaster the global warming hoax left their pseudo science already in.
And childish is scaring little children with climate change or warming as AL Gore does in his fake unscientific
propaganda movies for his crappy alternative energy solution businesses.
Childish is also trying to manipulate the peer review process (not that it is worth very much anyways as current science clearly shows) to
get better notes, they must have cheated in school too, so that accounts for their stupidity then.
....the_pc_jellllybean!!.!!!!.
"Bret Cahill" <BretC...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:a3bf2288-2bd8-4369...@g4g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/about-us/
Might be a reputable operation. Where do they get their money?
==
FACTSHEET: World Climate Report,
DETAILS
Dept. of Environmental Sciences. Clark Hall. Charlottesville
A newsletter on global warming, ozone, "sound science". WCR is sponsored by
the Greening Earth Society, a Western Fuels Association project founded to
spread the "good news" that global warming is benficial for the planet.
WCR describes itself as "the perfect antidote against those who argue for
proposed changes to the Rio Climate Treaty, such as the Kyoto Protocol,
which are aimed at limiting carbon emissions from the United States."
(http://www.co2andclimate.org/climate/overview/overview.htm) World Climate
Report is a "who's who" of climate skeptics. Patrick Michaels is the Chief
editor with Robert Balling as contributing editor. World Climate Report also
employs the expertise of Robert Davis (colleague of Michaels' at the
University of Virginia) as Associate Editor. Past contributors have included
Thomas Gale Moore, resident climate change skeptic of the George C. Marshall
and Cato Institutes, Mark Mills from Mills McCarthy and Associates Inc.,
(which produced two books for Western Fuels Association in 1997 according to
1997 annual report, including "Coal: Cornerstone of America's Competitive
Advantage in World Markets") and Willie Soon, also a former visiting
scientist at the Marshall Institute.
(http://www.co2andclimate.org/climate/editors/editors.htm)
===
World Climate Report, a newsletter edited by Patrick Michaels, was produced
by the Greening Earth Society,[1] a non-profit organization created by the
Western Fuels Association.[2].
Early editions were paper based; it then transferred to a web-only format,
having ceased publication as a physically based report with volume 8 in
2002. It continues to exist in blog form at
http://www.worldclimatereport.com
World Climate Report presents a scientific skeptical view of populist
anthropogenic driven mass global climate change, or as it describes 'Global
Warming Alarmism'. However It does not reject the concepts of global climate
change or greenhouse theory (or other well established and widely accepted
scientific theories or empirical studies)[1][2], in general attempting to
engender itself as giving a well balanced and scientific view of the sources
(though often at a contrary expense of its perceived adversaries: the
aforementioned alleged 'Global Warming Alarmists').[3]
Bret Cahill
> 2002. It continues to exist in blog form athttp://www.worldclimatereport.com
John Larkin
<|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Tom Gootee wrote:
>> On Dec 14, 12:24 am, Eeyore
>> <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@removethishotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> You can read a preliminary analysis of the materials obtained from the
>> CRU at:
>>
>> http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/Monckton-Caught%20Green-Handed%20Climategate%20Scandal.pdf.
>>
>> This report explains in clear terms some of the methods the CRU used
>> to misrepresent real temperature data as well as their efforts to
>> conceal their fraud. It has a great section on how science is
>> supposed to work, and how the CRU�s work falls far short of scientific
>> standards for openness and integrity. Share it with your friends and
>> contact your representatives before Obama commits the US to paying
>> third world countries for natural variations in earth�s climate.
>
>Lord Monckton is from the UK's lunatic fringe equivalent of the US
>rednecked fuckwit brand of "Dittohead Science". Nothing he says can be
>trusted.
>
What if he says something that's true? Will you deny that because of
the source?
That was a rhetorical question. Of course you will.
John
Bret Cahill
> >> CRU at:
>
>
> >> This report explains in clear terms some of the methods the CRU used
> >> to misrepresent real temperature data as well as their efforts to
> >> conceal their fraud. It has a great section on how science is
> >> supposed to work, and how the CRU’s work falls far short of scientific
> >> standards for openness and integrity. Share it with your friends and
> >> contact your representatives before Obama commits the US to paying
> >> third world countries for natural variations in earth’s climate.
>
> >Lord Monckton is from the UK's lunatic fringe equivalent of the US
> >rednecked fuckwit brand of "Dittohead Science". Nothing he says can be
> >trusted.
>
> What if he says something that's true? Will you deny that because of
> the source?
>
> That was a rhetorical question. Of course you will.
If someone says something _new_ I'll look at it.
If someone says the same nonsense I've heard 400,000 times before,
i.e., creationism "science," then why bother?
There are so many similarities between the evolution deniers and the
AGW deniers and the Hawaiian birth certificate deniers and the
Holocaust deniers and the equality of races deniers and . . . well
its easy to lump all the wing a ding dingers together under the
umbrella term "today's Republican."
Bret Cahill
Jan Panteltje
<Bret_E...@yahoo.com> wrote in
<fd21931d-0012-4554...@x25g2000prf.googlegroups.com>:
>> >> You can read a preliminary analysis of the materials obtained from the
>> >> CRU at:
>>
>> >>http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/Mon..=
>..
>>
>> >> This report explains in clear terms some of the methods the CRU used
>> >> to misrepresent real temperature data as well as their efforts to
>> >> conceal their fraud. �It has a great section on how science is
>> >> supposed to work, and how the CRU�s work falls far short of scientif=
>ic
>> >> standards for openness and integrity. �Share it with your friends an=
>d
>> >> contact your representatives before Obama commits the US to paying
>> >> third world countries for natural variations in earth�s climate.
>>
>> >Lord Monckton is from the UK's lunatic fringe equivalent of the US
>> >rednecked fuckwit brand of "Dittohead Science". Nothing he says can be
>> >trusted.
>>
>> What if he says something that's true? Will you deny that because of
>> the source?
>>
>> That was a rhetorical question. Of course you will.
>
>If someone says something _new_ I'll look at it.
>
>If someone says the same nonsense I've heard 400,000 times before,
>i.e., creationism "science," then why bother?
>
>There are so many similarities between the evolution deniers and the
>AGW deniers and the Hawaiian birth certificate deniers and the
>Holocaust deniers and the equality of races deniers and . . . well
>its easy to lump all the wing a ding dingers together under the
>umbrella term "today's Republican."
>
>
>Bret Cahill
For an idiot all issues look the same: idiotic.
Bret Cahill
A lot of "climategate" is hyped by GOP strategists who know full well
AGW is a real threat but are cynically exploiting the ignorant GOP
base. The fallout is already here.
Some of the GOP base are already believing that all scientists are
evil. These are not the usual false flag posts either.
Just as fundies go around shooting "abortionists" maybe someday this
will get so bad that AGW deniers in the base will soon be shooting
scientists and mathematicians.
Bret Cahill
krw
<Bret_E...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> >> You can read a preliminary analysis of the materials obtained from the
>> >> >> CRU at:
>>
>> >> >>http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/Mon..=
>> >..
>>
>> >> >> This report explains in clear terms some of the methods the CRU used
>> >> >> to misrepresent real temperature data as well as their efforts to
>> >> >> conceal their fraud. 嚙瘢t has a great section on how science is
>> >> >> supposed to work, and how the CRU嚙編 work falls far short of scientif=
>> >ic
>> >> >> standards for openness and integrity. 嚙磅hare it with your friends an=
>> >d
>> >> >> contact your representatives before Obama commits the US to paying
>> >> >> third world countries for natural variations in earth嚙編 climate.
>>
>> >> >Lord Monckton is from the UK's lunatic fringe equivalent of the US
>> >> >rednecked fuckwit brand of "Dittohead Science". Nothing he says can be
>> >> >trusted.
>>
>> >> What if he says something that's true? Will you deny that because of
>> >> the source?
>>
>> >> That was a rhetorical question. Of course you will.
>>
>> >If someone says something _new_ I'll look at it.
>>
>> >If someone says the same nonsense I've heard 400,000 times before,
>> >i.e., creationism "science," then why bother?
>>
>> >There are so many similarities between the evolution deniers and the
>> >AGW deniers and the Hawaiian birth certificate deniers and the
>> >Holocaust deniers and the equality of races deniers and . . . 嚙緩ell
>> >its easy to lump all the wing a ding dingers together under the
>> >umbrella term "today's Republican."
>>
>> >Bret Cahill
>>
>> For an idiot all issues look the same: idiotic.
>
>A lot of "climategate" is hyped by GOP strategists who know full well
>AGW is a real threat but are cynically exploiting the ignorant GOP
>base. The fallout is already here.
Like he said, to an idiot all issues look the same.
<sniped more Cahill crap>
Jan Panteltje
<Bret_E...@yahoo.com> wrote in
<57bfa1ab-f2ae-447d...@z3g2000prd.googlegroups.com>:
>A lot of "climategate" is hyped by GOP strategists who know full well
>AGW is a real threat but are cynically exploiting the ignorant GOP
>base. The fallout is already here.
>
>Some of the GOP base are already believing that all scientists are
>evil. These are not the usual false flag posts either.
>
>Just as fundies go around shooting "abortionists" maybe someday this
>will get so bad that AGW deniers in the base will soon be shooting
>scientists and mathematicians.
>
>
>Bret Cahill
It is all Al Gore's business scheme.
Consider this:
http://www.world-mysteries.com/alignments/mpl_al3b.htm
http://www.sci.ccny.cuny.edu/~stan/d_clim.pdf
Temperature has always changed, and always will, ice ages will come,
and ice ages will go, the world will look very different.
If human activity contributes much is not proven in any way.
We should really make sure we have the power sources to handle climate change,
and not waste time and money on unreliable solutions.
That means nuclear energy, and try to get fusion working,
The rest like solar and wind is too little to make a lot of difference,
can maybe cover a few percent of our energy needs.
We need energy 24/7 all the time.
To blame it all on 'republicans' is silly, the world is bigger then the US,
much bigger, in fact US is just under control of some internationals.
And those are moving production to China... both republicans and democrats losing
power of global politics in the process.
All these points you mentioned have nothing to do with each other,
only for the simple minded do they look like the same thing.
John Larkin
It's sure easier than honest thinking.
John
alie...@gmail.com
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 12:40:21 +0000, Martin Brown
>
>
>
> <|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >Tom Gootee wrote:
> >> On Dec 14, 12:24 am, Eeyore
> >> <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@removethishotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> You can read a preliminary analysis of the materials obtained from the
> >> CRU at:
>
>
> >> This report explains in clear terms some of the methods the CRU used
> >> to misrepresent real temperature data as well as their efforts to
> >> conceal their fraud. It has a great section on how science is
> >> supposed to work, and how the CRU’s work falls far short of scientific
> >> standards for openness and integrity. Share it with your friends and
> >> contact your representatives before Obama commits the US to paying
> >> third world countries for natural variations in earth’s climate.
