Search results

I like the way Palin basically said that she's not very bright, but she thinks that's what the voters want, not these 'elitist' smart people.

You know someone's fallen off the deep end of sanity when they bring in old PP.

I didn't mean to suggest that you had called me a denier, I was staking my ground, so to speak. Sorry if it came across wrong. I find that as soon as the rabid mouthpieces get onto an issue, it becomes ridiculous. Between the greenpeace etc who essentially call you a heretic if you don't...

And the million dollar question is, 'Is this data manipulation valid?' When people start to 'like' or 'dislike' data because of the way it has been massaged, you have to start adding a factor of scepticism to your reading. And by the way, I am not a 'denier', I am a 'doubter' of both sides...

Or, actually, next to nothing over the last 1000 years.

By approx 1 deg in 100 years, yes, it is.

The thing is, what the scientists are doing is taking sets of data, massaging them to get rid of anomalies or obvious errors, and then plotting them. Based on the plots, they make predictions. If they are all using the same data sources, they should theoretically come up with similar results...

No, they don't. If the scientists dispose of the raw data, then the analysis cannot be repeated, and therefore the scientific conclusions become unsubstantiated, and could never pass a proper peer review. Typically, the only scientists who destroy data are those with something to hide.

Oh, I understand. It's truly stunning how the media completely distorts anything to do with science, if they report it at all. Thank God for the mainstream US networks, they avoid this by completely ignoring the story.

That all depends on who gets data from where, and when you 'accidentally' delete data after threatening that 'I'll delete it before I release it', the credibility somehow decreases.

It's exactly the same. Produce a chart with wild swings, make a self-serving prediction for future behaviour, and then justify your prediction. Same concept, exactly. And the best part is, once we get carbon credit trading, it will be the same people profitting. What could be better?

But the temps in all of these charts seems to be affected by the desire to make the chart look accurate.

At least here in Canada, it has been an item on CBC radio news quite a bit. But perhaps the assumption is that we have the ability to understand science.

Anybody who accepts all of these lovely graphs as having any meaning would do well to look at the charts and graphs that stock analysts produce.

The amount of pollution does affect the climate. In 1833, Krakatoa exploded; the result:In the weeks following the eruption, fine fragments of tephra and dust that were propelled kilometers into the stratosphere began to make a ring around the equator. They would remain suspended there for years...

I expect that any of these carbon trading schemes are going to be taken over by the Wall St crowd, and the main beneficiary will be the investment bankers. They are experts at finding ways to trade worthless pieces of paper, and then getting us to bail them out when they screw up.

If that's what he believes, that explains a lot. The concept of climate change had been around for a long time before the Berlin Wall fell.

That would depend on the axis of rotation.

The alberto effect - frizy hair.

Have you ever posted anything that isn't a cut and paste? Do you have any thoughts of your own, or are you a spew-bot?