http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/...obal.html#temp

And we are only just starting this El Nino, which will probably last
into the boreal winter. The final figure for this year could be very
interesting. So far, 5th warmest in the NOAA record Jan - June.

"Dawlish" wrote in message
...
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/...obal.html#temp

And we are only just starting this El Nino, which will probably last
into the boreal winter. The final figure for this year could be very
interesting. So far, 5th warmest in the NOAA record Jan - June.


Are you nuts? Nasa GISS headed by James Hansen who uses dodgy land based
temperature records-many in the USA alone inaccurate and poorly placed let
alone the **** poor shape the remaining ones are ?

Of course the fact that Hanson is becoming an evangelist AGW nutter has no
bearing on the fact that the GISS data set is going in the opposite
direction. I will quote from Anthony Watts site before I'm accused of
plagiarism

"This month's whopping anomaly of 0.63C is once again much higher than that
of RSS, UAH, and even NOAA, which is the source of the GISS temperature
data. Not only is the anomaly higher than the other metrics, but it is
trending in the opposite direction."

Would you care to explain this GISS contradictory data ?

On Jul 16, 8:22*pm, Dawlish wrote:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/...obal.html#temp

And we are only just starting this El Nino, which will probably last
into the boreal winter. The final figure for this year could be very
interesting. So far, 5th warmest in the NOAA record Jan - June.

"Dawlish" wrote in message
news:990823c4-50a6-40af-
...
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/...obal.html#temp

And we are only just starting this El Nino, which will probably last
into the boreal winter. The final figure for this year could be very
interesting. So far, 5th warmest in the NOAA record Jan - June.


Are you nuts? Nasa GISS headed by James Hansen who uses dodgy land
based
temperature records-many in the USA alone inaccurate and poorly placed
let
alone the **** poor shape the remaining ones are ?

Of course the fact that Hanson is becoming an evangelist AGW nutter
has no
bearing on the fact that the GISS data set is going in the opposite
direction. I will quote from Anthony Watts site before I'm accused of
plagiarism

"This month's whopping anomaly of 0.63C is once again much higher than
that
of RSS, UAH, and even NOAA, which is the source of the GISS
temperature
data. Not only is the anomaly higher than the other metrics, but it
is
trending in the opposite direction."

Would you care to explain this GISS contradictory data ?

On Jul 16, 9:16*pm, "Lawrence Jenkins" wrote:
"Dawlish" wrote in message

...

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/...obal.html#temp

And we are only just starting this El Nino, which will probably last
into the boreal winter. The final figure for this year could be very
interesting. So far, 5th warmest in the NOAA record Jan - June.

Are you nuts? *Nasa GISS headed by James Hansen who *uses dodgy land based
temperature records-many in the USA alone inaccurate and poorly placed let
alone the **** poor shape the remaining ones are ?

Of course the fact that Hanson is becoming an evangelist AGW nutter has no
bearing on the fact that the GISS data set is going in the opposite
direction. I will quote from Anthony Watts site before I'm accused of
plagiarism

"This month's whopping anomaly of 0.63C is once again much higher than that
of RSS, UAH, and even NOAA, which is the source of the GISS temperature
data. Not only is the anomaly higher than the other metrics, but it is
trending in the opposite direction."

Would you care to explain this GISS contradictory data ?

No, basically, as it is perfectly OK, from one of the most reputable
scientific organisations in the world. Just because you sceptics don't
feel it is, does not make what you think true. You would happily
attack the scientists when the data they produce does not match your
expectations - as this certinly doesn't. It is not NASAs fault for
producing the data to the best of their ability, the fault lies with
you and yours for refusing to believe the science - exactly what the
recent study showed about sceptics: whatever data is put in front of
you, you will not believe, unless it fits what you think is
happening.

"Dawlish" wrote in message
...
On Jul 16, 9:16 pm, "Lawrence Jenkins" wrote:
"Dawlish" wrote in message

...

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/...obal.html#temp

And we are only just starting this El Nino, which will probably last
into the boreal winter. The final figure for this year could be very
interesting. So far, 5th warmest in the NOAA record Jan - June.

Are you nuts? Nasa GISS headed by James Hansen who uses dodgy land based
temperature records-many in the USA alone inaccurate and poorly placed let
alone the **** poor shape the remaining ones are ?

Of course the fact that Hanson is becoming an evangelist AGW nutter has no
bearing on the fact that the GISS data set is going in the opposite
direction. I will quote from Anthony Watts site before I'm accused of
plagiarism

"This month's whopping anomaly of 0.63C is once again much higher than
that
of RSS, UAH, and even NOAA, which is the source of the GISS temperature
data. Not only is the anomaly higher than the other metrics, but it is
trending in the opposite direction."

