"Roger Coppock" wrote in message
...
May was 6th warmest on the 130-year NASA Northern Hemisphere record.

In the real world,
outside the fossil fuel industry's spin and lies,
global mean surface temperatures continue to rise.
Please see:

Huh, so 6th warmest...you mean once every 20 years or so...why is that
significant?

Yes, the data are corrected
for the urban heat island effect.

How...please cite how the data was corrected? Link here please. Without
knowing how this data is corrected for urban heat effect, your data is
worthless

Super Turtle

On Jun 28, 5:14*pm, "Green Turtle" wrote:
"Roger Coppock" wrote in message
...
[ . . . ]

Yes, the data are corrected
for the urban heat island effect.

How...please cite how the data was corrected? Link here please. Without
knowing how this data is corrected for urban heat effect, your data is
worthless

REPEATING MY ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION FOR THE SECOND TIME, Mr. TURTLE.

Start he
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1987/...n_Lebedeff.pdf

"Roger Coppock" wrote in message
...
On Jun 28, 5:14 pm, "Green Turtle" wrote:
"Roger Coppock" wrote in message
...
[ . . . ]

Yes, the data are corrected
for the urban heat island effect.

How...please cite how the data was corrected? Link here please. Without
knowing how this data is corrected for urban heat effect, your data is
worthless

REPEATING MY ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION FOR THE SECOND TIME, Mr. TURTLE.

Start he
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1987/...n_Lebedeff.pdf

Simple science shows that the UHI effect has no possible "correction"
There are no controls, no data, only guesses.
Hansen is wrong, and probably knows it, therefore is a fraud.

On Jun 28, 9:59*pm, "bw" wrote:
"Roger Coppock" wrote in message

...
On Jun 28, 5:14 pm, "Green Turtle" wrote:

"Roger Coppock" wrote in message
....
[ . . . ]

Yes, the data are corrected
for the urban heat island effect.

How...please cite how the data was corrected? Link here please. Without
knowing how this data is corrected for urban heat effect, your data is
worthless

REPEATING MY ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION FOR THE SECOND TIME, Mr. TURTLE.

Start hehttp://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1987/...n_Lebedeff.pdf

Simple science shows that the UHI effect has no possible "correction"

That's simpleton pseudo-science. LOL!

There are no controls, no data, only guesses.
Hansen is wrong, and probably knows it, therefore is a fraud.

And, that is why you're called a denier.

ROTFLMSAO!

On Jun 29, 2:22Â*am, Roger Coppock wrote:
On Jun 28, 9:59Â*pm, "bw" wrote:


Start hehttp://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1987/...n_Lebedeff.pdf

Simple science shows that the UHI effect has no possible "correction"

That's simpleton pseudo-science. Â*LOL!

There are no controls, no data, only guesses.
Hansen is wrong, and probably knows it, therefore is a fraud.

And, that is why you're called a denier.

•• That is why you are called a jackass and fool.
.o0o.
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.

- -
There are three types of people that you
can_not_talk into behaving well. The
stupid, the religious fanatic, and the evil.

1-The stupid aren't smart enough to
follow the logic of what you say. You
have to tell them what is right in very
simple terms. If they don't agree, then
you'll never be able to change their mind.

2- the religious fanatic

If what you say goes against their
religious belief, they will cling to that
religious belief even if it means their
death."

3- There is no way to reform evil-
Not in a million years

There is no way to convince the terrorists,
anthropogenic global warming alarmists,
serial killers, paedophiles, and predators
to change their evil ways. They knew what
they were doing was wrong, but that
knowledge didn't stop them. It only made
them more careful in how they went about
performing their evil acts.

"Roger Coppock" wrote in message
...
On Jun 28, 5:14 pm, "Green Turtle" wrote:
"Roger Coppock" wrote in message
...
[ . . . ]

Yes, the data are corrected
for the urban heat island effect.

How...please cite how the data was corrected? Link here please. Without
knowing how this data is corrected for urban heat effect, your data is
worthless

REPEATING MY ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION FOR THE SECOND TIME, Mr. TURTLE.

Start he
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1987/...n_Lebedeff.pdf


the above document does NOT explain how the numbers are being corrected. The
above document ONLY explains how they make an average out of the
temperatures NOT how they are modifying the number for UHE, that is GRAND
CANYON of difference.

So, no tomato on that link...that only explains the methods use to average
the temperature and how some bad values are ignored. The document DOES NOT
explain how temperatures are changed and corrected for UHE.

So, once again, please provide a link with how the numbers are changed for
UHE, the link you gave does NOT show how the data is modified for urban heat
effect. Taking averages is NOT modifying data for UHE...not even close!!


Super Turtle.

wrote in message
...
On Jun 29, 2:22 am, Roger Coppock wrote:
On Jun 28, 9:59 pm, "bw" wrote:


Start hehttp://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1987/...n_Lebedeff.pdf

Simple science shows that the UHI effect has no possible "correction"

That's simpleton pseudo-science. LOL!

There are no controls, no data, only guesses.
Hansen is wrong, and probably knows it, therefore is a fraud.

And, that is why you're called a denier.

... That is why you are called a jackass and fool.
.o0o.
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.

The IPCC is an arm of the UN. A completely corrupt and useless body. It has
no authority or value to anyone.


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

This point is fundamental. Science must make methodological measurements,
and the measure must be a homogeneous sample.
The surface temps are just not designed to that standard. Also, the point
there not being a "global" temp is good. The Earth does not have a
homogeneous climate, and therefore no temperature measurement is possible
from that perspective.
However, there are "regional" homogeneous climates, such as tropical ocean,
south polar, saharan, etc. Those locations may have warming or cooling over
time.

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.


True, the warmers have no shame, thats politics.
- -
There are three types of people that you
can_not_talk into behaving well. The
stupid, the religious fanatic, and the evil.

1-The stupid aren't smart enough to
follow the logic of what you say. You
have to tell them what is right in very
simple terms. If they don't agree, then
you'll never be able to change their mind.

2- the religious fanatic
?If what you say goes against their
religious belief, they will cling to that
religious belief even if it means their
death."

3- There is no way to reform evil-
Not in a million years
?There is no way to convince the terrorists,
anthropogenic global warming alarmists,
serial killers, paedophiles, and predators
to change their evil ways. They knew what
they were doing was wrong, but that
knowledge didn't stop them. It only made
them more careful in how they went about
performing their evil acts.

On Jun 29, 6:50*am, "Green Turtle" wrote:
"Roger Coppock" wrote in message

...
On Jun 28, 5:14 pm, "Green Turtle" wrote:

"Roger Coppock" wrote in message
....
[ . . . ]

Yes, the data are corrected
for the urban heat island effect.

How...please cite how the data was corrected? Link here please. Without
knowing how this data is corrected for urban heat effect, your data is
worthless

REPEATING MY ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION FOR THE SECOND TIME, Mr. TURTLE.

Start hehttp://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1987/...n_Lebedeff.pdf

the above document does NOT explain how the numbers are being corrected. The

It does, and you're using an old creationist tactic.
Stop wasting time.