I guess I should say one more thing, although I shouldn't have to:
I am tired of responding to these fishing expeditions of yours. Go away and leave me alone. FUCK OFF!!!
And don't try to pretend I said that to someone who was trying to have a civil discussion with me. Your intent has been transparent, and anything but civil. You deserve nothing more.
So when you repeatedly claimed I'd missed where you admitted you were wrong, you meant that I'd quoted you and explained that you'd manufactured unwarranted doubt by inserting words like could and theoretically.
Since it was a theoretical discussion, inserting "theoretically" was justified. "Could" means what it means. I am not interested -- even a little -- in your interpretations of my words, since (1) you have long since demonstrated that you either aren't capable of or aren't willing to take them at face value, but rather filter them through your own weird little worldview. And (2) I have no obligation to explain my self to you. I mean, if there was ANYBODY on Slashdot I might owe an explanation to, you are very definitely not him.
I repeat: the only reasonable explanation for these posts of yours has been to dig up anything you could that you think might make me look bad. It's pretty easy for other people to see that, and also just how pathetic these attempts have become. What could be your motivation for doing that? And why should I help you? I mean, other than that it has just helped you dig a deeper hole for yourself.
Remember: I haven't been doing this. You have. I've only been defending myself from your allegations, and not even bothering with some of that. You haven't gotten full answers simply because you don't deserve them. And you aren't going to. It's that simple.
Again, that was the last quote in my debunking that you repeatedly and wrongly claimed I missed.
Yet another logic failure.
First, you were attempting to "debunk" a discussion in which I actually asked questions, and actually learned the answer (which means you were too late to be doing any "debunking", if there was any to be done). If it needs repeating, in that exchange I had asked how neutrinos could oscillate between types when they were different masses. It wasn't the first thing I said, but I did ask it.
And second, if it was the last quote in your "debunking" then you did indeed miss it, didn't you? Because you refused to acknowledge that it was an admission that my original point was likely wrong.
By now you've wrongly suggested that I'm four different people.
Really? And what people are those?
I've only been responding to your posts. You brought up "Laysej", not me. But my, how "coincidental" that you just happened to mention that one account out of so many others here on Slashdot.
And I didn't "suggest" anything, I merely asked, and gave reason for asking. Again, you are either demonstrating ignorance of what "suggesting" and "accusing" really are, or you are deliberately (yet again) trying to twist my words into something they did not mean.
But it is my opinion -- and I have reasons for it -- that both Laysej and the Anonymous Coward "he" was talking to in the above referenced exchange were both in fact you playing sock-puppet again. But I am neither "suggesting" or "accusing". Only offering an opinion.
Anyone can shit out garbage in graph form. Here are some more graphs which on the face of it are just as good as yours, but if you do some research you'll find are not composed of bullshit, unlike yours.
You're making a fool of yourself.
The graph Spencer showed is not "his" data. It is data from about 75 climate models referred to in IPCC prodeedings. If you want to call it "bullshit", go ahead, but it's data from people who are supposed to be on "your side" of the argument.
Which is an easier conspiracy to pull off, one involving tens of thousands of scientists around the world or one involving a handful of mostly American bloggers, most of which been outed for being on the take from conservative think-tanks and fossil fuel companies?
You're the only one talking "conspiracy" here. Not me. I didn't even mention the word, until just now when remarking about your own comment.
Since I already linked and quoted all the places where you'd "explained" your mistake before I debunked you, your complete lack of links to these genuinely vindicating admissions speaks volumes.
I'm not very interested in what YOU could or could not find. And I am not saying that was the post I was referring to. But it is sufficient. I wrote
"I now see how, theoretically anyway, it could be a probabilistically-determined superposition. That clears up a lot.
Since that was the entire basis of my argument, yes that is an admission that I was wrong. Gee, sorry all to hell if you don't like the way I worded it.
But if I asked for a link, that would merely be the prelude to the Layzej link gambit where you'd accuse me of being a sociopath.
Hahaha. Was I "accusing" someone of being a sociopath? Really? I don't think you know what a genuine accusation is. My words:
"You DO know, do you not, that deliberate trolling has been linked with other sociopathic behavior?"
Which was a comment about some recent research on the subject that has appeared right here on Slashdot. And about which you should be at least passingly familiar, since you appear to read Slashdot.
