|
Post by stanb999 on Jan 20, 2010 13:50:29 GMT
This will take years if not decades to play itself out in the courts. But there are forces out there already marshaling talent and girding for the fight that is to come. steve, socold and glc are already integral components in my strategy. Their sallies are carefully noted as some, if not all of their reasoning, I can well anticipate as the avenues I must also follow and eventually expect to counter. All of you here are already participating in what will eventually transpire at the most serious level. The courtrooms..... And I cannot thank you all enough. Keep up the good work, everyone! As stated above the IPCC may not have "broke" the law. But lying to congress or misrepresenting the facts to gain funds. Is a felony. Didn't Mann get 500,000 of "stimulus". Yeah, that's gonna hurt. Something to consider in all of this is the criminal charges that will be forth coming. See AGW was largely political in support. When it's no longer politically acceptable to be seen as being fooled by "scientists" (When is it ever good to be the fool?) true or not. The politicians will clean the house of these characters. Harshly and with prejudice. It will be so swift that I bet Steve, GLC, and Socold will join or maybe even start a government conspiracy website. Oh, the humanity.
|
|
bxs
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 115
|
Post by bxs on Jan 20, 2010 23:16:48 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Pooh on Feb 22, 2010 5:47:11 GMT
More Videos from Coleman at TV station KUSI.These are different from those posted earlier as Re: GISS emails Released Under FOI « Reply #34 on Jan 16, 2010, 1:46am »VIDEOS: THE EXPERTS EXPLAIN THE GLOBAL WARMING MYTH www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/78488007.htmlNew! Scientists who know that there is no significant man-made global warming have recorded videos to be displayed for the delegates to the International Climate Conference in Copenhagen. Four of those videos were shot and edited by the team I (Coleman) worked with. Here they are for you to see. (Now available {and working} on YouTube)
|
|
|
Post by Pooh on Feb 22, 2010 5:52:48 GMT
KUSI's Coleman has posted unedited versions of interviewsFULL UNEDITED INTERVIEW WITH JOE D’ALEO www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/84277452.html
FULL UNEDITED INTERVIEW WITH E. MICHAEL SMITH www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/84277557.htmlAnalysis of data corruption by Federal agencies. The UHCN station data set has been reduced to 1000 to 1200 stations, but the base line is computed from 6000 stations. However, the stations surviving in current anomaly calculations appear to be located in warmer climes (coastal, urban or filled in from stations up to 1200 km distant.
FULL UNEDITED INTERVIEW WITH S. FRED SINGER www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/84417717.htmlAddressing negative feedback as well as the political manipulation of climate data. The change of mind of Gore's guru (Revell) (The timing of the decline is interesting considering that the slaughter of cooler surface weather stations is roughly coincident with satellite temperature measurement, which began to diverge from warmer surface station analyses.)
|
|
|
Post by glc on Feb 22, 2010 11:44:21 GMT
KUSI's Coleman has posted unedited versions of interviewsFULL UNEDITED INTERVIEW WITH JOE D’ALEO www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/84277452.html
FULL UNEDITED INTERVIEW WITH E. MICHAEL SMITH www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/84277557.htmlAnalysis of data corruption by Federal agencies. The UHCN station data set has been reduced to 1000 to 1200 stations, but the base line is computed from 6000 stations. However, the stations surviving in current anomaly calculations appear to be located in warmer climes (coastal, urban or filled in from stations up to 1200 km distant.
