According to the hoaxees weather and climate have to be separate or their "fairy tale" would evaporate if they admitted that weather events actually constituted "climate!!!!!"
The hoaxees have never addressed the East Anglican E-mails that totally devastated the hoaxers bogus bull shyt! The hoaxees claimed Fox News wasn't legit and none of the left-wing lame stream moron media even reported on the E-mails to cover for the hoaxers!!!!!

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Koski:
According to the hoaxees weather and climate have to be separate or their "fairy tale" would evaporate if they admitted that weather events actually constituted "climate!!!!!"
The hoaxees have never addressed the East Anglican E-mails that totally devastated the hoaxers bogus bull shyt! The hoaxees claimed Fox News wasn't legit and none of the left-wing lame stream moron media even reported on the E-mails to cover for the hoaxers!!!!!

LMAOROTF..........

Here's a clown that believes any horseshi1 that gets e-mailed to him.

Guess they got his number........

"These emails have the appearance of having been held back after the theft of data and emails in 2009 to be released at a time designed to cause maximum disruption to the imminent international climate talks," the school stated.

University of East Anglia spokesman Simon Dunford nonetheless told the Associated Press that a small sample examined by the university "appears to be genuine" -- although the school stated that they did not seem to be recent emails.

"While we have had only a limited opportunity to look at this latest post of 5,000 emails, we have no evidence of a recent breach of our systems," the statement reads.

FoxNews.com downloaded the documents, which appear to have been taken down from the Russian website that had been hosting them.

And the anonymous source of the latest leaked emails -- a 173MB zip file called "FOIA2011" containing more than 5,000 new emails and made briefly available on Russian server Sinwt.ru -- remains unclear. The perpetrator of the original hack has yet to be unmasked, although British police have said their investigation is still active.

Michael Mann, the director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State University and a central figure in climate studies, described the release to U.K. paper the Guardian as "truly pathetic."

The emails in the leak appeared to be his own, Mann said, although he did not believe them to be as controversial at all, despite being taken out of context.

"I hardly see anything that appears damning at all," he told the Guardian.



Old man relies on the Russians and Faux news for his education.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike English:
What's sad is you fall for government bullshyt.

Mikey, can you say paranoid delusions?

The government most assuredly is not all good and but also not all bad either. So by your lights we are now in the realm of all of science, and, all of politics, worldwide, being in on this conspiracy, that right? I can only think of one other conspiracy that large, having a few major variants as well, and one you also subscribe to if memory serves.

Maybe if you stop self-medicating, so much, the paranoid delusion will subside and you can rejoin the rest of the world in the land of reality. Not everyone and everything including the “government”, is out to get you.

It’s kind of tiresome hearing your repeated monotonous one note song; think you could move on to something else. It’s the government, it’s the government, it’s the government, it’s the government, see, even in four iteration, it’s become tiresome. Care to try feeding us a different meal, one with more meat on the bones, and less of the remains of the digestion process?

Hoaxer, one word, money and it drives them all.

quote:

can you say paranoid delusions?

Exactly. Now we are getting somewhere. The first step is realizing you have a problem. What next Larry?

quote:

Originally posted by Bucky:

quote:

But that is just WEATHER!

THERE you have it Larry. Thank you.

Two days (a weekend) does not a climate make! It’s just weather, we are talking about climate.

So then I am bound to ask the question as to why you and others here so often post about singular weather events, as if a single weather data point even of unusual character disproves or even weakens the fact of “Climate Change” , which is what is implied is it not?

When you have thousands of such data points over years of time, across the whole globe, the synthesis of which points to the invalidity of the fact that climate change is occurring, at rates faster than what is expected, even given cyclic history of climate prior to oh say 200 year ago, then maybe get back with me. But like I said before you just keep them weather reports coming, there entertaining if nothing else.

quote:

Originally posted by Bucky:

quote:

can you say paranoid delusions?

Exactly. Now we are getting somewhere. The first step is realizing you have a problem. What next Larry?

Well Bucky, if you think you can get Mikey to realize he has a problem more power to you, he is not likely to listen to me, or anyone else, including you. Frankly I doubt that anything short of institutionalization would make much difference with him or one or two others I can think of around here. But you go right ahead, I’ve been trying for years with little if any success.

See, two can play at your game. What is the saying, turnabout is fair play?

quote:

So then I am bound to ask the question as to why you and others here so often post about singular weather events, as if a single weather data point even of unusual character disproves or even weakens the fact of “Climate Change” , which is what is implied is it not?

