A Few Late-Evening ICCC Items

Funny things when you go look at this stuff....

Monday, March 9th at 9:09PM EST

41 Comments

Just a quick wrap-up, since I’ve done fairly well today with keeping up with things, particularly in the morning.

The two late-afternoon presentations I went to involved metrology and methods. They were marvelous.

Anthony Watts (of “Watts Up With That?” fame) gave a presentation on an unusual project he has been running. Either on his own or with the help of a few volunteers, he has been “auditing” all of the observation stations used by the National Weather Service to collect temperature data. So far, this audit has reached 75% of the reporting stations, and you can find more about the project here.

The most interesting part of this quest is the way that this effort has found all sorts of amazing (and surprising) environmental details that just make a mockery of basic metrology; you can find a partial summary here, and there are a variety of problems – stations in parking lots, stations near air conditioning vents, stations on rooftops (and whiskers on kittens), a station whose enclosure had been painted dark brown, etc.

While this was humorous in some ways, it raised a critical point – one I’ve been asking in different ways for a number of years. The whole “AGW” notion depends on parsing the measurability of temperature down to hundredths of a degree; yet the goofinesses in these stations would seem to introduce systematic errors on the order of multiple degrees. There simply is no way to pull a fraction-of-a-degree “global warming” signature out of such a completely messed-up system of measurement stations.

Anthony’s friend and colleague Steve McIntyre gave a more complicated talk examining the background of many of the data collection methods that were used. Stever is the gent who smoked out that infamous NASA data “Y2K” bug (sic?) that was (before he got them to fix it) adding 0.15 degrees C to all data from 2000 and later.

He noted that the Mann “hockey stick” arises from one single data collection method (western bristlecone pines), yet when all of the other non-hockey stick data is glommed together, the hockey stick appears. All of the data handling appears to disappear behind clouds of Principle Component Analysis (yes, I know what this is) and then strange things appear. He also noted excuses about difficulties with revisiting old data sites (the “hockey stick” was based on data that had nothing newer than the mid-1980s – it was an extrapolation from that) – due to difficulty moving “heavy equipment” to remote locations. He showed how his team went to Colorado and carried the “heavy equipment” (a hand-crank large-bit drill) up to the trees – many of which had first been measured in the original studies. He also noted that others have revisited the same tree sites for further analysis, and found no “hockey stick” stuff.

Well, the final event was a very important meeting. Your humble correspondent, Moe, blackhedd, Crank, and MarkI got together for dinner. We went to the Heartland Brewery (appropriate given that the Heartland Institute is sponsoring the conference), quaffed Brooklyn-brewed microbrews, chomped burgers, and plotted the counter-revolution.

*Burp.*

Tomorrow is the final day, and is basically (mercifully) a half-day. But once again we start bright and early – with a 7am breakfast session that features former New Hampshire governor (and former WH CoS) John Sununu (who also holds a Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering).

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

41 Comments Leave a comment

Global Thermostat

ss396 Tuesday, March 10th at 10:16AM EST (link)

I read an article on climate change that had the obligatory chart of year-by-year increasing global temperatures. In another part of the article, lauding the science of it all, was a chart on the year-by-year increase in weather measuring stations. The linear correlation between the two was very nearly a straight line: over 0.90 correlation with >95% confidence.

Hypothesis: we can control the earth’s temperature by opening or closing weather stations; sort of a global thermostat.
Corollary: whatever is being measured, it isn’t global temperature.

I would like to see the results of our climate modeling using only the data from those measuring stations that are still operating and were in existence in, say, 1973.

If you pay someone to sit on his butt, you can’t be surprised when he does.

I think

pjshifty Tuesday, March 10th at 12:45PM EST (link)

you should be a little more skeptical of what McIntyre says, at least if you want to continue to call yourself a skeptic. The “hockey stick” is not based on one data collection method – have a look a the data here for yourself and also the third party check done by theNAS. Did McIntyre happen to mention these?

It might be too late, but you might ask who among the ICCC keynotes agrees that the temperature record is so flawed that warming over last 50-60 years cannot be detected. Hint: not Lindzen or Singer.

What will be the unifying message from the conference? So far all I see is skeptics that are even skeptical of each other.

