Mistakes Were Made--Y2K Bug? | The Coffeehouse

raymond

Imagine that, man is responsible for global warming after all--cooking the numbers-- Y2K program bug! :O

Breaking News: Recent US Temperature Numbers Revised Downwards Today

http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/08/official-us-cli.html

The Climate Audit blog site:

www.climateaudit.org

appears to be down for now. It was working Wednesday.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_Audit

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_McIntyre

Climate Audit

Did Media Or NASA Withhold Climate History Data Changes From The Public?

By Noel Sheppard | August 9, 2007 - 11:30 ET

"...Four of the top 10 are now from the 1930s: 1934, 1931, 1938 and 1939, while only 3 of the top 10 are from the last 10 years (1998, 2006, 1999). Several years (2000, 2002, 2003, 2004) fell well down the leaderboard, behind even 1900.

http://newsbusters.org/media-places/climate-audit

NASA Revises Temperature Data; 1998 Now Behind 1934 as Hottest

"...Well, it turns out, according to the NASA GISS database, that 1998 was not even the hottest year of the last century. This is because many temperatures from recent decades that appeared to show substantial warming have been revised downwards. Here is how that happened (if you want to skip the story, make sure to look at the numbers at the bottom).

One of the most cited and used historical surface temperature databases is that of NASA/Goddard’s GISS. This is not some weird skeptics site. It is considered one of the premier world temperature data bases, and it is maintained by anthropogenic global warming true believers. It has consistently shown more warming than any other data base, and is thus a favorite source for folks like Al Gore. These GISS readings in the US rely mainly on the US Historical Climate Network (USHCN) which is a network of about 1000 weather stations taking temperatures, a number of which have been in place for over 100 years.

Anyway, McIntyre suspected that one of these adjustments had a bug, and had had this bug for years. Unfortunately, it was hard to prove. Why? Well, that highlights one of the great travesties of climate science. Government scientists using taxpayer money to develop the GISS temperature data base at taxpayer expense refuse to publicly release their temperature adjustment algorithms or software (In much the same way Michael Mann refused to release the details for scrutiny of his methodology behind the hockey stick). Using the data, though, McIntyre made a compelling case that the GISS data base had systematic discontinuities that bore all the hallmarks of a software bug. ..."

http://amerpundit.com/2007/08/09/nasa-revises-temperature-data-1998-now-behind-1934-as-hottest/

I feel a cool breeze coming. Tongue Out

Cool

PS I do not believe in coincidences.

blowdart
Peek-a-boo

Tell me something can you actually argue on your own or do you just cut and paste. And, if as you keep saying you have a blog, why aren't you keeping your utter cr@p to it?

ZippyV
Fired Up

http://blogspot.com
http://blogger.com
http://myspace.com
http://typepad.com

Try posting stuff like this to your own blog plzkthxbye

kettch

If you get a blog we'll all subscribe to it.

raymond

kettch wrote:
If you get a blog we'll all subscribe to it.

Thanks.

I already have one and I am starting the slow build process.

Cool

evildictaitor
if( !succeed( try() ) ) { while(true) try(); }

raymond wrote:

The Climate Audit blog site:

www.climateaudit.org

appears to be down for now. It was working Wednesday.

Oh, thank God! The scales have fallen from mine eyes. Oh, great raymond, how can you look upon morons such as us who exist in such mediocrity compared to you, those of us who do not fully gaze upon the full extend of the truth.

Thank you raymond for showing us that global warming is a fallacy. I had looked at the science and I had came to a conclusion on my own without copy-and-pasting, but this all pales now that I see that their website is down. Everything they said, gone from my mind, their argument lost like a leaf in the wind. Their website is down, so no counter-argument could possibly exist to your claims. It cannot be a coincidence because your signature tells me it can't be, and who am I to conclude otherwise, when those glorious few, Oh, glorious few such as raymond see the light of the truth in its full glory?

evildictaitor
if( !succeed( try() ) ) { while(true) try(); }

raymond wrote:
Humiltiy and wisdom go hand in hand.