>
> >Lord Monckton is from the UK's lunatic fringe equivalent of the US
> >rednecked fuckwit brand of "Dittohead Science". Nothing he says can be
> >trusted.
>
> What if he says something that's true? Will you deny that because of
> the source?
Little risk of AlGore doing that:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/copenhagen/article6956783.ece
My favorite comments-
"So, it would appear that the best approach to counter Gore's claims
is to let the man speak"
"For the last time. Al Gore is an environmental activist, not a
climatologist."
Mark L. Fergerson
Eeyore
<snip>
> You can read a preliminary analysis of the materials obtained from the
> CRU at:
>
> http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/Monckton-Caught%20Green-Handed%20Climategate%20Scandal.pdf.
WOW ! This is really going to put the cat amongst the pigeons.
Thanks for the link, Graham
Eeyore
<snip>
> Below is something else I received.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Tom
>
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
> Increasingly, the evidence reveals the massive fraud perpetrated by
> Global Warming Scammers.
>
> Lord Monckton's excellent speech on the subject, in which he
> identifies 8 of the main Scammer criminals, can be seen at http://vimeo.com/8023097
I like Monckton for his simple directness in his analysis. The
warmingists claim that as a non-scientist he shouldn't be taken
seriously but the same can be said of Al Bore.
There's some good Monckton vids on YouTube.
> Watch it, tell your friends about it, and urge your Congressional
> representatives to view it too. You can contact your Senators at
> http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm and
> your Representative at https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml.
>
> Do it soon, do it often, or these criminals will succeed in helping
> Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid steal your money in the name
> of non-existent anthropogenic global warming.
Well I'm in the UK and our 'Number 10' has an internet petitions site.
I suggest all UK residents at home and abroad take a look at the
following online petitions and ideally sign up to them.
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/No-CO2-campaign/
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/warmfeeling/
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/InvestigateCC/
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/windenquiry/
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/warmingtruth/
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/climatenonsense/
Graham
Eeyore
> Tom Gootee wrote:
>> On Dec 14, 12:24 am, Eeyore
>> <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@removethishotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> You can read a preliminary analysis of the materials obtained from the
>> CRU at:
>>
>> http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/Monckton-Caught%20Green-Handed%20Climategate%20Scandal.pdf.
>>
>>
>> This report explains in clear terms some of the methods the CRU used
>> to misrepresent real temperature data as well as their efforts to
>> conceal their fraud. It has a great section on how science is
>> supposed to work, and how the CRU�s work falls far short of scientific
>> standards for openness and integrity. Share it with your friends and
>> contact your representatives before Obama commits the US to paying
>> third world countries for natural variations in earth�s climate.
>
> Lord Monckton is from the UK's lunatic fringe equivalent of the US
> rednecked fuckwit brand of "Dittohead Science". Nothing he says can be
> trusted.
>
> CRU's sins such as they are were an attempt to keep denialist propaganda
> out of peer reviewed journals.
No they WERE NOT. They were an attempt to stop ANYONE seeing the
horrible truth. But it's out now. Probably the end of AGW.
> It is a bit naughty of them
It's ILLEGAL !
> but in no way does it alter the scientific evidence or weaken the case for AGW except
> in the minds of delusional right whingers. And the braying donkey...
>
> Regards,
> Martin Brown
OH DEAR, classic mud-slinging from a warmingist. They have only The
Emperor's New Clothes to rely on, so as usual reply with hostile
personal attacks. Where's your SCIENCE ? Answer: HIDDEN behind locked
doors and servers. Why does it NEED to be hidden ? Obviously they have
something they feel they need to hide.
Anyone who's seen Monckton can see he's highly intelligent and well
informed.
Graham
Eeyore
> In article <00a20ac1$0$12989$c3e...@news.astraweb.com>,
> syl...@not.at.this.address says...
But not the Ice Caps which is what counts. Ice shelves have always come
and gone. In fact the central caps on both Greenland and the Antarctic
are GROWING ( satellite data for Greenland certainly ). A simple example
of climate feedback. More moisture laden air leads to more snow
precipitated on the Ice Caps and they grow. Hence sea level has dropped
2mm recently.
> polar bears ditto,
Polar bears are thriving.
> dry water holes in central North America,
What's the relevance of that. Water holes are not constant things and
never have been.
> Russia and Denmark making territorial claims in
> anticipation of an open Arctic ocean.
So what ? Sea ice melting doesn't change sea level ( except very
minutely due to salt content ) or don't you know basic physics ? The
effect on albedo at that latitude will be minute. Obviously you also
didn't see a recent Top Gear programme where they drove a 4WD / SUV to
the North Pole. I suppose they were driving on water were they ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNkvASxfEWQ
> Warming it is. Was it human caused? Who knows?
And what caused the cooling of the Little Ice Age from which we are
simply recovering ? Who knows ?
You have NO valid data. And snipping groups belittles you.
Graham
Eeyore
> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 08:00:44 -0800, Jitt <tse...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>> We have other data. Ice shelves disappearing at both
>> America, Russia and Denmark making territorial claims in
>
>
> John
Doubtful. But why let facts bother a warmingist ?
Graham
Eeyore
<snip>
> Agreed, it's amusing that the deniers
Denier ? Typical childish AGW reaction. You resort to name-calling
because you have nothing else. Why not say "nerr nerr nerr" or "neener
neener neener" as I believe it is in the USA.
> need to childishly posture their words to try and give them some emphasis:
Uh ? It's the warmingists that posture.
> "How to get the ***damaging*** ***leaked**** University of East Anglia CRU
> files about AGW"
A factual statement. The files ARE damaging and they WERE leaked. Do you
have problems with understanding the truth ?
Graham
Eeyore
> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 12:40:21 +0000, Martin Brown wrote:
>> Tom Gootee wrote:
>>>
>>> You can read a preliminary analysis of the materials obtained from the
>>> CRU at:
>>>
>>> http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/Monckton-Caught%20Green-Handed%20Climategate%20Scandal.pdf.
>>>
>>> This report explains in clear terms some of the methods the CRU used
>>> to misrepresent real temperature data as well as their efforts to
>>> conceal their fraud. It has a great section on how science is
>>> standards for openness and integrity. Share it with your friends and
>>> contact your representatives before Obama commits the US to paying
>> Lord Monckton is from the UK's lunatic fringe equivalent of the US
>> rednecked fuckwit brand of "Dittohead Science". Nothing he says can be
>> trusted.
See, all you can offer are insults in response to scientific FACTS.
> What if he says something that's true? Will you deny that because of
> the source?
>
> That was a rhetorical question. Of course you will.
>
> John
He sounds pretty rational and present a very well considered case here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKrw6ih8Gto
Plenty more Monckton there too.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=monckton+warming&search_type=&aq=f
881 hits.
Graham
Eeyore
>
> A lot of "climategate" is hyped by GOP strategists who know full well
> AGW is a real threat but are cynically exploiting the ignorant GOP
> base. The fallout is already here.
'Climategate' is a BRITISH issue. Someone finally blew the whistle.
What's the GOP got to do with it?
Graham
Eeyore
<snip>
> All these points you mentioned have nothing to do with each other,
> only for the simple minded do they look like the same thing.
Absolutely so. But then Bret is well-known as a simple minded and
gullible fool. I think he believed in the water fuelled engine too.
Graham
Bret Cahill
> >AGW is a real threat but are cynically exploiting the ignorant GOP
> >base. The fallout is already here.
> >Some of the GOP base are already believing that all scientists are
> >evil. These are not the usual false flag posts either.
> >Just as fundies go around shooting "abortionists" maybe someday this
> >will get so bad that AGW deniers in the base will soon be shooting
> >scientists and mathematicians.
> >Bret Cahill
> It is all Al Gore's business scheme.
That's a step up from what he was until recently, a sanctimonious
misanthrope more interested in preaching to humans than saving polar
bears.
Gore always undermines anything his is associated with.
> Consider this:
> http://www.world-mysteries.com/alignments/mpl_al3b.htm
> http://www.sci.ccny.cuny.edu/~stan/d_clim.pdf
> Temperature has always changed,
The temperature in your body is always changing.
That doesn't mean you want it to go to 105 degrees.
> and always will, ice ages will come,
> and ice ages will go, the world will look very different.
> If human activity contributes much is not proven in any way.
There is _some_ disagreement to the extent but all the scientists
agree:
It is proven and it represents a threat down the road.
> We should really make sure we have the power sources to handle climate change,
> and not waste time and money on unreliable solutions.
True.
> That means nuclear energy, and try to get fusion working,
> The rest like solar and wind is too little to make a lot of difference,
> can maybe cover a few percent of our energy needs.
> We need energy 24/7 all the time.
We really need a battery. Solar thermal pays for itself in 10 - 20
years.
> To blame it all on 'republicans' is silly, the world is bigger then the US,
> much bigger, in fact US is just under control of some internationals.
> And those are moving production to China...
China is developing sustainable power.
> both republicans and democrats losing
> power of global politics in the process.
> All these points you mentioned have nothing to do with each other,
> only for the simple minded do they look like the same thing.
I'll be happy to survive $10/gallon fuel.
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
> is to let the man speak"
>
> "For the last time. Al Gore is an environmental activist, not a
> climatologist."
>
> Mark L. Fergerson
Al Gore is nothing but a fat stupid senator's son who has never done a
day's work in his entire life. He just wants an excuse to priss
around.
There are parasites in all fields.
Bret Cahill
Martin Brown
> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 12:40:21 +0000, Martin Brown
> <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Tom Gootee wrote:
>>> On Dec 14, 12:24 am, Eeyore
>>> <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@removethishotmail.com> wrote:
>>> You can read a preliminary analysis of the materials obtained from the
>>> CRU at:
>>>
>>> http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/Monckton-Caught%20Green-Handed%20Climategate%20Scandal.pdf.
>>>
>>> This report explains in clear terms some of the methods the CRU used
>>> to misrepresent real temperature data as well as their efforts to
>>> conceal their fraud. It has a great section on how science is
>>> standards for openness and integrity. Share it with your friends and
>>> contact your representatives before Obama commits the US to paying
>> Lord Monckton is from the UK's lunatic fringe equivalent of the US
>> rednecked fuckwit brand of "Dittohead Science". Nothing he says can be
>> trusted.
>
> What if he says something that's true? Will you deny that because of
> the source?
He is very good at spinning a deceitful web of half truths and well
calculated lies intended to appeal to other righttards and sucker in the
general public. No surprise then that you are a great fan of his.
> That was a rhetorical question. Of course you will.
>
> John
You are wrong. Even delusional right wing nutters occasionally make
correct statements. A statement of fact can either be verified or it
cannot. Fallacious reasoning requires a bit more effort to unpick.
My point here was that his paranoid arguments about AGW science are
deliberately misleading and have been constructed to appeal to the baser
instincts of other righttards. He is on the far edge of lunatic fringe.
