Re: Rural Readings show no waming

[Ext User(B0NZ0)]

"ThatsIT.net.au" <me@thatsit> wrote in message
news:477f046a$0$25492$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> Why is it that all reading I see presented as evidence of global
> warming include city readings tainted with urban heat island effect.
> Instead of removing them they are computer modeled to counter for the
> effect.
> It seems silly to use a computer model when you can simply remove them
> and use rural readings. And why is it that the computer modals don't
> match the rural readings? one can only assume that it is because they
> are wrong.
>
> See what the rural reading say in your part of the world
> http://wanews.org/focus/globalwarming/Default.aspx

Excellent post.
Keep socking it to 'em!
But don't hold your breath waiting for an answer.



Get The TRUE Facts At
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/index.html

Excellent Links At
http://www.warwickhughes.com/

Regards
Bonzo

"If the atmosphere was a 100 story building, our annual anthropogenic
CO2
contribution today would be equivalent to the linoleum on the first
floor"
D'Aleo


"...and I think future generations are not going to blame us for
anything except for being silly, for letting a few tenths of a degree
panic us"
Dr. Richard Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology MIT and Member of the
National Academy of Sciences


"What most commentators-and many scientists-seem to miss is that the
only thing we can say with certainly about climate is that it changes"
Dr. Richard Lindzen


[most of the current alarm over climate change is based on] "inherently
untrustworthy climate models, similar to those that cannot accurately
forecast the weather a week from now." Dr. Richard Lindzen

[Ext User(V-for-Vendicar)]

"Bonzo" <boozoo@optusnt.com.au> Lies:
> Sorry to expose your lies Popcock (not really!), but temperatures have
> plateaued since 1998 DESPITE soaring CO2 levels.
> Actually the globe has cooled a little since then and is now starting a
> cooling tend proper.

You are a Habitual Liar Bonzo. Here is the temperature data and a plot
showing the
increase in temperaure since 1998.


"HangEveryRepubliKKKan" <Justice@ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote
>> 1998 14.57 *********************o*****
>> 1999 14.33 *****************>>>>o
>> 2000 14.33 *****************>>>>>o
>> 2001 14.48 ************************o
>> 2002 14.56 *************************o**
>> 2003 14.55 **************************o*
>> 2004 14.49 *************************>>o
>> 2005 14.62 *****************************o**
>> 2006 14.54 ***************************>>>o
>>
>> Look at all those "o"'s lined up there.

"Bonzo" <boozoo@optusnt.com.au> wrote
> The "0"'s are NOT THE DATA!
> They have created a trend which does not exist in the data.
> Voodoo statistics!

Ahahahahahahahahaha... Stupid KKKonservative KKKlown. A trendline skirts
across the top of the data leaving equal portions of the data above and
below. In this instane 10 dots above, and 14 below as a result of the crude
nature of ascii graphics. Nevertheless it represents the best line that can
be fitted to the data based on minimizing the square of the distance between
the line and the real data. It's called a least squares curve fit.

You are completely ignorant when it comes to statistics and mathematics in
general aren't you Bonzo.

Ahahahahahaha.. You don't know what statistics are, where it comes from,
how it is used, or how to use it, and yet in your vast ignorance, you seem
to think that you know more about science than all of the worlds scientists.

"Voodoo statistics" Ahahahahahahahah... You need to go back to public
school and take a refresher course in basic technical literacy.

Stupid... Stupid.. KKKonservative KKKlown....


"Bonzo" <boozoo@optusnt.com.au> wrote
> Here is the data which shows NO TREND!
>
> 1998 366.50 2.5721 14.57
> 1999 368.14 2.6148 14.33
> 2000 369.41 2.6399 14.33
> 2001 371.07 2.6672 14.48
> 2002 373.16 2.7032 14.56
> 2003 375.80 2.7487 14.55
> 2004 377.55 NA 14.49
> 2005 379.75 NA 14.63
> 2006 381.90 NA 14.54

No? Lets plot the data and find out shall we? Here it is along with the
best linear fit to the data shown as "o".

1998 14.57 *********************o*****
1999 14.33 *****************>>>>o
2000 14.33 *****************>>>>>o
2001 14.48 ************************o
2002 14.56 *************************o**
2003 14.55 **************************o*
2004 14.49 *************************>>o
2005 14.62 *****************************o**
2006 14.54 ***************************>>>o

Look at all those "o"'s lined up there. The trend is up, Up, UP.

In fact the equation is...

o = 14.42 + (0.0195 *(YEAR-1998))

This shows a trend of 2'C (3.5'F) per century.

So Bonzo, who is paying you to post lies to this newsgroup?