Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds up, leaving litt...

There are 20 comments on the Dec 14, 2008, Newsday story titled Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds up, leaving litt.... In it, Newsday reports that:

When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Newsday.

Amazing how stupid

Minneapolis, MN

#49576 Aug 25, 2014
factcheck wrote:
What the models do not consider is the significant increase in bottled water consumption. For millennia man has produced beer and later on carbonated beverages. All of these things have served to check the natural release of CO2 into the atmosphere. Since the late 80s when "everyone" started noticing that there is more CO2 is about the time (less a few years) when the bottled water craze began. The process of bottling water actively eliminates the natural level of CO2 from the ground water and introduces it into the atmosphere. So with the continuing decline of carbonated beverages in favor of the anti-carbonated beverage we witness a tremendous release of CO2. Look around and you'll see that all over the world they are shipping bottled water to "help" people. Places that don't have roads let alone automobiles or public power utilities are being inundated with this envirotoxin.
We must stop it immediately. Everyone should drink beer or seltzer. One gallon per day is all I ask. Thank you and goodnight.
It's amazing how "educated people" will buy bottled water instead of drinking free tap water. In Minnesota tap water is probably of better quality that the crap in bottles that comes from who knows where. In addition to the chemicals added to the water from the plastic bottle and bottling process.

Ignorant college educated people.
litesong

Everett, WA

#49577 Aug 25, 2014
amazing how stupid i am wrote:
It's amazing how "educated people" will buy bottled water instead of drinking free tap water. In Minnesota tap water is probably of better quality that the crap in bottles...
Best water I ever tasted was water I drank from a glacial snout on Mt. Hood in Oregon. It is NOT recommended, due to the ground up rock particles that the weight of the glacier produces as it morphs its way downslope. However, the glacial water looked so wonderfully & beautifully inviting in the 7 foot deep pool, that I took some sips. I'm sure the additives of particles added to the delightful taste. Our Everett, Washington state water system is fairly good too, sourcing from 7000 foot mountains. An excellent water system in Moab, Utah came from an aquifer just opened up at the time of our visit in the early 1980's. Unfortunately, three of four of the worst waters I ever tasted were in the state of Minnesota(Land of 10,000 Lakes), which surprised me. The fourth source of bad water(which was the worst) was at a campsite in Death Valley, California. The tap water only needed about 30 or 40 degrees warming to make good hot tea.

I agree with your views on bottled water. However, its not "educated", but rich people who make the mistake of drinking bottled water.

Go Green

Los Angeles, CA

#49578 Aug 25, 2014
Serious question: Should California start killing non-native trees to help the ground water situation?

They are killing grass already. But trees use up a lot of ground water.
Amazing how stupid

Minneapolis, MN

#49579 Aug 25, 2014
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
Best water I ever tasted was water I drank from a glacial snout on Mt. Hood in Oregon. It is NOT recommended, due to the ground up rock particles that the weight of the glacier produces as it morphs its way downslope. However, the glacial water looked so wonderfully & beautifully inviting in the 7 foot deep pool, that I took some sips. I'm sure the additives of particles added to the delightful taste. Our Everett, Washington state water system is fairly good too, sourcing from 7000 foot mountains. An excellent water system in Moab, Utah came from an aquifer just opened up at the time of our visit in the early 1980's. Unfortunately, three of four of the worst waters I ever tasted were in the state of Minnesota(Land of 10,000 Lakes), which surprised me. The fourth source of bad water(which was the worst) was at a campsite in Death Valley, California. The tap water only needed about 30 or 40 degrees warming to make good hot tea.
I agree with your views on bottled water. However, its not "educated", but rich people who make the mistake of drinking bottled water.
Correct, all Minnesota tap water isn't equal. Minneapolis, St Paul and some suburbs get their tap water from the Mississippi River upstream from the cities. The good Minnesota tap water comes from deep wells or in many cases shallow wells, 100+ feet. The drawback to deep wells is the water is full of minerals that accumulate in water heaters after 10 years of use. Mississippi water is very soft, not many minerals but some "treated" sewerage water from treatment plants upstream.

