Climategate emails Science not faked, but not pretty
HardySpicer
understanding of climate and are just kidding themselves. Both camps
included. I think the only answer is to get professional angineers to
model climate and then we might get it right.
Hardy
----------------------------------------------------------------------
LONDON — E-mails stolen from climate scientists show they stonewalled
skeptics and discussed hiding data — but the messages don't support
claims that the science of global warming was faked, according to an
exhaustive review by The Associated Press.
The 1,073 e-mails examined by the AP show that scientists harbored
private doubts, however slight and fleeting, even as they told the
world they were certain about climate change. However, the exchanges
don't undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming
because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions.
The scientists were keenly aware of how their work would be viewed and
used, and, just like politicians, went to great pains to shape their
message. Sometimes, they sounded more like schoolyard taunts than
scientific tenets.
The scientists were so convinced by their own science and so driven by
a cause "that unless you're with them, you're against them," said Mark
Frankel, director of scientific freedom, responsibility and law at the
American Association for the Advancement of Science. He also reviewed
the communications.
Frankel saw "no evidence of falsification or fabrication of data,
although concerns could be raised about some instances of very
'generous interpretations.'"
Some e-mails expressed doubts about the quality of individual
temperature records or why models and data didn't quite match. Part of
this is the normal give-and-take of research, but skeptics challenged
how reliable certain data was.
The e-mails were stolen from the computer network server of the
climate research unit at the University of East Anglia in southeast
England, an influential source of climate science, and were posted
online last month. The university shut down the server and contacted
the police.
The AP studied all the e-mails for context, with five reporters
reading and rereading them — about 1 million words in total.
One of the most disturbing elements suggests an effort to avoid
sharing scientific data with critics skeptical of global warming. It
is not clear if any data was destroyed; two U.S. researchers denied
it.
The e-mails show that several mainstream scientists repeatedly
suggested keeping their research materials away from opponents who
sought it under American and British public records law. It raises a
science ethics question because free access to data is important so
others can repeat experiments as part of the scientific method. The
University of East Anglia is investigating the blocking of information
requests.
"I believe none of us should submit to these 'requests,'" declared the
university's Keith Briffa. The center's chief, Phil Jones, wrote:
"Data is covered by all the agreements we sign with people, so I will
be hiding behind them."
When one skeptic kept filing FOI requests, Jones, who didn't return AP
requests for comment, told another scientist, Michael Mann: "You can
delete this attachment if you want. Keep this quiet also, but this is
the person who is putting FOI requests for all e-mails Keith (Briffa)
and Tim (Osborn) have written."
Mann, a researcher at Penn State University, told The Associated
Press: "I didn't delete any e-mails as Phil asked me to. I don't
believe anybody else did."
The e-mails also show how professional attacks turned very personal.
When former London financial trader Douglas J. Keenan combed through
the data used in a 1990 research paper Jones had co-authored, Keenan
claimed to have found evidence of fakery by Jones' co-author. Keenan
threatened to have the FBI arrest University at Albany scientist Wei-
Chyung Wang for fraud. (A university investigation later cleared him
of any wrongdoing.)
"I do now wish I'd never sent them the data after their FOIA request!"
Jones wrote in June 2007.
In another case after initially balking on releasing data to a skeptic
because it was already public, Lawrence Livermore National Lab
scientist Ben Santer wrote that he then opted to release everything
the skeptic wanted — and more. Santer said in a telephone interview
that he and others are inundated by frivolous requests from skeptics
that are designed to "tie-up government-funded scientists."
The e-mails also showed a stunning disdain for global warming skeptics.
Deirdre Sholto Douglas
> The e-mails show that several mainstream scientists repeatedly
> suggested keeping their research materials away from opponents
This bit confuses me...what "materials" do they refer to?
Clouds, ice cores, thermistors? The "materials" of climate
study are, by definition, available...<ahem>...globally.
Keeping "opponents" (who in my world are actually friendly
competitors who may or may not one day be collaborators)
away from unpublished or raw data is pretty much SOP no
matter what the field of study...but once the data are pre-
sented...whether at a seminar, a conference or in a publica-
tion, they becomes become the property of the scientific com-
munity as a whole...not easily concealed, hm?
I also have a lot of trouble with the idea that questioning
equates to "opposition"...interpretations, manipulations, ex-
trapolations and conclusions _need_ to be questioned...it's
Normal Scientific Procedure. This holds true whether the
question is origin of species, punctuated equilibrium or glo-
bal warming...if it doesn't occur, you aren't practising
science, you're practising religion.
> who
> sought it under American and British public records law. It raises a
> science ethics question because free access to data is important so
> others can repeat experiments as part of the scientific method. The
> University of East Anglia is investigating the blocking of information
> requests.
As well they should, but I expect they will make a distinc-
tion between "data" and "methods" (as well as "materials").
Just because a request is made, doesn't mean there's an
obligation to provide...especially if the data are not yet pub-
lished. By the same token, if the data...and more importantly,
the conclusions from those data...have been made public,
then the methodology needs to be public also.
e after initially balking on releasing data to a skeptic
> because it was already public, Lawrence Livermore National Lab
> scientist Ben Santer wrote that he then opted to release everything
> the skeptic wanted � and more. Santer said in a telephone interview
> that he and others are inundated by frivolous requests from skeptics
> that are designed to "tie-up government-funded scientists."
Yeesh...if he actually said that in that manner, then some-
one needs to apply a sharp pin to his ego.
Virtually _all_ DOE wonks field requests from the public...
sometimes from sceptics, sometimes from job seekers,
sometimes from 5th grade classrooms. So what? Anyone
who works at a DOE lab and _doesn't_ know how to prior-
itise their email needs lessons in Remedial Bureaucracy:
Internal mail first, external govermental next, followed by
off-site collaborators, off-site vendors, etc. The _last_
letters one answers in any mailqueue are those which are
unsolicited or from persons/companies unknown...of those,
some get answered, some get deleted, some re-directed
and some get forwarded to security...it's simple really.
I submit that any "government-funded scientist" claiming
to be over-whelmed by "frivolous requests" needs to learn
how to manage his email queue a bit better...that's a really
juvenile complaint.
Deirdre
________________
Blessed be the amoeba watchers, for they shall behold
miracles.
HardySpicer
> > that he and others are inundated by frivolous requests from skeptics
> > that are designed to "tie-up government-funded scientists."
>
> Yeesh...if he actually said that in that manner, then some-
> one needs to apply a sharp pin to his ego.
>
> Virtually _all_ DOE wonks field requests from the public...
> sometimes from sceptics, sometimes from job seekers,
> sometimes from 5th grade classrooms. So what? Anyone
> who works at a DOE lab and _doesn't_ know how to prior-
> itise their email needs lessons in Remedial Bureaucracy:
> Internal mail first, external govermental next, followed by
> off-site collaborators, off-site vendors, etc. The _last_
> letters one answers in any mailqueue are those which are
> unsolicited or from persons/companies unknown...of those,
> some get answered, some get deleted, some re-directed
> and some get forwarded to security...it's simple really.
>
> I submit that any "government-funded scientist" claiming
> to be over-whelmed by "frivolous requests" needs to learn
> how to manage his email queue a bit better...that's a really
> juvenile complaint.
>
> Deirdre
>
> ________________
> Blessed be the amoeba watchers, for they shall behold
> miracles.
Why don't they just put the data (which will be a glorified text file)
on the web so anybody can get their hands on it. They can make in in
excell format or Matlab or anything they like. Not like this is a new
thing to do.
Hardy
Deirdre Sholto Douglas
> Why don't they just put the data (which will be a glorified text file)
> on the web so anybody can get their hands on it. They can make in in
> excell format or Matlab or anything they like. Not like this is a new
> thing to do.
If the results have been published or presented, odds are
the data _are_ on the web someplace. If they've not
been published, etc. then they're just dataset which may
or may not be incomplete, flawed and/or skewed.
The reason for not making raw data available for public
dissemination is because the bulk of the public doesn't
know how to interpret raw numbers...let alone how to
determine errors, deviations, artifacts and chimeras. For
all that, however, there're always opportunistic cranks
with agendas who'll egregiously misinterpret said num-
bers in order to drive profit margins...pie-in-the-sky green
promises or fear, it's all the same to them as long as it
increases their bottom line.
One doesn't publish data, one publishes _results_ with
supporting data. There's a difference, you know.
Deirdre
________________
One accurate measurement is worth a thousand expert
opinions.
HardySpicer
Well you can get the sunspot activity no problem. No arguments about
that. I suppose when you have a thermometer near an air-con outlet
then the results could be interpreted a little differently.
Hardy
S�im� mac Liam
news:7p5b2f...@mid.individual.net:
One of the main proofs for a theory or hypothesis it whether the results
are replicatable. If the underlying data supporting the hypothesis and the
methodology are not public, how are peers to review or attempt to replicate
the experiment or the research and support or refute the theory or
hypothesis? Remember those guys in Utah a few years bacvk who claimed to
have shown cold fusion? Their research was shown to be inaccurate because
no one could replicate their experiment. It seems to me that when one
publishes and receives a request for the details of the research from a
fellow researcher, one has an obligation to provide it. Why have Jones,
Mann, et al, been so reluctant to provide details to anyone? Why have they
fought so hard to prevent the release? MacKintyre may not be a climate
scientist, but he is a legitimate statistician and his criticisms of all
climate science seem reasonable to me, especially wrt areas which of
necessity must rely heavily on statistical analysis and manipulation of
complex data.
--
Saint S�im� mac Liam
Carriagemaker to the court of Queen Maeve
Prophet of The Great Tagger
Canonized December '99
Adam Whyte-Settlar
"S�im� mac Liam" <gwy...@comcast.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9CE6EE...@74.209.136.95...
> Deirdre Sholto Douglas <finch.e...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
> news:7p5b2f...@mid.individual.net:
>
>> HardySpicer wrote:
>>
>>> Why don't they just put the data (which will be a glorified text file)
>>> on the web so anybody can get their hands on it. They can make in in
>>> excell format or Matlab or anything they like. Not like this is a new
>>> thing to do.
>>
>> If the results have been published or presented, odds are
>> the data _are_ on the web someplace.
Roughly 98% of the raw data used for HadCRU temp reconstructions is in the
public domain,
fitlike min
wrote:
> Deirdre Sholto Douglas <finch.enter...@sbcglobal.net> wrote innews:7p5b2f...@mid.individual.net:
were at the time "one-off" events and not repeatable straight away at
least.
For example the discovery of quasars. Doesn't happen every day. Often
when the data is available you still cannot replicate successfully.
Cold fusion still llives for example but under a different name. They
can replicate the experiment now but are still arguing about the net
increase in energy.
Hardy
fitlike min
> "Séimí mac Liam" <gwyd...@comcast.nospam.net> wrote in messagenews:Xns9CE6EE...@74.209.136.95...
>
> > Deirdre Sholto Douglas <finch.enter...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
> >news:7p5b2f...@mid.individual.net:
>
> >> HardySpicer wrote:
>
> >>> Why don't they just put the data (which will be a glorified text file)
> >>> on the web so anybody can get their hands on it. They can make in in
> >>> excell format or Matlab or anything they like. Not like this is a new
> >>> thing to do.
>
> >> If the results have been published or presented, odds are
> >> the data _are_ on the web someplace.
>
> Roughly 98% of the raw data used for HadCRU temp reconstructions is in the
> public domain,
It makes no difference now. The cause has been lost for sure. Still,
places like NZ will push forward and try and reduce emissions from
Cows (not kidding).
Electricity bills are to go up here soon and petrol to pay for this.
(just heard this yesterday). The poor will suffer of course. Those
hippies we all saw in Denmark are almost certainly from middle class
backgrounds - possibly students in the majority (social sciences and
shite like that). their mummies and daddies can pay.
NZ, caught out like donkeys...heee haw..
Adam Whyte-Settlar
> Mann, et al, been so reluctant to provide details to anyone? Why have
> they
> fought so hard to prevent the release? MacKintyre may not be a climate
> scientist, but he is a legitimate statistician and his criticisms of all
> climate science seem reasonable to me, especially wrt areas which of
> necessity must rely heavily on statistical analysis and manipulation of
> complex data.
The data doesn't belong to Jones or Mann. Jones and CRU have worked for 25 -
30 years to produce their series of monthly temperatures collected from
thousands of sites around the world. The latest dataset is CRUTEM3, and is
in the public domain and anyone (including the mineral miner
SteveMacHyntyre) can download it from the CRU website any time they like.
Jones and the CRU got these temperature readings from a large variety of
sources and organisations, some of whom are quite happy to share their data
with anyone who wants it, and some who definitely aren't. To some suppliers
they are a product with a commercial value just like any other commodity and
if you give it away you are breaking the contract agreement.
And, of course, CRU are no different and they signed agreements with some of
the sources to obtain the raw data,
So when McIntyre filed a Freedom of Information Act (FoIA) request for the
raw source data. Jones refused replying:
".Information accessible to applicant via other means. Some information is
publicly available on external websites."
In other words - some of the data isn't ours to give you but most of it can
be obtained from the original sources - do your own bloody research.
But of course deniers like MacKyntire don't want to do the work or wouldn't
know where to start anyway He's not a climate scientist.
He's a denier and simply wants to discredit his arch-enemy Jones and anyone
else he can slight.
He's too damn lazy or lacking in reseach skills to go to all the sources of
temperature measurements for himself and I've even seen him claim that some
of them don't even exist and Jones has made them (I mean honestly!).
And because organisations like the National Review give him am uncritical
free platform for making his outrageous allegations, he manages to confuse a
lot of people into thinking there is still some controversy over the reality
of global warming.
That's how anti-science works.
Once this this latest non-scandal has been debunked he and the others will
simply drop it and go on to the next set of outrageous unfounded
allegations.
Unless you take the troule to read all the minutiae (and how many of the
great unwashed ever do that ) it sounds like there is some suspician that
the "The scientists have manipulated the data" or "The scientists are hiding
the data from other scientists" - both of which claims are complete bunk.
But don't worry - the noise machine will come up with a brand new 'scandal'
next week and this "hiding the data" one will become yet another immortal
rightardfact to be endlessly spammed around the web and gutterpress.
S�im� mac Liam
news:c62e0660-8d0b-4c7e...@y10g2000prg.googlegroups.com:
> On Dec 20, 8:22�pm, "S�im� mac Liam" <gwyd...@comcast.nospam.net>
> wrote:
>> Deirdre Sholto Douglas <finch.enter...@sbcglobal.net> wrote
>> innews:7p5b2f
>>
>>
>>
>> > HardySpicer wrote:
>>
>> >> Why don't they just put the data (which will be a glorified text
>> >> file) on the web so anybody can get their hands on it. They can
>> >> make in �i
So we should change the scientific method? Besides, the analysis of
climate data is not likely a one-off event. There are what, 5 or 6 major
climate models? None are in perfect agreement and even if they were, of
what value is it? All you have shown is that you can set juggle
parameterizations such that you get a semi-accurate 'prediction' of past
(known) events. That does not show that the internal logic is valid, nor
does it provide a reasonable likelihood of an accurate forecast of future
climate outcomes.
Scotty
<finch.e...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>HardySpicer wrote:
>
>> Why don't they just put the data (which will be a glorified text file)
>> on the web so anybody can get their hands on it. They can make in in
>> excell format or Matlab or anything they like. Not like this is a new
>> thing to do.
>
>If the results have been published or presented, odds are
>the data _are_ on the web someplace. If they've not
>been published, etc. then they're just dataset which may
>or may not be incomplete, flawed and/or skewed.
The data is available, I thought complete but Adam says 95%, the problem is
the meta-data. Of the 10,00 stations they use a sub-set of 2000. I can
understand why they might want to do that but they have not made it
available. How they have constructed their 5 degree by 5 degree blocks,
which stations have been selected, which oceanic/tree-ring data has been
homogenized etc..
Some have criticized the published error bands, particularly the early
instrumental record on the basis that accurate time was not universally
accessible in 1880 eg. a noon temp would be warmer if taken 10 minutes
late, heat islands as a result of urban sprawl, instrumental accuracy and
other nits. The process followed by the CRU is incredibly complex.
I haven't been keeping a notebook and I don't have a lot of bookmarks but
my eyebrows first jerked sharply upwards when Michael Mann (a
paleontologist) published a chronology derived from tree-ring data in
"Nature" in 1999. It didn't show the medieval warm period and did show an
alarming rate of rise of temp since 1970, the so called "Hockey Stick".
Given the thermal mass of the planet, the thermal inertia, it would have
required the earth's core to have gone critical (I hope that that is
sufficiently OTT to raise a smile). If you don't mind reading Wiki and
can't get to sleep one night , there is a fair account of the controversy
here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy MM didn't come out
of the controversy very well. Joanne is briefer and more readable:
http://joannenova.com.au/2009/12/fraudulent-hockey-sticks-and-hidden-data/
and shows that the story that the warm period was a "regional phenomenon"
is not supported. A quick look is recommended.
But the public noise level really went up when Al Gore published his CD.
The fact that it contained 39 factual errors and that he is Democratic,
obese and bug eyed didn't help. The predominately Conservative (as in
conserve), blogosphere exploded, including court cases in the UK, Al G
didn't come out of it very well, but has soldiered on regardless as any
good politician/businessman would..
The Climategate emails have revealed some questionable practices and fruity
language but I am sure that they can be explained. Much more telling is the
three year notebook of "Harry the Programmer", contained in comments of the
source code of the reconstruction program. This program selects certain
data for certain periods, normalizes, homogenizes, fudges weighting factors
with various factors at various stages of the program. I don't know if that
is the program presently in use.
Just one example he says, "OH F*** THIS. It's Sunday evening, I've worked
all weekend, and just when I thought it was done I'm hitting yet another
problem that's based on the hopeless state of our databases. There is no
uniform data integrity, it's just a catalogue of issues that continues to
grow as they�re found." , at the end, after three years, he says, "I give
up". It also appears that they have "lost" the original database, clumsy.
The only data available is the homogenized one. It would seem that they
can't go back to square one.
I have watched as much of Copenhagen as was available. The Africans in
particular were incensed that nothing had happened, accusing the IPCC of
genocide, that "Africans will be cooked to death", yet if you check the
CRU's map, the temps in central Africa, in spite of the glaciers on
Kilimanjaro are either stable or slightly cooler, Oh well.
Is the planet warming? I would be surprised if it isn't, we are still
emerging from the little ice-age.
One last point. We have a 600 million year record of temp versus CO2 and it
show two features, that CO2 rises after the temp increases and therefore
can't be the causative agent and even though the CO2 rises higher than at
present the hot cycles have ALWAYS been terminated naturally, so talk of
"runaway heating" is extravagant especially since WE only contribute abt.
3% of the CO2.
This is interesting especially how the hacked files traveled around the
world:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident#Hack_and_theft
Breaking news, to me anyway, the Russians believe that the CRU tampered
with their data because the Russian meteorological-station data did not
substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory. Remember, it was the
Russians that gave us the Vostok ice-cores.
http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/16/iearussia-hadley-center-probably-tampered-with-russian-climate-data/
Deirdre Sholto Douglas
> One of the main proofs for a theory or hypothesis it whether the results
> are replicatable. If the underlying data supporting the hypothesis and the
> methodology are not public, how are peers to review or attempt to replicate
> the experiment or the research and support or refute the theory or
> hypothesis?
Clearly they can't...and that's where scientific method
goes out the window and faith-based climatology enters.
Failure to allow the supporting data for one's hypothesis
to be closely examined raises a number of red flags with
me...particularly if those being refused a look at the the
raw data are scientific peers and not curious laymen.
1) The researcher already knows it can't be replicated
because their own attempts failed.
2) The data have been statistically massaged into a bias.
3) The data have been abridged to conform to a bias.
4) Something, somewhere is either being suppressed or
hasn't been scientifically accounted for. (A problem often
seen on things which are rushed into publication.)
> It seems to me that when one
> publishes and receives a request for the details of the research from a
> fellow researcher, one has an obligation to provide it.
One does. One also has an obligation to the scientific
community to elaborate on one's findings when asked,
however this does _not_ obligate one to respond and/or
answer every nitwit in the email queue seeking informa-
tion on the topic.
Why have Jones,
> Mann, et al, been so reluctant to provide details to anyone? Why have they
> fought so hard to prevent the release?
See above. It's a bit worrying when scientific method
gets stood on its head for the sake of one line of study...
and it's not acceptable practice. A chemist or geologist
would not be allowed the same latitude.
MacKintyre may not be a climate
> scientist, but he is a legitimate statistician and his criticisms of all
> climate science seem reasonable to me, especially wrt areas which of
> necessity must rely heavily on statistical analysis and manipulation of
> complex data.
Anyone who uses statistics in their work (meaning all
scientists) know that stats can be skewed...IMO, any
science robust enough to direct public policy is robust
enough to withstand the gimlet eye (and computer) of
a statistician...if it can't stand up under the scrutiny of
the numbers wonks then it has no business influencing
policy.
Deirdre
________________
This .sig composed of 100% post-consumer electrons.
Adam Whyte-Settlar
"Scotty" <nob...@home.net> wrote in message
news:qb0si556rfig4p598...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 18:56:42 -0600, Deirdre Sholto Douglas
> <finch.e...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> I haven't been keeping a notebook and I don't have a lot of bookmarks but
> my eyebrows first jerked sharply upwards when Michael Mann (a
> paleontologist) published a chronology derived from tree-ring data in
> "Nature" in 1999. It didn't show the medieval warm period
There wasn't a global MWP. It was a localised event limited mainly to the
North Atlantic.
Global temperatures then were not as warm as they are today.
I've already explained that to you - why do you ignore the science?
and did show an
> alarming rate of rise of temp since 1970, the so called "Hockey Stick".
The Hockey Stick has been independantly verified by at least 7 subsequent
studies and in fact is even more robust than it was.
Endlessly repeating the denier meme that 'the ockey stick is broken' doesn't
make it true.
Why do you ignore the science?
> Given the thermal mass of the planet, the thermal inertia, it would have
> required the earth's core to have gone critical (I hope that that is
> sufficiently OTT to raise a smile). If you don't mind reading Wiki and
> can't get to sleep one night , there is a fair account of the controversy
> here:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy MM didn't come out
> of the controversy very well. Joanne is briefer and more readable:
> http://joannenova.com.au/2009/12/fraudulent-hockey-sticks-and-hidden-data/
> and shows that the story that the warm period was a "regional phenomenon"
> is not supported. A quick look is recommended.
>
> But the public noise level really went up when Al Gore published his CD.
> The fact that it contained 39 factual errors
Except that it didn't of course.
> I have watched as much of Copenhagen as was available. The Africans in
> particular were incensed that nothing had happened, accusing the IPCC of
> genocide, that "Africans will be cooked to death", yet if you check the
> CRU's map, the temps in central Africa, in spite of the glaciers on
> Kilimanjaro are either stable or slightly cooler,
Except that they aren't of course.
I showed you that too - why do youignore the science?
Oh well.
>
> Is the planet warming? I would be surprised if it isn't, we are still
> emerging from the little ice-age.
>
> One last point. We have a 600 million year record of temp versus CO2 and
> it
> show two features, that CO2 rises after the temp increases and therefore
> can't be the causative agent
I've already explained that too. Co2 lags the Milankovitch cycle by about
800 years and then rises and begins the feedback loop.
This is well understood by climate scientists and I've already shown you the
research papers. And yet you continue to parrot this gross
misrepresentation. This shows you are not a sceptic but a true denier.
No-one is claiming that Co2 caused the historic warming on it's own.
Why do you ignore the science?
and even though the CO2 rises higher than at
> present the hot cycles have ALWAYS been terminated naturally,
Show me the research paper that claims otherwise. Of course they have
termiinated naturally - but not untilt he temperatre peaks at 5 or 6 degrees
higher.
It also takes 5,000 years (not 200) to heat up and about 100,000 years to
cool down.
so talk of
> "runaway heating" is extravagant especially since WE only contribute abt.
> 3% of the CO2.
Which has tipped the balance and is leading to the same kind of feedback
loops that have occured naturaly in the past.
