Text 21060, 279 rader
Skriven 2015-02-08 18:22:00 av TIM RICHARDSON (1:123/140)
Ärende: Re: *No Answers*
========================
On 02-07-15, JANIS KRACHT said to BILL MCGARRITY:
> Note: Seitz, Baliunas & Soon are all associated with the ExxonMobil funded
> George C Marshall Institute!
> Seitz was a solid-state Physicist.
Solid State Physics also has applications in:
Theoretical Solid State Physics (Materials Science)
Statistical Physics (with applications in: Material Science, Biology,
*Climatology*, Hydrology, Meterology, and Medicine
> Baliunas & Soon are Astrophysicists.
And commited the sin of pointing out the Sun's overall influence on Earth's
climate and weather patterns.
Their offense was deviance from the church of `global warming is all due to
Mankind'.
> Arthur Robinson and his son Zachary are Chemists.
"The Chemistry of Climate Change" by Vicky Wong
Published and distributed by the Royal Society of Chemistry 2008
(Note: Bill McGarrity..Al Gore....call your respective offices!)
> Note that none of the authors of this purportedly climatological paper are
> climatologists!
Note that all are connected in a science that has to do with `climatology'.
JK>My favorite part of Tim's message though was this section:
JK>"The current list of petition signers includes 9,029 PhD; 7,157 MS; 2,586
JK>MD and DVM; and 12,715 BS or equivalent academic degrees. Most of the MD
JK>and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in basic science."
Wait! How can 2014 be the hottest year ever? Didn't we just have that one?
Been there...done that...shoveled the snow!
Hottest year ever? Skeptics question revisions to climate data
By Maxim Lott
Published January 10, 2013
FoxNews.com
2012 was a scorcher, but was it the warmest year ever?
A report released this week by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency
(NOAA) called it "the warmest year ever for the nation." Experts agree that
2012 was a hot year for the planet. But it;s that report -- and the agency
itself -- that's drawing the most heat today.
"2012 [wasn't] necessarily warmer than it was back in the 1930s ... NOAA has
made so many adjustments to the data it's ridiculous," Roy Spencer, a
climatologist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, told FoxNews.com.
A brutal combination of a widespread drought and a mostly absent winter pushed
the average annual U.S. temperatures up last year, to 55.32 degrees Fahrenheit
according to the government. That's a full degree warmer than the old record
set in 1998 -- and breaking such records by a full degree is unprecedented,
scientists say.
But NOAA has adjusted the historical climate data many times, skeptics point
out, most recently last October. The result, says popular climate blogger
Steve Goddard: The U.S. now appears to have warmed slightly more than it did
before the adjustment.
"The adjusted data is meaningless garbage. It bears no resemblance to the
thermometer data it starts out as," Goddard told FoxNews.com. He's not the
only one to question NOAA's efforts.
"Every time NOAA makes adjustments, they make recent years [relatively]
warmer.
I am very suspicious, especially for how warm they have made 2012," Spencer
said.
The newly adjusted data set is known as "version 2.5," while the less adjusted
data is called "version 2.0."
NOAA defended its adjustments to FoxNews.com.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Government climate scientist Peter Thorne, speaking in his personal capacity,
said that there was consensus for the adjustments.
"These have been shown through at least three papers that have appeared in the
past 12 months to be an improvement," he said.
NOAA spokesman Scott Smullen agreed.
"These kinds of improvements get us even closer to the true climate signal,
and help our nation even more accurately understand its climate history," he
said.
______________________________________________________________________________
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
So...*adjusting* (also known as *lying*) temperatures to more closely reflect
the agenda of the `warmist' cult...helps us "...more accurately understand.."
our climate history? I bet Smullen said that with a straight face! Tim R.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
One problem in weather monitoring occurs when there is a "break point" -- an
instance where a thermometer is moved, or something producing heat is built
near the thermometer, making temperature readings before and after the move no
longer comparable.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
What he seems to be saying here is the `thermometers' they use to guage how
hot the planet is....they move them around a lot...which makes them change
readings....so they have to `adjust' the readings to reflect THEIR warming
agenda more closely (also known as *lying*)? So....why don't they just put
them in one place and leave them there? Oh...thats right! THEN they wouldn't
have to `adjust' (also known as *lying*) them to fit their agenda. ...Tim R.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Version 2.5 improved the efficiency of the algorithm.... more of the
previously undetected break points are now accounted for," Smullen explained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Translation: It didn't support the `warming' notion...so we altered it so
it does!....Tim R.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
He added that the report also recalculated "the baseline temperatures [that]
were first computed nearly 20 years ago in an era with less available data and
less computer power."
Spencer says that the data do need to be adjusted -- but not the way NOAA did
it. For instance, Spencer says that urban weather stations have reported
higher temperatures partly because, as a city grows, it becomes a bit hotter.
But instead of adjusting directly for that, he says that to make the urban and
rural weather readings match, NOAA "warmed the rural stations [temperature
readings] to match the urban stations" -- which would make it seem as if all
areas were getting a bit warmer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
In other words....they falsified data! ....Tim R.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Huertas, a spokesman for the Union of Concerned Scientists, argued that
the debate over the adjustments misses the bigger picture.
"Since we broke the [temperature] record by a full degree Fahrenheit this
year, the adjustments are relatively minor in comparison,"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Translation: They didn't have to lie all that much. Bbut `lie' they did. Tim
R.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I think climate contrarians are doing what Johnny Cochran did for O.J.
Simpson -- finding anything to object to, even if it obscures the big picture.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just as the `warmist' cult is doing what Josef Geobbels did for Hitler; the
bigger the lie...the more believable it is! ...Tim R.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's like they keep finding new ways to say the 'glove doesn't fit' while
ignoring the DNA evidence."
Climate change skeptics such as blogger and meteorologist Anthony Watts are
unconvinced.
"Is history malleable? Can temperature data of the past be molded to fit a
purpose? It certainly seems to be the case here, where the temperature for
July 1936 reported ... changes with the moment," Watts told FoxNews.com.
"In the business and trading world, people go to jail for such manipulations
of data."
_____________________________________________________________________________
Which brings up one of my favorite questions to the `warmist' crowd:
If its all so real.....why alter anything? If its real...shouldn't it standing
alone be its *own* proof without any need to lie about it or alter the data?
JK>Veterinarians????
> Interesting read... sorta like puts a stake in the heart...
JK>:)
JK>Take care,
JK>Janis
> --
> Bill
> Telnet: tequilamockingbirdonline.net
> Web: bbs.tequilamockingbirdonline.net
> FTP: ftp.tequilamockingbirdonline.net:2121
> IRC: irc.tequilamockingbirdonline.net Ports: 6661-6670 SSL: +6697
> Radio: radio.tequilamockingbirdonline.net:8010/live
> ... Look Twice... Save a Life!!! Motorcycles are Everywhere!!!
> === MultiMail/Win32 v0.50
JK>--- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Dada-2
JK>* Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/38)
BF> has ever seen, would believe that...
---
*Durango b301 #PE*
* Origin: Check Out Doc's QWK Mail Via Web BBS > DocsPlace.org (1:123/140)
|