To paraphrase -

and

See where this is going?

Thanks for the illustrative exchange, btw, couldn't have done it without you

Anyone that finds me entertaining can't be all bad, you're not exactly being fair in your characterization though.  Pot, meet Kettle.

I can dig that label though, I do seem to lack the ability to communicate with these primates after all.  If I were reaching them, if anyone were, at least one of them would have registered that they were wrong about the surface station data being modified in a scientific manner.

Out of curiosity, why did you choose that selection to quote?  It's... odd?

I did!  For emphatic effect, you're still stupid!

This is the problem right here.  You have the raw number, and the end result.  You check the station details.  You now have everything you need to know.  What they do to come up with a bullshit number is irrelevant.  There are more than enough obviously bullshit numbers to see.  Reading the code to find out what they're doing is for after you determine it's bullshit.  It's a point of curiosity, not something relevant to the status of bullshit.

A class 1/2 temperature station that is adjusted upwards by more than one degree is bullshit, period.  It's adjusted for more than the margin of error, and adjusted in the wrong direction.  The only cooling effect is shade, there isn't any on them.  The error margin for the electronics is less than 1%, it can't be that showing low temperatures.

Darwin Zero, despite the claims that the article proving it was debunked, shows an irrefutably impossible situation.  The temperature station has been modified well outside the one degree margin of error, over three degrees, and in the most improbable of directions for a site near an air strip in perfect agreement with four other sites in the same area.  None of the surrounding sites, which are all rural and thus should have less error from warming, show such an increase either.  I looked, at all of them.  It's bullshit.

If you need it in really small words, 3 is more than 1.

Uh, yes you could since clearly you believe in libel and slander.  I said none of those.  My words (which you cannot edit) stand on their own.  You are very bigotted against religious people.  That is not a crime against the law, but it is not intelligent either. I know you like to pretend you are some how smarter than the rest of the unwashed masses, but that only makes you arrogant, not smart.

The funny (sad, wrong, incorrect, mis-labeled, fraudulent claim - pick one) about the consensus is that it only exists in the politicians speeches.  Clearly there is no consensus on the issue.  Nor should there be.  While some scientists (since many of the key players have no background in climatology) are using fraud, and deceit to further their cause (Hansen, Schmidt, Mann, Briffa, Wahl, Amman, pachauri, Jones and the latest Menne), they have to claim some legitimacy.  But their "consensus" collegues are exposing them daily in their lies and fraud.

AGW may be a valid hypothesis.  but Until Climatologists can clean up their camp, all anyone can know with any degree of certainity is that the current findings are based on manipulated data and outright lies.

@ Frogboy - good book.  As I remember it really brought home for me how fragile our place on this world and in this universe is. 

If a majority group of epidemiologists published findings that implied a strain of airborne Ebola was surfacing in Michigan would you really talk about how scientific consensus has often proved wrong, historically?  From a historical perspective the price of being wrong is exquisitely low relative to the price of being right but ignored, and I'm sorry but your personal commitment to solar and recycling or Willie's living close to work have no more effect on AGW than owning your own hazmat suit would on an Ebola epidemic. 

Unpalatable as you may find government intervention in your life in this case it would be necessary.  Debating what form that intervention takes will be far more productive in the long-term than trying to cast doubt on what the thermometers say or how we read them.

@ Psychoak - Lets say Darwin's data is corrupted, either through error or intentionally (I don't belive this to be the case, but for the sake of convo).  So if one point in a hundred points of data is flawed then you can say all points of data are flawed? 

I see a swan.  The swan is black.  Therefore all swans are black.

It's interesting that all of the busy and industrious individuals who believe as you do can't produce any more ambiguity than that. 

