Must have struck a nerve

No Response

1. crosspatch

   August 10th, 2007 at 9:36 am

   1

   To be fair, the site administrator isn’t positive if it is a denial of service attack or simply overload from the global attention and everyone in the world rushing to his site.

2. Macranger

   August 10th, 2007 at 11:25 am

   2

   Most likely it’s not a fault of the ISP as most – even the cheap ones can handle the load. It would shut him off if he exceeded his contracted bandwidth.

   The easiest way to tell would be to pull the logs off the server.

3. shield

   August 10th, 2007 at 4:39 pm

   3

   Must have struck a nerve…HA HA…more than a nerve.

   Lots have been counting on deceiving us pions into giving up our freedoms and monies…for their agenda. These morons have worked overtime to put guilt on humans for destroying the earth. Which is totally MADE UP crapola.

   1998 was a key year to work the public into this hateful agenda. Now with the 1930′s as the decade of the hottest years proves it just ain’t man made.

   Here’s an article coming from Canada Free Press. Posted at FR.

   Water Experts Find Earth’s Warming, Rainfall Linked to Sun

4. shield

   August 10th, 2007 at 6:15 pm

   4

   Y2K Bug Drastically Changes US Climate Data
   Fri, Aug 10, 2007 at 10:38:56 am PST

   According to the DailyTech blog, the NASA temperature data used to estimate the advance of global warming has been shown to be way off the mark, due to a Y2K bug in the graphing software—and the corrected charts tell a very different story: Blogger Finds Y2K Bug in NASA Climate Data.

   NASA has now silently released corrected figures, and the changes are truly astounding. The warmest year on record is now 1934. 1998 (long trumpeted by the media as record-breaking) moves to second place. 1921 takes third. In fact, 5 of the 10 warmest years on record now all occur before World War II. Anthony Watts has put the new data in chart form, along with a more detailed summary of the events.

   The effect of the correction on global temperatures is minor (some 1-2% less warming than originally thought), but the effect on the U.S. global warming propaganda machine could be huge.

   Little Green Footballs

5. crosspatch

   August 10th, 2007 at 11:57 pm

   5

   It is more than 1% of the warming. The post 2000 temperatures were reduced by 0.15 degrees which is more than 10 percent of the total global warming over the past century. It completely wipes out the warming of the past seven years. I will give instructions on how you can print your own graph after one site on the net loads the new data set (probably around the 10th of September at the earliest) but when that comes out I am pretty confident it will show moderate cooling in the US since 1998.

6. crosspatch

   August 11th, 2007 at 12:14 am

   6

   That is another thing that people are not understanding. We are only talking about a fraction over one degree of warming for the last century. The way the media reports it, you would think we were talking about 10 degrees and that it was a balmy 70 degrees at the south pole. It isn’t. In 2001 the highest temperature of the year at South Pole Station was -8 degrees F or about -22C. So if the temperature warmed even 10 degrees we would be talking about a high of 2F, still not nearly enough to melt any ice. We would need 40 degrees of warming at the south pole just to melt even the first crystal of ice.

   The media distorts a change in wind pattern that brings in warmer ocean breezes to coast stations as evidence of warming but often neglects to tell people that overall ice mass in Antarctica and Greenland are increasing.