Globally Warm my Frosty Buns

[Old Rocks]

They wouldn't need to "hide the decline" if there was actual warming.

They wouldn't need to "cook the books" at all in fact.

And for whatever reason, this escapes watermelons such as Elmer.

And for whatever reason it excapes nincompoops such as Midnight as to what that referance was all about. But then, science, period, escapes Midnight.

 

[elvis]

They wouldn't need to "hide the decline" if there was actual warming.

They wouldn't need to "cook the books" at all in fact.

And for whatever reason, this escapes watermelons such as Elmer.

And for whatever reason it excapes nincompoops such as Midnight as to what that referance was all about. But then, science, period, escapes Midnight.

But it doesn't escape Jones and Mann, now does it?

 

[Old Rocks]

Of course ol' Midnight would never own up to the dishonesty of his postings.

Science forgotten in climate emails fuss | Myles Allen | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

If it could be proved that figures had been deliberately altered to give a specific result then it would be very serious, but so far no evidence has emerged from these Climatic Research Unit (CRU) emails of any error in the HadCRUT instrumental temperature record at the centre of the row, never mind proof of deliberate intent to mislead. How often have you heard that repeated, clearly, by the mainstream press reporting on this incident? Even if they were reporting on Berlusconi's sex life they would be more careful. Berlusconi can afford better lawyers than Jones can.

Take, for example, the "trick" of combining instrumental data and tree-ring evidence in a single graph to "hide the decline" in temperatures over recent decades that would be suggested by a naive interpretation of the tree-ring record. The journalists repeating this phrase as an example of "scientists accused of manipulating their data" know perfectly well that the decline in question is a spurious artefact of the tree-ring data that has been documented in the literature for years, and that "trick" does not mean "deceit". They also know their readers, listeners and viewers won't know this: so why do they keep doing it?

 

[Old Rocks]

They wouldn't need to "hide the decline" if there was actual warming.

They wouldn't need to "cook the books" at all in fact.

And for whatever reason, this escapes watermelons such as Elmer.

And for whatever reason it excapes nincompoops such as Midnight as to what that referance was all about. But then, science, period, escapes Midnight.

But it doesn't escape Jones and Mann, now does it?

Now, ol' dumb queer, Jones and Mann have been shown not to have committed anything worse than dissing some dumber collegues in private e-mail.

 

[elvis]

Of course ol' Midnight would never own up to the dishonesty of his postings.

Science forgotten in climate emails fuss | Myles Allen | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

If it could be proved that figures had been deliberately altered to give a specific result then it would be very serious, but so far no evidence has emerged from these Climatic Research Unit (CRU) emails of any error in the HadCRUT instrumental temperature record at the centre of the row, never mind proof of deliberate intent to mislead. How often have you heard that repeated, clearly, by the mainstream press reporting on this incident? Even if they were reporting on Berlusconi's sex life they would be more careful. Berlusconi can afford better lawyers than Jones can.

Take, for example, the "trick" of combining instrumental data and tree-ring evidence in a single graph to "hide the decline" in temperatures over recent decades that would be suggested by a naive interpretation of the tree-ring record. The journalists repeating this phrase as an example of "scientists accused of manipulating their data" know perfectly well that the decline in question is a spurious artefact of the tree-ring data that has been documented in the literature for years, and that "trick" does not mean "deceit". They also know their readers, listeners and viewers won't know this: so why do they keep doing it?

pretty ironic, considering all the kudos you gave Mann and Jones, isn't it?

 

[elvis]

And for whatever reason it excapes nincompoops such as Midnight as to what that referance was all about. But then, science, period, escapes Midnight.

But it doesn't escape Jones and Mann, now does it?

Now, ol' dumb queer, Jones and Mann have been shown not to have committed anything worse than dissing some dumber collegues in private e-mail.

Aw, did Chris Kringle's Christmas present give you gonorrhea of the throat? or are you always this much of a ****?

 

[Old Rocks]

Here we go again with your obsession with male genitals.

 

[elvis]

Here we go again with your obsession with male genitals.

Oh? a **** is male genitals?

 

[ElmerMudd]

Well, after the Obama disaster that was Copenhagen, I warm my buns by the fire because (1) it's freezing outside and (2) the tree hugger bazaar showed pure hypocrisy and caused so much pollution that maybe the Earth will stop this darn cooling trend.

