On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 16:25:07 -0800, tadchem wrote:

On Jan 1, 3:20Â*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
On issues like global warming and evolution, scientists need to speak
up

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...le/2009/12/31/
AR200...

The central lesson of Climategate is not that climate science is
corrupt. The leaked e-mails do nothing to disprove the scientific
consensus on global warming. Instead, the controversy highlights that
in a world of blogs, cable news and talk radio, scientists are poorly
equipped to communicate their knowledge and, especially, to respond
when science comes under attack.

What good will it do scientists to speak up if their views are
censored/suppressed/ridiculed for political reasons by a government/
press collaboration which has purely political motivations?

I've heard first hand tales of how the government "asked" for particular
papers to NOT be published. The implication was there would be more
funding for other programs if the government request was honored, and
less funding if it was ignored.

Mixing politics with science leads to bad science and tyrannical
politics.

On Jan 2, 1:44*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 1/1/10 6:35 PM, tadchem wrote:



On Jan 1, 4:38 pm, Sam *wrote:
On 1/1/10 3:28 PM, I M @ good guy wrote:

On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 14:20:06 -0600, Sam
wrote:

On issues like global warming and evolution, scientists need to speak up

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...09/12/31/AR200....

The central lesson of Climategate is not that climate science is
corrupt. The leaked e-mails do nothing to disprove the scientific
consensus on global warming. Instead, the controversy highlights that in
a world of blogs, cable news and talk radio, scientists are poorly
equipped to communicate their knowledge and, especially, to respond when
science comes under attack.

* * * * * * Why don't they speak up, describe the lab
experiments, describe how the temperature sensor
is in a hot box out in the sun.

* * Don't be so silly!-

That's exactly what Anthony Watts and hiswww.surfacestations.org/
blog and a small army of volunteers has been doing, in spite of the
ridicule heaped upon him by the AGW crowd and their sycophants.

To date they have rated 948 of 1221 US surface weather stations in the
USHCN network and found that 69% have thermal biases due to vairous
errors (mostly in siting) that exceed 2° C:

* *Class 4 (CRN4) (error= 2C) - Artificial heating sources10
meters.

* *Class 5 (CRN5) (error= 5C) - Temperature sensor located next to/
above an artificial heating source, such a building, roof top, parking
lot, or concrete surface."

...and this is in the largest network that the *IPCC* considers a
reliable source of surface temperature data!

Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA

* *Would these biases be constant over many decades?

Certainly not for some of the stations that have been encroached on
over time. What would be interesting is to see a summary of the data
just for the stations that they rate as good. They do show one on the
site that actually shows a drop in temperature over the century but
that could be cherry picked.

On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 18:44:22 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote:

On 1/1/10 6:35 PM, tadchem wrote:
On Jan 1, 4:38 pm, Sam wrote:
On 1/1/10 3:28 PM, I M @ good guy wrote:





On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 14:20:06 -0600, Sam
wrote:

On issues like global warming and evolution, scientists need to
speak up

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...le/2009/12/31/
AR200...

The central lesson of Climategate is not that climate science is
corrupt. The leaked e-mails do nothing to disprove the scientific
consensus on global warming. Instead, the controversy highlights
that in a world of blogs, cable news and talk radio, scientists are
poorly equipped to communicate their knowledge and, especially, to
respond when science comes under attack.

Why don't they speak up, describe the lab
experiments, describe how the temperature sensor is in a hot box out
in the sun.

Don't be so silly!-

That's exactly what Anthony Watts and his www.surfacestations.org/ blog
and a small army of volunteers has been doing, in spite of the ridicule
heaped upon him by the AGW crowd and their sycophants.

To date they have rated 948 of 1221 US surface weather stations in the
USHCN network and found that 69% have thermal biases due to vairous
errors (mostly in siting) that exceed 2° C:

Class 4 (CRN4) (error= 2C) - Artificial heating sources10
meters.

Class 5 (CRN5) (error= 5C) - Temperature sensor located next to/
above an artificial heating source, such a building, roof top, parking
lot, or concrete surface."

...and this is in the largest network that the *IPCC* considers a
reliable source of surface temperature data!

Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA

Would these biases be constant over many decades?

Only when the barbecues are lit, the air conditioning is on, or the jet
engines are running.

Sam Wormley wrote in
:

On issues like global warming and evolution, scientists need to speak
up

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn.../12/31/AR20091
23101155.html

The central lesson of Climategate is not that climate science is
corrupt. The leaked e-mails do nothing to disprove the scientific
consensus on global warming. Instead, the controversy highlights that
in a world of blogs, cable news and talk radio, scientists are poorly
equipped to communicate their knowledge and, especially, to respond
when science comes under attack.


And that they are corrupt, devious members of the world government cabal,
whose real aim is to shift wealth from the West to the "have nots" and to
gain a kind of control or power for themselves they've previously not had.

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
...


That's exactly what Anthony Watts and his www.surfacestations.org/
blog and a small army of volunteers has been doing, in spite of the
ridicule heaped upon him by the AGW crowd and their sycophants.

To date they have rated 948 of 1221 US surface weather stations in the
USHCN network and found that 69% have thermal biases due to vairous
errors (mostly in siting) that exceed 2° C:

Class 4 (CRN4) (error= 2C) - Artificial heating sources10
meters.

Class 5 (CRN5) (error= 5C) - Temperature sensor located next to/
above an artificial heating source, such a building, roof top, parking
lot, or concrete surface."

...and this is in the largest network that the *IPCC* considers a
reliable source of surface temperature data!

Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA

Would these biases be constant over many decades?



No, and in the cause of Russia, after the wall came down, 1000's of data
stations were lost, and they tended to be cold and rural ones.

