HadCRUT global temps at the *lower* end of likely warming.
 

Brian Wakem wrote:

Col wrote:


"Brian Wakem" wrote in message
...
Dawlish wrote:

It does rather burst the denialists'; "there has been no warming",
bubble. How can someone say that when faced with this*?


Give it a rest Dawlish - you are becoming very boring.

Do you think that the denialist/conspiracy theory nonsense
ought not to be challenged?


It can't be challenged with data that has been manipulated.



Most meteorological data has to be manipulated. So what?

--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks., UK. E-mail: newsman not newsboy
"I wear the cheese. It does not wear me."

HadCRUT global temps at the *lower* end of likely warming.
 

Graham P Davis wrote:

Brian Wakem wrote:

Col wrote:


"Brian Wakem" wrote in message
...
Dawlish wrote:

It does rather burst the denialists'; "there has been no warming",
bubble. How can someone say that when faced with this*?


Give it a rest Dawlish - you are becoming very boring.

Do you think that the denialist/conspiracy theory nonsense
ought not to be challenged?


It can't be challenged with data that has been manipulated.



Most meteorological data has to be manipulated. So what?


Here's my temperature chart for the last 20 years. It's been manipulated
but so what?

http://www.asx.com.au/research/images/downtrend.gif



--
Brian Wakem

HadCRUT global temps at the *lower* end of likely warming.
 

Dawlish wrote:

On Dec 24, 8:33*am, Brian Wakem wrote:
Col wrote:

"Brian Wakem" wrote in message
...
Dawlish wrote:

It does rather burst the denialists'; "there has been no warming",
bubble. How can someone say that when faced with this*?

Give it a rest Dawlish - you are becoming very boring.

Do you think that the denialist/conspiracy theory nonsense
ought not to be challenged?

It can't be challenged with data that has been manipulated.

--
Brian Wakem

5 sets of data Brian, from 5 different sources, one (UAH satellite
data) which is produced on a monthly basis from a scientist who is a
hardline sceptic (Roy Spencer); all manipulated? As all 5 data
sources correlate very well statistically over the last 30 years,
you've surely got to admit that the warming trend shown clearly in all
5 measures is highly unlikely to be wrong? That's what convinces the
scientists and politicians - as it convinces me that GW is a reality.

The cause is a little less certain, but 1/10 (90%; IPCC odds) says to
me that CO2 is the driver. Others would go 100%, but I'm not fully
convinced yet. However, if this moderate El Nino produces more any
more monthly record warmth over the next year, as the Hadley Centre
has predicted (FWIW, I think the same) I'd go 1/20. At either of those
odds, a bookie would have closed the book.


You sound like a religious nutcase Dawlish. You wont even consider you
might be wrong.


--
Brian Wakem

HadCRUT global temps at the *lower* end of likely warming.
 

Brian Wakem wrote:

Graham P Davis wrote:

Brian Wakem wrote:

Col wrote:


"Brian Wakem" wrote in message
...
Dawlish wrote:

It does rather burst the denialists'; "there has been no warming",
bubble. How can someone say that when faced with this*?


Give it a rest Dawlish - you are becoming very boring.

Do you think that the denialist/conspiracy theory nonsense
ought not to be challenged?


It can't be challenged with data that has been manipulated.



Most meteorological data has to be manipulated. So what?


Here's my temperature chart for the last 20 years. It's been manipulated
but so what?

http://www.asx.com.au/research/images/downtrend.gif




There's honest manipulation of the sort that has to be done to take account
of different instruments and changes of station location, etc. These have
been going on for ages and are the sort to which I was referring. Then there
is lying, as per your example.



--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks., UK. E-mail: newsman not newsboy
"I wear the cheese. It does not wear me."

HadCRUT global temps at the *lower* end of likely warming.
 

On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 16:45:16 +0000, Graham P Davis wrote:

Brian Wakem wrote:

Graham P Davis wrote:

Brian Wakem wrote:

Col wrote:


"Brian Wakem" wrote in message
...
Dawlish wrote:

It does rather burst the denialists'; "there has been no warming",
bubble. How can someone say that when faced with this*?


Give it a rest Dawlish - you are becoming very boring.

Do you think that the denialist/conspiracy theory nonsense
ought not to be challenged?


It can't be challenged with data that has been manipulated.



Most meteorological data has to be manipulated. So what?


Here's my temperature chart for the last 20 years. It's been manipulated
but so what?

http://www.asx.com.au/research/images/downtrend.gif




There's honest manipulation of the sort that has to be done to take account
of different instruments and changes of station location, etc. These have
been going on for ages and are the sort to which I was referring. Then there
is lying, as per your example.

When I worked in the gas industry temperature data sets had to be
manipulated to produce a consistent series over about 80 years. This is
necessary as there is a defined level of security of supply that needs to
be met. The main reason for this is that the recording stations move
around. It is certainly not lying, its just doing the ebst you can with
imperfect data.


Alan Gardiner
Chiswell Green, St Albans
101m ASL
24/12/2009 19:07:45