Global warming hoax fools millions

[bigdavediode]

Quote from Trader666:

All you do is play games.

Now you're implying the high measurements are from some industrial shithole. Prove it.

Actually I'm just asking on what locations do you base your belief in your claim. You claim there's "90,000 direct measurements" -- okay, where?

And if they were in London, clearly you agree that they should be rejected as it was an "industrial shithole."

What if I told you that many of your citated measurements were in London or other industrial-revolution era, polluted, big cities? Would you think it's reasonable to reject those measures, or would you stick to your guns and say they're fine measures and should be averaged?

 

[bigdavediode]

What if the measurements were taken six feet off the ground?

 

[Trader666]

You didn't even know that the 440 and 390 ppmv figures were averages, so stop pretending you know what you're talking about.

Read the papers at the links I gave you littledaviedumbass. You obviously haven't or you wouldn't be embarrassing yourself. If you don't understand them, have an adult explain them to you.

If you need someone to spoon-feed you, have your mommy do it.

Quote from bigdavediode:

Actually I'm just asking on what locations do you base your belief in your claim. You claim there's "90,000 direct measurements" -- okay, where?

And if they were in London, clearly you agree that they should be rejected as it was an "industrial shithole."

What if I told you that many of your citated measurements were in London or other industrial-revolution era, polluted, big cities? Would you think it's reasonable to reject those measures, or would you stick to your guns and say they're fine measures and should be averaged?

 

[Trader666]

What if your head is six feet up your ass like it is with this?
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2971891#post2971891

Quote from bigdavediode:

What if the measurements were taken six feet off the ground?

 

[bigdavediode]

Quote from Trader666:

You didn't even know that the 440 and 390 ppmv figures were averages, so stop pretending you know what you're talking about.

Read the papers at the links I gave you littledaviedumbass. You obviously haven't or you wouldn't be embarrassing yourself. If you don't understand them, have an adult explain them to you.

If you need someone to spoon-feed you, have your mommy do it.

Yes, they are hard questions aren't they, and I understand why you don't want to answer them. Validity in samples isn't gained from having bazillions of samples, if the samples aren't accurate. Nor is validity gained from being "averages" of a lot of crappy samples.

In fact, the samples that you want included, that you feel are correct, and you feel are valid were taken in London, among other urban areas, during the industrial revolution and almost all were taken six feet or less off the ground. In fact the experimenters would compare samples taken from six feet off the ground to samples taken at one foot off the ground.

Which you have also included. Samples taken one foot off the ground.

Now I disagree. I feel that sample quality needs to be assessed individually -- but what experimental method was used, how accurate they are, and how vulnerable the samples were to contamination. Having said that, Callendar overreached in his data selection and reached a conclusion that we now know to be absolutely correct, but he did overreach.

Another thing you've stood strongly for, which I disagree with, is that samples using different methodologies should be given the same weight. You have not differentiated between samples taken before the late 1800's, with the more accurate samples taken later using an improved method. There were no less than four different methods (and probably more) in use and you just figure that they're all equal. Heck, some of the samples which you obviously are strongly in favor of including, reached measurements of over 1000 ppm of CO2. Reasonable? Nope.

You only did one smart thing: you tried to evade simple questions that clearly poke holes in your ridiculous, uncited assertions about CO2 levels.

Here's a document which analyses Callendar: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2153-3490.1959.tb00023.x/pdf

 

[Trader666]

Again you show you don't have a clue littledaviedumbass. Do you grasp that Bray also criticized Callendar's selection method? Of course not; you don't understand anything, you just troll.

Drop the phony pretenses and explain why most of the more than 90,000 technically excellent, direct measurements of CO2 in the atmosphere carried out in America, Asia, and Europe during the 149 years between 1812 and 1961 were arbitrarily rejected. Or STFU.

Quote from bigdavediode:

Yes, they are hard questions aren't they, and I understand why you don't want to answer them. Validity in samples isn't gained from having bazillions of samples, if the samples aren't accurate. Nor is validity gained from being "averages" of a lot of crappy samples.

In fact, the samples that you want included, that you feel are correct, and you feel are valid were taken in London, among other urban areas, during the industrial revolution and almost all were taken six feet or less off the ground. In fact the experimenters would compare samples taken from six feet off the ground to samples taken at one foot off the ground.

Which you have also included. Samples taken one foot off the ground.

Now I disagree. I feel that sample quality needs to be assessed individually -- but what experimental method was used, how accurate they are, and how vulnerable the samples were to contamination. Having said that, Callendar overreached in his data selection and reached a conclusion that we now know to be absolutely correct, but he did overreach.

Another thing you've stood strongly for, which I disagree with, is that samples using different methodologies should be given the same weight. You have not differentiated between samples taken before the late 1800's, with the more accurate samples taken later using an improved method. There were no less than four different methods (and probably more) in use and you just figure that they're all equal. Heck, some of the samples which you obviously are strongly in favor of including, reached measurements of over 1000 ppm of CO2. Reasonable? Nope.

You only did one smart thing: you tried to evade simple questions that clearly poke holes in your ridiculous, uncited assertions about CO2 levels.

