However as an Electrical Engineer I have designed mainframe computers, workstations, PC's; medical ultrasound, CT and MRI systems; visible and infrared satellite CCD camera systems; ATM network processors, hardware based TCP/IP termination equipment, and convolved encrypted satellite communication equipment.

It’s called specialization, I expect that if a climatologist wanted a new computer they would not go to the effort of designing one themselves they would buy one that had been designed by someone like me. In a similar vein I do not belittle their expertise by assuming that simply using their data combined with a minimal amount of native intelligence will result in some dramatic new discovery that not only disagrees with the true experts in the field but also has any basis to be believed by any neutral observer.

I also have no problem with discounting the work (if you insist on calling it that) that some uneducated person with no documentable or credible education or experience in the field puts out, particularly when that work has no supporting evidence other than “go ahead and repeat this yourself and see what you get.” And further when anyone with a credible education and experience in the field that bothers to address the “work” simply rips it to shreds.

Yep I have no problem assuming these people are lying. I have no problem assuming this of anyone that makes claims without making the slightest effort to prove them or give me one single reason as to what education and or experience they have that qualifies them to make these bald faced assertions when what they say runs counter to the entire accredited scientific community.

By the way what is *your* education and what is it that *you* do for a living that makes your words worth the paper they’re not printed on?

The only thing you've said so far that has even the slightest shred of interest in it is the thing about the painting of the temperature monitoring stations.

Of course you've made no effort to document any of this but it at least does make a minimal amount of sense. However per usual you will do no real work and require that your opponent go to all the effort of documenting a rebuttal. This is why I have blacklisted you because talking with you is so much work. You just spout off some crap off the top of your head and then require someone else to put in all the effort involved.

I mentioned before that I will in fact check into it and that I do have every expectation that I will be able to find information that this effect has already been accounted for in the data. *These* are the kinds of reasons why data needs to be adjusted and if in fact your assertion about the paint is true in the first place I'm confident that I can point you to documentation of how that has been addressed.

But that's it. After that I simply will not address or respond to you unless you start to put in realistic effort into documenting your arguments. The more dramatic the claim the more dramtic the proof required and I've yet to ever see you provide any proof whatsoever.

The usual result is that since the argument counters the inital claim it's simply ignored and by not automatically doing so that makes you a very rare person on the internet.

Thank you for that.

Actually, the majority of scientists already do not believe in Einstein's relativity theory; 95% of it has been debunked.  A fact well-known among high-energy physicists.  Not the general population.  Not that he isn't highly revered among the scientific community--his contribution is huge.  The whole scientific method thing:   hypothesis, experiment, conclusion.   He provided the hypotheses.  They've motivated decades of experimentation; it's just the conclusions are now very different from the original theory. 

All that to show just how much scientists are not on the same page with the general population at all.  There's a lot of scorn for the intelligentsia out there.

Climate change is not a hoax.  There has been a warming trend since the 1970's which has over the past decade flattened.

'Anthropogenic global warming' is a hypothesis which attempts to explain why it might be getting warmer faster than it might otherwise be occurring absent man's influence.

Just a few of the problems with that:

• We don't really know how fast the earth might otherwise be warming.
• We don't know the chicken/egg relationship between atmospheric CO2 and global temperature.
• It's not possible to conduct a controlled experiment on the subject.
• Predicting future temperatures, even if all the baseline data were rock solid, is statistical alchemy.
• The data being used by the climatologists appear to be anything but 'rock solid.'
• We appear to have insufficient knowledge of the full range of data variables and how they influence each other in the stew we call the 'global climate.'
• Statistical alchemy, as currently practiced by climatologists, is insufficiently powerful to confirm the theory and failed to predict the climate trend of the past decade.

Cap and trade, in all its variations and appelations, is a hoax.  The politicians in the Copenhagen process are attempting to perpetrate a hoax.  While we can bank on physics when solving the problem of conveying vehicle traffic over a moving river, climatology is too soft a science upon which to base the onerous policies being considered that would cause immediate, tangible harm in the 'hope' that such self-flagellation is 'necessary.'

First make sure to click on the link on his name to verify that Mr. Watts sole claim to expertise in the field is that he has been a TV weatherman. Also contrary to some claims he is not "AMS Certified" (i.e. American Meteorological Society) nor is it even clear whether or not he even graduated from college.

