The Writing is on the Wall

On 2/26/07 7:39 PM, in article , "Steve
Freides" wrote:

"Kurgan Gringioni" wrote in message
oups.com...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn.../AR20070226007
33.html

Five western states to bypass Bush on climate

By Timothy Gardner
Reuters
Monday, February 26, 2007; 2:28 PM

-snip-

It is customary, and polite, to start the subject of off-topic postings
with "OT:"



In this group, "OT:" stands for ON-topic, not OFF-topic.




--
Steven L. Sheffield
stevens at veloworks dot com
bellum pax est libertas servitus est ignoratio vis est
ess ay ell tea ell ay kay ee sea eye tee why you ti ay aitch
aitch tee tea pea colon [for word] slash [four ward] slash double-you
double-yew double-ewe dot flahute dot com [foreword] slash

"Robert Chung" wrote in message
...
Tom Kunich wrote:

Ahh, good then perhaps you can explain what this data was, how it
pertained to the present conversation and how it was "doctored". And
of course you do realize that you can be held liable for your
statements?

I already explained in "The Surge" thread. I showed Lindzen's plot, where
he said he'd gotten the data, and the URLs both for the data and the
document from which the plot came. I gave the URLs so anyone could
download the document and the data and see for themselves. You took the
bait and said you'd examined the data so you should have been able to
verify that the data don't match his plot. So either he doctored the data,
or he mislead his audience about the data he was using. Neither of those
two alternatives is good.

Maybe you missed the fact that I did examine the data and wasn't impressed
by your call of doctoring since we aren't sure that was precisely the data
set he used. You sniveled about how easily I filtered the data without ever
bothering to actually look at it yourself.

You're really quick to shout "he doctored it" but my guess is that you'll
discount any possible mistakes he might have made in noting his data set.

There are some six million variables involved in the general circulation
models. It is a chaotic system which means that in order to know anything at
all about the results you have to know every one of those variables with
great accuracy. Yet most of these variables are simply guessed at. We do not
even begin to understand what causes cloud cover let alone precipitation
levels. And all of these are of extreme importance if you are trying to
guess climatic patterns for more than a couple of days ahead.

Pretending that the predictions of these models has anything at all to do
with reality is precisely what is wrong with this subject. What we do know
is that the climatic variability FAR exceeds any weather forcing from a
meager addition of CO2. Did you know that we don't even have an accurate
number for the amount of CO2 in the earth's atmosphere? The guesses cover a
three magnitude range.

Or maybe you can back up that dumb**** who thinks that CO2 is in the upper
atmosphere. Apparently no one ever taught him primary chemistry.

"Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote in message
ink.net...
Tom: Time marches on. Get with the program. Saddam's WMD program *was*
destroyed. By us. We just didn't bother to figure it out. That makes us
look pretty stupid, doesn't it? We won, in the sense that we accomplished
our primary objective (since we were far more concerned about WMDs than
anything Saddam might have done to his people, sorry if you think
otherwise).

The interesting thing about history is that it makes people we didn't care
for that much, such as Bush Sr., look not so bad, and in fact, pretty
darned smart, in hindsight. Hate it when that happens.

Mike, I suggest you actually read the Duelfer Report
http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/duelfer.html before commenting on it.

"Jim Flom" wrote in message
news:La5Fh.1123$IE4.541@edtnps82...

I'm no longer surprised by how easy it is to dig a little bit and find how
little credibility the opposing scientists actually have. It's not hard
to learn whose payroll the scientists are on, or which spokespersons are
on what think tanks (American Enterprise Institute anyone?), think tanks
funded by the likes of Exxon/Mobil, or what Senate subcommittee feeding
the Bush dogma team, etc. I would love to believe climate change is a
fantasy. I wish it were. The number of credible scientists opposing
human causes to climate change are shrinking faster than... uh, the polar
ice caps.

And I'm certainly no longer surprised to see someone saying that anyone that
is funded by business is obviously corrupt but those people funded by
Greenpeace are fearless souls of complete honesty and distinction.

Why you didn't even break a sweat denigrating people like Robert C. Balling,
Jr., director of the Office of Climatology and an associate professor of
geography at Arizona State University, Chris de Freitas, Associate
Professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science,
University of Auckland, David Deming, geology professor at the University of
Oklahoma and Robert M. Carter, researcher at the Marine Geophysical
Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia.

But of course since your own credentials are above reproach you would be the
best judge of these people.

