What research has Gray published refuting AGW, other than creating noise to call climatologists "medicine men" ?
Is the GISS data wrong wrt temperature surface change?
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/
What research has Gray published refuting AGW, other than creating noise to call climatologists "medicine men" ?
Is the GISS data wrong wrt temperature surface change?
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/
Had a science teacher in HS talking about making assumptions and conclusions to fit a preconceived notion of the outcome of our experiments. He showed us a report from a drug company (Name removed) on a drug being tested on rats. 50 female rats were the control group, just given food and water. 22 of them had off-spring with birth defects. The group given the drug along with food and water, 46 had off spring with birth defects. Their conclusion was they had a defective sampling and rats were unsuitable for test subjects. Therefore, the tests must be repeated using human subjects. ??????????????????
GISS data isn't raw data it is manipulated data. And if they don't get the results they like, they manipulate it some more. Here are the changes they have made to the data since 2008.
source
All science should be questioned. When you are no longer questioning science then it is no longer science.
The ends or the politicians..?
I haven't seen 93 in a long time. Back in the 80's mobil stations in California carried 93 octane $1.29 a gallon I used to use it plus a can of 103+ octane booster for each 20gallon tank to keep my engine happy.
Yea one of the stations use to keep 93 instead of 91 (QT or Phillips maybe? Whoever it was had 87/89/93 on tap). It was here before I moved away in 1999 but sometime between then and 2010 it's disappeared.
A ECU reflash in my forthcoming MX-5 turbo would be sweet, but the good flash requires 93. I could always roll octane boost but.... :/
Last edited:
All data you see is manipulated data. The data in your Forbes article was manipulated data. Whose manipulated data do we trust? The answer is, of course, whatever data agrees with your preconception about the topic.
If all they do is cook the results to get what they want, why didn't they do it the first time in 2008?
Why publish bad results in 2008, live with them for five years and then jump up in 2013 to publicly cook your results?
If they got new data I'd expect them to incorporate it into their aggregate. Wouldn't you?
Have you actually run any of the climate predictive models on your own?
Just google "climate model source code" and you'll have a field day.
I put in a small infiniband network in my home just to use mVAPI for crunching. You gotta love latency measured in us.
The airport?
If you do find any 93 it will probably be at a shell or sinclair station from what I can find on the web.
You don't trust any of it. You try to wade through the BS and draw your own conclusions. And you try to separate what we know from what we don't know.
We know there has been a global warming trend since the dark ages when we had a mini ice age. We know CO2 levels have been much high and so have temperatures (and the CO2 increase followed the temperature not the other way around). And at that time the world wasn't a giant desert, it was covered in lush plant life and dinosaurs. We know that even with the GISS numbers there hasn't been any warming in about a decade and a half, so the warming trend hasn't followed CO2 levels but it has followed sun cycles. And we do know that climate alarmism runs in cycles.
What we don't know is what effect overall we have on global temperature. We don't know what the perfect earth temperature since the earth never remains at the same temperature for long. We don't know that warming would be disastrous (but we do know the next ice age will be). We don't know that there is any ways we could change that would significantly change the climate. Even the most optimistic predictions say if we took drastic and costly actions that they would have only a small effect.
One last thing we know is that the earth spends far more time much cooler than it is now in what we call ice ages. We are living in one of the regular temperature spikes and we should enjoy it and stop wishing for it to be colder because some day it will be and it won't be pleasant.
Similar threads
