15 degrees in Alaska tonight!!! In August!!!

[Abraham3]

Do you feel as sorry for the folks who lost their careers when the IC engine replaced the horse as you do your family? How about when Walmart replaced Sears? When digital photography replaced film. When plumes and beaver fur on hats went out of fashion and hunters had to find other work? When airplanes displaced passenger trains? When computers replaced clerks?

The difference is that the successors were all big improvements over what they replace. People adopted the new technology voluntarily. They didn't need some bureaucrat pointing a gun at them and shaking them down for the cash to pay for the "new and improved" technology.


That's what the Communists told the Kulaks in 1917.

How much human trauma do you think should be endured by others in service of your family memories?

You're the imbecile causing the trauma. If your "solutions" are so great, then whey do they need to be imposed on us at gunpoint?[/QUOTE]

Those are both excellent points. I wonder whether we will receive an answer.

My family ran on coal. Breathitt County, Kentucky. The mine ran out. We found other things to do. You will too.

 

[Abraham3]

Apparently I did, unless you're talking about the "daily_format.txt" file which was only minimums and maximums.

I hope you're not going to deny having told me that daily would suffice. You are looking for CLIMATIC data are you not? How fast do you think the climate changes?

 

[Abraham3]

Tough shit if you don't like it.

Tough shit if you can't accept reality. It's coming anyway.

 

[PMZ]

I would have said, at one time, one thing that everybody would agree on is a world hospitable to our progeny. Now I find that conservatives don't want that. As long as the world is hospitable now, that's all that counts. Let future generations solve our problems.

I personally think that that is a pretty disgusting attitude and if some melon headed entertainer tried to impose it on me there'd be some trouble brewing.

But, the DK crowd laps it up and follows the leader.

Jerks.

 

[PMZ]

The difference is that the successors were all big improvements over what they replace. People adopted the new technology voluntarily. They didn't need some bureaucrat pointing a gun at them and shaking them down for the cash to pay for the "new and improved" technology.


That's what the Communists told the Kulaks in 1917.



You're the imbecile causing the trauma. If your "solutions" are so great, then whey do they need to be imposed on us at gunpoint?[/QUOTE]

Those are both excellent points. I wonder whether we will receive an answer.

My family ran on coal. Breathitt County, Kentucky. The mine ran out. We found other things to do. You will too.

I'll bet your family never felt entitled to an easy life like the conservatives of today.

Their entertainers tell them that they are entitled to have reality be what they want and they all say amen.

Reality has different plans though.

 

[mamooth]

If your "solutions" are so great, then whey do they need to be imposed on us at gunpoint?

Those are both excellent points. I wonder whether we will receive an answer.

Anyone whining that laws are being "imposed at gunpoint" identifies themselves as a delusional right-wing-fringe cultist. Conveniently for them, these hypocrites only use the "at gunpoint" stupidity if it's a law they don't agree with. If it's a law they like, the "at gunpoint" thing is never brought up. Hence, should you see a crank using that line or declaring it's smart argument, just laugh at the bedwetter and walk away, being that it's not possible to have a rational conversation with a cultist.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I would have said, at one time, one thing that everybody would agree on is a world hospitable to our progeny. Now I find that conservatives don't want that. As long as the world is hospitable now, that's all that counts. Let future generations solve our problems.

I personally think that that is a pretty disgusting attitude and if some melon headed entertainer tried to impose it on me there'd be some trouble brewing.

But, the DK crowd laps it up and follows the leader.

Jerks.

The Left is no longer the American Left, they are dedicated to dragging us down. They won't be happy until every city is Detroit and we no longer have air conditioning or heat or any "modern" comforts.

**** them

 

[asterism]

Apparently I did, unless you're talking about the "daily_format.txt" file which was only minimums and maximums.

I hope you're not going to deny having told me that daily would suffice. You are looking for CLIMATIC data are you not? How fast do you think the climate changes?

I asked for raw data. I said raw data in a daily format as long as the time is noted is acceptable. The best we have so far is a daily max and daily min. While that's better, it's still data that has been processed and the methodology used to process that data is not open for verification.

I took part in a hydrology study, defining certain areas as wetlands as part of a thesis for someone else. In order for the study to be accepted and published, ALL data had to be submitted. We could not leave out data that we deemed irrelevant and we could not use averages, maximums, minimums, or summaries. The specifics (in this case air temperature, water temperature, soil composition, and many others I don't remember) were important to check for biases. Without a complete picture, regression analyses and cross-checks were not possible.