That is my point exactly. To see trends of something like Earth, you don't look at a day, or even a decade. The Earth goes through its own cycles and changes with or without us. The climate change fanatics look at 5 years of data and throw up their hands with a big conclusion about what affects man have had with these results.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike English:
Hoaxer, one word, money and it drives them all.

So it’s the money?

Well aren’t you one of the people around here that are real high on capitalism? Maybe we should have some rules and regulations in place to make sure that unbridled capitalism (the money) doesn’t run amuck, what do you think? Oh, but that requires a bit of government to make it work. Darn it’s getting complicated already, isn’t it?

The world is just a wee bit more complicated than your one word explanations can account for. Highly polarized and simplistic views of the world like yours are nothing more than useless platitudes mouthed by people unwilling or unable to look at and understand the complexities of life. It’s the government, it’s the money, once again your one note songs are boring, simplistic and useless.

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Heath: Two days (a weekend) does not a climate make! It’s just weather, we are talking about climate.

So then I am bound to ask the question as to why you and others here so often post about singular weather events, as if a single weather data point even of unusual character disproves or even weakens the fact of “Climate Change” , which is what is implied is it not?

When you have thousands of such data points over years of time, across the whole globe, the synthesis of which points to the invalidity of the fact that climate change is occurring, at rates faster than what is expected, even given cyclic history of climate prior to oh say 200 year ago, then maybe get back with me. But like I said before you just keep them weather reports coming, there entertaining if nothing else.

Data points that have been corrupted over time! How many times must it be pointed out that the vast majority of the data collection sites don't meet the original installation criteria? They have been intruded on by "civilization" and proven to produce marked higher temperature readings because of it.

And these "data points" have been your "go to" to support your claim of man-made global warming. Oh, it's man-made all right... in the sense that Man caused the "data points" the read artificially higher. But when the "data" shows something to the contrary of what supports your position you label it as singular weather events... never mind the proven trend of cooling that is completely ignored.

Of course your other "go to" instance of proof is the decrease in Arctic sea ice... while you conveniently ignore the fact that Antarctic sea ice levels have been all the while been increasing. Record setting Antarctic Sea Ice Enxtent.

Yes, the climate changes. The cause and effect are where the argument lies.

As Mr. English noted above, follow the money! There has been a vast conspiracy by the scientific community and left leaning government types. Ask yourself who stands to benefit the most financially from the hysteria. I can't count the number of meetings/conferences I've sat in on where the talk amongst the "researchers" was about how many millions and billions of dollars are being funneled into the support of those individuals screaming the loudest about how Man is the cause of all the Earth's ills.

You take away all the bogus research and protracted climate "models" and the money and this notion that Man can control the earth's climate dies an instant death.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: stanman,

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Heath: So it’s the money?

Well aren’t you one of the people around here that are real high on capitalism? Maybe we should have some rules and regulations in place to make sure that unbridled capitalism (the money) doesn’t run amuck, what do you think? Oh, but that requires a bit of government to make it work. Darn it’s getting complicated already, isn’t it?

The world is just a wee bit more complicated than your one word explanations can account for. Highly polarized and simplistic views of the world like yours are nothing more than useless platitudes mouthed by people unwilling or unable to look at and understand the complexities of life. It’s the government, it’s the money, once again your one note songs are boring, simplistic and useless.

And your self-righteous sense of inflated superiority is akin to the type of arrogance exhibited by pompous power-mongers.

History has proven time and time again that in almost all matters, the most simple explanation is the most truthful. But a smug globalist such as yourself in beyond comprehending this notion.

You nailed him to a "TEE" GS!!!!!

Littleman still trying to sell a hoax again?

Follow the money????????

LMAOROTFAICGU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

How fawking dumb can you get?

Larry, are you kidding me! Look at all the money your hero Al Gore made selling carbon credits. You are a bigger fool than I thought to think these clowns are doing this for the good of mankind.

quote:

Originally posted by stanman:

Data points that have been corrupted over time! How many times must it be pointed out that the vast majority of the data collection sites don't meet the original installation criteria? They have been intruded on by "civilization" and proven to produce marked higher temperature readings because of it.

Your argument is now and was before pure Bu11sh1t!

By whom has this been "proven" and when? What were their qualifications to pronounce on this subject? When are you going to stop spreading lies?

Once again, as I have in the past as far back as Nov 2011,I will point out to you and others here this argument is fallacious, and again that great care is taken in how data is obtained, from where, and what processing is applied to account for UHI (Urban heat island) effect. Just three days ago (July 29, 12:23) I reposed for BS Billy this very explanation.

