Groups > sci.physics > #706638 > unrolled thread

IPCC report warns rapid changes needed to stem climate change

Started by	kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid>
First post	2018-10-08 11:46 -0400
Last post	2018-10-09 11:53 -0400
Articles	20 on this page of 94 — 19 participants

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next page →

#706862

From	benj <benj.fake@gmail.com>
Date	2018-10-09 12:00 -0400
Message-ID	<ppijbi$1kvl$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#706797

On 10/9/2018 1:41 AM, Scout wrote:
> 
> 
> "Wally W." <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote in message 
> news:3i9ordpkd33g56da82h66nisi0vsgdmmjn@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 11:46:37 -0400, kensi wrote:
>>
>>> Planet has only until 2030 to stem catastrophic climate change, experts
>>> warn:
>>>
>>> https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/07/world/climate-change-new-ipcc-report-wxc/index.html 
>>>
>>
>> Maybe you missed this:
>> <http://joannenova.com.au/2018/10/first-audit-of-global-temperature-data-finds-freezing-tropical-islands-boiling-towns-boats-on-land/> 
>>
>> In some cases boats on dry land seemingly recorded ocean temperatures
>> from as far as 100km inland The only explanation that could make sense
>> is that Fahrenheit temperatures were mistaken for Celsius, and for the
>> next seventy years at the CRU no one noticed.
> 
> Here's one of my favorite parts.
> 
> "In probably the worst systematic error, the past is rewritten in an 
> attempt to correct for site moves. While some corrections are necessary, 
> these adjustments are brutally sweeping. Thermometers do need to move, 
> but corrections don't have to treat old sites as if they were always 
> surrounded by concrete and bricks.
> 
> New original sites are usually placed in good open sites. As the site 
> "ages" buildings and roads appear nearby, and sometimes air 
> conditioners, all artificially warming the site. So a replacement 
> thermometer is opened in an open location nearby. Usually each separate 
> national meteorology centre compares both sites for a while and figures 
> out the temperature difference between them. Then they adjust the 
> readings from the old locations down to match the new ones. The problem 
> is that the algorithms also slice right back through the decades cooling 
> all the older original readings - even readings that were probably taken 
> when the site was just a paddock.  In this way the historic past is 
> rewritten to be colder than it really was, making recent warming look 
> faster than it really was. Thousands of men and women trudged through 
> snow, rain and mud to take temperatures that a computer "corrected" a 
> century later."
> 
> 
> Further let's not forget the recent episode where a major amount of the 
> raw data was thrown away in the trash because the "normalized data" 
> (also known as manipulated data) is all that's needed anymore.
> 
> So if something like this were to occur to the 'normalized data' it 
> would invalidate everything collected and would be IMPOSSIBLE to recover 
> from because we now long have the manipulated data to refer back to.
> 
> Then we have cases in which climate organizations manipulate the data in 
> order to maintain this hoax, and it's not the first time that it's been 
> done or even been exposed being done by the same organization.

It's bad enough that political organizations (Like IPCC) have been 
spinning yarns but you also have official government organizations 
manipulating data for years. Not only have low-reading stations been 
closed, and a construction creating Urban heat islands ignored but 
Actual historical GISS has been slowly "adjusted" without explanation.
This is pure fraud. Probably a result of people using their OWN GISS 
data to show climate change assertions are completely incompatible with 
their OWN historical temperature data. (Like say from 1940-1970 when CO2 
went UP and Temperature went DOWN)

The climate scam is a HUGE black eye on science.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#706863

From	"Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake>
Date	2018-10-09 12:10 -0400
Message-ID	<tbkprdlli3hjfejljnniq5agu6864knuoh@4ax.com>
In reply to	#706862

On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 12:00:51 -0400, benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "Wally W." <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote in message  news:3i9ordpkd33g56da82h66nisi0vsgdmmjn@4ax.com...

<...>

>> Further let's not forget the recent episode where a major amount of the 
>> raw data was thrown away in the trash because the "normalized data" 
>> (also known as manipulated data) is all that's needed anymore.
>> 
>> So if something like this were to occur to the 'normalized data' it 
>> would invalidate everything collected and would be IMPOSSIBLE to recover 
>> from because we now long have the manipulated data to refer back to.
>> 
>> Then we have cases in which climate organizations manipulate the data in 
>> order to maintain this hoax, and it's not the first time that it's been 
>> done or even been exposed being done by the same organization.
>
>It's bad enough that political organizations (Like IPCC) have been 
>spinning yarns but you also have official government organizations 
>manipulating data for years. Not only have low-reading stations been 
>closed, and a construction creating Urban heat islands ignored but 
>Actual historical GISS has been slowly "adjusted" without explanation.
>This is pure fraud. Probably a result of people using their OWN GISS 
>data to show climate change assertions are completely incompatible with 
>their OWN historical temperature data. (Like say from 1940-1970 when CO2 
>went UP and Temperature went DOWN)
>
>The climate scam is a HUGE black eye on science.

These AGW whack jobs CONTINUE to ignore the facts
proven by ice core studies that FIRST temperatures 
rise and after temperatures rise the atmospheric 
levels of CO2 rise slightly.

Yet the continue to insist it is the other way around when
it isn't.  IOW increased temps cause CO2 rise not CO2
rise cause increased temps.

Fucking morons are so biased that they can't see the
forest for the CO2.

-- 

Yours Truly,
Gregory Hall

"Sometimes it's hard to tell them apart.
When he drowns in his shit bucket, I plan 
to nominate him for a Darwin." 
--Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#707135

From	Avenging Angel <Not.fucking.likely@NoWay.com>
Date	2018-10-11 10:31 +0000
Message-ID	<XnsA978425FC909Dgreyghost471bazinga@85.214.115.223>
In reply to	#706862

benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote in news:ppijbi$1kvl$1@gioia.aioe.org:

> On 10/9/2018 1:41 AM, Scout wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> "Wally W." <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote in message 
>> news:3i9ordpkd33g56da82h66nisi0vsgdmmjn@4ax.com...
>>> On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 11:46:37 -0400, kensi wrote:
>>>
>>>> Planet has only until 2030 to stem catastrophic climate change,
>>>> experts warn:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/07/world/climate-change-new-ipcc-report-
>>>> wxc/index.html 
>>>>
>>>
>>> Maybe you missed this:
>>> <http://joannenova.com.au/2018/10/first-audit-of-global-temperature-d
>>> ata-finds-freezing-tropical-islands-boiling-towns-boats-on-land/> 
>>>
>>> In some cases boats on dry land seemingly recorded ocean
>>> temperatures from as far as 100km inland The only explanation that
>>> could make sense is that Fahrenheit temperatures were mistaken for
>>> Celsius, and for the next seventy years at the CRU no one noticed.
>> 
>> Here's one of my favorite parts.
>> 
>> "In probably the worst systematic error, the past is rewritten in an 
>> attempt to correct for site moves. While some corrections are
>> necessary, these adjustments are brutally sweeping. Thermometers do
>> need to move, but corrections don't have to treat old sites as if
>> they were always surrounded by concrete and bricks.
>> 
>> New original sites are usually placed in good open sites. As the site
>> "ages" buildings and roads appear nearby, and sometimes air 
>> conditioners, all artificially warming the site. So a replacement 
>> thermometer is opened in an open location nearby. Usually each
>> separate national meteorology centre compares both sites for a while
>> and figures out the temperature difference between them. Then they
>> adjust the readings from the old locations down to match the new
>> ones. The problem is that the algorithms also slice right back
>> through the decades cooling all the older original readings - even
>> readings that were probably taken when the site was just a paddock. 
>> In this way the historic past is rewritten to be colder than it
>> really was, making recent warming look faster than it really was.
>> Thousands of men and women trudged through snow, rain and mud to take
>> temperatures that a computer "corrected" a century later."
>> 
>> 
>> Further let's not forget the recent episode where a major amount of
>> the raw data was thrown away in the trash because the "normalized
>> data" (also known as manipulated data) is all that's needed anymore.
>> 
>> So if something like this were to occur to the 'normalized data' it 
>> would invalidate everything collected and would be IMPOSSIBLE to
>> recover from because we now long have the manipulated data to refer
>> back to. 
>> 
>> Then we have cases in which climate organizations manipulate the data
>> in order to maintain this hoax, and it's not the first time that it's
>> been done or even been exposed being done by the same organization.
> 
> It's bad enough that political organizations (Like IPCC) have been 
> spinning yarns but you also have official government organizations 
> manipulating data for years. Not only have low-reading stations been 
> closed, and a construction creating Urban heat islands ignored but 
> Actual historical GISS has been slowly "adjusted" without explanation.
> This is pure fraud. Probably a result of people using their OWN GISS 
> data to show climate change assertions are completely incompatible
> with their OWN historical temperature data. (Like say from 1940-1970
> when CO2 went UP and Temperature went DOWN)
> 
> The climate scam is a HUGE black eye on science.

Corrupting dcience for politics i a crime against humanity and she be 
punished as such.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#707156

From	Lunar Opticfibre <jfwaldby@gmail.com>
Date	2018-10-11 08:36 -0600
Message-ID	<KdJvD.75683$6y.68884@fx09.iad>
In reply to	#707135

On 10/11/2018 4:31 AM, Avenging Angel wrote:
> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote in news:ppijbi$1kvl$1@gioia.aioe.org:
> 
>> On 10/9/2018 1:41 AM, Scout wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Wally W." <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote in message
>>> news:3i9ordpkd33g56da82h66nisi0vsgdmmjn@4ax.com...
>>>> On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 11:46:37 -0400, kensi wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Planet has only until 2030 to stem catastrophic climate change,
>>>>> experts warn:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/07/world/climate-change-new-ipcc-report-
>>>>> wxc/index.html
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Maybe you missed this:
>>>> <http://joannenova.com.au/2018/10/first-audit-of-global-temperature-d
>>>> ata-finds-freezing-tropical-islands-boiling-towns-boats-on-land/>
>>>>
>>>> In some cases boats on dry land seemingly recorded ocean
>>>> temperatures from as far as 100km inland The only explanation that
>>>> could make sense is that Fahrenheit temperatures were mistaken for
>>>> Celsius, and for the next seventy years at the CRU no one noticed.
>>>
>>> Here's one of my favorite parts.
>>>
>>> "In probably the worst systematic error, the past is rewritten in an
>>> attempt to correct for site moves. While some corrections are
>>> necessary, these adjustments are brutally sweeping. Thermometers do
>>> need to move, but corrections don't have to treat old sites as if
>>> they were always surrounded by concrete and bricks.
>>>
>>> New original sites are usually placed in good open sites. As the site
>>> "ages" buildings and roads appear nearby, and sometimes air
>>> conditioners, all artificially warming the site. So a replacement
>>> thermometer is opened in an open location nearby. Usually each
>>> separate national meteorology centre compares both sites for a while
>>> and figures out the temperature difference between them. Then they
>>> adjust the readings from the old locations down to match the new
>>> ones. The problem is that the algorithms also slice right back
>>> through the decades cooling all the older original readings - even
>>> readings that were probably taken when the site was just a paddock.Â
>>> In this way the historic past is rewritten to be colder than it
>>> really was, making recent warming look faster than it really was.
>>> Thousands of men and women trudged through snow, rain and mud to take
>>> temperatures that a computer "corrected" a century later."
>>>
>>>
>>> Further let's not forget the recent episode where a major amount of
>>> the raw data was thrown away in the trash because the "normalized
>>> data" (also known as manipulated data) is all that's needed anymore.
>>>
>>> So if something like this were to occur to the 'normalized data' it
>>> would invalidate everything collected and would be IMPOSSIBLE to
>>> recover from because we now long have the manipulated data to refer
>>> back to.
>>>
>>> Then we have cases in which climate organizations manipulate the data
>>> in order to maintain this hoax, and it's not the first time that it's
>>> been done or even been exposed being done by the same organization.
>>
>> It's bad enough that political organizations (Like IPCC) have been
>> spinning yarns but you also have official government organizations
>> manipulating data for years. Not only have low-reading stations been
>> closed, and a construction creating Urban heat islands ignored but
>> Actual historical GISS has been slowly "adjusted" without explanation.
>> This is pure fraud. Probably a result of people using their OWN GISS
>> data to show climate change assertions are completely incompatible
>> with their OWN historical temperature data. (Like say from 1940-1970
>> when CO2 went UP and Temperature went DOWN)
>>
>> The climate scam is a HUGE black eye on science.
> 
> Corrupting dcience for politics i a crime against humanity and she be
> punished as such.
> 

After I get me lucky charms.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#707372

From	Avenging Angel <Not.fucking.likely@NoWay.com>
Date	2018-10-12 03:36 +0000
Message-ID	<XnsA978F02E9E871greyghost471bazinga@85.214.115.223>
In reply to	#707156

Lunar Opticfibre <jfwaldby@gmail.com> wrote in news:KdJvD.75683$6y.68884
@fx09.iad:

> On 10/11/2018 4:31 AM, Avenging Angel wrote:
>> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote in news:ppijbi$1kvl$1@gioia.aioe.org:
>> 
>>> On 10/9/2018 1:41 AM, Scout wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Wally W." <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:3i9ordpkd33g56da82h66nisi0vsgdmmjn@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 11:46:37 -0400, kensi wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Planet has only until 2030 to stem catastrophic climate change,
>>>>>> experts warn:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/07/world/climate-change-new-ipcc-
report-
>>>>>> wxc/index.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe you missed this:
>>>>> <http://joannenova.com.au/2018/10/first-audit-of-global-
temperature-d
>>>>> ata-finds-freezing-tropical-islands-boiling-towns-boats-on-land/>
>>>>>
>>>>> In some cases boats on dry land seemingly recorded ocean
>>>>> temperatures from as far as 100km inland The only explanation that
>>>>> could make sense is that Fahrenheit temperatures were mistaken for
>>>>> Celsius, and for the next seventy years at the CRU no one noticed.
>>>>
>>>> Here's one of my favorite parts.
>>>>
>>>> "In probably the worst systematic error, the past is rewritten in an
>>>> attempt to correct for site moves. While some corrections are
>>>> necessary, these adjustments are brutally sweeping. Thermometers do
>>>> need to move, but corrections don't have to treat old sites as if
>>>> they were always surrounded by concrete and bricks.
>>>>
>>>> New original sites are usually placed in good open sites. As the 
site
>>>> "ages" buildings and roads appear nearby, and sometimes air
>>>> conditioners, all artificially warming the site. So a replacement
>>>> thermometer is opened in an open location nearby. Usually each
>>>> separate national meteorology centre compares both sites for a while
>>>> and figures out the temperature difference between them. Then they
>>>> adjust the readings from the old locations down to match the new
>>>> ones. The problem is that the algorithms also slice right back
>>>> through the decades cooling all the older original readings - even
>>>> readings that were probably taken when the site was just a 
paddock.Â
>>>> In this way the historic past is rewritten to be colder than it
>>>> really was, making recent warming look faster than it really was.
>>>> Thousands of men and women trudged through snow, rain and mud to 
take
>>>> temperatures that a computer "corrected" a century later."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Further let's not forget the recent episode where a major amount of
>>>> the raw data was thrown away in the trash because the "normalized
>>>> data" (also known as manipulated data) is all that's needed anymore.
>>>>
>>>> So if something like this were to occur to the 'normalized data' it
>>>> would invalidate everything collected and would be IMPOSSIBLE to
>>>> recover from because we now long have the manipulated data to refer
>>>> back to.
>>>>
>>>> Then we have cases in which climate organizations manipulate the 
data
>>>> in order to maintain this hoax, and it's not the first time that 
it's
>>>> been done or even been exposed being done by the same organization.
>>>
>>> It's bad enough that political organizations (Like IPCC) have been
>>> spinning yarns but you also have official government organizations
>>> manipulating data for years. Not only have low-reading stations been
>>> closed, and a construction creating Urban heat islands ignored but
>>> Actual historical GISS has been slowly "adjusted" without 
explanation.
>>> This is pure fraud. Probably a result of people using their OWN GISS
>>> data to show climate change assertions are completely incompatible
>>> with their OWN historical temperature data. (Like say from 1940-1970
>>> when CO2 went UP and Temperature went DOWN)
>>>
>>> The climate scam is a HUGE black eye on science.
>> 
>> Corrupting science for politics is a crime against humanity and should
>> be punished as such.
>> 
> 
> After I get me lucky charms.
> 


So you think it's perfectly ok to corrupt science for politics?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#707459

From	Lunar Opticfibre <jfwaldby@gmail.com>
Date	2018-10-12 10:27 -0600
Message-ID	<vX3wD.55799$292.33153@fx21.iad>
In reply to	#707372

On 10/11/2018 9:36 PM, Avenging Angel wrote:
> Lunar Opticfibre <jfwaldby@gmail.com> wrote in news:KdJvD.75683$6y.68884
> @fx09.iad:
> 
>> On 10/11/2018 4:31 AM, Avenging Angel wrote:
>>> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote in news:ppijbi$1kvl$1@gioia.aioe.org:
>>>
>>>> On 10/9/2018 1:41 AM, Scout wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Wally W." <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:3i9ordpkd33g56da82h66nisi0vsgdmmjn@4ax.com...
>>>>>> On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 11:46:37 -0400, kensi wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Planet has only until 2030 to stem catastrophic climate change,
>>>>>>> experts warn:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/07/world/climate-change-new-ipcc-
> report-
>>>>>>> wxc/index.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Maybe you missed this:
>>>>>> <http://joannenova.com.au/2018/10/first-audit-of-global-
> temperature-d
>>>>>> ata-finds-freezing-tropical-islands-boiling-towns-boats-on-land/>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In some cases boats on dry land seemingly recorded ocean
>>>>>> temperatures from as far as 100km inland The only explanation that
>>>>>> could make sense is that Fahrenheit temperatures were mistaken for
>>>>>> Celsius, and for the next seventy years at the CRU no one noticed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Here's one of my favorite parts.
>>>>>
>>>>> "In probably the worst systematic error, the past is rewritten in an
>>>>> attempt to correct for site moves. While some corrections are
>>>>> necessary, these adjustments are brutally sweeping. Thermometers do
>>>>> need to move, but corrections don't have to treat old sites as if
>>>>> they were always surrounded by concrete and bricks.
>>>>>
>>>>> New original sites are usually placed in good open sites. As the
> site
>>>>> "ages" buildings and roads appear nearby, and sometimes air
>>>>> conditioners, all artificially warming the site. So a replacement
>>>>> thermometer is opened in an open location nearby. Usually each
>>>>> separate national meteorology centre compares both sites for a while
>>>>> and figures out the temperature difference between them. Then they
>>>>> adjust the readings from the old locations down to match the new
>>>>> ones. The problem is that the algorithms also slice right back
>>>>> through the decades cooling all the older original readings - even
>>>>> readings that were probably taken when the site was just a
> paddock.Ã‚
>>>>> In this way the historic past is rewritten to be colder than it
>>>>> really was, making recent warming look faster than it really was.
>>>>> Thousands of men and women trudged through snow, rain and mud to
> take
>>>>> temperatures that a computer "corrected" a century later."
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Further let's not forget the recent episode where a major amount of
>>>>> the raw data was thrown away in the trash because the "normalized
>>>>> data" (also known as manipulated data) is all that's needed anymore.
>>>>>
>>>>> So if something like this were to occur to the 'normalized data' it
>>>>> would invalidate everything collected and would be IMPOSSIBLE to
>>>>> recover from because we now long have the manipulated data to refer
>>>>> back to.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then we have cases in which climate organizations manipulate the
> data
>>>>> in order to maintain this hoax, and it's not the first time that
> it's
>>>>> been done or even been exposed being done by the same organization.
>>>>
>>>> It's bad enough that political organizations (Like IPCC) have been
>>>> spinning yarns but you also have official government organizations
>>>> manipulating data for years. Not only have low-reading stations been
>>>> closed, and a construction creating Urban heat islands ignored but
>>>> Actual historical GISS has been slowly "adjusted" without
> explanation.
>>>> This is pure fraud. Probably a result of people using their OWN GISS
>>>> data to show climate change assertions are completely incompatible
>>>> with their OWN historical temperature data. (Like say from 1940-1970
>>>> when CO2 went UP and Temperature went DOWN)
>>>>
>>>> The climate scam is a HUGE black eye on science.
>>>
>>> Corrupting science for politics is a crime against humanity and should
>>> be punished as such.
>>>
>>
>> After I get me lucky charms.
>>
> 
> 
> So you think it's perfectly ok to corrupt science for politics? 