The reason it's important to have all the raw data for stations is that one cannot check for equipment errors, calculation errors, site errors, or environment biases without it. Actually a better way to put it is that no set of data summarization can be perfect, but more raw data increases the accuracy.

 

[Abraham3]

Apparently I did, unless you're talking about the "daily_format.txt" file which was only minimums and maximums.

I hope you're not going to deny having told me that daily would suffice. You are looking for CLIMATIC data are you not? How fast do you think the climate changes?

I asked for raw data. I said raw data in a daily format as long as the time is noted is acceptable. The best we have so far is a daily max and daily min. While that's better, it's still data that has been processed and the methodology used to process that data is not open for verification.

I took part in a hydrology study, defining certain areas as wetlands as part of a thesis for someone else. In order for the study to be accepted and published, ALL data had to be submitted. We could not leave out data that we deemed irrelevant and we could not use averages, maximums, minimums, or summaries. The specifics (in this case air temperature, water temperature, soil composition, and many others I don't remember) were important to check for biases. Without a complete picture, regression analyses and cross-checks were not possible.

The reason it's important to have all the raw data for stations is that one cannot check for equipment errors, calculation errors, site errors, or environment biases without it. Actually a better way to put it is that no set of data summarization can be perfect, but more raw data increases the accuracy.

Then I give up. Global warming is a hoax to make scientists rich. The world has not gotten ANY warmer and the CO2 in the atmosphere is absolutely harmless.

I am quite certain that if you wanted to submit an FOIA request to the USHCN and had the justification to avoid seeming harassment, they could give you as raw a dataset as you care for. Your assumption that the data has been intentionally and willfully biased and that the rawest data is being withheld to prevent detection of that point, is unjustified by any fact or evidence in our possession.

Those making extraordinary claims - and the claim that the world's climate scientists are all involved in an enormous conspiracy is an extraordinary claim - bear the burden of proof. It's your turn.

 

[gallantwarrior]

I would have said, at one time, one thing that everybody would agree on is a world hospitable to our progeny. Now I find that conservatives don't want that. As long as the world is hospitable now, that's all that counts. Let future generations solve our problems.

I personally think that that is a pretty disgusting attitude and if some melon headed entertainer tried to impose it on me there'd be some trouble brewing.

But, the DK crowd laps it up and follows the leader.

Jerks.[/ q]

Your mouthings come almost word-for-word from variuos Agenda 21 documents and addndums. Would you care to cite some scientific findings that are not driven by a political agenda?

 

[bodecea]

Record cold temps in Alaska tonight are leaving the locals saying, "WTF is going on here?"

Deep Cold: Interior and Northern Alaska Weather & Climate: Record Cold in the Northern Interior



I'll tell them whats going on. The k00ks are losing.....again!!!!

I damn near split my sides laughing when I saw this posted up on the top of DRUDGE tonight.

We've got the heat here in SoCal. Hottest late August/early September heatwave I ever remember...and no sign of stopping yet.

I fear that this is going to be a really nasty fire season.

 

[asterism]

I hope you're not going to deny having told me that daily would suffice. You are looking for CLIMATIC data are you not? How fast do you think the climate changes?

I asked for raw data. I said raw data in a daily format as long as the time is noted is acceptable. The best we have so far is a daily max and daily min. While that's better, it's still data that has been processed and the methodology used to process that data is not open for verification.

I took part in a hydrology study, defining certain areas as wetlands as part of a thesis for someone else. In order for the study to be accepted and published, ALL data had to be submitted. We could not leave out data that we deemed irrelevant and we could not use averages, maximums, minimums, or summaries. The specifics (in this case air temperature, water temperature, soil composition, and many others I don't remember) were important to check for biases. Without a complete picture, regression analyses and cross-checks were not possible.

The reason it's important to have all the raw data for stations is that one cannot check for equipment errors, calculation errors, site errors, or environment biases without it. Actually a better way to put it is that no set of data summarization can be perfect, but more raw data increases the accuracy.

Then I give up. Global warming is a hoax to make scientists rich. The world has not gotten ANY warmer and the CO2 in the atmosphere is absolutely harmless.

I am quite certain that if you wanted to submit an FOIA request to the USHCN and had the justification to avoid seeming harassment, they could give you as raw a dataset as you care for. Your assumption that the data has been intentionally and willfully biased and that the rawest data is being withheld to prevent detection of that point, is unjustified by any fact or evidence in our possession.

Those making extraordinary claims - and the claim that the world's climate scientists are all involved in an enormous conspiracy is an extraordinary claim - bear the burden of proof. It's your turn.

So after claiming that the raw data is available, then claiming that you posted links to it, then claiming that you have posted actual raw data, now you're saying that you're sure it's available with a request through FOIA?

