page 94 of live and let die

[woodsmoke]

I just discovered that Bond books are in public domain and so have I been reading them in order.

on page 94 of Live and Let Die is James Bond talking about the Thames River freezing over back in the 1800s. Lol

Hans Brinker and the silver Skates was written because of the little ice age.

but the elites are going to plow ahead with global warming even though the guy who started it says it's not happening.

I imagine Ian Fleming is turning over in his grave! Lol

Woodyes I teach global warming but I also present the other side and let the students decide smoke

P.s. I spoke this text into my myeebo tablet! lol

[woodsmoke]

myeebo

login as guest from a private residence'

woodsmoke

[whatthefunk]

I just discovered that Bond books are in public domain and so have I been reading them in order.

on page 94 of Live and Let Die is James Bond talking about the Thames River freezing over back in the 1800s. Lol

Hans Brinker and the silver Skates was written because of the little ice age.

but the elites are going to plow ahead with global warming even though the guy who started it says it's not happening.

I imagine Ian Fleming is turning over in his grave! Lol

Woodyes I teach global warming but I also present the other side and let the students decide smoke

P.s. I spoke this text into my myeebo tablet! lol

1. For the thousandth time, who the hell are these elites you keep talking about

e·lite [ih-leet, ey-leet]
noun
1. ( often used with a plural verb ) the choice or best of anything considered collectively, as of a group or class of persons.
2. ( used with a plural verb ) persons of the highest class: Only the elite were there.
3. a group of persons exercising the major share of authority or influence within a larger group: the power elite of a major political party.
4. a type, approximately 10-point in printing-type size, widely used in typewriters and having 12 characters to the inch. Compare pica1 .

You do understand that language is meant to communicate ideas, right? If your audience doesnt understand the terms that you are using, then you have failed.

2. The first guy who came up with the idea of global warming was Svante Arrhenius. As far as I know, he died believing in the idea. Get your facts straight.

3. Fictional books are not evidence and if you think they are you need to get your head checked. Yes, the Thames River froze over. Yes, climate fluctuates naturally. This does not mean that climate can't change for other reasons. If you witness two cars crash because of faulty breaks, does that mean that the next car that crashes has crashed because of faulty breaks? No. It means that there is a chance that faulty breaks were the cause. That is all. There are a million other reasons why it could have crashed. Because A causes B does not mean that B is always the result of A. So, coming back to the point, how does the Thames River freezing over 200 years ago prove that this round of climate change is not due to humans?

4. You say that you are teaching the other side. Where is the other side? Is it in James Bond books? Please, tell me in detail, why you disapprove of the idea that humans can cause climate change. If you cant do this, then I suggest you close this thread.

All that you do in these kinds of posts is make yourself look like a fool and thus less believable. Im ashamed that my country's education system has turned out people with such horrible critical thinking skills. How did you become a professor??

[Buddlespit]

A man and his family are in a minivan, cruising across the desert at 80mph, trying to find a radio station to listen to. Suddenly, amid heavy static, they hear that a bridge has collapsed. To the mans' wifes horror, he continues driving at 80mph. "Aren't you going to slow down?" she asks. "No, we can't prove it was a bridge on the road we're driving on that's collapsed."

Moral of the story is: just because we aren't sure about something doesn't mean we shouldn't slow down our activities.

[lcorken]

Year Without a Summer (1816)

...It is believed that the anomaly was caused by a combination of a historic low in solar activity with a volcanic winter event, the latter caused by a succession of major volcanic eruptions capped by the 1815 eruption of Mount Tambora, in the Dutch East Indies (Indonesia), the largest known eruption in over 1,300 years. The Little Ice Age, then in its concluding decades, may also have been a factor...

I found out about this by reading Alley Oop comics. Not sure which is more believable Alley Oop, James Bond, or Wikipedia.

Ken.

[woodsmoke]

Global Warming Scientist does U turn

lol, well the guy who started the whole thing....says it ain't happenin'...in an interview in the U.K. which...

.ummm..never.....appeared in the "U.S. mainstream media"

To quote:

Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995

Data for vital 'hockey stick graph' has gone missing
There has been no global warming since 1995
Warming periods have happened before - but NOT due to man-made changes


The academic at the centre of the ‘Climategate’ affair, whose raw data is crucial to the theory of climate change, has admitted that he has trouble ‘keeping track’ of the information.