And, over time buildings have things like air condition added...

http://gallery.surfacestations.org/m...?g2_itemId=837

Or, in the above, the air conditioning exhaust and even a portable BBQ that
rolled outside to cook food next to the temperature sensor...

Why not do a simple study in which your remove all urban tempature stations
and see what hte results are?

Well, here is an 6th grader kid who did this..and the results are no
warming!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_G_-...layer_embedded

Simple do do..and a amazing video...

Super Turtle

On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 18:44:22 -0600, Sam Wormley
wrote:

On 1/1/10 6:35 PM, tadchem wrote:
On Jan 1, 4:38 pm, Sam wrote:
On 1/1/10 3:28 PM, I M @ good guy wrote:





On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 14:20:06 -0600, Sam
wrote:

On issues like global warming and evolution, scientists need to speak up

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...09/12/31/AR200...

The central lesson of Climategate is not that climate science is
corrupt. The leaked e-mails do nothing to disprove the scientific
consensus on global warming. Instead, the controversy highlights that in
a world of blogs, cable news and talk radio, scientists are poorly
equipped to communicate their knowledge and, especially, to respond when
science comes under attack.

Why don't they speak up, describe the lab
experiments, describe how the temperature sensor
is in a hot box out in the sun.

Don't be so silly!-

That's exactly what Anthony Watts and his www.surfacestations.org/
blog and a small army of volunteers has been doing, in spite of the
ridicule heaped upon him by the AGW crowd and their sycophants.

To date they have rated 948 of 1221 US surface weather stations in the
USHCN network and found that 69% have thermal biases due to vairous
errors (mostly in siting) that exceed 2° C:

Class 4 (CRN4) (error= 2C) - Artificial heating sources10
meters.

Class 5 (CRN5) (error= 5C) - Temperature sensor located next to/
above an artificial heating source, such a building, roof top, parking
lot, or concrete surface."

...and this is in the largest network that the *IPCC* considers a
reliable source of surface temperature data!

Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA

Would these biases be constant over many decades?


Why sure, did you think government employees
or socialists make haste to fix things that are broke?

On Jan 1, 7:25*pm, tadchem wrote:

What good will it do scientists to speak up if their views are
censored/suppressed/ridiculed for political reasons by a government/
press collaboration which has purely political motivations?

Exactly! Who just wants to be right, when like Algore, just by fudging
your data an opinions a bit to end up on the 'correct" side, you too
can go from failed broke politician to Oscar winning, Nobel prize
scarfing near billionaire. Especially when speaking the truth will
only get you fired and blackballed from working in science for life.

On 1/2/10 7:11 AM, 7 wrote:


All they had to do was obey the law and honor FOI requests for their data
and other material they sought to keep from the public in order to
propagate their lies and none of this would have happened.
They seem to think the data belongs to them even though the public
had funded the R&D.


If you had ever received federal funding, you would realized that
there may be disclosure restrictions as part of the contract. This
often means that the research may be submitted for peer review
publication and in reports to the funding agency and depends on what
the policies of the host institutions are and the contracts under
which the funding was granted. When there are no restrictions, data
may be freely shared and often is.

tadchem wrote:
On Jan 1, 4:38 pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 1/1/10 3:28 PM, I M @ good guy wrote:





On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 14:20:06 -0600, Sam
wrote:
On issues like global warming and evolution, scientists need to speak up
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...09/12/31/AR200...
The central lesson of Climategate is not that climate science is
corrupt. The leaked e-mails do nothing to disprove the scientific
consensus on global warming. Instead, the controversy highlights that in
a world of blogs, cable news and talk radio, scientists are poorly
equipped to communicate their knowledge and, especially, to respond when
science comes under attack.
Why don't they speak up, describe the lab
experiments, describe how the temperature sensor
is in a hot box out in the sun.
Don't be so silly!-

That's exactly what Anthony Watts and his www.surfacestations.org/
blog and a small army of volunteers has been doing, in spite of the
ridicule heaped upon him by the AGW crowd and their sycophants.

To date they have rated 948 of 1221 US surface weather stations in the
USHCN network and found that 69% have thermal biases due to vairous
errors (mostly in siting) that exceed 2° C:

Class 4 (CRN4) (error = 2C) - Artificial heating sources 10
meters.

Class 5 (CRN5) (error = 5C) - Temperature sensor located next to/
above an artificial heating source, such a building, roof top, parking
lot, or concrete surface."

...and this is in the largest network that the *IPCC* considers a
reliable source of surface temperature data!

I was wondering about that. I'm trying to find a spot in my yard
to place a thermometer which will

1. Measure the real temperature and,
2. I need to be able to see it from a window.

There isn't any.

/BAH

On 2010-01-02, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 1/2/10 7:11 AM, 7 wrote:


All they had to do was obey the law and honor FOI requests for their data
and other material they sought to keep from the public in order to
propagate their lies and none of this would have happened.
They seem to think the data belongs to them even though the public
had funded the R&D.


If you had ever received federal funding, you would realized that
there may be disclosure restrictions as part of the contract.

Utter bull. Federal funding doesn't have non-disclosure except for
national security. *Private* funding may introduce non-disclosure,
but often taking federal money negates that.

This often means that the research may be submitted for peer review
publication and in reports to the funding agency and depends on what
the policies of the host institutions are and the contracts under
which the funding was granted. When there are no restrictions, data
may be freely shared and often is.

If you can show the contract language you are honoring, then you might
be able to evade FOI requests. If you don't do either, then you are in
violation, aren't you? CRU didn't show either. Still hasn't. Now they
claim "we lost the data".

And more telling, no one has surfaced in the past couple of weeks
suggesting that the raw data is going to be shared. (The release of
their "value-added" data isn't worth the disk it is written on.)

--
An amateur practices until he gets it right. A pro
practices until he can't get it wrong. -- unknown