<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Global Warming &#8211; Origins</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.threedonia.com/archives/16912/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.threedonia.com/archives/16912</link>
	<description>These are our principles.  If you don&#039;t like them, we have others...</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 01:11:41 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jeff Brokaw</title>
		<link>http://www.threedonia.com/archives/16912/comment-page-1#comment-59267</link>
		<dc:creator>Jeff Brokaw</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 05 Dec 2009 20:09:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.threedonia.com/?p=16912#comment-59267</guid>
		<description>Rich - I&#039;ve always liked John Coleman too. People who never saw his weather reports on channel 7 in the 70s (and early 80s?) have no idea how entertaining a weather report can be. It&#039;s kinda funny now to see him so serious. But good for him, it must be tough sledding for a &quot;climate denier&quot; in a place like San Diego.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Rich &#8211; I&#8217;ve always liked John Coleman too. People who never saw his weather reports on channel 7 in the 70s (and early 80s?) have no idea how entertaining a weather report can be. It&#8217;s kinda funny now to see him so serious. But good for him, it must be tough sledding for a &#8220;climate denier&#8221; in a place like San Diego.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike</title>
		<link>http://www.threedonia.com/archives/16912/comment-page-1#comment-59230</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 05 Dec 2009 17:45:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.threedonia.com/?p=16912#comment-59230</guid>
		<description>Thanks, Rich.

I came across &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/lorrie_goldstein/2009/11/29/11967916-sun.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this story&lt;/a&gt;, and was wondering what other gems were in there (almost) unreported.  (Emphases mine.)

&lt;blockquote&gt;Reading &quot;HARRY_READ_ME.txt&quot; it&#039;s clear the CRU&#039;s files were a mess. The programmer laments huge gaps in data, bug-filled programs and worries about all the guesswork he&#039;s doing. His comments suggest the problems go back years.

 As you read the programmer&#039;s comments below, remember, this is only a fraction of what he says.

- &quot;But what are all those monthly files? DON&#039;T KNOW, UNDOCUMENTED. &lt;strong&gt;Wherever I look, there are data files, no info about what they are other than their names. And that&#039;s useless ...&quot; &lt;/strong&gt;(Page 17)

- &quot;It&#039;s botch after botch after botch.&quot; (18)

- &quot;The biggest immediate problem was the loss of an hour&#039;s edits to the program, when the network died ... no explanation from anyone, I hope it&#039;s not a return to last year&#039;s troubles ... This surely is the worst project I&#039;ve ever attempted. Eeeek.&quot; &lt;strong&gt;[I think he meant Derek.]&lt;/strong&gt;(31)

- &quot;Oh, GOD, if I could start this project again and actually argue the case for junking the inherited program suite.&quot; (37)

- &quot;... this should all have been rewritten from scratch a year ago!&quot; (45)

- &lt;strong&gt;&quot;Am I the first person to attempt to get the CRU databases in working order?!!&quot;&lt;/strong&gt; (47)

- &lt;strong&gt;&quot;As far as I can see, this renders the (weather) station counts totally meaningless.&quot;&lt;/strong&gt; (57)

- &quot;COBAR AIRPORT AWS (data from an Australian weather station) cannot start in 1962, it didn&#039;t open until 1993!&quot; (71)

- &quot;What the hell is supposed to happen here? &lt;strong&gt;Oh yeah -- there is no &#039;supposed,&#039; I can make it up. So I have : - )&quot;&lt;/strong&gt; (98)

- &lt;strong&gt;&quot;You can&#039;t imagine what this has cost me -- to actually allow the operator to assign false WMO (World Meteorological Organization) codes!! But what else is there in such situations? Especially when dealing with a &#039;Master&#039; database of dubious provenance ...&quot; &lt;/strong&gt;(98)

- &quot;So with a somewhat cynical shrug, I added the nuclear option -- to match every WMO possible, and turn the rest into new stations ... &lt;strong&gt;In other words what CRU usually do. It will allow bad databases to pass unnoticed, and good databases to become bad ...&quot;&lt;/strong&gt; (98-9)

- &quot;OH F--- THIS. It&#039;s Sunday evening, I&#039;ve worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done, I&#039;m hitting yet another problem that&#039;s based on &lt;strong&gt;the hopeless state of our databases.&quot; &lt;/strong&gt;(241).