Very good at what he does as a denier for hire though.
Regards,
Martin Brown
Martin Brown
> Martin Brown wrote:
>> Tom Gootee wrote:
>>> On Dec 14, 12:24 am, Eeyore
>>> <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@removethishotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> You can read a preliminary analysis of the materials obtained from the
>>> CRU at:
>>>
>>> http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/Monckton-Caught%20Green-Handed%20Climategate%20Scandal.pdf.
>>>
>>>
>>> This report explains in clear terms some of the methods the CRU used
>>> to misrepresent real temperature data as well as their efforts to
>>> conceal their fraud. It has a great section on how science is
>>> supposed to work, and how the CRU�s work falls far short of scientific
>>> standards for openness and integrity. Share it with your friends and
>>> contact your representatives before Obama commits the US to paying
>>> third world countries for natural variations in earth�s climate.
>>
>> Lord Monckton is from the UK's lunatic fringe equivalent of the US
>> rednecked fuckwit brand of "Dittohead Science". Nothing he says can be
>> trusted.
>>
>> CRU's sins such as they are were an attempt to keep denialist
>> propaganda out of peer reviewed journals.
>
> No they WERE NOT. They were an attempt to stop ANYONE seeing the
> horrible truth. But it's out now. Probably the end of AGW.
AGW is still real enough. Much as you may wish it wasn't. I doubt that
anything useful will come out of Copenhagen so we will get to see how
bad things can get under the business as usual scenario. The evidence so
far is that the IPCC's estimates may be on the low side.
>> It is a bit naughty of them
>
> It's ILLEGAL !
They are innocent until proven guilty at least in the UK.
>
>> but in no way does it alter the scientific evidence or weaken the case
>> for AGW except in the minds of delusional right whingers. And the
>> braying donkey...
>
> OH DEAR, classic mud-slinging from a warmingist. They have only The
> Emperor's New Clothes to rely on, so as usual reply with hostile
> personal attacks. Where's your SCIENCE ? Answer: HIDDEN behind locked
> doors and servers. Why does it NEED to be hidden ? Obviously they have
> something they feel they need to hide.
>
> Anyone who's seen Monckton can see he's highly intelligent and well
> informed.
In as much as a barking mad righttard can ever be. Odd that a champagne
socialist should find common cause with a bunch of neofascists.
The science is clear enough. "Climategate" just shows a few people being
rather silly in private emails. It doesn't affect the validity of any of
the other global temperature datasets. The SCIENCE is mostly published
in peer review journals rather than on denialist websites.
Compared to the fighting between supporters of Newton and Liebnitz over
the invention of calculus the stuff in the CRU releases is actually very
tame. We still use calculus and with Liebnitz notation even in the UK.
Regards,
Martin Brown
Tom Gootee
wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
> > Martin Brown wrote:
> >> Tom Gootee wrote:
> >>> On Dec 14, 12:24 am, Eeyore
> >>> <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@removethishotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> You can read a preliminary analysis of the materials obtained from the
> >>> CRU at:
>
>
> >>> This report explains in clear terms some of the methods the CRU used
> >>> to misrepresent real temperature data as well as their efforts to
> >>> conceal their fraud. It has a great section on how science is
> >>> standards for openness and integrity. Share it with your friends and
> >>> contact your representatives before Obama commits the US to paying
But the validity of other global temperature datasets IS now very MUCH
in doubt!
According to the article at
---------- and I quote,
"There are only four such datasets: two from the Earth’s surface and
two from satellites. The two terrestrial datasets are Professor Jones’
dataset from the Climate Research Unit, in collaboration with the
Hadley Center for Forecasting at the UK Meteorological Office; and
Professor James Hansen’s dataset at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space
Studies, in collaboration with NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center,
which produces its own dataset that is, however, functionally near-
identical with that of NASA. The two satellite datasets are those of
Remote Sensing Systems, Inc., and of the University of Alabama at
Huntsville."
and
"However, the whistleblower’s data file reveals that there is very
close collusion indeed between key figures in the Climate Research
Unit at the University of East Anglia and in both NASA’s Goddard
Institute for Space Studies and NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center.
Members of all of these entities in the scientific establishment are
also members of the Team. They co-ordinate their results, and they co-
ordinate how they present their results, and they co-ordinate how,
between them, they control or seek to control – to a remarkable extent
– the entire process of the UN’s climate panel, as well as the process
of publication of learned papers in scientific journals, and even the
appointment of reviewers and editors."
"Professor Jones at the Climate Research Unit in the UK, Gavin Schmidt
at NASA, and Tom Karl at NOAA are now known via their email
correspondence to be closely and poisonously in league with one
another, and with the paleoclimate community, such as Mann, Bradley,
and Hughes, the three authors of the paper seized upon by the UN for
its 2001 report claiming – contrary to the overwhelming evidence in
the peer-reviewed literature, and in history, and in archaeology –
that there was no medieval warm period and that, accordingly, the 20th
century was the warmest in at least the past ten centuries. There is
no link between those who produce the two satellite-based datasets and
those who produce the surface datasets. Indeed, John Christy and Roy
Spencer at the University of Alabama at Huntsville, who run one of the
two satellite datasets, are among the most vocal dissenters from what
we are told is the scientific “consensus” attributing most of the
“global warming” of the past half-century to humankind."
and
"The Science and Public Policy Institute, in compiling its global-
temperature graphs for the authoritative Monthly CO2 Reports, had
originally relied upon all four of the major datasets. We were
compelled to drop the NASA GISS/NOAA NCDC dataset when it became
apparent that the data from more than half a century ago were being
deliberately manipulated in an improper manner with the manifest
intention of artificially inflating the true rate of observed warming
in the 20th century."
"We must now also cease to use the Hadley/CRU dataset, which – on the
evidence made public by the courageous whistleblower at the University
of East Anglia – is little better than science fiction. In future,
therefore, the SPPI monthly surface-temperature graphs will exclude
the two terrestrial-temperature datasets altogether and will rely
solely upon the RSS and UAH satellite datasets."
----------
It sounds fairly damning, to me. But I urge you and everyone to
actually read the entire PDF article at the link I gave above, and
"say (why) it ain't so".
Given the apparent connections and collusions between the people who
have apparently been fraudulently manipulating the CRU dataset and the
people who have apparently been doing the same types of things with
the NASA/NOAA datasets, there is now much doubt, indeed!
Cheers,
Tom
>
> Compared to the fighting between supporters of Newton and Liebnitz over
> the invention of calculus the stuff in the CRU releases is actually very
> tame. We still use calculus and with Liebnitz notation even in the UK.
>
> Regards,
> Martin Brown- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Eeyore
> John Larkin wrote:
>
>>> Lord Monckton is from the UK's lunatic fringe equivalent of the US
>>> rednecked fuckwit brand of "Dittohead Science". Nothing he says can
>>> be trusted.
>>
>> What if he says something that's true? Will you deny that because of
>> the source?
>
> He is very good at spinning a deceitful web of half truths and well
> calculated lies intended to appeal to other righttards and sucker in the
> general public. No surprise then that you are a great fan of his.
>
>> That was a rhetorical question. Of course you will.
> >
>> John
>
> You are wrong. Even delusional right wing nutters occasionally make
> correct statements. A statement of fact can either be verified or it
> cannot. Fallacious reasoning requires a bit more effort to unpick.
>
> My point here was that his paranoid
Paranoid ? He seems VERY well informed to me. Ever seen one of his vids
on youtube or are you just parroting the AGW agenda ? Funny, your
'dittohead' comment seems to sum up the warmingists.
> arguments about AGW science are deliberately misleading
FACTUAL actually.
> and have been constructed to appeal to the baser
> instincts of other righttards.
More insults. I'm not on the right btw.
> He is on the far edge of lunatic fringe.
He isn't but it's increasingly obvious that you are. Are you going to
start howling at the moon to prove AGW next ? Why is sea level going
down, or don't you want to open your eyes to REAL data ?
> Very good at what he does as a denier for hire though.
>
> Regards,
> Martin Brown
As usual, all you can offer are insults. Warmingists are the 'playground
bullies' of the climate change agenda.
Will you EVER offer some science or data ?
Graham
Martin Brown
> On Dec 15, 5:02 am, Martin Brown <|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
>> Eeyore wrote:
>>> Martin Brown wrote:
>>>> Tom Gootee wrote:
>>>>> On Dec 14, 12:24 am, Eeyore
>>>>> <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@removethishotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> You can read a preliminary analysis of the materials obtained from the
>>>>> CRU at:
>>>>> http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/Mon....
>>>>> This report explains in clear terms some of the methods the CRU used
>>>>> to misrepresent real temperature data as well as their efforts to
>>>>> conceal their fraud. It has a great section on how science is
>>>>> standards for openness and integrity. Share it with your friends and
>>>>> contact your representatives before Obama commits the US to paying
SPPI and Monckton are well know denialist bedfellows. His presentation
in March to the House Senate committee was funny for all the wrong
reasons. eg.
http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/details/viscount_monckton_denialist_dujour/
He is a great showman. Though his command of the facts is somewhat
lacking - either that or he has absolutely no personal integrity. A fair
proportion of what he says is easily proved wrong by fact checking.
It is odd that the US senators cannot distinguish fact from fiction. The
UK Science & Technology Select Committee are much more on the ball and
considerably less partisan in their approach. They also talk to real
experts rather than pretend ones from ultraright wing think tanks.
Regards,
Martin Brown
Eeyore
> Eeyore wrote:
>>
>> Anyone who's seen Monckton can see he's highly intelligent and well
>> informed.
>
> In as much as a barking mad righttard can ever be. Odd that a champagne
> socialist
Who ?
> should find common cause with a bunch of neofascists.
Have you EVER actually spent time reading or viewing him ? I'll bet you
haven't. And CUT THE INSULTS if that's all you have. In fact removing
yourself from this thread would be a relief. The bile you spew is vile.
Graham
p.s. bought 3 'denialist' books for Christmas. I was spoilt for choice.
Amazon has about a dozen or more.
Eeyore
>
> There is _some_ disagreement to the extent but all the scientists
> agree:
A total lie from the beginning. By repeating it endlessly the public
began to believe it. Hitler did the same by blaming the Jews for
Germany's pre-war economic woes AND he got elected.
Oh dear, just broken Godwin's Law ! LMAO.
Graham
Jan Panteltje
<Bret_E...@yahoo.com> wrote in
<a272b2d2-bfa7-4281...@v7g2000pro.googlegroups.com>:
>> Consider this:
>> �http://www.world-mysteries.com/alignments/mpl_al3b.htm
>> �http://www.sci.ccny.cuny.edu/~stan/d_clim.pdf
>
>> Temperature has always changed,
>
>The temperature in your body is always changing.
>
>That doesn't mean you want it to go to 105 degrees.
You will *not* be able to prevent the next ice agae, even if there were no humans, it would come.
and it would go again:
http://www.world-mysteries.com/alignments/mpl_al3b.htm
So you need the energy to keep your livin genvironment livable.
