Comments on: Updates http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/02/updates.html Fri, 10 Feb 2012 00:05:32 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.3 By: TCO http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/02/updates.html/comment-page-1#comment-768 TCO Wed, 27 Feb 2008 00:01:16 +0000 http://climate-movie.com/wordpress/2008/02/updates.html#comment-768 <p>Steve has banned me before. Warren is getting some real libertarian street cred by allowing me to run amok. Trampling the gentle flowers.</p> Steve has banned me before. Warren is getting some real libertarian street cred by allowing me to run amok. Trampling the gentle flowers.

]]> By: Larry Sheldon http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/02/updates.html/comment-page-1#comment-767 Larry Sheldon Tue, 26 Feb 2008 22:29:07 +0000 http://climate-movie.com/wordpress/2008/02/updates.html#comment-767 <p>Geewhiz, some people can't get anything right.</p> <p>I just noticed that I spelled "Warren" S-T-E-V-E.</p> <p>How rude.</p> Geewhiz, some people can’t get anything right.

I just noticed that I spelled “Warren” S-T-E-V-E.

How rude.

]]> By: aaron http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/02/updates.html/comment-page-1#comment-766 aaron Tue, 26 Feb 2008 20:40:09 +0000 http://climate-movie.com/wordpress/2008/02/updates.html#comment-766 <p>Posted this comment on the other thread and figured I should repost it here:<br /> <blockquote><i>Very nice, but the warminsta nutjobs are correct that existance of UHI isn't an issue, it's how it changes over time that matters. The IPCC says it doesn't significantly change over time, however any reasonable person knows that both the extent and intensity of UHI should increase over time as both the number of sites and regions affected increase and the intensity of human activity increases over time.</blockquote></i></p> <p>[sorry for the abrasiveness]</p> Posted this comment on the other thread and figured I should repost it here:

Very nice, but the warminsta nutjobs are correct that existance of UHI isn’t an issue, it’s how it changes over time that matters. The IPCC says it doesn’t significantly change over time, however any reasonable person knows that both the extent and intensity of UHI should increase over time as both the number of sites and regions affected increase and the intensity of human activity increases over time.

[sorry for the abrasiveness]

]]> By: TCO http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/02/updates.html/comment-page-1#comment-765 TCO Tue, 26 Feb 2008 02:41:28 +0000 http://climate-movie.com/wordpress/2008/02/updates.html#comment-765 <p>The Phoenix UHI documentation was already cited 7 days ago (comment number 4 on this thread: http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/02/a-junior-high-s.html#comments</p> <p>Sorry for the abrasiveness.</p> The Phoenix UHI documentation was already cited 7 days ago (comment number 4 on this thread: http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/02/a-junior-high-s.html#comments

Sorry for the abrasiveness.

]]> By: Larry Sheldon http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/02/updates.html/comment-page-1#comment-764 Larry Sheldon Mon, 25 Feb 2008 23:23:29 +0000 http://climate-movie.com/wordpress/2008/02/updates.html#comment-764 <p>Tony Edwards: I have what I think is a more productive idea.</p> <p>I think Steve should just simply ban "TCO". </p> <p>No, that would not be "censoring". That would be "noise filtering".</p> Tony Edwards: I have what I think is a more productive idea.

I think Steve should just simply ban “TCO”.

No, that would not be “censoring”. That would be “noise filtering”.

]]> By: Tony Edwards http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/02/updates.html/comment-page-1#comment-763 Tony Edwards Mon, 25 Feb 2008 23:12:17 +0000 http://climate-movie.com/wordpress/2008/02/updates.html#comment-763 <p>TCO. Other than being excessively abrasive, and a little lacking in spelling in your juvinile (sic) comments, would you be so kind as to show the rest of us where this large UHI effect has been accounted for in the official records?</p> TCO. Other than being excessively abrasive, and a little lacking in spelling in your juvinile (sic) comments, would you be so kind as to show the rest of us where this large UHI effect has been accounted for in the official records?

]]> By: TCO http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/02/updates.html/comment-page-1#comment-762 TCO Sun, 24 Feb 2008 23:03:21 +0000 http://climate-movie.com/wordpress/2008/02/updates.html#comment-762 <p>It's a start. But still rather defensive of your fundamental CONFUSION of an effect versus the impact of that effect over time in the aggregate. No one is debating the existence of a large UHI in Phoenix. It's juvinile to argue on the topic of the latter by showing that it is large now, without doing math and showing effects over time and all that, because, the CURRENT LARGE UHI in Phoenix is not debated! Cripes, man. </p> It’s a start. But still rather defensive of your fundamental CONFUSION of an effect versus the impact of that effect over time in the aggregate. No one is debating the existence of a large UHI in Phoenix. It’s juvinile to argue on the topic of the latter by showing that it is large now, without doing math and showing effects over time and all that, because, the CURRENT LARGE UHI in Phoenix is not debated! Cripes, man.

]]>