- &quot;This whole project is SUCH A MESS ...&quot; (266)&lt;/blockquote&gt;

But not to worry, this is how scientists talk all the time!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks, Rich.</p>
<p>I came across <a href="http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/lorrie_goldstein/2009/11/29/11967916-sun.html" rel="nofollow">this story</a>, and was wondering what other gems were in there (almost) unreported.  (Emphases mine.)</p>
<blockquote><p>Reading &#8220;HARRY_READ_ME.txt&#8221; it&#8217;s clear the CRU&#8217;s files were a mess. The programmer laments huge gaps in data, bug-filled programs and worries about all the guesswork he&#8217;s doing. His comments suggest the problems go back years.</p>
<p> As you read the programmer&#8217;s comments below, remember, this is only a fraction of what he says.</p>
<p>- &#8220;But what are all those monthly files? DON&#8217;T KNOW, UNDOCUMENTED. <strong>Wherever I look, there are data files, no info about what they are other than their names. And that&#8217;s useless &#8230;&#8221; </strong>(Page 17)</p>
<p>- &#8220;It&#8217;s botch after botch after botch.&#8221; (18)</p>
<p>- &#8220;The biggest immediate problem was the loss of an hour&#8217;s edits to the program, when the network died &#8230; no explanation from anyone, I hope it&#8217;s not a return to last year&#8217;s troubles &#8230; This surely is the worst project I&#8217;ve ever attempted. Eeeek.&#8221; <strong>[I think he meant Derek.]</strong>(31)</p>
<p>- &#8220;Oh, GOD, if I could start this project again and actually argue the case for junking the inherited program suite.&#8221; (37)</p>
<p>- &#8220;&#8230; this should all have been rewritten from scratch a year ago!&#8221; (45)</p>
<p>- <strong>&#8220;Am I the first person to attempt to get the CRU databases in working order?!!&#8221;</strong> (47)</p>
<p>- <strong>&#8220;As far as I can see, this renders the (weather) station counts totally meaningless.&#8221;</strong> (57)</p>
<p>- &#8220;COBAR AIRPORT AWS (data from an Australian weather station) cannot start in 1962, it didn&#8217;t open until 1993!&#8221; (71)</p>
<p>- &#8220;What the hell is supposed to happen here? <strong>Oh yeah &#8212; there is no &#8216;supposed,&#8217; I can make it up. So I have : &#8211; )&#8221;</strong> (98)</p>
<p>- <strong>&#8220;You can&#8217;t imagine what this has cost me &#8212; to actually allow the operator to assign false WMO (World Meteorological Organization) codes!! But what else is there in such situations? Especially when dealing with a &#8216;Master&#8217; database of dubious provenance &#8230;&#8221; </strong>(98)</p>
<p>- &#8220;So with a somewhat cynical shrug, I added the nuclear option &#8212; to match every WMO possible, and turn the rest into new stations &#8230; <strong>In other words what CRU usually do. It will allow bad databases to pass unnoticed, and good databases to become bad &#8230;&#8221;</strong> (98-9)</p>
<p>- &#8220;OH F&#8212; THIS. It&#8217;s Sunday evening, I&#8217;ve worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done, I&#8217;m hitting yet another problem that&#8217;s based on <strong>the hopeless state of our databases.&#8221; </strong>(241).</p>
<p>- &#8220;This whole project is SUCH A MESS &#8230;&#8221; (266)</p></blockquote>
<p>But not to worry, this is how scientists talk all the time!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: trzupr</title>
		<link>http://www.threedonia.com/archives/16912/comment-page-1#comment-59140</link>
		<dc:creator>trzupr</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 05 Dec 2009 03:55:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.threedonia.com/?p=16912#comment-59140</guid>
		<description>I was a member of the American Chemical Society for a long, long time. When AGW became the popular cause celebre, the editor of the American Chemical Society&#039;s signature journal - C&amp;E News (that&#039;s shorthand for Chemical and Engineering News) - announced that he would no longer publish any studies or letters authored by ACS members which were in opposition to climate change dogma. He killed a brilliant letter authored by my bro that exposed the faulty &quot;science&quot; that AGW advocates espouse. Both my brother Stosh (from da sticks) and I told the American Chemical Society to go pound sand at that point, resigning our membership in ACS in no uncertain terms. I will admit that I miss being part of the fraternity for which I was trained, but I&#039;ll be damned before I will belong to an organization that renounces the very principles that allowed it to exist in the first place. 

