Redstate

No

The faithful still drunk on koolaid?

Is the trend of the corrections. They correct temps in the 1800s down they correct post 2000 temps up. Then there is the use of the 70s as a baseline.

It's all back to statistics don't lie, but liars really can use statistics.

the cover they need to step away from the Kool-Aid.

The free exchange of ideas inevitably yields both heat and light.

There are many that don't seem to want to do the right thing, whether in the majority or otherwise.

They primp and prance as Conservative Republicans, but seem more concerned with staying in office.

AGW as a crises gives them something to hang their hat on in public to show their constituents they are 'doing something' while distracting from real issues.

The greatest single cause of Atheism today is Christians who profess Jesus with their lips & then go and deny him by their lifestyle. That's what an unbelieving world simply finds..unbelievable -Brennan Manning

Was calculated

Not whether or not you could find another way to do it.

Or to put it even more simply. Take a look at the first graph. It is well known that weatherstations have had an upward bias due to urbanization where are the downward corrections ?

...the point was how the adjustment was made...

Actually, this was what you had to say about the map...

Below you see the data set NASA was using to make their adjustments. The gray areas represent areas where there is no data.

First, it isn't a data set. It's a map. Second, the assertion that there is no data in the gray areas is misleading. The data exists, but the person who made the map chose not to include it.

No, I'm not going to chase down the original data for the graph of adjustments. Look at what The Register had to say...

This begs the question, how can one calculate an accurate "global temperature" while lacking any data from large contiguous regions of three continents?

There's no lack of data. The Register just didn't include all the data. With all due respect, this is pretty typical of the information you point to. It often doesn't say what you claim it says. If The Register screwed it up that badly, and you fell for it, why should I spend more time chasing down what will likely be more mistakes?

You just expanded the area the data represented ?

So what was the question I was ducking ?

Look at the dialog box. You can add in ocean data that wasn't included in the map from The Register, and that's what I did. Sorry, but you're wrong again. Whoever generated the map chose to leave out data that indicated warming.

So the question is this: Why accuse NASA of cherrypicking when it was actually The Register that left out easily available data?

While I am at it you do understand what the word cherry picking means ?

When you deliberately pick a data set that makes a point not actually indicated by the fully data set ?

Yes

So picking map settings that show warming as the default and don't include missing data or areas of cooling would be ?

I know you can say it

Say it with me "Cherry Picking"

I knew you could.

Cherry pick data supporting an argument?

Isn't that ALL you do with your GW posts?

This is hilarious - the pot calling the kettle.

A better discussion about this article in the paper would be about why the MSM is deliberately hiding data to make it look like NASA is wrong. Hmmmm.... the MSM must be fellow deniers.

LOL.

"Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. ... including extensive freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market or mixed economy,

Most of the time I try to function on reasoned argument.

I tend to forget that other people often don't care about facts or consequences. They just need to be right.

You see Yankee Librarian may be attached to an Idea but he constructs logical and rational arguments to make his case. He looks at the data and tries to find flaws. We both benefit from that.

You however don't. Oh well.

... and read the explanation of ocean vs. land measurements.

This is a really good example of why I'm participating less in these threads, and why AGW skepticism lacks credibility.

When you deliberately pick a data set that makes a point not actually indicated by the fully [sic] data set ?

You and The Register used the incomplete data. I used the complete data.

The skeptical arguments just never hold up to scrutiny. You used the Register article to imply that NASA lacked, or had left out, data. But it was the article that was incomplete. When I generated a new map you argued that I hadn't added additional data, but I had. When I showed that I had added data, you made the rather odd observation that Canada isn't an ocean. If you had done more reading at the NASA site you would understand the way that the measurements were used.

I credit you with sincerity in your convictions, but the skeptical arguments just always fall apart under scrutiny.

The You I was speaking of was NASA. We are speaking of the default data set presented by NASA. The one that when you go to the website and hit draw the map it draws a false and misleading picture.

And Yankee the DATA is the DATA. The map just interpolates to a larger area on the same data.

If you use a 250 mile radius it just shows a better representation of what isn't there. Using 1 data point to represent a 1200 mile radius is well silly

BTW Please don't Credit me with sincerity of convictions I don't have. I have none on this issue. What I have is an observation that AGW movement has not made its case.

I also have another observation that people who are part of the movement have no trouble ignoring inconvenient facts. You have completely ignored the adjustments to the temperature data. What is the matter, facts don't fit the theory ?

... it's difficult to think that a comment like "Yankee you do realize you didn't find data... You just expanded the area the data represented?"* isn't aimed at me. I was referring to the course of the thread, not one particular post. Moving on now...