This is also well understood and I've already shown you the research and
conclusions.
Why do youignore the science?
>
> This is interesting especially how the hacked files traveled around the
> world:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident#Hack_and_theft
>
> Breaking news, to me anyway, the Russians believe that the CRU tampered
[groan]. So this is this weeks 'scandal' and you've fallen for it hook line
and sinker again. What a surprise.
It's not "The Russians" and they do not 'believe' anything fo the sort.
This is just the latest noise from the machine. In this case it's from a
tiny right-wing think tank - the IES - that was formed about 15 years ago
who are
*claiming* (with no evidence whatsoever of course) a new 'The scientists
manipulated the data' 'scandal'.
This sort of crap is drip fed into the denial industry on an almost daily
basis.
I'll give it two days before it goes viral on the blogoshere and becomes yet
another established rightardfact.
That's how anti-science works. And you are (I hope unwittingly) helping
them.
>>One doesn't publish data, one publishes _results_ with
>>supporting data. There's a difference, you know.
No - he doesn't. You can see the kind of places he gets his 'science' from.
Meanwhile the temperature keeps on rising.
Just as an aside - this November was the hottest November ever globaly.
My my - who could have predicted THAT!
deem...@aol.com
It's cold outside and was snowing yesterday! HOW CAN THERE BE
GLOBAL WARMING?!?!?!?!?!
That seems to be the gist of 90% of the anti-global warming
crowd.
La N
Yes, and they actually think they're being funny.
- nil
Cory Bhreckan
Well I just shoveled two feet of 'global warming' off my driveway.
--
"For the stronger we our houses do build,
The less chance we have of being killed." - William Topaz McGonagall
deem...@aol.com
wrote:
> La N wrote:
> > deemsb...@aol.com wrote:
> >> It's cold outside and was snowing yesterday! HOW CAN THERE BE
> >> GLOBAL WARMING?!?!?!?!?!
>
> >> That seems to be the gist of 90% of the anti-global warming
> >> crowd.
>
> > Yes, and they actually think they're being funny.
>
> > - nil
>
> Well I just shoveled two feet of 'global warming' off my driveway.
>
I hope you did it in an environmentally friendly manner! Oh, you
did say "shovelled".....nevermind.
Cory Bhreckan
No, I said 'shoveled'.
deem...@aol.com
wrote:
> deemsb...@aol.com wrote:
> > On Dec 20, 7:12 pm, Cory Bhreckan <coryvreckan@nospam_verizon.net>
> > wrote:
> >> La N wrote:
> >>> deemsb...@aol.com wrote:
> >>>> It's cold outside and was snowing yesterday! HOW CAN THERE BE
> >>>> GLOBAL WARMING?!?!?!?!?!
> >>>> That seems to be the gist of 90% of the anti-global warming
> >>>> crowd.
> >>> Yes, and they actually think they're being funny.
> >>> - nil
> >> Well I just shoveled two feet of 'global warming' off my driveway.
>
> > I hope you did it in an environmentally friendly manner! Oh, you
> > did say "shovelled".....nevermind.
>
> No, I said 'shoveled'.
>
Pffffffftttttt!!!!!!!!
La N
> La N wrote:
>> deem...@aol.com wrote:
>>> It's cold outside and was snowing yesterday! HOW CAN THERE BE
>>> GLOBAL WARMING?!?!?!?!?!
>>>
>>> That seems to be the gist of 90% of the anti-global warming
>>> crowd.
>>
>> Yes, and they actually think they're being funny.
>>
>> - nil
>>
>>
>
> Well I just shoveled two feet of 'global warming' off my driveway.
Today in this part of canuckistan, +3C and raining like crazy, washing away
last week's snow when the temp dipped down to -12C. So, Cory, *we* are
having climate, whereas *you* are having weather.
HTH
- nil
La N
Cory Bhreckan
He has such a way with words.
fitlike min
Adam Whyte-Settlar
<deem...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:d588debf-542b-4ef2...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
Yep - if it ain't happening in the US it ain't happening anywhere.
Who says Gaia doesn't have a sense of humour. You seen the global temp
anonolies for October?
It's almost like she's homed in on Hicksville USA. The whole area is about
5C below 'normal'.
Adam Whyte-Settlar
"La N" <nilita20...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:xWyXm.56732$Db2.1640@edtnps83...
I wish.
My experience of them is that they think they are being 'scientific'.
By the way - NASA has just reported the hottest November on record:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
And I see Hanson has been reading my posts:
"...I am inundated with broad FOIA requests for my correspondence, with
substantial impact on my time and on others in my office. I believe these to
be fishing expeditions, aimed at finding some statement(s), likely to be
taken out of context, which they would attempt to use to discredit climate
science.... The input data for global temperature analyses are widely
available, on our web site and elsewhere. If those input data could be made
to yield a significantly different global temperature change, contrarians
would certainly have done that -- but they have not..."
Hanson Dec 17th.
conwaycaine
"Adam Whyte-Settlar" <ador@ble> wrote in message
news:N72dnek-q5kbobLW...@westnet.com.au...
>
> I wish.
> My experience of them is that they think they are being 'scientific'.
>
>
> By the way - NASA has just reported the hottest November on record:
> http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
>
And the brave lads of Copenhagen?
I saw nothing particularly brilliant coming out of that group.
Did you?
La N
> <deem...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:d588debf-542b-4ef2...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> It's cold outside and was snowing yesterday! HOW CAN THERE BE
>> GLOBAL WARMING?!?!?!?!?!
>>
>> That seems to be the gist of 90% of the anti-global warming
>> crowd.
>
> Yep - if it ain't happening in the US it ain't happening anywhere.
So, I guess you are posing the scientific question: "What part of *global*
do Merks not understand" ? :) :) :)
Fred J. McCall
:
:I submit that any "government-funded scientist" claiming
:to be over-whelmed by "frivolous requests" needs to learn
:how to manage his email queue a bit better...that's a really
:juvenile complaint.
:
Not to mention that if they are actually doing science, I would
expect:
1) That they already have the data bundled to provide it to peer
review folks,
2) That they can't be being asked about things they haven't published,
3) It should be close to zero work to provide the raw data to all
comers.
Resistance to providing data (and resistance to publishing it) seem to
say that these folks are *NOT* doing science in the way that most of
us would think of the field working.
--
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
soul with evil."
-- Socrates
Fred J. McCall
:
:In other words - some of the data isn't ours to give you but most of it can
:be obtained from the original sources - do your own bloody research.
:
They should provide a list of sources and data used. Otherwise, they
aren't doing 'science' at all. They're playing Wizard of Oz (just
ignore that man behind the curtain).
Scotty
>
>"Scotty" <nob...@home.net> wrote in message
>news:qb0si556rfig4p598...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 18:56:42 -0600, Deirdre Sholto Douglas
>> <finch.e...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>There wasn't a global MWP. It was a localised event limited mainly to the
>North Atlantic.
>Global temperatures then were not as warm as they are today.
> I've already explained that to you - why do you ignore the science?
Adam, we are not talking about pre-history (get Deems to explain it to
you), there are written accounts of agriculture in Greenland, some of the
settlements are still there, grapes in Scotland, increased food production
in Egypt and
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/1987/Hansen_Lebedeff.html
"in Hansen and Lebedeff (1987), showing that the correlation of
temperature change was reasonably strong for stations separated by up to
1200 km, especially at middle and high latitudes", so add a 1200 km radius
to each end and the landmass includes most of North Africa, Russia and as
far west as North America. Some "localized area that, but read on.
Now, consider "Jamal Trees" the paleoclimate predicted by tree rings didn't
even agree with the climate 10 years before... not only that they showed a
decline, and we all know that that didn't happen. And you want to use that
kind of evidence to airbrush out the written records. It would be a
travesty which is why they were quietly dropped Awaaay!
Scrap all that, breaking news, M Mann rediscovers the MWP.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/326/5957/1256
Science 27 November 2009
"The Medieval period is found to display warmth that matches or exceeds
that of the past decade"
Jeez, maybe he should read a history book sometime. Wonder what that does
to the Hockey Stick?
>and did show an
>> alarming rate of rise of temp since 1970, the so called "Hockey Stick".
>
>The Hockey Stick has been independantly verified by at least 7 subsequent
>studies and in fact is even more robust than it was.
What about the "boreholes"?
>Endlessly repeating the denier meme that 'the ockey stick is broken' doesn't
>make it true.
>Why do you ignore the science?
See above...
>> Given the thermal mass of the planet, the thermal inertia, it would have
>> required the earth's core to have gone critical (I hope that that is
>> sufficiently OTT to raise a smile). If you don't mind reading Wiki and
>> can't get to sleep one night , there is a fair account of the controversy
>> here:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy MM didn't come out
>> of the controversy very well. Joanne is briefer and more readable:
>> http://joannenova.com.au/2009/12/fraudulent-hockey-sticks-and-hidden-data/
>> and shows that the story that the warm period was a "regional phenomenon"
>> is not supported. A quick look is recommended.
>>
>> But the public noise level really went up when Al Gore published his CD.
>> The fact that it contained 39 factual errors
>
>Except that it didn't of course.
The judge agreed to 11 of them and said that was enough, no need to further
waste the court's time...
>> I have watched as much of Copenhagen as was available. The Africans in
>> particular were incensed that nothing had happened, accusing the IPCC of
>> genocide, that "Africans will be cooked to death", yet if you check the
>> CRU's map, the temps in central Africa, in spite of the glaciers on
>> Kilimanjaro are either stable or slightly cooler,
>
>Except that they aren't of course.
>I showed you that too - why do youignore the science?
I don't know what map you're looking at but the map I get shows that
southern Africa is neutral to cooling all the way up to the Great lakes, a
large chunk around Nigeria and North Africa around Libya is neutral to
cooling, even in the Sahara... Somalia and Morocco is slightly warmer.
What did I miss?
>Oh well.
>>
>> Is the planet warming? I would be surprised if it isn't, we are still
>> emerging from the little ice-age.
>>
>> One last point. We have a 600 million year record of temp versus CO2 and
>> it
>> show two features, that CO2 rises after the temp increases and therefore
>> can't be the causative agent
>
>I've already explained that too. Co2 lags the Milankovitch cycle by about
We'll get back to the Milankovich cycles when I get the time.
>and even though the CO2 rises higher than at
>> present the hot cycles have ALWAYS been terminated naturally,
>
>Show me the research paper that claims otherwise. Of course they have
>termiinated naturally - but not untilt he temperatre peaks at 5 or 6 degrees
>higher.
>It also takes 5,000 years (not 200) to heat up and about 100,000 years to
>cool down.
And how're WE going to stop the natural rise in CO2? Reducing our
contribution isn't going to cut it.
[edit]
so talk of "runaway heating" *due to man-made CO2* is extravagant
especially since WE only contribute abt. 3% of the CO2.
>Which has tipped the balance and is leading to the same kind of feedback
and there we get the man-made "tipping point".
Scotty
>
>By the way - NASA has just reported the hottest November on record:
>http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
>
>And I see Hanson has been reading my posts:
>
> "...I am inundated with broad FOIA requests for my correspondence, with
>substantial impact on my time and on others in my office. I believe these to
>be fishing expeditions, aimed at finding some statement(s), likely to be
>taken out of context, which they would attempt to use to discredit climate
>science.... The input data for global temperature analyses are widely
>available, on our web site and elsewhere. If those input data could be made
>to yield a significantly different global temperature change, contrarians
>would certainly have done that -- but they have not..."
>
>Hanson Dec 17th.
Yes, everybody in 'climate' gets tarred with the same brush.
This is an important lesson for the CRU to learn, they would not have had
the PR disaster if they had played open cards.
You will notice source code and documentation.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/
"Climate Modeling
GISS GCM - Model E
FORTRAN 90 source and documentation for a 2004 version of the new GISS
series of coupled atmosphere-ocean models. It includes a complete rewrite
of the GISS Model II' physics with greater flexibility and more options,
such as better representations of the stratosphere, tracer components and
various ocean models".
There is a caveat though:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/modelE/
"Note that this public domain version of the code does not contain some of
the more experimental tracer submodules (chemistry, aerosols, dust,
cosmogenic isotopes, etc.) and only one of the dynamic ocean models".