Lol, I'm just saying, you might want to use a different line of attack than "their website is down".

raymond

evildictaitor wrote:

raymond wrote:

The Climate Audit blog site:

www.climateaudit.org

appears to be down for now. It was working Wednesday.

Oh, thank God! The scales have fallen from mine eyes. Oh, great raymond, how can you look upon morons such as us who exist in such mediocrity compared to you, those of us who do not fully gaze upon the full extend of the truth.

Thank you raymond for showing us that global warming is a fallacy. I had looked at the science and I had came to a conclusion on my own without copy-and-pasting, but this all pales now that I see that their website is down. Everything they said, gone from my mind, their argument lost like a leaf in the wind. Their website is down, so no counter-argument could possibly exist to your claims. It cannot be a coincidence because your signature tells me it can't be, and who am I to conclude otherwise, when those glorious few, Oh, glorious few such as raymond see the light of the truth in its full glory?

Humiltiy and wisdom go hand in hand.

PS I would recommend reading Hayek's essay:

The Use of Knowledge in Society

http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/hykKnw1.html

Cool

raymond

evildictaitor wrote:

raymond wrote: Humiltiy and wisdom go hand in hand.

Lol, I'm just saying, you might want to use a different line of attack than "their website is down".

Try latter. Several people online were having the same problem.

My guess: it was receiving a lot of traffic and the server could not handle it. The above news was on several very popular talk radio shows in the US.

Either that or a DOS attack, any body out there know what is going on with:

http://www.climateaudit.org/

Maybe it that the Appache server Wink

raymond

Well, I am very tired of people telling me their is a consensus about global warming being caused by man and his/her use of energy resulting in rising CO2 emissions.

About nine years ago over 19,000 US scientists signed a petition clearing stating the CO2 emissions do not cause global warming.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition

Read the Abstract and view the PowerPoint presentation and then make up your own mind.

http://www.sitewave.net/pproject/pproject.htm

Petition Project PowerPoint Presentation

http://www.sitewave.net/pproject/presentation/

Anti Global Warming Petition Project

"...Global Warming Petition

We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth. ..."

http://www.sitewave.net/pproject/pproject.htm

Listed below are 19,200 of the initial signers

http://althouse.entrewave.com/view/althouse/s33p357.htm

Good news, Mr. Gore, the Apocalypse has been postponed

http://www.sitewave.net/news/

Cool

Solar Heretic

PS Blowdart are you familiar with the concept of pointers?

evildictaitor
if( !succeed( try() ) ) { while(true) try(); }

raymond wrote:

About nine years ago over 19,000 US scientists signed a petition clearing stating the CO2 emissions do not cause global warming.

A lot of new evidence has come to light over the past nine years. Bear in mind that nine years ago, Windows 98 had just come out and the Interblags had yet to be concieved. 9 years is a long time for evidence to come about.

PaoloM
Hypermediocrity

Ok, just because I was bored for 10 minutes, I tried to click on some of those links.

So I went to see the list of those 19,200 scientists.

I picked the first one, just to start, some mr. Earl Aagaard, PhD. I did a very quick Live.com query to see who he is. The first three links are pointers back to the list of signers, but the fourth points to Darwin Skeptics.

I spare you, gentle reader, the pain to visit that site. Yes, it's another loonie list of creationists.

Now, if the first random pick from that list is a member of the loon brigade, should we keep looking to the credentials of the other ones?

Not necessarily, because the real question is "who is paying this people to ridicule themselves in public?". I got a couple of links here, Des «éco-sceptiques» à l’assaut du Web and Une campagne organisée? While they are in french, they eventually lead you to a well documented disproval of your original claim, take you to the Tyee, where you can find this nugget about one of these "Darwin Skeptics":

"Sallie Baliunas is a non-Canadian signatory to the deniers letter. She is a Harvard-Smithsonian Institute astrophysicist who has been giving global warming deniers scientific cover since the mid-1990s. She is a senior scientist at the George C. Marshall Institute (received $310,000 from Exxon Mobil). She co-wrote (with colleague Willie Soon, who did not sign the skeptics letter) the Fraser Institute pamphlet "Global warming: a guide to the science." (The Fraser Institute receives $60,000 a year from Exxon Mobil.) Baliunas is "enviro-sci" host of TechCentralStation.com (received $95,000 from Exxon Mobil) and is on science advisory boards of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow ($252,000) and the Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy ($427,500). She has given speeches before the American Enterprise Institute ($960,000) and the Heritage Foundation ($340,000). The Heartland Institute ($312,000) publishes her op-ed pieces."