FULL UNEDITED INTERVIEW WITH S. FRED SINGER www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/84417717.htmlAddressing negative feedback as well as the political manipulation of climate data. The change of mind of Gore's guru (Revell) (The timing of the decline is interesting considering that the slaughter of cooler surface weather stations is roughly coincident with satellite temperature measurement, which began to diverge from warmer surface station analyses.) The reduction is stations is unlikely to have much of an effect. If it did then you'd be seeing altenative temperature reconstuctions from E.M. Smith et al. Roy Spencer is the only one to tackle this issue publicly and has reached the following conclusion (see www.drroyspencer.com/ ) " But at face value, this plot seems to indicate that the rapid decrease in the number of stations included in the GHCN database in recent years has not caused a spurious warming trend in the Jones dataset — at least not since 1986." Fair play to Roy he has done some analysis and found there's little evidence to support the claims that the surface temperature record is seriously in doubt. It's time the others either put up or shut up.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Feb 22, 2010 14:18:02 GMT
KUSI's Coleman has posted unedited versions of interviewsFULL UNEDITED INTERVIEW WITH JOE D’ALEO www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/84277452.html
FULL UNEDITED INTERVIEW WITH E. MICHAEL SMITH www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/84277557.htmlAnalysis of data corruption by Federal agencies. The UHCN station data set has been reduced to 1000 to 1200 stations, but the base line is computed from 6000 stations. However, the stations surviving in current anomaly calculations appear to be located in warmer climes (coastal, urban or filled in from stations up to 1200 km distant.
FULL UNEDITED INTERVIEW WITH S. FRED SINGER www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/84417717.htmlAddressing negative feedback as well as the political manipulation of climate data. The change of mind of Gore's guru (Revell) (The timing of the decline is interesting considering that the slaughter of cooler surface weather stations is roughly coincident with satellite temperature measurement, which began to diverge from warmer surface station analyses.) The reduction is stations is unlikely to have much of an effect. If it did then you'd be seeing altenative temperature reconstuctions from E.M. Smith et al. Roy Spencer is the only one to tackle this issue publicly and has reached the following conclusion (see www.drroyspencer.com/ ) " But at face value, this plot seems to indicate that the rapid decrease in the number of stations included in the GHCN database in recent years has not caused a spurious warming trend in the Jones dataset — at least not since 1986." Fair play to Roy he has done some analysis and found there's little evidence to support the claims that the surface temperature record is seriously in doubt. It's time the others either put up or shut up. It's nice you once again cherry pick what you like. How about posting the entire paragraph? Oh, and BTW glc, just as a reminder, you have been saying since the beginning that satellite does not pick up UHI, remember? Or shall I go back and dig it up? Omitted from your quote: Of course, an increasing urban heat island effect could still be contaminating both datasets, resulting in a spurious warming trend. Also, when I include years before 1986 in the analysis, the warming trends might start to diverge. That is the crux of the matter, and the fact that Jones refused to release the raw data, which he has now "lost". Now, do I need to again post the multiple studies on UHI using satellite data? EDIT: If you read the posts at WUWT , Spencer makes this interesting comment: Roy Spencer (15:51:48) : My understanding is that there is some quality testing with quality flags included with each ISH observation. I doubt that any of the temperatures have been altered in any way.NOW…in retrospect, I’m surprised no one asked the following question: If the monthly temperature anomalies are, on average, 36% larger than Jones got…why isn’t the warming trend 36% greater, too? Maybe the agreement isn’t as close as it seems at first.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Feb 22, 2010 21:35:26 GMT
It's nice you once again cherry pick what you like. How about posting the entire paragraph? Oh, and BTW glc, just as a reminder, you have been saying since the beginning that satellite does not pick up UHI, remember? Or shall I go back and dig it up?
You don't need to bother. As usual you've got the wrong end of the stick. The UAH LT temperatures are measured at 14,000 ft. There is even coverage around the earth, i.e. across oceans, deserts and other vast uninhabited regions.
There is no UHI effect with the UAH (or RSS) troposphere readings.
There could possibly be a UHI effect with the land surface record because most of the stations tend to be close to population centres.
Although Spencer is using satellite data, they are actually surface readings from the locations that are similar to the locations of stations in the CRU record. Spencer, in his statement which you have quoted (see below), is saying that if the CRU record is contaminated with UHI, then it's also possible that the ISH data used by RS is also contaminated with UHI.
As it happens I don't think UHI is a factor because the LT record has a similar warming trend. I suspect Roy Spencer doesn't think it's a factor either.
Omitted from your quote:
Of course, an increasing urban heat island effect could still be contaminating both datasets, resulting in a spurious warming trend. Also, when I include years before 1986 in the analysis, the warming trends might start to diverge.
In summary: You are confusing AMSU satellite readings of the troposphere with surface temperatures which have been inferred from satellite data.
|
|