Scotty
404 page not found
You do know that it is a temporary file generated on the fly according to
the parameters you select?
Look, it even says so in the URL:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/work/gistemp/NMAPS/*_tmp_*GHCN_GISS_[...]2009_1951_1980.gif
Try pointing people here instead:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/
La N
>
> Adam, we are not talking about pre-history
You know? That term "pre-history" has always stymied me, since I figured
that there has always been history. I mean, what could possibly be pre- or
"before" history ... hmmm ...
- nilita, all zen and with a bit of ADD kicking in ....
Fred J. McCall
:
Stupid girl! Unless you are moving around over wide areas you are not
having 'climate'. It's still weather.
*I* am having climate this week, having swapped medium altitude 'wet
desert' at 70 degrees for 'high grassland' at around 40 degrees and
cooling (which I'm going to swap for 'high desert valley' at around 0
degrees later this week).
*I* am having climate!
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson
Fred J. McCall
:
So North America isn't considered part of the globe by you lot?
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
Scotty
wrote:
I understand that as, pre written [understood] history.
I might be wrong.
deem...@aol.com
> On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 18:57:41 GMT, "La N" <nilita2004NOS...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Scotty wrote:
>
> >> Adam, we are not talking about pre-history
>
> >You know? That term "pre-history" has always stymied me, since I figured
> >that there has always been history. I mean, what could possibly be pre- or
> >"before" history ... hmmm ...
>
> >- nilita, all zen and with a bit of ADD kicking in ....
>
> I understand that as, pre written [understood] history.
>
> I might be wrong.
That's exactly what the term means. Obviously, it is all
"history"....the "pre" is used to differentiate between pre- and post-
written. Some people (Hey, Adam) seem to think it's a huge difference
when it is merely a demarkation between written and non-written.
Adam Whyte-Settlar
"conwaycaine" <conwa...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:UdydnaRYU4R5ELLW...@giganews.com...
Total shambles - as I predicted.
What would you expect from the representatives of the 'business as usual'
crowd.
I doubt anything meaningfull will be done until it's already too late to
avert the worst of the effects.
I've been saying as much since the 70's
Adam Whyte-Settlar
> On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 19:14:33 +1000, "Adam Whyte-Settlar" <ador@ble> wrote:
>
>>
>>By the way - NASA has just reported the hottest November on record:
>>http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
>>
>>And I see Hanson has been reading my posts:
>>
>> "...I am inundated with broad FOIA requests for my correspondence, with
>>substantial impact on my time and on others in my office. I believe these
>>to
>>be fishing expeditions, aimed at finding some statement(s), likely to be
>>taken out of context, which they would attempt to use to discredit climate
>>science.... The input data for global temperature analyses are widely
>>available, on our web site and elsewhere. If those input data could be
>>made
>>to yield a significantly different global temperature change, contrarians
>>would certainly have done that -- but they have not..."
>>
>>Hanson Dec 17th.
>
> Yes, everybody in 'climate' gets tarred with the same brush.
>
> This is an important lesson for the CRU to learn, they would not have had
> the PR disaster if they had played open cards.
They did and they do as I explained to you and you ignored. It obviously
didn't work.
It isn't a 'PR disaster' it's just the continuation of the long term
relentless witch-hunt of climate scientists by vested interests - all based
on a pack of lies. It hasn't affected the reality of global warming one jot.
All it's revealed is the depths to which the deniers will stoop. Hanson had
to have a police escort in Texas because so many deniers want to kill him.
The fact that idiots believe the crap that people like Limbaugh and you
endlessly spew has nothing to do with PR or 'open cards'. - it's just
willful ignorance. Nothing the scientists can do about it except carry on as
they have been doing all along and let the measurements do the talking.
NASA has just reported the hottest November on record:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
And that was hot on the heals of the warmest August to October period ever
recorded too.
Whatever happened to 'global cooling'?
> You will notice source code and documentation.
>
> http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/
> "Climate Modeling
> GISS GCM - Model E
> FORTRAN 90 source and documentation for a 2004 version of the new GISS
> series of coupled atmosphere-ocean models. It includes a complete rewrite
> of the GISS Model II' physics with greater flexibility and more options,
> such as better representations of the stratosphere, tracer components and
> various ocean models".
>
You saying they are wrong?
> There is a caveat though:
> http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/modelE/
> "Note that this public domain version of the code does not contain some of
> the more experimental tracer submodules (chemistry, aerosols, dust,
> cosmogenic isotopes, etc.) and only one of the dynamic ocean models".
So they are upgrading and improving and refining the tools all the time.
I'm Shocked I tell you.
This is a total straw man - stick to what matters.
The point is we know enough to act. Models have evolved to the point where
they successfully predict long term trends and are always improving on
predicting the more chaotic, short term changes. Models don't need to be
exact in every respect to give us an accurate overall trend and its major
effects - and we have that now.
Adam Whyte-Settlar
> On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 19:01:37 +1000, "Adam Whyte-Settlar" <ador@ble> wrote:
>
>>
>><deem...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>news:d588debf-542b-4ef2...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> It's cold outside and was snowing yesterday! HOW CAN THERE BE
>>> GLOBAL WARMING?!?!?!?!?!
>>>
>>> That seems to be the gist of 90% of the anti-global warming
>>> crowd.
>>
>>Yep - if it ain't happening in the US it ain't happening anywhere.
>>
>>Who says Gaia doesn't have a sense of humour. You seen the global temp
>>anonolies for October?
>>It's almost like she's homed in on Hicksville USA. The whole area is about
>>5C below 'normal'.
>>
>>http://tinyurl.com/ykk6qkl
>
> 404 page not found
>
> You do know that it is a temporary file generated on the fly according to
> the parameters you select?
Yes - of course it is.
And? Are you seriously trying to suggest that there is somehow something
wrong with that?
> Try pointing people here instead:
> http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/
That is where I was trying to link to - but to the October map.
Here's the one for september too.
http://global-warming.accuweather.com/GHCN_GISS_HR2SST_1200km_Anom09_2009_2009_1951_1980-thumb.gif
The 'parameter' was the global temperature anomoly for October over the
51-80 mean - which shows Hicksville region to be about 3 degrees below the
51-80 whilst almost the entire rest of the world as above. You got a problem
with that parameter? What and why?
But don't you remember? I showed it to you a few weeks ago and you claimed
it showed 'spots of global cooling'.
LOL Even the PFD had a chuckle over that one. Well, maybe my link is broken
but I can tell you it hasn't changed. It still shows 'spots of global
cooling' and vast swathes of continent-wide areas of global warming too.
Calling it 'on the fly' just shows you up as anti-science yet again . It's
the best temperature map generating tool in the world at the moment and you
know it.
I think you are just pissed off that it shows you are wrong. In fact
*everything* on the NASA site shows you are wrong.- so as usual you try to
cast aspertions on the source.
Well in this case the source is NASA and GISS themselves.so you aren't
fooling anyone this time either.
The world is warming Scotty and Co2 is mainly responsible. All the
overwhelming evidence of the science says so. Nothing you or any other
deluded denier can say about e-mails or any other non-issue will change
that fact
Adam Whyte-Settlar
> On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 09:23:14 +1000, "Adam Whyte-Settlar" <ador@ble> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Scotty" <nob...@home.net> wrote in message
>>news:qb0si556rfig4p598...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 18:56:42 -0600, Deirdre Sholto Douglas
>>> <finch.e...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>>There wasn't a global MWP. It was a localised event limited mainly to the
>>North Atlantic.
>>Global temperatures then were not as warm as they are today.
>> I've already explained that to you - why do you ignore the science?
>
> Adam, we are not talking about pre-history (get Deems to explain it to
> you), there are written accounts of agriculture in Greenland,
Duh! Do you really think I'm as ill informed as you Scotty.
I know - as does anyone over about 9 years old - that the vikings colonised
Greenland. FFS.
And who the **** is talking about 'pre-history. I'm talking about the
so-called MWP - what do you think the M stnads for you patronising fool.
> Science 27 November 2009
> "The Medieval period is found to display warmth that matches or exceeds
> that of the past decade"
How utterly dishonest of you Scotty. That's the worst yet. I already posted
that report and map and it shows exactly the opposite.
You've snipped that sentence in half - what he actually GOES ON TO SAY and
what you must have just read in order to snip that part out is
"...The Medieval period is found to display warmth that matches or exceeds
that of the past decade in some regions, but which falls well below recent
levels globally.."
Got that Scotty.
*alls well below recent levels globally*
And you seriously expect meto carry on discussing this matter when you have
been caught shamelessly LIEING about what he said. That's disgusting. I knew
you were anti-scince but I didn't think you would stoop to flat out lies.
That line - as you MUST know comes from the executive summary of the report:
Global Signatures and Dynamical Origins of the Little Ice Age and Medieval
Climate Anomaly
Michael E. Mann, Zhihua Zhang,1 Scott Rutherford,2 Raymond S. Bradley,3
Malcolm K. Hughes,4 Drew Shindell,5 Caspar Ammann,6 Greg Faluvegi,5 Fenbiao
Ni4
The report shows precisely what I've been saying in that the MWP was a local
event and provided a temperature map of the period showing just that which I
show here.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Temperature_Pattern_MWP.gif
This is the exec summary that you snipped that line from as you MUST know.
Global temperatures are known to have varied over the past 1500 years, but
the spatial patterns have remained poorly defined. We used a global climate
proxy network to reconstruct surface temperature patterns over this
interval. The Medieval period is found to display warmth that matches or
exceeds that of the past decade in some regions, but which falls well below
recent levels globally. This period is marked by a tendency for La Ni�a-like
conditions in the tropical Pacific. The coldest temperatures of the Little
Ice Age are observed over the interval 1400 to 1700 C.E., with greatest
cooling over the extratropical Northern Hemisphere continents. The patterns
of temperature change imply dynamical responses of climate to natural
radiative forcing changes involving El Ni�o and the North Atlantic
Oscillation-Arctic Oscillation.
This is my earlier post on this subject which you ignored
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The MWP was a localised event - mainly in the north Atlantic region.
This temperature map shows that 1,000 years ago there were vast regions that
were much colder than normal and overall the global temperatures were lower
than today.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Temperature_Pattern_MWP.gif
It was compiled earlier this year (you need to keep up) by a combined team
from:
1 Department of Meteorology and Earth and Environmental Systems Institute,
Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA.
2 Department of Environmental Science, Roger Williams University, Bristol,
RI 02809, USA.
3 Department of Geosciences, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA
01003-9298, USA.
4 Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721,
USA.
5 NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York, NY 10025, USA.
6 Climate Global Dynamics Division, National Center for Atmospheric
Research, Boulder, CO 80305, USA.
The team [led by Mann] used a network of diverse climate proxies such as
tree ring
samples, ice cores, coral and sediments to reconstruct spatial patterns of
ocean and land surface temperature over the past 1500 years. They found that
the patterns of temperature change show dynamic connections to natural
phenomena such as El Ni�o. They report their findings in issue (Nov. 27) of
Science.
They reproduced the relatively cool interval from the 1400s to the 1800s
known as the "Little Ice Age" and the relatively mild conditions of the 900s
to 1300s sometimes termed the "Medieval Warm Period."
"However, these terms can be misleading, Though the medieval period appears
modestly warmer globally in comparison with the later centuries of the
Little Ice Age, some key regions were in fact colder. For this reason, we
prefer to use 'Medieval Climate Anomaly' to underscore that, while there
were significant climate anomalies at the time, they were highly variable
from region to region."
The researchers found that 1,000 years ago, regions such as southern
Greenland may have been as warm as today. However, a very large area
covering much of the tropical Pacific was unusually cold at the same time,
suggesting the cold La Ni�a phase of the El Ni�o phenomenon.
This regional cooling offset relative warmth in other locations, helping to
explain previous observations that the globe and Northern hemisphere on
average were not as warm as they are today.
Got that?
* were not as warm as they are today*
Not that I expect this FACT to stop the endless posting of this myth.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Jeez, maybe he should read a history book sometime. Wonder what that does
> to the Hockey Stick?
Oh dear Scotty.