Colleagues say that the reason Professor Phil Jones has refused Freedom of Information requests is that he may have actually lost the relevant papers.

Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organisational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is ‘not as good as it should be’.

The data is crucial to the famous ‘hockey stick graph’ used by climate change advocates to support the theory.

Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.

And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.

The admissions will be seized on by sceptics as fresh evidence that there are serious flaws at the heart of the science of climate change and the orthodoxy that recent rises in temperature are largely man-made.

Professor Jones has been in the spotlight since he stepped down as director of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit after the leaking of emails that sceptics claim show scientists were manipulating data.

The raw data, collected from hundreds of weather stations around the world and analysed by his unit, has been used for years to bolster efforts by the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to press governments to cut carbon dioxide emissions.

OK so let's cut to the chase:

THE ONE THING THAT ALL SCIENTISTS MUST DO IS HAVE THEIR DATA AVAILABLE FOR OTHER SCIENTISTS TO TEST.

Ummmmmm apparently this guy doesn't know what a usb stick, or a cdrom or a dvdrom is because.,....

ALL of his data was on one hard drive and the hard drive went ...um.......missing.

Apparently......he had no colleagues that had access to the data either....

or they would have VERY QUICKLY stepped forward to provide it...

Professor Jones criticised those who complained he had not shared his data with them

, saying they could always collate their own from publicly available material in the US

WHAT!!!! the dissenting scientists have to "get their own data"!!! :0

Okaaay.....so why have the "agreeing scientists" his colleagues.......um....not gone to those public sources and reconstructed his projections?

If it is REALLY happening and the world is about to end, then that seems like a worthy task.....

but the lack of such an effort is indicative...

So a multi billion change to the whole economic system of the whole world was based upon.....information on one hard drive which "has gone missing".

And he said the climate had not cooled ‘until recently – and then barely at all. The trend is a warming trend’.

Mr Harrabin told Radio 4’s Today programme that, despite the controversies, there still appeared to be no fundamental flaws in the majority scientific view that climate change was largely man-made.

But Dr Benny Pieser, director of the sceptical Global Warming Policy Foundation, said Professor Jones’s ‘excuses’ for his failure to share data were hollow as he had shared it with colleagues and ‘mates’.

He said that until all the data was released, sceptics could not test it to see if it supported the conclusions claimed by climate change advocates.

He added that the professor’s concessions over medieval warming were ‘significant’ because they were his first public admission that the science was not settled.

One would think.....that.......if the theory were real, substantiated by real data, that the data could "at least" be reconstructed...... which it seems it has not been...

One would think.....that...... since the much cried for changes to whole economies, mainly the evil U.S. economy will be on the order of billions of dollars.....that the guy who did the theory....would not have been....

what is the term...

Oh..... "Peter Principled"......relegated to a backwater part of the university because....to quote:

his strengths included integrity and doggedness but not record-keeping and office tidying.

finding that the CRU scientists had not embraced the "spirit of openness" of the UK Freedom of Information Act.

He "didn't think that the data would be needed twenty years later"....

WHAT!!!!! :0

I will guarantee you that every single bit of research data for every single project done in every single university in this fair state has been "available" and "open" since the inception of the schools...

HMMMM one of his "strengths" was, not, apparently ....scientific ability....

If the whole world has to change it's economic structure, one would think that....the scientist at the heart of it would be spoken of as having scientific ability...

but no, he is buried in a backwater "doing research"...on....what.....instead of fighting the good fight of global warming...

The university said that the new position was not a demotion and would enable Jones to concentrate on research and "reduce his responsibilities for administration."

so draw your own conclusions.

woodsmoke

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz2boOeNHuv

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Jo...imatologist%29

[whatthefunk]

lol, well the guy who started the whole thing....says it ain't happenin'...in an interview in the U.K. which...

.ummm..never.....appeared in the "U.S. mainstream media"

To quote:



OK so let's cut to the chase:

THE ONE THING THAT ALL SCIENTISTS MUST DO IS HAVE THEIR DATA AVAILABLE FOR OTHER SCIENTISTS TO TEST.

Ummmmmm apparently this guy doesn't know what a usb stick, or a cdrom or a dvdrom is because.,....

ALL of his data was on one hard drive and the hard drive went ...um.......missing.