>> and always will, ice ages will come,
>> and ice ages will go, the world will look very different.
>> If human activity contributes much is not proven in any way.
>
>There is _some_ disagreement to the extent but all the scientists
>agree:
>
>It is proven and it represents a threat down the road.
Again: ice ages will come, and ice ages will go.
So, *given* that,
we need energy to cope with it.
Turning your heater lower and smashing all filament type lightbulbs
will not change current and future temperature on earth at all.
Windmills and solar cannot provide enough power.
We need nuclear, work on fusion, and keep pumping oil in the mean time.
Jan Panteltje
<rabbitsfriend...@removethishotmail.com> wrote in
<016d3c40$0$31473$c3e...@news.astraweb.com>:
Yes it is the management of the masses.
It also occurred to me that about 600 people have been arrested at the
climate talks in the last few days.
Even if those all were AGW nuts, still...
Brain washed masses, crying 'Save the world stop the heating'???
What a news story it would be if China did that.... Or Iran...
So, maybe we are already getting into the 1930 times again,
sure things will backfire.
Manipulation of the masses.
Was it no something like:
'The bigger the lie, the easier it is to make the people believe it/"
jmfbahciv
to believe the hype a couple years ago. That will
produce side-effects for decades because people
will make decision about expenditures and designs
based on the goremyth rather than reality.
Another side effect may be that nobody making these kinds
of decisions will believe any thing that is labelled
as a "science fact" and do the exact opposite of should be
done. This is the one that's the most worrisome.
/BAH
/BAH
jmfbahciv
by blaming Bush for everything, especially global warming.
/BAH
jmfbahciv
<snip>
You are wrong. Nobody seems to have noticed the bill that the House of
Representatives passed and is going through the Senate about capping
emissions. From the little I've heard, and I emphasize the little,
it's going to put even more burdens on small businesses.
/BAH
John Larkin
John Larkin
<|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>John Larkin wrote:
>> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 12:40:21 +0000, Martin Brown
>> <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Tom Gootee wrote:
>>>> On Dec 14, 12:24 am, Eeyore
>>>> <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@removethishotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> You can read a preliminary analysis of the materials obtained from the
>>>> CRU at:
>>>>
>>>> http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/Monckton-Caught%20Green-Handed%20Climategate%20Scandal.pdf.
>>>>
>>>> This report explains in clear terms some of the methods the CRU used
>>>> to misrepresent real temperature data as well as their efforts to
>>>> conceal their fraud. It has a great section on how science is
>>>> supposed to work, and how the CRU�s work falls far short of scientific
>>>> standards for openness and integrity. Share it with your friends and
>>>> contact your representatives before Obama commits the US to paying
>>>> third world countries for natural variations in earth�s climate.
>
>>> Lord Monckton is from the UK's lunatic fringe equivalent of the US
>>> rednecked fuckwit brand of "Dittohead Science". Nothing he says can be
>>> trusted.
>>
>> What if he says something that's true? Will you deny that because of
>> the source?
>
>He is very good at spinning a deceitful web of half truths and well
>calculated lies intended to appeal to other righttards and sucker in the
>general public. No surprise then that you are a great fan of his.
>
>> That was a rhetorical question. Of course you will.
> >
>> John
>
>You are wrong. Even delusional right wing nutters occasionally make
>correct statements. A statement of fact can either be verified or it
>cannot. Fallacious reasoning requires a bit more effort to unpick.
>
>My point here was that his paranoid arguments about AGW science are
>deliberately misleading and have been constructed to appeal to the baser
>instincts of other righttards. He is on the far edge of lunatic fringe.
>
>Very good at what he does as a denier for hire though.
What the world need is facts. Raw data, analysis source code,
justifications for corrections, background on how trees were selected
for ring analysis, that sort of thing. Climategate told us that the
warmingist scientists are enthusiasts for an outcome and are prepared
to hide or destroy data rather than reveal it, their software is a
mess, they will twist arms to keep opposing papers from being
published, and they and are conspiring to evade FOI law.
Spending trillions on their say-so isn't reasonable. It isn't moral,
either.
John
Rich Grise
>
> Bret Cahill
Uh-oh. The Cahill Troll has discovered s.e.design.
Beware!
Thanks,
Rich
Rich Grise
>
> A lot of "climategate" is hyped by GOP strategists who know full well
Problem is, it's not.
It's just that simple.
Hope This Helps!
Rich
Rich Grise
>
> That's a step up from what he was until recently, a sanctimonious
> misanthrope more interested in preaching to humans than saving polar
> bears.
And you're in denial of the fact that the polar bear population has been
burgeoning, an inconvenient fact that's contrary to warmingist dogma.
Ah, why do I waste my time? I'll be out back, trying to teach bricks to
sing. ;-)
Cheers!
Rich
Rich Grise
>
> Turning your heater lower and smashing all filament type lightbulbs
> will not change current and future temperature on earth at all.
> Windmills and solar cannot provide enough power.
> We need nuclear, work on fusion, and keep pumping oil in the mean time.
First, we need to focus on the politics of nuclear energy, a proven
technology that works TODAY. I don't think we'll see controlled fusion in
any of our lifetimes - nobody can control that much power, except for Hell
bombs, of course.
Or, keep researching it, but with private funds. :-)
Thanks,
Rich
Rich Grise
Cahill's a troll. He finally figured out that everybody on s.e.b has
filtered him, so he's looking for a new sandbox to piss in.
Hope This Helps!
Rich
Rich Grise
Vietnam^H^H^H^H^H^H^HAfghanistan.
I thought he won by promising to get us out of there? Not that there is
ANY promise he's kept.
Thanks,
Rich
John Larkin
>Eeyore wrote:
>> John Larkin wrote:
>>> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 08:00:44 -0800, Jitt <tse...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> We have other data. Ice shelves disappearing at both poles, polar
>>>> bears ditto, dry water holes in central North America, Russia and
>>>> Denmark making territorial claims in anticipation of an open Arctic
>>>> ocean.
>>>
>>> Do you realize how absurd that list is?
>>> John
>>
>> Doubtful. But why let facts bother a warmingist ?
>>
>The problem is that a majority of the public started
>to believe the hype a couple years ago. That will
>produce side-effects for decades because people
>will make decision about expenditures and designs
>based on the goremyth rather than reality.
I don't think so. For the public, AGW was a fad that's fading. I think
scepticism is the new fad, and even the press is starting to go along.
>
>Another side effect may be that nobody making these kinds
>of decisions will believe any thing that is labelled
>as a "science fact" and do the exact opposite of should be
>done. This is the one that's the most worrisome.
Joe Public is perfectly capable of opening his front door to see four
feet of snow piled on his car and conclude that climate scientists are
twits.
If Copenhagen bombs, as it likely will, there may never be enough
political momentum to revive it. Things are swinging the other way.
John
Jan Panteltje
<rich...@example.net> wrote in <pan.2009.12.15....@example.net>:
There seems to be a plan, a company working with Los Alamos
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetized_target_fusion
Could perhaps work...
Always a bit sceptical fof mechanical hammers doing things....
:-)
ITER will likely never work.
Jan Panteltje
<jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in
<tikfi5hl5vkdr3778...@4ax.com>:
>Joe Public is perfectly capable of opening his front door to see four
>feet of snow piled on his car and conclude that climate scientists are
>twits.
Not if sufficiently indoctrinated.
>If Copenhagen bombs, as it likely will, there may never be enough
>political momentum to revive it. Things are swinging the other way.
>
>John
Copenhagen will not fail, because it is a public show to bring carbon taxes to the masses.
:-)
Eeyore
>
> SPPI and Monckton are well know denialist bedfellows.
You mean 'intelligent critics'.
As a result of 'climategate' AGW is a dead duck ( as it always was ) but
someone had to shoot the damn thing down. The 'leaker' at CRU deserves a
Nobel Prize. He can have the one that the Nobel Committee will be forced
to remove from Al Bore.
Have you been to http://www.megaupload.com/?d=75j4xo4t
and even bothered to download the incriminating files ?
I thought not.
Your 'religion' is finished and the World can breathe a collective sigh
of relief. People will stop dying of hunger in Asia and Africa from
inflated food prices caused by biofuel production that diverts resources
and inflates food prices and btw, did you know severe cold weather
claims more lives than severe warm weather ? A warming world ( within
sensible limits which nature deals with ) is GOOD for us all.
Furthermore, 95% of plants grow better in higher CO2 environments as it
happens including all ? food crops. Indeed, plants have been seen as a
great 'carbon capture' method. It's being used here in the UK right now
with tomatoes.
Graham
dagmarg...@yahoo.com
wrote:
> SPPI and Monckton are well know denialist bedfellows. His presentation
> in March to the House Senate committee was funny for all the wrong
> reasons. eg.
>
> http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/details/viscount_mon...
That was excellent. Lord Monckton's keynote:
"We, the people, are no longer afraid of 'global warming.' We are fed
up to the back teeth of hearing about it. We are bored by it. And the
bed-wetters know it. Their ever-more-outlandish predictions are a
measure of their blind panic. The Dr. Strangelove of NASA [Jim Hansen,
presumably], in the latest of a series of ever-more-desperate attempts
to flog the dead horse of climatic apocalypse, recently wrote that sea
level is about to rise by 246 feet, “und anyvun zat disagrees viz me
vill be arrested und put on trial for high crimes against humanidy und
nature.”…
And
"It is lamentable that the National Academy of Sciences should have
seen fit to publish so scientifically baseless a paper in its
Proceedings. Regrettably, very nearly all scientists are taxpayer-
funded: the United States alone spent almost $40 billion on climate-
related 'research' – often in the form of mere political propaganda
such as the Solomon et al. paper – in the fiscal year 2008. Since the
scientific journals are intended to appeal to scientists, nearly all
of whom are parasites upon the taxpayer, they pander to the prejudices
of scientists by failing to subject papers such as that of Solomon et
al. to proper peer-review. Instead, it appears that the reviewers
merely check to find that the paper comes to the 'politically-correct'
conclusion, regardless of whether there is any scientific, logical or
rational basis for that conclusion. Indeed, most scientists no longer
have sufficient training in the Classical studium generale to
recognize how often and how grievously the arguments they advance in
their papers on climate change are, in the formal sense, irrational."
Lots of people have made the same points. IOW, a consensus.
--
Cheers,
James Arthur
Eeyore
> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 14:47:35 -0800, Bret Cahill wrote:
>> Bret Cahill
>
> Uh-oh. The Cahill Troll has discovered s.e.design.
Not for the first time IIRC. Probably due to the multiple groups.
How he belongs in either sci.energy or sci.physics is a mystery too.
Graham
Don Klipstein
>> Russia and Denmark making territorial claims in
>> anticipation of an open Arctic ocean.
