Global Warming?

[k0ua]

Creely.. it is cold today in southern Missouri.. not a typical Oct. day.. it should be 10 to 20 degrees warmer than today, and we expect a hard freeze tonight. Your warm day just like my cold day does not prove a thing. Do I think overall warming is occurring, despite my extra cold day here? It would seem so, or so they tell us. Is it man made? I don't know for sure, but I doubt it. as the earth has went thru many many warm periods, followed by cold periods before man had a chance to cause anything. Do I know for a FACT that climate data has been manipulated by climatologist with political agenda's? YES. Do I know for a fact that Albert Gore Jr. is a FRAUD, and a LIAR, and an hypocritical AXXHOLE. YES I DO. That is all we are saying, just admit that all the facts are not in yet.. and that we should NOT change our way of life drastically because some political "scientist" says that we are all going to roast our butts off this century or the sea levels are going to drown the city's or some such bullpucky. It aint gonna happen. And I am willing to bet the farm on it..I say it is made up "stuff". The climatologist stepped in it when they manipulated data to fit their hypothesis and I will never believe another thing they say.

[madmax12]

Madmax you are very polite person and do listen to other's points of view. However I wonder if you see the hypocrisy in claiming others want you to "submit and comply" when that is precisely what religious faith requires of believers. You (fundamentalist Christian or Muslim or Jew) require an unquestioning acceptance of religious dogma as the starting point for any discussion. If I don't accept the Bible as literally true then you and I have no way to discuss whether Genesis is a Platonic myth, necessary for a religious starting point in ancient times, or a true story that can be verified and corroborated with the tools of modern science. Those who question the basic beliefs of religion in matters describing the physical world and history of earth are not the ones who have closed minds.

This is the conundrum.

I do not require the unquestioning acceptance... rather, I encounter the unquestioning disregard... of the Creator.

On the contrary to your post, I feel the same as you. I encounter the opinion, that I am an utter fool for being a believer. Post #2164 is a clear example of that. The opinion expressed there, is the sentiment you use to characterize a dogmatic, rigid, religious view.

This is the conundrum.

How can there be any genuine discussion?

And if people of the opinion matching post #2164 are in political power... they may feel it is their right to stomp all over the stupid, to force them to comply, for the emergency crisis to be solved.

That is where the science, turned politics, is a repeat of history... and dangerous.

Respect, would hinder the danger.

If, like in post #2164, you reduce your opposition to useless fools... in your mind and rhetoric... you become dangerous. And, it is that side... that ends the discussion at the requirement of unquestioned acceptance. Submission and compliance... or you will be ridiculed, dehumanized, and removed as the obstacle to progress...

History. Respect.

The progressive movement is an old one. It was growing in the 1800's. It is not new. It presents many challenges to those who will not submit and comply. If enough of that view gain true power... politeness will disappear... as will those who dissent.

[Redneck in training]

Madmax you are very polite person and do listen to other's points of view. However I wonder if you see the hypocrisy in claiming others want you to "submit and comply" when that is precisely what religious faith requires of believers. You (fundamentalist Christian or Muslim or Jew) require an unquestioning acceptance of religious dogma as the starting point for any discussion. If I don't accept the Bible as literally true then you and I have no way to discuss whether Genesis is a Platonic myth, necessary for a religious starting point in ancient times, or a true story that can be verified and corroborated with the tools of modern science. Those who question the basic beliefs of religion in matters describing the physical world and history of earth are not the ones who have closed minds.

Religion has terrible record in seeking truth. Not only the church was not seeking truth it used to burn people for saying the obvious truth such as the Earth is round and rotates. If church has the power it had in "dark ages" (it was called dark ages exactly for that for that reason) we would still be made believe that earth is flat and is a center of universe.

[Cat_Driver]

Well it's FALL so I hope all the gullible warming nuts have their jackets on.

OH WAIT I forgot. They Gullible warming nuts have it all covered.