I think that's a vague question without context.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#707463

From	benj <benj.fake@gmail.com>
Date	2018-10-12 12:47 -0400
Message-ID	<ppqj68$ih8$2@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#707459

On 10/12/2018 12:27 PM, Lunar Opticfibre wrote:
> On 10/11/2018 9:36 PM, Avenging Angel wrote:
>> Lunar Opticfibre <jfwaldby@gmail.com> wrote in news:KdJvD.75683$6y.68884
>> @fx09.iad:
>>
>>> On 10/11/2018 4:31 AM, Avenging Angel wrote:
>>>> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote in news:ppijbi$1kvl$1@gioia.aioe.org:
>>>>
>>>>> On 10/9/2018 1:41 AM, Scout wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Wally W." <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:3i9ordpkd33g56da82h66nisi0vsgdmmjn@4ax.com...
>>>>>>> On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 11:46:37 -0400, kensi wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Planet has only until 2030 to stem catastrophic climate change,
>>>>>>>> experts warn:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/07/world/climate-change-new-ipcc-
>> report-
>>>>>>>> wxc/index.html
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Maybe you missed this:
>>>>>>> <http://joannenova.com.au/2018/10/first-audit-of-global-
>> temperature-d
>>>>>>> ata-finds-freezing-tropical-islands-boiling-towns-boats-on-land/>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In some cases boats on dry land seemingly recorded ocean
>>>>>>> temperatures from as far as 100km inland The only explanation that
>>>>>>> could make sense is that Fahrenheit temperatures were mistaken for
>>>>>>> Celsius, and for the next seventy years at the CRU no one noticed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here's one of my favorite parts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "In probably the worst systematic error, the past is rewritten in an
>>>>>> attempt to correct for site moves. While some corrections are
>>>>>> necessary, these adjustments are brutally sweeping. Thermometers do
>>>>>> need to move, but corrections don't have to treat old sites as if
>>>>>> they were always surrounded by concrete and bricks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> New original sites are usually placed in good open sites. As the
>> site
>>>>>> "ages" buildings and roads appear nearby, and sometimes air
>>>>>> conditioners, all artificially warming the site. So a replacement
>>>>>> thermometer is opened in an open location nearby. Usually each
>>>>>> separate national meteorology centre compares both sites for a while
>>>>>> and figures out the temperature difference between them. Then they
>>>>>> adjust the readings from the old locations down to match the new
>>>>>> ones. The problem is that the algorithms also slice right back
>>>>>> through the decades cooling all the older original readings - even
>>>>>> readings that were probably taken when the site was just a
>> paddock.Ã‚
>>>>>> In this way the historic past is rewritten to be colder than it
>>>>>> really was, making recent warming look faster than it really was.
>>>>>> Thousands of men and women trudged through snow, rain and mud to
>> take
>>>>>> temperatures that a computer "corrected" a century later."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Further let's not forget the recent episode where a major amount of
>>>>>> the raw data was thrown away in the trash because the "normalized
>>>>>> data" (also known as manipulated data) is all that's needed anymore.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So if something like this were to occur to the 'normalized data' it
>>>>>> would invalidate everything collected and would be IMPOSSIBLE to
>>>>>> recover from because we now long have the manipulated data to refer
>>>>>> back to.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then we have cases in which climate organizations manipulate the
>> data
>>>>>> in order to maintain this hoax, and it's not the first time that
>> it's
>>>>>> been done or even been exposed being done by the same organization.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's bad enough that political organizations (Like IPCC) have been
>>>>> spinning yarns but you also have official government organizations
>>>>> manipulating data for years. Not only have low-reading stations been
>>>>> closed, and a construction creating Urban heat islands ignored but
>>>>> Actual historical GISS has been slowly "adjusted" without
>> explanation.
>>>>> This is pure fraud. Probably a result of people using their OWN GISS
>>>>> data to show climate change assertions are completely incompatible
>>>>> with their OWN historical temperature data. (Like say from 1940-1970
>>>>> when CO2 went UP and Temperature went DOWN)
>>>>>
>>>>> The climate scam is a HUGE black eye on science.
>>>>
>>>> Corrupting science for politics is a crime against humanity and should
>>>> be punished as such.
>>>>
>>>
>>> After I get me lucky charms.
>>>
>>
>>
>> So you think it's perfectly ok to corrupt science for politics? 
> 
> I think that's a vague question without context.

I think that's an illiterate response without any merit.
Global warming is more than sufficient context.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#707468

From	Lunar Opticfibre <jfwaldby@gmail.com>
Date	2018-10-12 11:13 -0600
Message-ID	<lD4wD.248201$HK2.64935@fx08.iad>
In reply to	#707463

On 10/12/2018 10:47 AM, benj wrote:
> On 10/12/2018 12:27 PM, Lunar Opticfibre wrote:
>> On 10/11/2018 9:36 PM, Avenging Angel wrote:
>>> Lunar Opticfibre <jfwaldby@gmail.com> wrote in news:KdJvD.75683$6y.68884
>>> @fx09.iad:
>>>
>>>> On 10/11/2018 4:31 AM, Avenging Angel wrote:
>>>>> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote in news:ppijbi$1kvl$1@gioia.aioe.org:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/9/2018 1:41 AM, Scout wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Wally W." <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:3i9ordpkd33g56da82h66nisi0vsgdmmjn@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 11:46:37 -0400, kensi wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Planet has only until 2030 to stem catastrophic climate change,
>>>>>>>>> experts warn:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/07/world/climate-change-new-ipcc-
>>> report-
>>>>>>>>> wxc/index.html
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Maybe you missed this:
>>>>>>>> <http://joannenova.com.au/2018/10/first-audit-of-global-
>>> temperature-d
>>>>>>>> ata-finds-freezing-tropical-islands-boiling-towns-boats-on-land/>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In some cases boats on dry land seemingly recorded ocean
>>>>>>>> temperatures from as far as 100km inland The only explanation that
>>>>>>>> could make sense is that Fahrenheit temperatures were mistaken for
>>>>>>>> Celsius, and for the next seventy years at the CRU no one noticed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Here's one of my favorite parts.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "In probably the worst systematic error, the past is rewritten in an
>>>>>>> attempt to correct for site moves. While some corrections are
>>>>>>> necessary, these adjustments are brutally sweeping. Thermometers do
>>>>>>> need to move, but corrections don't have to treat old sites as if
>>>>>>> they were always surrounded by concrete and bricks.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> New original sites are usually placed in good open sites. As the
>>> site
>>>>>>> "ages" buildings and roads appear nearby, and sometimes air
>>>>>>> conditioners, all artificially warming the site. So a replacement
>>>>>>> thermometer is opened in an open location nearby. Usually each
>>>>>>> separate national meteorology centre compares both sites for a while
>>>>>>> and figures out the temperature difference between them. Then they
>>>>>>> adjust the readings from the old locations down to match the new
>>>>>>> ones. The problem is that the algorithms also slice right back
>>>>>>> through the decades cooling all the older original readings - even
>>>>>>> readings that were probably taken when the site was just a
>>> paddock.Ã‚
>>>>>>> In this way the historic past is rewritten to be colder than it
>>>>>>> really was, making recent warming look faster than it really was.
>>>>>>> Thousands of men and women trudged through snow, rain and mud to
>>> take
>>>>>>> temperatures that a computer "corrected" a century later."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Further let's not forget the recent episode where a major amount of
>>>>>>> the raw data was thrown away in the trash because the "normalized
>>>>>>> data" (also known as manipulated data) is all that's needed anymore.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So if something like this were to occur to the 'normalized data' it
>>>>>>> would invalidate everything collected and would be IMPOSSIBLE to
>>>>>>> recover from because we now long have the manipulated data to refer
>>>>>>> back to.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then we have cases in which climate organizations manipulate the
>>> data
>>>>>>> in order to maintain this hoax, and it's not the first time that
>>> it's
>>>>>>> been done or even been exposed being done by the same organization.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's bad enough that political organizations (Like IPCC) have been
>>>>>> spinning yarns but you also have official government organizations
>>>>>> manipulating data for years. Not only have low-reading stations been
>>>>>> closed, and a construction creating Urban heat islands ignored but
>>>>>> Actual historical GISS has been slowly "adjusted" without
>>> explanation.
>>>>>> This is pure fraud. Probably a result of people using their OWN GISS
>>>>>> data to show climate change assertions are completely incompatible
>>>>>> with their OWN historical temperature data. (Like say from 1940-1970
>>>>>> when CO2 went UP and Temperature went DOWN)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The climate scam is a HUGE black eye on science.
>>>>>
>>>>> Corrupting science for politics is a crime against humanity and should
>>>>> be punished as such.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> After I get me lucky charms.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> So you think it's perfectly ok to corrupt science for politics? 
>>
>> I think that's a vague question without context.
> 
> I think that's an illiterate response without any merit.
> Global warming is more than sufficient context.