@ Dr Guy

1.  No seriously, your failure to grasp the nature of metaphor and rhetoric in this case has helped discredit you tremendously.  Thank you again

2.  Your words do stand on their own, though I'm sure that at this point you wish you could rescind many of them.  The Excel convo with Clonmac is particularly embarassing, but you've truly distinguished yourself in any number of comments

3.  I do believe in libel and slander, i.e. they both exist.  If you are attempting to say that I defamed you either by calling you a buffoon or bigoted against buffoons then that would be libel rather than slander, since I did it in writing, but it would be a tough case because I could claim Opinion rather than Fact and the rulings still haven't come in as to whether internet forums qualify for "published" defamation.

4.  I am biased against religious people the way you are biased against buffoons.  Of the two of us I'm not sure who comes out ahead, as at least religious bigotry has precedent ^^

5.  It's hard not to be arrogant when you are the one I'm debating with, honestly, but I'm going to bow out at this point and let you continue to demonstrate your truly epic command of this topic

GL out there!

Actually for the first several days Ebola is often mistaken for malaria, typhoid, or the flu, and the set of tests developed for it until very recently have had high false positive variability.

The methodology used by the CDC et al. to connect the dots between seemingly isolated cases and build models of infection is the same as used by climatologists to model AGW so the comparison seems relevant

Were circumstances only a little different (give Ebola a timescale of decades, make it cost us something to fix, and set the focus in places like Bangladesh and Italy) many of the angels in this thread would happily decry the epidemiologists as doomsayers too, and do everything they could to cast doubt on the data collection and interpretation they use to create their models...

And thus why the analogy fails.  Because the scenario you posit is not accurate.  If you're going to bother with an analogy it should be consistant.  It's a pet peeve of mine, because so often someone will say that something is like something else, when what they mean is that some minor aspect of something is similar to some minor aspect of something else.

Especailly when discussing science and how science is done.  Climatology is not done using normal falsifiable hypotheses (in so far as we are limiting ourselves to the question of the relation  between CO2 and temperature), because to do so would clearly be pointless if we are to be able to respond to any potential projected outcome.

A better analogy would be to compare what the West is (or should be) doing in response to potential Iranian nuclear devices.  But of course that's a political question, much as GW has become overly politicized.

That's very true. If it does turn out to be true, there really isn't much of any realistic solution that would be feasible on a short time scale. A short time scale being 100 years. So, if their predictions for the next century do turn out to be true, there probably isn't much that can be done.

I think the only viable solution would be some sort of sequestration technology. Something that wouldn't involve economic stress, but more of a new economic industry. Not sure how it would get funded (the money to keep a sequestration plant open would need to come from somewhere). But, it is definitely one of the less extreme solutions if the technology could catch up with the idea.

What I find most irritating though is the people who argue more about whether or not the globe is actually warming or not. Debating about whether humans are causing it is fine. Because that helps further the science and understanding of how the Earth's climate functions. Debating about what to do about it, if anything, is fine. Because if we are a cause of it, then it is reasonable to want to change that. But, debating about whether the globe is actually warming is just silly to me. To me, I've found more than enough evidence of the Earth actually warming to move it from theory to fact.

But, that's exactly what the last several pages of this thread have been about though. They've been about breaking down the idea that the Earth is not warming. Numerous studies have shown that, yet the last several pages have been about finding a few of those studies and trashing them. For what purpose? To try and debunk the idea that the Earth isn't warming? To lessen perception of the rate of such warming? Because such a debate of actual warming is not about whether humans are causing it or not. So any type of "vested" green interests aren't concerned with global warming. They're concerned with anthropogenic warming. So what good does debate about temperature change get us?

People have been trashing GISTemp data over a few spatial lapses that create temperature map anomalies. Or they are squabbling over sparse station data (while I admit it is an issue) that in the grand scheme of the study makes no major difference to the results of annual temperature change. They forget that satellite data is used to adjust for UHI. Or they forget that ocean SST data is incorporated (most people even forget to include ocean data when they pull those anomaly maps). The ocean is one of the best indicators for global temperature trends! They don't understand that while active station data has decrease over the years, a vast amount of mean temperature data comes from over thousands of stations, so those few stations still provide good insight to the change trends. But, no, let's continue to argue about whether or not a particular city is being represented correctly by a study that is design to measure the temperature change trend of the entire planet.