"Treated" sewage water discharge into the Mississippi downstream from the Twin Cities is so full of hormones the fish are Hermaphrodites, they have both sex organs. People drinking that water may have other issues like the fish.
DDDD-25

Corona, CA

#49580 Aug 25, 2014
Carbon declining wrote:
Living in Minnesota where furnaces have been upgraded to 90%+ converting NG to heat. That means production of exhaust pollutants and heat has been reduced about 50% when coupled with super insulation mandated by building codes. These 90+ furnaces also use DC blower motors which result in major additional reductions in electricity usage.
Automobiles have also been made to burn less carbon fuel and produce much less exhaust pollutants and heat. When you drive behind an older car it's obvious how dirty those cars are. The Cash for Clunkers could have been much more beneficial had it targeted the most polluting vehicles, not just old cars in general. Just fuel injection and catalytic converters have worked wonders to clean up the automobile.
The usage of CFL light bulbs has reduced electric usage greatly with LED bulbs making giant strides. Why LED bulbs are not mandatory is perplexing, when the CFL bulbs contain mercury which is very dangerous.
IF the USA is the major polluter in the world then we should be seeing Global Cooling instead of Global Warming. In fact here in Minnesota we are indeed seeing Global Cooling with temps running on average 10 degrees below average for a long time. The west 1/2 of the US is dry but they populated a lot of desert and turned it into grass without enough water to sustain it. Why not construct a water pipeline to divert fresh water from the Mississippi river to the west coast, take the fresh water and use it for crop growing, wouldn't want to drink Mississippi water.
If the dry west is caused by man made changes then the cause is too many people living there and not enough water, NOT SUSTAINABLE.
It is dry in California, Arizona, New Mexico, etc,....Because the whole region is a DESERT!! Cash 4 clunkers just caused the price of used cars to go up, hurting who else, the poor guy/gal who needs cheap transportation. But you don't care , do you? I have a 42 yr old truck that I will NEVER get rid of. Why? Because over the years, all of the new cars and pickups I have purchased,( 11of them) have all been towed home or to the repair shop by that old truck. I don't care if it spews nerve gas. It still runs perfect. Humans are small, imperfect and pathetically inconsequential to the climate of this planet. Your global Warming scenario is a tax scam. And you are a moron for not recognizing that ALL politicos are inbred liars and thieves, who use fear to control the gullible amongst us, to use US, against US, to bleed the populace of their money. Which one are you working for ? Fear is the tool Of the oppressors and the parasites. The perpetrators are the gullible morons. That would include you.
DDDD-25

Corona, CA

#49581 Aug 25, 2014
factcheck wrote:
What the models do not consider is the significant increase in bottled water consumption. For millennia man has produced beer and later on carbonated beverages. All of these things have served to check the natural release of CO2 into the atmosphere. Since the late 80s when "everyone" started noticing that there is more CO2 is about the time (less a few years) when the bottled water craze began. The process of bottling water actively eliminates the natural level of CO2 from the ground water and introduces it into the atmosphere. So with the continuing decline of carbonated beverages in favor of the anti-carbonated beverage we witness a tremendous release of CO2. Look around and you'll see that all over the world they are shipping bottled water to "help" people. Places that don't have roads let alone automobiles or public power utilities are being inundated with this envirotoxin.
We must stop it immediately. Everyone should drink beer or seltzer. One gallon per day is all I ask. Thank you and goodnight.
If you really wish to help people in places such as you described, Send them suitcases, not bottled water.
Carbon declining

