• New Study Finds 'Nearly All' Global Warming Data is Fabricated

    From Bob F@21:1/5 to Dr. Jai Maharaj on Mon Jul 24 13:22:28 2017
    XPost: soc.culture.indian, alt.fan.jai-maharaj, sci.environment

    On 7/23/2017 6:20 PM, Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:
    New Study Finds 'Nearly All' Global Warming Data is Fabricated

    FALSE!
    http://www.snopes.com/climatology-fraud-global-warming/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From american.bible@21:1/5 to Dr. Jai Maharaj on Mon Jul 24 21:48:05 2017
    XPost: soc.culture.indian, alt.atheism, sci.environment
    XPost: alt.politics.economics, soc.culture.usa, alt.politics
    XPost: talk.politics.misc

    Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote


    New Study Finds 'Nearly All' Global Warming Data is
    Fabricated

    truthandaction.org
    Saturday, July 22, 2017

    http://www.truthandaction.org/new-study-finds-nearly-all-globa l-warming-data-is-fabricated/

    all science is a leftist lie undermining conservative common sense
    and the christian way.


    non-christians and scientists cannont be trusted and hopefully
    will one day be exterminated from the face of the earth so that
    once again our hearts will fill with the love of jesus christ, our
    lord and savior. many say that trump is the emissary and will
    lead the charge to free the minds of the people.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Clave@21:1/5 to american.bible on Mon Jul 24 15:02:43 2017
    XPost: soc.culture.indian, alt.atheism, sci.environment
    XPost: alt.politics.economics, talk.politics.misc

    "american.bible" <american.bible@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:XnsA7BCB4D28A4C9FDbz@178.63.61.175...
    Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote


    New Study Finds 'Nearly All' Global Warming Data is
    Fabricated

    truthandaction.org
    Saturday, July 22, 2017

    http://www.truthandaction.org/new-study-finds-nearly-all-globa
    l-warming-data-is-fabricated/

    all science is a leftist lie undermining conservative common sense
    and the christian way.


    non-christians and scientists cannont be trusted and hopefully
    will one day be exterminated from the face of the earth so that
    once again our hearts will fill with the love of jesus christ, our
    lord and savior.

    Just curious -- will churches still use lightning rods?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Siri Cruise@21:1/5 to american.bible on Mon Jul 24 15:53:45 2017
    XPost: alt.atheism, sci.environment, alt.politics
    XPost: talk.politics.misc

    In article <XnsA7BCB4D28A4C9FDbz@178.63.61.175>,
    "american.bible" <american.bible@yahoo.com> wrote:

    Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote


    New Study Finds 'Nearly All' Global Warming Data is
    Fabricated

    truthandaction.org
    Saturday, July 22, 2017

    http://www.truthandaction.org/new-study-finds-nearly-all-globa l-warming-data-is-fabricated/

    all science is a leftist lie undermining conservative common sense
    and the christian way.

    I have a study that proves global warming is real, caused by men, and can only be cured by all men wearing electric pink tutus.

    Man up to warm down!

    --
    :-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
    'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
    Free the Amos Yee one. This post / \
    Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha. insults Islam. Mohammed

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bob F@21:1/5 to american.bible on Tue Jul 25 07:35:26 2017
    XPost: soc.culture.indian, sci.environment, alt.politics

    On 7/24/2017 2:48 PM, american.bible wrote:
    Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote


    New Study Finds 'Nearly All' Global Warming Data is
    Fabricated

    truthandaction.org
    Saturday, July 22, 2017

    http://www.truthandaction.org/new-study-finds-nearly-all-globa
    l-warming-data-is-fabricated/

    all science is a leftist lie undermining conservative common sense
    and the christian way.


    non-christians and scientists cannont be trusted and hopefully
    will one day be exterminated from the face of the earth so that
    once again our hearts will fill with the love of jesus christ, our
    lord and savior. many say that trump is the emissary and will
    lead the charge to free the minds of the people.



    The Christian Taliban has spoken!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Eric Stevens@21:1/5 to Bob F on Wed Jul 26 10:22:32 2017
    XPost: soc.culture.indian, alt.fan.jai-maharaj, sci.environment

    On Mon, 24 Jul 2017 13:22:28 -0700, Bob F <bobnospam@gmail.com> wrote:

    On 7/23/2017 6:20 PM, Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:
    New Study Finds 'Nearly All' Global Warming Data is Fabricated

    FALSE!
    http://www.snopes.com/climatology-fraud-global-warming/

    The Snopes response is meandering and very much open to criticism.
    Select it as a valid counter-argument at your peril.

    In any case the work of the original authors is open to examination
    and there is no reason why it cannot be repeated by someone else.
    --

    Regards,

    Eric Stevens

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bob F@21:1/5 to Eric Stevens on Tue Jul 25 15:35:17 2017
    XPost: soc.culture.indian, alt.fan.jai-maharaj, sci.environment

    On 7/25/2017 3:22 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
    On Mon, 24 Jul 2017 13:22:28 -0700, Bob F <bobnospam@gmail.com> wrote:

    On 7/23/2017 6:20 PM, Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:
    New Study Finds 'Nearly All' Global Warming Data is Fabricated

    FALSE!
    http://www.snopes.com/climatology-fraud-global-warming/

    The Snopes response is meandering and very much open to criticism.
    Select it as a valid counter-argument at your peril.

    In any case the work of the original authors is open to examination
    and there is no reason why it cannot be repeated by someone else.