>
>So what ? Sea ice melting doesn't change sea level ( except very
>minutely due to salt content ) or don't you know basic physics ? The
>effect on albedo at that latitude will be minute.
Insolation at Earth's surface in theArctic and Antarctic year-round is
generally around 30-40% of that at the equator - I would notcall that
minute.
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Eeyore
> On a sunny day (Tue, 15 Dec 2009 10:21:10 -0800) it happened John Larkin wrote
>
>> Joe Public is perfectly capable of opening his front door to see four
>> feet of snow piled on his car and conclude that climate scientists are
>> twits.
>
> Not if sufficiently indoctrinated.
>
>> If Copenhagen bombs, as it likely will, there may never be enough
>> political momentum to revive it. Things are swinging the other way.
>>
>> John
>
> Copenhagen will not fail, because it is a public show to bring carbon taxes to the masses.
> :-)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/15/brown-global-warming-finance-deal
" Gordon Brown became the first world leader to fly into Copenhagen last
night where he warned there was a possibility the climate change talks
may not end in agreement.
The prime minister is attending the talks two days earlier than planned
in order to help broker discussions on who should pay to tackle global
warming. But he immediately cast a gloomy pall, telling reporters in
Copenhagen: "It is possible that we will not get an agreement and it is
also true that there are many issues to be sorted out."
With the talks balanced on a knife-edge, earlier in the day the prime
minister had issued a call to arms to fellow heads of state, saying they
had three days to "shape the future of humanity". As the high-level
political part of the summit began, its Danish president, Connie
Hedegaard, echoed the pessimism of the prime minister: "In these very
hours we are balancing between success and failure. Success is within
reach. But I must also warn you: we can fail."
Delegates at the summit are nervously awaiting fresh versions of the
draft treaty text which more than 115 world leaders will want to
finalise by Friday.
The first sign of progress could come today with Ethiopia's prime
minister, Meles Zenawi, expected to announce new proposals for climate
change. Developing countries say they need billions of dollars to cope
with rising sea levels ... "
But sea level is currently FALLING !
Graham
Mark
===================================
The discussion about the AGW being true or false is tiring.
It is clear to any thinking person with any scientific background that
AGW has NOT been proven to the point where it warrants major changes
to our lifestyles.
So lets move to the next level of this chess game.
What is the game behind the game?
WHY are the politicians shoving AGW propaganda down our throats?
Is it simply an excuse to levy more taxes?
Or is something else going on? Do they know that we are really
about to run out of oil and they are trying to wean us from oil before
it runs out but don't want to panic us?
Is it a ploy to get us to accept nuclear energy with open arms?
I have this fear that when truth wins out in the end and AGW is
eventually exposed as false that all of science will be badly
discredited. It will be Y2K and cold fussion on a bigger scale.
What is the game behind the game?
Mark
Don Klipstein
<SNIP what leads to this>
>The first sign of progress could come today with Ethiopia's prime
>minister, Meles Zenawi, expected to announce new proposals for climate
>change. Developing countries say they need billions of dollars to cope
>with rising sea levels ... "
>
>But sea level is currently FALLING !
Graph of sea level change, including an average of 23 tide gauge records
and satellite readings:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Recent_Sea_Level_Rise.png
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
jmfbahciv
> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 08:34:16 -0500, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv@aol> wrote:
>
>> Eeyore wrote:
>>> John Larkin wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 08:00:44 -0800, Jitt <tse...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> We have other data. Ice shelves disappearing at both poles, polar
>>>>> bears ditto, dry water holes in central North America, Russia and
>>>>> Denmark making territorial claims in anticipation of an open Arctic
>>>>> ocean.
>>>> Do you realize how absurd that list is?
>>>> John
>>> Doubtful. But why let facts bother a warmingist ?
>>>
>> The problem is that a majority of the public started
>> to believe the hype a couple years ago. That will
>> produce side-effects for decades because people
>> will make decision about expenditures and designs
>> based on the goremyth rather than reality.
>
> I don't think so. For the public, AGW was a fad that's fading. I think
> scepticism is the new fad, and even the press is starting to go along.
Sigh! There a bill which has been passed by the House based on this
bloody asumption. It will become law when the Senate passes it. That
bill, alone, has far-reaching effects on small businesses and the
middle class. It will never be repealed.
>
>> Another side effect may be that nobody making these kinds
>> of decisions will believe any thing that is labelled
>> as a "science fact" and do the exact opposite of should be
>> done. This is the one that's the most worrisome.
>
> Joe Public is perfectly capable of opening his front door to see four
> feet of snow piled on his car and conclude that climate scientists are
> twits.
that's not what I'm talking about.
>
> If Copenhagen bombs, as it likely will, there may never be enough
> political momentum to revive it. Things are swinging the other way.
But it's not bombing. Look at what is happening. And also notice
what doesn't make the headlines. The riots will be used as
smoke and mirrors by the politicians inside.
/BAH
John Larkin
Oh, they will probably sign *something* and declare themselves
saviors. But it will be toothless and will not be much honored in
future years.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126088020911291961.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTTopStories
Imagine a thing of this magnitude rushed to completion in a couple of
days, in the glare of the press, surrounded by eco-nuts chanting in
the streets, blessed by Pope Gore, with all the heads of state due to
arrive for their signing ritual with the Danish snow for their
photo-op backgrounds.
Insanity.
John
John Larkin
wrote:
Yeah. He was ludicrous in the 'basics' group.
John
jmfbahciv
Anything Obama signs will cost money because that's how he works.
>
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126088020911291961.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTTopStories
>
> Imagine a thing of this magnitude rushed to completion in a couple of
> days, in the glare of the press, surrounded by eco-nuts chanting in
> the streets, blessed by Pope Gore, with all the heads of state due to
> arrive for their signing ritual with the Danish snow for their
> photo-op backgrounds.
>
> Insanity.
>
Obama collected a Nobel prize because he wants the rest of the world
to "like" him. That is insane.
/BAH
John Larkin
Hey, this is working out better than I expected:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/18/obama-speech-copenhagen
What are the chances of snow in Mexico City in December?
John
dagmarg...@yahoo.com
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/18/obama-speech-copenh...
>
> What are the chances of snow in Mexico City in December?
UPDATE: Trouble at the Hopeandchangin conference--there's broad
consensus on the need for massive wealth redistribution, but
comprehensive agreement on the minor detail of who should pay whom
remained elusive. Medics were called after several mutual, inclusive,
and transparent attempts to 'bend down the cost curve' resulted in
breakage of several delegates' pointing fingers.
Even US-booster Hugo Chavez's crucial support for Mr. Obama's policies
was called into question by certain remarks made by that famed
defender of free markets and free elections, to raucous approval of
the non-partisan crowd.
Meanwhile, political scientists boosted their doomsday machine into
overdrive to counter the crisis:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/17/un-leaked-report-copenhagen-3c
Finally, a bright spot: delegates' progress toward a universal
declaration that "The United States is evil and should please pay us
more money" sprinted forward, with passage expected immediately
following the scheduled Two Minutes' Hate featuring the North American
behemoth.
--
Cheers,
James Arthur
John Larkin
wrote:
Obama was insulted in front of the world by Wen Jiabao, Hugo Chavez,
Fidel Castro (by remote control), Dmitry Medvedev, Thomas Negints,
Andreas Carlgren, Lumumba Di-Aping, and Greenpeace U.S. Executive
Director Phil Radford. At least.
I wonder what the O-team has in mind for Plan B. The make-nice thing
isn't going so well.
John
jmfbahciv
I won't get to the library to read that today.
>
> What are the chances of snow in Mexico City in December?
>
What's the attitude? ;-) Fortunately, it snowed in D.C.
/BAH
JosephKK
>Tom Gootee wrote:
>> On Dec 14, 12:24 am, Eeyore
>> <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@removethishotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> You can read a preliminary analysis of the materials obtained from the
>> CRU at:
>>
>> http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/Monckton-Caught%20Green-Handed%20Climategate%20Scandal.pdf.
>>
>> This report explains in clear terms some of the methods the CRU used
>> to misrepresent real temperature data as well as their efforts to
>> conceal their fraud. It has a great section on how science is
>> supposed to work, and how the CRU’s work falls far short of scientific
>> standards for openness and integrity. Share it with your friends and
>> contact your representatives before Obama commits the US to paying
>> third world countries for natural variations in earth’s climate.
>
>Lord Monckton is from the UK's lunatic fringe equivalent of the US
>rednecked fuckwit brand of "Dittohead Science". Nothing he says can be
>trusted.
>
>CRU's sins such as they are were an attempt to keep denialist propaganda
>out of peer reviewed journals. It is a bit naughty of them but in no way
>does it alter the scientific evidence or weaken the case for AGW except
>in the minds of delusional right whingers. And the braying donkey...
>
>Regards,
>Martin Brown
Let me ask you this, who is providing traceability on the data and who is not.
If that does not help you sort things, then what is the basis of your position?
JosephKK
Speaking from a few days upline, it is failing. The proposed treaty thoroughly incensed many
other nations, it was way too favorable US and EU and way to punitive to others with huge
rejection by India and China.
JosephKK
If you cannot do geometry let alone physics any better than that you deserve
all the disregard you can possibly get.
JosephKK
>
>Agreed, it's amusing that the deniers need to childishly posture their words
>to try and give them some emphasis:
>
>"How to get the ***damaging*** ***leaked**** University of East Anglia CRU
>files about AGW"
>
Amusing, since the university acts far more embarrassed than you do.
JosephKK
>Tom Gootee wrote:
>> On Dec 14, 12:24 am, Eeyore
>> <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@removethishotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> You can read a preliminary analysis of the materials obtained from the
>> CRU at:
>>
>> http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/Monckton-Caught%20Green-Handed%20Climategate%20Scandal.pdf.
>>
>> This report explains in clear terms some of the methods the CRU used
>> to misrepresent real temperature data as well as their efforts to
>> conceal their fraud. It has a great section on how science is
>> supposed to work, and how the CRU’s work falls far short of scientific
>> standards for openness and integrity. Share it with your friends and
>> contact your representatives before Obama commits the US to paying
>> third world countries for natural variations in earth’s climate.
>
>Lord Monckton is from the UK's lunatic fringe equivalent of the US
>rednecked fuckwit brand of "Dittohead Science". Nothing he says can be
>trusted.
>
>CRU's sins such as they are were an attempt to keep denialist propaganda
>out of peer reviewed journals. It is a bit naughty of them but in no way
>does it alter the scientific evidence or weaken the case for AGW except
>in the minds of delusional right whingers. And the braying donkey...
>
>Regards,
>Martin Brown
Really? So please demonstrate what part of the presentation is false.
Bring it on, point by point.
JosephKK
>> >> You can read a preliminary analysis of the materials obtained from the
>> >> CRU at:
>>
>> >>http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/Mon....