Againment

Skanderbeg (Diary) Tuesday, March 10th at 10:03PM EST (link)

Well, three quick things to say.

o I didn’t have my notebook with me when I was writing the summary last evening, but it’s now well-accepted that the whole “hockey stick” schtick was a total farce. McIntyre was examining (or trying to, given the shyness about releasing details) the methods, and noted that among the data, there was no reason for the “hockey stick” to appear; the closest thing to that in the data tossed in was the western bristlecone pine data. As per my evening write-up today, the “hockey stick” is almost certainly an artifact of something comical that occurs when empirical models are used beyond the limits of the data that went into them; the Mann data for the bristlecone pines stopped in 1985.

o The temperature record of the 19th/20th century, at the level of fine structure that appears in the “literature” these days, is open to considerable question, and this is one reason why I don’t get too excited about that fine structure. Singer, having had a long career in the weather satellite field, has long noted that the satellite data, though more limited in time, has always shown very flat temperature trends. There are also cause-and-effect questions that will remain forever unresolved. In contrast, it can be argued that the temperature records may not be “exact” but are sufficient to discriminate decade-long trends.

o I’m tired and cranky, but methinks your last question betrays a seriously unfamiliarity of the purpose of technical research and technical conferences. The purpose of a technical conference is not to find some “unifying message” – in other words, these are not political meetings (such as the AGW fan meetings) where everyone is supposed to “agree” to everything and sign up and pledge fealty to the approved set of talking points. There are differences of thought, and (perhaps more important to understand) these meetings serve to cause people to ask questions about their own work that would never have occurred to them. E.g., people working against data learn that other people question the metrological reliability of that data.

This is how real science is done, and this is strength. No one went to NYC to receive marching orders from anyone, and none were imposed.

Response

pjshifty Wednesday, March 11th at 1:24PM EST (link)

If you look at the NAS report (page 17 – you’ll see the hockey stick shape present in glacial length, boreholes going back to 1600 (without the influence of tree rings) as well as other multiproxies based on sediment, coral, marine sediments etc. The temperature record goes back to 1850, and the tree ring data goes at least back to 1600 (Briffa 1992), so I’m not sure what this whole 1985 argument is about. Are you saying you think scientists are extrapolating 10 years of data back 400+ years?

Yes of course conference are for arguing what science is correct and how it could be improved, but I guess I was hoping that perhaps the ICCC could propose an alternate theory to the accepted one, but nothing new has risen to the surface but the same old stuff, so unfortuatnely for you nothing will change.

Besides judging by the 5 “going-forward points” (i.e. marching orders) highlighted by Jay Lehr (“RTLCC” quintet) would you say the point of this conference was more scientific or political? Only 2 of the 5 have any speck of science in them. Or perhaps there was a similar summary of the scientific areas that need to be addressed? Why don’t meetings I go to (e.g. AGU) have a similar political wrap-up?

Just one thing

Skanderbeg (Diary) Wednesday, March 11th at 8:46PM EST (link)

The reason there had to be a political track is because the AGW alarmists have turned all this into a political issue.

Don’t forget that chief spokesman Al Gore has NO scientific credentials at all.

Having dragged the science into the political arena, there is no choice but to respond to it. The general public is being fed propaganda as science, and since the propaganda is fueling an entire industry, there has to be political pushback.

The AGW alarmists clearly want to have one set of rules for themselves and one for everyone else.

The problem with much of the “data” is that it attempts to join together “measurements” from a variety of sources without even discussing difficulties with them. Things don’t match up as cleanly as the IPCC stuff would have us believe; such things are usually just swept under the rug and the “adjusted” results presented as “data” when that’s just not true.

The purpose of the meeting wasn’t to get to a final communique. It was to discuss various ideas. The most important core one is that the climate is complex beyond our present understanding – and we know so little that it’s more important to clarify what we don’t know than what we do know.

The AGW people are basically presenting a false view of this science and of science in general – that there is absolute certainty and they have the one and only answer. Funny how that sort of position always turns out to be way way wrong….

One comment

pjshifty Wednesday, March 11th at 11:39PM EST (link)

the difficulties of piecing together the different data sets is discussed ad naseum in the NAS report – really – read it. There’s no conspiracy to hide this. Unfortunately for you the uncertainties of this process are not large enough to doesn’t change the conclusion or the general shape of the “hockey stick”.

Ah yes we know so little, yet another basic tenet (#4) of Denialism – but we know that (at least according to folks like you) we’ll never know enough to do anything, will we? Nevermind that models developed 20 years ago have to date been fairly accurate. How inconvenient…

PS

pjshifty Wednesday, March 11th at 11:41PM EST (link)

which scientist says there is absolute certainty and only one answer? None that I know of. Nice strawman.