Apparently......he had no colleagues that had access to the data either....

or they would have VERY QUICKLY stepped forward to provide it...



WHAT!!!! the dissenting scientists have to "get their own data"!!! :0

Okaaay.....so why have the "agreeing scientists" his colleagues.......um....not gone to those public sources and reconstructed his projections?

If it is REALLY happening and the world is about to end, then that seems like a worthy task.....

but the lack of such an effort is indicative...

So a multi billion change to the whole economic system of the whole world was based upon.....information on one hard drive which "has gone missing".



One would think.....that.......if the theory were real, substantiated by real data, that the data could "at least" be reconstructed...... which it seems it has not been...

One would think.....that...... since the much cried for changes to whole economies, mainly the evil U.S. economy will be on the order of billions of dollars.....that the guy who did the theory....would not have been....

what is the term...

Oh..... "Peter Principled"......relegated to a backwater part of the university because....to quote:





He "didn't think that the data would be needed twenty years later"....

WHAT!!!!! :0

I will guarantee you that every single bit of research data for every single project done in every single university in this fair state has been "available" and "open" since the inception of the schools...

HMMMM one of his "strengths" was, not, apparently ....scientific ability....

If the whole world has to change it's economic structure, one would think that....the scientist at the heart of it would be spoken of as having scientific ability...

but no, he is buried in a backwater "doing research"...on....what.....instead of fighting the good fight of global warming...



so draw your own conclusions.

woodsmoke

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz2boOeNHuv

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Jo...imatologist%29

Why are you obsessing about the flaws of one man? So far the "other side" you are teaching has for its evidence the following:
1. A James Bond novel
2. Criticism of the man who you claim to be the father of the theory but who actually was not

Do better.

[woodsmoke]

Well I'm not obsessing on the guy.

Yes Arrhenius "hypothesized" it, but the fellow in the paper was THE guy who "created the controversy".

Since my degree is in Plant Ecology I have a vested interest in determining which "story" is "the truth".

I watched the guy whine and complain and "put off" releasing his data for several years....

The DATA should have been made available...

if the DATA had shown that AGW was correct then so be it...

that is what ANY scientist does...

The problem is that the scientists had to BELIEVE the guy, because he would not provide his data.

Scientists are not supposed to BELIEVE anything! they are supposed to "look at the data" and come to the same conclusion...

or not....

WHICHEVER way it goes...

That is what a real scientist does.

The problem in the U.S. is that the U.S. populace has been programmed to "believe the guy in the academic garb". if he says it then it must be true..

So....Lets see theories that EVERYBODY .....believed.....notice .........believed....true.

Aether
Lamarkism
Creation Science
The second and third Archaeopteryx fossils
Cold Fusion

thousands upon thousands of "people" believed those were true....but oops....nope.

The man who "wrote" the present "theory" of global warming:

a) has no data....lost it, finito, gone poof....

THAT IS UNHEARD OF...... NO....scientist "just loses" his/her data....

In a multi million dollar operation he could not have one of his many assistants run the data by a photocopier?

I think I would have:

a) made fifty photocopies and make sure every assistant had them
b) make at least ten cds,
c) make at least ten dvds
d) make at least ten usb sticks...
and..
more than one hard drive...

it is called "backing up" the data....i think that Linux people kinda obsess on that ...

but no.....he "lost" the paper copies and either "formatted" or "lost" his hard drive...

b) HE himself said...no global warming.....that the Medieval Warm period was two degrees higher than it is NOW.... so if it was two degrees higher then it has had to go DOWN....Maunder Minimum...and is now going back up.... will it continue to do so?

ummm yes....

but not because of CO2. The knights of the round table may have produced a lot of huffing and puffing and CO2 while jousting but it was not enough to get the temperature two degrees higher than it is now.

The man himself.....says no global warming.... and has been "horizontally incapacitated/Peter Principled" by being moved to a backwater office to "do research"...

I mean...draw your own conclusions from the mouth of the man himself: Phil Jones.

Don't believe me..... I'm just the secondary messenger after the journalist in the U.K....

Phil Jones said it out of his own mouth.

Or don't believe what he said.

The James Bond novel:

It is called "information present before the controversy" in other words the writer did not "know" about global warming, he was just writing about stuff that really happned.

woodsmoke

[woodsmoke]

Icorken

Yep..... year without a summer.

