he didn't like. Say, there's a real credible source, right up there with DailyKOS in terms of believability.
The scrapping of data stations is being reported in many other places. Rather than shooting the messenger, why not address the actual message?
One reporting station being used for everything north of 65 degrees in Canada's north? A station in Hawaii being used to project data 1200 miles north?
Yep, to the statist progressive, citing facts is considered a smear tactic. You just threw in that Daily KOS (a site that does *not* deal in facts, but rather feelings) statement to lend credibility to your smear.
To the right-wingnut droid any suggestion that one of his parade marshals doesn't speak the gospel truth brings forth just this sort of reaction. Lasky smells like a garbage truck, but you'll happily hold your nose and believe whatever he says tomorrow anyway. You know what the difference is between left-wingnuts and right-wingnuts like you? Nothing.
So, are you going to address the evidence any time soon?
Did you read the cited article? If not, then you have no position to make any kind of statement regarding it. If you did, please cite, where, in that article there was any sort of smear -- all that were stated were events and facts that happened along with some conclusions to be drawn. You might not like the facts, you might not like the conclusions, but that gives you no place to call those things a smear.
Let me give you a hint: Right wingnut, left wingnut == smear
Cite of documented cases of historical temperature data records being manipulated by AGW scientists == fact, not smear. One is certainly welcome to investigate and question the assumptions or evidence of those facts, engaging in ad hominem against the person citing those facts however, does not negate them, nor does it bolster the questioner's case.
In the statist's book, a smear is citing of any facts detrimental to the statist's arguments. Statist's response to that citing of facts detrimental is generally an ad hominem attack. e.g. "right-wingnut like you."
Did I say the artice contained smears? No? Then what are you talking about?
If I posted a link to an article on DailyKOS or some other looney-left website, would you take it seriously? Of course you wouldn't (neither would I) because that outlet doesn't do journalism, they do advocacy and they don't much care how far from the truth they have to stray in doing so. Well guess what, The American Thinker is cut from the same cloth, and Ed Lasky is a smear-monger, not a journalist--yet he's in charge of "news" at TAT (which he co-founded). Publications with that sort of repuation don't get to sit at the big table and be taken seriously, that's just the way it works.
-- all that were stated were events and
How about "red greens" -- do you seriously have trouble understanding that equating environmentalism with communism qualifies as a smear, and a childish one at that?
Pot--kettle --black, buster, don't demand from others what you are not prepared to do yourself.
Well, if there's only one station north of 65, this should result in showing less warming. The temperatures in Canada's north have been clearly and unequivocally warming.
I know, I live here. When I first moved to the Yukon in 1989, we used to have at least 2-3 weeks of 40 below temperatures. Not any more. We actually got a couple of days last year after a few years of the temperatures staying above -35. And we had record hot temperatures last summer. (As did Larry's Oregon)
Luigi
So you actually have NOTHING to say. Address the facts, please.
As the AGW folks are fond of saying, methinks you're "mistaking weather for climate" ...
Hey, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. :)
Well, if there's only one station north of 65, this should result in showing less warming. The temperatures in Canada's north have been clearly and unequivocally warming.
I know, I live here. When I first moved to the Yukon in 1989, we used to have at least 2-3 weeks of 40 below temperatures. Not any more. ========================================================
Wow, 20 years of anecdotal "data"!
You miss the point, and thus draw a completely incorrect conclusion: temperatures at latitudes of, say, 70 degrees are generally quite a bit lower than at latitudes of, say, 40 degrees. Removing temperature stations at high latitudes necessarily skews the average temperature of the remaining stations upward, even if their individual temperatures don't change at all.
For a concrete (although admittedly simplistic) example, suppose we're going to determine the average temperature of North America by averaging the temperatures today at Point Barrow AK; Whitehorse YK; Duluth MN; Houston TX; San Diego CA; and Miami FL. Now, for tomorrow's reading, eliminate Point Barrow and Whitehorse from that list. How do you suppose tomorrow's average will compare to today's?
There are plenty of stations north of 65, but only one is being used by the AGW proponents.
Sure they have. AND the glaciers are melting AND the polar bears are drownding AND OMFG WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE WILL NOBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN!
Better raise taxes. That'll fix things.
Do you think you try and be a bit more incoherent? I was almost able to parse that.
Granted that the year (or day, or whatever period) after the northern stations are eliminated will show a jump in temperature.
However, in subsequent years, assuming that the north is warming up faster than the south, the measured increase will be less than the real one. That is the point I was making, maybe not as well as I should.
Luigi
rote:
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Sorry, point taken. I should also use actual climate data data, which I am familiar with as I have done a lot of energy-efficiency related work as an economist.
You can look for yourself at "client normals" or 20-year averages published by Environment Canada. for the 1961-1990 data for Whitehorse, go to
And if you want more anecdotal data, When I first moved to the Yukon, the presence of cougars was not established and there were very few deer. Now, we see deer all the time and there have been documented attacks by cougars on people.
Luigi
Any data that suggests your assumption is valid has been shown to be horribly compromised by the idiots who have been pushing the AGW political and financial agenda.
As a result I feel confident in saying there is currently no valid scientific evidence that shows human influenced global warming is real. The
And there were sable tooth tigers wandering about. Then the sun cooled off and many things disappeared. I don't think humans were to blame for the hot spell before the Ice Age were they?
I try not to consume more than I need by driving economical vehicles and live in an economical house, I recycle stuff, but I take vacations
1,500 miles from home. I did not breed so maybe my carbon dioxide footprint is less than someone who had 5 kids? Nothing against having kids, it just did not happen for us. So if that meteor hits and screws things up taking out a few billion people then what? Or are the billions and billions of people over in China going to screw up the Earth's wobble and cause disastrous climate change? :-)
Yabbut 20 years of weather data shows what the climate is. :-)
Luigi
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.