Uhm. That's some money that a corporation with an obvious interest in keeping the status quo (and denying that there is a problem in the first place) is giving to some institutes. I wonder what they expect to get in return?

Should I go on? Because just reading about these so-called "research funding" makes me sad because I have to work hard in order to pay a mortgage every month... Sad

blowdart
Peek-a-boo

kettch wrote:
If you get a blog we'll all subscribe to it.

Isn't it funny how he is happy to spam here, but won't share his blog. Wonder what he's worried about

Minh
WOOH! WOOH!

PaoloM wrote:
Now, if the first random pick from that list is a member of the loon brigade, should we keep looking to the credentials of the other ones?

How dare you, sir, bring facts into this conversation?

TimP

I'm not a global warming skeptic, but this is definitely going to ruffle some feathers, especially since the the "10 hottest days" line is used so often.

Rossj

PaoloM wrote:

Now, if the first random pick from that list is a member of the loon brigade, should we keep looking to the credentials of the other ones?

My three random choices (that returned hits)

Quackenbush (I kid you not) is a nutritionist.
Jacob Van Roekel - Manufacturing Engineering professor
Roy Gealer, Phd - Works for a Fuel Additive company, looks like a Chemist.

This really isn't going well. Added on to some of the names bringing up zero hits AT ALL, makes me wonder whether anyone regardless of profession or actual, you know, existence was allowed to sign the list.

If it wants a little more credibitility a few more climatologists or meteorologists wouldn't hurt.

ScanIAm
On a scale of 1 to 10, people are stupid.

Blatantly stolen from fark...

raymond

ScanIAm wrote:

Blatantly stolen from fark...

LOL

The aroma of BS, how sweet it is.

Cool

Bas
It finds lightbulbs.

raymond wrote:
LOL

The aroma of BS, how sweet it is.

So... no rebuttal for the people that found the names on the Oregon Petition less than convincing? Figures.

PaoloM
Hypermediocrity

Raymond, if you keep posting stuff like that, interspersing quotes, links and your personal comments in a mish-mash of an unrecognizable post, I'm not going to even bother reading them, but one thing stood out:

"follow the money..."

And that's what I did. Who do you think has more incentive to spread disinformation, Al Gore or frikkin' Exxon Oil, whose basic survival pivots around making sure that people use more and more energy and fuel (possibly Exxon/Esso, thankyouverymuch)?

Follow the money indeed...

evildictaitor
if( !succeed( try() ) ) { while(true) try(); }

I love the pretense that global warming is all a big scam to tax us.

Because government's can't just, say increase income tax by 0.5% and have done with it (and make more money at that).

No. The Government must employ NASA, the British Antarctic Survey, fabricate the data at the IPCC and get huge numbers of scientists on board, all while George Bush is massively resisting any move to do anything with climate change (if it was just a way of him taxxing us, surely he'd be in favor of it?).

Or maybe, raymond, you are spouting your favourite kind of BS again?

ScanIAm
On a scale of 1 to 10, people are stupid.

I snipped your pointless gore bashing since you still aren't able to separate the message from the person.

raymond wrote:

The Invisible Gnomes and the Invisible Hand: South Park and Libertarian Philosophy

"...Contrary to the anti-corporate propaganda normally coming out of Hollywood, South Park argues that, in the absence of government intervention, corporations get where they are by serving the public, not by exploiting it. As Ludwig von Mises makes the point:

The profit system makes those men prosper who have succeeded in filling the wants of the people in the best possible and cheapest way. Wealth can be acquired only by serving the consumers. The capitalists lose their funds as soon as they fail to invest them in those lines in which they satisfy best the demands of the public. In a daily repeated plebiscite in which every penny gives a right to vote the consumers determine who should own and run the plants, shops and farms. [9]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/cantor3.html

South Park vs. Global Warming

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQcp9BqvpXA

They took our jobs!