BUT... since you bring it up: do you deny that "Laysej" is one of your sock-puppet accounts? Because I have noticed in the past that "his" behavior, in the way of being rude and trolling online, has been very similar to your own. Further, "his" comments have popped up at just the times, and contained exactly the kind of comments, that I would expect from one of your sock-puppet accounts. One thing I can say about "him": his behavior has been predictable.
You don't seem to understand why trolling behavior pisses people off. Soak THAT in.
You are of course the place where "Laysej" argued endlessly about my quoting the article that the first linked article was quoting? Big deal. THEN, of course, an "Anonymous Coward" pops up at just the right time (but of course at no other time), so that "Laysej" can, in fact, have a conversation with "himself" about things that pretty much only YOU and "Laysej" say about me. Oh, there might have been the rare exception here or there, but why would I not think those were anything but sock-puppet accounts too?
You are not welcome, as far as *I* am concerned. I won't try to speak for anyone else.
I repeat: the only reason I have been replying to you here at all has been in self-defense, which would not be necessary at all if your own behavior were not so APPARENTLY pathologically antisocial.
I repeat what I have stated many times: you have been deliberately spreading claims of fact about me, in public, that you know, or reasonably should know, are untrue. I am not responding here to you out of any particular desire of my own to converse with you in any way. I have asked you many times to go away and leave me alone, and you have failed to honor that request, in a rather extreme manner.
I have reason to believe you are not entirely mentally well. Exactly what your problem is, I do not know, but from where I sit you definitely seem to have one.
We live in different realities. All our best research so far suggests one of them is consistent with our best observations of reality, and that one of them is very inconsistent - or "wrong" and on a whole, becoming more wrong every day. That's why we see things so very differently.
Why, yes, indeed. I am glad that you do recognize this. One view definitely is deviating ever further from objective reality. It's just that you seem to be mistaken about which view that is. (Graph of climate models [lines] vs objectively measured reality [green circles, blue squares].)
I don't particularly blame you. You certainly have lots of company. Maybe you should take another blue pill and get some rest.
On the other hand, you miss the point in subtle ways and argue endlessly, never quite coming to grips with reality, while always retreating to some absurd evasion that seems to acknowledge the obvious while, in fact, concluding the exact opposite.
What points have I missed in subtle ways? This is exactly what I have been saying to you... except not so much about "subtle".
For instance, after I debunked your lecture on neutrino oscillation, you repeatedly claimed that I missed where you admitted you were wrong.
Right there, on the page you linked to, is my comment that YOU missed reading the other thread where I had in fact stated that I understood and had made a mistake.
And THIS is what you have CONSISTENTLY failed to understand: the parent of that comment was one of your long, bizarre diatribes about a subject I had already been informed about, by someone else, and you posted that comment in reply to a comment of mine TO SOMEONE ELSE, which had nothing at all to do with you. And you fail to see why such STALKING is behavior that pisses people off.
You have DELIBERATELY doing this for years, and yes, dammnit, it pisses me off. And you know that, because I have told you many times. And my honest opinion is that you do it for that very reason.
But what is funny about the whole thing is that it isn't actually an example of what you claim, because I had in fact already explained TO SOMEONE ELSE, IN ANOTHER THREAD, that I understood that I had made a mistake, and what that mistake was.
Your comment (more like a fucking book) was posted inappropriately, at the wrong time, and was wholly unappreciated. Yet for some WEIRD reason you seem to think the reason I reacted the way I did was some problem of MINE.
Which is why I have stated these many times that you seem to have a very serious problem with social skills, and you should GO AWAY.
I found you telling other people to STFU, which even you've called nasty and arrogant.
And for "proof" of this you chose a situation in which someone jumped in and posted an insulting comment that was out of context.
Yep. I did that. But the fact remains that he was both wrong, and worded the comment in a deliberately insulting way. He deserved that STFU. I have no obligation to be polite to someone who has been impolite to me first. Was that an overreaction, under the circumstances? Perhaps. But then it's not exactly something I do often, either.
It's you, who don't seem to get that it isn't your scientific arguments I have a problem with. It's the fact that you have such a goddamned problem making one, and instead resort to out-of-context, moving-the-goalposts, ad-hominem, and other invalid tactics to try to make your point. And even worse. The above post is just another example.