But as to how his claims mirror yours refer to the Projects page on his website which describes his www.surfacestations.org project and his Stevenson Screen Paint Experiment.

The surface station project "is designed for the express purpose of photographically surveying every one of the 1221 USHCN weather stations in the USA which are used as a “high quality network” to determine near surface temperature trends in the USA. USHCN is a subset of the larger COOP network of stations in the USA, of which there are about 9000. The USHCN subset has been hand picked by the National Climatic Data Center to be more regionally representative due to their placement, length of service and minimum station moves. Unfortunately, the network has fallen into neglect, and the temperature data produced by it is suspect due to microsite biases.

Does this sound at all familar?

Anyway here is a video response to these claims.

This does not yet address your paint issue directly. More on that later.

Um yes, the major breakthrus we made by people going against what was the currently accepted science consensus of the time.  If they didn't, nothing would change.

What is going on with climate change science is not science.  Science should be accepting of other theories.  Instead, you have science by career politicians like Al Gore, who tells you that we are polluting the planet (While promoting lights that emit mercury instead of clean led lights, which give greater pollution then even incandescent), who says we should use less energy (while using 30% more then most homes), and who says the earth is heating up and rising waterfronts will destroy coastal regions (While he buys up lots of coastal regions).

I seriously question the intelligence of sheep who buy into ideals that refuse to listen to others, and even the main guys behind them don't believe them.

That was uncalled for, if a college is acreditted it deserves as much respect as those stuck up rich people colleges.

Where's the beef?

Plus I never implied that realclimate.org was unbiased I merely stated that it was a place where you can get the information from the horse's mouth, which in this case are the mouths of the specific scientists involved. Clearly if your claim is that those very scientists are biased then you will not be accepting of that source but I never made any attempt to hide the relationship, in point of fact I was the one that first pointed it out.

The issue is that if the most controversial of my sources comes straight from the mouths of climate scientists and that is accompanied by links to credible national and international, governmental and educational scientific organizations then how does that compare to the other side whose sole source are right wing blogs containing no climate scientists whatsoever and ExxonMobil funded "think tanks." You have not *one* credible source on your side, my only blemish are certified climate scientists that happen to be involved with the current "controversy."

In any case time will tell which of us is correct.

Per usual we both know that we're not trying to convince each other, we're merely making a case for the side we believe in so that the other side does not appear to be unchallenged. I have no issue with that. What's a good debate without the "honorable opposition"?

I fear however that your greatest enemy is not me but the nimrods that actually agree with you but make stupid, unfounded and immediately disprovable claims.

Here's a technical question that maybe Mumble can find an answer for, because I sure can't. Why is it that global temperatures follow almost exactly the solar radiance data, but only up to the 80s, where they wildly diverge? If carbon-based global warming were real, wouldn't the temperature data show a gradual skewing of temperature above what solar energy could explain, rather than the close-correlation-followed-by-Y-joint-in-the-graph that we actually see?

The fallacy here is that you continue harping on your "credible sources", which by their own admission (via stolen email, but using their own words) have been working for the last 20 years to systematically strip credibility - fairly or unfairly - from anyone who even *looks* like they might not agree with the groupthink. In terms of funding: these people's funding depends absolutely on their being right. They have a fundamental vested interest in the outcome of the science at least as big as any petroleum company, even if the absolute magnitude of the funding is not equal.

True enough, and likewise. I can't count the number of times I've had to explain to someone IRL what exactly the ocean level effect of the arctic ice sheet melting would be. Or, to a somewhat lesser extent, the antactic ice shelves.

The truly astounding thing is that, although we hold basically opposing viewpoints on AGW itself, we pretty much agree on what should be done about it: pretty much nothing that wouldn't be done for other, better reasons anyway.

Yeah, AGW does have an inherent self-limiting factor that way. But apparently that limit is considered far enough out that we'd already have enough carbon in the air to make the feedback loop uncontrollable.

Oh you have so no clue, it's really funny.

Oh well, actually I just wanted to post this link to a good video on youtube. Not that it will convince any believer, but I think it's done nicely and is even funny. (It's even on topic, since it talks about the conspiracy.)

In fact it's just the 6th one in the series that I posted in reply #113 along with the introduction. Excellent series that pretty much tries to keep itself above the fray of the politics and just concentrates on the science. Even anti-AGW folks should find it useful and may even learn a thing or two. I know I did.

What the hell is going on with this thread?