Re: The Real Junk Science

On Sun, 29 May 2005 06:03:01 GMT, "Coby Beck" <cbeck@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:

>"Wm James" <wrjames.remove@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
>news:8cai919j8rtv64bqinv9rbean9rjmkm8i9@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> On Thu, 26 May 2005 21:59:35 GMT, "Coby Beck" <cbeck@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>"Wm James" <wrjames.remove@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>news:9jja91dt5o9bemi9de14jd13ol2j6gkuo9@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>It is 5 years old.
>>>"Last Updated: June 14, 2000"
>>
>> Irrelevant.  The only thing that's changed if 5 years of more total
>> failures of the chicken little models.  Five years is meaningless
>> anyway, you can't undo centuries of data showing the hoax is a hoax
>> with a testimonial or a irrlevant 5 year sample.
>
>Ah, yes.  Centuries of satellite data...launched by the same nice aliens
who 
>brought you on their ****p right?
>
>>>Get the real story here:
>>>http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
>>
>> Read the DATA.  Do you know what "data" is?  From your link:
>> "We modify the GHCN/USHCN/SCAR data in two stages to get to the
>> station data on which all our tables, graphs, and maps are based: in
>> stage 1 we try to combine at each location the time records of the
>> various sources; in stage 2 we adjust the non-rural stations in such a
>> way that their longterm trend of annual means is as close as possible
>> to that of the mean of the neighboring rural stations. Non-rural
>> stations that cannot be adjusted are dropped."
>>
>> And keep in mind that page is only dealing with these "adjusted" and
>> "modified" surface temperatures.
>
>From your source quoted below:
>(Title)   "Even with Needed Corrections..."
>(point 1) "We (John Christy and Roy Spencer) have performed this
adjustment"
>(point 2) "We have now performed these adjustments as well (below)."
>(point 3) "Our Adjusted Satellite Trend:"
>          "the adjustment by Wentz and Schabel does not agree with our
>           (more complete) adjustments,"
>(point 4) "The adjusted satellite trends are still not near the expected
>           value of global warming predicted by computer climate models"
>(point 5) "The last six months of our adjusted satellite record (February
>           through July 1998) were the warmest in the 20 year record"
>
>Oooh these rotten scientists!  Always adjusting things!  Don't they know
the 
>real, unadjusted answer is 42?
>
>You're a wilfully ignorant fool.

Since you obviously can't keep up and follow the discussion, why don't
you just save face and admit you are too imcompetent to do so?

William R. James