Actually I already pointed out that his graphs are incorrect, which instead of addressing you tried to deflect by stating that I had said something once that I did not. You didn't even attempt to defend his graphs, cite his graphs, and have displayed no curiosity whatsoever of where his data came from. Therefore I put it in terms you could understand -- why do you trust a guy about climatology when he is not a climatologist and he cannot operate a Powerpoint slide presentation correctly, over NASA?
We had several inches of global warming here in Atlanta a couple of days ago. It looked like a regular <s>winter</s> global warming wonderland. The neighborhood kids all made global warming men in their yards. Many of which are still standing. Not sure why they were all wearing parkas and gloves though.
The head of this global warming hoax is saying he wants to kill himself and they have been lying about the past 15 yrs, what a freakin joke. Whoever that Chinese hacker is, you are the man, this is hilarious.
Yep, everyone is either uninformed, uneducated, has the wrong background, etc., etc. Sorry your little cult world is falling apart. Being a cultist, it will take nothing short of an Intervention to de-program you. Sad!
Listening to a radio broadcast last night, "The Gardening Show". Turns out Vancouver is[ warmer than normal this winter, as flowers are coming up early. The ambient ground temperature indicates earlier planting will be feasible this year, too. Not that gardeners are interested observers of their environment or anything.
Make screenshots of the graphs that you hink is incorrect. So far only you see it. I trust a number of people who do not operate Powerpoint correctly. And there are a number of people who operate Powerpoint freakishly well yet I would not trust them on anything. So someone's ability to operate a specific software in no way make this person trustable / untrustable. Regarding NASA, the point the guy made that the sun was responsible for the climate change is in accordance with NASA: http://www.dailytech.com/NASA+Study...Responsible+for+Past+Warming/article15310.htm
Here is another Powerpoint presentation by professor Carter. As you can see no problems with operating Powerpoint this time. Cater is a an adjunct research professor in the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, Queensland and the University of Adelaide South Australia, Australia. He suffieciently debunks hypothesis of CO2 having caused the global warming. I think this time you will have no problem to see where his data come from. <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/NFHZOYtAztU&hl=pl_PL&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/NFHZOYtAztU&hl=pl_PL&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object> <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/W9IHKfzDdn8&hl=pl_PL&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/W9IHKfzDdn8&hl=pl_PL&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
Umm... no. Science doesn't work that way. You are the one presenting this data, you need to cite your sources so we can see the raw numbers (he doesn't, either.) Good point -- how about the fact that the guy isn't a climatologist? Noooooooooooo... here's the actual article rather than a blog: http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/solar_variability.html -- secondly it's not a "study", thirdly as you can see your blog has terribly misunderstood what it says, and fourthly 2009 was the second hottest year and solar activity is at the lowest point its been in a century.
CRU chief: Hey, why donât bloggers disprove AGW instead of criticizing us? POSTED FEBRUARY 16, 2010 BY ED MORRISSEY Dr. Phil Jones, late of the East Anglia CRU, has a bone to pick with bloggers, as the New Scientist blog Short Sharp Science reports today. Does he defend himself by pointing out factual errors from bloggers, who are certain to have made a few, in reporting on the âclimategateâ scandal and the cascading series of exposed errors from the IPCC report on the âsettled scienceâ of anthropogenic global warming (AGW)? Not exactly. Jones rolls out yet another innovative approach to science in which he transfers the burden of proof to skeptics: Well, letâs see â could it be because weâre not the people advancing extraordinary claims about man-made influence on global weather patterns? This must be some new, previously unknown tenet of the Scientific Method, wherein people who point out errors, bias, bad process, and unsubstantiated claims from scientists are somehow required to disprove their unsupported hypotheses. Itâs apparently no longer incumbent on Jones and his colleagues to substantiate their own conjectures with actual science, rather than use badly-lifted speculation from media interviews and unsupported propaganda from advocacy groups. Speaking of which, itâs interesting to note that Jones admits he got his paper wrong on which Jones bases his analyses of weather-station data, bit only might submit a correction. Bloggers usually do better than that when they get facts incorrect. Jones, who may have to permanently leave his position after the exposure of political kneecapping within the CRU of skeptics, might want to consider raising his ethics to at least meet those of the group heâs criticizing at the moment. Maybe Jones and his team should have stuck to doing actual science rather than plotting to hide declines and silence critics while running the CRU. At least heâd still have a job. Update: A little more evidence that the consensus has started to, er, melt away: