Prev: Fresnel drag and Demjanov's formula
Next: There are no anti forces to build anti matter
From: Mike Jr on 26 Feb 2010 06:54
"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/Rate_of_Temp_Change_Raw_and_Adjusted_NCDC_Data.pdf

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7K8u4LB8Jv0

--Mike Jr.
From: anorton on 26 Feb 2010 12:10
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This paper has not been peer reviewed.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.


From: I M on 26 Feb 2010 16:20
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 03:54:23 -0800 (PST), Mike Jr <n00spam(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/Rate_of_Temp_Change_Raw_and_Adjusted_NCDC_Data.pdf
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7K8u4LB8Jv0
>
>--Mike Jr.


Wow! Finally a paper with some logical
deduction, I wouldn't care if AGW were proven
if logic like that could be applied.

The raw data is interesting, surely the
decade of the 1960s is not the same world-
wide. The magnitude of the dip in the
late 1950s deserves study and maybe some
comparison to unusual events;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-altitude_nuclear_explosion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfish_Prime

http://www.futurescience.com/emp/test184.html

http://www.atomicarchive.com/Treaties/Treaty3.shtml






From: James Inhofe on 26 Feb 2010 16:37
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.
>
>          Wow!     Finally a paper with some logical
> deduction, I wouldn't care if AGW were proven
> if logic like that could be applied.

We don't need scientists. The logic of right wing dogma declared
global warming to be a soicalist hoax decades ago. Everything that
is counter intuitive to right wing dogma is a socialist conspiracy and
a big lie.

Science and Public Policy is a think tank whose members sit on the
boards of directors of many oil and coal companies and it is funded by
them, not the socialist government. That means that we must trust
what ever they say implicitly because unlike the government, they have
our best interests in mind.

Anyone who doesn't agree with me is a Marxist.


http://www.armchairsubversive.org/



From: Peter Muehlbauer on 26 Feb 2010 16:46
erschroedinger(a)gmail.com wrote

>> If you exchange AGW with GW, you made a perfect description of IPCC.
>>
>> Thanks.
>
> So Nazis killing 6 million Jews is the same as Jews killing Nazis who
> came after them in the Warsaw ghetto?
>
>

Leftist liberal historians always omit how Hitler was defending himself from
the socialist invasion, which is why Jews, trade unionists, communists,
socialists and intellectuals were sent to the camps so the German people
could be protected from them.

Der F�hrer would have dealt with the lying IPCC "sceintists" similarly.

 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: Fresnel drag and Demjanov's formula
Next: There are no anti forces to build anti matter