    Snopes seemed pretty clear to me.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Eric Stevens@21:1/5 to Bob F on Wed Jul 26 12:58:05 2017
    XPost: soc.culture.indian, alt.fan.jai-maharaj, sci.environment

    On Tue, 25 Jul 2017 15:35:17 -0700, Bob F <bobnospam@gmail.com> wrote:

    On 7/25/2017 3:22 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
    On Mon, 24 Jul 2017 13:22:28 -0700, Bob F <bobnospam@gmail.com> wrote:

    On 7/23/2017 6:20 PM, Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:
    New Study Finds 'Nearly All' Global Warming Data is Fabricated

    FALSE!
    http://www.snopes.com/climatology-fraud-global-warming/

    The Snopes response is meandering and very much open to criticism.
    Select it as a valid counter-argument at your peril.

    In any case the work of the original authors is open to examination
    and there is no reason why it cannot be repeated by someone else.


    Snopes seemed pretty clear to me.

    I would keep quiet about that if I were you.
    --

    Regards,

    Eric Stevens

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bob F@21:1/5 to Eric Stevens on Tue Jul 25 20:40:09 2017
    XPost: soc.culture.indian, alt.fan.jai-maharaj, sci.environment

    On 7/25/2017 5:58 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
    'Nearly All' Global Warming Data is Fabricated

    Maybe this will simplify it enough for you.

    https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/breitbart-article-falsely-claims-measured-global-warming-fabricated-james-delingpole/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Eric Stevens@21:1/5 to Bob F on Wed Jul 26 21:10:38 2017
    XPost: soc.culture.indian, alt.fan.jai-maharaj, sci.environment

    On Tue, 25 Jul 2017 20:40:09 -0700, Bob F <bobnospam@gmail.com> wrote:

    On 7/25/2017 5:58 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
    'Nearly All' Global Warming Data is Fabricated

    Maybe this will simplify it enough for you.

    https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/breitbart-article-falsely-claims-measured-global-warming-fabricated-james-delingpole/

    But none of the people you have cited have analysed the raw data and
    the subsequent adjustments. All you are getting are opinions. That's
    not science.
    --

    Regards,

    Eric Stevens

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bob F@21:1/5 to Eric Stevens on Wed Jul 26 06:07:16 2017
    XPost: soc.culture.indian, alt.fan.jai-maharaj, sci.environment

    On 7/26/2017 2:10 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
    On Tue, 25 Jul 2017 20:40:09 -0700, Bob F <bobnospam@gmail.com> wrote:

    On 7/25/2017 5:58 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
    'Nearly All' Global Warming Data is Fabricated

    Maybe this will simplify it enough for you.

    https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/breitbart-article-falsely-claims-measured-global-warming-fabricated-james-delingpole/

    But none of the people you have cited have analysed the raw data and
    the subsequent adjustments. All you are getting are opinions. That's
    not science.


    They are explaining the data, what it is and how breitbarts article got
    it wrong. If you can't understand their points, you have a problem.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Eric Stevens@21:1/5 to Bob F on Thu Jul 27 10:40:46 2017
    XPost: soc.culture.indian, alt.fan.jai-maharaj, sci.environment

    On Wed, 26 Jul 2017 06:07:16 -0700, Bob F <bobnospam@gmail.com> wrote:

    On 7/26/2017 2:10 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
    On Tue, 25 Jul 2017 20:40:09 -0700, Bob F <bobnospam@gmail.com> wrote:

    On 7/25/2017 5:58 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
    'Nearly All' Global Warming Data is Fabricated

    Maybe this will simplify it enough for you.

    https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/breitbart-article-falsely-claims-measured-global-warming-fabricated-james-delingpole/

    But none of the people you have cited have analysed the raw data and
    the subsequent adjustments. All you are getting are opinions. That's
    not science.


    They are explaining the data, what it is and how breitbarts article got
    it wrong. If you can't understand their points, you have a problem.

    And if you trust their data then you have a problem.

    I'm not saying their data is wrong. I'm saying we just don't know.
    What is the source of their data and what has been done to it?
    --

    Regards,

    Eric Stevens

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bob F@21:1/5 to Eric Stevens on Wed Jul 26 16:08:28 2017
    XPost: soc.culture.indian, alt.fan.jai-maharaj, sci.environment

    On 7/26/2017 3:40 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
    On Wed, 26 Jul 2017 06:07:16 -0700, Bob F <bobnospam@gmail.com> wrote:

    On 7/26/2017 2:10 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
    On Tue, 25 Jul 2017 20:40:09 -0700, Bob F <bobnospam@gmail.com> wrote:

    On 7/25/2017 5:58 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
    'Nearly All' Global Warming Data is Fabricated

    Maybe this will simplify it enough for you.

    https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/breitbart-article-falsely-claims-measured-global-warming-fabricated-james-delingpole/

    But none of the people you have cited have analysed the raw data and
    the subsequent adjustments. All you are getting are opinions. That's
    not science.


    They are explaining the data, what it is and how breitbarts article got
    it wrong. If you can't understand their points, you have a problem.

    And if you trust their data then you have a problem.

    I'm not saying their data is wrong. I'm saying we just don't know.
    What is the source of their data and what has been done to it?