Caught again and you try to make out that it's ME who needs to do some
research when you've known ALL ALONG
that what you are saying is a LIE
Well you know EXACTLY what it does to the hockey stick - it further
validates it.
Same as the other six or seven studies have done recently.
I'm disgusted at your
dishonesty.
I'm stopping here before I say something I regret but don't think I'm leting
you off with the rest of the lies either. I'll deal with them later.
The Phantom Piper
>
> You know? That term "pre-history" has always stymied me,
> since I figured that there has always been history. I mean,
> what could possibly be pre- or "before" history ... hmmm ...
"History" is the _record_ of events, Nilita.
(Generally meant as Written, although Oral Histories exist as well.)
Hystorically,
The Phantom Piper
conwaycaine
> So, I guess you are posing the scientific question: "What part of
> *global* do Merks not understand" ? :) :) :)
Isn't this ever so much fun for you.....
conwaycaine
"Adam Whyte-Settlar" <ador@ble> wrote in message
>> I saw nothing particularly brilliant coming out of that group.
>> Did you?
>
> Total shambles - as I predicted.
> What would you expect from the representatives of the 'business as usual'
> crowd.
I thought this was a gathering (and I say this with hushed reverence) of the
world's leading Climatologists.
(With a few latter day hippies thrown in to wave the signs and chant)
> I doubt anything meaningfull will be done until it's already too late to
> avert the worst of the effects.
> I've been saying as much since the 70's
Ever the pessimist, eh Adam?
Do remember the cockroaches are loving all this.
Scotty
If I remember correctly, I commented that Africa was not warming, unlike
the African delegates who accused the Developed Countries of genocide.
Yours shows no data for Africa, now if you go here:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/ select the month (Nov) and click,
make map, then we can both see the same map, with Africa included, you
know, the globe including Hicksville. If you want people to see a
particular map, just specify the month or year and month, got that?
.
>The world is warming Scotty and Co2 is mainly responsible. All the
>overwhelming evidence of the science says so. Nothing you or any other
>deluded denier can say about e-mails or any other non-issue will change
>that fact
The world is warming, man made CO2, unproven. And please don't lecture me
about the isotopes, man-made CO2 in the atmosphere, big deal...
Scotty
>
>"Scotty" <nob...@home.net> wrote in message
>news:s5rui5ph4v7gi44fc...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 19:14:33 +1000, "Adam Whyte-Settlar" <ador@ble> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>By the way - NASA has just reported the hottest November on record:
>>>http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
>>>
>>>And I see Hanson has been reading my posts:
>>>
>>> "...I am inundated with broad FOIA requests for my correspondence, with
>>>substantial impact on my time and on others in my office. I believe these
>>>to
>>>be fishing expeditions, aimed at finding some statement(s), likely to be
>>>taken out of context, which they would attempt to use to discredit climate
>>>science.... The input data for global temperature analyses are widely
>>>available, on our web site and elsewhere. If those input data could be
>>>made
>>>to yield a significantly different global temperature change, contrarians
>>>would certainly have done that -- but they have not..."
>>>
>>>Hanson Dec 17th.
>>
>> Yes, everybody in 'climate' gets tarred with the same brush.
>>
>> This is an important lesson for the CRU to learn, they would not have had
>> the PR disaster if they had played open cards.
>
>They did and they do as I explained to you and you ignored. It obviously
>didn't work.
Where can I find the CRU's data and the meta-data?
You missed the point again, NASA plays open cards, actually they are
mandated to, the CRU didn't and it's blownup in their faces.
>This is a total straw man - stick to what matters.
>The point is we know enough to act. Models have evolved to the point where
>they successfully predict long term trends and are always improving on
>predicting the more chaotic, short term changes. Models don't need to be
>exact in every respect to give us an accurate overall trend and its major
>effects - and we have that now.
None of then (NASA included) predicted the last ten year flat line or
cooling if you prefer.
Scotty
>
>"Scotty" <nob...@home.net> wrote in message
>news:sp5vi5pfk7uiv1fja...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 09:23:14 +1000, "Adam Whyte-Settlar" <ador@ble> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Scotty" <nob...@home.net> wrote in message
>>>news:qb0si556rfig4p598...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 18:56:42 -0600, Deirdre Sholto Douglas
>>>> <finch.e...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>>There wasn't a global MWP. It was a localised event limited mainly to the
>>>North Atlantic.
>>>Global temperatures then were not as warm as they are today.
>>> I've already explained that to you - why do you ignore the science?
>>
>> Adam, we are not talking about pre-history (get Deems to explain it to
>> you), there are written accounts of agriculture in Greenland,
>
>Duh! Do you really think I'm as ill informed as you Scotty.
>I know - as does anyone over about 9 years old - that the vikings colonised
>Greenland. FFS.
>And who the **** is talking about 'pre-history. I'm talking about the
>so-called MWP - what do you think the M stnads for you patronising fool.
>
>> Science 27 November 2009
>> "The Medieval period is found to display warmth that matches or exceeds
>> that of the past decade"
>
>How utterly dishonest of you Scotty. That's the worst yet. I already posted
>that report and map and it shows exactly the opposite.
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/shared/articles/MannetalScience09.pdf
>You've snipped that sentence in half - what he actually GOES ON TO SAY and
>what you must have just read in order to snip that part out is
You've missed the point again. Mann et al 1998/9, the original "hokey
stick" that alarmed everyone and was used by Al G and the IPCC did NOT show
the MWP. If you suppress the MWP then the hokey stick is very dramatic,
alarming actually.
NOW Mann's latest attempt at a paleo chronology SHOWS the MWP thereby
falsifying his earlier work that had already created a frenzy. Get it?
But there is more, his latest work which DOES just show the MWP, has
misused data from the Fins and they don't like it.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/17/iq-test-which-of-these-is-not-upside-down/
"This isn�t an opinion. McIntyre personally verified this data inversion
with the researcher, Tiljander, who collected the original proxy data. Yet
Mann still denies it, probably because using the data right side up doesn�t
produce the desired results" or you might prefer the Japanese comment:
http://climateaudit.org/2009/02/26/upside-down-tiljander-in-japan/ or
maybe:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/17/iq-test-which-of-these-is-not-upside-down/
"Atte Korhola, a prominent Finnish paleolimnologist, familiar with the
Tiljander and other sediments, recently commented on the upside down use of
Finnish proxy data, as follows:
"data collected from Finland in the past by my own colleagues has even been
turned upside down such that the warm periods become cold and vice versa".
And yet at realclimate, Mann and others not only deny the undeniable, but
accuse anyone saying otherwise of being *dishonest*.
So Mann scores an own goal, again.
>"...The Medieval period is found to display warmth that matches or exceeds
>that of the past decade in some regions, but which falls well below recent
>levels globally.."
>
>Got that Scotty.
>*alls well below recent levels globally*
Of course, pity he doesn't know up from down.
>And you seriously expect meto carry on discussing this matter when you have
>been caught shamelessly LIEING about what he said. That's disgusting. I knew
>you were anti-scince but I didn't think you would stoop to flat out lies.
>
>That line - as you MUST know comes from the executive summary of the report:
Err, Abstract, actually.
I have a copy of the full paper, if you want a copy tell me where to send
it.
<big snip>
> Well you know EXACTLY what it does to the hockey stick - it further
>validates it.
>Same as the other six or seven studies have done recently.
Sorry, not true.
>I'm disgusted at your dishonesty.
>I'm stopping here before I say something I regret but don't think I'm leting
>you off with the rest of the lies either. I'll deal with them later.
I hope you are equally disgusted at Michael Mann.
Adam Whyte-Settlar
>
> "Adam Whyte-Settlar" <ador@ble> wrote in message
> news:Lc2dnZ5e8vznra3W...@westnet.com.au...
>> "conwaycaine" <conwa...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>>> And the brave lads of Copenhagen?
>>> I saw nothing particularly brilliant coming out of that group.
>>> Did you?
>>
>> Total shambles - as I predicted.
>> What would you expect from the representatives of the 'business as usual'
>> crowd.
>
> I thought this was a gathering (and I say this with hushed reverence) of
> the world's leading Climatologists.
?
I thought it was a gathering of politcians and their corporate backers?
To be honest I don't know - I didn't see any of it. Why waste my time on
them?
I'm not interestied in ridiculous posturing
Meanwhle the temperature edges higher and higher.
Adam Whyte-Settlar
> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 12:59:40 +1000, "Adam Whyte-Settlar" <ador@ble> wrote:
> None of then (NASA included) predicted the last ten year flat line or
> cooling if you prefer.
The Global temperature rose .19C between 1999 and 2009.
Almost exactly in line with the IPCC prediction of .2.
Fact.
All the rest is politics
And why should I believe a word you post after what you did yesterday?
Shame on you.
Adam Whyte-Settlar
<deem...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:81a82764-eb3e-4d20...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
Who mentioned pre-history. Seriously? I don't know what you're talking
about.
What I said was the MWP - which I presumed everone knows - is an abreviation
for the Medieaval Warming Period - was a localised event not a global event
and the science backs me up.
Check the map - it's easy to see why Greenland was colonised by the Vikings.
Oddly, the Greenland region was also warmer than the rest of the world
during the so called Little Ice Age.
The same team produced the climate map for that epoch too.
But around the wolrd during the so-called MWP the GLOBAL temperatures were
COLDER than today.
Therefore the climate scientists are right. GLOBALY this decade has been the
warmest for thousands of years.
The Hockey Stick has been proved to be correct yet again. Not that the
deniers will stop claiming it's 'broken' of course. They aren't interested
int he latest science - just politics and the denial industry.
Adam Whyte-Settlar
> Science 27 November 2009
> "The Medieval period is found to display warmth that matches or exceeds
> that of the past decade"
How utterly dishonest of you Scotty. That's the worst yet. I already posted
that report and map and it shows exactly the opposite.
You've snipped that sentence in half - what he actually GOES ON TO SAY and
what you must have just read in order to snip that part out is
"...The Medieval period is found to display warmth that matches or exceeds
that of the past decade in some regions, but which falls well below recent
levels globally.."
Got that Scotty.
*falls well below recent levels globally*
And you seriously expect meto carry on discussing this matter when you have
been caught shamelessly LIEING about what he said. That's disgusting. I knew
you were anti-science but I didn't think you would stoop to flat out lies.
>
> You've missed the point again. Mann et al 1998/9, the original "hokey
> stick" that alarmed everyone and was used by Al G and the IPCC did NOT
> show
> the MWP. If you suppress the MWP then the hokey stick is very dramatic,
> alarming actually.
> NOW Mann's latest attempt at a paleo chronology SHOWS the MWP thereby
> falsifying his earlier work that had already created a frenzy. Get it?
Give it up Scotty. You've been caught out with a bare-faced denier lie and
you know it.
It's right there above in black and white - yes I put it back after you
snipped it out.
The MWP was a local event - therefore the Hockey Stick is still correct.
It measures GLOBAL TEMPERATURES.
As MANN clearly shows the MWP did not affect GLOBAL TEMPERATURES.
Thats why it isn't in the Hockey Stick. The Hockey Stick is now even more
robust. Not that it was ever 'broken' in the first place - that was just
more shit from the noise machine.
Jeez but you're thick.
And why should I believe a word you post after that disgusting stunt you
tried to pull above.
If you are so sure your are right why do you have to lie.
In fact **** it!
I'm not going to waste any more time on you - all these weeks I had presumed
we were at least having an honestdebate but you're not a 'sceptic' you're a
flat out denier - and one who blatantly lies and when caught out STILL tries
to deny.
Go away and hang your head in shame.
S�im� mac Liam
> The Global temperature rose .19C between 1999 and 2009.
>
Hee heee. How much since 1998?
--
Saint S�im� mac Liam
Carriagemaker to the court of Queen Maeve
Prophet of The Great Tagger
Canonized December '99
S�im� mac Liam
4G66zWnZ2dn...@westnet.com.au:
> The Hockey Stick is now even more
> robust.
Not if you do not rely on the bristlcone data series, as was recommended
by the UN report from 1996. If you take out the flawed bristlecone
series the picture changes dramatically.
fitlike min
> Adam Whyte-Settlar wrote:
> > <deemsb...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >news:d588debf-542b-4ef2...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> It's cold outside and was snowing yesterday! HOW CAN THERE BE
> >> GLOBAL WARMING?!?!?!?!?!