If that's what you consider "admitting your mistakes" then do you also think this is a shining example of your intellectual integrity?
Hahaha. Frankly, it isn't a "shining example" of much of anything, as far as I can tell.
One has to wonder why you picked that particular exchange. The preponderance of evidence did agree with me, just as I stated. I did not make any other specific claim.
According to the majority of the references, Purdue did indeed have its head up its ass on that particular point. The majority of more authoritative sources directly contradict the "rule".
So while I don't call it a "shining example" of much of anything, I was still correct. According to the majority -- not just a small majority but almost all -- of the references I checked. And I checked many.
The "fast lane" means normal speed, and anything else means deliberately throttled. There is nothing wrong with a "fast lane" for prioritizing particular TYPES of traffic, such as real time voice, but no ISP with monopoly power (almost all of them) should be allowed to discriminate based on the source or destination of the data.
Basically this. But the problem with even that kind of throttling is that it would be abused and distorted to do the other kind as well. So the overall best solution is no "fast lanes" (which in reality means slow lanes) at all.
Imagine if the telephone companies made commercial TYPE calls better quality than calls to grandma or to the kids. No matter how you slice it, in the long run it's a bad idea.
I think you should be taken seriously for the same reasons Jenny McCarthy should - the utter garbage you spew on a regular basis could lead innocent people with pitiful levels of scientific literacy to make harmful choices.
Since you have never once showed me to be actually "spewing garbage", I don't think my credibility is the one in question here.
BTW everything roughly matches up with GISS.
Since it is apparently GISS, that's hardly surprising.
There's nothing wrong with adjustments as Rei helpfully explained below.
Well, except:
a) his first reference was a graph without proper labels such that we can't even really tell what it is a graph OF, and
b) his second reference was a paper submitted 5 years ago, long before some of the problems with the adjustments came to light, and
c) as I mentioned elsewhere, NCDC recently admitted there was a serious problem with some of their adjustments...
A picture with no explanation is not much of a reference. If the legend is any indication, it is "raw" GHCN data being compared to... something. We don't know what. Nor do we know what region is supposedly being represented, or even if it's a full or partial set of data.
All by itself that graph it isn't evidence of much of anything in particular.
And the adjustments are there for a good reason - otherwise the deniers would be complaining even more about the heat island effect and siting / instrumentation problems than they even are today (oh, and to head people off, the warming trend gets even stronger when you outright remove the "bad", "artificially hot" meteorological stations the deniers complain about).
To say this claim is highly debatable is an understatement. Adjustments have been made for questionable reasons, and using questionable methods. As a reminder, just a week or two ago NCDC admitted that the USHCN data they had been supplying has had some rather serious errors, which supposedly they knew about for an unspecified time, but didn't bother to tell anyone about (not even many climate scientists who relied on the data), and which they "intended to fix" at some other unspecified time in the future.
However, I will certainly read the paper you reference to see what it has to say. Even though it's 4 1/2 years old.
In stead, they are tainted (nay, funded) by the widespread corporate anti-science that big business inflict on the planet.
Are you trying to imply that corporations, such as the cap-and-trade corporations Al Gore is associated with, are NOT big business? That universities are not big business? That EPA is not big business?
I'm just wondering about your logic here.
Further, by now there has been plenty of "anti-science" demonstrated on BOTH sides. It isn't very credible to single one side out without at least mentioning the failures of the other.
Not only have some of those "absurd" claims turned out to be true (such as the recent admission of NCDC that Tony Heller's criticisms about "filled in" data were accurate), NONE of that has any bearing at all on your own outrageous behavior: making demonstrably false claims about me in public, incessantly harassing me, stalking my comments here and harassing me over them, and other attempts to stalk me online, attempting to research details of my private life (beyond creepy), and other things which normal people generally consider to be outside the bounds of civilized behavior.
I repeat: before you try to lecture other people about their behavior, you really need to take a long look in a mirror.
I actually happen to agree with cold fjord on part of what he says (gasp). I've looked at NSA activities and reread the Fourth Amendment, and can't find clear violations of the Constitution. I believe that, if the Founders had foreseen this sort of data collection, it would be expressly forbidden in the Bill of Rights.