Guess what.....

Volcanic activity was not included in Jones' "theory" because it was "too variable".

Just like "water" was not included .....the largest constituent of the atmosphere....not a "gas" but a "vapour".... because..it was "too variable".

Ok the guy had untold number of "variables"...and "weighted" them, but didn't inlude the largest component of the atmosphere.

woodsmoke

[whatthefunk]

Well I'm not obsessing on the guy.

Yes Arrhenius "hypothesized" it, but the fellow in the paper was THE guy who "created the controversy".

Since my degree is in Plant Ecology I have a vested interest in determining which "story" is "the truth".

I watched the guy whine and complain and "put off" releasing his data for several years....

The DATA should have been made available...

if the DATA had shown that AGW was correct then so be it...

that is what ANY scientist does...

The problem is that the scientists had to BELIEVE the guy, because he would not provide his data.

Scientists are not supposed to BELIEVE anything! they are supposed to "look at the data" and come to the same conclusion...

or not....

WHICHEVER way it goes...

That is what a real scientist does.

The problem in the U.S. is that the U.S. populace has been programmed to "believe the guy in the academic garb". if he says it then it must be true..

So....Lets see theories that EVERYBODY .....believed.....notice .........believed....true.

Aether
Lamarkism
Creation Science
The second and third Archaeopteryx fossils
Cold Fusion

thousands upon thousands of "people" believed those were true....but oops....nope.

The man who "wrote" the present "theory" of global warming:

a) has no data....lost it, finito, gone poof....

THAT IS UNHEARD OF...... NO....scientist "just loses" his/her data....

In a multi million dollar operation he could not have one of his many assistants run the data by a photocopier?

I think I would have:

a) made fifty photocopies and make sure every assistant had them
b) make at least ten cds,
c) make at least ten dvds
d) make at least ten usb sticks...
and..
more than one hard drive...

it is called "backing up" the data....i think that Linux people kinda obsess on that ...

but no.....he "lost" the paper copies and either "formatted" or "lost" his hard drive...

b) HE himself said...no global warming.....that the Medieval Warm period was two degrees higher than it is NOW.... so if it was two degrees higher then it has had to go DOWN....Maunder Minimum...and is now going back up.... will it continue to do so?

ummm yes....

but not because of CO2. The knights of the round table may have produced a lot of huffing and puffing and CO2 while jousting but it was not enough to get the temperature two degrees higher than it is now.

The man himself.....says no global warming.... and has been "horizontally incapacitated/Peter Principled" by being moved to a backwater office to "do research"...

I mean...draw your own conclusions from the mouth of the man himself: Phil Jones.

Don't believe me..... I'm just the secondary messenger after the journalist in the U.K....

Phil Jones said it out of his own mouth.

Or don't believe what he said.

The James Bond novel:

It is called "information present before the controversy" in other words the writer did not "know" about global warming, he was just writing about stuff that really happned.

woodsmoke

See, here you are obsessing again. All that I am asking for is some sort of evidence to show that global warming is not happening. That is all I want. So far, you have a James Bond novel, and a couple rants about one scientist out of thousands. That is not evidence.

[HalationEffect]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13719510

According to the above, Prof. Jones is now satisfied that the climate data does show a significant warming trend. One extra year's worth of data was enough to raise it to the 95% confidence level required for "significance".

Basically what's changed is one more year [of data]. That period 1995-2009 was just 15 years - and because of the uncertainty in estimating trends over short periods, an extra year has made that trend significant at the 95% level which is the traditional threshold that statisticians have used for many years.

Professor Jones' previous comment, from a BBC interview in February 2010, is routinely quoted - erroneously - as demonstration that the Earth's surface temperature is not rising.

PS. The Daily Mail is a *terrible* source to quote. They're an unreliable, sensationalist, populist rag. Their policy seems to be 'print first, fact-check later (if ever)'. Basically, they're the British version of the National Enquirer.

[woodsmoke]

Halation effect.

That is an interesting bit of data and it does show that the "temperature is going up".

However, "blaming the messenger" in terms of the Daily Mail is a "terrible source to quote" does not address the simple fact that...

If Prof. Jones had been misquoted, he could have sued, which it did not.

As to the temperature "going up".