None of them, or if they do, they shouldn't be in science.

Brian Hibbert (Diary) Thursday, March 12th at 5:41AM EST (link)

But the political people do claim absolute certainty. And they’re the ones that are controlling our country’s destiny right now. Too bad they don’t have any uncertainly before they act to screw up the world’s economy.

Nice straw man yourself

Candidate for Trustee of Illinois Central College
Socialism doesn’t work. It looks nice on paper, but it’s been tried and it’s failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
Take back our party!
Check out Unified Patriots

Of course

pjshifty Thursday, March 12th at 10:52AM EST (link)

they’re out to screw up the world’s economy – I mean what politician doesn’t want that – it’s great for votes (strawman much?). But as long as we’re there – prove it…what models are you using to estimate economic collapse? Or perhaps you are being an alarmist?

PJ that "we'll never know enough to do anyhting" argument

Brian Hibbert (Diary) Thursday, March 12th at 5:35AM EST (link)

was the same one used by the global cooling proponents in the 1970′s. Good thing we decided to wait for a bit better evidence isn’t it?

Ah yes

pjshifty Thursday, March 12th at 10:46AM EST (link)

the myth of global cooling rears it’s ugly head again – that didn’t take long. Have I got a paper (PDF link) for you. Strawmen abound!

Cool term that. "Scientific concensus".

Brian Hibbert (Diary) Thursday, March 12th at 10:59AM EST (link)

I didn’t use a straw man. I said the “global cooling proponents” used the same “we can’t wait for proof!” argument. I did not say the “scientific concensus” at the time agreed that there was global cooling.

Good straw man yourself again….. are you denying that ANY scientist made claims of global cooling? Are you denying that there were proponents of the global cooling theories? Are you denying that they used the “we can’t wait for proof!” argument in their calls for action? These people did exist and were quite vocal in their claims and called for some pretty radical “solutions” that really WOULD have screwed up our climate.

Using “scientific consensus” is a false appeal to authority. Try appealing to data rather than authority.

You're right

pjshifty Thursday, March 12th at 11:18AM EST (link)

you did not say consensus – congrats – but that’s probably why no action was taken, because they were in the minority and more papers were published about the possibility of global warming even back then.

But how much proof do you need? – again models that were developed 20 years ago work and there sophistication has grown since then. I’m happy to appeal to data – here it is. Where’s yours?

No action was taken because there wasn't enough proof to support their position.

Brian Hibbert (Diary) Thursday, March 12th at 3:46PM EST (link)

There isn’t enough evidence now to support the warmers position either. Yes there is some evidence to indicate that a warming trend has occurred (just as there was evidence for cooling in the 70′s), but there isn’t enough to correlate the warming with the actions of humans. Some scientists have opinions on both sides of the issue.

That said, I have some goals that as a side effect of also aiding your goals. Your side is always accusing us of being stupid rather than trying to look for ways to get us to help achieve your outcomes. I propose that instead of hammering at us, you start hammering at the environmentalists who are blocking things like nuclear power (0 CO2 emissions). The ones who are blocking the development of wind farms (0 CO2 emissions, but not overly reliable). The ones who won’t allow a new hydroelectric system to be built (0 CO2 emissions). Etc. We can buy into these types of projects if they are shown to be economical. We won’t be willingly lead into them based on weak science and fear mongering.

Change your tactics and you might win some people to parts of your agenda rather than wasting all this time arguing that Global Warming is an indisputable fact because of “scientific consensus”. (I won’t go into how many other theories were ultimately proven false even though consensus held that they were true.)

OK Deal

pjshifty Thursday, March 12th at 5:18PM EST (link)

I’ll argue with the environmentalists preventing the solutions you suggest (actually already do), but I’m afraid I can’t stop arguing with people who say there isn’t enough evidence to correlate warming to human behavior – to me you are one in the same – sorry that’s probably going to sting a little. And heck it’s kind of fun in a masochistic kind of way.

But look at the evidence on both “sides”, if we were talking about any other field, I’m guessing your skepticism wouldn’t be nearly as dramatic. Where is the evidence that something else is causing warming? – something must be creating it, where’s your data?

And I hope you’re not appealing to the authority of scientists who have opinions on both sides of the issue – you know just for the consistency of your argument. There are scientists on both sides of most issues, and I hate to tell you that you in your daily life usually side with the consensus.