Ok. You'll note I have said that I don't think there is some huge conspiracy. I've cited evidence that shows incompetence. I haven't said that data has been destroyed through malice, I've said it has been destroyed through improper data management.

I've had similar conversations with actual climate scientists. Once we got past the "you wouldn't understand" part we got into the weeds with funding, derivative studies, and a fundamental need to rely on past peer-reviewed work. The honest ones have said that they really don't care, and that if the slight warming that has been noted is wrong it will be apparent with more research. Then we agreed on that, one of us bought another round, and it was time to talk about something else.

The only ones who have been especially hyperbolic are those who aren't very confident in their work or ones frustrated that their own personal biases have been exposed. I'm not going to say that every scientist who was a member of an environment activist group in college is dishonest, but the few that I know certainly are.

 

[PMZ]

I would have said, at one time, one thing that everybody would agree on is a world hospitable to our progeny. Now I find that conservatives don't want that. As long as the world is hospitable now, that's all that counts. Let future generations solve our problems.

I personally think that that is a pretty disgusting attitude and if some melon headed entertainer tried to impose it on me there'd be some trouble brewing.

But, the DK crowd laps it up and follows the leader.

Jerks.

The Left is no longer the American Left, they are dedicated to dragging us down. They won't be happy until every city is Detroit and we no longer have air conditioning or heat or any "modern" comforts.

**** them

Actually the results that you fear would come from doing nothing, against the findings of science.

Political entertainers have told you that you can choose between the flat or round earth. They lie.

 

[PMZ]

I would have said, at one time, one thing that everybody would agree on is a world hospitable to our progeny. Now I find that conservatives don't want that. As long as the world is hospitable now, that's all that counts. Let future generations solve our problems.

I personally think that that is a pretty disgusting attitude and if some melon headed entertainer tried to impose it on me there'd be some trouble brewing.

But, the DK crowd laps it up and follows the leader.

Jerks.[/ q]

Your mouthings come almost word-for-word from variuos Agenda 21 documents and addndums. Would you care to cite some scientific findings that are not driven by a political agenda?

I do here almost every day.

The IPCC is the body with the resources to work the science of AGW. Mainstream global politicians gave them that responsibility.

You reject their findings out of your ignorance of their science because a handful of political entertainers told you so.

Hard to imagine a happy ending for you coming from that.

 

[PMZ]

I hope you're not going to deny having told me that daily would suffice. You are looking for CLIMATIC data are you not? How fast do you think the climate changes?

I asked for raw data. I said raw data in a daily format as long as the time is noted is acceptable. The best we have so far is a daily max and daily min. While that's better, it's still data that has been processed and the methodology used to process that data is not open for verification.

I took part in a hydrology study, defining certain areas as wetlands as part of a thesis for someone else. In order for the study to be accepted and published, ALL data had to be submitted. We could not leave out data that we deemed irrelevant and we could not use averages, maximums, minimums, or summaries. The specifics (in this case air temperature, water temperature, soil composition, and many others I don't remember) were important to check for biases. Without a complete picture, regression analyses and cross-checks were not possible.

The reason it's important to have all the raw data for stations is that one cannot check for equipment errors, calculation errors, site errors, or environment biases without it. Actually a better way to put it is that no set of data summarization can be perfect, but more raw data increases the accuracy.

Then I give up. Global warming is a hoax to make scientists rich. The world has not gotten ANY warmer and the CO2 in the atmosphere is absolutely harmless.

I am quite certain that if you wanted to submit an FOIA request to the USHCN and had the justification to avoid seeming harassment, they could give you as raw a dataset as you care for. Your assumption that the data has been intentionally and willfully biased and that the rawest data is being withheld to prevent detection of that point, is unjustified by any fact or evidence in our possession.

Those making extraordinary claims - and the claim that the world's climate scientists are all involved in an enormous conspiracy is an extraordinary claim - bear the burden of proof. It's your turn.

Conspiracy theory is never based on facts, always innuendo, and that's why it's the haunt of the ignorant. Innuendo takes only suspicion and imagination. Reality takes education. Guess which one is the easiest path through life.

 

[asterism]

I asked for raw data. I said raw data in a daily format as long as the time is noted is acceptable. The best we have so far is a daily max and daily min. While that's better, it's still data that has been processed and the methodology used to process that data is not open for verification.