And as to the whatthefunk's request to show that it is "global warming is not happening". Trying to prove a negative is not possible. One cannot point at "nothing" and say something is "not there".

But, the terms being used are not absolutely correct.

There is "global warming"....GW......which is a situation produced by the "greenhouse effect". Basically, that short wave radiation from the sun heats up the earth and the long wave "re-radiated" energy from the earth does not easily pass back through the "greenhouse" of the earth's atmosphere.

The problem with "greenhouse gasses" is a very simple one when one tries to "search" for "greenhouse gasses".

The single largest constituent of the "atmosphere" is water vapour and it is not "a gas" it is "a vapour'.....all of the searches produce nice listings and graphs of "gasses" of which Nitrogen is the largest component,

To get "carbon dioxide" to be the culprit, the modelers have to put in a "fudge factor" called a "forcing factor"...for carbon dioxide...

Take a look at this equation from Wikipedia:



notice the 5.35. It is not discussed in the wikipedia article but it is.... "a constant" ..."a fudge factor" that "scientists" have decided is a "good factor"..... well there are others who dissent...

The Coefficient 5.35 in the formula RF=5.35ln(CO2/CO2-orig) comes from basic physical principles based on radiation transfer calculations using complex models.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...-6-easy-steps/

Notice the term "complex"....what is lost in the discussions about all of this is that in "complex models"....the scientists form a "consensus" on how to "average".....numbers, or median or mode or whatever to get a "constant"...

The problem with "cold fusion" was that the "constant" used to calibrate the equipment had not been updated for fourty years....when it was studied by a LOT of scientists...the factor was changed and the cold fusion furor went away.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing

BUT.....again....YOU go look at the information.....

there is a sentence that is just seemingly mentioned in passing in the Wikipedia article.

The relationship between carbon dioxide and radiative forcing is logarithmic, and thus increased concentrations have a progressively smaller warming effect.

hmmmmmmmmmmm let those with eyes to see......see....

But back to the "gasses"

the people promoting "global warming" conveniently forget to mention about water vapour, which is not "strictly" a "gas" and ..... guess what.... Jones dropped water vapour out of the equations for the reason that the water vapour in the air is "too variable".

WHAT IS .....the meaning of "too" variable.... well, if one uses the low end..... the numbers go down...if one uses the high end....the numbers go up! oops! water might be the problem..

However, there is now some attempt to include water vapour so ...it may be that water vapour is a big determinant or not...don't know yet.

But, in this author's opinion, possibly ALL constituents should be included in any modelling.

Another constituent left out is "volcanic ash"....now volcanic ash does not stay in the atomosphere for decades but, as referred to previously, it can persist for a long time and has contributed to great COOLINGS of the atmosphere....

FROM WHICH.......that atmosphere then begins to RE-heat.

Back to "global warming"...

Actually what is so frenticly shouted about is "anthropogenic global warming". AGW... anthropo..(human)....genic.(created" warming.

So.... just what has happened with the global temperaturs for the last several thousand years....

Up.....down....up...down....

The medieval warming was TWO DEGREES higher than it is now and apparently folks got along just fine...

Greenland, which is now not green was so called by the vikings because it was...back then....green..... and iceland was not green....back then but is now green.

Again..... if "anthropogenic" effects were what caused the rise of temperature then.....

ask yourself one question....

how many coal fired power plants and Hummers do you see in the tapestries of the knights jousting?

The talking heads always use a qualifier when they talk about "global warming" and "carbon dioxide" and "horrible U.S.A."

The qualifiers are:

"Since the beginning of recorded temperature".... well that is just after the Maunder Minimum (little ice age).....no wonder the temperatures have been going up! ")

"1970"....ummmm same thing....temps up.... from the Maunder Minimum.(little ice age)...

The Maunder Minimum is NEVER...........>NEVER< mentioned by the talking heads.

Please note the temps during the "knights" jousting time...two degrees above...

Please not the "little ice age /minimum" during the time of Charles Dickens.

When YOU were in school, the "little ice age" used to be taught....but about twenty years ago...

ALL REFERENCE, in the texbooks that I have seen, both history and science, to the little ice age has been eliminated.....



So....YES..........."global warming" ....IS OCCURING.... because of solar cycles....

The temperature for the last fifteen years has been NOT going up....it has been relatively flat..or going down....

due again, to solar cycles and about a jillion other things.....

will it go back up? YES....

will it go down? YES....

