On Jan 7, 8:15*pm, Last Post wrote:
On Jan 7, 12:19*pm, Dawlish wrote:

What about my monthly temperature analysis for the last 5 years above?
Or is that a little too difficult for the denialists to find an answer
to.......so it is better swept under the denialist carpet instead?

• Dawlish, when you relate climate skeptics to
* * Nazi Holocaust Deniers the you label your
* * self Nazi— I hate Nazis

Who did that? You are climate denier, not a holocaust denier.


• Your "monthly temperature analysis for the
* * last 5 years"? It was useless when you began
* * and even worse now.
* * Don't sweep it —
* * shove it where the sun don't shine

Try the analysis yourself. It's perfectly accurate. Unfortunately, you
don't like the results. If the world has stopped warming, why don't
the monthly temperatures show that its stopped warming? Here's the
link to the NOAA stats so you can have a go.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/index.php

Remember that these stats correlate well with the other 2 surface
measures and both of the satellite measures, one of which is
administered by a renowned climate sceptic (not denialist) Roy
Spencer. (Just before you try to say the data is somehow suspect). I'm
a sceptic too, but unlike him, I'm more and more persuaded by this
kind of data showing continuing warmth.

Don't even think about attacking me, for no more reason than you are
very challenged by those temperature stats. Instead, address the
question of why it hasn't been cooler over the last 5 years, given all
the pointers towards cold that have been present.

It would also be really nice if Crunchy would comment too, as he
introduced the thread and then ignores questions that come as a result
of it. Instead, he starts yet another thread expecting, nay,
*demanding* full comments - as he did on this one. Well now you've
responded, you've got a *full* comment Crunchy. Now explain those
stats that I've presented you with.

On Jan 7, 3:57*pm, Dawlish wrote:
On Jan 7, 8:15*pm, Last Post wrote:
...
Don't even think about attacking me, for no more reason than you are
very challenged by those temperature stats. Instead, address the
question of why it hasn't been cooler over the last 5 years, given all
the pointers towards cold that have been present.

It would also be really nice if Crunchy would comment too, as he
introduced the thread and then ignores questions that come as a result
of it. Instead, he starts yet another thread expecting, nay,
*demanding* full comments - as he did on this one. Well now you've
responded, you've got a *full* comment Crunchy. Now explain those
stats that I've presented you with.

Not until you call me "Mr. Christainsen"; get the point?

David Christainsen - Meteorologist
Newton, Mass. USA

On Jan 7, 8:11*am, crunch wrote:

P

No.

On Jan 8, 1:00*am, crunch wrote:
On Jan 7, 3:57*pm, Dawlish wrote:

On Jan 7, 8:15*pm, Last Post wrote:
...
Don't even think about attacking me, for no more reason than you are
very challenged by those temperature stats. Instead, address the
question of why it hasn't been cooler over the last 5 years, given all
the pointers towards cold that have been present.

It would also be really nice if Crunchy would comment too, as he
introduced the thread and then ignores questions that come as a result
of it. Instead, he starts yet another thread expecting, nay,
*demanding* full comments - as he did on this one. Well now you've
responded, you've got a *full* comment Crunchy. Now explain those
stats that I've presented you with.

Not until you call me "Mr. Christainsen"; get the point?

David Christainsen - Meteorologist
Newton, Mass. USA

Don't bother cross posting then.

You can't justify anyone's theories Crunchy until the actual outcome
temperatures back them. They don't; simple as that.

You call yourself "Crunch". I'm just being playful with the Crunchy.
The Ting tings come to mind with you and cloud-cuckoo land is not far
behind for your ideas as a climatologist.

If you don't want difficult-to-answer replies, keep your postings
saying "comment fully" to your quasi-supernatural quaker newsgroups in
the future. OK?

On Jan 7, 3:57*pm, Dawlish wrote:
On Jan 7, 8:15*pm, Last Post wrote:

On Jan 7, 12:19*pm, Dawlish wrote:

What about my monthly temperature analysis for the last 5 years above?
Or is that a little too difficult for the denialists to find an answer
to.......so it is better swept under the denialist carpet instead?

• Dawlish, when you relate climate skeptics to
* * Nazi Holocaust Deniers the you label your
* * self Nazi— I hate Nazis

Who did that?

• You did 5 lines above. We all know you are
stupid but why flaunt it.

You are climate denier, not a holocaust denier.