Actually I’ll start now – wind farms are reliable as long as you’re correctly using forecasting methods to predict the power output.

That big bright hot thing in the sky.

Brian Hibbert (Diary) Friday, March 13th at 5:51AM EST (link)

That’s (combined with variations in the earth’s orbit and thousands of other factors) what I believe is the cause of the warming and the cooling cycles we’ve always seen. I’ve seen data showing variations in solar output that match the warming and cooling trends much better than the CO2 charts. Most AGW proponents will protest that either:
1. The sun’s output is constant. (This is demonstrably false.)
2. The change in solar output isn’t enough to explain the change in temperature this time. This is much harder to dispute. As I said there are thousands of factors that effect temperature on this planet.

That said, I’m a skeptic. I say the AGW theory is possible, but that the linkage isn’t proven beyond all reasonable doubt. And there’s plenty of reasonable doubt.

I’m also skeptical about other scientific claims. For example, I skeptical about nuclear fusion becoming a practical reality any time soon. We’ve been just a few years from making it practical for the last 50 years.

And of course I refer to scientists when I mention any data on these subjects. They stand by their data and usually their conclusions. The false part of your appeal is to “scientific consensus”, as if the number of scientist on any side of any issue means they’re the right ones. In that view, Galileo was wrong because 99% of scientist thought the sun revolved around the earth.

Finally, regarding wind farms.

How much power does your wind farm produce when the wind isn’t blowing? It doesn’t really matter if you forecast the wind speed at 0, the output is still 0. That’s what I meant by unreliable. Wind farms may be a practical (some would argue they aren’t cost effective) supplement to the power grid, but they aren’t a reliable producer of power. The same is true of photo voltaic.

and the Hotter they think it gets...

JLenardDetroit (Diary) Friday, March 13th at 6:05AM EST (link)

…the more Kool-Aid they need to drink in order to cool-off…. process repeats lol

There is no sense in trying to talk down a Religious fanatic, and these folks are fanatics about how they soak this False Religion up!

Regards from NoMoTown (the MOTORlessCITY)
“Liberals, looking to do for^? America what they’ve done for^? Detroit! which is DESTROY IT!”
“I think, therefore I am Conservative”
“Conservative by choice, Republican by necessity”
“You can lead a Liberal to the Truth/Facts, but you cannot make them THINK!”
“Romney [No, not my first choice] does NOT have a MORMON problem. He has a, far too many Americans; these days; are MORONS problem!”
Follow @JLenardDetroit

(RS:Help) (JLD) (Hollyweird) (Brain-deads) (SPIN-cycle) (Obamaocare) (Party of kNOw) (Conservatism) (TEApeats) (respectful) (message) (Warning: Children Will Die!!)
Heil “O” Hell No Obamao is NOT MY PRESIDENT! “No U won’t”
I want “O” to FAIL (here, here, & whole Diary (Ofail) here, is why)
“The first Liberal was Satan” – a Rush caller (other Quotes)

And of course

pjshifty Friday, March 13th at 11:02AM EST (link)

invocation of the Galileo Gambit only strengthens your case – Goodwin’s law soon to follow I fear.

But let’s ignore the consensus, trusting that there is indeed a vast global conspiracy of scientists, – if there’s one thing scientists love to do, it’s agree with each other. Let’s look at the data – on solar output variation for example. It does vary with time, anyone who says it doesn’t is a sham. Here is the irradiancefor the past 33 years. Compare that with the temperature record for the past 30 years and you’ll see no strong correlation. We also know that from historical correlations between solar activity and temperature that the lag between the two isn’t more than about a decade. Therefore, solar output does not explain the sizeable increase in temperatures in over the last 20 years. OK, what’s another possibility?

Here’s an interesting correlation and perfectly reasonable and validated theory of greenhouse gasses – how about that? I just find it hilarious that you’d prefer to hang on for a yet-to-be-found needle in the haystack (not that someone should keep looking for it, by all means) and ignore the mountains of evidence that support the dominant theory. Occam’s razor can be your friend, it’s OK.

Back to wind farms, yes wind power is intermittent (not unreliable), but the good news is that the wind is always blowing somewhere. Since electricity travels at the speed of light, as long as there is transmission, intermittency is really not the issue everyone makes it out to be. The Dakotas alone have the potential to generate half the nation’s electricity from wind and there’s no reason wind won’t have 20% penetration or higher by 2030. Denmark is already over 25% and doing fine, with plans to go over 100% – yes a net exporter of wind energy.

