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

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

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...ock/Solrad.jpg

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.../hadsst2gl.txt
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.

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.

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.

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.

And not forgetting -
(17) Left-wing politicians
(18) Middle-of-the-road politicians
(19) Right-wing politicians

--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks., UK. E-mail: newsman, not newsboy.
"What use is happiness? It can't buy you money." [Chic Murray, 1919-85]

On 20/03/08 16:20, in article
,
"columbiaaccidentinvestigation"
wrote:

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.

Perhaps he can name another well recognized source of information?

Let us give him a chance.

Different groups can treat the same stats differently enough to
there is some disagreement. If it is major then the issue
is important.

"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.

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.

On Mar 20, 9:20*am, Earl Evleth wrote:
On 20/03/08 16:20, in article
,
"columbiaaccidentinvestigation"
wrote:

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.

Perhaps he can name another well recognized source of information?

Dunderbar won't, so I will. The Lindzen letter
cited radiosonde data. Another source for that
is Angell, and those data are he

http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/tem...ll/angell.html

http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/ftp/trends...ell/global.dat

Let's see if Dunderbar can analyze these data
like Lindzen did.


Let us give him a chance.

He had a couple of hours. It's unlikely that
fossil fools would know the data well enough
to answer this. They don't live in the real
world, so facts are strange to them.



Different groups can treat the same stats differently
enough to there is some disagreement.

The facts on global warming are very simple.
The problem were having in this group is
that one side hides the facts and lies a lot.
For a recent example, the fossil fools have
told their "Seas Aren't Warming" lie several
times now, but they have yet to show any data.
The data show warming.

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

On Mar 20, 2:45 pm, Roger Coppock wrote:
On Mar 20, 9:20 am, Earl Evleth wrote:

On 20/03/08 16:20, in article
,
"columbiaaccidentinvestigation"
wrote:

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.

Perhaps he can name another well recognized source of information?

Dunderbar won't, so I will. The Lindzen letter
cited radiosonde data. Another source for that
is Angell, and those data are he

http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/tem...ll/angell.html

http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/ftp/trends...ell/global.dat

Let's see if Dunderbar can analyze these data
like Lindzen did.



Let us give him a chance.

He had a couple of hours. It's unlikely that
fossil fools would know the data well enough
to answer this. They don't live in the real
world, so facts are strange to them.



Different groups can treat the same stats differently
enough to there is some disagreement.

The facts on global warming are very simple.

Too bad you tards can't make a convincing case for c02agw.

The problem were having in this group is
that one side hides the facts and lies a lot.

You need to communicate better, tard.