Global Warming

[PaulLowrance]

Paul:

You have no basis in fact for making a post like this.  I find this very unscientific of you, seriously.  I know you are an intelligent guy but why would you make such an accusation with no facts to back it up?  I find this seriously insulting.

Hi,

Because I've had terrible experience with forums. Numerous times the mod or someone (possibly a hacker) has edited my posts at Steorn. I've seen this happen several times. Over here at overunity.com someone keeps looking at my personal messages. For instance, just recently someone sent me a PM, which of course the server emailed to me. So I read my PM via email, rather than via web browser. So at the top of the overunity.com web page it kept saying that I have 1 unread PM. I did not bother clicking on it. Later on in the day the message went away. Somebody read my PM! Some may think, "Well, maybe the server has a time period, and if you do not read your PM's after a certain period then the server will remove the message at the top of the screen." I tested that theory when Stefan sent me a PM days ago, but I did not read it. The message at the top of the screen stayed their for days until I finally clicked on it.

Sorry if you thought I was referring to you. I simply can't trust any of this stuff, for now.

Paul

[ATT]

Paul and Bill,

Forming an opinion on any subject should remain somewhat dynamic, subject to change pending the introduction of new information.

Untoward 'evangelism', either pro or con, simply feeds a bias and limits the recognition of pertinent information when it -does- become available.

Evangelism isn't limited to the proletariat, scientists are every bit as susceptible to personal leanings as everyone else, here are some opinions expressed by the very climatologists around which this matter revolves:

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/

As for providing actual datasets, I doubt you could accurately infer anything more from them than has already been established, especially as there exists such disagreement between lettered members of the profession.

Be that as it may, you might start here:

http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/General/temperature.html
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

I take it you can use a database, perform queries and statistically model the data.

Barring that, you should definitely bypass Wikipedia and instead read the papers published by those climatologists that are directly involved, you'll find links to many of these publications by following the first link in this post.

Tony

[Cap-Z-ro]

The only thing we have to go on is that they faked the data...and destroyed the original date...meaning there is no comparative documenta available.

Period !!!

Except for the newly surfaced information which indicates that 'Climate scam' was in the works since 1961.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvcuylMrkXk


When people lie once, that makes them untrustworthy and means the opposite of what they say is likely closer to the truth.

And...I do not delete text unless it is abusive, destructive, or a distraction.

Obvious outlandish claims are left to stand...unless the author realizes same and removes them.

Regards...

[PaulLowrance]

Wishful thinking. They do not have the original data. All of the countless scientists around the world who went to the arctics, glaciers, etc. have the original data.

The title of this thread should be, "Economy over the environment battle."

Paul

[Cap-Z-ro]

[ countless "scientists" ] = guffaw