"Buerste" wrote in
:

"Roger Coppock" wrote in message

...
The monthly review of global warming facts.
snip

But, nobody believes your "data" because it's all posted by people
and organizations that are in the tank for and funded by the AGW
industry/religion.

your list of unbelievable data vendors apparently includes

Hadley Centre, of the U.K. Met Office
Oak Ridge National Laboratory (USA)
National Snow and Ice Data Center (USA)
NASA (USA)
NOAA (USA)

surely you'd also want to mention

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
World Meteorological Organization
European Geophysical Union
American Geophysical Union
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

any others you'd care to add?


You constantly cherrypick and assemble a bunch
of crap that makes your point. At the same time you dismiss
anything that isn't just what you like. You have no credibility.
But, keep up the good work! You make your opponents' case better
than they do because you are so transparent and obvious.





--

XO

"Xavier Onnasis" wrote
Hadley Centre, of the U.K. Met Office
Oak Ridge National Laboratory (USA)
National Snow and Ice Data Center (USA)
NASA (USA)
NOAA (USA)


A current list of the stated Global Warming Conspirators. As stated by
AmeriKKKan KKKonservatives


01) The New York Times
02) Virtually Every Scientist on earth
03) all of the scientific press, both journals and textbooks
04) All Environmentalists
05) the vast majority of anyone with an advanced degree
06) the UN
07) the IPCC
08) All professional scientific societies, but the Petroleum Institute
09) U.S. Defense Department
10) Wikipedia
11) The World Meteorological Organization (WMO)
12) The National Auronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
13) The British Antarctic Survey
14) The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
15) Realclimate.org
16) The Hadley Center
17) The Royal Society
18) The Royal Astronomical Society
19) The National Academy of Sciences
20) The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
21) The American Physical Society
22) The American Institute of Physics
23) The Woods Hole Research Centre
24) The American Chemical Society (ACS)
25) The American Geophysical Union (AGU)
26) The U.S. Geophysical Service (USGS)
27) The National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
28) The National Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
29) The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS)
30) The National Wildlife Federation (NWF)
31) The World Wildlife Federation (WWF)
32) The Audubon Society
33) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
34) Accuweather
35) Greenpiece
36) The world Conservation Union
37) The Sierra Club.
38) The board and article reviewers of the journal Nature
39) The board and article reviewers of the journal Science
40) The staff of Scientific American magazine
41) The staff of New Scientist Magazine.
42) The Queen of England
43) Michael Gorbachev
44) Muammar al-Gaddafi
45) Maurece Strong
46) Bill Gates
47) Ted Turner
48) Warren Buffet
49) Rupert Murdoch
50) Bill Moyers
51) Dr. David Suzuki
52) Stephen Hawking
53) ABC News
54) NBC News
55) CBS News
56) The Public Broadcasting system

57) And lets not forget - Al Gore.

On 12/28/08 6:04 PM, in article
, "Xavier Onnasis"
wrote:

"Buerste" wrote in
:

"Roger Coppock" wrote in message

...
The monthly review of global warming facts.
snip

But, nobody believes your "data" because it's all posted by people
and organizations that are in the tank for and funded by the AGW
industry/religion.

your list of unbelievable data vendors apparently includes

Hadley Centre, of the U.K. Met Office
Oak Ridge National Laboratory (USA)
National Snow and Ice Data Center (USA)
NASA (USA)
NOAA (USA)
GISS

Commerce Department Imposes Gag Order on Government Scientists

An order has been issued by the U.S. Department of Commerce that controls
what federal government climate, weather and marine scientists can say to
the media or in public, even when they are speaking as private citizens.

WASHINGTON, DC, April 4, 2007 (ENS) - Under rules posted Thursday, these
federal scientists must obtain agency pre-approval to speak or write,
whether on or off-duty, concerning any scientific topic deemed "of official
interest," according to agency documents released by a national association
of government employees in natural resources agencies.

"This ridiculous gag order ignores the First Amendment and disrespects the
world-renowned professionals who work within Commerce agencies," said
attorney Jeff Ruch, executive director with Public Employees for
Environmental Responsibility, PEER.

The only exception to the pre-approval requirement, is that "In an
emergency, and especially where there is an imminent risk to life or
property, an official communication related to the emergency may be made, so
long as the procedures of the relevant operating unit (if any) are followed
and applicable law is complied with," the order states.

surely you'd also want to mention

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

** From the hockey stick on down its report is
the product of computer doctors using data
compiled to provide a prearranged
conclusion.

The two main "scientific" claims of the IPCC are the
claim that "the globe is warming" and "Increases in
carbon dioxide emissions are responsible". Evidence
for both of these claims is fatally flawed.

To start with the "global warming" claim. It is based
on a graph showing that "mean annual global
temperature" has been increasing.

This claim fails from two fundamental facts

**1. No average temperature of any part of the earth's
surface, over any period, has ever been made.

How can you derive a "global average" when you do
not even have a single "local" average?

What they actually use is the procedure used from
1850, which is to make one measurement a day at the
weather station from a maximum/minimum
thermometer. The mean of these two is taken to be the
average. No statistician could agree that a plausible
average can be obtained this way. The potential bias is
more than the claimed "global warming.

**2. The sample is grossly unrepresentative of the
earth's surface, mostly near to towns. No
statistician could accept an "average" based on
such a poor sample. It cannot possibly be
"corrected"

It is of interest that frantic efforts to "correct" for these
uncorrectable errors have produced mean temperature
records for the USA and China which show no overall
"warming" at all. If they were able to "correct" the rest,
the same result is likely

And, then after all, there has been no "global warming",
however measured, for eight years, and this year is all
set to be cooling. As a result it is now politically
incorrect to speak of "global warming". The buzzword
is "Climate Change" which is still blamed on the
non-existent "warming"

** Dr Vincent Gray, a member of the UN IPCC Expert
Reviewers Panel since its inception.

World Meteorological Organization
European Geophysical Union
American Geophysical Union
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change






You constantly cherrypick and assemble a bunch
of crap that makes your point. At the same time you dismiss
anything that isn't just what you like. You have no credibility.
But, keep up the good work! You make your opponents' case better
than they do because you are so transparent and obvious.