Nine year old information that was outdated eight years ago.
Great response, really. You ignore nine year old information because a six year old monitoring system shows four years of decline. Can you find a long term application of the never existed before satellite to back up the relevance of this new discovery of something that might have always been happening and might have only happened these particular four years? Such a sound, scientific basis to decide the ice caps are melting because of CO2...
[quote]I'll stop using GISTEMP if and only if NASA GISS announces it to be unreliable. Until then it's a perfectly legitimate source.{/quote]
Because government agencies are so good at admitting their own mistakes, especially at the cost of their own funding...
I did.
Then you read the first question too. Why are you supporting AGW again? I know why Jones is, it's how he finds himself employed. You don't have such a crass excuse for your viewpoint though.
Same as I did before. No one has any right to expose someone else to increased risks regardless of how small that risk is. You want to voluntarily assume those risks then fine, but no one has the right to force someone to assume any extra risk whatsoever.Same as I did before. No one has any right to expose someone else to increased risks regardless of how small that risk is. You want to voluntarily assume those risks then fine, but no one has the right to force someone to assume any extra risk whatsoever.
Then we should outlaw modern civilization as a whole. Second hand smoke dangers are well below background pollution levels from other sources. That increase is for living with a smoker, walking past the smoker crowd going into the grocery store isn't even a thousandth the problem. Cooking your food is more dangerous. Someone else cooking their food is more dangerous too, that power generation to run the stovetops greatly surpasses it.
Life is not risk free, taking away free will in a futile attempt to make it so will lead to a police state before you get anywhere.
Actually, you're the one who looks more like an idiot.
See the above, your accumulation of fractions of a percent risk increases are a minor addition to modern civilization.
Finally, I don't know of any states that prohibit an individual from smoking on their own home property. That would be pretty big for anti-tobacco to accomplish that. That is the tobacco industry's last sanctuary so-to-speak.
Where did I say home property? What is it with you commies? OMG!!! It's a business instead of a home, kill the owner!
If I own a restaurant, it's my property. Who the hell gives you the right to tell me what I can and can't do simply because you're allowed to enter my property, of your own volition, and barter for the services I'm offering, also of your own volition? You choose to shop/eat/whatever at any private business you frequent.
I disagree with Lindzen's take on it all blaming other climatologists for what is mostly the media to blame. Also, if a scientist receives extra funding, why would he complain regardless of the reason for it? It will only allow them to further the research. Also, why is Lindzen complaining? He gets a lot of his funding from oil companies, so why is he complaining where others get their funding from and for what reasons?
Lindzen works at MIT. His research is almost entirely government funded.
Phil Jones merely says that the time frame that is looked at when looking at the last 15 years is not a time frame to be calling significant when it comes to looking at any sort of trend. For there to be any significance placed on a trend, you have to look at a much larger time frame. If you look at the trend that has been going on for the last 60+ years, then you'd see that warming is still occurring. The quote is taken out of context severly.
The periods have gaps, and warming trends predate industrialization. Jones is also taking his own information out of context. He made significant mistakes in his rationalization. His claim that solar output can't account for it is false. There are multiple proxies for measuring solar output, cosmogenic isotope production has been steadily increasing, in contrast with the sunspot record that shows a relatively flat output level for the term. You only get a flat level for solar output when you assume, and almost surely incorrectly, that sunspots are a singular aspect for determining output with no other variables.
Edit: Tard can't type...