    Please feel free to get a degree related to climate science, do your
    research, and submit it to a REAL scientific journal for REAL peer
    review. Claiming belief in a "study" that doesn't meet these criteria
    doesn't stand for much. The claim in that fake research is that the
    changes to the data INCREASE the appearance of warming. The articles
    that I referred you to clearly show that the data changes have actually decreased the appearance of warming, which is still significantly visible.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Eric Stevens@21:1/5 to Bob F on Thu Jul 27 14:32:55 2017
    XPost: soc.culture.indian, alt.fan.jai-maharaj, sci.environment

    On Wed, 26 Jul 2017 16:08:28 -0700, Bob F <bobnospam@gmail.com> wrote:

    On 7/26/2017 3:40 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
    On Wed, 26 Jul 2017 06:07:16 -0700, Bob F <bobnospam@gmail.com> wrote:

    On 7/26/2017 2:10 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
    On Tue, 25 Jul 2017 20:40:09 -0700, Bob F <bobnospam@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>
    On 7/25/2017 5:58 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
    'Nearly All' Global Warming Data is Fabricated

    Maybe this will simplify it enough for you.

    https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/breitbart-article-falsely-claims-measured-global-warming-fabricated-james-delingpole/

    But none of the people you have cited have analysed the raw data and
    the subsequent adjustments. All you are getting are opinions. That's
    not science.


    They are explaining the data, what it is and how breitbarts article got
    it wrong. If you can't understand their points, you have a problem.

    And if you trust their data then you have a problem.

    I'm not saying their data is wrong. I'm saying we just don't know.
    What is the source of their data and what has been done to it?


    Please feel free to get a degree related to climate science, do your >research, and submit it to a REAL scientific journal for REAL peer
    review. Claiming belief in a "study" that doesn't meet these criteria
    doesn't stand for much. The claim in that fake research is that the
    changes to the data INCREASE the appearance of warming. The articles
    that I referred you to clearly show that the data changes have actually >decreased the appearance of warming, which is still significantly visible.

    Yes. 'The claim is ...'. But, the articles to which you referred to,
    do not clearly show anything. They merely reiterate the claims of
    others.

    In any case, ther is not, and never has been any denial of global
    warming over the lasr several centuries. The important question is how
    much has mankind contributed to it and what the particular
    contribution of man-made CO2 has been.
    --

    Regards,

    Eric Stevens

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bob F@21:1/5 to Eric Stevens on Wed Jul 26 20:58:15 2017
    XPost: soc.culture.indian, alt.fan.jai-maharaj, sci.environment

    On 7/26/2017 7:32 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
    On Wed, 26 Jul 2017 16:08:28 -0700, Bob F <bobnospam@gmail.com> wrote:

    On 7/26/2017 3:40 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
    On Wed, 26 Jul 2017 06:07:16 -0700, Bob F <bobnospam@gmail.com> wrote:

    On 7/26/2017 2:10 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
    On Tue, 25 Jul 2017 20:40:09 -0700, Bob F <bobnospam@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>
    On 7/25/2017 5:58 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
    'Nearly All' Global Warming Data is Fabricated

    Maybe this will simplify it enough for you.

    https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/breitbart-article-falsely-claims-measured-global-warming-fabricated-james-delingpole/

    But none of the people you have cited have analysed the raw data and >>>>> the subsequent adjustments. All you are getting are opinions. That's >>>>> not science.


    They are explaining the data, what it is and how breitbarts article got >>>> it wrong. If you can't understand their points, you have a problem.

    And if you trust their data then you have a problem.

    I'm not saying their data is wrong. I'm saying we just don't know.
    What is the source of their data and what has been done to it?


    Please feel free to get a degree related to climate science, do your
    research, and submit it to a REAL scientific journal for REAL peer
    review. Claiming belief in a "study" that doesn't meet these criteria
    doesn't stand for much. The claim in that fake research is that the
    changes to the data INCREASE the appearance of warming. The articles
    that I referred you to clearly show that the data changes have actually
    decreased the appearance of warming, which is still significantly visible.

    Yes. 'The claim is ...'. But, the articles to which you referred to,
    do not clearly show anything. They merely reiterate the claims of
    others.

    In any case, ther is not, and never has been any denial of global
    warming over the lasr several centuries. The important question is how
    much has mankind contributed to it and what the particular
    contribution of man-made CO2 has been.

    Do you even comprehend the scientific principle of global warming?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Eric Stevens@21:1/5 to Bob F on Thu Jul 27 16:50:03 2017
    XPost: soc.culture.indian, alt.fan.jai-maharaj, sci.environment

    On Wed, 26 Jul 2017 20:58:15 -0700, Bob F <bobnospam@gmail.com> wrote:

    On 7/26/2017 7:32 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
    On Wed, 26 Jul 2017 16:08:28 -0700, Bob F <bobnospam@gmail.com> wrote:

    On 7/26/2017 3:40 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
    On Wed, 26 Jul 2017 06:07:16 -0700, Bob F <bobnospam@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>
    On 7/26/2017 2:10 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
    On Tue, 25 Jul 2017 20:40:09 -0700, Bob F <bobnospam@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>
    On 7/25/2017 5:58 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
    'Nearly All' Global Warming Data is Fabricated

    Maybe this will simplify it enough for you.

    https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/breitbart-article-falsely-claims-measured-global-warming-fabricated-james-delingpole/

    But none of the people you have cited have analysed the raw data and >>>>>> the subsequent adjustments. All you are getting are opinions. That's >>>>>> not science.


    They are explaining the data, what it is and how breitbarts article got >>>>> it wrong. If you can't understand their points, you have a problem.

    And if you trust their data then you have a problem.

    I'm not saying their data is wrong. I'm saying we just don't know.
    What is the source of their data and what has been done to it?


    Please feel free to get a degree related to climate science, do your
    research, and submit it to a REAL scientific journal for REAL peer
    review. Claiming belief in a "study" that doesn't meet these criteria
    doesn't stand for much. The claim in that fake research is that the
    changes to the data INCREASE the appearance of warming. The articles
    that I referred you to clearly show that the data changes have actually
    decreased the appearance of warming, which is still significantly visible. >>
    Yes. 'The claim is ...'. But, the articles to which you referred to,
    do not clearly show anything. They merely reiterate the claims of
    others.

    In any case, ther is not, and never has been any denial of global
    warming over the lasr several centuries. The important question is how
    much has mankind contributed to it and what the particular
    contribution of man-made CO2 has been.

    Do you even comprehend the scientific principle of global warming?

    Yes - enough to know that there isn't one.
    --

    Regards,

    Eric Stevens

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bob F@21:1/5 to Eric Stevens on Thu Jul 27 06:35:52 2017
    XPost: soc.culture.indian, alt.fan.jai-maharaj, sci.environment

    On 7/26/2017 9:50 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
    On Wed, 26 Jul 2017 20:58:15 -0700, Bob F <bobnospam@gmail.com> wrote:

    On 7/26/2017 7:32 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
    On Wed, 26 Jul 2017 16:08:28 -0700, Bob F <bobnospam@gmail.com> wrote:

    On 7/26/2017 3:40 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
    On Wed, 26 Jul 2017 06:07:16 -0700, Bob F <bobnospam@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>
    On 7/26/2017 2:10 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
    On Tue, 25 Jul 2017 20:40:09 -0700, Bob F <bobnospam@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>
    On 7/25/2017 5:58 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
    'Nearly All' Global Warming Data is Fabricated

    Maybe this will simplify it enough for you.

    https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/breitbart-article-falsely-claims-measured-global-warming-fabricated-james-delingpole/

    But none of the people you have cited have analysed the raw data and >>>>>>> the subsequent adjustments. All you are getting are opinions. That's >>>>>>> not science.


    They are explaining the data, what it is and how breitbarts article got >>>>>> it wrong. If you can't understand their points, you have a problem. >>>>>
    And if you trust their data then you have a problem.

    I'm not saying their data is wrong. I'm saying we just don't know.
    What is the source of their data and what has been done to it?


    Please feel free to get a degree related to climate science, do your
    research, and submit it to a REAL scientific journal for REAL peer
    review. Claiming belief in a "study" that doesn't meet these criteria
    doesn't stand for much. The claim in that fake research is that the
    changes to the data INCREASE the appearance of warming. The articles
    that I referred you to clearly show that the data changes have actually >>>> decreased the appearance of warming, which is still significantly visible. >>>
    Yes. 'The claim is ...'. But, the articles to which you referred to,
    do not clearly show anything. They merely reiterate the claims of
    others.

    In any case, ther is not, and never has been any denial of global
    warming over the lasr several centuries. The important question is how
    much has mankind contributed to it and what the particular
    contribution of man-made CO2 has been.

    Do you even comprehend the scientific principle of global warming?

    Yes - enough to know that there isn't one.


    Just as I thought - not a clue.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Eric Stevens@21:1/5 to Bob F on Fri Jul 28 10:26:42 2017
    XPost: soc.culture.indian, alt.fan.jai-maharaj, sci.environment

    On Thu, 27 Jul 2017 06:35:52 -0700, Bob F <bobnospam@gmail.com> wrote:

    On 7/26/2017 9:50 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
    On Wed, 26 Jul 2017 20:58:15 -0700, Bob F <bobnospam@gmail.com> wrote:

    On 7/26/2017 7:32 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
    On Wed, 26 Jul 2017 16:08:28 -0700, Bob F <bobnospam@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>
    On 7/26/2017 3:40 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
    On Wed, 26 Jul 2017 06:07:16 -0700, Bob F <bobnospam@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>
    On 7/26/2017 2:10 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
    On Tue, 25 Jul 2017 20:40:09 -0700, Bob F <bobnospam@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>
    On 7/25/2017 5:58 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
    'Nearly All' Global Warming Data is Fabricated

    Maybe this will simplify it enough for you.

    https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/breitbart-article-falsely-claims-measured-global-warming-fabricated-james-delingpole/

    But none of the people you have cited have analysed the raw data and >>>>>>>> the subsequent adjustments. All you are getting are opinions. That's >>>>>>>> not science.


    They are explaining the data, what it is and how breitbarts article got >>>>>>> it wrong. If you can't understand their points, you have a problem. >>>>>>
    And if you trust their data then you have a problem.

    I'm not saying their data is wrong. I'm saying we just don't know. >>>>>> What is the source of their data and what has been done to it?


    Please feel free to get a degree related to climate science, do your >>>>> research, and submit it to a REAL scientific journal for REAL peer
    review. Claiming belief in a "study" that doesn't meet these criteria >>>>> doesn't stand for much. The claim in that fake research is that the >>>>> changes to the data INCREASE the appearance of warming. The articles >>>>> that I referred you to clearly show that the data changes have actually >>>>> decreased the appearance of warming, which is still significantly visible.

    Yes. 'The claim is ...'. But, the articles to which you referred to,
    do not clearly show anything. They merely reiterate the claims of
    others.

    In any case, ther is not, and never has been any denial of global
    warming over the lasr several centuries. The important question is how >>>> much has mankind contributed to it and what the particular
    contribution of man-made CO2 has been.

    Do you even comprehend the scientific principle of global warming?

    Yes - enough to know that there isn't one.


    Just as I thought - not a clue.

    Please demonstrate your knowledge by telling us how it works.
    --

    Regards,

    Eric Stevens

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bob F@21:1/5 to Eric Stevens on Thu Jul 27 16:32:52 2017
    XPost: soc.culture.indian, alt.fan.jai-maharaj, sci.environment

    On 7/27/2017 3:26 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
    On Thu, 27 Jul 2017 06:35:52 -0700, Bob F <bobnospam@gmail.com> wrote:

    On 7/26/2017 9:50 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
    On Wed, 26 Jul 2017 20:58:15 -0700, Bob F <bobnospam@gmail.com> wrote:

    On 7/26/2017 7:32 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
    On Wed, 26 Jul 2017 16:08:28 -0700, Bob F <bobnospam@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>
    On 7/26/2017 3:40 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
    On Wed, 26 Jul 2017 06:07:16 -0700, Bob F <bobnospam@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>
    On 7/26/2017 2:10 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
    On Tue, 25 Jul 2017 20:40:09 -0700, Bob F <bobnospam@gmail.com> wrote:

    On 7/25/2017 5:58 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
    'Nearly All' Global Warming Data is Fabricated

    Maybe this will simplify it enough for you.

    https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/breitbart-article-falsely-claims-measured-global-warming-fabricated-james-delingpole/

    But none of the people you have cited have analysed the raw data and >>>>>>>>> the subsequent adjustments. All you are getting are opinions. That's >>>>>>>>> not science.


    They are explaining the data, what it is and how breitbarts article got
    it wrong. If you can't understand their points, you have a problem. >>>>>>>
    And if you trust their data then you have a problem.

    I'm not saying their data is wrong. I'm saying we just don't know. >>>>>>> What is the source of their data and what has been done to it?


    Please feel free to get a degree related to climate science, do your >>>>>> research, and submit it to a REAL scientific journal for REAL peer >>>>>> review. Claiming belief in a "study" that doesn't meet these criteria >>>>>> doesn't stand for much. The claim in that fake research is that the >>>>>> changes to the data INCREASE the appearance of warming. The articles >>>>>> that I referred you to clearly show that the data changes have actually >>>>>> decreased the appearance of warming, which is still significantly visible.

    Yes. 'The claim is ...'. But, the articles to which you referred to, >>>>> do not clearly show anything. They merely reiterate the claims of
    others.

    In any case, ther is not, and never has been any denial of global
    warming over the lasr several centuries. The important question is how >>>>> much has mankind contributed to it and what the particular
    contribution of man-made CO2 has been.

    Do you even comprehend the scientific principle of global warming?

    Yes - enough to know that there isn't one.


    Just as I thought - not a clue.

    Please demonstrate your knowledge by telling us how it works.


    Knowing that you don't have a clue is sufficient for me to give up on
    you. You make your decisions with no knowledge of the subject.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From R Kym Horsell@21:1/5 to Eric Stevens on Fri Jul 28 09:17:51 2017
    XPost: soc.culture.indian, alt.fan.jai-maharaj, sci.environment

    In sci.environment Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote:
    On Tue, 25 Jul 2017 20:40:09 -0700, Bob F <bobnospam@gmail.com> wrote:
    On 7/25/2017 5:58 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
    'Nearly All' Global Warming Data is Fabricated
    Maybe this will simplify it enough for you. >>https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/breitbart-article-falsely-claims-measured-global-warming-fabricated-james-delingpole/
    But none of the people you have cited have analysed the raw data and
    the subsequent adjustments. All you are getting are opinions. That's
    not science.

    Anyone can do the analysis for themselves.

    Here's one I did a few days back just for this occasion:

    Av global land temperatures:

    (1) "No fiddling":
    By Season:
    Qtr Av temp (C)
    JFM 11.9678 <-- min
    AMJ 12.0434
    JAS 12.1164 <-- max range = 0.1486
    OND 12.1000

    By Decade:
    1850 10.2157
    1860 10.0582 <-- min
    1870 11.6637
    1880 12.0983
    1890 11.6004
    1900 11.5632
    1910 11.3273
    1920 11.5756
    1930 11.8176
    1940 11.6241
    1950 12.9994
    1960 12.9619
    1970 12.6084
    1980 11.5884
    1990 13.6056 <-- max range = 3.5474
    trend = 0.016392 +- 0.0067382 C/yr 90% CI

    (2) With Area Homogenization (5x5 deg grid):
    Year deg C rel to ann avg for each grid
    1850 0.0260
    1860 -0.0051
    1870 0.0292
    1880 -0.0121
    1890 -0.1490
    1900 -0.2386
    1910 -0.2985 <-- min
    1920 -0.0942
    1930 0.2594
    1940 0.0719
    1950 0.0405
    1960 -0.0998
    1970 -0.0906
    1980 0.0911
    1990 0.9522 <-- max range = 1.2507
    trend = 0.00730697 +- 0.00679848 C/yr 90% CI

    (3) With Seasonality:
    Year deg C rel to mly avg for each grid
    1850 0.0769
    1860 0.0507
    1870 0.0541
    1880 -0.1550
    1890 -0.1992
    1900 -0.2320
    1910 -0.2851 <-- min
    1920 -0.0830
    1930 0.2694
    1940 0.0849
    1950 0.0544
    1960 -0.0857
    1970 -0.0789
    1980 0.0986
    1990 0.6032 <-- max range = 0.8883
    trend = 0.00568312 +- 0.00513942 C/yr 90 %CI


    I'm a world-ranked data scientist at one time ranked #184 out of
    approx 500,000 statisticians and analysis registered at Kaggle.com.

    Here's my page:

    kaggle.com/kymhorsell1

    --
    Gavin Schmidt @ClimateOfGavin Jul 6
    A semi-regular reminder that adjustments in surface temp analyses for non- climate-related biases LOWER 20th C trends. You're welcome.
    [GISTEMP with and without adjustments:] <https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DEEtGUSXcAQ7v0A.jpg>

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From R Kym Horsell@21:1/5 to Eric Stevens on Fri Jul 28 09:21:50 2017
    XPost: soc.culture.indian, alt.fan.jai-maharaj, sci.environment

    In sci.environment Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote:
    On Tue, 25 Jul 2017 20:40:09 -0700, Bob F <bobnospam@gmail.com> wrote:
    On 7/25/2017 5:58 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
    'Nearly All' Global Warming Data is Fabricated
    Maybe this will simplify it enough for you. >>https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/breitbart-article-falsely-claims-measured-global-warming-fabricated-james-delingpole/
    But none of the people you have cited have analysed the raw data and
    the subsequent adjustments. All you are getting are opinions. That's
    not science.

    Anyone can do the analysis for themselves.

    Here's one I did a few days back just for this occasion:

    Av global land temperatures:

    (1) "No fiddling":
    By Season:
    Qtr Av temp (C)
    JFM 11.9678 <-- min
    AMJ 12.0434
    JAS 12.1164 <-- max range = 0.1486
    OND 12.1000

    By Decade:
    1850 10.2157
    1860 10.0582 <-- min
    1870 11.6637
    1880 12.0983
    1890 11.6004
    1900 11.5632
    1910 11.3273
    1920 11.5756
    1930 11.8176
    1940 11.6241
    1950 12.9994
    1960 12.9619
    1970 12.6084
    1980 11.5884
    1990 13.6056 <-- max range = 3.5474
    trend = 0.016392 +- 0.0067382 C/yr 90% CI

    (2) With Area Homogenization (5x5 deg grid):
    Year deg C rel to ann avg for each grid
    1850 0.0260
    1860 -0.0051
    1870 0.0292
    1880 -0.0121
    1890 -0.1490
    1900 -0.2386
    1910 -0.2985 <-- min
    1920 -0.0942
    1930 0.2594
    1940 0.0719
    1950 0.0405
    1960 -0.0998
    1970 -0.0906
    1980 0.0911
    1990 0.9522 <-- max range = 1.2507
    trend = 0.00730697 +- 0.00679848 C/yr 90% CI

    (3) With Seasonality:
    Year deg C rel to mly avg for each grid
    1850 0.0769
    1860 0.0507
    1870 0.0541
    1880 -0.1550
    1890 -0.1992
    1900 -0.2320
    1910 -0.2851 <-- min
    1920 -0.0830
    1930 0.2694
    1940 0.0849
    1950 0.0544
    1960 -0.0857
    1970 -0.0789
    1980 0.0986
    1990 0.6032 <-- max range = 0.8883
    trend = 0.00568312 +- 0.00513942 C/yr 90 %CI


    If the bar has now shifted from someone that did the analysis from
    the raw data themselves then I'm also a world-ranked data scientist at
    one time ranked #184 out of approx 500,000 statisticians and analysis registered at Kaggle.com.

    Here's my page:

    kaggle.com/kymhorsell1

    --
    Gavin Schmidt @ClimateOfGavin Jul 6
    A semi-regular reminder that adjustments in surface temp analyses for non- climate-related biases LOWER 20th C trends. You're welcome.
    [GISTEMP with and without adjustments:] <https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DEEtGUSXcAQ7v0A.jpg>

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Eric Stevens@21:1/5 to Bob F on Sat Jul 29 10:17:13 2017
    XPost: soc.culture.indian, alt.fan.jai-maharaj, sci.environment

    On Thu, 27 Jul 2017 16:32:52 -0700, Bob F <bobnospam@gmail.com> wrote:

    On 7/27/2017 3:26 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
    On Thu, 27 Jul 2017 06:35:52 -0700, Bob F <bobnospam@gmail.com> wrote:

    On 7/26/2017 9:50 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
    On Wed, 26 Jul 2017 20:58:15 -0700, Bob F <bobnospam@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>
    On 7/26/2017 7:32 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
    On Wed, 26 Jul 2017 16:08:28 -0700, Bob F <bobnospam@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>
    On 7/26/2017 3:40 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
    On Wed, 26 Jul 2017 06:07:16 -0700, Bob F <bobnospam@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>
    On 7/26/2017 2:10 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
    On Tue, 25 Jul 2017 20:40:09 -0700, Bob F <bobnospam@gmail.com> wrote:

    On 7/25/2017 5:58 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
    'Nearly All' Global Warming Data is Fabricated

    Maybe this will simplify it enough for you.

    https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/breitbart-article-falsely-claims-measured-global-warming-fabricated-james-delingpole/

    But none of the people you have cited have analysed the raw data and >>>>>>>>>> the subsequent adjustments. All you are getting are opinions. That's >>>>>>>>>> not science.


    They are explaining the data, what it is and how breitbarts article got
    it wrong. If you can't understand their points, you have a problem. >>>>>>>>
    And if you trust their data then you have a problem.

    I'm not saying their data is wrong. I'm saying we just don't know. >>>>>>>> What is the source of their data and what has been done to it? >>>>>>>>

    Please feel free to get a degree related to climate science, do your >>>>>>> research, and submit it to a REAL scientific journal for REAL peer >>>>>>> review. Claiming belief in a "study" that doesn't meet these criteria >>>>>>> doesn't stand for much. The claim in that fake research is that the >>>>>>> changes to the data INCREASE the appearance of warming. The articles >>>>>>> that I referred you to clearly show that the data changes have actually >>>>>>> decreased the appearance of warming, which is still significantly visible.

    Yes. 'The claim is ...'. But, the articles to which you referred to, >>>>>> do not clearly show anything. They merely reiterate the claims of
    others.

    In any case, ther is not, and never has been any denial of global
    warming over the lasr several centuries. The important question is how >>>>>> much has mankind contributed to it and what the particular
    contribution of man-made CO2 has been.

    Do you even comprehend the scientific principle of global warming?

    Yes - enough to know that there isn't one.


    Just as I thought - not a clue.

    Please demonstrate your knowledge by telling us how it works.


    Knowing that you don't have a clue is sufficient for me to give up on
    you. You make your decisions with no knowledge of the subject.

    "Don't have a clue"? At least I can tell you how it is supposed to
    work and the evidence which shows that that the necessary stuff is not happening.

    But you - all you can do is back off and start running when asked to
    justify your faith.
    --

    Regards,

    Eric Stevens

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Eric Stevens@21:1/5 to kym@kymhorsell.com on Sat Jul 29 10:30:30 2017
    XPost: soc.culture.indian, alt.fan.jai-maharaj, sci.environment

    On Fri, 28 Jul 2017 09:17:51 +0000 (UTC), R Kym Horsell
    <kym@kymhorsell.com> wrote:

    In sci.environment Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote:
    On Tue, 25 Jul 2017 20:40:09 -0700, Bob F <bobnospam@gmail.com> wrote:
    On 7/25/2017 5:58 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
    'Nearly All' Global Warming Data is Fabricated
    Maybe this will simplify it enough for you. >>>https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/breitbart-article-falsely-claims-measured-global-warming-fabricated-james-delingpole/
    But none of the people you have cited have analysed the raw data and
    the subsequent adjustments. All you are getting are opinions. That's
    not science.

    Anyone can do the analysis for themselves.

    Here's one I did a few days back just for this occasion:

    Av global land temperatures:

    (1) "No fiddling":
    By Season:
    Qtr Av temp (C)
    JFM 11.9678 <-- min
    AMJ 12.0434
    JAS 12.1164 <-- max range = 0.1486
    OND 12.1000

    By Decade:
    1850 10.2157
    1860 10.0582 <-- min
    1870 11.6637
    1880 12.0983
    1890 11.6004
    1900 11.5632
    1910 11.3273
    1920 11.5756
    1930 11.8176
    1940 11.6241
    1950 12.9994
    1960 12.9619
    1970 12.6084
    1980 11.5884
    1990 13.6056 <-- max range = 3.5474
    trend = 0.016392 +- 0.0067382 C/yr 90% CI

    (2) With Area Homogenization (5x5 deg grid):
    Year deg C rel to ann avg for each grid
    1850 0.0260
    1860 -0.0051
    1870 0.0292
    1880 -0.0121
    1890 -0.1490
    1900 -0.2386
    1910 -0.2985 <-- min
    1920 -0.0942
    1930 0.2594
    1940 0.0719
    1950 0.0405
    1960 -0.0998
    1970 -0.0906
    1980 0.0911
    1990 0.9522 <-- max range = 1.2507
    trend = 0.00730697 +- 0.00679848 C/yr 90% CI

    (3) With Seasonality:
    Year deg C rel to mly avg for each grid
    1850 0.0769
    1860 0.0507
    1870 0.0541
    1880 -0.1550
    1890 -0.1992
    1900 -0.2320
    1910 -0.2851 <-- min
    1920 -0.0830
    1930 0.2694
    1940 0.0849
    1950 0.0544
    1960 -0.0857
    1970 -0.0789
    1980 0.0986
    1990 0.6032 <-- max range = 0.8883
    trend = 0.00568312 +- 0.00513942 C/yr 90 %CI


    I'm a world-ranked data scientist at one time ranked #184 out of
    approx 500,000 statisticians and analysis registered at Kaggle.com.

    Here's my page:

    kaggle.com/kymhorsell1

    Good. So you know how to mine and analyze data. But where did the data
    come from? How was it obtained?
    --

    Regards,

    Eric Stevens

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bob F@21:1/5 to Eric Stevens on Fri Jul 28 18:28:00 2017
    XPost: soc.culture.indian, alt.fan.jai-maharaj, sci.environment

    On 7/28/2017 3:17 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
    On Thu, 27 Jul 2017 16:32:52 -0700, Bob F <bobnospam@gmail.com> wrote:

    On 7/27/2017 3:26 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
    On Thu, 27 Jul 2017 06:35:52 -0700, Bob F <bobnospam@gmail.com> wrote:

    On 7/26/2017 9:50 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
    On Wed, 26 Jul 2017 20:58:15 -0700, Bob F <bobnospam@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>
    On 7/26/2017 7:32 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
    On Wed, 26 Jul 2017 16:08:28 -0700, Bob F <bobnospam@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>
    On 7/26/2017 3:40 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
    On Wed, 26 Jul 2017 06:07:16 -0700, Bob F <bobnospam@gmail.com> wrote:

    On 7/26/2017 2:10 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
    On Tue, 25 Jul 2017 20:40:09 -0700, Bob F <bobnospam@gmail.com> wrote:

    On 7/25/2017 5:58 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
    'Nearly All' Global Warming Data is Fabricated

    Maybe this will simplify it enough for you.

    https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/breitbart-article-falsely-claims-measured-global-warming-fabricated-james-delingpole/

    But none of the people you have cited have analysed the raw data and
    the subsequent adjustments. All you are getting are opinions. That's
    not science.


    They are explaining the data, what it is and how breitbarts article got
    it wrong. If you can't understand their points, you have a problem. >>>>>>>>>
    And if you trust their data then you have a problem.

    I'm not saying their data is wrong. I'm saying we just don't know. >>>>>>>>> What is the source of their data and what has been done to it? >>>>>>>>>

    Please feel free to get a degree related to climate science, do your >>>>>>>> research, and submit it to a REAL scientific journal for REAL peer >>>>>>>> review. Claiming belief in a "study" that doesn't meet these criteria >>>>>>>> doesn't stand for much. The claim in that fake research is that the >>>>>>>> changes to the data INCREASE the appearance of warming. The articles >>>>>>>> that I referred you to clearly show that the data changes have actually
    decreased the appearance of warming, which is still significantly visible.

    Yes. 'The claim is ...'. But, the articles to which you referred to, >>>>>>> do not clearly show anything. They merely reiterate the claims of >>>>>>> others.

    In any case, ther is not, and never has been any denial of global >>>>>>> warming over the lasr several centuries. The important question is how >>>>>>> much has mankind contributed to it and what the particular
    contribution of man-made CO2 has been.

    Do you even comprehend the scientific principle of global warming?

    Yes - enough to know that there isn't one.


    Just as I thought - not a clue.

    Please demonstrate your knowledge by telling us how it works.


    Knowing that you don't have a clue is sufficient for me to give up on
    you. You make your decisions with no knowledge of the subject.

    "Don't have a clue"? At least I can tell you how it is supposed to
    work and the evidence which shows that that the necessary stuff is not happening.

    Well then, why didn't you offer that information when you were asked.
    Please do show us your knowledge pf the theory, and detail the exact
    reasons you think the theory is wrong. Then we can talk about your misinterpretation of the data.


    But you - all you can do is back off and start running when asked to
    justify your faith.


    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Eric Stevens@21:1/5 to Bob F on Sat Jul 29 16:02:08 2017
    XPost: soc.culture.indian, alt.fan.jai-maharaj, sci.environment

    On Fri, 28 Jul 2017 18:28:00 -0700, Bob F <bobnospam@gmail.com> wrote:

    On 7/28/2017 3:17 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
    On Thu, 27 Jul 2017 16:32:52 -0700, Bob F <bobnospam@gmail.com> wrote:

    --- snip ---


    And if you trust their data then you have a problem.

    I'm not saying their data is wrong. I'm saying we just don't know. >>>>>>>>>> What is the source of their data and what has been done to it? >>>>>>>>>>

    Please feel free to get a degree related to climate science, do your >>>>>>>>> research, and submit it to a REAL scientific journal for REAL peer >>>>>>>>> review. Claiming belief in a "study" that doesn't meet these criteria >>>>>>>>> doesn't stand for much. The claim in that fake research is that the >>>>>>>>> changes to the data INCREASE the appearance of warming. The articles >>>>>>>>> that I referred you to clearly show that the data changes have actually
    decreased the appearance of warming, which is still significantly visible.

    Yes. 'The claim is ...'. But, the articles to which you referred to, >>>>>>>> do not clearly show anything. They merely reiterate the claims of >>>>>>>> others.

    In any case, ther is not, and never has been any denial of global >>>>>>>> warming over the lasr several centuries. The important question is how >>>>>>>> much has mankind contributed to it and what the particular
    contribution of man-made CO2 has been.

    Do you even comprehend the scientific principle of global warming? >>>>>>
    Yes - enough to know that there isn't one.


    Just as I thought - not a clue.

    Please demonstrate your knowledge by telling us how it works.


    Knowing that you don't have a clue is sufficient for me to give up on
    you. You make your decisions with no knowledge of the subject.

    "Don't have a clue"? At least I can tell you how it is supposed to
    work and the evidence which shows that that the necessary stuff is not
    happening.

    Well then, why didn't you offer that information when you were asked.

    But I wasn't asked for that information. I was asked "Do you even
    comprehend the scientific principle of global warming?" and I
    truthfully answered that question "Yes - enough to know that there
    isn't one."

    Please do show us your knowledge pf the theory, and detail the exact
    reasons you think the theory is wrong. Then we can talk about your >misinterpretation of the data.

    Sorry: I got in first. I have already asked "Please demonstrate your
    knowledge by telling us how it works". Now you are trying to swing the
    onus back on me.


    But you - all you can do is back off and start running when asked to
    justify your faith.

    Now you are twisting.
    --

    Regards,

    Eric Stevens

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)