It is.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
It is absurdly clear, if you know anything about history, that "papers and effects" included posted letters, which is why the government needs a warrant to intercept paper mail.
It is also not JUST absurdly clear, but by now also affirmed by the Supreme Court, that modern data and communications such as telephone conversations, files on your hard drive, and email are equivalent to the "papers and effects" described in the Constitution.
And I'll repeat the question I asked you years ago: why do you ASSUME that meant you? Why do you ASSUME I named that file myself? Why do you ASSUME it was even my file to begin with?
I've seen you make 40+ absurd claims
I have admitted my mistakes, when they were actually shown to be mistakes. You have not done the same.
Yes, it certainly appears to be the famously-adjusted GISS data set, not "raw" data at all. I don't know for sure, but we haven't seen any evidence otherwise.
And if you notice, Bill, the ice figures on that site you linked to are measured from 1979. You might want to ask yourself why.
I care more about my children's survival than Thomas Jefferson cared about my kids' survival.
I agree with the other person who replied. In effect, you are saying "I don't care who ELSE is made to be slaves, as long as I and my family can hide in this safe little cave and pretend it doesn't exist."
Part of the problem, indeed. You would "protect" your children by leaving them a life of servitude to others.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you have pretty much given me the information I need now. I have no further reason to answer any of your questions at this time.
Unless you can think of something else you want to blurt out that I may find useful.
I guess I should say one more thing, although I shouldn't have to:
I am tired of responding to these fishing expeditions of yours. Go away and leave me alone. FUCK OFF!!!
And don't try to pretend I said that to someone who was trying to have a civil discussion with me. Your intent has been transparent, and anything but civil. You deserve nothing more.
So when you repeatedly claimed I'd missed where you admitted you were wrong, you meant that I'd quoted you and explained that you'd manufactured unwarranted doubt by inserting words like could and theoretically.
Since it was a theoretical discussion, inserting "theoretically" was justified. "Could" means what it means. I am not interested -- even a little -- in your interpretations of my words, since (1) you have long since demonstrated that you either aren't capable of or aren't willing to take them at face value, but rather filter them through your own weird little worldview. And (2) I have no obligation to explain my self to you. I mean, if there was ANYBODY on Slashdot I might owe an explanation to, you are very definitely not him.
I repeat: the only reasonable explanation for these posts of yours has been to dig up anything you could that you think might make me look bad. It's pretty easy for other people to see that, and also just how pathetic these attempts have become. What could be your motivation for doing that? And why should I help you? I mean, other than that it has just helped you dig a deeper hole for yourself.
Remember: I haven't been doing this. You have. I've only been defending myself from your allegations, and not even bothering with some of that. You haven't gotten full answers simply because you don't deserve them. And you aren't going to. It's that simple.
Again, that was the last quote in my debunking that you repeatedly and wrongly claimed I missed.
Yet another logic failure.
First, you were attempting to "debunk" a discussion in which I actually asked questions, and actually learned the answer (which means you were too late to be doing any "debunking", if there was any to be done). If it needs repeating, in that exchange I had asked how neutrinos could oscillate between types when they were different masses. It wasn't the first thing I said, but I did ask it.
And second, if it was the last quote in your "debunking" then you did indeed miss it, didn't you? Because you refused to acknowledge that it was an admission that my original point was likely wrong.
Either way, you still missed it.
By now you've wrongly suggested that I'm four different people.
Really? And what people are those?
I've only been responding to your posts. You brought up "Laysej", not me. But my, how "coincidental" that you just happened to mention that one account out of so many others here on Slashdot.
And I didn't "suggest" anything, I merely asked, and gave reason for asking. Again, you are either demonstrating ignorance of what "suggesting" and "accusing" really are, or you are deliberately (yet again) trying to twist my words into something they did not mean.
But it is my opinion -- and I have reasons for it -- that both Laysej and the Anonymous Coward "he" was talking to in the above referenced exchange were both in fact you playing sock-puppet again. But I am neither "suggesting" or "accusing". Only offering an opinion.
Anyone can shit out garbage in graph form. Here are some more graphs which on the face of it are just as good as yours, but if you do some research you'll find are not composed of bullshit, unlike yours.
You're making a fool of yourself.