Why should scientists uphold the highest levels of morality
while hucksters abound telling lies and selling junk?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#707506

From	benj <benj.fake@gmail.com>
Date	2018-10-12 17:18 -0400
Message-ID	<ppr33a$1d7c$2@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#707468

On 10/12/2018 1:13 PM, Lunar Opticfibre wrote:
> On 10/12/2018 10:47 AM, benj wrote:
>> On 10/12/2018 12:27 PM, Lunar Opticfibre wrote:
>>> On 10/11/2018 9:36 PM, Avenging Angel wrote:
>>>> Lunar Opticfibre <jfwaldby@gmail.com> wrote in 
>>>> news:KdJvD.75683$6y.68884
>>>> @fx09.iad:
>>>>
>>>>> On 10/11/2018 4:31 AM, Avenging Angel wrote:
>>>>>> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote in 
>>>>>> news:ppijbi$1kvl$1@gioia.aioe.org:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 10/9/2018 1:41 AM, Scout wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Wally W." <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:3i9ordpkd33g56da82h66nisi0vsgdmmjn@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 11:46:37 -0400, kensi wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Planet has only until 2030 to stem catastrophic climate change,
>>>>>>>>>> experts warn:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/07/world/climate-change-new-ipcc-
>>>> report-
>>>>>>>>>> wxc/index.html
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Maybe you missed this:
>>>>>>>>> <http://joannenova.com.au/2018/10/first-audit-of-global-
>>>> temperature-d
>>>>>>>>> ata-finds-freezing-tropical-islands-boiling-towns-boats-on-land/>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In some cases boats on dry land seemingly recorded ocean
>>>>>>>>> temperatures from as far as 100km inland The only explanation that
>>>>>>>>> could make sense is that Fahrenheit temperatures were mistaken for
>>>>>>>>> Celsius, and for the next seventy years at the CRU no one noticed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Here's one of my favorite parts.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "In probably the worst systematic error, the past is rewritten 
>>>>>>>> in an
>>>>>>>> attempt to correct for site moves. While some corrections are
>>>>>>>> necessary, these adjustments are brutally sweeping. Thermometers do
>>>>>>>> need to move, but corrections don't have to treat old sites as if
>>>>>>>> they were always surrounded by concrete and bricks.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> New original sites are usually placed in good open sites. As the
>>>> site
>>>>>>>> "ages" buildings and roads appear nearby, and sometimes air
>>>>>>>> conditioners, all artificially warming the site. So a replacement
>>>>>>>> thermometer is opened in an open location nearby. Usually each
>>>>>>>> separate national meteorology centre compares both sites for a 
>>>>>>>> while
>>>>>>>> and figures out the temperature difference between them. Then they
>>>>>>>> adjust the readings from the old locations down to match the new
>>>>>>>> ones. The problem is that the algorithms also slice right back
>>>>>>>> through the decades cooling all the older original readings - even
>>>>>>>> readings that were probably taken when the site was just a
>>>> paddock.Ã‚
>>>>>>>> In this way the historic past is rewritten to be colder than it
>>>>>>>> really was, making recent warming look faster than it really was.
>>>>>>>> Thousands of men and women trudged through snow, rain and mud to
>>>> take
>>>>>>>> temperatures that a computer "corrected" a century later."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Further let's not forget the recent episode where a major amount of
>>>>>>>> the raw data was thrown away in the trash because the "normalized
>>>>>>>> data" (also known as manipulated data) is all that's needed 
>>>>>>>> anymore.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So if something like this were to occur to the 'normalized data' it
>>>>>>>> would invalidate everything collected and would be IMPOSSIBLE to
>>>>>>>> recover from because we now long have the manipulated data to refer
>>>>>>>> back to.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Then we have cases in which climate organizations manipulate the
>>>> data
>>>>>>>> in order to maintain this hoax, and it's not the first time that
>>>> it's
>>>>>>>> been done or even been exposed being done by the same organization.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's bad enough that political organizations (Like IPCC) have been
>>>>>>> spinning yarns but you also have official government organizations
>>>>>>> manipulating data for years. Not only have low-reading stations been
>>>>>>> closed, and a construction creating Urban heat islands ignored but
>>>>>>> Actual historical GISS has been slowly "adjusted" without
>>>> explanation.
>>>>>>> This is pure fraud. Probably a result of people using their OWN GISS
>>>>>>> data to show climate change assertions are completely incompatible
>>>>>>> with their OWN historical temperature data. (Like say from 1940-1970
>>>>>>> when CO2 went UP and Temperature went DOWN)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The climate scam is a HUGE black eye on science.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Corrupting science for politics is a crime against humanity and 
>>>>>> should
>>>>>> be punished as such.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> After I get me lucky charms.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So you think it's perfectly ok to corrupt science for politics? 
>>>
>>> I think that's a vague question without context.
>>
>> I think that's an illiterate response without any merit.
>> Global warming is more than sufficient context.
> 
> Why should scientists uphold the highest levels of morality
> while hucksters abound telling lies and selling junk?