Would you care to explain this GISS contradictory data ?

No, basically, as it is perfectly OK, from one of the most reputable
scientific organisations in the world. Just because you sceptics don't
feel it is, does not make what you think true. You would happily
attack the scientists when the data they produce does not match your
expectations - as this certinly doesn't. It is not NASAs fault for
producing the data to the best of their ability, the fault lies with
you and yours for refusing to believe the science - exactly what the
recent study showed about sceptics: whatever data is put in front of
you, you will not believe, unless it fits what you think is
happening.


Yes but those land based staions are dubious at best.

still spamming.

Dawlish wrote:


No, basically, as it is perfectly OK, from one of the most reputable
scientific organisations in the world. Just because you sceptics don't
feel it is, does not make what you think true. You would happily
attack the scientists when the data they produce does not match your
expectations - as this certinly doesn't. It is not NASAs fault for
producing the data to the best of their ability, the fault lies with
you and yours for refusing to believe the science - exactly what the
recent study showed about sceptics: whatever data is put in front of
you, you will not believe, unless it fits what you think is
happening.

On Jul 16, 9:54*pm, terry tibbs wrote:
still spamming.



Dawlish wrote:

No, basically, as it is perfectly OK, from one of the most reputable
scientific organisations in the world. Just because you sceptics don't
feel it is, does not make what you think true. You would happily
attack the scientists when the data they produce does not match your
expectations - as this certinly doesn't. It is not NASAs fault for
producing the data to the best of their ability, the fault lies with
you and yours for refusing to believe the science - exactly what the
recent study showed about sceptics: whatever data is put in front of
you, you will not believe, unless it fits what you think is
happening.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

But now I know where you live, dear stalker.

ooh im scared.
go back TWO or netweater, oh wait , you cant, your banned everywhere for
your arrogance.

says it all doesnt it.

come get me

Dawlish wrote:
On Jul 16, 9:54 pm, terry tibbs wrote:
still spamming.



Dawlish wrote:

No, basically, as it is perfectly OK, from one of the most reputable
scientific organisations in the world. Just because you sceptics don't
feel it is, does not make what you think true. You would happily
attack the scientists when the data they produce does not match your
expectations - as this certinly doesn't. It is not NASAs fault for
producing the data to the best of their ability, the fault lies with
you and yours for refusing to believe the science - exactly what the
recent study showed about sceptics: whatever data is put in front of
you, you will not believe, unless it fits what you think is
happening.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

But now I know where you live, dear stalker.

In message , Lawrence
Jenkins writes

"Dawlish" wrote in message
...
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/...obal.html#temp

And we are only just starting this El Nino, which will probably last
into the boreal winter. The final figure for this year could be very
interesting. So far, 5th warmest in the NOAA record Jan - June.


Are you nuts? Nasa GISS headed by James Hansen who uses dodgy land based
temperature records-many in the USA alone inaccurate and poorly placed let
alone the **** poor shape the remaining ones are ?

Of course the fact that Hanson is becoming an evangelist AGW nutter has no
bearing on the fact that the GISS data set is going in the opposite
direction. I will quote from Anthony Watts site before I'm accused of
plagiarism

"This month's whopping anomaly of 0.63C is once again much higher than that
of RSS, UAH, and even NOAA, which is the source of the GISS temperature
data. Not only is the anomaly higher than the other metrics, but it is
trending in the opposite direction."

Would you care to explain this GISS contradictory data ?

I saw it pointed out the different series measure anomalies relative to
different baselines. The baseline period for GISS is chronologically
earlier, with the consequent result that the stated GISS anomaly is
numerically higher than the others. That explains at least some of the
difference between the numbers.

At the same place it was suggested that some of the difference may be
due to GISS including Arctic temperatures and the other series not
including them.

http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidere...rd_changes.php
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

"Dawlish" wrote in message
...
On Jul 16, 9:54 pm, terry tibbs wrote:
still spamming.



Dawlish wrote:

No, basically, as it is perfectly OK, from one of the most reputable
scientific organisations in the world. Just because you sceptics don't
feel it is, does not make what you think true. You would happily
attack the scientists when the data they produce does not match your
expectations - as this certinly doesn't. It is not NASAs fault for
producing the data to the best of their ability, the fault lies with
you and yours for refusing to believe the science - exactly what the
recent study showed about sceptics: whatever data is put in front of
you, you will not believe, unless it fits what you think is
happening.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

But now I know where you live, dear stalker.

So Marcus you seem to upset many people