the HOTTEST YEAR EVER!?!?!?!?!

NASA/GISS data was manipulated - by none other than the guy in charge
of the data - you know - this guy?

"James Hansen, who accused Bush of politicizing global warming
science, is responsible for bugged algorithms that produced erroneous
figures. Furthermore, he refused to release his algorithms so that
they could be peer reviewed. The bug was discovered by someone who
took the time to reverse-engineer Hansen's flawed algorithm, and then,
having accurately done so, proved NASA's numbers were wrong. Thus
causing the revision.

Hansen, who claimed Bush was politicizing Global Warming, refused to
provide his algorithms to other researchers so they could simply check
his work, hiding his own errors from them and distorting the science
he claims to care about oh-so-much until some persistent researchers
went to the great trouble of reconstructing his algorithms
themselves."

You know James Hansen - the guy hailed as the "world's leading
researcher on global warming" - consultant to "Inconvienent Truth"?

Heh, heh, heh...NASA/GISS is very, very quietly revising the numbers.

Here's a good discussion.

http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blo...al-us-cli.html

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
the HOTTEST YEAR EVER!?!?!?!?!

NASA/GISS data was manipulated - by none other than the guy in charge
of the data - you know - this guy?

"James Hansen, who accused Bush of politicizing global warming
science, is responsible for bugged algorithms that produced erroneous
figures. Furthermore, he refused to release his algorithms so that
they could be peer reviewed. The bug was discovered by someone who
took the time to reverse-engineer Hansen's flawed algorithm, and then,
having accurately done so, proved NASA's numbers were wrong. Thus
causing the revision.

Hansen, who claimed Bush was politicizing Global Warming, refused to
provide his algorithms to other researchers so they could simply check
his work, hiding his own errors from them and distorting the science
he claims to care about oh-so-much until some persistent researchers
went to the great trouble of reconstructing his algorithms
themselves."

You know James Hansen - the guy hailed as the "world's leading
researcher on global warming" - consultant to "Inconvienent Truth"?

Heh, heh, heh...NASA/GISS is very, very quietly revising the numbers.

Here's a good discussion.

http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blo...al-us-cli.html

Read the current issue of Newsweek for a pov.

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
the HOTTEST YEAR EVER!?!?!?!?!

NASA/GISS data was manipulated - by none other than the guy in charge
of the data - you know - this guy?

"James Hansen, who accused Bush of politicizing global warming
science, is responsible for bugged algorithms that produced erroneous
figures. Furthermore, he refused to release his algorithms so that
they could be peer reviewed. The bug was discovered by someone who
took the time to reverse-engineer Hansen's flawed algorithm, and then,
having accurately done so, proved NASA's numbers were wrong. Thus
causing the revision.

Hansen, who claimed Bush was politicizing Global Warming, refused to
provide his algorithms to other researchers so they could simply check
his work, hiding his own errors from them and distorting the science
he claims to care about oh-so-much until some persistent researchers
went to the great trouble of reconstructing his algorithms
themselves."

You know James Hansen - the guy hailed as the "world's leading
researcher on global warming" - consultant to "Inconvienent Truth"?

Heh, heh, heh...NASA/GISS is very, very quietly revising the numbers.

Here's a good discussion.

http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blo...al-us-cli.html


How can you argue against global warming when temperatures and rainfalls
over half of the US and in the UK are reaching or surprising record highs?

I am not convinced but I have to admit that something is indeed happening
with our climate.

Cyclical? Perhaps.

We need more research.

"tak" wrote
Read the current issue of Newsweek for a pov.

Plethora of vacuousness?

On Aug 9, 10:49 pm, "JimH" ask wrote:
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in messagenews:64inb314t3k3epqnauv1gg443iga3e5g8a@4ax .com...





the HOTTEST YEAR EVER!?!?!?!?!

NASA/GISS data was manipulated - by none other than the guy in charge
of the data - you know - this guy?

"James Hansen, who accused Bush of politicizing global warming
science, is responsible for bugged algorithms that produced erroneous
figures. Furthermore, he refused to release his algorithms so that
they could be peer reviewed. The bug was discovered by someone who
took the time to reverse-engineer Hansen's flawed algorithm, and then,
having accurately done so, proved NASA's numbers were wrong. Thus
causing the revision.

Hansen, who claimed Bush was politicizing Global Warming, refused to
provide his algorithms to other researchers so they could simply check
his work, hiding his own errors from them and distorting the science
he claims to care about oh-so-much until some persistent researchers
went to the great trouble of reconstructing his algorithms
themselves."

You know James Hansen - the guy hailed as the "world's leading
researcher on global warming" - consultant to "Inconvienent Truth"?

Heh, heh, heh...NASA/GISS is very, very quietly revising the numbers.