Here's a document which analyses Callendar: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2153-3490.1959.tb00023.x/pdf

 

[bigdavediode]

Quote from Trader666:

Again you show you don't have a clue littledaviedumbass. Do you grasp that Bray also criticized Callendar's selection method?

Well yes, in fact that's what I just wrote above -- we now know that Callendar overreached in his selection of 10% of the samples because he didn't know the center of the distribution even though his conclusions were correct. However the ridiculous thought that we should include all samples -- and your thinking is ridiculous -- even from people measuring six feet off the ground in industrial revolution London, or wildly incorrect measures from Turkmenistan for example, is so powerfully inane that it's not even worth discussing.

Unless you're trying to communicate how vacuous your position can be, in that case: success!

Drop the phony pretenses and explain why most of the more than 90,000 technically excellent, direct measurements of CO2 in the atmosphere carried out in America, Asia, and Europe during the 149 years between 1812 and 1961 were arbitrarily rejected. Or STFU.

Not to mention your kook couldn't even get that right. The "90,000" measures are likely from after 1912, which wouldn't include the widely varying samples from 1812.

It's like having bad ticks in trading -- you don't just average them in and figure "Well, that's accurate." And you certainly don't get on a trading forum with your average including bad ticks and claim that your average is right. Clearly your average is wrong. (1014 ppm as a measure? Please!)

My favorite climate kook argument, though, is still "temperature changes therefore this isn't human caused change" followed closely by displaying no understanding of what feedback loops are.

 

[Trader666]

Bullshit on both counts littledaviedumbass. Callendar was NOT correct because he manipulated the data by arbitrarily rejecting what didn't fit his agenda. Reminds me of you. Again, show justification for rejecting all of the tens of thousands of higher measurements or STFU. What part of this don't you understand?
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2972171#post2972171
And drop the red herring. The issue isn't that "all samples" should be used. The issue is that you can't arbitrarily reject just the ones that don't fit your agenda.

Quote from bigdavediode:

... even though his [Callendar's] conclusions were correct... However the ridiculous thought that we should include all samples

My kook? Show Jaworowski is a kook, troll. And back up your claim about the "'90,000 measures". Your opinion doesn't count because you can't even read a graph. Cite away!

Quote from bigdavediode:

Not to mention your kook couldn't even get that right. The "90,000" measures are likely from after 1912, which wouldn't include the widely varying samples from 1812.

 

[bigdavediode]

Quote from Trader666:

Bullshit on both counts littledaviedumbass. Callendar was NOT correct because he manipulated the data by arbitrarily rejecting what didn't fit his agenda. Reminds me of you. Again, show justification for rejecting all of the tens of thousands of higher measurements or STFU. What part of this don't you understand?
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2972171#post2972171
And drop the red herring. The issue isn't that "all samples" should be used. The issue is that you can't arbitrarily reject just the ones that don't fit your agenda.

He didn't "arbitrarily" reject samples, he used samples which were within 10% of the average (which isn't correct for other reasons -- but hey, it was the 50's.) Anyway, Callendar's data was already been corrected by Slocum, who came up with about 310-335 ppm in that period.

I've linked you to various measurements done by various researchers. It's even in an easy-to-understand table, which ones were urban, (the ones with a "u") and which ones weren't. You can even see the heights off the ground (less than 2 meters, typically.)

And yes, you want them included. Urban areas. 2 meters or less off the ground. Obviously you agree that these should be rejected, because to do anything else would be stupid, right?

My kook? Show Jaworowski is a kook, troll. And back up your claim about the "'90,000 measures". Your opinion doesn't count because you can't even read a graph. Cite away!

Well you could take a look at the link I already cited for you, page 223 where it summarized the observations. What's the total you see there? Anywhere near 90,000?

No? Huh.

It's almost like your non-climatologist MD kook Jaworowoski wants us to take wild measurements from the 1800's and pretend that there's 90,000 of them. Odd. Why would he do that?

 

[Trader666]

That's arbitrary, littledaviedumbass. And not his only manipulation.

Quote from bigdavediode:

He didn't "arbitrarily" reject samples, he used samples which were within 10% of the average

Oh please. A baseless smear from a kook like YOU means nothing. Jaworowski has enough credibility to provide input on climate change to the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and he's also a physicist.

Here's why YOU'RE a kook. You shill for global warming yet you didn't recongize a chart of the Vostok data. Then you showed you couldn't read it and insisted warming didn't lead CO2 despite the chart showing it did and the fact that legitimate researchers say so. You also showed you don't even understand how multiple plots on one graph work. Then you said a link I gave you didn't exist when it did, claiming instead I was quoting kooks who lie about their numbers when the numbers in fact came from NOAA as the link I gave you clearly showed. When I called you on it you gave your faulty reasoning which yet again proved incorrect. Then you lied, claiming I wrote "'Ur a dumbas' on every post" when in fact I never wrote it. Elsewhere you've claimed you're "extremely fiscally conservative" yet you also slandered taxpayers who pay for Medicaid by saying in Alabama "the public chooses to let [infants] die rather than supply easily available, extensive, thorough and subsidized prenatal care" which in effect advocates bigger and better welfare based on a lie. I could go on but YOU'VE been thoroughly discredited as a kook, littledaviedumbass.

Quote from bigdavediode:

It's almost like your non-climatologist MD kook Jaworowoski