On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 08:53:18 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote:

one big post hoc fallacy snipped

You know, real scientist try NOT to make a post hoc fallacy.

Columbus got the Indians to feed him and his crew by telling them that if
they didn't feed them, the gods would eat the moon. Columbus knew from
his ephemerids that there was going to be a lunar eclipse. The Indians
were totally fooled. "You're not feeding us, and the moon is being eaten.
Ergo, your not feeding us has caused the moon to be eaten". Bad logic.
Pity the Indians had never heard of logic.

This is an example of what the AGWers are doing. Only since it's pretty
damned obvious that mean global temperature ISN'T increasing, they now
say that ANY CHANGE, up, down or sideways, is caused by man.

It is so damned stupid that it would be funny that anyone would even
utter such silliness, but people FALL for this foolishness.

On 1/2/10 9:24 AM, I M @ good guy wrote:
On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 08:07:19 -0600, Sam
wrote:

On 1/2/10 8:01 AM, TUKA wrote:
On 2010-01-02, Sam wrote:
On 1/2/10 7:37 AM, I M @ good guy wrote:


There is no auto-continuing "trend" in local
or global temperatures, please get off my back
unless the weather at least gets up to normal,
the present projected length of this cold spell
is extraordinary.

You and woger have the cool Pacific to
moderate your weather, I am right in the
path of the Alberta Clippers.


You do like to complain about the cold weather!
You probably wish there was.... wait for it....
Global Warming!


What? Wait until all the current predictors are in their graves?

If they couldn't predict the current cooling, then they can't predict
future heating either.


1998, 2005 and 2007 being the three hottest years recently
doesn't support your claim of "cooling"

Global surface (land and sea) temperature increase

http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads...emp-trends.gif


And 1932, 1934, and 1952 were just as hot,
at least before the books were cooked.

My thoughts are "just why did anybody
settle down where it gets so cold?".

Most of the "civilized" industrial world
has an average temperature lower than
the published global average, and here
we see idiot activists wanting us to reduce
the amount of heating fuel used.


Why don't you embrace and enjoy the seasonal changes?
Beats living in California, Texas or Florida!

On 1/2/10 9:44 AM, I M @ good guy wrote:
On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 08:53:18 -0600, Sam
wrote:

On 1/2/10 8:41 AM, I M @ good guy wrote:
On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 07:45:46 -0600, Sam
wrote:

On 1/2/10 7:37 AM, I M @ good guy wrote:
There is no auto-continuing "trend" in local
or global temperatures, please get off my back
unless the weather at least gets up to normal,
the present projected length of this cold spell
is extraordinary.

You and woger have the cool Pacific to
moderate your weather, I am right in the
path of the Alberta Clippers.

You do like to complain about the cold weather!
You probably wish there was.... wait for it....
Global Warming!

No, just local warming, I have no desire to
control or affect the lives and comfort of others.

This location traditionally had a couple
of 100 degree days a year, this year the high
for the year was 92, not really enough to dry
out the swamp paths.


Can't say for your location, but in Iowa one result of
global warming is an increase in rainfall and an increase
in relative humidity and dewpoint. That has the effect of
decreasing high temperatures during the daytime and
increasing low temperatures at night (less cooling).


You are nuts, aren't you? :-)

Born out by the data:

Here's some data from Iowa State University
http://www.meteor.iastate.edu/facult...entations.html

More from University of Iowa

http://www.engineering.uiowa.edu/fac.../schnoor_j.php




Decreasing high temperatures during the daytime
and increasing low temperatures at night, how awful,
how will you survive?

After the summer of 1988, I embrace the cooler Iowa summers
as a result of global warming. And with close to 2 inched
extra precipitation per year, it's greener!

On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 06:09:45 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote:

On 1/1/10 9:06 PM, I M @ good guy wrote:


http://www.thegwpf.org/images/stories/HadCRUT3.jpg



Gee: there seems to be some discrepancy here!

Global surface (land and sea) temperature increase

http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads...-surface-temp-
trends.gif

Now what could that be, bubba?

A misleading graph, out of date by half a decade.

On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 08:07:19 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote:

On 1/2/10 8:01 AM, TUKA wrote:
On 2010-01-02, Sam wrote:
On 1/2/10 7:37 AM, I M @ good guy wrote:


There is no auto-continuing "trend" in local or global temperatures,
please get off my back unless the weather at least gets up to normal,
the present projected length of this cold spell is extraordinary.

You and woger have the cool Pacific to moderate your weather, I am
right in the path of the Alberta Clippers.


You do like to complain about the cold weather! You probably wish
there was.... wait for it.... Global Warming!


What? Wait until all the current predictors are in their graves?

If they couldn't predict the current cooling, then they can't predict
future heating either.


1998, 2005 and 2007 being the three hottest years recently doesn't
support your claim of "cooling"

Global surface (land and sea) temperature increase

http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads...-surface-temp-
trends.gif

Still out of date. Try and keep up.

On 1/2/10 11:00 AM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 08:53:18 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote:

one big post hoc fallacy snipped

You know, real scientist try NOT to make a post hoc fallacy.