No, I'm not going to mention Hilter

Brian Hibbert (Diary) Friday, March 13th at 4:27PM EST (link)

but I think it’s time for this thread to die anyway. Discussing things with you is pointless since you won’t even grant that anyone on the other side is arguing in good faith.

Phewww

pjshifty Friday, March 13th at 4:49PM EST (link)

thanks for the restraint…until next time

First, you forgot about a few other factors than solar irradiance at 10.6cm...

DONTREADONME (Diary) Friday, March 13th at 4:51PM EST (link)

first after examination of your wikipedia entry, I can not argue with you any futher from citing a radio frequency measurement of solar irradiance as applied to the theory of blackbody radiation. Besides, do not forget that instruments measure these so called issues and for one quantum mechanics wasn’t know prior to late 1800s if even that early. So Occam’s razor would work if humans had no influence over the temperature of the earth since that is the easiest answer. Sheesh, techtochnic activity, volcanos, along with atmospheric cycles of weather along with magnetic field fluctuations and activity and ozone layer, ground level particulates, ground level ozone from the industrial revolution and what else do we have that affect the temperature cycles of the earth due to solar flux. The graph you just cited is preposterous, though may be correct at the 10.6 cm or 2.8GHZ,frequency. Wow, I wonder what instruments use that frequency band? Anyway, I have just provided you enough information to cast doubt on the theory, so sorry do not bring that weak evidence to the story without some real good calculus and some blackbody theory. One last, thing is the sun still cycling in longer cycles than 11 years. Bye now, have a nice day because with these factors that muddy the water no one here will be convinced by these loose arguements.

one last thing about wind energy...

DONTREADONME (Diary) Friday, March 13th at 4:53PM EST (link)

if your theory of man-made global warming is correct, land masses with wind farms over vast areas will affect the weather and create global cooling. Yikes we do not want to do that.

Actually

pjshifty Friday, March 13th at 6:02PM EST (link)

this has been studied (google David Keith) and he showed a net increase of temperature of about 0.1 deg. C – but only if wind penetration is 20 TW – the current global demand.

Yikes

pjshifty Friday, March 13th at 5:57PM EST (link)

how scary. So, Mr. Occam – if humans aren’t creating the warming, what is? Show me some data that proves your point…why is that so hard for everyone on this site? – measurements exist for all the quantities you listed, how do they correlate with temperature?

Good point on only one frequency band – feel free to plot out the TSI which incorporates all bands and see the same trend. The theory behind these measurements (calculus included!) is also easily found from these authors and others – nice try though.

The burden of PROOF is ON you Shifty not me...

DONTREADONME (Diary) Friday, March 13th at 6:10PM EST (link)

you have shown me no proof yet to your showing me the simple answer is man-made global warming without showning me the model.

Of course it is

pjshifty Friday, March 13th at 8:54PM EST (link)

how did I guess you were going to say that…I’m going to have to decline on giving you the blow by blow – since they’re all explained nicely here, all except for plate tectonics, which I think we can rule out as contributing to warming in the last 30 years, don’t you think? I doubt that you’ll bother to look, but that’s OK.

Besides unless you come up with some proof real soon, your ship will sail (or maybe it’s too late)…sorry.

Oh an Yes Shifty, you will have to do better than Wikipedia and UN...

DONTREADONME (Diary) Friday, March 13th at 6:12PM EST (link)

because the hypothesis has not been proven conclusively there is no model that has been run, and yes again just warning you, you are talking to an OPTICAL and LIGHT Physicist.

Dude

pjshifty Friday, March 13th at 9:00PM EST (link)

are you serious light AND optical physics! – that is impressive, well except for the fact that I’m a rocket scientist (ya for real), so unless you’re also a brain surgeon, I’m afraid you’re outgunned.

I should probably thank you though since I used Nd:Yag lasers for my thesis – with the scars to prove it…

PS are you drunk or do you always write like that?

Here is some more for shifty study and learn...

