Recent Ignored Research Findings In Climate Science - An Illustration Of A Broken Scientific Method: July 15, 2008
 

On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 04:15:40 -0700 (PDT), Dawlish
wrote:

On Oct 19, 11:29Â*am, "I M @ good guy" wrote:
On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 02:21:39 -0700 (PDT), Dawlish
wrote:
On Oct 19, 10:14Â*am, Peter Muehlbauer
wrote:

And for Dave:
Psssst... not yet for public!
There are still a lot of consultations and examinations necessary.-

This cahoots is actually quite hilarious! Good entertainment. Secret
emails, "examinations" and "consultations" before the whole of the
scientific establishment has to rethink the way in which global
temperature measurements have been taken. Should be revelatory!

No answer to my two questions, of course. Just a question in
response.

Peter; you have no answer, because the answer does not fit what you
want to believe.

Â* Â* Â* Â* Â*Your remark about record monthly temperatures
is a gem, Â*it is averages that are published after adding,
dividing with rounding, etc.

Â* Â* Â* Â* Â*The actual maximum temperatures for each day
could be 15 or 20 degrees below the day of year record
high (for each date), and if the nights didn't get colder
than the average minimum for the date, warming is
assumed.

Â* Â* Â* Â* Â*Even a sham can be unintentional.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Don't you just wish it was cooler,

No, dummy, I wish it was warmer, the last 24 days
in a row have been below normal, way below normal,
what do I care about other places.

then you'd be right. The sham is on
your part, of course and is diversionary

I have no confidence in the averaged global
temperature method, or the assumption that it can
substitute for energy content.

Only the left is slimeball enough to use any
tactic except sincere expression of opinion

- as it so often is with
sceptics/denialists,

Kiss my grits, sorry to hear the left has another bot.


which is why you have to keep bringing them back
to the difficult questions, again and again, no matter how many times
they try to squirm out of them.


Why are so many experts leaving the AGW camp,
it is becoming a stampede.


In this case, the outcomes are pretty
clear cut from global temperatures over the past 24 months.


The "global temperature" is a mess of averaging,
probably totally meaningless.


Now go
back to the two questions I asked and have a go at answering them
without the diversionary fudge. Why wasn't it cooler last year and why
is it as warm as it is right now?


Today here was 23 degrees below normal, that
does not make me happy.


If your assertions, and those of so
many other sceptics/denialists are correct, the earth should have
cooled significantly last year and should not be as warm now. The
outcomes simply don't fit your beliefs and as a result, there is no
wonder that you are struggling.


I remember many years when it was warmer, at least
the daily maximums were higher, and there was no agenda
driven goofballs trying to sell a pig in a poke.

Recent Ignored Research Findings In Climate Science - An
 

On Oct 19, 12:46*pm, "I M @ good guy" wrote:


* * * * * I remember many years when it was warmer, at least
the daily maximums were higher,

That's just Philip's FMS.

No answers, as I expected; mainly because you haven't got any, except
for the fact that you distrust all measurements, and all climate
scientists that don't agree with you (which is nearly all). You are on
the edge of name-calling and abuse guy and that's always a sure sign
that a person's argument is not strong.

Give a decent answer to those two questions and you deserve to be
taken seriously.

Recent Ignored Research Findings In Climate Science - An
 

On Oct 19, 2:44*pm, Peter Muehlbauer
wrote:


You may easily overlook certain little things, that are very usual and became
daily routine...

I'm sure I do, as I'm sure do all the other climate scientists who
work in the field, oblivious to these "certain little things" that you
alone know about, but will release to turn the climate world upside
down when you've done your "examinations" and "consultations" with
crunch.

Peter. The temperature measurements are checked. are kosher and have
been subject to far more rigorous amateur blogosphere and peer-
reviewed, analysis than yours is ever likely to be. Even the better
sceptic scientists have reluctantly accepted that this is an area that
isn't worth challenge and have directed their attention to alternative
theories instead.

Now have a go at telling us why it was not significantly cooler in
2008/early 2009 and why it has been so warm the last 2 months, despite
all the cool factors that should have affected global temperatures
and should still be.