Honestly though, I'm glad Obama failed, yet again..

Except for a few idiots, there is no doubt that global warming is a reality.

The question is whether global warming is man made or part of a natural cycle that would happen whether man inhabited the earth or not.

You are one of the idiots that claims it does not exist at all. You are an embarrassment to the Leave it to Beaver show. Please use another name,

I feel Global warming is brought on by man and by natural cycles.

..You're kidding right.. the earth has been on a cooling trend, google, "earth cooling" read the articles and get back with me.

Now, I don't expect an apology because I don't actually expect you to Google and read articles, fear of reality and so forth.

I would hope in the future you would be above these personal attacks, most unimpressive....again..

Sorry Lump; I was trying to be as nice as possible under the circumstances. I don't have the patience I need when it comes to idiotic statements.
I googled cooling earth. YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME. An article by a Virginia climatoligist in a CBN newspaper. Try googling "flat earth" and you will receive more data.

You have to do better than that. Do you think the earth has been on a cooling trend since the last ice age?

 

[Lumpy 1]

Except for a few idiots, there is no doubt that global warming is a reality.

The question is whether global warming is man made or part of a natural cycle that would happen whether man inhabited the earth or not.

You are one of the idiots that claims it does not exist at all. You are an embarrassment to the Leave it to Beaver show. Please use another name,

I feel Global warming is brought on by man and by natural cycles.

..You're kidding right.. the earth has been on a cooling trend, google, "earth cooling" read the articles and get back with me.

Now, I don't expect an apology because I don't actually expect you to Google and read articles, fear of reality and so forth.

I would hope in the future you would be above these personal attacks, most unimpressive....again..

Sorry Lump; I was trying to be as nice as possible under the circumstances. I don't have the patience I need when it comes to idiotic statements.
I googled cooling earth. YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME. An article by a Virginia climatoligist in a CBN newspaper. Try googling "flat earth" and you will receive more data.

You have to do better than that. Do you think the earth has been on a cooling trend since the last ice age?

I guess you can't help being a smart ass judging by your question and that flat earth google thing.

I'll tell you what, I will agree that mankind has effected the environment, I will agree that there's been a warming trend since the ice age (smart ass) and if you can prove the earth temperature has risen by 3 degrees F over the last 40 years, you win.

 

[mudwhistle]

Except for a few idiots, there is no doubt that global warming is a reality.

The question is whether global warming is man made or part of a natural cycle that would happen whether man inhabited the earth or not.

You are one of the idiots that claims it does not exist at all. You are an embarrassment to the Leave it to Beaver show. Please use another name,

I feel Global warming is brought on by man and by natural cycles.

..You're kidding right.. the earth has been on a cooling trend, google, "earth cooling" read the articles and get back with me.

Now, I don't expect an apology because I don't actually expect you to Google and read articles, fear of reality and so forth.

I would hope in the future you would be above these personal attacks, most unimpressive....again..

2008 comes in now between 8th and 10th, 2009 will be at least 5th, possibly higher. So all but one of the warmest years in the last 180 years have been since 2001. And you call that cooling?

Now were I to google 'global cooling' I would find all kinds of articles by the likes of James Watt, and other charlatans. But if you google ten warmest years globally, then go to the NASA, NOAA, and other scientific sites, you will find the list very close to the one posted below.

So you can state there is global cooling when the whole of the scientific community states that this has been the warmest decade on record. Do you practice at being a fool?

Top 10 Hottest Years On Record | Natural Environment Blog

Here are the top 10 hottest years on record:

1998 - 32.94 degrees Fahrenheit (0.52 degrees Celsius)
2005 - 32.86 degrees Fahrenheit (0.48 degrees Celsius)
2003 - 32.83 degrees Fahrenheit (0.46 degrees Celsius)
2002 - 32.83 degrees Fahrenheit (0.46 degrees Celsius)
2004 - 32.77 degrees Fahrenheit (0.43 degrees Celsius)
2006 - 32.76 degrees Fahrenheit (0.42 degrees Celsius)
2007 - 32.74 degrees Fahrenheit (0.41 degrees Celsius)
2001 - 32.72 degrees Fahrenheit (0.40 degrees Celsius)
1997 - 32.65 degrees Fahrenheit (0.36 degrees Celsius)
1995 - 32.5 degrees Fahrenheit (0.28 degrees Celsius)

Course these weren't the hottest years of all time....but it looks impressive none-the-less.