Minneapolis, MN

#49582 Aug 25, 2014
DDDD-25 wrote:
<quoted text>
It is dry in California, Arizona, New Mexico, etc,....Because the whole region is a DESERT!! Cash 4 clunkers just caused the price of used cars to go up, hurting who else, the poor guy/gal who needs cheap transportation. But you don't care , do you? I have a 42 yr old truck that I will NEVER get rid of. Why? Because over the years, all of the new cars and pickups I have purchased,( 11of them) have all been towed home or to the repair shop by that old truck. I don't care if it spews nerve gas. It still runs perfect. Humans are small, imperfect and pathetically inconsequential to the climate of this planet. Your global Warming scenario is a tax scam. And you are a moron for not recognizing that ALL politicos are inbred liars and thieves, who use fear to control the gullible amongst us, to use US, against US, to bleed the populace of their money. Which one are you working for ? Fear is the tool Of the oppressors and the parasites. The perpetrators are the gullible morons. That would include you.
I agree with you 100%. My comments are in agreement.
truth-facts

Mount Orab, OH

#49583 Aug 26, 2014
The hits just keep on coming:

The Australian Bureau of Meteorology has been caught red-handed manipulating temperature data to show "global warming" where none actually exists.

You fking crazies can't do anything the honest way.Lie,cheat,steal,manipulate ,falsify anything and everything to get your agenda across.

And you wanna know why there are so-called deniers?
Jan

United States

#49584 Aug 26, 2014
The Australian Bureau of Meteorology has been caught red-handed manipulating temperature data to show "global warming" where none actually exists.

At Amberley, Queensland, for example, the data at a weather station showing 1 degree Celsius cooling per century was "homogenized" (adjusted) by the Bureau so that it instead showed a 2.5 degrees warming per century.

At Rutherglen, Victoria, a cooling trend of -0.35 degrees C per century was magically transformed at the stroke of an Australian meteorologist's pen into a warming trend of 1.73 degrees C per century.

Last year, the Australian Bureau of Meteorology made headlines in the liberal media by claiming that 2013 was Australia's hottest year on record. This prompted Australia's alarmist-in-chief Tim Flannery - an English literature graduate who later went on to earn his scientific credentials with a PhD in palaeontology, digging up ancient kangaroo bones - to observe that global warming in Australia was "like climate change on steroids."

But we now know, thanks to research by Australian scientist Jennifer Marohasy, that the hysteria this story generated was based on fabrications and lies.

Though the Bureau of Meteorology has insisted its data adjustments are "robust", it has been unable to come up with a credible explanation as to why it translated real-world data showing a cooling trend into homogenized data showing a warming trend.

She wrote:

“Repetition is a propaganda technique. The deletion of information from records, and the use of exaggeration and half-truths, are &#65533;others. The Bureau of Meteorology uses all these techniques, while wilfully ignoring evidence that contradicts its own propaganda.’’

This is a global problem. Earlier this year, Breitbart reported that similarly dishonest adjustments had been made to temperature records by NASA and NOAA. Similarly implicated are the UK temperature records of the Met Office Hadley Centre and at Phil "Climategate" Jones's disgraced Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.

One of the many disingenuous arguments used by climate alarmists against sceptics is mockingly to accuse them of being conspiracy theorists. "How could global warming possibly not be a problem when all the world's temperature data sets from Australia to the US to the UK clearly show that it is? Are you seriously suggesting that so many different scientists and so many distinguished institutions from across the globe would collude in such a massive lie?" their argument runs.