First, let's get our units of measurement straight. They're using kilometers, not miles. Neither distance is a magic number, though.

Second, there are four permutations of the map that are relevant to this discussion. In order from the map that shows the most warming to the map that shows the least, they are (default marked with ***):

-Ocean data included, 1200 km smoothing radius.
-Ocean data included, 250 km smoothing radius.
-Ocean data excluded, 1200 km smoothing radius.***
-Ocean data excluded, 250 km smoothing radius.

Notice a couple of things. Whoever generated the map for The Register had to change the default to minimize the amount of warming shown. The default settings, however, did not maximize the amount of visible warming, which is problematic if you're trying to claim that NASA cherrypicked data to make warming look worse. So, yes, the default setting does hide some cooling, but it's hard to see anything here except default settings that fall somewhere between the two extremes.

*By the way, you're still mistaken. Look at the dialog box. The choices under the ocean data sources are "none" and "Hadl/Reyn_v2."

Km or Mi is immaterial.

Smoothing is. Do you comprehend what the word smoothing means ?

"Smoothing radius: Distance over which a station influences regional temperature, either 250 km or 1200 km (standard case = 1200 km)."

Process that. If you aren't too embarrassed post back.

Yes, I know what smoothing is.

Yes, miles vs. kilometers makes a difference because of the difference in the areas covered. The area of a circle with a radius of 250 miles? 196,250 square miles. The area of a circle with a radius of 250 km? 75,438.5 square miles.

Also, misreading the units is just one more mistake you made. With all due respect, you just don't read very closely.

Because if that is the case You have deliberately been making a false argument all along.

While you may have company in this endeavor. The whole Global Warming Movement rests on the idea that something must be done, it must be done now and god forbid anyone says anything that questions the first two, It and your argument is fundamentally dishonest.

So either you understand what the implications were or you were just arguing to deceive.

BTW yes I did misread Km as Mi. I thank you for pointing it out. Its an error I make occasionally.

...you resort to vague ad hominem statements. You seem to believe that everyone who disagrees with you about AGW is dishonest, a cult member, ignorant, etc. That does no credit to your arguments. You can call out one person, or a few, perhaps, but after a while the criticisms reflect back on you.

In response to your claim of dishonesty, you're wrong. I never made a case that one radius was inherently better than the other, or that the distances needed to be minimized. The closest I came to that was pointing out that 1200 km increment was labeled as the standard, which is a simple factual observation. I did however, show the various permutations to refute the charges of cherrypicking. Also, I continued your line of reasoning to show that the increment used in the measurements did make a difference. You're the one who wanted the smaller smoothing area. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. But once again, you didn't read closely enough to get the basic facts right. Misreading the unit of measurement is a canonical mistake in science.

Look Either you knew what you were talking about or you didn't, or you are now scrambling to confuse the issue.

I never made a case that one radius was inherently better than the other, or that the distances needed to be minimized

First yes you did. All you have to do is look back up this thread to see you claiming the data the register used was incomplete. Immediately you specify a representation of the data that makes it look much more complete.

Second Stop trying to use a bugs bunny routine. This isn't baseball season.

I called for the use of the smaller radius data and supported it. Using this method you clearly see the absence of data. The way you specified you could represent the earth with 40 or so stations.

The Register didn't use the ocean data. That's a simple factual observation. I also pointed out that the smaller radius shows less warming AND less cooling. That's also a simple factual observation. I was arguing against the accusation of cherrypicking, not for one particular model over the other. I was responding to arguments such as:

WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS NASA CHERRY PICKING THE DATA AND DROPPING ANY AREAS OF THE EARTH THAT SHOW COOLING

I ran the permutations of the map, and those permutations show that your argument is inaccurate. NASA did not drop areas showing cooling any more than they dropped areas showing warming. It's not cherrypicking, it's just a set of permutations in the data display.

Neither one of us is a climate scientist. This is a lay discussion. Because of that, I have no strong opinion as to what radius is appropriate. However, I do recognize inaccuracy when I see it.

Last time I checked Canada, Africa, Eurasia, Australia, and South America aren't oceans.

Look again at that image up top.

Yes, joliphant, those areas are indeed not oceans. But they do have thousands of miles of coastline, and the measurements overlap.

Is that the extrapolation of coastal data 1200 Km into the interior is legitimate. And that it will give you an accuracy within .01 degrees C

BTW who was it when pushed resorts to Ad Hominem attacks ?

The 1200 Km setting interpolates the data an area over 23 times the 250 Km.

I'm not chasing down what will likely be more mistakes. You're on your own with the temperature adjustments.

lol.
The AGW promoter models are drifting farther and farther from reality, the apocalypse is no closer now than it was 25 years ago, but you believers still think the end is near.
The only way skeptical arguments fall apart is when faith trumps reason.

irrelevant. The other .1% kind of like Hansen and are hoping that their DNA can be reconstituted and cloned. They envy the good deal that the polar bears are getting and want something similar.

Freedom of Religion NOT Freedom from Religion

Tennessee two years ago in April. I have long been interested in earth changes, dinosaurs, long-ago climates, etc. So it was a huge treat to go from here through South Dakota, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, Colorado, etc., and to see what has happened over the eons. Eons, I might add, when mankind and our disgusting habit of thriving did not exist.

Oh, and did I mention that we got delayed on our trip by a blizzard in South Dakota and stood and watched Old Faithful go off while snow fell all around us on May 3rd? Yes indeed, GW was hard at work two years ago just like it is now.

where I am sitting in my living room right now and I know it certainly wasn't factories and their soot spewing that one, dried it up and two killed the megashark. The bottom line is that this is about money pure and simple....people are much more vicious when it comes to money than the megashark could have ever hoped to be ;-)

Freedom of Religion NOT Freedom from Religion

He now has a cellphone, leather shoes, leather briefcase and is usually scene at courtrooms. When feeling nostalgic he will wear a sharkskin suit. ;-)

Freedom of Religion NOT Freedom from Religion

.

If so I will say something considerably more nice about him than that was nasty. There are after all no shortage of good points to praise.

I would just like to point out that I didn't say all lawyers were descended from sharks, just that some sharks evolved into lawyers.

anyway. To address your other point, you defame sharks, you know.

lesterblog.blogspot.com

like the one that killed the woolly mammoths so quickly that they died with undigested buttercups in their stomachs. That one always intrigued me the most.

What that says is that political appointees played politics. Shocker.

It does not say that the scientists were doing good science. It does not say that Hansen et al weren't playing politics themselves.

Amazing how these things manage to be communicated without actually being said.

"What that says is that political appointees played politics. Shocker."

When someone puts party above country, I have a problem with it.

"Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. ... including extensive freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market or mixed economy,

If you did you'd have a problem with Hansen deliberately distorting the data. You'd have a problem with the fact he did not release the data that the Hockey stick was based on. You would have a problem that the computational algorithms had to be reverse engineered because he refused to reveal them.

If You did you would have had a real problem with Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, The Entire Green movement.

What you mean is that you have a problem with people that get in the way of causes you agree with.

you seemed to think that NASA was spinning climate data to exaggerate conclusions that GW was worse a problem than it really is.

Of course political appointees are going to spin data to promote their own agenda! In this case of NASA and GW, Bush appointees are going to spin to MINIMIZE the perception of GW problems. They want to protect our fossil-fuel based economy and energy policies, and those who benefit the most from them... the consequences be damned.

I suspect your (or, more accurately, Steven Goddard's) database of temperature corrections are what you get AFTER the appointees have cooked the books (you have practically conceded as much), and your reliance upon them to criticize NASA, therefore, simultaneously exposes and undercuts your anti-NASA/anti-science bias. Your criticism may, in fact, be well placed, but your cavalier and sloppy approach are unconvincing. Your dialog with "liberalRepublican" supports my tentative conclusion that you are unable to follow and respond to science topics. That's OK, I understand: this is a political talk forum, not a science forum.

Would you like to know the truth without political spin? If so, THAT is what you should be begging for, instead of buying in to the political spin. I recommend seeking credible, scholarly, peer-reviewed articles as the best sources, then honest interpretations of them as a secondary source.

Steven Goddard, the author of the original article you unabashedly copied with only credit to his online publisher, seems to mainly be a software or computer engineer who may have massaged some climate data. I found his CV, but for some odd reason, he doesn't care to identify the disciplines in which he earned his degrees. Furthermore, his Associate Professor tenure seems to have stalled in 2004. Nonetheless, he has published widely on a variety of computer science topics. Your reliance upon Steven Goddard seems eerily similar to one GW denier relying upon another.

On the other hand, a CV for James Hansen, whose science you readily challenge, is easy to find. Here is a link: http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/. In order to expand your science intellect, I suggest and easy five page read titled "Scientific reticence and sea level rise" for starters: http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1748-9326/2/2/024002/erl7_2_024002.pdf?req...

As conservatives, we should ALL be interested in mature custodianship of our planet. Unchecked polluting, unrestrained and selfish consumption of non-renewable Gifts of Nature (or God), and over-use of renewable resources are what is making our planet unfit for future generations. GW is only a small part of a bigger picture of planetary destruction. Conservativism cannot survive if it lets the planet decay. Equitable and conservative management of scarce resources will benefit all humanity, now AND in the future.