Um, because it's part of the scientific method while hucksters have 
their own "code of honor" among thieves.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#707604

From	Avenging Angel <Not.fucking.likely@NoWay.com>
Date	2018-10-13 03:06 +0000
Message-ID	<XnsA979EB25453A2greyghost471bazinga@85.214.115.223>
In reply to	#707468

Lunar Opticfibre <jfwaldby@gmail.com> wrote in
news:lD4wD.248201$HK2.64935@fx08.iad: 

> On 10/12/2018 10:47 AM, benj wrote:
>> On 10/12/2018 12:27 PM, Lunar Opticfibre wrote:
>>> On 10/11/2018 9:36 PM, Avenging Angel wrote:
>>>> Lunar Opticfibre <jfwaldby@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>> news:KdJvD.75683$6y.68884 @fx09.iad:
>>>>
>>>>> On 10/11/2018 4:31 AM, Avenging Angel wrote:
>>>>>> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>> news:ppijbi$1kvl$1@gioia.aioe.org: 
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 10/9/2018 1:41 AM, Scout wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Wally W." <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:3i9ordpkd33g56da82h66nisi0vsgdmmjn@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 11:46:37 -0400, kensi wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Planet has only until 2030 to stem catastrophic climate
>>>>>>>>>> change, experts warn:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/07/world/climate-change-new-ipcc-
>>>> report-
>>>>>>>>>> wxc/index.html
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Maybe you missed this:
>>>>>>>>> <http://joannenova.com.au/2018/10/first-audit-of-global-
>>>> temperature-d
>>>>>>>>> ata-finds-freezing-tropical-islands-boiling-towns-boats-on-land
>>>>>>>>> /> 
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In some cases boats on dry land seemingly recorded ocean
>>>>>>>>> temperatures from as far as 100km inland The only explanation
>>>>>>>>> that could make sense is that Fahrenheit temperatures were
>>>>>>>>> mistaken for Celsius, and for the next seventy years at the
>>>>>>>>> CRU no one noticed. 
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Here's one of my favorite parts.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "In probably the worst systematic error, the past is rewritten
>>>>>>>> in an attempt to correct for site moves. While some corrections
>>>>>>>> are necessary, these adjustments are brutally sweeping.
>>>>>>>> Thermometers do need to move, but corrections don't have to
>>>>>>>> treat old sites as if they were always surrounded by concrete
>>>>>>>> and bricks. 
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> New original sites are usually placed in good open sites. As
>>>>>>>> the 
>>>> site
>>>>>>>> "ages" buildings and roads appear nearby, and sometimes air
>>>>>>>> conditioners, all artificially warming the site. So a
>>>>>>>> replacement thermometer is opened in an open location nearby.
>>>>>>>> Usually each separate national meteorology centre compares both
>>>>>>>> sites for a while and figures out the temperature difference
>>>>>>>> between them. Then they adjust the readings from the old
>>>>>>>> locations down to match the new ones. The problem is that the
>>>>>>>> algorithms also slice right back through the decades cooling
>>>>>>>> all the older original readings - even readings that were
>>>>>>>> probably taken when the site was just a 
>>>> paddock.Ã‚
>>>>>>>> In this way the historic past is rewritten to be colder than it
>>>>>>>> really was, making recent warming look faster than it really
>>>>>>>> was. Thousands of men and women trudged through snow, rain and
>>>>>>>> mud to 
>>>> take
>>>>>>>> temperatures that a computer "corrected" a century later."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Further let's not forget the recent episode where a major
>>>>>>>> amount of the raw data was thrown away in the trash because the
>>>>>>>> "normalized data" (also known as manipulated data) is all
>>>>>>>> that's needed anymore. 
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So if something like this were to occur to the 'normalized
>>>>>>>> data' it would invalidate everything collected and would be
>>>>>>>> IMPOSSIBLE to recover from because we now long have the
>>>>>>>> manipulated data to refer back to.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Then we have cases in which climate organizations manipulate
>>>>>>>> the 
>>>> data
>>>>>>>> in order to maintain this hoax, and it's not the first time
>>>>>>>> that 
>>>> it's
>>>>>>>> been done or even been exposed being done by the same
>>>>>>>> organization. 
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's bad enough that political organizations (Like IPCC) have
>>>>>>> been spinning yarns but you also have official government
>>>>>>> organizations manipulating data for years. Not only have
>>>>>>> low-reading stations been closed, and a construction creating
>>>>>>> Urban heat islands ignored but Actual historical GISS has been
>>>>>>> slowly "adjusted" without 
>>>> explanation.
>>>>>>> This is pure fraud. Probably a result of people using their OWN
>>>>>>> GISS data to show climate change assertions are completely
>>>>>>> incompatible with their OWN historical temperature data. (Like
>>>>>>> say from 1940-1970 when CO2 went UP and Temperature went DOWN)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The climate scam is a HUGE black eye on science.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Corrupting science for politics is a crime against humanity and
>>>>>> should be punished as such.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> After I get me lucky charms.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So you think it's perfectly ok to corrupt science for politics? 
>>>
>>> I think that's a vague question without context.
>> 
>> I think that's an illiterate response without any merit.
>> Global warming is more than sufficient context.
> 
> Why should scientists uphold the highest levels of morality
> while hucksters abound telling lies and selling junk?
> 

Dismissed.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#707602

From	Avenging Angel <Not.fucking.likely@NoWay.com>
Date	2018-10-13 03:06 +0000
Message-ID	<XnsA979EB07256A8greyghost471bazinga@85.214.115.223>
In reply to	#707459

Lunar Opticfibre <jfwaldby@gmail.com> wrote in news:vX3wD.55799$292.33153
@fx21.iad:

> On 10/11/2018 9:36 PM, Avenging Angel wrote:
>> Lunar Opticfibre <jfwaldby@gmail.com> wrote in news:KdJvD.75683
$6y.68884
>> @fx09.iad:
>> 
>>> On 10/11/2018 4:31 AM, Avenging Angel wrote:
>>>> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote in news:ppijbi$1kvl$1
@gioia.aioe.org:
>>>>
>>>>> On 10/9/2018 1:41 AM, Scout wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Wally W." <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:3i9ordpkd33g56da82h66nisi0vsgdmmjn@4ax.com...
>>>>>>> On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 11:46:37 -0400, kensi wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Planet has only until 2030 to stem catastrophic climate change,
>>>>>>>> experts warn:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/07/world/climate-change-new-ipcc-
>> report-
>>>>>>>> wxc/index.html
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Maybe you missed this:
>>>>>>> <http://joannenova.com.au/2018/10/first-audit-of-global-
>> temperature-d
>>>>>>> ata-finds-freezing-tropical-islands-boiling-towns-boats-on-land/>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In some cases boats on dry land seemingly recorded ocean
>>>>>>> temperatures from as far as 100km inland The only explanation 
that
>>>>>>> could make sense is that Fahrenheit temperatures were mistaken 
for
>>>>>>> Celsius, and for the next seventy years at the CRU no one 
noticed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here's one of my favorite parts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "In probably the worst systematic error, the past is rewritten in 
an
>>>>>> attempt to correct for site moves. While some corrections are
>>>>>> necessary, these adjustments are brutally sweeping. Thermometers 
do
>>>>>> need to move, but corrections don't have to treat old sites as if
>>>>>> they were always surrounded by concrete and bricks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> New original sites are usually placed in good open sites. As the
>> site
>>>>>> "ages" buildings and roads appear nearby, and sometimes air
>>>>>> conditioners, all artificially warming the site. So a replacement
>>>>>> thermometer is opened in an open location nearby. Usually each
>>>>>> separate national meteorology centre compares both sites for a 
while
>>>>>> and figures out the temperature difference between them. Then they
>>>>>> adjust the readings from the old locations down to match the new
>>>>>> ones. The problem is that the algorithms also slice right back
>>>>>> through the decades cooling all the older original readings - even
>>>>>> readings that were probably taken when the site was just a
>> paddock.Ã‚
>>>>>> In this way the historic past is rewritten to be colder than it
>>>>>> really was, making recent warming look faster than it really was.
>>>>>> Thousands of men and women trudged through snow, rain and mud to
>> take
>>>>>> temperatures that a computer "corrected" a century later."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Further let's not forget the recent episode where a major amount 
of
>>>>>> the raw data was thrown away in the trash because the "normalized
>>>>>> data" (also known as manipulated data) is all that's needed 
anymore.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So if something like this were to occur to the 'normalized data' 
it
>>>>>> would invalidate everything collected and would be IMPOSSIBLE to
>>>>>> recover from because we now long have the manipulated data to 
refer
>>>>>> back to.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then we have cases in which climate organizations manipulate the
>> data
>>>>>> in order to maintain this hoax, and it's not the first time that
>> it's
>>>>>> been done or even been exposed being done by the same 
organization.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's bad enough that political organizations (Like IPCC) have been
>>>>> spinning yarns but you also have official government organizations
>>>>> manipulating data for years. Not only have low-reading stations 
been
>>>>> closed, and a construction creating Urban heat islands ignored but
>>>>> Actual historical GISS has been slowly "adjusted" without
>> explanation.
>>>>> This is pure fraud. Probably a result of people using their OWN 
GISS
>>>>> data to show climate change assertions are completely incompatible
>>>>> with their OWN historical temperature data. (Like say from 1940-
1970
>>>>> when CO2 went UP and Temperature went DOWN)
>>>>>
>>>>> The climate scam is a HUGE black eye on science.
>>>>
>>>> Corrupting science for politics is a crime against humanity and 
should
>>>> be punished as such.
>>>>
>>>
>>> After I get me lucky charms.
>>>
>> 
>> 
>> So you think it's perfectly ok to corrupt science for politics? 
> 
> I think that's a vague question without context.
> 

I think you are smarter tnan that. Knowing falsely reporting as scientfic 
fact something that isn't in order to push a politcal agenda.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#706826

From	kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid>
Date	2018-10-09 05:39 -0400
Message-ID	<ppht0e$b0o$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#706789

On 10/8/2018 11:59 PM, Wally W. wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 11:46:37 -0400, kensi wrote:
> 
>> Planet has only until 2030 to stem catastrophic climate change, experts
>> warn:
>>
>> https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/07/world/climate-change-new-ipcc-report-wxc/index.html
> 
> Maybe you missed this:
> <http://joannenova.com.au

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joanne_Nova

Education	Molecular biology[1]

A climate denier k0ok operating way outside of her field.

Time to spank her with astrophysics!

https://skepticalscience.com/How-Jo-Nova-doesnt-get-past-climate-change.html

8<-------------------------------------------------------------------->8
Looking at Jo Nova’s graph (Figure 1), we can see that the further back 
we go, the higher CO2 levels rise. However, as we go back in time solar 
activity also falls and in the early Phanerozoic the solar constant was 
about 4% less than current levels. Royer (2006) combined the radiative 
forcing from CO2 and solar variations to find their net effect on 
climate. The result is shown in Figure 2 (cooler climate is indicated by 
shaded areas which are periods of geographically widespread ice).

Figure 2: Combined radiative forcing from CO2 and sun through the 
Phanerozoic. Values are expressed relative to pre-industrial conditions 
(CO2 = 280 ppm; solar luminosity = 342 W/m2); a reference line of zero 
is given for clarity. The dark shaded bands correspond to periods with 
strong evidence for geographically widespread ice (Royer 2006).

As we can see from the graph, Royer found that when solar variations are 
taken into account, the “total radiative forcing” correlates excellently 
with past temperature reconstructions. In layman’s terms, this means 
that when the sun is less active, the CO2 level required to initiate a 
glaciation is much higher.
8<-------------------------------------------------------------------->8

> And this:
> <https://www.breitbart.BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAYAHA
HAHAAAAhhhhhhh...

Get back to us when you have a link from a source worthy of taking 
seriously.

-- 
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here."                                                     ~Checkmate

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#706838

From	Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com>
Date	2018-10-09 08:13 -0400
Message-ID	<gf6prdd5pqu05jeejmtah4dh0r1u5buape@4ax.com>
In reply to	#706826

On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 05:39:24 -0400, kensi wrote:

>On 10/8/2018 11:59 PM, Wally W. wrote:
>> On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 11:46:37 -0400, kensi wrote:
>> 
>>> Planet has only until 2030 to stem catastrophic climate change, experts
>>> warn:
>>>
>>> https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/07/world/climate-change-new-ipcc-report-wxc/index.html
>> 
>> Maybe you missed this:
>> <http://joannenova.com.au
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joanne_Nova
>
>Education	Molecular biology[1]
>
>A climate denier k0ok operating way outside of her field.
>
>Time to spank her with astrophysics!
>
>https://skepticalscience.com/How-Jo-Nova-doesnt-get-past-climate-change.html
>
>8<-------------------------------------------------------------------->8
>Looking at Jo Nova’s graph (Figure 1), we can see that the further back 
>we go, the higher CO2 levels rise. However, as we go back in time solar 
>activity also falls and in the early Phanerozoic the solar constant was 
>about 4% less than current levels. Royer (2006) combined the radiative 
>forcing from CO2 and solar variations to find their net effect on 
>climate. The result is shown in Figure 2 (cooler climate is indicated by 
>shaded areas which are periods of geographically widespread ice).
>
>
>Figure 2: Combined radiative forcing from CO2 and sun through the 
>Phanerozoic. Values are expressed relative to pre-industrial conditions 
>(CO2 = 280 ppm; solar luminosity = 342 W/m2); a reference line of zero 
>is given for clarity. The dark shaded bands correspond to periods with 
>strong evidence for geographically widespread ice (Royer 2006).
>
>As we can see from the graph, Royer found that when solar variations are 
>taken into account, the “total radiative forcing” correlates excellently 
>with past temperature reconstructions. In layman’s terms, this means 
>that when the sun is less active, the CO2 level required to initiate a 
>glaciation is much higher.
>8<-------------------------------------------------------------------->8
>
>> And this:
>> <https://www.breitbart.BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>HAHAHAHAHAHAHAYAHA
>HAHAAAAhhhhhhh...
>
>Get back to us when you have a link from a source worthy of taking 
>seriously.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Ad hominem (Latin for "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad
hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine
discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the
character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the
argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than
attacking the substance of the argument itself.