• Dawlish you are both a fascist fool and a liar.
I am a climate skeptic and
• Your "monthly temperature analysis for the
* * last 5 years"? It was useless when you began
* * and even worse now.
* * Don't sweep it —
* * shove it where the sun don't shine

Try the analysis yourself. It's perfectly accurate.

• BSI = BSO

Unfortunately, you
don't like the results. If the world has stopped warming, why don't
the monthly temperatures show that its stopped warming? Here's the
link to the NOAA stats so you can have a go.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/index.php


Don't even think about attacking me, for no more reason than you are
very challenged by those temperature stats. Instead, address the
question of why it hasn't been cooler over the last 5 years, given all
the pointers towards cold that have been present.


CLIMATE AND OCEAN SCIENTISTS PUT UNDER NEW SPEECH RESTRAINTS —
Any Scientific Statements “of Official Interest” Must be Pre-Approved

Washington, DC — Federal climate, weather and marine scientists will
be subject to new restrictions as to what they can say to the media or
in public, according to agency documents released today by Public
Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). Under rules posted
last week, 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.”

This new order covers the National Oceanic & Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), which includes the National Weather Service and
the National Marine Fisheries Service. Commerce’s new order will
become effective in 45 days and would repeal a more liberal “open
science” policy adopted by NOAA on February 14, 2006.

Although couched in rhetoric about the need for “broad and open
dissemination of research results [and] open exchange of scientific
ideas,” the new order forbids agency scientists from communicating any
relevant information, even if prepared and delivered on their own time
as private citizens, which has not been approved by the official chain-
of-command:
• Any “fundamental research communication” must “before the
communication occurs” be submitted to and approved by the
designated “head of the operating unit.” While the directive
states
that approval may not be withheld “based on policy, budget,
or
management implications of the research,” it does not define
these
terms and limits any appeal to within Commerce;
• National Weather Service employees are allowed only “as
part of their routine responsibilities to communicate
information
about the weather to the public”; and
• Scientists must give the Commerce Department at least two weeks
“advance notice” of any written, oral or audiovisual
presentation prepared
on their own time if it “is a matter of official interest to
the Department
because it relates to Department programs, policies or
operations.”

“This ridiculous gag order ignores the First Amendment and disrespects
the world-renowned professionals who work within Commerce agencies,”
stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch. “Under this policy, National
Weather Service scientists can only give out name, rank, serial number
and the temperature.”

While claiming to provide clarity, the new Commerce order gives
conflicting directives, on one hand telling scientists that if unsure
whether a conclusion has been officially approved “then the
researcher must make clear that he or she is representing his or her
individual conclusion.” Yet, another part of the order states non-
official communications “may not take place or be prepared during
working
hours.” This conflict means that every scientist who answers an
unexpected question at a conference puts his or her career at risk by
giving an honest answer.

—*—
| In real science the burden of proof is always
| on the proposer, never on the sceptics. So far
| neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
| iota of valid data for global warming nor have
| they provided data that climate change is being
| effected by commerce and industry, and not by
| natural phenomena

On Jan 8, 2:40*pm, "
wrote:
On Jan 7, 3:57*pm, Dawlish wrote:

On Jan 7, 8:15*pm, Last Post wrote:

On Jan 7, 12:19*pm, Dawlish wrote:

What about my monthly temperature analysis for the last 5 years above?
Or is that a little too difficult for the denialists to find an answer
to.......so it is better swept under the denialist carpet instead?

• Dawlish, when you relate climate skeptics to
* * Nazi Holocaust Deniers the you label your
* * self Nazi— I hate Nazis

Who did that?

• You did 5 lines above. We all know you are
* * stupid but why flaunt it.

You are climate denier, not a holocaust denier.

• Dawlish you are both a fascist fool and a liar.
* * I am a climate skeptic and

• Your "monthly temperature analysis for the
* * last 5 years"? It was useless when you began
* * and even worse now.
* * Don't sweep it —
* * shove it where the sun don't shine

Try the analysis yourself. It's perfectly accurate.

• BSI = BSO

Unfortunately, you
don't like the results. If the world has stopped warming, why don't
the monthly temperatures show that its stopped warming? Here's the
link to the NOAA stats so you can have a go.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/index.php

Don't even think about attacking me, for no more reason than you are
very challenged by those temperature stats. Instead, address the
question of why it hasn't been cooler over the last 5 years, given all
the pointers towards cold that have been present.

CLIMATE AND OCEAN SCIENTISTS PUT UNDER NEW SPEECH RESTRAINTS —
Any Scientific Statements “of Official Interest” Must be Pre-Approved

Washington, DC — Federal climate, weather and marine scientists will
be subject to new restrictions as to what they can say to the media or
in public, according to agency documents released today by Public
Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). Under rules posted
last week, 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.”

