Thread: Climategate!

Is this proof of something X? Can you explain for us X?

By the way, NASA has been stone walling requests for the last 2 years to reveal the data underlying their findings on global warming under the freedom of information act. I wonder why that is?
Global dimming ZMKA? You must mean the dimming of common sense of the average citizen who actually buys the idea of global dimming and global warming.
Global warming is most definitely happening as is global cooling. These are yearly cycles And I imagine that if there are yearly cycles (Known as Summer Autumn Winter and Spring) that there would also be much larger cycles.

Originally Posted by JMS

Global dimming ZMKA? You must mean the dimming of common sense of the average citizen who actually buys the idea of global dimming and global warming.

No, he didn't. He explained what he meant clearly.

Presumably you see a fatal flaw in the mechanics he outlined. You will, of course, hit him with the full force of your insight.

Originally Posted by JMS

Global dimming ZMKA? You must mean the dimming of common sense of the average citizen who actually buys the idea of global dimming and global warming.

We know for a fact that pollutants in the upper atmosphere have an effect on climate.

In the days following 9/11 there was no air traffic in the united states. The climate experienced a measurable effect because there were no contrails in the sky for a few days.

Article

NASA recieves federal funding. They hold their cards pretty tightly to their chest so they don't **** anyone off.

Is there global cooling.com - Home

here is some interesting comments on the subject...maybe some of this is what those emails were all about and why they wanted them kept secret, instead of releasing them according to the UK freedom of information act, thus being in violation of the law

Originally Posted by JMS

Global warming is most definitely happening as is global cooling. These are yearly cycles And I imagine that if there are yearly cycles (Known as Summer Autumn Winter and Spring) that there would also be much larger cycles.

Mark, think it over please. The yearly cycles you're talking about are local. Any global effect in these comes from the inhomognity of the earth surface, not from the orientation of its axis of rotation.
As far as global dimming in thinking, I don't know if there are any statistics to show evidence, but most of the posters in this thread appear completely uninterested in fighting it - I'm still waiting for the second person who has read the referenced scientific articles to post they are now ready to discuss the matter at hand.

gugi, did you notice that the link i gave above was from NOAA and several other sources of global measurments?
please explain to me how all these facts show a cooling instead of warming.
i am only trying to understand the facts as i can see them from several sources..

Until you read the emails and computer code for yourself, then you have to deal with phrases like "hide the decline." Do a search for a file called "FOI2009.zip" and download it, it's 61.9 MB in size. Do some reading of the actual emails and data. I do not think that I am misunderstanding what I've been reading in these files.

"Al-Gore-Da"'s warmistas are trying to flood the net, Facebook, MySpace and Twitter with their spin that just because Al-Gore-Da has been caught lying about global warming is no reason to suspect global warming is a lie!

The debate is over..... We've made up your mind.

Originally Posted by 59caddy

gugi, did you notice that the link i gave above was from NOAA and several other sources of global measurments?
please explain to me how all these facts show a cooling instead of warming.
i am only trying to understand the facts as i can see them from several sources..

I did read that last link you posted and all I could find is misrepresentation and misinterpretation of the actual data.
I did not see any discussion on how the data was averaged and why it should represent 'global' temperature.
And no, the links were not pointing to NOAA, but to a private blog with a name which leads me to believe it's biased. The graphs may have been taken from NOAA, but constructing a narrative from cherry picked data is not what I call science.

Here's the website you want to reference NCDC: * National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) *
When you have looked at not only the October data for US, but all other months we can start having a discussion on what happens with the climate in US. And before I'd discuss global you will have to have looked at data from the whole globe, not just 2% of it.

Originally Posted by gugi

I did read that last link you posted and all I could find is misrepresentation and misinterpretation of the actual data.
I did not see any discussion on how the data was averaged and why it should represent 'global' temperature.
And no, the links were not pointing to NOAA, but to a private blog with a name which leads me to believe it's biased. The graphs may have been taken from NOAA, but constructing a narrative from cherry picked data is not what I call science.

Here's the website you want to reference NCDC: * National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) *
When you have looked at not only the October data for US, but all other months we can start having a discussion on what happens with the climate in US. And before I'd discuss global you will have to have looked at data from the whole globe, not just 2% of it.

why is it that any data i show you is a misrepresentation without fail and yours is perfect? i see a trend of 25 years or so in the charts. this amount of time is significant. also when you look at your data and learn that the mid evil warming data is dismissed and not included, is that not a misrepresentation of the facts also. along with the fact that over the weekend NASA has said that some of the data they are going to release shows a opposite of the global warming data that has been put out for public consumption....