RE: [asa] Data doesn't support global warming

From: Alexanian, Moorad <>
Date: Sun Dec 20 2009 - 10:33:31 EST

You are quite right. People analyze the data with suppositions that does not allow them to be critical of the nature of the data. At our campus, we are supposed to include some sort of critical thinking in all our courses. Of course, in the hard sciences, there is not much problem with that since that is part of such kinds of knowledge. However, it is in the humanities that the fan hits the stuff. The problem is that we should first be sure students, and I may say faculty alike, can think. Let us face it, our educational system is so bad that people are ready to vote political buffoons into office, which is the reason the educational system was totally dumbed downed in the first place.
From: [] On Behalf Of Glenn Morton []
Sent: Saturday, December 19, 2009 11:40 PM
To: asa
Subject: Re: [asa] Data doesn't support global warming

Last post of the day, #4.I have redone the analysis on the cities Rich sent us to. Each of them has the same idiotic problems that I pointed out for Malye Karmaku. Lets start with Dudinka<>. Click on Dudinka and make your viewer magnification be 50%. We start in the purple circle GIss says that the first year in the record was about -8.0 average temperature. The magnificent plotting company (MPC from now on) says it was -8.8--which is about the amount of 100 years of supposed global warming). In the green circle MPC says the temperature was -13 C but GISS doesn't use that year (approximately 1924). In the early 1940s we see 3 points in the red circle of the GISS (upper plot). They have the temperature of -6, -8.1 and -7 (all temp readings are approximate). The MPC has -6.6, -7.2 and -8.1, in that order and in the brown circle we have 3 poin!
 ts in the GISS (Upper picture) they are -11.5, -9.8, -9.6 and in the lower they are -10.8,-9.3, -10.3.

Rich may know what the real temperature is, but I don't. From what I have seen over the last couple of years digging into the data they kind of change it each year when they do new corrections.

Salehard<> has the same problems I noted earlier today on the anomaly graphs Rich sent out. But there is an additional issue. In th eGISS plot the first point, about 1882, is at -7.5 in GISS but in MPC it is -7.1, not much of a change, but a change. I also still note the two drop downs in the 1900s in MPC but only one in the GISS and another drop down in 1995 in MPC but not in GISS. In the green circle, that year is -6 in GISS but -5 in MPC

Ust'-Cil'Ma<> starts with two temperatures in the GISS of -2.2 and -3.2 C, they are -2.3 and 4-.1 C in MPC. (I forgot the negatives in te picture) The 1920s pattern of temperature movement is entirely different with some values going positive in the MPC but none in the red circle going postivie in GISS. In the blue circle we have in GISS -4.5, -4 C but in MPC we have-4.6 and -2.7 C for the same two points respectively. 1942 warms dramatically from GISS to MPC. Must be a warm front. What is the REAL temperature???

Turuhansk<> has two poins around -5 C in the red circle on GISS but in MPC the two points are -3 C Once again miraculous warming going on that year, just from charting. In the dark dark blue circle around 1910 note how different are the patterns in the two charts. The low is about -10.5 in the MPC but only -9 C in GISS. In the light purple circle there is a-8.5 in GISS but nothing is used for that year in MPC. In the yellow circle we have 3 dots. In GISS they are -3.5, -4.5, -4.5 but in MPC they are -4, -4.4, -5. And in the brown circle in GISS we have the triplet (I am counting the one dot that fell really low and outside of the GISS brown circle) -4, -6, -3.5 but in MPC we have -4, -4.5, -3.8.

If different versions of the climatologists data changes this much, how in the heck can we know that the earth is warming.

Rich, all the data I have looked at is this bad. Your belief is blinding you to the problems. Belief is bad, skepticism is good. You are a smart smart guy and surely can see that this is a real problem for your position. Think about how people on this list stopped helping you out when I started posting data. Christine Smith was very smart, she knew your side needed more than science by name calling. Randy also has been smart, standing back I guess because of my first post. But, if anyone comes out to aid you, I would ask that they answer the same questions you keep dodging. So if any of the readers are thinking of coming out of the woodwork, have answers to the list of questions I am asking Rich. Science is about asking questions, not about believing.

Have a good evening

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Dec 20 10:34:08 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Dec 20 2009 - 10:34:08 EST