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 for the 1971-2000 data go to
We use this information to calculate degree-days of heating. However,
our forecasts of energy use almost always on the high side as the
climate normals are outdated. BTW the same amount of warming is
present in all (IIRC) weather stations in the Yukon.
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.
===========================================================And it was uphill both ways ... :o)
On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 15:52:03 -0800, the infamous "LDosser"
You could make sense out of that jumble? It wasn't in English, I
think it must have been guttural Canuckistani or sumpin'.
Years like 1957 and 1948 were tossed into the 1961-1990 data? Oh,
those were the record-setting years which were outside the date
limits. Why were they there? Jayzuss, gimme a chart of the data by
plus a readable list, will ya?
(This was averaged data, completely useless to the subject, WeeGee. We
don't want averages, we want actuals to compare to one another. Or
did you just throw those out to see who's paying attention, you canny
Never mind that the population grew 500% (WAG) over that time and
people are living farther out each year.
"Some of us are wondering if we have created a monster."
Kevin Vranes, climate scientist, University of Colorado
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?
On Jan 24, 5:26 am, email@example.com (Doug Miller) wrote:
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
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.
On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 21:37:04 -0800 (PST), the infamous Luigi Zanasi
2nd hottest on record...for one day. WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!
C'mon, WeeGee, at least _read_ the other material instead of just
drinking your AGWK Koolaid.
"Oh, I see that skeptic's article was written by a man who drove a
vehicle to work. He must be sponsored by Big Oil!" won't cut it.
Do yourself a favor. Watch the vids and -research- what they report
on. You simply have to find something wrong with what's going on if
you do (because it's killing people!)
There are too many of the Chicken Littles faking the stats to hide it
any more. Please open your eyes, my friend. Your local weather is
changing, but it has been hotter there before, and it got cooler
again, just as it's doing right now.
You said to me that Algore was irrelevant. I disagree. He's leading
millions of people down a false path. That ain't irrelevant to me.
Only if he weren't causing any harm could he be considered irrelevant.
We either make ourselves happy or miserable.
The amount of work is the same.
-Carlos Castaneda, mystic and author (1925-1998)
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.
There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage
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.
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."
There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage
Did I say the artice contained smears? No? Then what are you talking
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.
Sorry, "consensus" does not generate "truth" (except in the liberal arts
such as English Literature, art, history, etc.). It is truth that generates
consensus. Regrettably, "truth" is often assumed to be what the experts say
it is - and they sometimes lie. Especially when the raw data are
unavailable, the results are not reproducible, and the experts have a
financial interest in the outcome.
Here's a report from just today:
Part of the IPCC's report said the glaciers in the Himalayas would melt by
2035. It is simply physically impossible to melt 400' thick ice covering
thousands of square miles in thirty-five years. Further, the "2035" number
was plucked from a magazine article written by a twit and included solely to
put pressure on political leaders. Over 500 people "peer reviewed" this IPCC
report and no one raised an objection.
When the Indian government reported no abnormal reduction in Himalayan
glaciers, the same person who now admits the fraud/mistake called the
governmental report "voodoo science."
You've been duped by the hippies and Luddites who think we can run the world
off of sunbeams.
Yeah, I saw that too. Maybe it was supposed to be 5320? or 3250? But it
doesn't matter what the number is as long as there is a "consensus" that the
proffered number is correct. Even if the number defies the laws of God, man,
The body of DATA is vast, whether those data represent evidence is
questioned by some.
Agreed. We know that we don't know and we don't even know whether knowing is
Temperature are probably rising. Man has been active. So far all that can be
said is there is a correlation, not a consequence.
* I submit that AGW is not a scientific claim. Not everything that uses
parts of the scientific method can legitimately be labeled "science."
* Fox News is the most trusted name in news (according to a recent poll),
but I agree that scientific truth cannot be determined by "opinion."
Nope. Darwin proposed three mechanisms for evolution: 1) Sexual selection,
2) Survival of the fittest, and 3) Doctrine of Use/Disuse. Two of the three
have been proven to be wrong. Special Relativity is now viewed as a step
between Newtonian mechanics and Quantum Physics, not a truth in itself.
You may be right in noting the debate may be over. We do not know, and
possibly cannot ever know, the effect of human activity on climate. Much
like not knowing whether life exists on another planet, that bit of
knowledge will have to wait until the science improves. In my view, making
decisions about GW are similar to planning a Washington reception for space
aliens ("shall we serve fish or sliced badger?").
I disagree; dealing with the consequences of global warming are trivial
compared to trying to mitigate AGW. There are even benefits to GW such as
increased crop yields and diminution of many major diseases.
Hmm. I haven't seen THOSE emails...
In fact most of the recent agitation comes from debunking the AGW
Fact is, the global warming bandwagon has been mortally wounded. Anyone
claiming AGW - or even just warming in general - in the future will have to
provide gold-plated evidence to bolster that view. The global warming
"scientists" have been found to be a rat-bag collection of scalawags,
cut-purses, rapscallions, nit-pickers, and atheletes of the tongue so bereft
of any credibility as to be unfit even for medical experimentation.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It 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.