DONTREADONME (Diary) Friday, March 13th at 9:05PM EST (link)

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/may/16/global-warming-myth/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/02/09/jan08-northern-hemisphere-snow-cover-largest-since-1966/
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=37308
compare and contrast with
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2007/snow0708.html#jan

here is a 1995 article on the cloud absorption anomaly http://meto.umd.edu/~zli/PDF_papers/nature95.pdf

and what happens when snow covers much of the earth and the climate
http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7f.html

Here you go... Check it out this is one of programs

DONTREADONME (Diary) Friday, March 13th at 9:07PM EST (link)

next time you want to talk about Nd:Yag+3 dork.

Here is the link...

DONTREADONME (Diary) Friday, March 13th at 9:14PM EST (link)

https://www.neco.navy.mil/synopsis_file/M6785409I1042OID_Industry_Day_PPT_Brief_-_2_Feb_2009.ppt

Check it out if you are into YAGs YLFs, DF etc. Rocket Scientist.

and since you like wikipedia PJshifty...

DONTREADONME (Diary) Friday, March 13th at 9:11PM EST (link)

here is another old program of mine talked about none other than probably your favorite person in the whole wide world..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pain_beam
and another program of mine
https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=3d762b6867e31e4d4c227f414f0e4584&tab=core&_cview=1

I can go on for some time how about this
http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/rtnwcm/groups/rms/documents/content/rtn_rms_ps_silent_guardian_ds.pdf

and another
https://www.jnlwp.com/misc/fact_sheets/MPM%20Oct06.pdf

and another
http://www.ordnancemarine.com/tams/e0053.html

Getting the point here bud… I will never agree with you here so take it somewhere else.

Well

pjshifty Friday, March 13th at 9:22PM EST (link)

since you’lI never agree with me, I guess that saves me from having to read all your links – very persuasive debating skills. You really hurt my feelings by calling me a dork, though (sniffle) – especially since now I’m even more impressed with your accomplishments. Pain beam – awesome! Question, how does that work with the ladies?

PS been here 3+ years and am here to stay, unless they kick me off of course…maybe you can put in a request. Kisses…

Read up

Thrhheggeegwc Jjtkylkfofud (Diary) Friday, March 13th at 6:19PM EST (link)

http://www.phillymag.com/articles/science_al_gore_is_a_greenhouse_gasbag/

Just a few research sites for you...

DONTREADONME (Diary) Friday, March 13th at 6:24PM EST (link)

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5086
http://www.globalwarminghysteria.com/great-materials-to-buy/
http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/globalwarming.cfm
http://www.cato.org/subtopic_display_new.php?topic_id=27&ra_id=4
http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/solar/lassen1.html

Ok techtochnic relation to atmospheric climate http://apollo.lsc.vsc.edu/classes/met130/notes/chapter16/plate_tech.html

Remember, also that the sun produces more than just 10.6 cm radiation, if I were to integrate all of the wavelengths from the sun that reach the upper atmosphere you would find that the radiation exceeds 1000 W/m2. Again burden of proof is on you Global Warming enthusiests not the people who you demonize. Again, you side has the burden of proof since I make no hypothesis about the cause of weather in the world and the world is warming.

this comment was meant for my comment above not the post -nt

DONTREADONME (Diary) Friday, March 13th at 6:25PM EST (link)

Thanks

pjshifty Friday, March 13th at 9:12PM EST (link)

give me a week and I’ll get back to you…although from the just the first statement of the first article I can tell that there might be misleading information in them – pretty standard denialist fare on how other planets in the solar system are warming (except Mercury which is cooling, but that always gets left out – how odd) so the sun is warming (as we were discussing), but them you click on their reference and it says that the sun was at the height of the 11 year solar cycle – big news there -whoopee – still no correlation to recent warming.

I’m not seeing your point on 1000 W/m2. And by the way mocking isn’t different than demonizing – I love you guys!

See Short Pier &Long Walk thereof PJShifty-nt

DONTREADONME (Diary) Friday, March 13th at 9:15PM EST (link)

Plus again the burden of PROOF is ON you and no MSNBC Please-nt

DONTREADONME (Diary) Friday, March 13th at 9:16PM EST (link)

and since you like to have the last word pjshifty, here you go...

DONTREADONME (Diary) Friday, March 13th at 9:20PM EST (link)

By all means have the last word and maybe someone else will engage your proof of no existence of God while you are at it. So I will give you the last word on this so you are the expert.

No you can

pjshifty Friday, March 13th at 9:23PM EST (link)

have it honest – darn there I went again…

Comment title:
Your thoughts: (smaller size larger size)
	Be respectful, or be banned. No Profanity.