And since any kind of HISTORICAl context has been eliminated from the discussion......the people listening nod their heads yes and cast sputum on the U.S.A.

There is a frenzy about the wildfires in the west..... while not mentioning that last winter...a relatively mild winter...

Our fair city had the lowest recorded temperature EVER..

soooo look at the graph, don't take my word for it.

***************8

a BBC interview in February 2010, is routinely quoted - erroneously - as demonstration that the Earth's surface temperature is not rising

Again......WHY IS IT....that he has not sued to remove the blot upon his escutcheon?

"AS to Professor Jones being now satisfied"....

Why is he still buried in a backwater "doing research" and not...LEADING THE GLOBAL WARMING FIGHT?

I know...it is an evil right wing conspiracy conducted by..

the head of his department
the head of the divison
the head of the school

evil conspirators....keeping him buried in a backwater office....doing research.

Think about that...

woodsmoke

[HalationEffect]

So you didn't notice any 'spin' in the Daily Mail's headline that said "There has been no global warming since 1995", when compared to Prof. Jones actual statement "for the past 15 years there has been no statistically significant warming"? Those two statements do not have the same meaning, but the Daily Mail was quite happy to treat them as though they did.

And as for the fact that Prof. Jones didn't sue the Daily Mail... well, for one thing, we don't have the litigation culture here in the UK that exists in the USA. Plus, under the UK's legal system he may not have had grounds to sue even if he'd been so inclined.

Over 97% of published climate researchers say that a) global warming *is* happening, and b) human activity is a significant contributor to it. Outspoken sceptic Prof. Richard Muller (founder of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project) says that he is a converted sceptic as a result of his own team's analysis of the data.

"We were not expecting this, but as scientists, it is our duty to let the evidence change our minds." He added that he now considers himself a "converted sceptic" and his views had undergone a "total turnaround" in a short space of time.

[lcorken]

Whether Global warming is real of not and whatever the cause, it seems to me that any effort to clean up the air and other environmental factors is a good thing if done reasonably.

A counter to that could be that the Earth is self healing. If you "paved paradise and put up a parking lot" it will be over grown and unrecognizable as a parking lot if left alone for a couple hundred years.

Plate tectonics abduction and subduction will eventually recycle everything including nuclear waste, melt it, mix it all up and spit it out some volcano hole in a few million years. The problem with that idea is that humanity will likely be extinct by then. Or migrated to some other planet.

Ken.

[woodsmoke]

hi
well, we are now getting off into the weeds of "interpreting" what someone else wrote.

The important thing in my previous post was the graph....did you LOOK AT IT?

But, as to the litigation in UK.

Consider this one thought.

The whole global warming industry is well into the billions of dollars.

They are talking changing the whole global economy, which will soon turn into trillions of dollars.

So.... since we do not hear almost anything, at least in the U.S. about "AGW"... and the Republicans are NOT in power in the congress except to "obstruct".... The Dems have the Senate and the Prez is a Dem....

I would think that if this really was a earth shattering emergency......

That somehow Jones could be at least somewhat modestly pulled out of his backwater and pushed to the forefront to fight the good fight of Global Warming.

And the very first thing would be to sue the hedoublehockysticks out of that nasty paper.

Instead we now have "climate change"....which means that if the temperature goes up the trillions of dollars are going to be spent or if the temperature goes DOWN.....they are going to spend the money anyway....

I don't know where you got the 97% number but if 97 percent of ANY group really did have proof of something as important as a trillion dollar change in the whole planet's economy ....

don't you think they would be on the bandwagon and have Pres. Obama touting them?

No, he is curiously silent on the subject, except for a few miscellaneous references in a few of his MANY speeches.

So....you have an expert.

Here is another expert: who is adamantly against "global warming".

Roy Spencer, climatologist author, former NASA scientist.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/

The only REAL piece of information that is germane to this discussion is the graph.

I herewith present another version.



Notice the first date of publication: 1969

Notice that it was UPDATED in 1995 and nobody seems to be really arguing with it....(I do provide another viewpoint in the Wikipedia article).

However, just to illustrate that I do, indeed, look at both sides, here is a discussion of the Medieval Warm Period which has a short summation of whether or not the "medieval warm period" was just restricted to the northern himisphere.