The graph Spencer showed is not "his" data. It is data from about 75 climate models referred to in IPCC prodeedings. If you want to call it "bullshit", go ahead, but it's data from people who are supposed to be on "your side" of the argument.
Which is an easier conspiracy to pull off, one involving tens of thousands of scientists around the world or one involving a handful of mostly American bloggers, most of which been outed for being on the take from conservative think-tanks and fossil fuel companies?
You're the only one talking "conspiracy" here. Not me. I didn't even mention the word, until just now when remarking about your own comment.
s/are of course the place/are of course referring to the place
You're making yourself look ever worse here, man. I'm not about to invite you to keep it up. In fact I've told you many times to go away.
But you aren't doing yourself or your image any favors. Really.
Since I already linked and quoted all the places where you'd "explained" your mistake before I debunked you, your complete lack of links to these genuinely vindicating admissions speaks volumes.
I'm not very interested in what YOU could or could not find. And I am not saying that was the post I was referring to. But it is sufficient. I wrote
"I now see how, theoretically anyway, it could be a probabilistically-determined superposition. That clears up a lot.
Since that was the entire basis of my argument, yes that is an admission that I was wrong. Gee, sorry all to hell if you don't like the way I worded it.
But if I asked for a link, that would merely be the prelude to the Layzej link gambit where you'd accuse me of being a sociopath.
Hahaha. Was I "accusing" someone of being a sociopath? Really? I don't think you know what a genuine accusation is. My words:
"You DO know, do you not, that deliberate trolling has been linked with other sociopathic behavior?"
Which was a comment about some recent research on the subject that has appeared right here on Slashdot. And about which you should be at least passingly familiar, since you appear to read Slashdot.
BUT... since you bring it up: do you deny that "Laysej" is one of your sock-puppet accounts? Because I have noticed in the past that "his" behavior, in the way of being rude and trolling online, has been very similar to your own. Further, "his" comments have popped up at just the times, and contained exactly the kind of comments, that I would expect from one of your sock-puppet accounts. One thing I can say about "him": his behavior has been predictable.
You don't seem to understand why trolling behavior pisses people off. Soak THAT in.
You are of course the place where "Laysej" argued endlessly about my quoting the article that the first linked article was quoting? Big deal. THEN, of course, an "Anonymous Coward" pops up at just the right time (but of course at no other time), so that "Laysej" can, in fact, have a conversation with "himself" about things that pretty much only YOU and "Laysej" say about me. Oh, there might have been the rare exception here or there, but why would I not think those were anything but sock-puppet accounts too?
You are not welcome, as far as *I* am concerned. I won't try to speak for anyone else.
I repeat: the only reason I have been replying to you here at all has been in self-defense, which would not be necessary at all if your own behavior were not so APPARENTLY pathologically antisocial.
I repeat what I have stated many times: you have been deliberately spreading claims of fact about me, in public, that you know, or reasonably should know, are untrue. I am not responding here to you out of any particular desire of my own to converse with you in any way. I have asked you many times to go away and leave me alone, and you have failed to honor that request, in a rather extreme manner.
I have reason to believe you are not entirely mentally well. Exactly what your problem is, I do not know, but from where I sit you definitely seem to have one.
We live in different realities. All our best research so far suggests one of them is consistent with our best observations of reality, and that one of them is very inconsistent - or "wrong" and on a whole, becoming more wrong every day. That's why we see things so very differently.
Why, yes, indeed. I am glad that you do recognize this. One view definitely is deviating ever further from objective reality. It's just that you seem to be mistaken about which view that is. (Graph of climate models [lines] vs objectively measured reality [green circles, blue squares].)
I don't particularly blame you. You certainly have lots of company. Maybe you should take another blue pill and get some rest.
On the other hand, you miss the point in subtle ways and argue endlessly, never quite coming to grips with reality, while always retreating to some absurd evasion that seems to acknowledge the obvious while, in fact, concluding the exact opposite.
What points have I missed in subtle ways? This is exactly what I have been saying to you... except not so much about "subtle".
For instance, after I debunked your lecture on neutrino oscillation, you repeatedly claimed that I missed where you admitted you were wrong.
Right there, on the page you linked to, is my comment that YOU missed reading the other thread where I had in fact stated that I understood and had made a mistake.