>>
>> >> This report explains in clear terms some of the methods the CRU used
>> >> to misrepresent real temperature data as well as their efforts to
>> >> conceal their fraud. It has a great section on how science is
>> >> supposed to work, and how the CRU’s work falls far short of scientific
>> >> standards for openness and integrity. Share it with your friends and
>> >> contact your representatives before Obama commits the US to paying
>> >> third world countries for natural variations in earth’s climate.
>>
>> >Lord Monckton is from the UK's lunatic fringe equivalent of the US
>> >rednecked fuckwit brand of "Dittohead Science". Nothing he says can be
>> >trusted.
>>
>> What if he says something that's true? Will you deny that because of
>> the source?
>>
>> That was a rhetorical question. Of course you will.
>
>If someone says something _new_ I'll look at it.
>
>If someone says the same nonsense I've heard 400,000 times before,
>i.e., creationism "science," then why bother?
>
>There are so many similarities between the evolution deniers and the
>AGW deniers and the Hawaiian birth certificate deniers and the
>Holocaust deniers and the equality of races deniers and . . . well
>its easy to lump all the wing a ding dingers together under the
>umbrella term "today's Republican."
>
>
>Bret Cahill
>
And you seem to be a typical product of American schools today, can't think
or find your way out of a wet paper bag. Warmingism should be discarded
just like creationism.
Fantasy thinking is the hallmark of the left extreme more than the right.
JosephKK
>> >> >> You can read a preliminary analysis of the materials obtained from the
>> >> >> CRU at:
>>
>> >> >>http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/Mon..=
>> >..
>>
>> >> >> This report explains in clear terms some of the methods the CRU used
>> >> >> to misrepresent real temperature data as well as their efforts to
>> >> >> conceal their fraud. It has a great section on how science is
>> >> >> supposed to work, and how the CRU’s work falls far short of scientif=
>> >ic
>> >> >> standards for openness and integrity. Share it with your friends an=
>> >d
>> >> >> contact your representatives before Obama commits the US to paying
>> >> >> third world countries for natural variations in earth’s climate.
>>
>> >> >Lord Monckton is from the UK's lunatic fringe equivalent of the US
>> >> >rednecked fuckwit brand of "Dittohead Science". Nothing he says can be
>> >> >trusted.
>>
>> >> What if he says something that's true? Will you deny that because of
>> >> the source?
>>
>> >> That was a rhetorical question. Of course you will.
>>
>> >If someone says something _new_ I'll look at it.
>>
>> >If someone says the same nonsense I've heard 400,000 times before,
>> >i.e., creationism "science," then why bother?
>>
>> >There are so many similarities between the evolution deniers and the
>> >AGW deniers and the Hawaiian birth certificate deniers and the
>> >Holocaust deniers and the equality of races deniers and . . . well
>> >its easy to lump all the wing a ding dingers together under the
>> >umbrella term "today's Republican."
>>
>> >Bret Cahill
>>
>> For an idiot all issues look the same: idiotic.
>
>A lot of "climategate" is hyped by GOP strategists who know full well
>AGW is a real threat but are cynically exploiting the ignorant GOP
>base. The fallout is already here.
>
>Some of the GOP base are already believing that all scientists are
>evil. These are not the usual false flag posts either.
>
>Just as fundies go around shooting "abortionists" maybe someday this
>will get so bad that AGW deniers in the base will soon be shooting
>scientists and mathematicians.
>
>
>Bret Cahill
>
Poxie hell, you are a really drugged up nutter.
Paul Keinanen
Ignoring the effects of clouds, but including the extinction (the
effect of "airmass") the horizontal ground will get 6-7 kWh/m� during
a 24 h day.
In the middle of the summer, at 60 to 90 degree latitudes, the surface
will receive 7-8 kWh/m� each day.
This may sound surprising for those not living in high latitudes. In
the middle of summer at the pole, the Sun is constantly at 23.5
degrees and the projection sin(23.5)=0.4 so 40 % compared to the
situation when the Sun is in zenith. However, this continues for 24
hours each day. On the equator, the nearly zenith situation only
occurs for a few hours, thus the radiation received during a day is
similar.
On the pole, the Sun is 6 month below the horizon, so the annual
radiation is below half of the equator values. However, the Sun is
quite high for 3-4 month each summer, so the annual average is
something like 30 % of the equatorial values.
Different cloud levels complicate the situation further.
While fresh white snow is reflecting the light quite effectively, old
dirty uneven ice is not that effective.
For a calm water surface, I have not been able to find, how much of
the light is reflected back to space and how much is refracted into
water (and ultimately absorbed into water), when the Sun is below 23
degrees. Anyone ?
The real question, is the reflected and then absorbed part of the
radiation significant compared to the heat carried by ocean currents
into the Arctic sea.
dagmarg...@yahoo.com
> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 11:26:10 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Dec 18, 12:13 pm, John Larkin wrote:
> >> Hey, this is working out better than I expected:
>
> >>http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/18/obama-speech-copenh...
>
> >> What are the chances of snow in Mexico City in December?
>
> >UPDATE: Trouble at the Hopeandchangin conference--there's broad
> >consensus on the need for massive wealth redistribution, but
> >comprehensive agreement on the minor detail of who should pay whom
> >remained elusive. Medics were called after several mutual, inclusive,
> >and transparent attempts to 'bend down the cost curve' resulted in
> >breakage of several delegates' pointing fingers.
>
> >Even US-booster Hugo Chavez's crucial support for Mr. Obama's policies
> >was called into question by certain remarks made by that famed
> >defender of free markets and free elections, to raucous approval of
> >the non-partisan crowd.
>
> >Meanwhile, political scientists boosted their doomsday machine into
> >overdrive to counter the crisis:
> >http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/17/un-leaked-report-co...
>
> >Finally, a bright spot: delegates' progress toward a universal
> >declaration that "The United States is evil and should please pay us
> >more money" sprinted forward, with passage expected immediately
> >following the scheduled Two Minutes' Hate featuring the North American
> >behemoth.
>
> Obama was insulted in front of the world by Wen Jiabao, Hugo Chavez,
> Fidel Castro (by remote control), Dmitry Medvedev, Thomas Negints,
> Andreas Carlgren, Lumumba Di-Aping, and Greenpeace U.S. Executive
> Director Phil Radford. At least.
>
> I wonder what the O-team has in mind for Plan B. The make-nice thing
> isn't going so well.
>
> John
We recoil at this unfortunate slip of the keyboard Comrade John-ski--
things are going /very/ well indeed.
Have you not heard of our glorious victory in Afghanistan, which our
Commander in Chief has declared even 18 months in advance? Has our
new leader not simultaneously restrained Iran's nuclear ambitions and
made peace through understanding with the Taliban?
Just one year ago did not operatives of the wily last-President nearly
implode the evil capitalist state by burying it in failed mortgages?
Today, total foreclosures being a quarter higher[1] is producing
fantastic profits at the same institutions. Through the magic of
green, renewable unicorns, banks can now carry failed loans at full
value, assuring permanent prosperity for all.[2] Long live the
jobless recovery!
Transparent hope and change--is there nothing it cannot accomplish?
Why now our ever-vigilant ever-glorious Senate has even forged a
fabulous new wealthshare bill to guarantee that insurance companies
can profit from every single American--if necessary, at taxpayer
expense--or throw them all in jail.
Everyone approves of these 2,700+ pages of pure love which no one has
read. And surely $2.5 trillion is a small price to pay to insure the
net 1.8 million additional insured under this bill? [3]
And what third-world dictator could fail to envy, or hope to thwart
democracy as effectively, concocting edicts in secrecy, then passing
them with blitzkrieg in the dead of night? Can you not feel the
openness, the inclusiveness, the 5 nanoseconds' welcoming?
Ah yes, things are going very well indeed.
Cheers,
James Arthur
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[1] http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/housing/2009-10-23-foreclosures-interactive_N.htm
[2] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/13/AR2009121302442.html
The Coming Debt Panic. 12/14/09 "It's time to stop worrying about the
deficit -- and start panicking about the debt."
[3] estimate of the Actuary, http://www.cms.hhs.gov/ActuarialStudies/
(http://www.cms.hhs.gov/ActuarialStudies/Downloads/
S_PPACA_2009-12-10.pdf)
Estimated effect on insurance by 2019, numbers in millions of
Americans
(view table in fixed font)
Coverage current law Reid bill difference
-------- ----------- --------- ----------
Medicare 60.5 60.5 0
Medicaid
& CHIP 63.5 83.6 20.1 million
Employer-
sponsored
insurance 165.9 160.7 -5.2
Individual
coverage 25.7 45.9 20.2
Uninsured 56.9 23.6 -33.3
----- ----- -----
TOTALS 372.5 374.3 1.8
NET ADDITIONAL INSURED -------------------^^^
JosephKK
Yep. And in the same report, nearly a trillion additional in deficits.
Not to mention a mythical half a trillion in Medicare savings.
Least of all the numbers do not add up correctly, better make that 2 trillion.
From page 21 of 34 of:
http://www.cms.hhs.gov/ActuarialStudies/Downloads/S_PPACA_2009-12-10.pdf
=8-(
JosephKK
Naw, only about 3 months below the horizon, plus you have midnight
sun to correct for also.
>
>Different cloud levels complicate the situation further.
>
>While fresh white snow is reflecting the light quite effectively, old
>dirty uneven ice is not that effective.
>
>For a calm water surface, I have not been able to find, how much of
>the light is reflected back to space and how much is refracted into
>water (and ultimately absorbed into water), when the Sun is below 23
>degrees. Anyone ?
Have you tried Snell's law? Of course when waves are added it all goes
strange.
>
>The real question, is the reflected and then absorbed part of the
>radiation significant compared to the heat carried by ocean currents
>into the Arctic sea.
>
Your geometry is no better and you are using the numbers from above the
atmosphere and reporting as if it were ground intensity (properly around
1 kW/(m*m)).
JosephKK
>On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 08:35:56 -0500, jmfbahciv wrote:
>> Eeyore wrote:
>>> Bret Cahill wrote:
>>>>
>>>> A lot of "climategate" is hyped by GOP strategists who know full well
>>>> AGW is a real threat but are cynically exploiting the ignorant GOP
>>>> base. The fallout is already here.
>>>
>>> 'Climategate' is a BRITISH issue. Someone finally blew the whistle.
>>> What's the GOP got to do with it?
>>>
>> The Democrats ran the last presidential and congressional elections
>> by blaming Bush for everything, especially global warming.
>>
>They're even blaming Bush for Osama^H^H^H^Hbama's escalation in
>Vietnam^H^H^H^H^H^H^HAfghanistan.
>
>I thought he won by promising to get us out of there? Not that there is
>ANY promise he's kept.
>
>Thanks,
>Rich
But he did promise higher taxes for successful people. He is delivering
on that.
JosephKK
It seems to be discrediting science itself. Then left without any
means to detect falsehood, the sheeple will be more controllable.
Can you say 1984?
