On Mar 20, 1:54*pm, "James" wrote:
"Roger Coppock" wrote in message

...
On Mar 20, 11:02 am, "James" wrote:

"Roger Coppock" wrote in message

...

Here are the latest data on two items.

1) Latest Data on Solar Irradiance.
http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Solar_Irradiance.txt
http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Solrad.jpg

Your text. Your pics. Tsk.

If you find someone else who keeps up with the latest
release of these data, please post their work here.

I don't think folks here make up text and pics to post except you.

no people like james just post threads without checking the facts, ie
lindzen letter, you know the one james asked for rebuttals got one,
and ran away.....

"Roger Coppock" wrote in message
...
On Mar 20, 11:02 am, "James" wrote:
"Roger Coppock" wrote in message

...

Here are the latest data on two items.

1) Latest Data on Solar Irradiance.
http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Solar_Irradiance.txt

http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Solrad.jpg

Your text. Your pics. Tsk.

If you find someone else who keeps up with the latest
release of these data, please post their work here.

I don't think folks here make up text and pics to post except you.

Roger Coppock wrote:

2) The 'Seas Aren't Warming Lie' Exposed.
Here, from Hadley Centre, are the global sea surface
temperatures from 1850 to 2007. Please see:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/te.../hadsst2gl.txt
The yearly means of these data are graphed he

Sorry, Roger.

1. The data you refer to is sst - sea SURFACE temperature.
The research to which you refer, the Argo, measures
temperature at ocean depth. That the oceans at depth are
measured to be cooling slightly represents a far greater
reduction of stored energy than any change at one particular
slice, such as the surface.

2. The SST data is actually consistent with the Argo data.
Since 2002, which includes the Argo era, the SSTs have cooled.

On Mar 20, 10:20*am, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
wrote:
On Mar 20, 7:05 am, Tunderbar wrote:



On Mar 20, 9:46 am, Roger Coppock wrote:

Here are the latest data on two items.

1) Latest Data on Solar Irradiance.http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Sola...p://members.co...

2) The 'Seas Aren't Warming Lie' Exposed.
Here, from Hadley Centre, are the global sea surface
temperatures from 1850 to 2007. *Please see:http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/te...w.cru.uea.ac.u...
The yearly means of these data are graphed he

The Hadley Centre isn't exactly an unbiased source. They are part of
the agw hysteria problem. Their high levels of funding depends on
their politicians believing in agw.

BTW, your shrill language (ie. calling everything that disagress with
the agw superstitions a lie) paints you as a shrill activist. No one
will ever mistake you for a scientist.

But thunderbar you used data from the Hadley centre when you cited a
letter from lindzen, man that's typical behavior you want it both
ways, you can use the data when you think it serves your purpose, but
when somebody else uses the data from that center for something you
don't like, you decalare a bias, dude you are a joke.

Yep, when even the thoroughly biased agw-dependent "scientists" at the
Hadley centre can't fudge reality out of their data it is worth
noting. When their data supports their bias, you have to question it.
Remember Hansen? Remember Mann? They got non-descript data to show
their biases.

On Mar 20, 10:26*am, Roger Coppock wrote:
On Mar 20, 8:05*am, Tunderbar wrote:
[ . . . ]

The Hadley Centre isn't exactly an unbiased source. They are part of
the agw hysteria problem. Their high levels of funding depends on
their politicians believing in agw.

Would you please produce a list of all the
people who are part of this alleged conspiracy
of yours? *I can't keep up with your paranoid
fantasy. *Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't
the list include:

1) the vast majority of the media and press,
2) the majority of the scientists,
3) all of the scientific press, both journals and textbooks,
4) all of the environmentalists,
5) the vast majority of anyone with an advanced degree,
6) the UN,
7) the IPCC,
8) the WMO,
9) all professional scientific societies, but the Petroleum Institute,
10) "The one world government conspiracy," whatever and whoever that
is,
11) NASA,
12) Wikipedia,
13) the British Antarctic Survey,
14) the NOAA,
15) Realclimate.org,
16) . . . and now the Hadley Center.

The press needs a good story so they run with the alarmists. They've
committed themselves to the lies and they can't back down for fear of
losing what little credibility they have left. The "scientists" that
are on board depend on that scare mongering crap to justify their
futures and their high incomes in the research industry. Al Gore wants
to be rich and unaccountable. The IPCC wants to stick it to the right
wing and big industry. It isn't a conspiracy, it is business as usual
in a corrupt world of pseudo-science, left wing activism and mass
superstition.

