On 18 Jan, 05:14, Philip Adams wrote:
weatherwonderman wrote:
Did anyone read the sunday times today ,it shows how easily facts about the
glaciers in the himalayas can be misconstrued and like the proverbial
chinese whispers ,be
contorted without anyone really checking back to the scource to see if it
stands up to rigorous peer review.

While on the subject of source data ,worldwide CO2 measuring equipment over
the years must have changed ,
did anyone calibrate the old equipment against the new.
Just to add to the conspiracy theory , I bet the new equipment gave
generally higher ,more sensitive and more accurate readings than the old ,so
you of course will see a spike in the more recent levels
It would be great to get hold of some old equipment and compare the new to
it.
What do you other cleaver newsgroup guys think.?
WEATHERWONDERMAN *(leeds)

You are obviously expecting some 'cutting edge' remarks.

At least you did not issue David Christainsen's imperative command
"discuss fully".

I do not know why you would think that more sensitive/accurate readings
be higher?

I seem to recall that in my 1960's school days inspired and expired air
CO2 levels were quoted at 0.4% and 4%. If Dr Keeling's figures are
correct then we have not yet reached that 1960's level. Either the
biologists or the meteorologists are telling porkies. Since this is a
weather group inhabited by the latter with far greater knowledge than I,
* a mere chemist, I am going to swiftly duck below the parapet again.

--
Philip Adams
W. Norfolk- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

More porkies from that nice (rich) Dr. Pachauri, and his corrupt
IPCC. All in all, they no longer look very convincing, do they? (Not
that they ever did, mind...)
House of cards, and all that.

Hide the decline.

CK