[LINK] In Retirement on this thread - Was - The meaning of

[TKoltai]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ben Elliston [mailto:bje at air.net.au] 
> Sent: Friday, 29 June 2012 11:33 AM
> To: TKoltai
> Cc: 'Gordon Keith'; link at mailman.anu.edu.au
> Subject: Re: [LINK] In Retirement on this thread - Was - The 
> meaning of
> 
> 
> On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 11:15:34AM +1000, TKoltai wrote:
> 
> > The proof of climate change is not Science either. There is nothing 
> > scientific about taking temperatures in urban areas and 
> then say - gee 
> > lookie lookie, there is a temperature rise across the planet. Of 
> > course there's a temperature rise in the urban centres, it's called 
> > population growth.
> 
> Are you saying that this is the only source of temperature 
> data being used, Tom?
> 
> Ben
> 

No Ben, the worlds temperature gauges started out in little villages,
which grew into big cities.

Not all of them became Urban Heat hotspots, some, a very small
percentage stayed little villages.

But Climate Scientists don't differentiate between rural or urban - they
merely aggregate all the temperatures and say "there's the global
aggregate temperature.

Basically, the reason for my disdain for the entire Climate Change data
model is based on the UHI [urban heat island] effect correlation with
pop growth, it's not a science it's a statistician's worst night mare...

... Which thermometers are in C and which in F. 
Which ones have one type of protective anti snow housing and which have
another.
Which ones are located too close to the ground and measure reflective
heat...
Which ones are mounted within heat footprints of high tension wires (and
other industrial heat creating equipment).
Which ones are accurate to point 01 decimal place and which only read
the full degree of temperature.

Climatologists will respond with - But we smoothed the data making
allowances for all those errors....
My answer to them is - OK, then give us the data so we can compare it
with the old data-sets.
Apparently, their refusal to publish their data is because we are not
"qualified"...

I personally have [outside of data restricted for reasons of national
security] never seen empirical claims being made from non-available
correlative data. That's how science works... You do the observations,
publish your findings and make the data-sets available for examination.
However, if you round all temperatures down before a certain date and
round all temperatures up after that date, then.... Well, possibly the
data can no longer be considered valid.

The reality is that if we really wanted to measure climate change, we
need to have the same thermometers in a grid pattern across the entire
world. (So which country will get the contract ???)

Whilst scientists initially started the whole thing out of genuine
belief, [Revelle] the exercise now has turned into justify at all costs
for a while longer because we are heavily exposed financially to "green
investments" in red China... exercise.

The initial alarmist 4-7 degrees per century has turned into a real 0.6
degrees per century.

Ben, I actually sold my house in Darwin because Climate scientists told
us that the temperature would rise by 2 to 3 degrees in the next decade.

I came back to live in Sydney because Darwin was going to become too hot
to be comfortable...

Am I angry ? Nope, because I sold my house not wanting to lose it's
value once the temperatures went up - which is actually quite deceptive
practice, if one thinks about it... So it serves me right. But what
other similar stories are there ?

In Closing ...for those linkers that bemoan my presence in the south...
Now you know who to blame [the climatologists]...

TomK