Recent Ignored Research Findings In Climate Science - An Illustration Of A Broken Scientific Method: July 15, 2008
 

On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 05:34:50 -0700 (PDT), Dawlish
wrote:

On Oct 19, 12:46Â*pm, "I M @ good guy" wrote:


Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* I remember many years when it was warmer, at least
the daily maximums were higher,

That's just Philip's FMS.


Nah, I distinctly remember the late 1800s as
being cooler than the first half of the 20th century.


No answers, as I expected; mainly because you haven't got any, except
for the fact that you distrust all measurements, and all climate
scientists that don't agree with you (which is nearly all). You are on
the edge of name-calling and abuse guy and that's always a sure sign
that a person's argument is not strong.


On the edge, maybe, but I try to restrain
myself from saying what I really think of the
leftist creeps.


Give a decent answer to those two questions and you deserve to be
taken seriously.


What two questions, I didn't even see the first.

Recent Ignored Research Findings In Climate Science - An
 

On Oct 19, 7:12*pm, "I M @ good guy" wrote:
On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 05:34:50 -0700 (PDT), Dawlish
wrote:

On Oct 19, 12:46*pm, "I M @ good guy" wrote:

* * * * * I remember many years when it was warmer, at least
the daily maximums were higher,

That's just Philip's FMS.

* * * * * Nah, I distinctly remember the late 1800s as
being cooler than the first half of the 20th century.

No answers, as I expected; mainly because you haven't got any, except
for the fact that you distrust all measurements, and all climate
scientists that don't agree with you (which is nearly all). You are on
the edge of name-calling and abuse guy and that's always a sure sign
that a person's argument is not strong.

* * * * * *On the edge, maybe, but I try to restrain
myself from saying what I *really think of the
leftist creeps.

Give a decent answer to those two questions and you deserve to be
taken seriously.

* * * * *What two questions, I didn't even see the first.

No answer, again.

Recent Ignored Research Findings In Climate Science - An
 

On Oct 19, 9:42*pm, Peter Muehlbauer
wrote:
Dawlish wrote:
On Oct 19, 7:12*pm, "I M @ good guy" wrote:
On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 05:34:50 -0700 (PDT), Dawlish
wrote:

On Oct 19, 12:46*pm, "I M @ good guy" wrote:

* * * * * I remember many years when it was warmer, at least
the daily maximums were higher,

That's just Philip's FMS.

* * * * * Nah, I distinctly remember the late 1800s as
being cooler than the first half of the 20th century.

No answers, as I expected; mainly because you haven't got any, except
for the fact that you distrust all measurements, and all climate
scientists that don't agree with you (which is nearly all). You are on
the edge of name-calling and abuse guy and that's always a sure sign
that a person's argument is not strong.

* * * * * *On the edge, maybe, but I try to restrain
myself from saying what I *really think of the
leftist creeps.

Give a decent answer to those two questions and you deserve to be
taken seriously.

* * * * *What two questions, I didn't even see the first.

No answer, again.

Anyone can pretend to be a stupid, but a real stupid like you appears to be
much more convincing by far.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

No answer, again - because you simply don't have one. When the only
avenue left is abuse, it really is the end of the road.

Recent Ignored Research Findings In Climate Science - An
 

On Oct 19, 11:02*pm, Peter Muehlbauer
wrote:
Dawlish wrote:
On Oct 19, 9:42*pm, Peter Muehlbauer
wrote:
Dawlish wrote:
On Oct 19, 7:12*pm, "I M @ good guy" wrote:
On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 05:34:50 -0700 (PDT), Dawlish
wrote:

On Oct 19, 12:46*pm, "I M @ good guy" wrote:

* * * * * I remember many years when it was warmer, at least
the daily maximums were higher,

That's just Philip's FMS.

* * * * * Nah, I distinctly remember the late 1800s as
being cooler than the first half of the 20th century.

No answers, as I expected; mainly because you haven't got any, except
for the fact that you distrust all measurements, and all climate
scientists that don't agree with you (which is nearly all). You are on
the edge of name-calling and abuse guy and that's always a sure sign
that a person's argument is not strong.

* * * * * *On the edge, maybe, but I try to restrain
myself from saying what I *really think of the
leftist creeps.

Give a decent answer to those two questions and you deserve to be
taken seriously.

* * * * *What two questions, I didn't even see the first.