Yet here you are again parroting the same old tired lies. There are many different systems used to gather data some ground based some satellite based, some balloon based and I am sure others as well. Those of the “US Climate Reference Network or USCRN” are of the very highest quality available in the world (reference the Quality Control pdf below)against which all others, COOP, ASOS and others are referenced.

So here again a Quote: From Nov 2011 showing that these types of concerns have been addressed as far back as 2005.

“Why yes many airports have weather stations on their grounds, my understanding is that they are part of the ASOS system (Automated Surface Observation System) the primary function being efficient and safe operation of the air port they are located on, not specifically to gather data on climate change, although I would guess the data could and is used, after suitable correction for UHI affects. I assume that is what you are trying to get at? Once again point me to a place where I might read the regulations themselves, which the feds are supposed to be breaking.

None the less, in 2005 a study was done to determine the affects UHI might have on the data regarding recent warming trends, I quote from the abstract,

"The implications of this work on U.S. climate change analyses is that, if the highest population stations are avoided (populations above 30 000 within 6 km), the analysis should NOT be expected to be contaminated by UHIs."

Emphasis on the NOT is mine.

For the full report go here http://journals.ametsoc.org/do...f/10.1175/JCLI3431.1

Here is a link that will get you the user's guide for the ASOS system in PDF format. http://www.nws.noaa.gov/asos/aum-toc.pdf


Next there are other systems in place specifically to gather data with regard to climate change research; it is called USCRN the U.S. Climate Reference Network.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/crn/

Do peruse the links on the left hand side of this page, in particular the photos link. Do you see anything that might qualify as a UHI in any of these photos? Further under the "Documents" link you might look at Research Reports and click on the PDF link entitled "Quality Control of Data From the US Climate Reference Network"
It seems to me as if they have some fairly robust processes and procedures in place to gather very high quality data.

(Photos) http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/crn/photos.html

(Quality Control) http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/.../research/Goodge.pdf

Now do you think after having looked at the USCRN site, and the lengths they are going through to obtain high quality data, that anybody there would be so foolish as to use data from sites that were suspect in quality?”

Here are just some of the picture of the sites in the USCRN system, all of which can be referenced in the link above. (photos)



Do any of these remotely look like they suffer from UHI?

But it's all just a huge hoax, right?

Only someone unemployed or on a bad back disability check could come up with all dis bull shi t

quote:

Originally posted by stanman:

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Heath: So it’s the money?

Well aren’t you one of the people around here that are real high on capitalism? Maybe we should have some rules and regulations in place to make sure that unbridled capitalism (the money) doesn’t run amuck, what do you think? Oh, but that requires a bit of government to make it work. Darn it’s getting complicated already, isn’t it?

The world is just a wee bit more complicated than your one word explanations can account for. Highly polarized and simplistic views of the world like yours are nothing more than useless platitudes mouthed by people unwilling or unable to look at and understand the complexities of life. It’s the government, it’s the money, once again your one note songs are boring, simplistic and useless.

History has proven time and time again that in almost all matters, the most simple explanation is the most truthful. But a smug globalist such as yourself in beyond comprehending this notion.

You’re, trying to quote Occam’s razor to me? Ok, now that I’ve stopped laughing I will go on.

The word “simplest” in this context is nuanced. Nuance being something some here wouldn’t recognize if it was attached to a rock and bounced off their thick heads. Nuance meaning the word simplest or “simple” as you use it, in this context and in many circumstances are likely to be VERY complicated answers, particularly if one wishes to convey a reasonably complete understanding of the subject at hand.

You’re confusing “simple” with simplistic.

“It’s the government”, “it’s the money”, are simplistic answers, used by simpletons, even more so when they are damn near the only ones they have and are used to explain everything. Might just as well answer the sun came up for everything, which conveys just about as much meaning or understanding.

This brings us right back to what I said before and it still stands, “The world is just a wee bit more complicated than your one word explanations can account for. Highly polarized and simplistic views of the world like yours are nothing more than useless platitudes mouthed by people unwilling or unable to look at and understand the complexities of life. It’s the government, it’s the money, once again your one note songs are boring, simplistic and useless.”

More gibberish bull shyt from the trough sloppers who must deliver predetermined results to keep their gravy train on the tracks!!!!!
Virtually all "REAL SCIENTISTS" have adandoned the hoaxers fairy tale because it has become so convoluted trying to justify prediction after predicton evaporating in a cloud of smoke!!!!!
We are left with pseudo scientists like algore making the prognostications now!!!!!