>
> >> That seems to be the gist of 90% of the anti-global warming
> >> crowd.
>
> > Yep - if it ain't happening in the US it ain't happening anywhere.
>
> do Merks not understand" ? :) :) :)
It's not that they don't understand - it's that they don't get stung
quite so easily as Canadians and european hippies.
F.
fitlike min
wrote:
> "Adam Whyte-Settlar" <ador@ble> wrote innews:ccednXxiJJTS76zW...@westnet.com.au:
>
> > The Global temperature rose .19C between 1999 and 2009.
>
> Hee heee. How much since 1998?
Fuck - I'll be wearing my swimsuit to work now! Sounds like within the
noise level. Do they even know what the noise level is!
F.
conwaycaine
"Adam Whyte-Settlar" <ador@ble> wrote in message
As the Polar ice cap melts and the water rises to inundate New York City?
Scotty
>
>"Scotty" <nob...@home.net> wrote in message
>news:nt22j5te6t8o3l5u0...@4ax.com...
>
>> Science 27 November 2009
>> "The Medieval period is found to display warmth that matches or exceeds
>> that of the past decade"
>
>How utterly dishonest of you Scotty. That's the worst yet. I already posted
>that report and map and it shows exactly the opposite.
>You've snipped that sentence in half - what he actually GOES ON TO SAY and
>what you must have just read in order to snip that part out is
Adam, stop the name calling, it doesn't strengthen your case. This is what
I posted. A comment, a link to the publisher and a snippet of the Abstract,
Nothing dishonest about that, you could read the whole Abstract yourself
which you obviously did, which is why I posted the link for you.
You will remember that Mann's first chronology did NOT show the MWP, now
he has discovered it and shows a glimpsw of it in his latest
reconstruction, "rediscovers" is not inappropriate. Clearer now?
You can't get the full text unless you are subscribed and I have already
offered you the full text
Here it is again:
:Scrap all that, breaking news, M Mann rediscovers the MWP.
:http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/326/5957/1256
:
:Science 27 November 2009
:"The Medieval period is found to display warmth that matches or exceeds
:that of the past decade"
Just a pity that he still hasn't got it right as the Finnish have
confirmed. Deliberate or just plain stupid?
Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice what can be
adequately explained by stupidity.
>"...The Medieval period is found to display warmth that matches or exceeds
>that of the past decade in some regions, but which falls well below recent
>levels globally.."
>
>Got that Scotty.
>*falls well below recent levels globally*
But is it correct? His chronology is flawed.
>And you seriously expect meto carry on discussing this matter when you have
>been caught shamelessly LIEING about what he said. That's disgusting. I knew
>you were anti-science but I didn't think you would stoop to flat out lies.
>
>>
>> You've missed the point again. Mann et al 1998/9, the original "hokey
>> stick" that alarmed everyone and was used by Al G and the IPCC did NOT
>> show
>> the MWP. If you suppress the MWP then the hokey stick is very dramatic,
>> alarming actually.
>> NOW Mann's latest attempt at a paleo chronology SHOWS the MWP thereby
>> falsifying his earlier work that had already created a frenzy. Get it?
>
>
>Give it up Scotty. You've been caught out with a bare-faced denier lie and
>you know it.
>It's right there above in black and white - yes I put it back after you
>snipped it out.
>
>The MWP was a local event - therefore the Hockey Stick is still correct.
>It measures GLOBAL TEMPERATURES.
>As MANN clearly shows the MWP did not affect GLOBAL TEMPERATURES.
But is it correct? His chronology is flawed.
>Thats why it isn't in the Hockey Stick. The Hockey Stick is now even more
>robust. Not that it was ever 'broken' in the first place - that was just
>more shit from the noise machine.
>Jeez but you're thick.
>
>And why should I believe a word you post after that disgusting stunt you
>tried to pull above.
>If you are so sure your are right why do you have to lie.
>
>
>In fact **** it!
>I'm not going to waste any more time on you - all these weeks I had presumed
>we were at least having an honestdebate but you're not a 'sceptic' you're a
>flat out denier - and one who blatantly lies and when caught out STILL tries
>to deny.
Wrong, I have said many times, to borrow a phrase from Einstein, "I don't
believe the planet is warming, I know it is". The science is NOT settled.
>Go away and hang your head in shame.
"Unless we announce disasters, no one will listen."
Sir John Houghton, first chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) and lead editor of its first three reports.
Scotty
>
><deem...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:81a82764-eb3e-4d20...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
>On Dec 21, 2:45 pm, Scotty <nob...@home.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 18:57:41 GMT, "La N" <nilita2004NOS...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Scotty wrote:
>>
>> >> Adam, we are not talking about pre-history
>>
>> >You know? That term "pre-history" has always stymied me, since I figured
>> >that there has always been history. I mean, what could possibly be pre-
>> >or
>> >"before" history ... hmmm ...
>>
>> >- nilita, all zen and with a bit of ADD kicking in ....
>>
>> I understand that as, pre written [understood] history.
>>
>> I might be wrong.
>
> That's exactly what the term means. Obviously, it is all
>"history"....the "pre" is used to differentiate between pre- and post-
>written. Some people (Hey, Adam) seem to think it's a huge difference
>when it is merely a demarkation between written and non-written.
>
>
>Who mentioned pre-history. Seriously? I don't know what you're talking
>about.
I did, and it was to show that we HAVE a WRITTEN record of the period.
Mann's latest work shows a glimpse of it, much more than in his first
attempt and I expect that when he uses the Finnish data correctly he will
find the rest of it. He WILL get there eventually. Of course the palio
evidence is there if he wants to find it, it's in the borehole. and the
Finnish record. I've already posted the links for you.
If he used all of the Briffa et al, Jamal trees instead of a selected
sub-set, there wouldn't even have been a blade to his hokey stick.
>What I said was the MWP - which I presumed everone knows - is an abreviation
>for the Medieaval Warming Period - was a localised event not a global event
>and the science backs me up.
Yes, "current evidence does not support globally synchronous periods of
anomalous cold or warmth over this time frame" (IPCC Third Assessment
Report 2001). So the MWP was an exeption to the global rule for hundreds
of years? What happened to the borehole evidence?
A change in the strength of the North Atlantic thermohaline circulation
which originates at the equator for a period of hundreds of years
apparently influenced by a La Nina event that we know is an 11 year event?
ya, sure. The evidence too weak to be able to say definately that global is
only sometimes global.
footnote:
If the North Atlantic thermohaline circulation was stronger it would have
to have picked up the extra heat on it's way from a warmer equatorial North
America .
>Check the map - it's easy to see why Greenland was colonised by the Vikings.
>Oddly, the Greenland region was also warmer than the rest of the world
>during the so called Little Ice Age.
>The same team produced the climate map for that epoch too.
Why am I not surprised?
>But around the wolrd during the so-called MWP the GLOBAL temperatures were
>COLDER than today.
>Therefore the climate scientists are right. GLOBALY this decade has been the
>warmest for thousands of years.
>The Hockey Stick has been proved to be correct yet again. Not that the
>deniers will stop claiming it's 'broken' of course. They aren't interested
>int he latest science - just politics and the denial industry.
"Unless we announce disasters, no one will listen."
fitlike min
> "Adam Whyte-Settlar" <ador@ble> wrote in message
>
> news:CoCdnRoAiNg57KzW...@westnet.com.au...
>
>
>
>
>
> >news:K86dnRIJ3oVkeK3W...@giganews.com...
>
> >> "Adam Whyte-Settlar" <ador@ble> wrote in message
> >>news:Lc2dnZ5e8vznra3W...@westnet.com.au...
> >>>> And the brave lads of Copenhagen?
> >>>> I saw nothing particularly brilliant coming out of that group.
> >>>> Did you?
>
> >>> Total shambles - as I predicted.
> >>> What would you expect from the representatives of the 'business as
> >>> usual' crowd.
>
> >> I thought this was a gathering (and I say this with hushed reverence) of
> >> the world's leading Climatologists.
>
> > ?
> > I thought it was a gathering of politcians and their corporate backers?
> > To be honest I don't know - I didn't see any of it. Why waste my time on
> > them?
> > I'm not interestied in ridiculous posturing
>
> > Meanwhle the temperature edges higher and higher.
>
> As the Polar ice cap melts and the water rises to inundate New York City?
Yes but would that really matter? Who the fuck lives there except a
few American black NEDS and Woody Allan.
F.
Ian Smith
ony mair an' gied us this:
Heh. Bernard Manning would be proud of you.
--
Try out my PHP calendar at http://www.1r5.net
Adam Whyte-Settlar
"S�im� mac Liam" <gwy...@comcast.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9CE9BA...@74.209.136.89...
> "Adam Whyte-Settlar" <ador@ble> wrote in
> news:ccednXxiJJTS76zW...@westnet.com.au:
>
>> The Global temperature rose .19C between 1999 and 2009.
>>
>
> Hee heee. How much since 1998?
.19C of course.
You clearly don't understand decadal averages do you.
Adam Whyte-Settlar
>>But around the wolrd during the so-called MWP the GLOBAL temperatures were
>>COLDER than today.
>>Therefore the climate scientists are right. GLOBALY this decade has been
>>the
>>warmest for thousands of years.
>>The Hockey Stick has been proved to be correct yet again. Not that the
>>deniers will stop claiming it's 'broken' of course. They aren't interested
>>int he latest science - just politics and the denial industry.
>
> "Unless we announce disasters, no one will listen."
> Sir John Houghton, first chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on
> Climate
> Change (IPCC) and lead editor of its first three reports.
And he was right. Except when it comes to the deniers - they ignore even the
disasters.
And meanwhile temperatures creep up and up at .19C per decade, exactly as
predicted.
Oh dear.
Not a good time to be a climate change denier is it.
Adam Whyte-Settlar
> "Adam Whyte-Settlar" <ador@ble> wrote in news:6rGdnWbA4-
> 4G66zWnZ2dn...@westnet.com.au:
>
>> The Hockey Stick is now even more
>> robust.
>
> Not if you do not rely on the bristlcone data series, as was recommended
> by the UN report from 1996. If you take out the flawed bristlecone
> series the picture changes dramatically.
You sound increasingly desperate.
Not a good time to be a climate chage denier is it?
One canard after another crumbles to dust.
Adam Whyte-Settlar
> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 11:46:52 +1000, "Adam Whyte-Settlar" <ador@ble> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Scotty" <nob...@home.net> wrote in message
>>news:nt22j5te6t8o3l5u0...@4ax.com...
>>
>>> Science 27 November 2009
>>> "The Medieval period is found to display warmth that matches or exceeds
>>> that of the past decade"
>>
>>How utterly dishonest of you Scotty. That's the worst yet. I already
>>posted
>>that report and map and it shows exactly the opposite.
>>You've snipped that sentence in half - what he actually GOES ON TO SAY and
>>what you must have just read in order to snip that part out is
>
> Adam, stop the name calling, it doesn't strengthen your case.
You lied. You got caught out.
It's really that simple.
Why do the deniers have to resort to lying all the time?
conwaycaine
"Adam Whyte-Settlar" <ador@ble> wrote in message
news:C5udnSh4baPIi6vW...@westnet.com.au...
> Not a good time to be a climate chage denier is it?
And here I thought you were referring to thread count or some such......
conwaycaine
"Adam Whyte-Settlar" <ador@ble> wrote in message
> It's really that simple.
> Why do the deniers have to resort to lying all the time?
They have Adorable Adam as a role model?????
Adam Whyte-Settlar
>>Give it up Scotty. You've been caught out with a bare-faced denier lie and
>>you know it.
>>It's right there above in black and white - yes I put it back after you
>>snipped it out.
>>
>>The MWP was a local event - therefore the Hockey Stick is still correct.
>>It measures GLOBAL TEMPERATURES.
>>As MANN clearly shows the MWP did not affect GLOBAL TEMPERATURES.
>
> But is it correct? His chronology is flawed.
Nope - the deniers *claim* it is flawed.. Well what a surprise THAT is - all
you have left is lies.
And in any case it's not just Mann. You 'Scotty of scs' are disputing the
findings of a huge team from:
1 Department of Meteorology and Earth and Environmental Systems Institute,
Pennsylvania State University/
2 Department of Environmental Science, Roger Williams University, Bristol,
3 Department of Geosciences, University of Massachusetts.
4 Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research, University of Arizona, Tucson,
5 NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York.
6 Climate Global Dynamics Division, National Center for Atmospheric
Research, Boulder.
LOL
Yep 'Scotty of scs' knows best.
Can you really not see just how pathetic that makes you look.
Not a good time to be a denier is it? No wonder you have to lie.
Meanwhile the global temperature continues to creep up and up - exactly as
predicted.
November was the hottest Novemember on reocord. - and guess what - December
is too.
Wake up - you are being duped Scotty.
Adam Whyte-Settlar
Reminds me of the old
"1932 was the hottest year on record."
LOL.
Yeah - on 2% of the planet it was.
I also like the old " The North West Passage was open in 1940"
: )
Anyone want details of that little canard?
The Phantom Piper
>
> Why do the deniers have to resort to lying all the time?
Note that the above statement is apt for Holocaust Deniers,
Evolution Deniers, and Spencerian Supply-Side Economists
as well!
And the answer to the questions is: because Facts
have a Liberal Bias to them.
Any Other Questions?,
The Phantom Piper
Deirdre Sholto Douglas
> And the answer to the questions is: because Facts
> have a Liberal Bias to them.
Facts, by definition, have _no_ bias, they simply are...the
bias is in the interpretation of them.
I begin to understand why you changed your major.
Deirdre
________________
Sometimes a majority only means that all the fools are
on the same side.
La N
"Adam Whyte-Settlar" <ador@ble> wrote in message
To answer Conway's question, yes, I think Adam is one of the funnest and
funn*i*est people on Usenet ... :) :) :)
- nil
PS: Humour is good for the soul and health
Scotty
>
>"Scotty" <nob...@home.net> wrote in message
>news:2v65j5tmk9gjev8ai...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 11:46:52 +1000, "Adam Whyte-Settlar" <ador@ble> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Scotty" <nob...@home.net> wrote in message
>>>news:nt22j5te6t8o3l5u0...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>> Science 27 November 2009
>>>> "The Medieval period is found to display warmth that matches or exceeds
>>>> that of the past decade"
You keep on snipping the link to that snippet from the Abstract. Here it is
again so that the good readers here can check for themselves, what are you
trying to hide? This is the link to M Mann latest flawed (again) paper on
the Hokey Stick, ask the Finns.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/326/5957/1256
>>>How utterly dishonest of you Scotty. That's the worst yet. I already
>>>posted
See above.
>>>that report and map and it shows exactly the opposite.
>>>You've snipped that sentence in half - what he actually GOES ON TO SAY and
>>>what you must have just read in order to snip that part out is
>>
>> Adam, stop the name calling, it doesn't strengthen your case.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/326/5957/1256
>You lied. You got caught out.
>It's really that simple.
>Why do the deniers have to resort to lying all the time?
Remember when I said this?
"You missed the point again, NASA plays open cards, actually they are
mandated to, the CRU didn't and it's blown up in their faces".
From that notorious denier publication.
<http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427393.600-battle-for-climate-data-approaches-tipping-point.html?DCMP=NLC-nletter&nsref=mg20427393.600>
http://tinyurl.com/ygdoc26
Keenan won his FOI request and said it showed the data was flawed.
From those stolen e-mails that some claimed were edited...
"Tom Wigley, director of the CRU when the original paper was published,
emailed Jones saying it would have been easier to admit the data's
shortcomings. "Why, why, why did you not simply say this right at the
start?"
The history that led up to that email:
"A telling email episode in April 2007 shows how interactions between
scientists and their critics spun out of control because the scientists
mistook their critics for wreckers with no rights to data, while the
critics took an aversion to scrutiny as a sign of fraud.
In the exchanges, Michael Mann of Penn State University in University Park,
Phil Jones, the director of the UK's Climatic Research Unit (CRU), and
Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder,
Colorado, discuss freedom of information requests from Douglas Keenan, a
financial statistician turned independent scientist, for the location of
Chinese temperature readings used in a paper co-authored by Jones 17 years
before. Mann advised: "This crowd of charlatans... look for one little
thing they can say is wrong, and thus generalize that the science is
entirely compromised... Best thing is to ignore them completely." Trenberth
disagreed: "I don't think you can ignore it. The response should try to
somehow label these guys [as] lazy and incompetent."
Keenan won his FOI request and said it showed the data was flawed, because
some of the stations had been moved by the Chinese scientists who ran them.
He said Jones's reluctance to share the data was evidence of fraud. Tom
Wigley, director of the CRU when the original paper was published, emailed
Jones saying it would have been easier to admit the data's shortcomings.
"Why, why, why did you not simply say this right at the start?"
S�im� mac Liam
According to the dataset from the AMSU instrument flying on the NOAA-15
satellite, the trend for the period 1979 through November 2009 is +0.13
Celsius. That breaks down to +0.065 Celcius per decade. The only way
you get the trend you quote is by using the abnormally cool year 1999 as
your base year. If you are a very good boy, I'll show you where I got
the data set and also a very nice page which draws very nice graphs. You
seem to think I clearly don't understand graph truncation.
The Phantom Piper
<finch.enter...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> Facts, by definition, have _no_ bias, they simply are...the
> bias is in the interpretation of them.
*Christ* what an ignorant Pill you are!
Try this, harpy: type 'facts have a liberal bias' into Google
[without the quotes] and see how many returns there are
and where they come from and what the Reference is...
> I begin to understand why you changed your major.
I begin to understand *why* you're such an Ignorant Pill...
Appalled At The Degree Of Ignorance - Even For You,
The Phantom Piper
The Phantom Piper
By the way, nice to see that Here You Are™,
the day after Christmas, bright and early in
the morning, leaping to the Attack in your
typical, hatred-blinded, jump-the-gun fashion!
(And self-identifying by a knee-jerk defence
of Conservatism as well! How very popular
you're going to be in the New Year!)
*Hugs'n'Kisses*,
Your Greatest Phan
Adam Whyte-Settlar
> "Adam Whyte-Settlar" <ador@ble> wrote in
> news:FNqdnWdH1oiniKvW...@westnet.com.au:
>
>>
>> "S�im� mac Liam" <gwy...@comcast.nospam.net> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9CE9BA...@74.209.136.89...
>>> "Adam Whyte-Settlar" <ador@ble> wrote in
>>> news:ccednXxiJJTS76zW...@westnet.com.au:
>>>
>>>> The Global temperature rose .19C between 1999 and 2009.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hee heee. How much since 1998?
>>
>> .19C of course.
>>
>> You clearly don't understand decadal averages do you.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> According to the dataset from the AMSU instrument flying on the NOAA-15
> satellite, the trend for the period 1979 through November 2009 is +0.13
> Celsius. That breaks down to +0.065 Celcius per decade. The only way
> you get the trend you quote is by using the abnormally cool year 1999 as
> your base year. If you are a very good boy, I'll show you where I got
> the data set and also a very nice page which draws very nice graphs. You
> seem to think I clearly don't understand graph truncation.
http://climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/No-E-Mails-Can-Hide-an-Inconvenient-Truth.gif
You guys are a joke. But you don't even get it.
Adam Whyte-Settlar
In that case here's a few giggles for you.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/opinion/ssi/images/Toles/c_09242009_520.gif
http://www.roanoke.com/editorials/images/0718_opinion_graphic.jpg
And, from my point of view, the most poignant:
http://www.americanprogress.org/cartoons/2009/08/img/081709.jpg
Adam Whyte-Settlar
> On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 23:58:57 +1000, "Adam Whyte-Settlar" <ador@ble> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Scotty" <nob...@home.net> wrote in message
>>news:2v65j5tmk9gjev8ai...@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 11:46:52 +1000, "Adam Whyte-Settlar" <ador@ble>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Scotty" <nob...@home.net> wrote in message
>>>>news:nt22j5te6t8o3l5u0...@4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>>> Science 27 November 2009
>>>>> "The Medieval period is found to display warmth that matches or
>>>>> exceeds
>>>>> that of the past decade"
>>> Adam, stop the name calling, it doesn't strengthen your case.
LOL
You really flatter yourself if you think I have to 'build a case' to counter
your parroted denier-nonsense and bare-faced lies.
I know the denier-myths off by heart you repeat them so often. They don't
require 'a case' you deluded little prat.
Here.
Here's the bit you snipped. Even though you've been caught absolutely
red-handed, grotesquely misrepresenting the quote you *still* keep on - deny
deny deny. Pathetic.
"...The Medieval period is found to display warmth that matches or exceeds
that of the past decade in some regions, but which falls well below recent
levels globally.."
Got that Scotty.
*falls well below recent levels globally*
ie: GLOBAL temperatures have never been higher.
You have zero credibility left Scotty. But when 2010 turns out to be one of
the hottest in 800,000 years you will *still* be on here doing your deny,
deny, deny, party trick to our general amusemen won't you?.
>>You lied. You got caught out.
>>It's really that simple.
>>Why do the deniers have to resort to lying all the time?
<snipped - more desperate and contemptable wriggling>
An apology is in order Scotty - not yet more denial.
conwaycaine
"Adam Whyte-Settlar" <ador@ble> wrote in message
news:z5ednVTzMMcatavW...@westnet.com.au...
>
And lest I be misunderstood on my feelings about Man's impact on the
environment, you need only journey to the tops of my beloved mountains to
see them being consumed by beetles, all of which came about from the
weakening of the Firs and such by pollution.
We are losing our Balsams right and left.
conwaycaine
> "Adam Whyte-Settlar" <ador@ble> wrote in message
> To answer Conway's question, yes, I think Adam is one of the funnest and
> funn*i*est people on Usenet ... :) :) :)
Well.....he's not THAT good.
;=)
conwaycaine
> "Adam Whyte-Settlar" <ador@ble> wrote in
>> You clearly don't understand decadal averages do you.
>
> According to the dataset from the AMSU instrument flying on the NOAA-15
> satellite, the trend for the period 1979 through November 2009 is +0.13
> Celsius. That breaks down to +0.065 Celcius per decade. The only way
> you get the trend you quote is by using the abnormally cool year 1999 as
> your base year. If you are a very good boy, I'll show you where I got
> the data set and also a very nice page which draws very nice graphs. You
> seem to think I clearly don't understand graph truncation.
And AWS just got through with a series of posts decrying the "Deny, deny,
deny" crowd.
Welcome to their ranks, Adam!!
Scotty
And from my point of view:
From a usually reliable source.
Global air temperature 2008 anomaly +0.33C, only 10th warmest on record.
The sky is definitely falling.
Deirdre Sholto Douglas
> On Dec 26, 8:45 am, Deirdre Sholto Douglas
> <finch.enter...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> Facts, by definition, have _no_ bias, they simply are...the
>> bias is in the interpretation of them.
>
> *Christ* what an ignorant Pill you are!
>
> Try this, harpy: type 'facts have a liberal bias' into Google
> [without the quotes] and see how many returns there are
> and where they come from and what the Reference is...
It's apparently a Good Thing you changed your major
since you practice the "Eat Shite, A Million Flies Can't
Be Wrong" Approach. You wouldn't have lasted through
grad school...assuming you managed to last through
P-chem.
Facts have no bias. If you can't grasp that concept
you have no business talking science.
>> I begin to understand why you changed your major.
>
> I begin to understand *why* you're such an Ignorant Pill...
Peep, your understanding of anything could be fit on
the point of a pin and there'd _still_ be room left over
to squeeze in your intellect.
Deirdre
________________
I'd mock you but the challenge is gone.
Deirdre Sholto Douglas
> On Dec 26, 8:45 am, Deirdre Sholto Douglas
> <finch.enter...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> I begin to understand why you changed your major.
>
> the day after Christmas, bright and early in
> the morning, leaping to the Attack in your
> typical, hatred-blinded, jump-the-gun fashion!
Just following Adam's lead...nice to see you hopped
on for the ride. And I'm not jumping any guns...unlike
you, I have both education and experience on my side
and don't make stupid statements like "The facts
have a liberal bias."
