|
|
Post by curiousgeorge on Jun 26, 2009 2:06:33 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jun 26, 2009 2:11:25 GMT
Does this really surprise you? When the true climatic structures are observed, the co2 link vanishes to the point of a non issue.
But you can't tax someone on a non issue can you?
I am really getting tired of the lies and liers. Science is suppose to be above reproach and money trails, but co2 science only shows how flawed the system really is. Now it seems to be making even more crooks. Shameful.
|
|
|
|
Post by curiousgeorge on Jun 26, 2009 2:27:13 GMT
Does this really surprise you? When the true climatic structures are observed, the co2 link vanishes to the point of a non issue. But you can't tax someone on a non issue can you? I am really getting tired of the lies and liers. Science is suppose to be above reproach and money trails, but co2 science only shows how flawed the system really is. Now it seems to be making even more crooks. Shameful. What surprises me is that this is starting to make it into the news, not that the EPA would censor one of their own or suppress a internal "Minority Report" ( recall the movie of the same name ) that doesn't fit the political climate. Maybe this will get the attention of the powers that be before it's too late. Here's how it got started over on WUWT: wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/25/source-inside-epa-confirms-claims-of-science-being-ignored-by-top-epa-management/ |
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Jun 26, 2009 4:31:17 GMT
I'm amazed all of these reports have gone unchallenged. I point out to people all the time that information contradicting these outlandish claims is freely available...even from that bastard James Hanson. Yet they keep saying "accelerating warming" when it's cooling. They mention some of the most outrageous figures...6C??? 9C?!?!? (which BTW should technically be enough to offset 33watts per square meter more energy!) Feedbacks that amplify 2-4X??? Then Obama talks about CO2 as if it makes our water toxic?  (Soft drink anyone?) This is madness! (insert 300 clip) |
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 26, 2009 20:14:58 GMT
The report claims that the satellite records show no warming. Any amateur knows that's wrong. It's junk.
|
|
|
|
Post by curiousgeorge on Jun 26, 2009 22:31:57 GMT
The report claims that the satellite records show no warming. Any amateur knows that's wrong. It's junk. You're missing the point. This entire debate hasn't been about obscure technical data for several years. It's about money and political power. EPA got caught with their collective pants down around their ankles. Those emails censoring Alan are all over the news and have been entered into the debate in the House today. |
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Jun 27, 2009 13:43:19 GMT
Just remember Chicago politics. It makes no difference right or wrong it is who is in charge. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by hilbert on Jun 27, 2009 17:16:51 GMT
The report claims that the satellite records show no warming. Any amateur knows that's wrong. It's junk.  Perhaps they mean since the early 2000's. |
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 27, 2009 20:58:13 GMT
They say since the mid-1970s. Ironically their argument is that hadcrut warming since the mid 1970s is likely be due to UHI "since no such increase is shown in the satellite record" Ironic because the actual satellite data such as the graph you posted does show a warming trend. Therefore the converse of their argument must hold true (if the basis of their argument was valid at all, which it isn't necessarily) - ie hadcrut warming since the mid 1970s is unlikely to be due to UHI "since such an increase is shown in the satellite record". There was more of this kind of stuff on a recent WUWT post, in which Bob Tisdale compared UAH and GISS trends. wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/24/a-comphrehensive-comparison-of-giss-and-uah-global-temperature-data/There was much suprise from some commenters that UAH and GISTEMP warming trends are so close over the last 30 years, with in fact some regions of the Earth seeing more warming in the UAH record than GISTEMP. The first comment got the ball rolling: "Interesting that the UAH “North America plus” trend is greater than GISS. So, how can poor siting and UHI be exaggerating North America/US warming when a supposedly more accurate and representative satellite dataset actually has a greater trend?" Of course it's invalid to compare lower tropospheric trends and surface trends anyway, especially for a single region because they are measurements of different things. One trend could really be greater than the other. But in any case it seems many skeptics have somehow conditioned themselves to believe the warming trend of the past 30 years is a fabrication of surface record. That's the only reason they can act suprised when they find out the trends are close. And why else is such an argument made in the EPA report other than they had a false perception? The alternate and least favorable option is deliberate deception, but I will assume it is just a mistake. |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 27, 2009 22:30:08 GMT
They say since the mid-1970s. Ironically their argument is that hadcrut warming since the mid 1970s is likely be due to UHI "since no such increase is shown in the satellite record" Ironic because the actual satellite data such as the graph you posted does show a warming trend. Therefore the converse of their argument must hold true (if the basis of their argument was valid at all, which it isn't necessarily) - ie hadcrut warming since the mid 1970s is unlikely to be due to UHI "since such an increase is shown in the satellite record". There was more of this kind of stuff on a recent WUWT post, in which Bob Tisdale compared UAH and GISS trends. wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/24/a-comphrehensive-comparison-of-giss-and-uah-global-temperature-data/There was much suprise from some commenters that UAH and GISTEMP warming trends are so close over the last 30 years, with in fact some regions of the Earth seeing more warming in the UAH record than GISTEMP. The first comment got the ball rolling: "Interesting that the UAH “North America plus” trend is greater than GISS. So, how can poor siting and UHI be exaggerating North America/US warming when a supposedly more accurate and representative satellite dataset actually has a greater trend?" Of course it's invalid to compare lower tropospheric trends and surface trends anyway, especially for a single region because they are measurements of different things. One trend could really be greater than the other. But in any case it seems many skeptics have somehow conditioned themselves to believe the warming trend of the past 30 years is a fabrication of surface record. That's the only reason they can act suprised when they find out the trends are close. And why else is such an argument made in the EPA report other than they had a false perception? The alternate and least favorable option is deliberate deception, but I will assume it is just a mistake. Maybe it would be more correct to say that after discarding UHI the record does not show any unexpected warming beyond that which we would expect from ocean oscillations. You really shouldn't get too excited if a few details are left out. . . .after all you guys are far far more guilty of that sort of stuff leaving clouds and water vapor models out of your physics calculations. |
|
|
|
Post by curiousgeorge on Jun 27, 2009 23:21:55 GMT
Just remember Chicago politics. It makes no difference right or wrong it is who is in charge. ;D Agreed. Here's a little something that pertains: Egotist MEGACEPH, chosen to serve the State In the halls of legislative debate, One day with his credentials came To the capitol's door and announced his name. The doorkeeper looked, with a comical twist Of the face, at the eminent egotist, And said: "Go away, for we settle here All manner of questions, knotty and queer, And we cannot have, when the speaker demands To know how every member stands, A man who to all things under the sky Assents by eternally voting 'I.'" Ambrose Bierce |
|
(Soft drink anyone?)