Tom: Time marches on. Get with the program. Saddam's WMD program *was*
destroyed. By us. We just didn't bother to figure it out. That makes us
look pretty stupid, doesn't it? We won, in the sense that we accomplished
our primary objective (since we were far more concerned about WMDs than
anything Saddam might have done to his people, sorry if you think
otherwise).

The interesting thing about history is that it makes people we didn't
care for that much, such as Bush Sr., look not so bad, and in fact,
pretty darned smart, in hindsight. Hate it when that happens.

Mike, I suggest you actually read the Duelfer Report
http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/duelfer.html before commenting on it.

Are we talking about the same Mr. Duelfer? The one who, on March 30, 2004,
had this to say-

"The ISG continues to look for Weapons of Mass Destruction. Many sites have
been visited where intelligence reports before the war indicated there could
be weapons. The ISG has investigated hundreds of sites to date. Moreover,
we regularly receive reports, some quite intriguing and credible, about
concealed caches. We continue to investigate these reports about WMD
materials and weapons being buried or hidden across Iraq."

So please, tell me one thing, just one, that's incorrect in what I said. And
please, tell me just what exactly Mr. Duelfer has unearthed in the PAST
THREE YEARS that he alluded to in the quoted paragraph above.

It's 2007 now. Not 2004. Not 2001. Not 1983 or 1987 or 1991 either. As it's
now 2007, we have the luxury of looking back and recognizing the many
mistakes that were made, by many different administrations. Lest you think
I'm a bleeding-heart liberal, I think one of the biggest mistakes was that
the Clinton administration didn't strongly back up the demands for weapons
inspectors to have unfettered access. Had Clinton, for example, made it
clear through relatively-minor military action (taking out a military
target) each time Saddam refused to comply with the various rules &
sanctions, my guess is that things wouldn't have come to the point they
have.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

Stu Fleming wrote:
Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...022600733.html


Five western states to bypass Bush on climate

By Timothy Gardner
Reuters
Monday, February 26, 2007; 2:28 PM

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Five Western U.S. states have formed the latest
regional pact that bypasses the Bush administration to cut emissions
linked to global warming through market mechanisms, according to
Oregon's governor.

Unconstitional.

Like Shrub gives a **** about the Constitution.

--
Lynn Wallace

If FDR fought fascism the way Bush fights terrorism, we'd all be
speaking German now.

"Raptor" wrote in message
...
Stu Fleming wrote:
Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...022600733.html

Five western states to bypass Bush on climate

By Timothy Gardner
Reuters
Monday, February 26, 2007; 2:28 PM

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Five Western U.S. states have formed the latest
regional pact that bypasses the Bush administration to cut emissions
linked to global warming through market mechanisms, according to
Oregon's governor.

Unconstitional.

Like Shrub gives a **** about the Constitution.

I'd be willing to bet that you've never actually read the Constitution
yourself.

In article et,
"Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:

"Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote in message
ink.net...
Tom: Time marches on. Get with the program. Saddam's WMD program *was*
destroyed. By us. We just didn't bother to figure it out. That makes us
look pretty stupid, doesn't it? We won, in the sense that we accomplished
our primary objective (since we were far more concerned about WMDs than
anything Saddam might have done to his people, sorry if you think
otherwise).

The interesting thing about history is that it makes people we didn't care
for that much, such as Bush Sr., look not so bad, and in fact, pretty
darned smart, in hindsight. Hate it when that happens.

Mike, I suggest you actually read the Duelfer Report
http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/duelfer.html before commenting on it.

Tom, you make a big deal out of "read the report" but I don't think you have. You
make claims about it that are not suppoerted by what is actually in the report.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

"Phil Holman" piholmanc@yourservice wrote...

Hi Jim,
why is that? Are they getting smarter as a result of new data?

Worked for me.

Tom Kunich wrote:

Maybe you missed the fact that I did examine the data and wasn't
impressed by your call of doctoring since we aren't sure that was
precisely the data set he used.

He cited the Hadley Centre/UEA data for NH temperature anomalies from
1960-2005. The only publicly available data from the Hadley Centre/UEA in
May 2006 of NH temperature anomalies were the data I gave the URL for. If
Lindzen was using non-standard data, then he should have mentioned it and
explained why. He did neither.

So you're saying he may not have doctored the data -- he may only have been
using a mysterious data set that was inconsistent with any publicly
available data at the website he was citing and was so sloppy in his work
that he forgot to mention it. Okay. I can live with that. I stand corrected.