How do you propose to do that, when the raw data has been deleted and all that remains is the "adjusted" data? You *can't* use actual climate data. It no longer exists.
Actually, actual *climate* data never did exist: we've had reasonably accurate means of measuring the temperature for approximately 0.00000025 percent of the age of this planet. Any actual *data* that we ever had is *weather* data, not climate data -- and the climate figures for 300 or 1000 or 3000 years ago are estimates, not data.
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
formatting link
for the 1971-2000 data go to
formatting link
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 However, our forecasts of energy use almost always on the high side as the climate normals are outdated.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 Sat, 23 Jan 2010 21:37:04 -0800 (PST), the infamous Luigi Zanasi scrawled the following:
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) -------
On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 08:27:04 -0600, the infamous Dave Balderstone scrawled the following:
Which begs the question: Why the hell are the AGWK proponents doing this when the more measurement points they have, the more precise their model will (can, since they're apparently NOT after precision) be? Also, why haven't all of these global data gathering points been kept up to standards?
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:
formatting link
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.
Not according to the climatologists. 100 years of temperature data show COOLING, which is clearly "weather." Only when "adjustments" are applied, yielding "warming" do these readings indicate "climate."
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, or physics.
On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 15:52:03 -0800, the infamous "LDosser" scrawled the following:
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 cad?)
Never mind that the population grew 500% (WAG) over that time and people are living farther out each year.
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 16:30:28 -0800, the infamous "LDosser" scrawled the following:
With all the money being collected and/or stolen for AGWK, why isn't some being used for updating their systems? Because working systems would show their little scheme for what it is: a SCAM.
The body of DATA is vast, whether those data represent evidence is questioned by some.
True.
Agreed. We know that we don't know and we don't even know whether knowing is unknowable.
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 proponents.
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 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.