Catoni wrote:
if you guys can use one or two hot summers in Australia, why can't
we use eight or ten years?


marcodbeast wrote:
" They don't, so you can't."


Reply:
You're a liar marcodbeast.
And everyone here that has been following the posts now know
that you are a liar.
Or else you just don't follow threads here very well.
Which one is it?
It's all here in this groups archives.
AGW Alarmists implying that the hot weather in Australia was
because of Global Warming.

Denialist for "I'm sorry, but I couldn't find one example anywhere of what
I foolishly claimed was common practice." lol

If you do, let me know. Until then, this is just one more of your many,
many hateful lies.

On Mar 29, 8:27*pm, Roger Coppock wrote:
On Mar 29, 11:14*am, wrote:

Roger has essentially acknowledged in his original post that February
2009 ISN'T the hottest February on record in the northern hemisphere,
but only the 14th hottest. *So Roger's post isn't talking about peak

12th not 14th

temperatures -- about points on the chart that may prove to be
outliers vis a vis the general trend.

Roger is implicitly making an argument about the general trend, and
indicating that the February 2009 data fits into that trend.

Yes! *It's very good to see someone can read.

Except for the fact that I misread "12th" for "14th," that is. :-)

But yeah, your implicit argument is clear, and you don't make the
claim that February 2009 is the hottest on record. So you're already
taking for granted that some previous February was warmer. Pointing
out that some previous February was warmer, as if this is a refutation
of your post, is just foolish.

Catoni wrote:
if you guys can use one or two hot summers in Australia, why can't
we use eight or ten years?

marcodbeast wrote:
" They don't, so you can't."


Reply:
You're a liar marcodbeast.
And everyone here that has been following the posts now know
that you are a liar.
Or else you just don't follow threads here very well.
Which one is it?
It's all here in this groups archives.
AGW Alarmists implying that the hot weather in Australia was
because of Global Warming.


marcodbeast wrote;

"Denialist for "I'm sorry, but I couldn't find one example anywhere
of what
I foolishly claimed was common practice." lol

If you do, let me know. Until then, this is just one more of your
many,
many hateful lies."


Reply:
I'm delighted to show you for the fool that you are.
You poor ignorant idiot. How you will continue to post in this group
after proving to even your AGW buddies what an idiot that you are is
amazing.

Here is some evidence from the archives that you are too lazy to
look for. You claim, as is seen plainly, that no one has implied that
Global Warming is the cause of Australian heat waves.
Here is proof that you are a liar, or just plain ignorant and too
lazy to check it yourself.

Sorted by relevance Sort by date
277 results for heatwave in Australia
What does the south australian heatwave tell us about AGW?
2009_Southeastern_Australia_heat_wave 2009 Southeastern Australia heat
wave Many
locations through the region have reached all-time high temperatures,
Adelaide
reaching its third-highest ...

(Implication..... Global Warming)

Hey, Bonzo, even the Australians are worried Options
Federal Climate Change Minister Penny Wong says the heatwave
gripping south-east Australia
is part of what scientists predicted would happen. "All of this is
consistent with climate
change, and all of this is consistent with what scientists told us
would happen."

(Implication - Global Warming)

Counting the Cost of Australia's Heat Wave: the grape crop Options
AUSTRALIA's wine crush could already be down 20 per cent as
unrelenting heat continues in major growing regions.
The heat wave is expected to continue through the weekend -
consistent
temperatures in the 40s are forecast as grapes are sunburnt and vines
wilt.
But the full effects of the damage will not be known for at least
another week.

(Implication - Global Warming)

Do you want more marcodbeast? Do you still claim they don't use it
to imply Global Warming? Do you still say that we can't use our own
examples for eight or ten years?
See what a God damned hypocrite you are.
See what an idiot you are.
See what a liar you are.

More examples?

Climate change and Australia's health Options
We're likely to see a sharp rise in deaths from heatwaves,
especially in elderly
people with chronic heart and lung disease, in our cities and
suburbs .......

(Implication - Global Warming)

Record-breaking heat scorches southern Australia Options
Sometimes people get in this state because of excessive temperatures
caused by
the heatwave in Australia. There is a heatwave in "Australia"? What,
all of it?
Ok, tell us more about it.......
(Implication - Global Warming)

"parched-australia-faces-collap*se-as-climate-change-kicks-in" by
Phisher.King.
Harry Hope post: From The Independent, 2/1/09:http://
www.independent.co.uk/news/
world/aust ralasia/parched-australia- faces-collapse-as-climate-change-
kicks-in-
1522529.html Parched: Australia faces collapse as climate change kicks
in
Geoffrey Lean and Kathy Marks report on the worst heatwave..........
(Implication- Global Warming)

What that you say marcodbeast? They don't use Australia heat
waves to imply Global Warming?

Correct me if I'm wrong.. but isn't this the alt.global_warming
group? Obviously by posting references to Australia heat waves, they
imply that they are caus4d by Global Warming.

So we can use the many cases of record cold temperatures, record
snow, winters colder then usual etc. to imply Global Cooling if we
wish. Thankyou very much.

Now that you have been shown not just by one example, but many
examples, and there are many more where they come from, I'll be
expecting an apology.

marcodbeast, you are a liar. And that...is a fact. You poor fool.
lol

"Peter Muehlbauer" wrote in message
enexpress.de...
What A. Fool wrote:

That's correct.
But like GISS data, I presume min high data is also invalid data due to
reasons shown at surfacestations.org.

IOW we have more than a century of crap data, used to show an evidence by
those AGW turds.


And it is impossible to remove (or even estimate) the exact UHI amount at
each station.
Corrupt data must be discarded.