This new order covers the National Oceanic & Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), which includes the National Weather Service and
the National Marine Fisheries Service. Commerce’s new order will
become effective in 45 days and would repeal a more liberal “open
science” policy adopted by NOAA on February 14, 2006.

Although couched in rhetoric about the need for “broad and open
dissemination of research results [and] open exchange of scientific
ideas,” the new order forbids agency scientists from communicating any
relevant information, even if prepared and delivered on their own time
as private citizens, which has not been approved by the official chain-
of-command:
* * * * • * * Any “fundamental research communication” must “before the
* * * * *communication occurs” be submitted to and approved by the
* * * * *designated “head of the operating unit.” While the directive
states
* * * * *that approval may not be withheld “based on policy, budget,
or
* * * * *management implications of the research,” it does not define
these
* * * * *terms and limits any appeal to within Commerce;
* * * * • * * National Weather Service employees are allowed only “as
* * * * part of their routine responsibilities to communicate
information
* * * * about the weather to the public”; and
* * * * • * * Scientists must give the Commerce Department at least two weeks
* * * * “advance notice” of any written, oral or audiovisual
presentation prepared
* * * * *on their own time if it “is a matter of official interest to
the Department
* * * * *because it relates to Department programs, policies or
operations.”

“This ridiculous gag order ignores the First Amendment and disrespects
*the world-renowned professionals who work within Commerce agencies,”
stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch. “Under this policy, National
Weather Service scientists can only give out name, rank, serial number
and the temperature.”

While claiming to provide clarity, the new Commerce order gives
conflicting directives, on one hand telling scientists that if unsure
whether a conclusion has been officially approved “then the
researcher must make clear that he or she is representing his or her
individual conclusion.” Yet, another part of the order states non-
official communications “may not take place or be prepared during
working
hours.” This conflict means that every scientist who answers an
unexpected question at a conference puts his or her career at risk by
*giving an honest answer.

* * —*—
*| In real science the burden of proof is always
*| on the proposer, never on the sceptics. So far
*| neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
*| iota of valid data for global warming nor have
*| they provided data that climate change is being
*| effected by commerce and industry, and not by
*| natural phenomena

Hmmm Facsist fool and a liar........I didn't read any more. Goodbye.

On Jan 8, 1:23*am, "(Kelly)" wrote:
On Jan 7, 8:11*am, crunch wrote:

P

No.

Kelly loves to snipe but cannot take a punch.

David Christainsen - Meteorologist
Newton, Mass. USA

On Jan 8, 4:29*pm, crunch wrote:
On Jan 8, 1:23*am, "(Kelly)" wrote:

On Jan 7, 8:11*am, crunch wrote:

P

No.

Kelly loves to snipe but cannot take a punch.

David Christainsen - Meteorologist
Newton, Mass. USA

And you cross-post to include this newsgroup alongside your
supernatural one, but can't reply when someone from this newsgroup
replies to your demand to "comment fully" by commenting and showing
you how *actual* global temperatures contradict what would be expected
by your minority denialist heroes and your own odd beliefs, Crunchy.
Oh sorry, it's not that you can't reply, it's that someone adds a "y"
to your posting name so you won't. My mistake, forgot. *.))

On Jan 8, 10:30*am, Dawlish wrote:


Hmmm Facsist fool and a liar........I didn't . Goodbye.

• I could have called you Nazi because it fits
Since you did not the rest you might have
found out why you ARE a liar.

Another featue of fascist fools and Dawlish:—
_closed_minds_.

On Jan 8, 12:34*pm, Dawlish wrote:


And you cross-post to include this newsgroup alongside your
supernatural one, but can't reply when someone from this newsgroup
replies to your demand to "comment *fully" by commenting and showing
you how *actual* global temperatures contradict what would be expected
by your minority denialist heroes and your own odd beliefs, Crunchy.
Oh sorry, it's not that you can't reply, it's that someone adds a "y"
to your posting name so you won't. My mistake, forgot. *.))

• You should not deign to criticize others when
you do not have you own act together — Fool!!!

Keep on calling others 'denialist' and I will
continue to call you "Nazi" the shoe fits so
so wear it and stop spamming.

—*—
| In real science the burden of proof is always
| on the proposer, never on the sceptics. So far
| neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
| iota of valid data for global warming nor have
| they provided data that climate change is being
| effected by commerce and industry, and not by
| natural phenomena