On Sep 17, 7:15*am, "Peter Webb"
wrote:
I am concerned that the drugs you are taking aren't helping you. You
clearly need to see your physician about adjusting your dosages.
Let's see I said that you need to go to page 9347 of Hansen, J., I.
Fung, A. Lacis, D. Rind, Lebedeff, R. Ruedy, G. Russell, and P. Stone,
1988: Global climate changes as forecast by Goddard Institute for
Space Studies three-dimensional model. J. Geophys. Res., 93,
9341-9364, doi:10.1029/88JD00231. Where you would find the prediction
from 1988 You would also find the exact details *about each scenario
Exactly what don't you understand about that?

____________________________________
I don't understand why the only evidence you can find is in a hard copy
journal, and not on the internet. If it is because there are no details of
successful predictions of climate science on the internet, I really have to
ask you why this is. Its not like it isn't a highly contentious and
important topic, or that climate scientists don't have powerful enough
computers to host a web page justifying their claim to being a "science".

Document clearly what your objections to the labeling, careful
descriptions of each scenario and the what is wrong with the an error
of +-0.07 degree C about the graphed values for *scenario B are.

Since the paper was published in 1988 and the graph is PREDICTION of
the mean global temperature. Please document at what page number and
line number where you find something you disagree with.

At the link I posted the OBSERVED GLOBAL MEAN TEMPERATURE IS OVERLAID
ON THE PREDICTION MADE IN 1988 AS YOU REQUESTED. I ALSO SAID THE
SOURCE OF THE OBSERVED GLOBAL MEAN TEMPERATURE HAD AN ERROR OF +- 0.06
degree C about the graphed values.

________________________________________
I understand the game. I can ask you things about the evidence, and you will
tell me whatever you like, because I have no practical way of checking its
true. Really, this
secret-evidence-I-have-which-is-not-available-on-the-internet schlock is as
old as Usenet.

So there we have it folks, Webb got what he asked for and now he lies
about it.

Strangest think when I worked with the scientists at the Bureau of
Meteorology in Darwin I thought the Australians were on a whole better
educated than most. Webb proves there is always an exception to the
rule.

__________________________________
No, most of us are ****wits.

Oh indeed you are a ****wit. So you want me to post the entire paper
here in sci.astro.amateur rather than you going to the web and getting
the paper your self. It is on the web, but as you yourself pointed out
you are a ****wit and have not got a clue as to how to use google or
yahoo or the web to download your own personal copy of the paper in
your choice of formats (MS-Word, RTF, PDF or just plain ascii) to read
at your leisure. The one thing I find interesting is that simple
google search on the authors and title produces over 14 million hits
with plenty of descriptions and objections. You cann't even do a
google search, but you claim "I understand the game. I can ask you
things about the evidence, and you will tell me whatever you like,
because I have no practical way of checking its true. Really, this
secret-evidence-I-have-which-is-not-available-on-the-internet schlock
is as old as Usenet.' Regardless of your lack of effort the material
is available on the internet and your post is a really lame attempt to
dig yourself out of this hole you have dug for yourself.