That gets one really off into the weeds because if one "conjectures" that the northern hemisphere and southern are opposite or congruent, then what does one do with THAT piece of information?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period

But....again....here is another piece of information:

Jones either "threw out" data or "moved the stations" of chineese data sets.

Now.... quite simply the "temperature averages" for the data sets were "lower" than the rest of the world, Mongolia, Thibet, all that.

The effect of moving placement of the stations and throwing out "unreliable data"....was to INCREASE the average temperatures and that is how he produced his "hocky stick" graph.

from the fraud allegation:

And when, in 2007, Jones finally released what location data he had, British amateur climate analyst and former City banker Doug Keenan accused Jones and Wang of fraud.

He pointed out that the data showed that 49 of the Chinese meteorological stations had no histories of their location or other details. These mysterious stations included 40 of the 42 rural stations. Of the rest, 18 had certainly been moved during the story period, perhaps invalidating their data.

Keenan told the Guardian: "The worst case was a station that moved five times over a distance of 41 kilometres"; hence, for those stations, the claim made in the paper that "there were 'few if any changes' to locations is a fabrication".

Now, lest we yet again blame the messenger. If there was no fraud then Jones should have sued the hedouble hockysticks out of the paper.

Here is the Jones document:

http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/ruti/asia/china.php

I would REALLY like for you to look at the MASSIVE variations in the temps, and that then they were all "scaled" into a "mean"...

Just consider what the tolerance is for that mean....

So lets consider the Jones "Hocky Stick graph". I am going to provide a link to the wikipedia article on it.

Here are the things to note:

a) There have been multiple analyses of the thing, and much shouting by politicians, etc.
b) the "models" use MASSIVE NUMBERS of "proxies" and all of those "proxies" are used to produce the "graph".
c) each of the "proxies" is predicated on a "theory" of how the proxies should work, that means that the "scientist" puts his or her "constants" or "fudge factors" into it.
d) Remember that there is a "mean" "median" and "mode" to any statistic, most of the stuff is done with the "mean", but the important thing to remember is that each scientist puts his or her own "fudge factor" into how to produce their particular "mean".
e) and then all of those "means"......and there are hundreds of them, are then put together into a "single mean"....usually with an upper and lower limit.
f) One can "graph" the means, and the upper limits and the lower limits and quite often come out with different "directions" for the graph.

The e-mail controversy:

The shouting has been about "how dare anybody hack into his personal e-mails".... pointing at the MESSENGER and not the information.

Here is the information.

Jones wrote: "I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline.

Ok the word "trick" is a casual scientific jargon for "fixing things".

much has been written about how those deniers seized on the word "trick" to say that he was changinging the data when he was really just using a "fixer".

Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmm

exqueeze.....me!

The important part of the statement is that he had to change the data to HIDE THE DECLINE!!!! :0 :0

Kill the messenger and ignore the message.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy

DO A SEARCH FOR THE HOCKY STICK GRAPH and see how many you find, and do a search for a term like 2000 years of global temperatures or some such and see how many you find.

You will find massive numbers for both....

But here is the cut to the chase.... if the original idea was correct, or even close to correct.....

Why is the discussion buried in thousands of pages of backing forthing between different experts instead of ....

STANDING OUT CLEARLY as good information?

I leave it to the gentle reader to think about that....

if the hocky stick graph, the ORIGINAL IMPETUS for ALL of this was just a "little mistake".....then why is it not emblazoned on flags around the world to rally the troops to the good cause of Global Warming...

I leave it to you to think about it.

The real big idea is that the temps have gone up and down....

we are rising from the Maunder Minimum, little ice age...

the temps will go up and down again....some short term and some long term...



woodsmoke

as an aside:

The "casual" use of the word "temperatures" HIDES A LOT OF STUFF.....

there is surface temperature of.....the soil
there is surface temperature of......the ocean
there is "near surface" temperature of.....the soil, and the ocean...

And one talking head will talk about "the average temperature" and use....this or that....and the other will use "this or that"..

BOTH OF THEM KNOWING EXACTLY WHAT THEY ARE DOING....

Because they consider YOU to be too STUPID to keep track of the .....um adjectives....

And the reporter either has no clue and just repeats

.....or has an agenda.....and repeats the parts that he or she likes...on EITHER side of the argument.