I think this statements sums it up of the temperature trends:

The reality of global surface warming in this century is supported by a variety of proxy evidence including ground temperature measurements in widely distributed boreholes (Deming, 1995) and near global retreat of alpine glaciers. Oerlemans (1994) used the trends of 48 world-wide glaciers to estimate from glacier dynamics a global warming rate of 0.66±0.2°C per century. We conclude that, although urban warming and other errors deserve careful study, global warming is not an artifact. This is reaffirmed by the spatial distribution of the warming illustrated below.

So with that all said. Why the hell has this thread turned into an argument over weather or not the Earth is actually warming when it clearly is? If you want to debate about the climate models and whether or not humans are causing or if CO2 is causing measureable temperature changes or what the outcomes might be if temperature continue to rise another 2 degrees ... that is all fine! Debate away! But, the Earth is warming! Get over it already. Jeez.

There probably isn't much we can do about it, so why debate about it? Hell, temperatures may go down the next decade. Who knows?! But, at least debating about whether or not it will go down is a much more productive debate as opposed to whether or not it has been going up and by how much! lol

No, just as always you do it again.  You see I got tired of complaining about people putting words into my mouth (as you just did), so I changed how I described it.  instead of accusing you of putting words into my mouth (which you just did AGAIN), I merely accused you of reading my thoughts - being omniscient.  You can debate me all you want - when you debate what I write and not what you want me to say.  And you are right, I dont have much tollerance for people who decide they do not like what I write so construct strawmen and then accuse me of stating the strawmen.  I fully know we all do that at times, but when it becomes the norm instead of the exception, it gets very tiresome.

No, correct and debate are 2 different things.  You have debated me at every post, but not corrected me.  So when you say you "corrected me", that implies you were no longer debating and hence lecturing.  On what?  your opinion?  The only time you TRIED to correct me was in insisting I did not read the 87 or 99 reports you linked.  And then you could have only known that if you were a mind reader, or more accurately omniscient since you dont know what mind to read.

Argumentum Ad extremus - I admit I have done it, but hardly "many times".  I try to steer away from it for the very reason it irks me.  Please, try not to exagerate to such a degree.

I did not assume, I did ask.  I dont know you from adam.  For all I  know you could be Bil lGates.  So I asked for clarification.

I can see where the rest of your diatribe is going, so I will just end it here. I see no reason in repeating what is written here, nor in hearing your incessant false accusations.  Beleive what you will.  Kestrel is just trying to be petty and argumentative, without offering anything of substance.  I used an "Reductio ad absurdum" to point that out, and then he went postal.  He is a troll, nothing more, and not worthy of any more time.

Succint, pointed, and accurate.  It cuts through all the rhetoric and obfuscation and gets right to the heart of the matter.

Excellently put.

I will add that not all of us being called "deniers" (by the body AGW religious) have denied any hypothesis.  What we are skeptical of are the methods and actions of a select group of people  who do not care about science, just a political agenda.  And what we do know (not deny,  know) is that nothing concrete can come of this issue until some semblance of integrity, honesty, and dedication to the scientific method is established in this field.

I don't understand how this thread is still alive without Mumble.

I stopped reading this thread once it passed 1000 replies because I got tired of the repetition. It is funny that literally the moment I pop my head back in I'm somehow the topic of conversation, but whatever floats your boat.

BTW if you hadn't noticed the so called "Climategate" is long since over. This was "news" only in the US and the rest of the world is just laughing at US, which is pretty much the state of affairs in most everything as per Inhofe's reception in Copenhagen.

Sen. James Inhofe Called "Ridiculous"

That is one of the most useless articles I've ever seen you post.  Wtf for?  This is about as valuable as a piece on whoever the latest tramp starlet is flashing.

Maybe you could post an explanation, one that actually explains something, on how the surface station record is supposed to be filled with stations modified outside the margin of error.