Now tell us about the vast tobacco-oil conspiracy that justifies all
this nonsense.

On Mar 20, 5:06*pm, Tunderbar wrote:
On Mar 20, 10:20*am, columbiaaccidentinvestigation





wrote:
On Mar 20, 7:05 am, Tunderbar wrote:

On Mar 20, 9:46 am, Roger Coppock wrote:

Here are the latest data on two items.

1) Latest Data on Solar Irradiance.http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Sola...p://members.co...

2) The 'Seas Aren't Warming Lie' Exposed.
Here, from Hadley Centre, are the global sea surface
temperatures from 1850 to 2007. *Please see:http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/te...w.cru.uea.ac.u...
The yearly means of these data are graphed he

The Hadley Centre isn't exactly an unbiased source. They are part of
the agw hysteria problem. Their high levels of funding depends on
their politicians believing in agw.

BTW, your shrill language (ie. calling everything that disagress with
the agw superstitions a lie) paints you as a shrill activist. No one
will ever mistake you for a scientist.

But thunderbar you used data from the Hadley centre when you cited a
letter from lindzen, man that's typical behavior you want it both
ways, you can use the data when you think it serves your purpose, but
when somebody else uses the data from that center for something you
don't like, you decalare a bias, dude you are a joke.

Yep, when even the thoroughly biased agw-dependent "scientists" at the
Hadley centre can't fudge reality out of their data it is worth
noting. When their data supports their bias, you have to question it.
Remember Hansen? Remember Mann? They got non-descript data to show
their biases.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

interesting, i note the fact you used the data without checking it
when it was presented by lindzen, and you twist the argument into your
normal repackaged troll bait. Look Hansen did not make you quote
lindzen, you posted a thread that stated from the Hadley centre that
is a fact, show some self responsibility and quit blaming and lashing
out at others for your ignorance. Another fact is you did not express
any bias about the data in that thread, but now somehow your hand
waving and declarations of bias suddenly put the data in question
simply because you make your illogical personal attacks and
allegations. So as usual you provided a rationalization for your
double standard, in other words thunderbar you cant rationalize your
way in to having things both ways, so take your pick either you state
that lindzen was presenting biased data, and you messed up by not
checking your facts, or admit that you are acting like a hypocrite, by
hacking the validity of the Hadley center data, its that simple...

On Mar 20, 5:58*pm, Al Bedo wrote:
[ . . . ]
2. The SST data is actually consistent with the Argo data.
Since 2002, which includes the Argo era, the SSTs have cooled.

6 years are not a climate trend.
You wouldn't pass a grade school
science fair screening with only
6 data points. ROTFLMSAO.

Roger Coppock wrote:

On Mar 20, 5:58*pm, Al Bedo
wrote:
[ . . . ]
2. The SST data is actually consistent with the
Argo data. Since 2002, which includes the Argo
era, the SSTs have cooled.

6 years are not a climate trend.
You wouldn't pass a grade school
science fair screening with only
6 data points. ROTFLMSAO.

Please define climate and all the factors that go
into determining "Climate".

On Mar 21, 6:59*am, "James" wrote:
"Roger Coppock" wrote in message

...
On Mar 20, 11:02 am, "James" wrote:

"Roger Coppock" wrote in message

...

Here are the latest data on two items.

1) Latest Data on Solar Irradiance.
http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Solar_Irradiance.txt
http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Solrad.jpg

Your text. Your pics. Tsk.

If you find someone else who keeps up with the latest
release of these data, please post their work here.

Yeah, you're the idea man. Right? LOL

nope he was calling you out to produce your own, rather than you
constantly acting like a usenet troll hacking at something you dont
like....

Roger Coppock wrote:
On Mar 20, 5:58 pm, Al Bedo wrote:
[ . . . ]
2. The SST data is actually consistent with the Argo data.
Since 2002, which includes the Argo era, the SSTs have cooled.

6 years are not a climate trend.
You wouldn't pass a grade school
science fair screening with only
6 data points. ROTFLMSAO.

That's the atmosphere.
That 3000m of ocean are losing not gaining stored heat
is totally contradictory to AGW.
What happened to your 'pipeline'? Got a leak?