Here's a good discussion.

http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blo...al-us-cli.html

How can you argue against global warming when temperatures and rainfalls
over half of the US and in the UK are reaching or surprising record highs?

I am not convinced but I have to admit that something is indeed happening
with our climate.

Cyclical? Perhaps.

We need more research.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I think a lot of the focus is starting to converge on the figures
about temp and climate etc, that we are being fed. It is turning out
that much of it is false, maybe even intenionally manipulated. There
is a huge amount of money to be made, a lot of grants to be awarded.
All gone if this science is allowed to be challenged.

On Aug 10, 9:20 am, Gene Kearns
wrote:

Here's a good discussion.

http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blo...ial-us-cli.hml

I don't think I'd waste any more time on the coyoteblog.com... they
must not do *any* fact checking! McIntyre (whose experience is mineral
exploration) and McKitrick (an economist) published their works in a
Non-Peer-Reviewed Social Science Journal because they were turned down
for publication by more appropriate venues.

McIntyre and McKitrick's shaky position was debunked nearly 3 years
ago..http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=11

--

Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Oak Island, NC.

Homepagehttp://pamandgene.idleplay.net/

Seems all the comments on the article question its reliablility.
Personally I beleive it goes beyond weather weather man is causing
global warming, to weather GW as it is being described even exists.
When you have people like Al Gore making tons of money and working
toward his socialistic view of "wealth redistribution" (which is
probably the driving factor behind the GW scam) , to weather channel
reporters calling for the silence and expulsion of any critics, I
smell a big frekin' rat. If we accept GW, we must accept the
tremendous taxation and political fallout that will come with it.
Listen folks, the numbers are being fudged across the board, critics
are being expelled from the conversation, the rest is based on
assumptions and predictions, doesn't this make you suspicious?

"Ernest Scribbler" wrote in message
et...
"tak" wrote
Read the current issue of Newsweek for a pov.

Plethora of vacuousness?

Point/counterpoint till it is last man standing. The claims and theories
have to stand up to scientific scrutiny by peers, not politicians and
business.

On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 13:55:18 GMT, "tak"
wrote:


"Ernest Scribbler" wrote in message
news:JbydnUxtSJmJ_yHbnZ2dnUVZ_h2pnZ2d@wvfibernet. net...
"tak" wrote
Read the current issue of Newsweek for a pov.

Plethora of vacuousness?

Point/counterpoint till it is last man standing. The claims and theories
have to stand up to scientific scrutiny by peers, not politicians and
business.

So fudging sciencitic data is a theory?

Wow...

On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 13:08:33 -0000,
wrote:

I think a lot of the focus is starting to converge on the figures
about temp and climate etc, that we are being fed. It is turning out
that much of it is false, maybe even intenionally manipulated. There
is a huge amount of money to be made, a lot of grants to be awarded.
All gone if this science is allowed to be challenged.

It gets even better than that.

The placement of the measuring devices are also suspect.

As in placing a est of instruments in the middle of an asphalt parking
lot.

Think it's going to be hotter there? :)

On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 09:20:58 -0400, Gene Kearns
wrote:

On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 02:20:42 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing penned the
following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

the HOTTEST YEAR EVER!?!?!?!?!

NASA/GISS data was manipulated - by none other than the guy in charge
of the data - you know - this guy?

"James Hansen, who accused Bush of politicizing global warming
science, is responsible for bugged algorithms that produced erroneous
figures. Furthermore, he refused to release his algorithms so that
they could be peer reviewed. The bug was discovered by someone who
took the time to reverse-engineer Hansen's flawed algorithm, and then,
having accurately done so, proved NASA's numbers were wrong. Thus
causing the revision.

Hansen, who claimed Bush was politicizing Global Warming, refused to
provide his algorithms to other researchers so they could simply check
his work, hiding his own errors from them and distorting the science
he claims to care about oh-so-much until some persistent researchers
went to the great trouble of reconstructing his algorithms
themselves."

You know James Hansen - the guy hailed as the "world's leading
researcher on global warming" - consultant to "Inconvienent Truth"?

Heh, heh, heh...NASA/GISS is very, very quietly revising the numbers.

Here's a good discussion.

http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blo...ial-us-cli.hml

I don't think I'd waste any more time on the coyoteblog.com... they
must not do *any* fact checking! McIntyre (whose experience is mineral
exploration) and McKitrick (an economist) published their works in a
Non-Peer-Reviewed Social Science Journal because they were turned down
for publication by more appropriate venues.

McIntyre and McKitrick's shaky position was debunked nearly 3 years
ago..
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=11

Really?

Then why is NASA/GISS publically acknowledging that, in fact - not
theory - Hansen manipulated the data set knowingly and specifically
to manipulate the data to prove his theory.

And that Hansen would not allow anybody to examine his programs or his
data set. It had to be reverse engineered.

Hmmm?