Our answer: yes we bloody well are.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#49585 Aug 26, 2014
Jan wrote:
The Australian Bureau of Meteorology has been caught red-handed manipulating temperature data to show "global warming" where none actually exists.
At Amberley, Queensland, for example, the data at a weather station showing 1 degree Celsius cooling per century was "homogenized" (adjusted) by the Bureau so that it instead showed a 2.5 degrees warming per century.
At Rutherglen, Victoria, a cooling trend of -0.35 degrees C per century was magically transformed at the stroke of an Australian meteorologist's pen into a warming trend of 1.73 degrees C per century.
Last year, the Australian Bureau of Meteorology made headlines in the liberal media by claiming that 2013 was Australia's hottest year on record. This prompted Australia's alarmist-in-chief Tim Flannery - an English literature graduate who later went on to earn his scientific credentials with a PhD in palaeontology, digging up ancient kangaroo bones - to observe that global warming in Australia was "like climate change on steroids."
But we now know, thanks to research by Australian scientist Jennifer Marohasy, that the hysteria this story generated was based on fabrications and lies.
Though the Bureau of Meteorology has insisted its data adjustments are "robust", it has been unable to come up with a credible explanation as to why it translated real-world data showing a cooling trend into homogenized data showing a warming trend.
She wrote:
“Repetition is a propaganda technique. The deletion of information from records, and the use of exaggeration and half-truths, are &#65533;others. The Bureau of Meteorology uses all these techniques, while wilfully ignoring evidence that contradicts its own propaganda.’’
This is a global problem. Earlier this year, Breitbart reported that similarly dishonest adjustments had been made to temperature records by NASA and NOAA. Similarly implicated are the UK temperature records of the Met Office Hadley Centre and at Phil "Climategate" Jones's disgraced Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.
One of the many disingenuous arguments used by climate alarmists against sceptics is mockingly to accuse them of being conspiracy theorists. "How could global warming possibly not be a problem when all the world's temperature data sets from Australia to the US to the UK clearly show that it is? Are you seriously suggesting that so many different scientists and so many distinguished institutions from across the globe would collude in such a massive lie?" their argument runs.
Our answer: yes we bloody well are.
blah blah who's Jennifer M? Well, let's see:

Public position on global warming[wikipedia]

In an Australian Broadcasting Corporation interview she stated that...[i]t's not clear that climate change is being driven by carbon dioxide levels...whether or not we can reduce carbon dioxide levels, there will be climate change.[10]

On the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Radio National program, Ockham's Razor, Dr Marohasy said... I agree with Professor Flannery that we need to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.[11]

In an interview on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Radio National program, Counterpoint, she claimed recent cooling by starting with the temperature peak of the 1998 El Niño[12] event. She said that... there has been cooling if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference then temperatures have plateaued. This is certainly not what you'd expect if carbon is driving temperature because carbon dioxide levels have been increasing but temperatures have actually been coming down over the last ten years....very unexpected not something that is being discussed. It should though be being discussed because it is very significant.[13]

P.S. Let the accused respond before you rush to hang them..
Level 1

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#49586 Aug 26, 2014
Jan wrote:
The Australian Bureau of Meteorology has been caught red-handed manipulating temperature data to show "global warming" where none actually exists.
At Amberley, Queensland, for example, the data at a weather station showing 1 degree Celsius cooling per century was "homogenized" (adjusted) by the Bureau so that it instead showed a 2.5 degrees warming per century.
BOM has rejected Dr Marohasy’s claims and said the agency had used world’s best practice and a peer reviewed process to modify the physical temperature records that had been recorded at weather stations across the country.

It said data from a selection of weather stations underwent a process known as “homogenisation” to correct for anomalies. It was “very unlikely” that data homogenisation impacted on the empirical outlooks.

In a statement to The Weekend Australian BOM said the bulk of the scientific literature did not support the view that data homogenisation resulted in “diminished physical veracity in any particular climate data set’’.

Historical data was homogenised to account for a wide range of non-climate related influences such as the type of instrument used, choice of calibration or enclosure and where it was located.

“All of these elements are subject to change over a period of 100 years, and such non-climate ­related changes need to be ­accounted for in the data for ­reliable analysis and monitoring of trends,’’ BOM said.

Account is also taken of temperature recordings from nearby stations. It took “a great deal of care with the climate record, and understands the importance of scientific integrity”.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affa...

Amberley was adjusted because it didn't agree with other local stations.

Is it more likely that Amberley was right and the other local stations that showed warming were wrong?

At least three local stations show warming and are consistent with each other:

http://moyhu.blogspot.com.au/2014/08/adjustin...

Is there any reason to believe that Amberley is wrong?

Yes.