And THIS is what you have CONSISTENTLY failed to understand: the parent of that comment was one of your long, bizarre diatribes about a subject I had already been informed about, by someone else, and you posted that comment in reply to a comment of mine TO SOMEONE ELSE, which had nothing at all to do with you. And you fail to see why such STALKING is behavior that pisses people off.
You have DELIBERATELY doing this for years, and yes, dammnit, it pisses me off. And you know that, because I have told you many times. And my honest opinion is that you do it for that very reason.
But what is funny about the whole thing is that it isn't actually an example of what you claim, because I had in fact already explained TO SOMEONE ELSE, IN ANOTHER THREAD, that I understood that I had made a mistake, and what that mistake was.
Your comment (more like a fucking book) was posted inappropriately, at the wrong time, and was wholly unappreciated. Yet for some WEIRD reason you seem to think the reason I reacted the way I did was some problem of MINE.
Which is why I have stated these many times that you seem to have a very serious problem with social skills, and you should GO AWAY.
I found you telling other people to STFU, which even you've called nasty and arrogant.
And for "proof" of this you chose a situation in which someone jumped in and posted an insulting comment that was out of context.
Yep. I did that. But the fact remains that he was both wrong, and worded the comment in a deliberately insulting way. He deserved that STFU. I have no obligation to be polite to someone who has been impolite to me first. Was that an overreaction, under the circumstances? Perhaps. But then it's not exactly something I do often, either.
It's you, who don't seem to get that it isn't your scientific arguments I have a problem with. It's the fact that you have such a goddamned problem making one, and instead resort to out-of-context, moving-the-goalposts, ad-hominem, and other invalid tactics to try to make your point. And even worse. The above post is just another example.
If that's what you consider "admitting your mistakes" then do you also think this is a shining example of your intellectual integrity?
Hahaha. Frankly, it isn't a "shining example" of much of anything, as far as I can tell.
One has to wonder why you picked that particular exchange. The preponderance of evidence did agree with me, just as I stated. I did not make any other specific claim.
According to the majority of the references, Purdue did indeed have its head up its ass on that particular point. The majority of more authoritative sources directly contradict the "rule".
So while I don't call it a "shining example" of much of anything, I was still correct. According to the majority -- not just a small majority but almost all -- of the references I checked. And I checked many.
The "fast lane" means normal speed, and anything else means deliberately throttled. There is nothing wrong with a "fast lane" for prioritizing particular TYPES of traffic, such as real time voice, but no ISP with monopoly power (almost all of them) should be allowed to discriminate based on the source or destination of the data.
Basically this. But the problem with even that kind of throttling is that it would be abused and distorted to do the other kind as well. So the overall best solution is no "fast lanes" (which in reality means slow lanes) at all.
Imagine if the telephone companies made commercial TYPE calls better quality than calls to grandma or to the kids. No matter how you slice it, in the long run it's a bad idea.
I see the only major impact of this being that people can now leave pseudonymous comments on Youtube again.
I think you missed the big one: lots of people might actually start using Google+.
Sure, lots of people already did. But lots of people did not. Some people just didn't like the blatant privacy violations.
Of course. Nobody ever shows you spewing garbage, according to you. Just like Jenny McCarthy.
Right. I just showed that you don't know what you're talking about, and you reply with ad-hominem.
But then, that's hasn't changed any, has it? I expected nothing else.
I think you should be taken seriously for the same reasons Jenny McCarthy should - the utter garbage you spew on a regular basis could lead innocent people with pitiful levels of scientific literacy to make harmful choices.
Since you have never once showed me to be actually "spewing garbage", I don't think my credibility is the one in question here.
BTW everything roughly matches up with GISS.
Since it is apparently GISS, that's hardly surprising.
There's nothing wrong with adjustments as Rei helpfully explained below.
Well, except:
a) his first reference was a graph without proper labels such that we can't even really tell what it is a graph OF, and
b) his second reference was a paper submitted 5 years ago, long before some of the problems with the adjustments came to light, and
c) as I mentioned elsewhere, NCDC recently admitted there was a serious problem with some of their adjustments...
The raw data shows the same warming trend.
A picture with no explanation is not much of a reference. If the legend is any indication, it is "raw" GHCN data being compared to... something. We don't know what. Nor do we know what region is supposedly being represented, or even if it's a full or partial set of data.
