TTI is known for its intellectuals. This is a place for thinkers to gather and exchange quotes, thoughts, or other topics that might not appeal to the average gamer.
The amazing degree to which ex-commies and ex-socialists go to create their new story in order to call for destruction of Capitalism and self-interest.
Perhaps the key point discovered by Smith was that by 1990, NOAA had deleted from its datasets all but 1,500 of the 6,000 thermometers in service around the globe.
Now, 75% represents quite a drop in sampling population, particularly considering that these stations provide the readings used to compile both the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) and United States Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) datasets. These are the same datasets, incidentally, which serve as primary sources of temperature data not only for climate researchers and universities worldwide, but also for the many international agencies using the data to create analytical temperature anomaly maps and charts.
Yet as disturbing as the number of dropped stations was, it is the nature of NOAA’s “selection bias” that Smith found infinitely more troubling.
It seems that stations placed in historically cooler, rural areas of higher latitude and elevation were scrapped from the data series in favor of more urban locales at lower latitudes and elevations. Consequently, post-1990 readings have been biased to the warm side not only by selective geographic location, but also by the anthropogenic heating influence of a phenomenon known as the Urban Heat Island Effect (UHI).
For example, Canada’s reporting stations dropped from 496 in 1989 to 44 in 1991, with the percentage of stations at lower elevations tripling while the numbers of those at higher elevations dropped to one. That’s right: As Smith wrote in his blog, they left “one thermometer for everything north of LAT 65.” And that one resides in a place called Eureka, which has been described as “The Garden Spot of the Arctic” due to its unusually moderate summers.
The Russell report states that "On the allegation of withholding temperature data, we find that the CRU was not in a position to withhold access to such data." Really? Here's what CRU director Jones wrote to Australian scientist Warrick Hughes in February 2005: "We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it[?]"
Priceless.
Ex-CEO of Taggart Transdimensional
"Objectivism is not only true, it is great! Why? Because of the volitional work a mind must have performed to reach for the first time so exalted a level of truth—and because of all the glorious effects such knowledge will have on man’s life, all the possibilities of action it opens up for the future." -- Leonard Peikoff
Actually since I live in my own little bubble of global warming denial. I also mirrored the documents and emails from the global warming perverts.
If you are really bored someday. Enjoy, some of it is really good. Find the email where they talk about changing the peer review process do deniers won't be allowed in. Or the on about destroying data that doesn't fit the model.
"As someone who lived under communism for most of my life I feel obliged to say that the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity at the beginning of the 21st century is not communism or its various softer variants," said Klaus, responding to questions posed by the two lawmakers. "Communism was replaced by the threat of ambitious environmentalism." - Czech President Vaclav Klaus
I always liked to point out to environmental nut job's that we have been warming since our last ice age, and it has been taken place looong, long before SUV's.. and that's even assuming you accept the ridiculous premise that man made CO2's has had any impact whatsoever compared to the vast amounts of methane, water-vaper and other natural green house gases in the atmosphere.
Ekira Dragoon wrote:I always liked to point out to environmental nut job's that we have been warming since our last ice age, and it has been taken place looong, long before SUV's.. and that's even assuming you accept the ridiculous premise that man made CO2's has had any impact whatsoever compared to the vast amounts of methane, water-vaper and other natural green house gases in the atmosphere.
It seems to be getting colder now. But in any case, whatever the climage change is occuring, the only moral response is more Capitalism. So whichever way you swing, they are wrong.
Ex-CEO of Taggart Transdimensional
"Objectivism is not only true, it is great! Why? Because of the volitional work a mind must have performed to reach for the first time so exalted a level of truth—and because of all the glorious effects such knowledge will have on man’s life, all the possibilities of action it opens up for the future." -- Leonard Peikoff
Quite true, but that's a hard concept for some people. I actually scold people at work for "duplexing" because the dumb green flyer next to the copier told them to do so. I calmly explain that if they really cared about tree's, then they should use MORE paper.
Supply and Demand. Paper manufacturers would not shoot themselves in the foot by allowing themselves to run out of demand. The more paper you waste, the more tree's they plant. The more tree's planted, means more habitat for wild life and less forest fires due to proper crowd management.
Save a tree, print a email! Capitalism in action!
I heard on the radio going to work that global warming gases (e.g. CO2) were at a 15 year low, but I didn't get to hear the reference for the source.
Does anyone know the source for that factoid?
shortlink wrote:I heard on the radio going to work that global warming gases (e.g. CO2) were at a 15 year low, but I didn't get to hear the reference for the source.
Does anyone know the source for that factoid?
shortlink
It depends on who you ask, what system they use to calculate it, what factors they take into account, are they choosing to use all accumulated data or just anthropological data etc etc...
That's the general problem with most GW information that is out there. Usually it's collected and assessed by scientists (sometimes non-scientists) who have some sort of an agenda and are misconstruing facts to fit their hypothesis. They don't care to get to the truth, rather IMO they are spinning info to instill fear into the hearts of the populace so that we will continue to pay them to make up numbers and they are assured some sort of job security. They are no better than charlatans and soothsayers preying on fears and insecurities of their victims.
Anyways- long story short if you put in the said data you will inevitably google someone who has chosen those numbers as their results. Change the numbers and you'll find other studies that show that as their result etc...
"If you pay people not to work and tax them when they do, don't be surprised if you get unemployment." ~ Milton Friedman