There's a sudden temperature drop in the raw record around 1980- suggesting a change in the way temperatures were measured rather than a climate shift:

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/da ta/ghcn/v3/products/stnplots/5 /50194568000.gif

Once again, deniers are deluding themselves with stupid conspiracy theories.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#49587 Aug 26, 2014
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
BOM has rejected Dr Marohasy’s claims and said the agency had used world’s best practice and a peer reviewed process to modify the physical temperature records that had been recorded at weather stations across the country.
It said data from a selection of weather stations underwent a process known as “homogenisation” to correct for anomalies. It was “very unlikely” that data homogenisation impacted on the empirical outlooks.
In a statement to The Weekend Australian BOM said the bulk of the scientific literature did not support the view that data homogenisation resulted in “diminished physical veracity in any particular climate data set’’.
Historical data was homogenised to account for a wide range of non-climate related influences such as the type of instrument used, choice of calibration or enclosure and where it was located.
“All of these elements are subject to change over a period of 100 years, and such non-climate ­related changes need to be ­accounted for in the data for ­reliable analysis and monitoring of trends,’’ BOM said.
Account is also taken of temperature recordings from nearby stations. It took “a great deal of care with the climate record, and understands the importance of scientific integrity”.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affa...
Amberley was adjusted because it didn't agree with other local stations.
Is it more likely that Amberley was right and the other local stations that showed warming were wrong?
At least three local stations show warming and are consistent with each other:
http://moyhu.blogspot.com.au/2014/08/adjustin...
Is there any reason to believe that Amberley is wrong?
Yes.
There's a sudden temperature drop in the raw record around 1980- suggesting a change in the way temperatures were measured rather than a climate shift:
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/da ta/ghcn/v3/products/stnplots/5 /50194568000.gif
Once again, deniers are deluding themselves with stupid conspiracy theories.
I certainly thank you for this comprehensive response. Dr M is floundering wildly for sure. And marketing her wares, too.

She was allegedly at the heartless convention in Nevada last month.

P.S. I'm hoping your last link will cure itself in this reply. It happens often on topix.

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

#49588 Aug 26, 2014
Jan wrote:
The Australian Bureau of Meteorology has been caught red-handed manipulating temperature data to show "global warming" where none actually exists.
At Amberley, Queensland, for example, the data at a weather station showing 1 degree Celsius cooling per century was "homogenized" (adjusted) by the Bureau so that it instead showed a 2.5 degrees warming per century.
At Rutherglen, Victoria, a cooling trend of -0.35 degrees C per century was magically transformed at the stroke of an Australian meteorologist's pen into a warming trend of 1.73 degrees C per century.
Last year, the Australian Bureau of Meteorology made headlines in the liberal media by claiming that 2013 was Australia's hottest year on record. This prompted Australia's alarmist-in-chief Tim Flannery - an English literature graduate who later went on to earn his scientific credentials with a PhD in palaeontology, digging up ancient kangaroo bones - to observe that global warming in Australia was "like climate change on steroids."
But we now know, thanks to research by Australian scientist Jennifer Marohasy, that the hysteria this story generated was based on fabrications and lies.
Though the Bureau of Meteorology has insisted its data adjustments are "robust", it has been unable to come up with a credible explanation as to why it translated real-world data showing a cooling trend into homogenized data showing a warming trend.
She wrote:
“Repetition is a propaganda technique. The deletion of information from records, and the use of exaggeration and half-truths, are &#65533;others. The Bureau of Meteorology uses all these techniques, while wilfully ignoring evidence that contradicts its own propaganda.’’
This is a global problem. Earlier this year, Breitbart reported that similarly dishonest adjustments had been made to temperature records by NASA and NOAA. Similarly implicated are the UK temperature records of the Met Office Hadley Centre and at Phil "Climategate" Jones's disgraced Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.
One of the many disingenuous arguments used by climate alarmists against sceptics is mockingly to accuse them of being conspiracy theorists. "How could global warming possibly not be a problem when all the world's temperature data sets from Australia to the US to the UK clearly show that it is? Are you seriously suggesting that so many different scientists and so many distinguished institutions from across the globe would collude in such a massive lie?" their argument runs.
Our answer: yes we bloody well are.
In a post on her blog, Marohasy "I learnt a lot during the six years – especially early on with Andrew McIntyre teaching me how to write opinion (without reference to endnotes or footnotes)..."