All by itself that graph it isn't evidence of much of anything in particular.
And the adjustments are there for a good reason - otherwise the deniers would be complaining even more about the heat island effect and siting / instrumentation problems than they even are today (oh, and to head people off, the warming trend gets even stronger when you outright remove the "bad", "artificially hot" meteorological stations the deniers complain about).
To say this claim is highly debatable is an understatement. Adjustments have been made for questionable reasons, and using questionable methods. As a reminder, just a week or two ago NCDC admitted that the USHCN data they had been supplying has had some rather serious errors, which supposedly they knew about for an unspecified time, but didn't bother to tell anyone about (not even many climate scientists who relied on the data), and which they "intended to fix" at some other unspecified time in the future.
However, I will certainly read the paper you reference to see what it has to say. Even though it's 4 1/2 years old.
I don't believe that, based on evidence ... starting with: it's the Slashdot forums.
And that makes how many people now?
Just the fact that people in the past have tracked down my comments just to mod them down is a pretty good indication that they take me seriously.
Generally speaking, people don't make a habit of attacking others if they don't take those others seriously and don't care what those others say.
Whether they like what I say is irrelevant. They do take it seriously.
In stead, they are tainted (nay, funded) by the widespread corporate anti-science that big business inflict on the planet.
Are you trying to imply that corporations, such as the cap-and-trade corporations Al Gore is associated with, are NOT big business? That universities are not big business? That EPA is not big business?
I'm just wondering about your logic here.
Further, by now there has been plenty of "anti-science" demonstrated on BOTH sides. It isn't very credible to single one side out without at least mentioning the failures of the other.
No one takes you seriously when we're talking about climate change. You might want to ask yourself why.
On the contrary: evidence indicates that a great many people take me very seriously indeed. You might want to ask yourself why.
You also might want to stop sock-puppeting as AC.
I've seen you make 40+ absurd claims,
Further, I will add:
Not only have some of those "absurd" claims turned out to be true (such as the recent admission of NCDC that Tony Heller's criticisms about "filled in" data were accurate), NONE of that has any bearing at all on your own outrageous behavior: making demonstrably false claims about me in public, incessantly harassing me, stalking my comments here and harassing me over them, and other attempts to stalk me online, attempting to research details of my private life (beyond creepy), and other things which normal people generally consider to be outside the bounds of civilized behavior.
I repeat: before you try to lecture other people about their behavior, you really need to take a long look in a mirror.
I actually happen to agree with cold fjord on part of what he says (gasp). I've looked at NSA activities and reread the Fourth Amendment, and can't find clear violations of the Constitution. I believe that, if the Founders had foreseen this sort of data collection, it would be expressly forbidden in the Bill of Rights.
It is.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
It is absurdly clear, if you know anything about history, that "papers and effects" included posted letters, which is why the government needs a warrant to intercept paper mail.
It is also not JUST absurdly clear, but by now also affirmed by the Supreme Court, that modern data and communications such as telephone conversations, files on your hard drive, and email are equivalent to the "papers and effects" described in the Constitution.
I could go on, but it isn't necessary.
You seemed to make it my business when you left a public comment at my website linking to http://things.titanez.net/dl/a....
And I'll repeat the question I asked you years ago: why do you ASSUME that meant you? Why do you ASSUME I named that file myself? Why do you ASSUME it was even my file to begin with?
I've seen you make 40+ absurd claims
I have admitted my mistakes, when they were actually shown to be mistakes. You have not done the same.
Yes, it certainly appears to be the famously-adjusted GISS data set, not "raw" data at all. I don't know for sure, but we haven't seen any evidence otherwise.
And if you notice, Bill, the ice figures on that site you linked to are measured from 1979. You might want to ask yourself why.
The moment cash was eliminated, you could kiss your precious freedom goodbye. That is not a joke, and it is not a fantasy.
I care more about my children's survival than Thomas Jefferson cared about my kids' survival.
I agree with the other person who replied. In effect, you are saying "I don't care who ELSE is made to be slaves, as long as I and my family can hide in this safe little cave and pretend it doesn't exist."
Part of the problem, indeed. You would "protect" your children by leaving them a life of servitude to others.
Some parent. I'm glad you weren't mine.