What an idiot you are, Peep. Why don't you crawl back
in your hole? I'll be sure to have someone wake you
before 2 February.
Deirdre
________________
WARNING: My posts are offensive to morons.
La N
"Adam Whyte-Settlar" <ador@ble> wrote in message
Heheheheh.
btw, Adam, you're funny even when you're *not* being serious ... :) :) :)
- nil
La N
I wonder if he has PFD in stitches 24/7 ... that would be the *true* test
... :):)
- nil
The Phantom Piper
<finch.enter...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> Facts have no bias. If you can't grasp that concept
> you have no business talking science.
So, did you do the little Experiment I suggested to you?
(Or are you Too Afraid Of The Facts to try it or admit it?)
Let's face Facts - shall we, you hypocritical twit? You
just got caught out on yet another Ignorant Hate-Blinded
Attack; you apparently weren't aware that the phrase
"Facts have a Liberal Bias" is a well-known bit of humour
that has been put forth for _a decade or more_ by writers
from every sector of Political Society - and so, in your
eagerness to jump into (yet another) thread and launch
(yet another) pointless Attack upon me, you revealed
yourself as being both:
A) *incredibly* ignorant and,
B) obtusely humourless.
Then - as always - when called on the Facts you merely
backpedal and Spin, spitting out a few more sparks in
the hopes that the Dazzle and Baffle will pull you through
the way they no doubt did for you in university.
But it won't work here, you see: people who want to know
what's on just have to type: 'facts have a liberal bias' into
Google and they'll *see* what you Didn't Know and couldn't
be arsed to find out. So really, you're just digging yourself
a deeper hole with this (again), aren't you?
Pitying You,
The Phantom Piper
The Phantom Piper
<finch.enter...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> I have both education and experience on my side
> and don't make stupid statements like "The facts
> have a liberal bias."
So then I reckon Nobel Prize Winner Paul Krugman
(professor of Economics and International Affairs at
Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International
Affairs at Princeton University, and Centenary Professor
at the London School of Economics, as well as an
editorial columnist for The New York Times) doesn't
have "education and experience" on his side because
*he's* one of the _dozens_ of (similarly Educated and
Experienced) persons who have been using the phrase
for the past Decade or so?
*M'BWAH-HAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahahahaha*!!!!!!!
> What an idiot you are, Peep. Why don't you crawl back
> in your hole?
Is that the one you Just Keep Digging, bitch? Because
yours is far Deeper than any other Hole around here, and
that's really saying something!
*HAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahahahaha*!!!!!!!
Laughing My Arse Off At You (Again...),
The Phantom Piper
Deirdre Sholto Douglas
> On Dec 27, 8:37 am, Deirdre Sholto Douglas
> <finch.enter...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> I have both education and experience on my side
>> and don't make stupid statements like "The facts
>> have a liberal bias."
>
> So then I reckon Nobel Prize Winner Paul Krugman
> (professor of Economics and International Affairs at
> Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International
> Affairs at Princeton University, and Centenary Professor
> at the London School of Economics, as well as an
> editorial columnist for The New York Times) doesn't
> have "education and experience" on his side because
> *he's* one of the _dozens_ of (similarly Educated and
> Experienced) persons who have been using the phrase
> for the past Decade or so?
I expect Krugman would be one of the first to acknowledge
that he's an economist and not a climate scientist.
Don't worry though, no one expects you to know the differ-
ence between the two...any more than anyone expects you
to recognise argumentum ad verecundiam.
Again, Peep, in small words just for you: Facts are just
facts, they have no bias.
Deirdre
_______________
I drank from the fountain of knowledge, you just gargled.
Scotty
>
>"Scotty" <nob...@home.net> wrote in message
>news:2v65j5tmk9gjev8ai...@4ax.com...
>
>>>Give it up Scotty. You've been caught out with a bare-faced denier lie and
>>>you know it.
>>>It's right there above in black and white - yes I put it back after you
>>>snipped it out.
>>>
>>>The MWP was a local event - therefore the Hockey Stick is still correct.
>>>It measures GLOBAL TEMPERATURES.
>>>As MANN clearly shows the MWP did not affect GLOBAL TEMPERATURES.
This is enormously entertaining, the MWP was not a global phenomenon an yet
11 or was it 1 Jamal tree/s in Siberia make a significant contribution to
today's temp record, you can't have it both ways. AND a few sediments in a
Finnish lake can tell us about the Global temp, get real man.
>> But is it correct? His chronology is flawed.
>
>Nope - the deniers *claim* it is flawed.. Well what a surprise THAT is - all
>you have left is lies.
>
>And in any case it's not just Mann. You 'Scotty of scs' are disputing the
>findings of a huge team from:
>
>1 Department of Meteorology and Earth and Environmental Systems Institute,
>Pennsylvania State University/
>
>2 Department of Environmental Science, Roger Williams University, Bristol,
>
>3 Department of Geosciences, University of Massachusetts.
>
>4 Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research, University of Arizona, Tucson,
>
>5 NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York.
>
>6 Climate Global Dynamics Division, National Center for Atmospheric
>Research, Boulder.
I don't see any credit for:
Mia Tiljander or:
University of Helsinki, Faculty of Science, Department of Geology, Geology
and Palaeontology, you know, the contended Finnish sediments? Used but not
attributed, see the full paper, not just the Abstract, I've posted the link
for you.
Just the usual suspects Briffa et al. You haven't read the paper have you?
Have you seen the published corrections to the paper? Some peer review
hey? Here:
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/supplements/MultiproxyMeans07/
I still find it remarkable that tree rings cannot replicate the temp 100
years ago necessitating the addition of the instrumental record and yet are
deemed to be accurate during the MWP
Look here:
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/supplements/MultiproxyMeans07/NHcps_no7_v_orig_Nov2009.pdf
At this stage I'm going to turn around and walk away, get back to me in ten
years time.
I'll be baaaaak.
The new word is:
Post-normal science
>November was the hottest Novemember on reocord. - and guess what - December
>is too.
>
>Wake up - you are being duped Scotty.
Global air temperature 2008 anomaly +0.33C ([only] 10th warmest on record)
"Unless we announce disasters, no one will listen." - Sir John Houghton,
first chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and
lead editor of its first three reports
--
"For every problem there is a solution which is simple, clean and wrong".
-- Henry Louis Mencken
Deirdre Sholto Douglas
> Pitying You,
No reason for that, Peep...you know, it's a funny thing, I
thought I knew what I was going to give you for Christmas.
I was planning on giving you a Pass on One Idiocy�I figured
letting an example of your ingrown ignorance sail by without
comment was a pretty good present. Mind you, I knew such
a gift was likely to be lost in the welter of your idiotic utter-
ances, but after all, it's the thought that counts.
Anyway, when I arrived back on Boxing Day I realised there
was another sort of pass which you required more, even if
you realised it less...and in the Spirit of the Season, I decided
your gift would be my silence on a One Show of Pathos (in-
advertent or otherwise) from you. To that end, I did not
comment or highlight actions which belied your words and
illustrated just how bereft your Real Life truly is. Perhaps
you know to what I refer, perhaps you don't�either way,
Peep, I gave you my compassion for the space of a couple
posts.
Of course, that day is over, those posts are history and
there was never a moratorium on pointing out your stupidity�
so tell you what, why don't you go mix up some nitroglyce-
rine on an airliner and report back to us with your results?
Deirdre
________________
The fewer clear facts there are in support of an opinion, the
stronger the emotional attachment to that opinion.
S�im� mac Liam
> http://climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/No-E-Mails-Can-Hi
> de-an-Inconvenient-Truth.gif
You warmers sure want to talk about the e-mails...but not about the other
documents from the GRU server.
The Phantom Piper
<finch.enter...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> Again, Peep, in small words just for you:
> Facts are just facts, they have no bias.
Yeah, well - and this is *just for you*, sweetums - here
are a few Unbiased Facts:
Fact 1: You were unaware of a humourous phrase
which has been in widespread use by people *FAR*
smarter than you will _ever_ be for the past Decade
or so; people from all parts of the political spectrum
and from all walks of life.
Fact 2: It *is* a humourous phrase, in the Ironic sense;
and the people who don't see the Humour in it the most
are Conservatives, who we know from over Sixty Years
of studies - many funded by Conservative Organisations
which then sought to squelch the Results they got when
they didn't like them, in a *most* UNscientific way - that
Conservatives tend to be More Ignorant and Less Informed
than Liberals do.
Fact 3: Not only were you Ignorant of it, and not only did
you not see the humour in it, but you _also_ *jumped* like
you'd had your knickers set alight into the fray with your
(ill-informed, humourless) Attack. And when called on that,
you made the excuse that you were "just following Adam's
lead" (as if he had anything to do with your unprovoked
Attack out of nowhere against *me*).
Put them all together and we get the Picture: you're a
hateful vitriolic know-nothing humourless ignorant bitch
with a Conservative Bias on a vendetta. You lumped
me in with Adam because in your rightwingnut pea-'mind'
we are the 'Enemy'. (Which is true, against your way
of NotThinking, at any rate.) And you have now outed
yourself in your most recent Mindless Knee-Jerk Assault.
(It's beneficial, actually, that you have so little self-control.
You've been carefully trying to conceal your political bent
here, no doubt because you realise just how many people
on this forum hold views antithetical to your own, and you
didn't want to reveal just what a RightWing Know-Nothing
you apparently really are. But the cat's out of the BagLady
now, innit?)
And now we have a better idea of just why you've had
your (now blazing) knickers in a twist, don't we? Why
you despise Adam so much and me even more: the
more outspokenly Liberal a person is, the less you
can tolerate them.
But even if the above weren't true (and it's going to be fun
watching you deny your own personal 'principles' claiming
it isn't), the part about being a Humourless Ignorant Twat
who (once *again*!) leapt before she looked remains oh so
obviously apparent.
`Sucks To Be You, Eh?,
The Phantom Piper
The Phantom Piper
<finch.enter...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> Of course, that day is over, those posts are history and
> there was never a moratorium on pointing out your stupidity
> rine on an airliner and report back to us with your results?
Oh dear, and here we have an Employee of the US
Federal Government urging a person to commit an
act of Terrorism over interstate wires - tch, tch, tch...
And it's even Timestamped and Archived! Oh dear!
Composing An Email,
The Phantom Piper
Fred J. McCall
:
:"La N" <nilita20...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
:news:NlNXm.56803$Db2.41360@edtnps83...
:
:> So, I guess you are posing the scientific question: "What part of
:> *global* do Merks not understand" ? :) :) :)
:
:Isn't this ever so much fun for you.....
:
My question for those like Nilita is this - When did North America
cease to be part of the globe?
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
conwaycaine
I think a close partner becomes inured to the style of humor he/she hears on
a daily basis from his/her better half.
I've got to be very, very good to get even a grin out of my spouse.
La N
> "La N" <nilita20...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:CDMZm.59097$PH1.24973@edtnps82...
>>>
>>
>> test ... :):)
>
> I think a close partner becomes inured to the style of humor he/she
> hears on a daily basis from his/her better half.
> I've got to be very, very good to get even a grin out of my spouse.
That's often true about long time partners. What one's partner used to find
so charming now will make their eyes roll. But they'll keep you anyway
...;p
- nil
conwaycaine
"Fred J. McCall" <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ifdhj558sntn2mh52...@4ax.com...
> cease to be part of the globe?
The Yurps devoutly wish it were so.
Unfortunately it is not so.
And with nearly three hundred million citizens, it will remain a player on
the world stage.
Deirdre Sholto Douglas
Making threats again, are you? What a pathetic piece of
work you are.
You go right ahead and write that email, Peep...and don't
forget to include your Real Name, Address and all the other
personal information because the Uncle Sam will require it
if you expect them to take you seriously (They also might
be interested to know who initially _suggested_ making
nitro on a plane...so let's make sure they can find you.) As
soon as I get my copy of your bleat...since the US is funny
about letting the accused know exactly who's doing the
accusing...I will be _more_ than happy to share said infor-
mation with everyone here.
Go for it, Peep...let's see what you're really made of.
Deirdre
________________
Courage is fire; bullying is smoke.