I suppose if you don't have to provide support, you can say anything.
truth-facts

Chillicothe, OH

#49589 Aug 26, 2014
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
BOM has rejected Dr Marohasy’s claims and said the agency had used world’s best practice and a peer reviewed process to modify the physical temperature records that had been recorded at weather stations across the country.
It said data from a selection of weather stations underwent a process known as “homogenisation” to correct for anomalies. It was “very unlikely” that data homogenisation impacted on the empirical outlooks.
In a statement to The Weekend Australian BOM said the bulk of the scientific literature did not support the view that data homogenisation resulted in “diminished physical veracity in any particular climate data set’’.
Historical data was homogenised to account for a wide range of non-climate related influences such as the type of instrument used, choice of calibration or enclosure and where it was located.
“All of these elements are subject to change over a period of 100 years, and such non-climate ­related changes need to be ­accounted for in the data for ­reliable analysis and monitoring of trends,’’ BOM said.
Account is also taken of temperature recordings from nearby stations. It took “a great deal of care with the climate record, and understands the importance of scientific integrity”.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affa...
Amberley was adjusted because it didn't agree with other local stations.
Is it more likely that Amberley was right and the other local stations that showed warming were wrong?
At least three local stations show warming and are consistent with each other:
http://moyhu.blogspot.com.au/2014/08/adjustin...
Is there any reason to believe that Amberley is wrong?
Yes.
There's a sudden temperature drop in the raw record around 1980- suggesting a change in the way temperatures were measured rather than a climate shift:
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/da ta/ghcn/v3/products/stnplots/5 /50194568000.gif
Once again, deniers are deluding themselves with stupid conspiracy theories.
No need to believe in conspiracy theories when you warmist put out false and manipulated data. You jerk offs do the work for us.Then when one of your so-called experts gets caught you scramble with excuses and more false/lying data.

Typical of libRETARDS.Keep telling the same lie over and over and over again until you find suckers to believe the horsesht! "If you like your plan,you can keep your plan" Remember that libretarded bold faced lie?
Amazing how stupid

Minneapolis, MN

#49590 Aug 26, 2014
truth-facts wrote:
<quoted text>
No need to believe in conspiracy theories when you warmist put out false and manipulated data. You jerk offs do the work for us.Then when one of your so-called experts gets caught you scramble with excuses and more false/lying data.
Typical of libRETARDS.Keep telling the same lie over and over and over again until you find suckers to believe the horsesht! "If you like your plan,you can keep your plan" Remember that libretarded bold faced lie?
Agree, there should be a law against misleading a nation. It should be a felony with life without parole as punishment. I'd send Al Gore to prison first.
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#49591 Aug 26, 2014
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
BOM has rejected Dr Marohasy’s claims and said the agency had used world’s best practice and a peer reviewed process to modify the physical temperature records that had been recorded at weather stations across the country.
It said data from a selection of weather stations underwent a process known as “homogenisation” to correct for anomalies. It was “very unlikely” that data homogenisation impacted on the empirical outlooks.
In a statement to The Weekend Australian BOM said the bulk of the scientific literature did not support the view that data homogenisation resulted in “diminished physical veracity in any particular climate data set’’.
Historical data was homogenised to account for a wide range of non-climate related influences such as the type of instrument used, choice of calibration or enclosure and where it was located.
“All of these elements are subject to change over a period of 100 years, and such non-climate ­related changes need to be ­accounted for in the data for ­reliable analysis and monitoring of trends,’’ BOM said.
Account is also taken of temperature recordings from nearby stations. It took “a great deal of care with the climate record, and understands the importance of scientific integrity”.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affa...
Amberley was adjusted because it didn't agree with other local stations.
Is it more likely that Amberley was right and the other local stations that showed warming were wrong?
At least three local stations show warming and are consistent with each other:
http://moyhu.blogspot.com.au/2014/08/adjustin...
Is there any reason to believe that Amberley is wrong?
Yes.
There's a sudden temperature drop in the raw record around 1980- suggesting a change in the way temperatures were measured rather than a climate shift:
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/da ta/ghcn/v3/products/stnplots/5 /50194568000.gif
Once again, deniers are deluding themselves with stupid conspiracy theories.
>>The unhomogenized/raw mean annual minimum temperature trend for Rutherglen for the 100-year period from January 1913 through to December 2013 shows a slight cooling trend of 0.35 degree C per 100 years. After homogenization there is a warming trend of 1.73 degree C per 100 years. This warming trend is essentially achieved by progressively dropping down the temperatures from 1973 back through to 1913. For the year of 1913 the difference between the raw temperature and the ACORN-SAT temperature is a massive 1.8 degree C.