1934 was recorded as the warmest. DailyTech - Blogger Finds Y2K Bug in NASA Climate Data

 

[Old Rocks]

..You're kidding right.. the earth has been on a cooling trend, google, "earth cooling" read the articles and get back with me.

Now, I don't expect an apology because I don't actually expect you to Google and read articles, fear of reality and so forth.

I would hope in the future you would be above these personal attacks, most unimpressive....again..

2008 comes in now between 8th and 10th, 2009 will be at least 5th, possibly higher. So all but one of the warmest years in the last 180 years have been since 2001. And you call that cooling?

Now were I to google 'global cooling' I would find all kinds of articles by the likes of James Watt, and other charlatans. But if you google ten warmest years globally, then go to the NASA, NOAA, and other scientific sites, you will find the list very close to the one posted below.

So you can state there is global cooling when the whole of the scientific community states that this has been the warmest decade on record. Do you practice at being a fool?

Top 10 Hottest Years On Record | Natural Environment Blog

Here are the top 10 hottest years on record:

1998 - 32.94 degrees Fahrenheit (0.52 degrees Celsius)
2005 - 32.86 degrees Fahrenheit (0.48 degrees Celsius)
2003 - 32.83 degrees Fahrenheit (0.46 degrees Celsius)
2002 - 32.83 degrees Fahrenheit (0.46 degrees Celsius)
2004 - 32.77 degrees Fahrenheit (0.43 degrees Celsius)
2006 - 32.76 degrees Fahrenheit (0.42 degrees Celsius)
2007 - 32.74 degrees Fahrenheit (0.41 degrees Celsius)
2001 - 32.72 degrees Fahrenheit (0.40 degrees Celsius)
1997 - 32.65 degrees Fahrenheit (0.36 degrees Celsius)
1995 - 32.5 degrees Fahrenheit (0.28 degrees Celsius)

Course these weren't the hottest years of all time....but it looks impressive none-the-less.

1934 was recorded as the warmest. DailyTech - Blogger Finds Y2K Bug in NASA Climate Data

Lordy, lordy, Mud. You are fucking dumb. Cannot you tell the differance between the record for the US and the record for the globe? The US on comprise about 2% of the worlds surface, so it stands to reason that there would be times that we are warmer than the average, and times that we are cooler.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Of course ol' Midnight would never own up to the dishonesty of his postings.

Science forgotten in climate emails fuss | Myles Allen | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

If it could be proved that figures had been deliberately altered to give a specific result then it would be very serious, but so far no evidence has emerged from these Climatic Research Unit (CRU) emails of any error in the HadCRUT instrumental temperature record at the centre of the row, never mind proof of deliberate intent to mislead. How often have you heard that repeated, clearly, by the mainstream press reporting on this incident? Even if they were reporting on Berlusconi's sex life they would be more careful. Berlusconi can afford better lawyers than Jones can.

Take, for example, the "trick" of combining instrumental data and tree-ring evidence in a single graph to "hide the decline" in temperatures over recent decades that would be suggested by a naive interpretation of the tree-ring record. The journalists repeating this phrase as an example of "scientists accused of manipulating their data" know perfectly well that the decline in question is a spurious artefact of the tree-ring data that has been documented in the literature for years, and that "trick" does not mean "deceit". They also know their readers, listeners and viewers won't know this: so why do they keep doing it?

Rigging the data then destroying or "losing" the raw data is fraud. The entire controversy arose over these scientists resisting a freedom of information act request for the raw data. They even talked about destroying the data if necessary, to avoid letting it get into the "wrong hands." If the "science" is so settled, why was any of that necessary?

Your constant lies are laughable. It pleases me that I am such a threat to your religion! And it's more than clear to all who read your defensive dribble, that you care not about actual science at all.

 

[Old Rocks]

..You're kidding right.. the earth has been on a cooling trend, google, "earth cooling" read the articles and get back with me.

Now, I don't expect an apology because I don't actually expect you to Google and read articles, fear of reality and so forth.

I would hope in the future you would be above these personal attacks, most unimpressive....again..

Sorry Lump; I was trying to be as nice as possible under the circumstances. I don't have the patience I need when it comes to idiotic statements.
I googled cooling earth. YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME. An article by a Virginia climatoligist in a CBN newspaper. Try googling "flat earth" and you will receive more data.