Definition of gullible warming. It rains, ( GULLIBLE WARMING ) it doesn't rain ( GULLIBLE WARMING ) it's hot ( GULLIBLE WARMING ) it's NOT hot ( GULLIBLE WARMING ) Tornados ( GULLIBLE WARMING ) , hurricanes ( GULLIBLE WARMING ) mud slides ( GULLIBLE WARMING ) drought ( GULLIBLE WARMING ) rainy season ( GULLIBLE WARMING ) , snow ( GULLIBLE WARMING ) no snow ( GULLIBLE WARMING ) freezing ( GULLIBLE WARMING ) NOT freezing ( GULLIBLE WARMING )

I winder if these people realize how stupid they sound blaming every type of weather on ( GULLIBLE WARMING ) .

Sheeesh I guess there is a sucker born every day

Do your research and realize th UN started ( GULLIBLE WARMING ) to pick your pocket NOTHING MORE THAN THAT

Better yet if you actually BELIEVE in Gullible warming I'll help you out and make it even easier for you

Russian computer hackers have published emails and source code from the UN-affiliated Climate Research Unit showing profound corruption, fraud, and criminal activity. What's really behind the Copenhagen treaty?

Global warming exposed as UN-funded fraud | ZeroHedge

A picture emerges of big science funded to the tune of billions of dollars for the purposes of an underlying international political agenda.

WAKE UP PEOPLE you are being scammed.

[/pine]

You still confused or just trolling?

I'm not confused about anything (currently)...it's you that exhibits all the indications of confusion and naivety...

once again for the dense...Feynman used the quote many times in many different discussions...it is how he defined science as a whole...not in just the context that has you so confused...

[/pine]

GULLIBLE WARMING

now that's funny (and how true)

[cqaigy2]

The fall weather here has been beautiful. high 30-40 at night, mid 60-70 during the day. Reminds me of the weather we had on the east side of the state when i was a youngster. In the past, when we have had such little rain throughout the summer/fall, we would have trees dying, but i believe because of the long wet spring, out ground water is higher so the trees are doing alright.

[Cat_Driver]

SO I did a little surfing and I have the e-mails of "destroyed ' RAW data" Which means with RAW daya missing they can say what ever they want.

>>> Gentlemen--
>>>
>>> I expect that you have already been made aware of the petition to EPA
>>> from the Competitive Enterprise Institute (and Pat Michaels) calling for
>>> a re-opening of public comment on EPA's prospective "endangerment"
>>> finding on greenhouse gases. CEI is charging that the CRU at East Anglia
>>> has destroyed the raw data for a portion of the global temperature
>>> record, thus destroying the integrity of the IPCC assessments and any
>>> other work that treats the UK Jones-Wigley global temperature data
>>> record as scientifically legitimate. I have attached the petition in
>>> PDF, with a statements by CEI and Michaels.

I also looked at a few HUNDRED Emails from the UK study which a lot of gullible warming is based. This gullible warming is the biggest fraud ever purported on the human race. It had two goasl. 1) to keep grant money flowing to scientists, and 2) to make you and me pay for NOTHING.

[Cat_Driver]

More e-mails showing FUZZY math...WHO USES "infilling" in science. Infilling is also know as FUDGING The numbers

Tom,
I can't see why the data become ERSSTv3b. b seems all that you can download.
I reviewed the 2008 paper. The version that I reviewed had something in for the problem of
SST data now re drifters and ships, but they pulled that section. I recall saying it needed
to be watertight and they needed to explain the spatial pattern to the ship minus drifter
field. Maybe that version was a?
I was never that keen on their infilling. It biases the values before the 1920s when you
infill with anomalies that are nearer to zero. You can see this in their Fig6. This version
is better than their previous one.
I always assumed they still had gaps - as it would be impossible to infill the
Antarctic and some parts of the Southern Oceans. Have you tried looking at their Antarctic
average - 65-90S for example?
Their globe should be one domain, so not (NH+SH)/2 but for an infilled dataset this
shouldn't make any difference.
I wonder if they downweight the infilled values in some way? They have their error
field?
The 2008 paper doesn't say how they compute Global and NH and SH. Are NH and SH the same
as you get?
Cheers

[Cat_Driver]

Read em for yourself

Index of /climategate/1/FOIA/mail