There is some good, scientific surface data at the Antarctic stations.
Halley, Amundsen-Scott, and Vostok.
50 years of data at each station show exactly zero warming.

On Apr 2, 8:13*pm, "bw" wrote:
"Peter Muehlbauer" wrote in message

enexpress.de...

What A. Fool wrote:

That's correct.
But like GISS data, I presume min high data is also invalid data due to
reasons shown at surfacestations.org.

IOW we have more than a century of crap data, used to show an evidence by
those AGW turds.

And it is impossible to remove (or even estimate) the exact UHI amount at
each station.
Corrupt data must be discarded.

Discard all the data, and offer nothing better.
That's why you're called deniers.


There is some good, scientific surface data at the Antarctic stations.
Halley, Amundsen-Scott, and Vostok.

Give the URL to the actual data please.

50 years of data at each station show exactly zero warming.

Three stations in Antarctica are the globe.
They aren't even a good sample of Antarctica.

On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 05:39:57 -0700, Roger Coppock wrote:

On Apr 2, 8:13Â*pm, "bw" wrote:
"Peter Muehlbauer" wrote in message

enexpress.de...

What A. Fool wrote:

That's correct.
But like GISS data, I presume min high data is also invalid data due
to reasons shown at surfacestations.org.

IOW we have more than a century of crap data, used to show an
evidence by those AGW turds.

And it is impossible to remove (or even estimate) the exact UHI amount
at each station.
Corrupt data must be discarded.

Discard all the data, and offer nothing better. That's why you're called
deniers.

And that's how we know Roger doesn't understand science.

There is some good, scientific surface data at the Antarctic stations.
Halley, Amundsen-Scott, and Vostok.

Give the URL to the actual data please.

50 years of data at each station show exactly zero warming.

Three stations in Antarctica are the globe. They aren't even a good
sample of Antarctica.

On Apr 3, 7:34*am, Bill Ward wrote:
On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 05:39:57 -0700, Roger Coppock wrote:
On Apr 2, 8:13*pm, "bw" wrote:
"Peter Muehlbauer" wrote in message
[ . . . ]
IOW we have more than a century of crap data, used to show an
evidence by those AGW turds.

And it is impossible to remove (or even estimate) the exact UHI amount
at each station.
Corrupt data must be discarded.

Discard all the data, and offer nothing better.
That's why you're called deniers.

And that's how we know Roger doesn't understand science. *

I accept your surrender, Bill. My point, thread, and topic.


There is some good, scientific surface data at the Antarctic stations.
Halley, Amundsen-Scott, and Vostok.

Give the URL to the actual data please.

50 years of data at each station show exactly zero warming.

Three stations in Antarctica are the globe. They aren't even a good
sample of Antarctica.

Peter needs to learn to distinguish between blind rage and science.

On Apr 3, 1:49*pm, Peter Muehlbauer
wrote:
Roger Coppock wrote:
On Apr 2, 8:13 pm, "bw" wrote:
[ . . . ]
Discard all the data, and offer nothing better.

Keep crap data, model a surrealistic and self convincing scenario and unleash
it to gullible people all over the world.

That's why you're called deniers.

That's why you are called AGW nutcases.
And worse, you are responsible for the actual world depression to a great
extent.

I don't know what is making matters worse, 0.6°C projected warming or you
stupid illiterate AGW cult apostles and statistical liars.

There is some good, scientific surface data at the Antarctic stations..
Halley, Amundsen-Scott, and Vostok.

Give the URL to the actual data please.

50 years of data at each station show exactly zero warming.

Three stations in Antarctica are the globe.
They aren't even a good sample of Antarctica.

"Roger Coppock" wrote in message
...
On Apr 2, 8:13 pm, "bw" wrote:
And it is impossible to remove (or even estimate) the exact UHI amount at
each station.
Corrupt data must be discarded.

Discard all the data, and offer nothing better.

I don't have to provide anything to you.
I'm not making rediculous claims about global warming.

There is some good, scientific surface data at the Antarctic stations.
Halley, Amundsen-Scott, and Vostok.

Give the URL to the actual data please.

A-S
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gi..._ neighbors=1

Halley
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gi..._ neighbors=1

Vostok
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gi..._ neighbors=1


50 years of data at each station show exactly zero warming.

Three stations in Antarctica are the globe.
They aren't even a good sample of Antarctica.

Evidence for this statement? All three stations are widely spread on the
continent, all show zero warming.
All three stations were set up by scientists, from three different nations.
All are located in areas that are homogeneous and un-affected by any UHI
effects.
Hansen's own data from these three stations totally refute all arguments for
global warming. This is because the models predict most of the warming to
occur at the poles.

On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 09:27:33 -0700, Roger Coppock wrote:

On Apr 3, 7:34Â*am, Bill Ward wrote:
On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 05:39:57 -0700, Roger Coppock wrote:
On Apr 2, 8:13Â*pm, "bw" wrote:
"Peter Muehlbauer" wrote in
message
[ . . . ]
IOW we have more than a century of crap data, used to show an
evidence by those AGW turds.

And it is impossible to remove (or even estimate) the exact UHI
amount at each station.
Corrupt data must be discarded.

Discard all the data, and offer nothing better. That's why you're
called deniers.

And that's how we know Roger doesn't understand science.

I accept your surrender, Bill. My point, thread, and topic.

Roger has a vivid imagination, at least, but it doesn't make up for his
lack of understanding of how science works. Bad data is bad data.
Trying to "adjust" it after the fact is not science, it's propaganda.

There is some good, scientific surface data at the Antarctic
stations. Halley, Amundsen-Scott, and Vostok.

Give the URL to the actual data please.

50 years of data at each station show exactly zero warming.

Three stations in Antarctica are the globe. They aren't even a good
sample of Antarctica.