You have to do better than that. Do you think the earth has been on a cooling trend since the last ice age?

I guess you can't help being a smart ass judging by your question and that flat earth google thing.

I'll tell you what, I will agree that mankind has effected the environment, I will agree that there's been a warming trend since the ice age (smart ass) and if you can prove the earth temperature has risen by 3 degrees F over the last 40 years, you win.

The figure for the last forty years is about 0.4 C. I don't know where you got 3 F at, probably out of your ass like most Conservative posters.

Global Temperature

There is no single thermometer measuring the global temperature. Instead, individual thermometer measurements taken every day at several thousand stations over the land areas of the world are combined with thousands more measurements of sea surface temperature taken from ships moving over the oceans to produce an estimate of global average temperature every month (see the sections on how climate is measured ).

From these records, the ten warmest years in the instrumental record of global temperature (since around 1880) all occur within the 12 year period 1997-2008. Although 2008 data below show it was the coolest since 2000 due to the moderate to strong La Niña that developed in the latter half of 2007. However, the total global temperature increase from the 1850s throught to 2005 is 0.76°C (1.36°F) and the rate of warming averaged over the last 50 years is nearly twice that for the last 100 years. So don't be lulled by one year where it is relatively cooler, what we need to look at is decadal or long term trends.

 

[Si modo]

The figure for the last forty years is about 0.4 C. I don't know where you got 3 F at, probably out of your ass like most Conservative posters. ....

A classic example of how a partisan hack soils science by continually making it political.

 

[Old Rocks]

Of course ol' Midnight would never own up to the dishonesty of his postings.

Science forgotten in climate emails fuss | Myles Allen | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

If it could be proved that figures had been deliberately altered to give a specific result then it would be very serious, but so far no evidence has emerged from these Climatic Research Unit (CRU) emails of any error in the HadCRUT instrumental temperature record at the centre of the row, never mind proof of deliberate intent to mislead. How often have you heard that repeated, clearly, by the mainstream press reporting on this incident? Even if they were reporting on Berlusconi's sex life they would be more careful. Berlusconi can afford better lawyers than Jones can.

Take, for example, the "trick" of combining instrumental data and tree-ring evidence in a single graph to "hide the decline" in temperatures over recent decades that would be suggested by a naive interpretation of the tree-ring record. The journalists repeating this phrase as an example of "scientists accused of manipulating their data" know perfectly well that the decline in question is a spurious artefact of the tree-ring data that has been documented in the literature for years, and that "trick" does not mean "deceit". They also know their readers, listeners and viewers won't know this: so why do they keep doing it?

Rigging the data then destroying or "losing" the raw data is fraud. The entire controversy arose over these scientists resisting a freedom of information act request for the raw data. They even talked about destroying the data if necessary, to avoid letting it get into the "wrong hands." If the "science" is so settled, why was any of that necessary?

Your constant lies are laughable. It pleases me that I am such a threat to your religion! And it's more than clear to all who read your defensive dribble, that you care not about actual science at all.

Religion is faith without evidence. That is your forte in denial of the obvious climate change. However, I have posted the sources for my stance, and the data supporting that stance.

You, on the other hand, post unsupported blather, or post political blogs in the place of scientific sources.

You are a pitiful and contemptable fraud, just another Conservative denying reality at any price to your descendents.

 

[Si modo]

And more examples of a partisan hack soiling science. ^^^

 

[Old Rocks]

The figure for the last forty years is about 0.4 C. I don't know where you got 3 F at, probably out of your ass like most Conservative posters. ....

A classic example of how a partisan hack soils science by continually making it political.

Really? So which is it, Si? 0.4 C, or 3 F? Assuming that you know how to do the conversion. Perhaps a rather rash assumption.

 

[Si modo]

The figure for the last forty years is about 0.4 C. I don't know where you got 3 F at, probably out of your ass like most Conservative posters. ....

A classic example of how a partisan hack soils science by continually making it political.

Really? So which is it, Si? 0.4 C, or 3 F? Assuming that you know how to do the conversion. Perhaps a rather rash assumption.

Yes, really Rocks. You soil science by continually making it political.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Religion is faith without evidence.

Wrong. It's faith in whatever they want to call evidence, and always with some type of devil.

See?