I took part in a hydrology study, defining certain areas as wetlands as part of a thesis for someone else. In order for the study to be accepted and published, ALL data had to be submitted. We could not leave out data that we deemed irrelevant and we could not use averages, maximums, minimums, or summaries. The specifics (in this case air temperature, water temperature, soil composition, and many others I don't remember) were important to check for biases. Without a complete picture, regression analyses and cross-checks were not possible.

The reason it's important to have all the raw data for stations is that one cannot check for equipment errors, calculation errors, site errors, or environment biases without it. Actually a better way to put it is that no set of data summarization can be perfect, but more raw data increases the accuracy.

Then I give up. Global warming is a hoax to make scientists rich. The world has not gotten ANY warmer and the CO2 in the atmosphere is absolutely harmless.

I am quite certain that if you wanted to submit an FOIA request to the USHCN and had the justification to avoid seeming harassment, they could give you as raw a dataset as you care for. Your assumption that the data has been intentionally and willfully biased and that the rawest data is being withheld to prevent detection of that point, is unjustified by any fact or evidence in our possession.

Those making extraordinary claims - and the claim that the world's climate scientists are all involved in an enormous conspiracy is an extraordinary claim - bear the burden of proof. It's your turn.

Conspiracy theory is never based on facts, always innuendo, and that's why it's the haunt of the ignorant. Innuendo takes only suspicion and imagination. Reality takes education. Guess which one is the easiest path through life.

Except I have said repeatedly that I don't think there is a conspiracy.

But keep parroting those talking points, it's what your activist sources tell you to do.

 

[PMZ]

Then I give up. Global warming is a hoax to make scientists rich. The world has not gotten ANY warmer and the CO2 in the atmosphere is absolutely harmless.

I am quite certain that if you wanted to submit an FOIA request to the USHCN and had the justification to avoid seeming harassment, they could give you as raw a dataset as you care for. Your assumption that the data has been intentionally and willfully biased and that the rawest data is being withheld to prevent detection of that point, is unjustified by any fact or evidence in our possession.

Those making extraordinary claims - and the claim that the world's climate scientists are all involved in an enormous conspiracy is an extraordinary claim - bear the burden of proof. It's your turn.

Conspiracy theory is never based on facts, always innuendo, and that's why it's the haunt of the ignorant. Innuendo takes only suspicion and imagination. Reality takes education. Guess which one is the easiest path through life.

Except I have said repeatedly that I don't think there is a conspiracy.

But keep parroting those talking points, it's what your activist sources tell you to do.

I don't know exactly what an 'activist source' is. Is that the IPCC? They're the source of AGW science. I do hope that I'm an activist when action is required as it is here and now. I'd hate to be known as a donothinger.

But I know people who do nothing when told to by political entertainers. And people who trust political entertainers and mistrust scientist.

They're stupid.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Conspiracy theory is never based on facts, always innuendo, and that's why it's the haunt of the ignorant. Innuendo takes only suspicion and imagination. Reality takes education. Guess which one is the easiest path through life.

Except I have said repeatedly that I don't think there is a conspiracy.

But keep parroting those talking points, it's what your activist sources tell you to do.

I don't know exactly what an 'activist source' is. Is that the IPCC? They're the source of AGW science. I do hope that I'm an activist when action is required as it is here and now. I'd hate to be known as a donothinger.

But I know people who do nothing when told to by political entertainers. And people who trust political entertainers and mistrust scientist.

They're stupid.

I ask again, what actions are you proposing to undertake to change the situation?

 

[PMZ]

Except I have said repeatedly that I don't think there is a conspiracy.

But keep parroting those talking points, it's what your activist sources tell you to do.

I don't know exactly what an 'activist source' is. Is that the IPCC? They're the source of AGW science. I do hope that I'm an activist when action is required as it is here and now. I'd hate to be known as a donothinger.

But I know people who do nothing when told to by political entertainers. And people who trust political entertainers and mistrust scientist.

They're stupid.

I ask again, what actions are you proposing to undertake to change the situation?

Support the science from the IPCC. Assume that the current coalition of government and private enterprise will solve the problem at the appropriate rate. Avoid the media evangelical political entertainers and get news from news sources.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I don't know exactly what an 'activist source' is. Is that the IPCC? They're the source of AGW science. I do hope that I'm an activist when action is required as it is here and now. I'd hate to be known as a donothinger.

But I know people who do nothing when told to by political entertainers. And people who trust political entertainers and mistrust scientist.

They're stupid.

I ask again, what actions are you proposing to undertake to change the situation?

Support the science from the IPCC. Assume that the current coalition of government and private enterprise will solve the problem at the appropriate rate. Avoid the media evangelical political entertainers and get news from news sources.

IPCC admits they're using global warming scam to redistribute wealth