Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Environmentalist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (26843)	12/12/2009 12:55:35 PM
From: miraje	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36917

Cal, and we can move corporations with our size. Yup, the regulation choked, over taxed, bankrupt, Peoples State of Kalifornia is successfully moving corporations alright. Moving them right out of the state, along with small businesses and ordinary citizens who are tired of getting the shaft from the statist greenie loony toons in Sacramento. Actions have consequences and CA ain't seen nothing yet. Keep huffing on that bong, ratty, and you might not even notice...

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (26843)	12/12/2009 3:11:55 PM
From: Maurice Winn	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36917

Wharfie, examination of the Darwin data shows .... oops, the adjustments are bung and apparently created from thin air to show global warming: wattsupwiththat.com <People keep saying “Yes, the Climategate scientists behaved badly. But that doesn’t mean the data is bad. That doesn’t mean the earth is not warming.” Let me start with the second objection first. The earth has generally been warming since the Little Ice Age, around 1650. There is general agreement that the earth has warmed since then. See e.g. Akasofu . Climategate doesn’t affect that. The second question, the integrity of the data, is different. People say “Yes, they destroyed emails, and hid from Freedom of information Acts, and messed with proxies, and fought to keep other scientists’ papers out of the journals … but that doesn’t affect the data, the data is still good.” Which sounds reasonable. There are three main global temperature datasets. One is at the CRU, Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, where we’ve been trying to get access to the raw numbers. One is at NOAA/GHCN, the Global Historical Climate Network. The final one is at NASA/GISS, the Goddard Institute for Space Studies. The three groups take raw data, and they “homogenize” it to remove things like when a station was moved to a warmer location and there’s a 2C jump in the temperature. The three global temperature records are usually called CRU, GISS, and GHCN. Both GISS and CRU, however, get almost all of their raw data from GHCN. All three produce very similar global historical temperature records from the raw data. So I’m still on my multi-year quest to understand the climate data. You never know where this data chase will lead. This time, it has ended me up in Australia. I got to thinking about Professor Wibjorn Karlen’s statement about Australia that I quoted here: Another example is Australia. NASA [GHCN] only presents 3 stations covering the period 1897-1992. What kind of data is the IPCC Australia diagram based on? If any trend it is a slight cooling. However, if a shorter period (1949-2005) is used, the temperature has increased substantially. The Australians have many stations and have published more detailed maps of changes and trends. The folks at CRU told Wibjorn that he was just plain wrong. Here’s what they said is right, the record that Wibjorn was talking about, Fig. 9.12 in the UN IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, showing Northern Australia: Figure 1. Temperature trends and model results in Northern Australia. Black line is observations (From Fig. 9.12 from the UN IPCC Fourth Annual Report). Covers the area from 110E to 155E, and from 30S to 11S. Based on the CRU land temperature.) Data from the CRU. One of the things that was revealed in the released CRU emails is that the CRU basically uses the Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN) dataset for its raw data. So I looked at the GHCN dataset. There, I find three stations in North Australia as Wibjorn had said, and nine stations in all of Australia, that cover the period 1900-2000. Here is the average of the GHCN unadjusted data for those three Northern stations, from AIS: > .... you need to go to the article to read it and see the graphs. "The Settled Science" looks increasingly laughable. The suckers who have fallen for it look increasingly ridiculous. Having been conned, it makes sense to acknowledge the fact. Good con men talk a good line and if they can put a patina of "science" over something, they can fool nearly everyone because few people are scientifically literate even if they did do a bit of rote learning about science at high school. Hiding data in itself is sufficient reason to disbelieve the whole bung shambles. I'll stick with my "snob" post pointing out that there is a pecking order in "science" and this lot are clinging to the bottom rungs with some Gaia superstition as their ideology and some statistical abilities [which are apparently less than robust or plain dishonest]. Mqurice