In the case of Rutherglen the Bureau has just let the algorithms keep jumping down the temperatures from 1973. To repeat the biggest change between the raw and the new values is in 1913 when the temperature has been jumped down a massive 1.8 degree C.In doing this homogenization a warming trend is created when none previously existed.

The Bureau has tried to justify all of this to Graham Lloyd at The Australian newspaper by stating that there must have been a site move, its flagging the years 1966 and 1974. But the biggest adjustment was made in 1913! In fact as Bill Johnston explains in today’s newspaper, the site never has moved.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/26/austral...
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#49592 Aug 26, 2014
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
In a post on her blog, Marohasy "I learnt a lot during the six years – especially early on with Andrew McIntyre teaching me how to write opinion (without reference to endnotes or footnotes)..."
I suppose if you don't have to provide support, you can say anything.
What babble. As if learning a writing technique is the equivalent of not "providing support".

Get someone to think for you. Your efforts are deficient.
Amazing how stupid

Minneapolis, MN

#49593 Aug 26, 2014
Amazing how stupid wrote:
<quoted text>
Agree, there should be a law against misleading a nation. It should be a felony with life without parole as punishment. I'd send Al Gore to prison first.
Followed closely by Barak Obama.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#49594 Aug 26, 2014
Global warming is here, human-caused and probably already dangerous – and it’s increasingly likely that the heating trend could be irreversible, a draft of a new international science report says.

The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on Monday sent governments a final draft of its synthesis report, which combines three earlier, gigantic documents by the Nobel Prize-winning group. There is little in the report that wasn’t in the other more-detailed versions, but the language is more stark and the report attempts to connect the different scientific disciplines studying problems caused by the burning of fossil fuels, such as coal, oil and gas.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/glo...
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#49595 Aug 26, 2014
SpaceBlues wrote:
Global warming is here, human-caused...
You phony.

Every time you find another another story to post (adding CO2), then post it (adding more CO2), the go off and look for more (adding more CO2) you demonstrate how little this "science" really means to you.

You're a global warming hypocrite. EVERYONE knows it. No one comes to defend you. Cuz they can't. They can't defend themselves.

How do you continue to post knowing each one demonstrates you to be a bigger and bigger fraud and phony?

Hypocrite.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Orlando Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 9 min shinningelectr0n 1,220,918
Song Title Game 1 hr Princess Hey 50
Word Association 2 (Jul '10) 2 hr Princess Hey 22,330
3 word game (Jan '11) 2 hr Princess Hey 13,511
keep a word----drop a word (Feb '11) 2 hr Princess Hey 17,700
Double Fun Word Game (Mar '11) 2 hr Princess Hey 12,438
Alphabet Game (Apr '12) 2 hr Princess Hey 9,279
CASEY: Does the State Have the Goods to Convict? (Mar '10) 5 hr T-REX 496,398
More from around the web

Orlando People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]