Only if you let them.

And this is complete bullsh!t and hopelessly misses the problem with unregulated capitalism. The energy industry will produce the most amount of power it can from the least amount of effort and money. If they weren't forced to clean up their refineries, power plants, and mines, they would still be pumping massive amounts of mercury into the air, spilling oil everywhere, and forcing workers into dangerous, deathtrap mines*. The average consumer won't know or care about this until it is too late.

*oh, wait, they're still doing this. Or don't you read the news.

esoteric
λ

Raymond posts link after link after link after link... tons of material. I'm not reading it either. Haven't got the time.

One would hope, of all companies, that oil companies can foresee their own demise, and invest heavily in next-generation fuels and renewable energy.

Saudi-araba, Kuwait, Qatar, etc - aren't they investing in these technologies?

It's got to be the ones making the most profit from fossil fuels, who take the biggest steps to transition away from them, at some point. Obviously it's not going to last.

ScanIAm
On a scale of 1 to 10, people are stupid.

raymond wrote:

Well, I am very tired of people telling me their is a consensus about global warming being caused by man and his/her use of energy resulting in rising CO2 emissions.

About nine years ago over 19,000 US scientists signed a petition clearing stating the CO2 emissions do not cause global warming.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition

Too bad. There is a consensus, and if, rather than just posting links, you actually read this entry, you'd have seen this:

wikipedia wrote:

In 2005, Scientific American reported:

“ Scientific American took a sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition —- one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers – a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community.^[10] ”

200 whackjobs vs. the rest of the scientific community == consensus.

Nice try, though.

Here's more:

wikipedia wrote:

In a 2005 op-ed in the Hawaii Reporter, Todd Shelly wrote:

“ In less than 10 minutes of casual scanning, I found duplicate names (Did two Joe R. Eaglemans and two David Tompkins sign the petition, or were some individuals counted twice?), single names without even an initial (Biolchini), corporate names (Graybeal & Sayre, Inc. How does a business sign a petition?), and an apparently phony single name (Redwine, Ph.D.). These examples underscore a major weakness of the list: there is no way to check the authenticity of the names. Names are given, but no identifying information (e.g., institutional affiliation) is provided. Why the lack of transparency?^[11] ”

Yes, why is that.

But then this part is my favorite...read the very end:

wikipedia wrote:

In May 1998 the Seattle Times wrote:

“ Several environmental groups questioned dozens of the names: "Perry S. Mason" (the fictitious lawyer?), "Michael J. Fox" (the actor?), "Robert C. Byrd" (the senator?), "John C. Grisham" (the lawyer-author?). And then there's the Spice Girl, a k a. Geraldine Halliwell: The petition listed "Dr. Geri Halliwell" and "Dr. Halliwell."
Asked about the pop singer, Robinson said he was duped. The returned petition, one of thousands of mailings he sent out, identified her as having a degree in microbiology and living in Boston. "It's fake," he said.^[12]

Somehow, I just can't convince myself to view the opinions of a climate scientist and a Spice Girl as equally compelling.

bgmacaw
http://vbnotebookfor.net/

evildictaitor wrote:
No. The Government must employ NASA, the British Antarctic Survey, fabricate the data at the IPCC and get huge numbers of scientists on board

Most of whom survive on government funding and soliciting donations, but no, they don't have any political bias themselves or try to shut down debate using politically charged words like 'denier' or blacklisting scientists who don't agree with their foregone conclusions.

It's all about winning politically. Since the political left has so completely embraced the 'global warming' concept it has become a situation where scientific objectivity and what's best for people has been thrown out in favor who wins politically. If you can use worse possible case environmental scare tactics to get people on your side, you win. If you can convince enough people that environmentalism is a code word for high taxes and big government socialism, you win.

evildictaitor wrote:
all while George Bush is massively resisting any move to do anything with climate change (if it was just a way of him taxxing us, surely he'd be in favor of it?).

Only if he got to spend it the way he wanted to spend it. I think he loves spending more than taxing but you can't do one without the other.