You DO CARE about the quality of human life in the future, don't you? Especially for your direct descendants, right? You owe it to them to lend your voice to the facts, not the spin.

Of course political appointees are going to spin data to promote their own agenda! In this case of NASA and GW, Bush appointees are going to spin to MINIMIZE the perception of GW problems. They want to protect our fossil-fuel based economy and energy policies, and those who benefit the most from them... the consequences be damned.

Those who benefit would be you and me.

Your awareness of what is what is truly staggering.

I will make the time.

I suspect your (or, more accurately, Steven Goddard's) database of temperature corrections are what you get AFTER the appointees have cooked the books (you have practically conceded as much), and your reliance upon them to criticize NASA, therefore, simultaneously exposes and undercuts your anti-NASA/anti-science bias. Your criticism may, in fact, be well placed, but your cavalier and sloppy approach are unconvincing. Your dialog with "liberalRepublican" supports my tentative conclusion that you are unable to follow and respond to science topics. That's OK, I understand: this is a political talk forum, not a science forum.

Well If you had the intelligence to actually look you would have seen that the source is (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/US_USHCN.2005vs1999.txt) and that the source of your cooked corrections is Mr. Hansen himself.

Oops good job there. Were you as thorough when you formed your opinion on this topic ?

Would you like to know the truth without political spin? If so, THAT is what you should be begging for, instead of buying in to the political spin. I recommend seeking credible, scholarly, peer-reviewed articles as the best sources, then honest interpretations of them as a secondary source.

When the man generating the data has made a career off flogging cooked data I seriously doubt I will get it from either source.

Next you follow up with an Ad Hominem attack aimed at me, and Ad Hominem attack on Mr. Goddard, and An appeal to authority via Mr. Hansen.

DO YOU DO ANY OF YOUR OWN THINKING ???

I mean seriously, I have seen computer programs make their points with more reason than you. (that was on computers that had 16k of memory)

Finally you MOBY

"You DO CARE about the quality of human life in the future, don't you? Especially for your direct descendants, right? You owe it to them to lend your voice to the facts, not the spin."

Oh its FOR THE CHILDREN !!!!!!!!

Why didn't you say so. Yes destroying the economy a 90+% tax rate and condemning them to lives as peons must be done. Anything for them.

Do you even begin to understand how weak your entire comments have been ? I doubt it, because otherwise you wouldn't have made them. Your whole thesis was little more than "LA LA LA LA DON'T TELL ME I DON"T WANT TO HEAR LA LA LA I HAVE MY FINGERS IN MY EARS I CAN'T HEAR YOU LA LA LA HANSEN SAYS HANSEN SAYS HANSEN SAYS BUSH IS BAD BUSH IS BAD LA LA LA"

Of course if you understood, you wouldn't have made them.

Well at least not in public.

Medic! Someone send a medic! I think LibRep has a sucking chest wound.....you know where his heart was.

are at odds with the number of times in a month I see him on TV saying whatever version of 'we are all going to die' he is fixated on at that particular moment.
Hansen was wrong about the ice age he modeled in the 1970's, he is wrong in important ways about his current apocalypse, and he is wrong to pretend that the rules of NASA about employees speaking to the public or issuing statements on NASA policy equals censorship.

this lying fool Hansen has SPOKEN out on his "opinion" which is bs...and oh by the way he is a god to the religion of global warming...muzzled....apparently these "political" appointees who have been tasked with preventing the release of NASA data SUCK at their jobs and need to be fired!

Freedom of Religion NOT Freedom from Religion

Hansen the prophet, Gore the savior, Obamassiah, god.
After all, under Obamassiah, the oceans of Barakistan are going to cool. Cool! I tell you.

using pestilence, famine, and disease. Humans cope by making war. Unless harmony can be discerned and restored, the horsemen will ride again.

Box.of.rocks.

Unable or unwilling to deal with competing information, you choose what is easiest for your mind grasp. Then the other parts become "lies". There is really no reason for verbal histrionics, I hear your pain. It is easy to follow your familiar patterns, and online friends. In fact, peer-pressure makes it difficult for you to think on your own.

Nonetheless, before arrogantly dismissing Hansen as "this lying fool", a "god to the religion of global warming" who has "bs opinions", you might compare your own intellectual accomplishments and contributions with his, first. Here, I can help: http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/

Alas, you will not. It's more fun to fling poo and get a laugh from your similarly equipped chums.