Screw you ACS.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I was a member of the American Chemical Society for a long, long time. When AGW became the popular cause celebre, the editor of the American Chemical Society&#8217;s signature journal &#8211; C&amp;E News (that&#8217;s shorthand for Chemical and Engineering News) &#8211; announced that he would no longer publish any studies or letters authored by ACS members which were in opposition to climate change dogma. He killed a brilliant letter authored by my bro that exposed the faulty &#8220;science&#8221; that AGW advocates espouse. Both my brother Stosh (from da sticks) and I told the American Chemical Society to go pound sand at that point, resigning our membership in ACS in no uncertain terms. I will admit that I miss being part of the fraternity for which I was trained, but I&#8217;ll be damned before I will belong to an organization that renounces the very principles that allowed it to exist in the first place. </p>
<p>Screw you ACS.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: trzupr</title>
		<link>http://www.threedonia.com/archives/16912/comment-page-1#comment-59138</link>
		<dc:creator>trzupr</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 05 Dec 2009 03:42:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.threedonia.com/?p=16912#comment-59138</guid>
		<description>Right here Mike. Not that there&#039;s anything to see here!

http://junkscience.com/FOIA/</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Right here Mike. Not that there&#8217;s anything to see here!</p>
<p><a href="http://junkscience.com/FOIA/" rel="nofollow">http://junkscience.com/FOIA/</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike</title>
		<link>http://www.threedonia.com/archives/16912/comment-page-1#comment-59121</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 05 Dec 2009 01:38:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.threedonia.com/?p=16912#comment-59121</guid>
		<description>Does anybody have a link to where I can get a look at the e-mails and data?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Does anybody have a link to where I can get a look at the e-mails and data?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike</title>
		<link>http://www.threedonia.com/archives/16912/comment-page-1#comment-59105</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 05 Dec 2009 00:24:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.threedonia.com/?p=16912#comment-59105</guid>
		<description>Oh, and when Gore&#039;s mentor changed his mind, Gore called him &quot;senile.&quot;

Nice human being, there.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Oh, and when Gore&#8217;s mentor changed his mind, Gore called him &#8220;senile.&#8221;</p>
<p>Nice human being, there.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike</title>
		<link>http://www.threedonia.com/archives/16912/comment-page-1#comment-59104</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 05 Dec 2009 00:21:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.threedonia.com/?p=16912#comment-59104</guid>
		<description>I used to subscribe Scientific American&#039;s podcast.  I stopped listening to most of them simply because of their tone.  A couple of smug people talking smugly in their smug voices about how ridiculous it was that anyone could disbelieve anything these smug people said.  Without ever seriously engaging opposing views, mind you.  The mere fact that the views were opposed was sufficient to condemn them.

(On a tangent, I can&#039;t understand why about half of their stories were on Darwin/evolution.  Is there really that much ground-breaking research going on in that field?  Or is it an excuse to be smug, &lt;b&gt;you smug bastards!&lt;/b&gt;)

Why did I keep listening?  Because I like science.

&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/sciam_podcast_r.xml&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;I unsubscribed last night.&lt;/a&gt;

Title of their current podcast: &quot;&lt;strong&gt;John Rennie&#039;s Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian Nonsense&lt;/strong&gt;.&quot;  Remember, this isn&#039;t a HuffPo podcast.  This is &lt;i&gt;Scientific American.&lt;/i&gt;

If it had been in print format, I&#039;d have fisked it in a post, but I can&#039;t be bothered to listen to it, never mind transcribe it.