JosephKK
>John Larkin wrote:
>> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 12:40:21 +0000, Martin Brown
>> <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Tom Gootee wrote:
>>>> On Dec 14, 12:24 am, Eeyore
>>>> <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@removethishotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> You can read a preliminary analysis of the materials obtained from the
>>>> CRU at:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This report explains in clear terms some of the methods the CRU used
>>>> to misrepresent real temperature data as well as their efforts to
>>>> conceal their fraud. It has a great section on how science is
>>>> supposed to work, and how the CRU’s work falls far short of scientific
>>>> standards for openness and integrity. Share it with your friends and
>>>> contact your representatives before Obama commits the US to paying
>>>> third world countries for natural variations in earth’s climate.
>
>>> Lord Monckton is from the UK's lunatic fringe equivalent of the US
>>> rednecked fuckwit brand of "Dittohead Science". Nothing he says can be
>>> trusted.
>>
>> What if he says something that's true? Will you deny that because of
>> the source?
>
>He is very good at spinning a deceitful web of half truths and well
>calculated lies intended to appeal to other righttards and sucker in the
>general public. No surprise then that you are a great fan of his.
>
>> That was a rhetorical question. Of course you will.
> >
>> John
>
>You are wrong. Even delusional right wing nutters occasionally make
>correct statements. A statement of fact can either be verified or it
>cannot. Fallacious reasoning requires a bit more effort to unpick.
>
>My point here was that his paranoid arguments about AGW science are
>deliberately misleading and have been constructed to appeal to the baser
>instincts of other righttards. He is on the far edge of lunatic fringe.
>
>Very good at what he does as a denier for hire though.
>
>Regards,
>Martin Brown
So you did not view any of the videos and are dissing on command of your
controllers? I can blast Algore directly from my own ability.
JosephKK
>Tom Gootee wrote:
>> On Dec 15, 5:02 am, Martin Brown <|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>> Eeyore wrote:
>>>> Martin Brown wrote:
>>>>> Tom Gootee wrote:
>>>>>> On Dec 14, 12:24 am, Eeyore
>>>>>> <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@removethishotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> You can read a preliminary analysis of the materials obtained from the
>>>>>> CRU at:
>>>>>> http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/Mon....
>>>>>> This report explains in clear terms some of the methods the CRU used
>>>>>> to misrepresent real temperature data as well as their efforts to
>>>>>> conceal their fraud. It has a great section on how science is
>>>>>> supposed to work, and how the CRU’s work falls far short of scientific
>>>>>> standards for openness and integrity. Share it with your friends and
>>>>>> contact your representatives before Obama commits the US to paying
>>>>>> third world countries for natural variations in earth’s climate.
>>>>> Lord Monckton is from the UK's lunatic fringe equivalent of the US
>>>>> rednecked fuckwit brand of "Dittohead Science". Nothing he says can be
>>>>> trusted.
>>>>> CRU's sins such as they are were an attempt to keep denialist
>>>>> propaganda out of peer reviewed journals.
>>>> No they WERE NOT. They were an attempt to stop ANYONE seeing the
>>>> horrible truth. But it's out now. Probably the end of AGW.
>>> AGW is still real enough. Much as you may wish it wasn't. I doubt that
>>> anything useful will come out of Copenhagen so we will get to see how
>>> bad things can get under the business as usual scenario. The evidence so
>>> far is that the IPCC's estimates may be on the low side.
>>>
>>>>> It is a bit naughty of them
>>>> It's ILLEGAL !
>>> They are innocent until proven guilty at least in the UK.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> but in no way does it alter the scientific evidence or weaken the case
>>>>> for AGW except in the minds of delusional right whingers. And the
>>>>> braying donkey...
>>>> OH DEAR, classic mud-slinging from a warmingist. They have only The
>>>> Emperor's New Clothes to rely on, so as usual reply with hostile
>>>> personal attacks. Where's your SCIENCE ? Answer: HIDDEN behind locked
>>>> doors and servers. Why does it NEED to be hidden ? Obviously they have
>>>> something they feel they need to hide.
>>>> Anyone who's seen Monckton can see he's highly intelligent and well
>>>> informed.
>>> In as much as a barking mad righttard can ever be. Odd that a champagne
>>> socialist should find common cause with a bunch of neofascists.
>>>
>>> The science is clear enough. "Climategate" just shows a few people being
>>> rather silly in private emails. It doesn't affect the validity of any of
>>> the other global temperature datasets. The SCIENCE is mostly published
>>> in peer review journals rather than on denialist websites.
>>
>>
>>
>> But the validity of other global temperature datasets IS now very MUCH
>> in doubt!
>>
>> According to the article at
>>
>> http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/Monckton-Caught%20Green-Handed%20Climategate%20Scandal.pdf
>> ,
>
>SPPI and Monckton are well know denialist bedfellows. His presentation
>in March to the House Senate committee was funny for all the wrong
>reasons. eg.
>
>http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/details/viscount_monckton_denialist_dujour/
>
>He is a great showman. Though his command of the facts is somewhat
>lacking - either that or he has absolutely no personal integrity. A fair
>proportion of what he says is easily proved wrong by fact checking.
Really? Maybe it is your command of fact and fact testing that is lacking.
>
>It is odd that the US senators cannot distinguish fact from fiction. The
>UK Science & Technology Select Committee are much more on the ball and
>considerably less partisan in their approach. They also talk to real
>experts rather than pretend ones from ultraright wing think tanks.
Politicians knowing a fact that bites them in the face? Never happen.
Politician missing a chance to tax? Never happen.
There never was any science to it, it was/is always politics, nothing else.
I refer you to attempted suppression of the middle ages warm period and
attempted suppression of the "the little ice age" by AGWists.
>
>Regards,
>Martin Brown
Paul Keinanen
"JosephKK"<quiett...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Where did you get those three months from ?
In the most Northern parts of Finland at 70N, the sun sets on Nov 24th
and rises again on Jan 17th, which is nearly two months.
On the pole, the sun is below the horizon for 179 days
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_night
The twilight is not significant for the melting process :-).
>>
>>Different cloud levels complicate the situation further.
>>
>>While fresh white snow is reflecting the light quite effectively, old
>>dirty uneven ice is not that effective.
>>
>>For a calm water surface, I have not been able to find, how much of
>>the light is reflected back to space and how much is refracted into
>>water (and ultimately absorbed into water), when the sun is below 23
>>degrees. Anyone ?
>
>Have you tried Snell's law? Of course when waves are added it all goes
>strange.
Snell�s law only describe the reflection and refraction angles.
It appears that the reflectance can be calculated from the Fresnel
equation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fresnel_equations
One calculator at
http://www.calctool.org/CALC/phys/optics/reflec_refrac and a diagram
of the air/water boundary is at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Water_reflectivity.jpg
The angles are measured from the normal (vertical in this case) and
for unpolarized sunlight, the reflectance is the average of the two
polarization reflectance Rs and Rp.
Looking at the diagram and assuming calm water at the North pole, the
sun is in the middle of summer 23.5 degrees above the horizon and only
10 % of the sun energy is reflected directly and 90 % is refracted
into water and finally absorbed. However in April/May and September,
the sun is less than 6.5 degrees above the horizon and more than 50 %
of the rays are reflected.
Between the Arctic circle and the pole, in the summer during the day,
the refraction into water is strong, but during the midnight sun
hours, the sun is so low that most of the rays are reflected, thus,
only the hours around noon will effectively warm the water.
>>
>>The real question, is the reflected and then absorbed part of the
>>radiation significant compared to the heat carried by ocean currents
>>into the Arctic sea.
>>
>Your geometry is no better and you are using the numbers from above the
>atmosphere and reporting as if it were ground intensity (properly around
>1 kW/(m*m)).
The daily energy levels that I used, are at the surface of the earth
for horizontal surfaces. You might get 1 kW/m� on the equator at noon,
but at other times and other locations, the power levels are
significantly less due to geometry and extinction losses.
Without the atmosphere losses, the summer time daily energy levels are
much higher at high latitudes than on the equator.
dagmarg...@yahoo.com
> On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 08:59:20 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
<snip>
> >Why now our ever-vigilant ever-glorious Senate has even forged a
> >fabulous new wealthshare bill to guarantee that insurance companies
> >can profit from every single American--if necessary, at taxpayer
> >expense--or throw them all in jail.
>
> >Everyone approves of these 2,700+ pages of pure love which no one has
> >read. And surely $2.5 trillion is a small price to pay to insure the
> >net 1.8 million additional insured under this bill? [3]
>
> >And what third-world dictator could fail to envy, or hope to thwart
> >democracy as effectively, concocting edicts in secrecy, then passing
> >them with blitzkrieg in the dead of night? Can you not feel the
> >openness, the inclusiveness, the 5 nanoseconds' welcoming?
>
> >Ah yes, things are going very well indeed.
<snip>
> >[3] estimate of the Actuary,http://www.cms.hhs.gov/ActuarialStudies/
I'm used to reading financials, so I made a spreadsheet and, after
jockeying to group them logically, got those pg. 21 numbers to tally
up. The columns are just screwy.
That estimate says the bill costs the Federal government a trillion
dollars over ten years, which is paid by $500B in Medicare cuts, $64B
in fines & penalties, a dab of hope and change, and $400B(?) in new
taxes. At the end of 10 years they project ~$100B left over.
That assumes 10 years' taxes, but only 6 years of paying benefits.
The actual cost to the American people is far higher--
o Rather than tax them for the money, many Americans will be compelled
by force of law to buy insurance. Reid doesn't count that as a tax,
or as a cost to him. If you don't, you'll be prosecuted under the
Internal Revenue Code as a tax cheat, but Reid doesn't count these
trillions of forced payments. They'd triple the cost.
o The bill foists millions of Americans onto Medicaid, at states'
expense. Reid counts that as a savings to him, though it's a loss for
America and the states.
o The House bill counts on $250B in reduced reimbursements to
doctors. But, they had a separate bill restoring those cuts, so it
was a sham savings: it made that one bill's total seem less, but the
overall spending was increased.
The upshot is that the average American will pay about 20% of gross
income for health care.
That follows, as we pay just a bit under that now (~16% of GDP), and
the bill throws 20 about million Americans onto Medicaid. Obviously,
20 million new Medicaiders isn't free. So, the average premium will
go up (it has to, to cover more people). And, it will be taxed.
The only way your premiums will go down is if you're subsidized, which
means everyone else pays more.
--
Cheers,
James Arthur
dagmarg...@yahoo.com
<snip>
> The upshot is that the average American will pay about 20% of gross
> income for health care.
>
> That follows, as we pay just a bit under that now (~16% of GDP), and
> the bill throws 20 about million Americans onto Medicaid. Obviously,
> 20 million new Medicaiders isn't free. So, the average premium will
> go up (it has to, to cover more people). And, it will be taxed.
>
> The only way your premiums will go down is if you're subsidized, which
> means everyone else pays more.