I get it. GW is a big system and it's hard to understand all the contributions, causes, effects, and interactions, especially since only a few squints actually understand any of it and they are still making measurements and espousing conclusions using incomplete data.

The attempt to force heavy taxation on developed countries (the proceeds of which [looking at the Cap and Trade bill] will go to massive social programs and virtually nill towards alternative energy) will radically change the relationship of the federal government to the states and to the citizen. This in common parlance is called "bait and switch".

This says to me that while most of the scientists may not themselves have a political agenda (apart from continued funding of their grants, which is relatively small potatoes compared to the taxation proposals, so I won't complain too much about that), the Al Gores and other non-scientist evangelists are flogging AGW as a Trojan Horse for their socialist agenda that they can't sell on it own merits.

Furthermore, we have lots a fellow-travellers in the wings. For instanct, we have heard from a number of groups that explicitly plan to use the polar bear decision to shut down any new energy development in this country, which will make us ever more reliant on foreign cartel sources since there is no significant substitute for fossil fuel in the U.S. for at least the next 10-20 years (assuming we can get ANY energy development plans going that don't cost more money than the revenues they generate).

Meanwhile, the current crises of food and water and disease that will cause hugely more damage to the world are being given short-shrift by the AGW alarmists.

It's the political subversion that makes me look more closely at the data, because experience shows that the louder the screaming and hand waving, the thinner the data.

Remember the Wizard of Oz? I just wish Toto would show up already.

I believe in conservation - but it should come from the bottom-up, not a top-down tyranny. And indeed, the high energy prices are causing bottom-up conservation and changes in behavior by our fellow citizen. We don't need intrusive and tyrannical mandates developed by power-hungry hypocrites and enforced by inefficient government. Not if we value what our country has stood for and many have died for in the past 225+ years.

It's citizens virtue that I want to bequeath to my children, not dystopia.

And Rightly So!

Anyone that starts off their diatribes insinuating that the President is in the Oil Companies pockets and then says we aren't being sufficiently conservative IS FULL OF HUMAN WASTE PRODUCTS.

Anyone that starts off their diatribes insinuating that the President is in the Oil Companies pockets and then says we aren't being sufficiently conservative IS FULL OF HUMAN WASTE PRODUCTS.

And if Obama wins, along with Democratics supermajorities, Washington will be so packed full of this energy souce that they'll be able to run all the nation's heaters and air conditioning 24/7 gratis. Take that OPEC!

And Rightly So!

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

I will not insult another box of rocks by comparing you unfavorably.
You do, however, do condescension rather poorly.
I would suggest that it is the AGW sheep, like you, who cannot deal with competing information.
I have posted a scientific study from a reputable source, showing that it is soot, not CO2, that has caused recent arctic ice melt.
This study took place because people noticed that Antarctic ice is not behaving the same as arctic, which is in conflict with AGW predictions.
They have found an explanation that conflicts with Hansen and the other AGW promoters.
That you, like a typical true believer in much of anything, immediately retreat to the argument from authority, instead of dealing with the issues, is not surprising but is predictable.
It does not matter how many degrees Hansen has.
He has been selling apocalypse his entire career.
Listen to him. He is a kook. A very smart, clever, kook.
And he is wrong.
This planet has had much higher CO2 levels than now, and everything was fine. We did not have a run away anything.
You AGW filk are in some sort of massive SF role playing game, and it has long since gotten boring and pointless.
Wake the frickin' heck up.
And don't ever pretend again, tool, that I and other skeptics are somehow stupid.
You guys are the ones needing to wipe the sheep fodder off your faces.

And Rightly So!

The idiots are reproducing like rabbits around here lately. He lasted way too long for my taste.

You've made a rather odious comparison involving rabbit reproductive habbits and libeled their progeny. If you don't recant, my sources tell me that the Society will sent a commando squad to surround your house and eat all your carrots.

He lasted way too long for my taste.

So you like how whale blubber tastes, but wish it had gotten to the grocery store sooner?

And Rightly So!

that human reproductive waste tends to draw flies?

The free exchange of ideas inevitably yields both heat and light.

More than can be easily listed.
But the most insulting is the negation of the vast and effective humanitarian efforts to mitigate and push back pestilence, famine and disease.
Christian and Christian inspired groups of people are at work worldwide right now in Darfur, Burma, and many many other palces fighting the three horseman without resort to war.
But it is typical of lefties to ignore the huge efforts to do good for others.

You must know that NGO's are only valid when they are used to promote government (preferably UN) expansion and/or soak up government grants to no particular effect.

Those associations of private individuals that actually accomplish something to the benefit of humanity, whether profit-making or NFP, are to be given neither credit nor credibility.

That's the rule! OK, now?