So, anyone know of a decent science podcast?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I used to subscribe Scientific American&#8217;s podcast.  I stopped listening to most of them simply because of their tone.  A couple of smug people talking smugly in their smug voices about how ridiculous it was that anyone could disbelieve anything these smug people said.  Without ever seriously engaging opposing views, mind you.  The mere fact that the views were opposed was sufficient to condemn them.</p>
<p>(On a tangent, I can&#8217;t understand why about half of their stories were on Darwin/evolution.  Is there really that much ground-breaking research going on in that field?  Or is it an excuse to be smug, <b>you smug bastards!</b>)</p>
<p>Why did I keep listening?  Because I like science.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/sciam_podcast_r.xml" rel="nofollow">I unsubscribed last night.</a></p>
<p>Title of their current podcast: &#8220;<strong>John Rennie&#8217;s Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian Nonsense</strong>.&#8221;  Remember, this isn&#8217;t a HuffPo podcast.  This is <i>Scientific American.</i></p>
<p>If it had been in print format, I&#8217;d have fisked it in a post, but I can&#8217;t be bothered to listen to it, never mind transcribe it.</p>
<p>So, anyone know of a decent science podcast?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rufus</title>
		<link>http://www.threedonia.com/archives/16912/comment-page-1#comment-59094</link>
		<dc:creator>Rufus</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 23:42:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.threedonia.com/?p=16912#comment-59094</guid>
		<description>blackhawk,

I think this is a very good thing, though, because they smart people, the people who really are paying attention and trying to improve their knowledge will pick up on the fact that continuing to make this claim is dumb.  They know they&#039;ll lose a serious debate because there are now cold (pun intended), hard facts in the public forum.  When the less bright people, i.e., sheep, notice the smarter people are no longer standing up to the dogma the sheep will eventually stop making the claim too.

This is why shows like &quot;Red Eye&quot; and &quot;The Daily Show&quot; are so important.  And this is why it&#039;s so important something like &quot;Red Eye&quot; exists, to keep &quot;The Daily Show&quot; honest.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>blackhawk,</p>
<p>I think this is a very good thing, though, because they smart people, the people who really are paying attention and trying to improve their knowledge will pick up on the fact that continuing to make this claim is dumb.  They know they&#8217;ll lose a serious debate because there are now cold (pun intended), hard facts in the public forum.  When the less bright people, i.e., sheep, notice the smarter people are no longer standing up to the dogma the sheep will eventually stop making the claim too.</p>
<p>This is why shows like &#8220;Red Eye&#8221; and &#8220;The Daily Show&#8221; are so important.  And this is why it&#8217;s so important something like &#8220;Red Eye&#8221; exists, to keep &#8220;The Daily Show&#8221; honest.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: blackhawk12151</title>
		<link>http://www.threedonia.com/archives/16912/comment-page-1#comment-59083</link>
		<dc:creator>blackhawk12151</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 23:14:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.threedonia.com/?p=16912#comment-59083</guid>
		<description>I&#039;ve referred several people of both political sides to threedonia. I know some of them are lurkers.

Its funny how quickly the left resorts to anger filled rants when you take away their little snarky talking points like &quot;Well you just don&#039;t like science. You probably believe in God too.&quot; They can&#039;t very well argue that they are pro-science when we have emails confirming that the &quot;scientists&quot; fudged the numbers.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ve referred several people of both political sides to threedonia. I know some of them are lurkers.</p>
<p>Its funny how quickly the left resorts to anger filled rants when you take away their little snarky talking points like &#8220;Well you just don&#8217;t like science. You probably believe in God too.&#8221; They can&#8217;t very well argue that they are pro-science when we have emails confirming that the &#8220;scientists&#8221; fudged the numbers.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rufus</title>
		<link>http://www.threedonia.com/archives/16912/comment-page-1#comment-59060</link>
		<dc:creator>Rufus</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 22:00:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.threedonia.com/?p=16912#comment-59060</guid>
		<description>Then what do they say about the fact that even the CRU and Nasa admit it&#039;s been cooling for the last decade?  Refer them to www.threedonia.com and dare them to debate Rich.  Seriously, dare them to do it!  &quot;Well, there&#039;s this website I read, www.threedonia.com, and there&#039;s a chemist who blogs there named Rich.  You should read some of his posts and let him know what you think...&quot;

We need some fresh meat around here.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Then what do they say about the fact that even the CRU and Nasa admit it&#8217;s been cooling for the last decade?  Refer them to <a href="http://www.threedonia.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.threedonia.com</a> and dare them to debate Rich.  Seriously, dare them to do it!  &#8220;Well, there&#8217;s this website I read, <a href="http://www.threedonia.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.threedonia.com</a>, and there&#8217;s a chemist who blogs there named Rich.  You should read some of his posts and let him know what you think&#8230;&#8221;</p>
<p>We need some fresh meat around here.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