Possible edit to wiki:
For examples, see kensi's "reply" in the (yet another) OT thread she
started in sci.physics

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#706843

From	kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid>
Date	2018-10-09 09:57 -0400
Message-ID	<ppic54$16rl$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#706838

On 10/9/2018 8:13 AM, Wally W. wrote:
> (yet another) OT thread she started in sci.physics

I really don't see how that involved discussion of radiative forcing 
(complete with linked graphs and charts) is not physics, k0Ok.

-- 
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here."                                                     ~Checkmate

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#707101

From	Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com>
Date	2018-10-11 00:20 -0400
Message-ID	<pljtrd5st2ht60dm82dqt8tkllsoslfn3i@4ax.com>
In reply to	#706843

On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 09:57:55 -0400, kensi wrote:

>On 10/9/2018 8:13 AM, Wally W. wrote:
>> (yet another) OT thread she started in sci.physics
>

Interesting sequence: display ignorance:
>I really don't see how 

Then call someone *else* a kook:
>that involved discussion of radiative forcing 
>(complete with linked graphs and charts) is not physics, k0Ok.

The subject line is a subjective statement, not a "discussion of
radiative forcing."

Do you think there is any difference between preaching and discussing?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#707146

From	kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid>
Date	2018-10-11 10:09 -0400
Message-ID	<ppnljp$1q0m$2@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#707101

On 10/11/2018 12:20 AM, Wally W. wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 09:57:55 -0400, kensi wrote:
>> that involved discussion of radiative forcing
>> (complete with linked graphs and charts) is not physics, k0Ok.
> 
> The subject line is a subjective statement, not a "discussion of
> radiative forcing."

The discussion was in the *body* of the article, not the subject line, 
idiot.

-- 
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here."                                                     ~Checkmate

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#707150

From	"Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake>
Date	2018-10-11 10:15 -0400
Message-ID	<ommurd5soptmv4s6vj23981htsiglgtkdd@4ax.com>
In reply to	#707146

On Thu, 11 Oct 2018 10:09:57 -0400, kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> wrote:

>The discussion was in the *body* of the article, not the subject line, 
>idiot.

Is said body *fat* like yours, kensi?  (one of your disgruntled
students sent me pics)

OINK OINK!

-- 

Yours Truly,
Gregory Hall

"Sometimes it's hard to tell them apart.
When he drowns in his shit bucket, I plan 
to nominate him for a Darwin." 
--Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#707381

From	Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com>
Date	2018-10-12 01:26 -0400
Message-ID	<eqb0sdt6blfvi7jtmrcg13sibnnt3rfc0t@4ax.com>
In reply to	#707146

On Thu, 11 Oct 2018 10:09:57 -0400, kensi wrote:

>On 10/11/2018 12:20 AM, Wally W. wrote:
>> On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 09:57:55 -0400, kensi wrote:
>>> that involved discussion of radiative forcing
>>> (complete with linked graphs and charts) is not physics, k0Ok.
>> 
>> The subject line is a subjective statement, not a "discussion of
>> radiative forcing."
>
>The discussion was in the *body* of the article, not the subject line, 
>idiot.

The subject line was OT. It didn't suggest your article was worth
looking at. 

If you can't sell your article with an enticing subject line, that is
not my problem.

I have no interest in trying to read your mind.

Nor did the link text suggest anything worthy of a look:

<https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/07/world/climate-change-new-ipcc-report-wxc/index.html>

To me, it is an admission that the previous report was broken. I
already knew that. Why expect that the new one will be any better? Is
**the** science supposed to be **more** "settled" in this one, or is
it just more droning of the form, "It's worse than we thought?"

The self-parodies of greenies have ceased to have entertainment value.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#707422

From	kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid>
Date	2018-10-12 10:35 -0400
Message-ID	<ppqbgc$3v2$4@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#707381

On 10/12/2018 1:26 AM, Wally W. wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Oct 2018 10:09:57 -0400, kensi wrote:
> 
>> On 10/11/2018 12:20 AM, Wally W. wrote:
>>> On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 09:57:55 -0400, kensi wrote:
>>>> that involved discussion of radiative forcing
>>>> (complete with linked graphs and charts) is not physics, k0Ok.
>>>
>>> The subject line is a subjective statement, not a "discussion of
>>> radiative forcing."
>>
>> The discussion was in the *body* of the article, not the subject line,
>> idiot.
> 
> The subject line was OT. It didn't suggest your article was worth
> looking at.

Then you can feel free not to read it ... but reading it and then 
k'laming it was "off topic" when it patently was not is simply dishonest.

> <https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/07/world/climate-change-new-ipcc-report-wxc/index.html>
> 
> To me, it is an admission that the previous report was broken.

No, but science is an ongoing process of refining approximations and 
amassing knowledge. There's always something new to learn and to add to 
a report.

-- 
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here."                                                     ~Checkmate

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#707431

From	Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com>
Date	2018-10-12 10:57 -0400
Message-ID	<h9d1sd56r3gpltq77jndmfermkj3fpt9sq@4ax.com>
In reply to	#707422

On Fri, 12 Oct 2018 10:35:50 -0400, kensi wrote:

>On 10/12/2018 1:26 AM, Wally W. wrote:
>> On Thu, 11 Oct 2018 10:09:57 -0400, kensi wrote:
>> 
>>> On 10/11/2018 12:20 AM, Wally W. wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 09:57:55 -0400, kensi wrote:
>>>>> that involved discussion of radiative forcing
>>>>> (complete with linked graphs and charts) is not physics, k0Ok.
>>>>
>>>> The subject line is a subjective statement, not a "discussion of
>>>> radiative forcing."
>>>
>>> The discussion was in the *body* of the article, not the subject line,
>>> idiot.
>> 
>> The subject line was OT. It didn't suggest your article was worth
>> looking at.
>
>Then you can feel free not to read it ... but reading it and then 
>k'laming it was "off topic" when it patently was not is simply dishonest.

I didn't read it and then claim it was off topic.

I said your subject line was off topic, just like many of your other
posts.

I had no expectation that your article would be worth looking at.

I suspect that your "***involved*** discussion of radiative forcing"
is a generous assessment.

BTW: this group is not sci.radiative-forcing.


>> <https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/07/world/climate-change-new-ipcc-report-wxc/index.html>
>> 
>> To me, it is an admission that the previous report was broken.
>
>No, but science is an ongoing process of refining approximations and 
>amassing knowledge. There's always something new to learn and to add to 
>a report.

That denies greenie dogma, where "***The*** science is settled."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next page →

csiph-web

IPCC report warns rapid changes needed to stem climate change

Contents

#706862

#706863

#707135

#707156

#707372

#707459

#707463

#707468

#707506

#707604

#707602

#706826

#706838

#706843

#707101

#707146

#707150

#707381

#707422

#707431