Prev: Fresnel drag and Demjanov's formula
Next: There are no anti forces to build anti matter
From: Brad Guth on 27 Feb 2010 22:26
On Feb 26, 9:10 am, "anorton" <anor...(a)removethis.ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
> This is very revealing. This "paper" was only released yesterday, yet its
> conclusions and the word  "termperaturegate" are already plastered across
> hundreds of blogs and anti AGW sites as fact in an obvious organized
> propaganda campaign.
>
> This paper has not been peer reviewed.
> It is written by a materials scientist.
> Two of its major references are other unreviewed blogs.
> It is "published" by an organization that exists only to deny AGW.
>
> Is this how a very technically complex issue in science should be pursued?
>
> This is yet another part of the F.U.D (Fear Uncertainty and Doubt) marketing
> campaign organized to stall popular support to do anything to convert away
> from fossil fuels to nuclear or other sources.  Once this "paper" has been
> completely rebutted in detail as have many similar screeds, will the
> rebuttal be publicized in those hundreds of denier sites? they never have in
> the past.

The ZNR saturated anti-AGW system is apparently supposed to suck and
blow.

~ BG
From: Mike Jr on 28 Feb 2010 06:46
On Feb 27, 10:47 am, Mike Collins <acridiniumes...(a)googlemail.com>
wrote:
> On 27 Feb, 14:49, Mike Jr <n00s...(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 26, 4:37 pm, James Inhofe <igorelaria...(a)ymail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 26, 4:20 pm, "I M @ good guy" <I...(a)good.guy> wrote:
>
> > > > On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 03:54:23 -0800 (PST), Mike Jr <n00s...(a)comcast.net>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > >"SUMMARY
> > > > >Both raw and adjusted data from the NCDC has been examined for a
> > > > >selected Contiguous U. S. set of rural and urban stations, 48 each or
> > > > >one per State. The raw data provides 0.13 and 0.79 oC/century
> > > > >temperature increase for the rural and urban environments. The
> > > > >adjusted data provides 0.64 and 0.77 oC/century respectively. The
> > > > >rates for the raw data appear to correspond to the historical change
> > > > >of rural and urban U. S. populations and indicate warming is due to
> > > > >urban warming. Comparison of the adjusted data for the rural set to
> > > > >that of the raw data shows a systematic treatment that causes the
> > > > >rural adjusted set’s temperature rate of increase to be 5-fold more
> > > > >than that of the raw data. The adjusted urban data set’s and raw urban
> > > > >data set’s rates of temperature increase are the same. This suggests
> > > > >the consequence of the NCDC’s protocol for adjusting the data is to
> > > > >cause historical data to take on the time-line characteristics of
> > > > >urban data. The consequence intended or not, is to report a false rate
> > > > >of temperature increase for the Contiguous U. S."
>
> > > > >http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/Rat...
>
> > > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7K8u4LB8Jv0
>
> > > > >--Mike Jr.
>
> > *> Science and Public Policy is a think tank whose members sit on the
> > *> boards of directors of many oil and coal companies
>
> > Really.  Which Science and Public Policy board members exactly, and
> > which oil/coal company boards do they sit on?
>
> > BTW, thank you for being so transparent.
>
> > --Mike Jr.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> You can find details of energy company funding of "Science and Public
> Policy" on:http://www.desmogblog.com

Please.

--Mike Jr.
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: Fresnel drag and Demjanov's formula
Next: There are no anti forces to build anti matter