Oh, also--
The typical policy will go up additionally because the law requires it
to cover more things, with lower deductibles, and more benefits.
Obviously, that costs more.
Restrictions on the insurance companies' profits are meaningless, as
they're only making on the order of 2% profit anyhow these days, and
5% in the best of times. Medicare, by contrast, loses about 14-odd%
annually to _fraud_.
Likewise, restrictions on their executives' pay are ineffective,
because it just doesn't add up to that much.
Besides, federal government workers earn more than private sector
health insurance workers, and under this bill your policy will be
paying for both.
--
Cheers,
James Arthur
John Larkin
wrote:
The Dems *want* their health plan to be bad and expensive. They will
blame all the people they have just bought off (drug companies,
insurance companies, doctors, states) and then move in to fix the
problem.
The pre-existing-conditions thing will cause chaos. They won't enforce
the mandatory insurance thing, so the insurance companies will be
crushed by people who wait until they are really sick before they sign
up.
I'm going to send money to Sarah.
John
Spehro Pefhany
I don't see how that is going to work. Why wouldn't everyone who is
*really* sick sign up for the very best insurance out there? Hmm..
maybe I do see what will happen.
Paul Keinanen
Klipstein) wrote:
>In <016f8267$0$26587$c3e...@news.astraweb.com>, Eeyore wrote in part:
>
>>> Russia and Denmark making territorial claims in
>>> anticipation of an open Arctic ocean.
>>
>>So what ? Sea ice melting doesn't change sea level ( except very
>>minutely due to salt content ) or don't you know basic physics ? The
>>effect on albedo at that latitude will be minute.
>
> Insolation at Earth's surface in theArctic and Antarctic year-round is
>generally around 30-40% of that at the equator - I would notcall that
>minute.
When the solar rays hit the ice or water surface, part of the power is
reflected directly back to space, while part is refracted into the ice
or water and finally absorbed.
If I understand correctly, the reflected part is determined by the
reflection coefficient according to the Fresnel equations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fresnel_equations
The reflective constant depends of the refractive index and the angle,
at which the rays hit the surface.
The refractive index for water is 1.333, while for ice, 1.31 seems to
be listed. Thus, when comparing the reflective coefficient and hence
the transmission coefficient into ice/water for a flat ice surface and
a calm water surface, the amount of power refracted into ice/water is
practically the same.
Thus, from the power balance point of view, what difference does it
make, if the Arctic ice melts and there are open waters a few months
each year ?
While fresh clean white snow will reflect most of the power back to
space, in the arid polar desert, how often are there fresh snow ?
How long will the fresh snow remain white and clean, when the
contamination from industry etc. will increase the absorbtion,
speeding up the melting of the snow and ice ?
dagmarg...@yahoo.com
wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 12:40:34 -0800, John Larkin
> >The pre-existing-conditions thing will cause chaos. They won't enforce
> >the mandatory insurance thing, so the insurance companies will be
> >crushed by people who wait until they are really sick before they sign
> >up.
>
> I don't see how that is going to work. Why wouldn't everyone who is
> *really* sick sign up for the very best insurance out there? Hmm..
> maybe I do see what will happen.
I'd favor making it possible for individuals to buy their own
insurance independent of their employment. That way, like with life
insurance, you'd buy a policy when you're young, and carry it with you
through life wherever you go.
That solves the pre-existing conditions issue, and the portability
issue.
Unfortunately, it's Congress that has passed a number of laws to
prevent this, laws that exactly tie insurance to employment. IOW,
they MADE the problem.
That's dumb.
--
Cheers,
James Arthur
dagmarg...@yahoo.com
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 12:04:06 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com
I don't know what they're thinking. Maybe they just really can't add,
i.e., they don't get it. You're right that they'll blame industry
when it flops--that's what they do.
They haven't bought off the doctors though, just the 17% in the AMA.
More than 50% of doctors are vehemently opposed:
Medical Assn. of Georgia website: http://www.mag.org/
12.08 40-plus groups representing some 475,000 doctors now opposing
H.R. 3590
This brief, excellent letter lists some of their concerns:
http://www.mag.org/pdfs/nhcr_coalition_letter_reid_120809.pdf
--
Cheers,
James Arthur
Don Klipstein
>On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 02:05:42 +0000 (UTC), d...@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote:
>
>>In <016f8267$0$26587$c3e...@news.astraweb.com>, Eeyore wrote in part:
>>
>>>> Russia and Denmark making territorial claims in
>>>> anticipation of an open Arctic ocean.
>>>
>>>So what ? Sea ice melting doesn't change sea level ( except very
>>>minutely due to salt content ) or don't you know basic physics ? The
>>>effect on albedo at that latitude will be minute.
>>
>> Insolation at Earth's surface in the Arctic and Antarctic year-round
>> is generally around 30-40% of that at the equator - I would notcall
>> that minute.
>>
>> - Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
>
>If you cannot do geometry let alone physics any better than that you
>deserve all the disregard you can possibly get.
This came from the lower color coded map at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Insolation.png
The lower one is after atmosphere and clouds. The upper one is before.
Both maps appear to me to be reasonable.
Insolation at the equator on an equinox averaged over a day is 435 W/m^2
above the atmosphere.
(1366 W/m^2 divided by pi)
Insolation at a pole on summer solstice above atmosphere is 543 W/m^2.
(1366 W/m^2 times sine of 23.439 degrees)
Insolation at a pole year-round average above atmosphere is 172.8 W/m^2.
(543 W/m^2 divided by pi)
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Don Klipstein
20.1 -5.2 +20.2 is 35.1, not 1.8. 1.8 million is the discrepancy
between a gain in 35.1 million insureds and a reduction of 33.3
million uninsureds.
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Don Klipstein
Ice is generally more reflective than water, since it tends to be more
white in color. I is usually not transparent but white to light gray, as
photos of Arctic and Antarctic sea ice show. It often even has snow on
it.
>While fresh clean white snow will reflect most of the power back to
>space, in the arid polar desert, how often are there fresh snow ?
It snows there, and actually somewhat often - just usually not a lot.
>How long will the fresh snow remain white and clean, when the
>contamination from industry etc. will increase the absorbtion,
>speeding up the melting of the snow and ice ?
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
dagmarg...@yahoo.com
> On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 08:59:20 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote
> in part, namely this analysis (I hope I got the thread history correct):
>
>
>
> >~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >[2]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/13/AR200...
> >The Coming Debt Panic. 12/14/09 "It's time to stop worrying about the
> >deficit -- and start panicking about the debt."
>
> >(http://www.cms.hhs.gov/ActuarialStudies/Downloads/
> >S_PPACA_2009-12-10.pdf)
> >Estimated effect on insurance by 2019, numbers in millions of
> >Americans
>
> > (view table in fixed font)
> >Coverage current law Reid bill difference
> >-------- ----------- --------- ----------
> >Medicare 60.5 60.5 0
>
> >Medicaid
> > & CHIP 63.5 83.6 20.1 million
>
> >Employer-
> >sponsored
> >insurance 165.9 160.7 -5.2
>
> >Individual
> >coverage 25.7 45.9 20.2
>
> >Uninsured 56.9 23.6 -33.3
> > ----- ----- -----
> >TOTALS 372.5 374.3 1.8
>
> >NET ADDITIONAL INSURED -------------------^^^
>
> 20.1 -5.2 +20.2 is 35.1, not 1.8. 1.8 million is the discrepancy
> between a gain in 35.1 million insureds and a reduction of 33.3
> million uninsureds.
>
> - Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Shit. You're right--I slipped. 20.1 million more heaped onto
Medicaid,
5 million who lose their employer-based insurance, and 20.2 million
who'll have to buy private insurance.
The uninsured are covered in large part by simply passing a law
that they have to buy insurance. Voila.
So that is, after a fashion, 35 million more insurance customers.
(As distinguished from getting health care. There are many fewer--
only about 8-12 million--Americans who want insurance, don't have
it, and aren't eligible for assistance.[1])
Thanks for correcting me on the 1.8 million Don.
[1] e.g. http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=2550
--
Cheers,
James Arthur
Phil Hobbs
There's a whole lot of stuff about that in the remote sensing
literature, e.g. the ERIM Infrared Handbook.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
JosephKK
Please why you use pi as the divisor. I might find it right after you explain it.
Don Klipstein
>On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 00:36:26 +0000 (UTC), d...@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote:
>
>>"JosephKK"<quiett...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>>In <016f8267$0$26587$c3e...@news.astraweb.com>, Eeyore wrote in part:
>>>>>The effect on albedo at that latitude will be minute.
>>>>
>>>> Insolation at Earth's surface in the Arctic and Antarctic year-round
>>>> is generally around 30-40% of that at the equator - I would notcall
>>>> that minute.
>>>>
>>>> - Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
>>>
>>>If you cannot do geometry let alone physics any better than that you
>>>deserve all the disregard you can possibly get.
>>
>> This came from the lower color coded map at:
>>
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Insolation.png
>>
>> The lower one is after atmosphere and clouds. The upper one is before.
>>
>> Both maps appear to me to be reasonable.
>>
>> Insolation at the equator on an equinox averaged over a day is 435 W/m^2
>>above the atmosphere.
>>(1366 W/m^2 divided by pi)
>>
>> Insolation at a pole on summer solstice above atmosphere is 543 W/m^2.
>>(1366 W/m^2 times sine of 23.439 degrees)
>>
>> Insolation at a pole year-round average above atmosphere is 172.8 W/m^2.
>>(543 W/m^2 divided by pi)
>>
>> - Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
>
>Please why you use pi as the divisor. I might find it right after you
>explain it.
For one day at the equator at an equinox, the sun is up half the day.
During that half of the day, the sun moves through the sky at constant
angular velocity.
Excluding atmospheric effects, insolation is equal to that with sun at
zenith, multiplied by sine of angle above horizon. A graph of insolation
as a function of time will be a halfwave rectified sinewave. Average
value of that over a half cycle (12 hours) is peak times 2/pi. Average of
that for a full cycle (24 hours) is half that, or peak divided by pi.
In the case of year-round insolation at a pole excluding atmospheric
effects, I just now realize this is not exactly correct but an
oversimplification. For the half of the year that the sun is up, its
angle above the horizon as a function of time graphs as a halfwave
rectified sine wave. Average angle of the sun above the horizon is peak
angle times 2/pi.
I oversimplified insolation to be proportional to angle, since sine of
an angle is close to proportional to angle as the angle varies through a
range of 0 to 23.44 degrees. So as an oversimplified approximation,
average insolation over the 6 months with sun is peak insolation times
2/pi. (Excluding effects of atmosphere.) I just realized several
minutes ago that the exact figure is slightly greater. If I calculated
right with a brute force method, it's about .93% greater.
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
JosephKK
Within the polar circles it gets stranger than that. Have to do some good
spherical geometry/trigonometry to get it. Think Barrow, Alaska. ~71 N.