Columbus got the Indians to feed him and his crew by telling them that if
they didn't feed them, the gods would eat the moon. Columbus knew from
his ephemerids that there was going to be a lunar eclipse. The Indians
were totally fooled. "You're not feeding us, and the moon is being eaten.
Ergo, your not feeding us has caused the moon to be eaten". Bad logic.
Pity the Indians had never heard of logic.

Columbus might have died earlier had it been overcast during that
eclipse!


This is an example of what the AGWers are doing. Only since it's pretty
damned obvious that mean global temperature ISN'T increasing, they now
say that ANY CHANGE, up, down or sideways, is caused by man.

It is so damned stupid that it would be funny that anyone would even
utter such silliness, but people FALL for this foolishness.

Marvin, I think you are blinded by your biases. You can no longer
be objective and look at what the science is telling us. I want you
to start taking global climate change seriously--not that we are
going to be able to do much about it--but learn what is really taking
place on this planet.

On 1/2/10 10:48 AM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 06:09:45 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote:

On 1/1/10 9:06 PM, I M @ good guy wrote:


http://www.thegwpf.org/images/stories/HadCRUT3.jpg



Gee: there seems to be some discrepancy here!

Global surface (land and sea) temperature increase

http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads...-surface-temp-
trends.gif

Now what could that be, bubba?

That's not temperature, that's "Temperature change", whatever that is. It
certainly isn't change from a fixed value, as there is no large peak in
1934. Nope, this is just another example of some lying commie *******
fudging the data with special a definition to fool weak minded idiots.

You weren't fooled by it, were you?

I wonder what relationship, Marvin, you assign to temperature
and temperature change? It's not that difficult.

On 1/2/10 1:04 PM, Bill Ward wrote:
On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 06:09:45 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote:

On 1/1/10 9:06 PM, I M @ good guy wrote:


http://www.thegwpf.org/images/stories/HadCRUT3.jpg



Gee: there seems to be some discrepancy here!

Global surface (land and sea) temperature increase

http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads...-surface-temp-
trends.gif

Now what could that be, bubba?

A misleading graph, out of date by half a decade.


http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads...emp-trends.gif

is not out of date... it is a record of global surface
temperature trends from 1850 through 2005. Incidentally 2005
was one of the hottest years on record... same for 2007...
I wonder how 2009 is fair?

On 1/2/10 9:47 AM, I M @ good guy wrote:
On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 09:00:50 -0600, Sam
wrote:

On 1/2/10 8:54 AM, I M @ good guy wrote:


If Hansen were to use raw weather data,
I could try to understand what is going on,
but as long as every number is modified for
one reason or another, I have no confidence,
and that makes me more of a skeptic than
I would normally be when my observations
do not match the published data.

Speaking of your buddy, Hanson, here are slides from
Jim Hansen's Bjerknes Lecture at San Francisco AGU meeting
Dec. 17, 2008
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/A...s_20081217.pdf


Please check the name spelling, when I
am joking I get it wrong on purpose, but you
should never get it wrong in a reference.



How am I to tell when you are joking?

On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 13:00:40 -0600, Sam Wormley
wrote:

On 1/2/10 9:24 AM, I M @ good guy wrote:
On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 08:07:19 -0600, Sam
wrote:

On 1/2/10 8:01 AM, TUKA wrote:
On 2010-01-02, Sam wrote:
On 1/2/10 7:37 AM, I M @ good guy wrote:


There is no auto-continuing "trend" in local
or global temperatures, please get off my back
unless the weather at least gets up to normal,
the present projected length of this cold spell
is extraordinary.

You and woger have the cool Pacific to
moderate your weather, I am right in the
path of the Alberta Clippers.


You do like to complain about the cold weather!
You probably wish there was.... wait for it....
Global Warming!


What? Wait until all the current predictors are in their graves?

If they couldn't predict the current cooling, then they can't predict
future heating either.


1998, 2005 and 2007 being the three hottest years recently
doesn't support your claim of "cooling"

Global surface (land and sea) temperature increase

http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads...emp-trends.gif


And 1932, 1934, and 1952 were just as hot,
at least before the books were cooked.

My thoughts are "just why did anybody
settle down where it gets so cold?".

Most of the "civilized" industrial world
has an average temperature lower than
the published global average, and here
we see idiot activists wanting us to reduce
the amount of heating fuel used.

Why don't you embrace and enjoy the seasonal changes?
Beats living in California, Texas or Florida!


Really? I lived in Pasadena in 1963-1965
and loved it, I could see snow 6 months a year,
30 miles away, that is where it belongs.

I lived in Austin 1982-1990, some of
the hot spells got monotonous, but over
all I liked the weather.

I consider the trees with no leaves
to be ugly as all get-out, Palm Trees and
tropical scenery is beautiful.

I keep hoping for Global Warming,
but that CO2 increase must be making
it colder.

Single digit F weather here is fairly
common, one or two days every few years,
but two weeks of it is "climate change",
but don't try to tell me it is AGW.